/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2639242]

Are there such things as Transgenderism and Homosexuality or are they really just liberal propaganda to explain why people are freaks? I'm not intending on trolling and this is a legit question I want an answer too since /adv/ tells me the latter.

[Anonymous No.2639246]

>or are they really just liberal propaganda to explain why people are freaks?
Wow, are you serious?

[Anonymous No.2639253]

>>2639246
Sadly, I am; I keep hearing this online and where I live. I just want to know they's jokers aren't right. I hate to imagine they are.

[Anonymous No.2639254]

For homosexuals to be freaks, they have to be real first.

[Anonymous No.2639262]

Transgenderism is not real, but homosexuality most likely is. Neither of them are liberal propaganda.

[Anonymous No.2639270]

>>2639262
How is transgenderism not real and if it's not real how can it NOT be propaganda?

[Anonymous No.2639282]

>>2639270
transgenderism is not real, not in the sense that there aren't any men who want to be girls (there really are) however, the issue is that there is evidence that these people are not mentally healthy individuals in the first place and that transgenderism shouldn't be encouraged or even tolerated.

Homosexuality is different, since you can still be pretty sane and homosexual at the same time.

[Anonymous No.2639288]

>>2639282
>there is evidence that these people are not mentally healthy individuals
How is this determined? APA vote?
>transgenderism shouldn't be encouraged or even tolerated.
Seems we've gone over the is-ought gap somehow.

[Anonymous No.2639293]

Here's the fucking flaw with their shit: Whether or not it's "genetic", it is not wrong. It makes no difference whether or not somebody's born to fuck people in the ass, it still doesn't harm anybody. Those hicks should be campaigning to ban pork too.

[Anonymous No.2639298]

>>2639282
>there is evidence that these people are not mentally healthy individuals
How is this determined? APA vote?
>transgenderism shouldn't be encouraged or even tolerated.
Seems we've gone over the is-ought gap somehow.

[Anonymous No.2639305]

>>2639282
Homosexuality is still a fucking mental illiness you stupid little nigger.
>>2639293
Jesus never said anything against pork. This is why Jews and Muslims suck didk.

[Anonymous No.2639314]

>>2639305
I don't think he said anything about faggots, either.

[Anonymous No.2639318]

>>2639314
>>>/adv/5165167

Read this thread full of enlightened individuals and prepare to get told you fucking homo.

[Anonymous No.2639331]

Transgenderism: When the brain develops in such a way that leads it to expect stimulus from the senses that would normally come from a body of the other gender.

Homosexuality: When the brain develops in such a way that leads it to select for mates that have traits more in common with members of the same gender.


I don't see anything here that could be construed as immoral, or anything that needs any more fixing than blue-eyes, left-handedness, curly hair or tallness, or any other abnormalities. And the only people who would see such a need should learn to separate what is personal preference from what is a moral necessity.

[Anonymous No.2639340]

The "I have the right to do this because I was born that way" is actually a pretty conservative argument. It denies a priori one's freedom, and it implies that the social situation does not matter.
But american politics are messed up.

[Anonymous No.2639344]

>>2639331
Yet what you have just said hasn't been officially provened or have any evidence to support it. You're just talking out of your bloody arse. Also, thanks for showing us how gullible a faggot you are for the liberal Jews to brainwash.

[Anonymous No.2639345]

>>2639282

> transgenderism is not real, not in the sense that there aren't any men who want to be girls (there really are) however

But no one claims transsexuals don't want to be another sex than the one they're born with.

> the issue is that there is evidence that these people are not mentally healthy individuals in the first place and that transgenderism shouldn't be encouraged or even tolerated.

There's no evidence for this except if you'd say that being a transsexual itself would be a sign of mental illness, but that would just be to beg the question.

[Anonymous No.2639352]

>>2639340
I will kill you, liberal faggot.

[Anonymous No.2639356]

>>2639344

We can at least agree that no matter the cause, there is nothing that could be considered immoral about either, right?

[Anonymous No.2639362]

>>2639352
What are you waiting for ?

[Anonymous No.2639364]

Homosexuality is real. It's always been around. The fact that the Christians wrote it into their book is proof that it existed in those days too. Also, Ancient Greece.

Liberal propaganda? That's just a straw man argument thrown out by the religious Right to make themselves seem more credible. Both sides do it, but you asked about that quote in particular.

I've said it here before, homosexuality is more than likely a congenital disorder with no harmful effects on the individual or society. You could compare it to albinism and red hair.

[Anonymous No.2639372]

>>2639364
Or you can even compare it to Atheism and Autism.

What about transgenders?

[Anonymous No.2639374]

>>2639318

> Linking to /adv/

Fuck sake, even sociology majors lurking on /sci/ has more behind their skull than those people

[Anonymous No.2639375]

>>2639318
I don't see any quotes from Jesus about faggots. Now doubtless Jesus supported the Old Testament law. But that banned both faggots and pork. Most religious people don't follow that stuff unless they personally want to. And mythology is irrelevant to whether homosexuality is real, whether it is a choice, and whether it is genetic.

[Anonymous No.2639377]

>>2639375
>Most religious people don't follow that stuff unless they personally want to.

Then they're not really religious you fucking retarded nigger. I will kill you bitch.

[Anonymous No.2639385]

>>2639377

No true Scotsman?

[Anonymous No.2639387]

>>2639372
> Atheism and Autism

Excuse me? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Autism is an abnormality too, but a harmful one. Autistic people will wander onto a freeway, for example.

I haven't looked into transgenderism enough to comment, sorry. I imagine it's much the same though. Hormonal imbalance perhaps. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.2639390]

I'm starting to think my boyfriend may have gender identity disorder because whenever we play a game (vidya or no) or play with toys. He always wants to be a female character. He also watches girly programming like iCarly, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and Avatar the Last Airbender. I don't know what to do. He's not gay, so it can't be that. Help?

[Anonymous No.2639393]

>>2639344
Actually he just restated what is already well known in overly technical and possibly misleading terms.

Religion: When the brain develops in such a way that leads it to expect stimulus from the senses after death.

[Anonymous No.2639397]

>>2639387
You have to be autistic in order to be atheist.

That is how they're related.

[Anonymous No.2639401]

>>2639397
Oh, right... I thought I was having a proper conversation.

[Anonymous No.2639402]

>>2639397
0/10

This thread. Full of trolls.

[Anonymous No.2639410]

>>2639377
You're a terrible shitposter. Get banned, kike.

[Anonymous No.2639415]

>>2639377
Shouldn't you be back on /b/?

[Anonymous No.2639417]

>>2639410
>>2639401
>>2639402

Offended? Thanks for proving me right.

[Anonymous No.2639428]

>>2639415
I think you mean /new/.

/b/ is love now thanks to pony faggotry.


They also took down the Westbro Baptist Church.

[Anonymous No.2639432]

>>2639390
Who's the sub and who's the dom in this relationship?

I need to know for masturbation purposes.

[Anonymous No.2639437]

>>2639417
Not offended at all. A question was asked, I offered a hypothesis, you posted nonsense, I decided not to carry on. Not a single fuck was given because I'm not the one asking questions.

[Anonymous No.2639443]

>>2639364
Homosexuality/heterosexuality was invented in the 20th century. You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2639461]

I'd say they're both real, and they are both perversions (in the sense that they deviate from the normal male/female relationship dynamic). That said, as long as they don't shove they're PRIDE parades in my face, I really don't give two shits.

[Anonymous No.2639462]

>>2639443
You could argue that the ancients didn't categorize people by their sexual preferences (although I think you would be wrong), but man-on-man buttsex has been around as long as there were men.

[Anonymous No.2639467]

>>2639437
You're mad that someone speak the truth about atheism which showed why you're autistic. Proving that gentleman right.

Cry more you fucking sap.

[Anonymous No.2639472]

>>2639377
>Then they're not really religious
Actually almost all of the people who claim to be Christians know nothing about their own holy book.
>you fucking retarded nigger. I will kill you bitch.
Okay. Seems like you need some help bro. You're pretty angry over nothing.

[Anonymous No.2639471]

>>2639462
No shit, retard?
My point was your first one. How about actually doing some reading before you try to have a conversation?

[Anonymous No.2639473]

>>2639461
>That said, as long as they don't shove they're PRIDE parades in my face

Why don't you just deal with it?

It bothers me, but who am I to say otherwise?

[Anonymous No.2639474]

Google: transgender brain studies

lrn2/sci/

Profit.

[Anonymous No.2639479]

>>2639472
See the thread on /adv/ and prepare to get told.

[Anonymous No.2639485]

>>2639443

Homosexuallity was only invented in the 20th century in the sense that shrinks categorized it as something else but pedophilia or perversion. People have been having gay sex since forever. Hell, even other animals have gay sex.

>>2639417
>>2639397

> The thing is, I'm sure there's people who would really believe this. And many have in common, that they worship some sandnigger who died some time ago.

[Anonymous No.2639486]

>>2639461
I think the Pride parades are a response to anti-gay legislations that are up and running every single day, whereas those parades happen once a year over a couple of city blocks. That started with the Stonewall riots. I'm sure you can deal with it.

[Anonymous No.2639487]

>>2639282

Define 'mentally healthy'

[Anonymous No.2639495]

>>2639443
>I don't even understand what I'm quoting

Of course the terms are modern. He's saying the behavior is as old as the bible (i.e. it's always been around). Guys have been fucking each other in the ass since forever.

[Anonymous No.2639505]

>>2639471
Well, the first one is just the invention of the words. And possibly the idea that sexual preferences are fixed. As long as there was buttsex, there were people who liked it.

[Anonymous No.2639508]

>>2639495
Have transsexuals always been around?

[Anonymous No.2639509]

>>2639479
mfw that thread

[Anonymous No.2639517]

>>2639487
Homosexuals aren't much more likely than the general populationg to have suicidal thoughts or depression. On the other hand, the co-incidence of transexuality and at least one mental illness is very high, something like 60% if I recall correctly but I'm still trying to track down my source.

[Anonymous No.2639522]

What if I end up getting a sex change?

Should I be ashamed?

[Anonymous No.2639525]

>>2639486
I'm gay and I hate those stinky pride parades.

[Anonymous No.2639533]

>>2639517

You have a pretty week correlation. wow.

[Anonymous No.2639540]

Gay pride, as abrasive as certain of the bigot community can find it, has it's place.

It's not aimed at pissing off bigots, or even at raising awareness among the potentially friendly heterosexual community.

It is aimed at the closeted community. People who are in the closet can at least see just how many gay people there are out there. If they are from particularly oppressive backgrounds, there is a chance they could lose their friends or even family if they come out, but with the parades they can see that they need not be alone.

Besides, gay pride parades are way more like Paddy's Day and way less like Mardi Gras or Spring Break.

And besides all of this, I think that one day gay pride parades will be rare as fuck. They only exist as a response to the construct of the gays as a community, and to the idea of the closet, like I said, and because people are considered gay/straight. When the time comes that the closet is useless, and that (I hate to use the term people-sexual, since it implies we are all bisexual, when in fact most people are way more attracted to one gender or the other, and most of them are more attracted to the opposite gender) we are all fluid in our sexual desires to some degree or another, then gay pride will be about as open as chubby chaser pride, or whatever other sexual preference one might have.

[Anonymous No.2639542]

>>2639525
Yes they don't do much for me either, but there's no problem with them. If you don't like something, don't participate. The general problem around the place is that people who have no stake in something (eg. homosexuality) are trying to legislate against it because it's no skin off their nose.

Why does one get to legislate on the private lives of another, and not the other way around?

[Anonymous No.2639543]

>>2639479
I fail to see how anything in that thread results in me being "told"

[Anonymous No.2639553]

>>2639508
Yes. Look up "third gender" on Wikipedia. Some cultures have more than three genders, even.

[Anonymous No.2639562]

>>2639517

Can you eliminate the effect of bigotry and abandonment by family and friends on these figures?

And besides, nobody is claiming that transexuality is not a mental problem (maybe some people are, but not me). I am a transexual, and I have a problem. My brain is not in sync with my body. I want to solve this problem. I want to be a woman. But if there was a treatment that could make me not want to be a woman, and would actually work, I would consider it strongly. If there were a treatment that were able to make me into a woman (without surgery, can't do it), I would take it without a second thought.

If a normal cis-man woke up tomorrow in a womans body, I would be surprised to find that person fully mentally stable at the end of a year, even moreso if they had to hide the condition because people would hate them for it.

[Anonymous No.2639567]

Hetrosexuality:
The idea that turning down butsex with a tight little ladyboy is somehow 'natural'.

[Anonymous No.2639575]

>Liberal propaganda
Scientifically illiterate teabagger detected, nothing to see hear folks.

[Anonymous No.2639585]

>>2639575
Nah, OP sounded legit. You should turn your focus to the thread instead.

But I must ask. What the fuck is a teabagger?

[Anonymous No.2639587]

Here's a question for Christians to ponder.

What do you tell a person who is born with both male and female sexual organs (rare chromosomal disorder). How can that person determine what their true gender is? How do they know what "straight" is for them, and how do they know they aren't engaging in homosexual behavior?
For such a person, it would be very difficult to follow God's law because they can't truly know if they are breaking it or not. So how does a human hermaphrodite get into heaven, and how do you instruct this person in going about it?

[Anonymous No.2639589]

>>2639585
Slang term for Tea Party member.

[Anonymous No.2639594]

>>2639585

First you should read Umberto Eco's ur-Fascism.

Then you can google the tea party movement in the United States.

[Anonymous No.2639612]

>>2639575
this

Also, biologists have observed exclusive homosexuality among other mammals (i.e., not simply confusing male anus for female vagina out of animalistic stupidity). It wouldn't be absurd to suggest that humans share the same biological mechanism that drives homosexuality. Personally, homosexuality is just good news because it just increases my odds.

[Anonymous No.2639617]

>>2639587
for one thing, we shouldn't be afraid to tell them they have a disorder. Just like we shouldnt' be telling homosexuals and transsexuals that they are normal.

[Anonymous No.2639618]

>>2639612

[Anonymous No.2639621]

>>2639594
>Umberto Eco's ur-Fascism
such a good essay.

[Anonymous No.2639626]

>>2639617
It's normal in that it's common and natural. Refer to the comment about the similarities between homosexuality and albinism and red hair.

[Anonymous No.2639632]

>>2639587
They don't go to heaven. The only reason such questions even appear to be dilemmas are because you think Christians have to subscribe to some kind of affirmative action for heaven-admittance. However, it is clearly the case that people with inferior bodies don't go to heaven. These bizarre freak may not have sex with anyone or have any sexual thoughts, in which case it goes to purgatory. If it makes a child, it can go to heaven as long as it lives a good life. If it has non procreative sex, it goes to hell just like every other spiller of seed.

There is a reason God chose for that person to have a penis and a vagina, and there's no real reason for a theistic person to question it.

[Anonymous No.2639638]

>>2639632

That seed spilling also covers masturbation. I hope you're still safe.

[Anonymous No.2639640]

>>2639626
naturality is irrelevant here. chromosomal disorders are also naturals, should we be encouraging more chromosomal disorders?

[Anonymous No.2639641]

>>2639638
I'm not a Christian.

[Anonymous No.2639642]

>>2639632
> too hard basket

Valhalla will always be open to the hermaphrodites. Shame yours is the wrong religion.

[Anonymous No.2639646]

>>2639640
Encouraging? Straw man argument.

Not persecuting? Absolutely.

[Anonymous No.2639648]

>>2639621

People should be made read it in school. At like 13/14.

[Anonymous No.2639649]

>>2639642
>mfw I probably have pictures of penis'd valkyries
Oh internet, I love you

[Anonymous No.2639650]

>>2639642
>implying someone with awful enough genes that they had a penis and a vagina could hope to die a glorious death in battle

[Anonymous No.2639653]

>>2639632

I love how conservatards flail around trying find a justification to control peoples' sexuality, say 'oh I have divine knowledge' and end up having to justify believing in a god.

[Anonymous No.2639654]

>>2639650
> implying they couldn't

[Anonymous No.2639655]

>>2639646
Allowing them to marry is encouragement. It's a lot like how pedophiles can't get married. Marrying a child does nothing good for the state, ergo they have no purpose getting married. Likewise with homosexuals.

[Anonymous No.2639659]

>>2639632
>He doesn't realise angles are nongendered/thirdgendred
>whatafuckingmoron.jpg

[Anonymous No.2639660]

>>2639640

>naturality is irrelevant here.

Exactly! Until it can be shown that either homosexuality or transexuality are immoral, those idiots who argue it based on it not being 'normal' or 'natural' or 'usual' don't have a leg to stand on.

[Anonymous No.2639663]

>>2639653
Gay people can have sex as much as they want, just like you can masturbate as much as you want. God will do with you what He wills, and what I say is irrelevant. I'm merely pointing out that there is no intellectual dilemma posed by hermaphrodites.

[Anonymous No.2639666]

>>2639655
*sigh*

Pedophiles cannot marry because a child cannot enter into a legal contract. Also the age of consent is in place based on mental and physical development.

Must I explain EVERYTHING to you?

[Anonymous No.2639668]

>>2639659
Angels don't have to worry about going to Heaven.

[Anonymous No.2639670]

>>2639655

>Things that do not serve the state have no purpose and should not be permitted.

Maybe some people in this thread should read up on ur-Fascism.

[Anonymous No.2639671]

>>2639655

>>comparing pedophilia and homosexuality
>>thinks the state should stop people marrying if they are sterile

Please be a troll. I like to think I am part of a sapient species, rather than a colony of slime mold.

[Anonymous No.2639673]

>>2639666
Okay, thanks for adding to the list of reasons I have that pedophiles can't be married. Now I have two, given that you didn't say anything to contradict my earlier point.

[Anonymous No.2639678]

>>2639670
>>2639671
Praytell, what is the purpose of marriage beyond legal and religious contexts? If the only rewards are state-based, why do we not consider benefit to the state as the requirements for marriage?

[Anonymous No.2639679]

>>2639673
What was your earlier point? That homosexual marriage lacks purpose?

I'm not sure what purpose you think heterosexual marriage serves, and how an infertile atheist couple can serve it any better than a homosexual couple.

Could you please elaborate?

[Anonymous No.2639688]

>>2639678

Because people do it to ensure one doesn't run off on the other?

Because we live in a cosmopolitan society and discrimination against benign parties is retarded?

Because the state should serve the public, not the other way round?

[Anonymous No.2639690]

>>2639679
They can't. My point is that marriage, from a legal point of view, is an incentive for giving the state valuable taxpayers. People who cannot or do not reproduce should not be able to marry, in the legal sense. They can do whatever they please in their own churches.

[Anonymous No.2639696]

Homosexuality exists (at least male homosexuality, all women are bi)

Trannies are just mentally ill freaks

[Anonymous No.2639697]

>>2639678

It is a contract two adults can enter into. Why not any two adults?

We can establish that the creation of children is not sufficient reason to allow marriage, in that two sterile or elderly people can already marry without legal problem.

Marriage is something I feel the state should stay out of entirely. And I see no reason why any two people shouldn't be able to say they have one, and hold whatever ceremony they like to establish that fact with their friends and families. And if people insist they have to have a contract to make this official, it's none of the states business which two adults sign any given contract.

[Anonymous No.2639698]

>>2639688
First point - No reason for the state to reward this. Contracts can be drawn which don't invoke state benefits. That is to say, marriage is unnecessary.

Second point - How is discrimination retarded? Why don't I give everyone huge tax breaks? After all, they're benign.

Third point - Yes, the state will best serve the public by allocating tax funds (or breaks) in such a way that increases the public good. This means rewarding actions which help the public, such as having babies who will stimulate the economy.

[Anonymous No.2639700]

>>2639690
You're falsely associating marriage with procreation when the two are actually independent regardless of your opinion on the matter.

[Anonymous No.2639707]

>>2639696
>all women are bi

TO DREAM THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM

[Anonymous No.2639709]

>>2639697
Old and sterile people shouldn't be able to get married. It isn't forbidden, but my view says that it should be. If you want to argue about what the current state of the legal system is, then you have no point.

I agree. If people want to call something marriage and not demand state benefits, I don't care if they're gay or marrying an animal. However, this is not the form of marriage homosexuals are lobbying for.

[Anonymous No.2639711]

>>2639700
Oh, then why should the state reward married couples?

[Anonymous No.2639719]

>>2639709

See >>2639700

You're viewing marriage as a procreation license, when it's not. Your stance is as wrong as calling a keyboard an elephant.

[Anonymous No.2639720]

I'd fuck bailey jay. If that makes me gay, then fine, I'm "gay."

[Anonymous No.2639722]

>>2639632
I fail to understand how anyone could worship such a disgusting and cruel God. Enjoy worshiping a huge dick just because you're scared of what he might do to you later. Gotta love supernatural militaristic dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.2639723]

>>2639594
>>2639589

So the Tea Party is a new Nazi movement?

[Anonymous No.2639724]

>>2639711
Who says it should? Next of kin rights aren't a reward.

[Anonymous No.2639726]

>>2639723
Why do I wish they were?
>>2639724
Wtf is next to kin?

[Anonymous No.2639728]

>>2639632
>However, it is clearly the case that people with inferior bodies don't go to heaven. These bizarre freak may not have sex with anyone or have any sexual thoughts, in which case it goes to purgatory.

Great, the Christian response comes from the Westboro Baptist church.

Just kidding, I know you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.2639730]

>>2639722
I don't worship Him.
>>2639719
Interesting. Why does marriage exist as a legal entity? What purpose does it serve, and what purpose should it serve?
>>2639724
The state. If you want a concept of marriage that does not involve state rewards, then congratulations! Gay marriage is already legal.

[Anonymous No.2639737]

>>2639726
>Wtf is next to kin?

dle?

[Anonymous No.2639738]

Although I find an uncontrollable revulsion to anything transgender (if I see and hear it at the same time, I feel sick), I have a odd sympathy toward transgender individuals. Admit it, we live in a very gendered society. By simply displaying yourself as a specific gender, it alters the way everyone thinks about you.

Now imagine someone from a world who is neither female or male. How will it (because even language reinforces gender through use of he & she) even fit into a society like ours? Which bath room will it go to? What will it put on a medical exam if the only available choices are male or female? Believe it or not, there are people (a small minority, not large at all) who have to suffer like this, although many decide to be one gender over the other.

Although I have conformed to these gender norms, it pains me that others have a far more difficult time than I.

[Anonymous No.2639739]

>>2639728
I'm not trolling. I'm not a Christian, but I find my response perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous No.2639740]

>>2639709

To be fair, your idea of marriage as a tax break for breeders isn't what anybody is lobbying for, and isn't what most bigots think they are protecting either.

Would you agree that, assuming you care about this in real life at all, your time would be spent better lobbying to eliminate the marriages of sterile (unless they adopt or receive IVF), willfully childless (until such time as they declare they will attempt to have children) and elderly people (once they cease producing or directly supporting children), rather than preventing the marriages of homosexuals? Just because there are more of these leeches on the system than there are homosexuals entirely, never mind homosexuals who want to marry one another.

You have no problem with homosexual people marrying in ceremonies, or calling themselves married, or anything like that, right?

[Anonymous No.2639746]

>>2639740
My time is best spent jacking off to porn in my room. I'm just presenting a form of marriage which I believe refers to the idea of the state's involvement in it.

Yes, they can do whatever they please other than demand money from the populace.

[Anonymous No.2639751]

Men possess a Sexual Orientation
Women possess (at most) a Sexual Preference
Trannies are metal (mind/body dichotomy lulz)

DEAL

[Anonymous No.2639752]

>>2639739
Have you ever been a Christian? Well, actually, that's not even the appropriate question here. Have you ever done any reading about Christianity that was from a pro-Christian or even neutral viewpoint? Because you're absolutely full of shit, and if you think you're anywhere near the mark you're probably parroting it from elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.2639757]

>>2639730
>Interesting. Why does marriage exist as a legal entity? What purpose does it serve, and what purpose should it serve?

It shouldn't have to serve a purpose. It is a simple contract that two people may sign. I don't even think it should come with tax benefits in and of itself (not least because I don't think we should be paying taxes in the first place). There is an argument for tax breaks (if we insist on such things) for children, but I see no reason to distinguish in this case between children who are natural and those who are adopted or from a surrogate, whether the couple in question are straight or gay, or the single parent is man or woman.

[Anonymous No.2639764]

>>2639751
>Trannies are metal (mind/body dichotomy lulz)

What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.2639773]

>>2639752
I've done reading of a vast amount of Christian texts. I will note that none of them were written by the half-ass Christians who exist nowadays.
>>2639757
Like I said, homosexuals already have that. They can call themselves married and not get tax benefits. I don't believe in tax breaks for raising children. I think the entire thing is what deserves praise - birthing and raising a kid. Having one and giving it away shouldn't be rewarded, and neither should adopting one. Adopted children are going to turn out alright anyway, what matters is their production.

[Anonymous No.2639775]

>>2639764
It meanz that trannies are dildos for dethkloks.

[Anonymous No.2639780]

>>2639773
Selfish asshole detected. Pray you get poliio.

[Anonymous No.2639790]

>>2639780
In what way am I selfish?

[Anonymous No.2639797]

>>2639773

Well, sir. It appears you have invented a position on this matter that specifically excludes homosexuals from marriage, without having to mention them in particular once. And since you are happy to also exclude the other kinds of couples who cannot or will not produce a child naturally together, it's not really internally inconsistent.

I have never heard of this particular position before, but well done.


So, no tax breaks for adopted children, or foster children, or surrogates? Or test tube babies either, I suppose, or maybe that is almost natural enough for you? Step-children?

[Anonymous No.2639798]

>>2639726
> Wtf is next to kin?

Next "of" kin. Please be a troll... You can't argue against gay marriage without knowing things like this.

[Anonymous No.2639811]

>>2639798
Not a troll and not arguing. I don't even know what the fuck is going on in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2639818]

>>2639797
These are all tangential to the conception of marriage. Remember, what I'm talking about with marriage is only this - some sort of state benefits for producing and raising children. I am not saying this is the best system, I am saying it is the only consistent idea of a legal marriage.

That being said, I'll answer all these: adopted children do not warrant tax breaks, in my opinion. Adopted children will be raised anyway. If orphanages are paid for by public money (I honestly do not know whether) then perhaps it makes sense to give tax breaks to those who adopt. But this shouldn't be tied to marriage. Same for foster children, although I don't know much of the difference.

Surrogates, in my opinion, should effectively run like this: the married people use the money from their tax break to pay the surrogate, and everyone's happy. All we're trying to do is encourage babymaking and subsequent raising.

Test-tube babies can be rewarded if you raise them. Step-children should be treated like the child of the current couple, depending on how custody has gone.

There is also a conception where subsequent raising the children after birthing can not be rewarded at all. I think this is prone to funny concepts of having a child and then putting it up to adopting for a tax break, which doesn't sit well with me.

[Anonymous No.2639824]

>>2639764
typo, mental(ie crazy) not metal

or do you mean the "mind/body dichotomy" bit? "man trapped in a womans body"/""woman trapped in a mans body" requires that the mind and body are separate and independent in ways we know they're not. It's as absurd as a man insisting that he has the fucking kidneys of a woman

[Anonymous No.2639833]

As a pragmatist, I suggest that the trans-genderist places too much emphasis on their body as a part of who they are. This type of behavior is also prevalent in narcissists and in many of those with low self-esteem. I have no problem with the TG who wants to undergo surgery anymore than I have a problem with the narcissist who wants a nose job. That being said, there is a distinction to be made, in so far as a successful nose job seeks only to change shape and contour, whereas TG operations seek to restructure the whole body. Although I also have no problem with this, I do have a problem with TGs that expect to then be treated like women. Mainly this is because there are obvious distinctions between TGs and women (and the obverse, clearly). Yet somehow these days to call a TG a TG is labeled obscene.

[Anonymous No.2639834]

I should add to my point about marriage as a promise to produce kids for the state - until 1965 it was illegal for married couples to use contraception. This form of marriage had a very very strong basis in society until the sexual revolution, when it turned into a sort of love-contract.

[Anonymous No.2639844]

>>2639818

I suppose we differ in that, I would go further than you in that I would not have any marriage condoned by the state at all.

As it stands now, though, I see no reason to consider marriage different from any other contract. And so freely entered into by any two adults. Or more, even. Who gives a fuck who you marry, and how many you marry?

But back to reality, when you consider all the other features of marriage, from next of kin to visitation to about a hundred different things, one of which is tax benefits (which is the only part you don't like). So why not have an everything in marriage but just not the tax thing? Would you be cool with that?

I'm just trying to find your limit here.

[Anonymous No.2639847]

>>2639833
Do you realize they've always been mentally female, right?

Holy fuck, you're a fucking dumbass and I will kill you nigger.

[Anonymous No.2639857]

>>2639844
Well, I agree that marriage shouldn't be condoned at all. I think it's necessary to come up with a reason that marriage is being rewarded by the government when we're talking about why homosexuals deserve that marriage.

Everything in marriage other than things which do not impact other people is perfectly fine. If there are other state benefits which are thrown in, for example, say married couples can skip ahead in the DMV, then a marriage must display societal value. In all private contexts, the owners should determine who can and cannot associate etc.

I don't even think this kind of non-state marriage must be a contract, although it could be. I think that if society understood this thing as legitimate, eventually the concept would fade out as unnecessary. Hospital visitation and whatnot would see the case without a specific document needing to be presented.

[Anonymous No.2639859]

>>2639833

If, in the future, transexuals were utterly indistinguishable from members of the gender they have transitioned to, except by like medical examination, would that change things for you?

I mean, if it quacks like a duck...?

[Anonymous No.2639865]

>>2639847
That's a bit of an overstatement. They haven't always been female. They couldn't possibly have felt female before they were aware of gender and sexual (intercourse) roles.

And anyway, how somehow thinks of himself is not the only source of how we treat them. If I tell you I'm a chair in a man's body, you don't sit on me and read the newspaper.

[Anonymous No.2639880]

>>2639865

Their brains were abnormal before they were aware of anything at all. They don't really know anything at all is wrong until they are old enough to start to think about gender roles. And they don't really know the extent of the problem until they realise they are heading towards a puberty they don't really want.

From this basic issue, a lot of other mental issues can develop, narcissism like you say, what is perhaps an unhealthy level of interest in perfecting their bodies, as well as far darker impulses. But these stem from the underlying issue, they don't cause it. Though admittedly these secondary problems often present earlier, since transexuals do learn to conform to expectations very quickly as well.

[Anonymous No.2639893]

>>2639847

I probably didn't make my point clear, I'm quite tired. What I meant to say was that I completely understand that they are mentally female (that is, they associate with values that are sociologically female). What I'm saying though is the problem is that they associate being "female" in mind with requiring a female body to match it. Now some here might say "well that's stupid, you don't need a female body to enjoy having a female mind" but the two problems I see with this are: First, they have the right to choose to get whatever surgery they think will help them have a female body; and second, they probably feel pressured to do so because society does not accept men who 'act like women'. Of course the latter is similar to the problem homosexuals have, to a lesser extent now than in the past of course, but it's still prevalent. Moving on: IF the TG (man to woman in my example) goes through with the surgeries that is fine for the reasons above, however, they are still deficient as a woman. I don't mean to imply either that they are not perhaps more feminine and in terms of gender they are more female, but there are still fundamental differences, namely in their body structure and ability to reproduce. Now someone might say: well some people BORN women can't reproduce and that's true - and this is viewed as a deficiency. Why should we not then view TGs to have this same deficiency?

[Anonymous No.2639896]

>>2639880
Your argument is so empirically incorrect I just pissed myself. I am telling you that it literally makes no sense to say someone thinks of himself as a female before he even understands what a female is. It necessarily must be a response to environmental information or conditioning. Also, we should expect transsexualism to stay exactly constant throughout every genetically similar group with this idea of non-conditioning. Of course, that probably isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.2639912]

>>2639880
>>2639847

They are not, nor have ever been, female

>>2639751
>>2639751
>>2639751
>>2639751
>>2639751

DOES THAT LOOK LIKE THE SEXUAL AROUSAL PATTERNS OF WOMEN

trannies possess sexual orientation, something women lack, ergo they are not women

[Anonymous No.2639917]

>>2639896

Are you serious? You really think the only way a male brain differs from a female brain is that when the child is growing up they treat the child as a male or female?

Studies have shown that the brain of a transexual is closer to that of the other gender than to their birth gender. Does this happen because they were raised to be transexual?

I'm curious to know what age you think people become transexual.

[Anonymous No.2639925]

>>2639912

>They are not, nor have ever been, female

Who's saying they are or were? They are men or women with a particular malfunction of the brain which causes it develop more along female or male lines.

It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous No.2639930]

>>2639917
I don't know the number, nor have I said that transsexuals' brains are identical. I said the way they differ cannot be meaningfully expressed as transsexuality before they understand genders. Can you provide me with the specific study you're quoting? (I'm sure it's not more than one) It seems as if there are a number of problems to control for. When is the tranny brain measured?

[Anonymous No.2639959]

>>2639930
http://saladbingo.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/breakthrough-in-transsexual-brain-studies/

This page does a quick journalistic summary, but it has more links in it.


It would be difficult to test the brain of every child who ends up transexual. Transexuals do often note that they felt different before they could explain it properly, and if it was a brain problem like I say, this would be so.

Someone might not think of themselves as explicitly female before they understood genders, which happens at a very early age, but then could one see red before they were told the word for it?

[Anonymous No.2639972]

>>2639959
Is it wrong of me to want to be a psychology to help transgender people and prisoners?

[Anonymous No.2639985]

>>2639959
I'm saying it doesn't make sense to say someone prefers red over blue before he has seen both. You can talk about a proneness if you like, but saying that babies are born transsexual is senseless, just like saying babies are born gay or pedophiles, regardless of what brain differences they have.

[Anonymous No.2639997]

>>2639985
Are you this dumbass? Or perhaps you're trolling.

You got your answer as to why someone may feel ackward before knowing such things and you continue to press onward.

6/10

[Anonymous No.2640000]

>>2639985

2/10

[Anonymous No.2640004]

>>2639925
>They are men or women with a particular malfunction of the brain which causes it develop more along female or male lines.

WOMEN DO NOT POSSES A SEXUAL ORIENTATION(THAT IS, NO CATEGORY SPECIFIC AROUSAL)
WHY DO TRANNIES(MtF) POSSES A SEXUAL ORIENTATION IF "brain. . .develop[s] more along female. . .lines"???

BECAUSE THEY POSSESS THE MIND OF A MAN

>>2639917
No, they don't

Studies show that after YEARS of Herculean Hormone Treatment they have minor diff. in the brain vs. men (trannies, it should be noted, do not possess the large macro differences between men and women seen in e.g. ct scans)

[Anonymous No.2640008]

>>2639893

God damn it. I take the time to actually write something reasonable and everyone ignores it.

[Anonymous No.2640013]

>>2639985
Everyone has a preference for EVERYTHING before they've experienced it.

Preference is our RESPONSE to the substance.

It's like, people can be alcoholics BEFORE they drink alcohol. There isn't some site specific change in the brain that causes them to become alcoholics at the first drink, though there is evidence early alcohol substance contributes to it.

[Anonymous No.2640019]

>>2640004
Do women really lack an orientation?

[Anonymous No.2640024]

>>2640019
No, women are the same as men as they can be straight, gay (lesbian), or bisexual. The poster you cited is an example of an angry neckbeard who needs to fuck off back to /new/.

[Anonymous No.2640025]

>>2639985

Babies are born gay. Pedophilia has a strong link to childhood abuse, but I see no reason to think some people are not born that way. In any case, if any of these things are not the result of genetic factors, they are certainly not a choice a person actively makes, they result from developmental factors in the womb, or during childhood.

The transexual is born with a brain that is keyed to expect female input. It doesn't get it. It's not a preference like for red or blue, which is only developed when you actually see both, it's a condition they are born with. My point about red was that a child, or anyone, can have an experience before they have the words to describe it.


If you are describing transexual as someone who undergoes a transition, or wants to undergo transition, then babies are not born like that. If you mean the condition that causes the brain to develop out of sync with the body, well, babies are probably born like that, or it develops very early in childhood.

[Anonymous No.2640029]

>>2639997
We're different dumbasses. 6/10 isn't an awful score though. They might feel awkward, but I wouldn't say they're mentally female.
>>2640013
You're saying a state of hypothetically being a state where you would want to be a girl if you know what that meant is identical to being "mentally female?" That's an interesting proposition right there.

[You !xSh1lvRXQI No.2640033]

>>2640029

3/10, either you're stupid or a troll.

[Anonymous No.2640037]

I don't even understand what the big deal is.

The only issue I can see is inadequate, expensive and unrealistic sex-changes. When the time comes that it's like on TV, and you can go into a doctors surgery and come out a few weeks later just as man/woman as a cis-man/woman, I don't think people will care nearly as much.

[Anonymous No.2640040]

>>2640025
Babies are born gay? BABIES ARE BORN GAY? THEN WHY DONT BABIES HAVE SEX WITH MEN YOU FUCKING IDIOT?

You entirely misunderstood my point. I wasn't making a state about whether their brain mass was more male than female when they were born or whatever, I was saying it makes no sense to say they are mentally female, especially given that the statement "mentally female" is a partially cultural statement anyway.

[Anonymous No.2640043]

New question: Why should a person with a female mind not want to change their mind to a male mind to match their body, and instead want to change their body to match their mind?

[Anonymous No.2640046]

>>2640037
I will care, but that's because I understand the degeneracy inherent in such a mental state and what it represents. Of course, that's something far beyond the range of whiny equality movements.

[You !xSh1lvRXQI No.2640048]

>>2640040
>THEN WHY DONT BABIES HAVE SEX WITH MEN YOU FUCKING IDIOT?

How do you know how to use a computer, idiot?

>>2640043
A little thing called accepting the way you were born.

[Anonymous No.2640052]

>>2640040

BABIES ARE BORN STRAIGHT? BABIES ARE BORN STRAIGHT? THEN WHY DON'T BABIES HAVE SEX oh wait you're retarded. It's entirely possible that particular traits are realized at puberty.

[Anonymous No.2640056]

>>2640040
>THEN WHY DONT BABIES HAVE SEX WITH MEN YOU FUCKING IDIOT?

He thinks having sex defines sexuality.

He thinks he was born heterosexual.

[Anonymous No.2640058]

>>2640048

They're not though, they want to get their body changed to match their mind. That is not accepting the way you're born either.

[Anonymous No.2640059]

>>2640048
You mean accepting that they were born with a penis?

I wasn't born knowing how to use a computer, just like I wasn't born wanting to have sex with women.

[Anonymous No.2640062]

>>2640029
You didn't even understand what I said.

It isn't "they want to be a woman because they know they don't like being a man"

It IS "they have a way of thinking and doing that is more identifiable with the way someone of a different gender thinks"

>I'm saying it doesn't make sense to say someone prefers red over blue before he has seen both. You can talk about a proneness if you like, but saying that babies are born transsexual is senseless, just like saying babies are born gay or pedophiles, regardless of what brain differences they have.

Are there people who WOULD be drug dependent if they took a drug even once? (before a clinical threshold of addiction) YES

Are there people who are colorblind who WOULD prefer red over blue if they could see it? YES.

Are there people who WOULD prefer having sex with children if they tried it? YES.

Same goes for gender anomalies. Someone's brain is acting on it's own, they see a situation, and realize they do not belong to the categories that have been made. If someone in Africa is born albino to completely black parents, do we somehow say albinoism is a choice or response to the situation? Of course not.

[You !xSh1lvRXQI No.2640066]

>>2640059
Mental > Matter, why do you think the highest evolved state is just a brain with a stem? Our brains are who make us you so perhaps I should give you some damage.

[Anonymous No.2640067]

>>2639959
this is a study FtM, FtM probably do exist (incomplete masculinization in utero for example, producing a highly masculine female). No such analogue exists for MtF. In fact, if even incomplete masculinization produces FtM trannies a 'female' mind surviving complete masculinization is rather absurd.

[Anonymous No.2640068]

>>2640043

I'll field this one.

There is no such treatment. For the moment, the only treatment is either therapy to cope with no being the gender you want, or the treatments and surgeries to transition to be the gender you want.

If both treatments were available, the 'turn into a woman' pill and the 'be comfortable being a man' pill, I would go for the former. Why? I am my mind, not my body. I would consider any such drastic change to the make up of my mind to be more damaging to myself than I am comfortable with. If only the latter were available, I would, however, seriously consider it.

[Anonymous No.2640069]

>>2640052
>>2640056
Babies aren't born straight. My point was that it makes no sense to identify babies as having certain states which their minds are setting them up to have. That's a very nuanced point though, so I'm sure you're glad you could pretend to understand something (durr he rought in caps me gonna geth im now). Imagine a vase falling off a table. Is it broken at that moment? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.2640079]

>>2640062
Yes, I'm not denying that transsexuals can be predestined to become transsexuals in the future. I'm saying that the statement "Transsexuals always had the mind of the opposite gender" is just factually wrong. Females have a very specific sort of mental state about their role and inclinations which are not present in babies of any gender. If you want to argue that if you took out a transgender baby's brain and put it in a female's body, it would act identically to a female, then you're just factually wrong.

[Anonymous No.2640083]

>>2640069
OH MY GOD BABIES ARE BORN AS BLANK SLATES

BUT THEN HOW DO THEY LEARN, IT MUST BE THAT WE TEACH THEM TO LEARN

BUT WAIT, HOW DO WE TEACH THEM IF THEY AREN'T PREDISPOSED TO LEARNING OR THINKING IN ANY WAY

[Anonymous No.2640087]

>>2640069

So for you, orientation has nothing to do with personal preference, and everything to do with action?

A man is only heterosexual for sure when he is actually sleeping with a woman. He is homosexual for a while if he sleeps with a man, but he is heterosexual again when he is sleeping with a woman again?

[Anonymous No.2640093]

>>2640083
I didn't know calculus when I was a baby, despite the fact that I would later develop the ability to learn it and subsequently do so. Do you understand now? Assigning future mental states to those mental states which bring them about is factually incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2640094]

the latter. there are also a million other things in between those they could possibly "fight for" but they pick the common of freaks activities before moving on to get the bext one accepted

[Anonymous No.2640096]

>>2640079
>If you want to argue that if you took out a transgender baby's brain and put it in a female's body, it would act identically to a female, then you're just factually wrong.
Actually, putting a misgendered brain into the corresponding body is exactly what would scientifically be the perfect cure.

[Anonymous No.2640098]

>>2640087
He is homosexual if he only gets a boner when he sees men. Babies don't get boners or experience sexual attraction. Therefore, babies cannot be homosexual (because they don't experience sexual attraction to men).

[Anonymous No.2640100]

Trans gendered people are basically human garbage. They spend their whole lives complaining about what's wrong with THEM and never bother to look outside themselves. I wouldn't have a problem with them if they actually contributed to society, but the only stories I hear about them are how persecuted they are because they live in a first world country and have to spend thousands of dollars to make themselves happy. There are bigger problems in the world.

Just look at this shit:

http://www.glamazon.net/transsexual-regrets.html

Glamazon, really? The name itself says a lot.

[Anonymous No.2640103]

>>2640093
Holy christ are you retarded. YES, SINCE YOU KNOW CALCULUS NOW, YOU HAD THE STRUCTURES IN PLACE THAT WOULD PERMIT YOU TO LEARN IT. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE DYSLEXIC AND DYSCALCULIC WHO, BARRING SOME MIRACLE TREATMENT, WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND CALCULUS.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

[Anonymous No.2640104]

>>2640079

The child would not be born liking shoes and dresses and making sandwiches, as normal female babies are not, it would be born with a predisposition to look to those it identifies as female and try to emulate their behavior, just like a normal female baby.

This is complicated when there is an interaction with the male hormones and development through puberty, and when the child realises it should be secretive about it's natural inclinations, but you can't escape the initial settings.

[Anonymous No.2640110]

>>2640096
Their brains are not identical to females'. They have brains which are more like female brains than male brains are. This does not mean identical.

[Anonymous No.2640127]

>>2640110
What the fuck are you going on about.

If I took two regular infants and could successfully switch their brains, they would grow up with neurological structures in place which would predispose them to sexual habits. Yes, sex hormones effect development and orientiation, BUT, THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING ALREADY THERE FOR THEM TO EFFECT

WE HAVE DISSECTED INFANTS. MALE AND FEMALES HAVE MEASUREABLE DIFFERENCES EVEN AT BIRTH. DEAL WITH IT.

[Anonymous No.2640130]

>>2640103
You don't understand the point I'm making. I acknowledge that there exist preconditions which are associated with later becoming transsexual. I'm not going to repeat what my real argument is, because you're not going to grasp it. I acknowledge that there exist preconditions which are associated with later becoming transsexual
>>2640104
Yes, and I will say that female babies do not have a female mind in the sense that transsexual males do. Do you understand what I mean? Female babies don't want to do female things. The sense in which transsexual males have a female mind is different from the sense in which female babies have a female mind.

[Anonymous No.2640142]

>>2640019
>>2640024
>>What is Sexual Orientation and Do Women Have One
>>J. Micheal Bailey
>The category specific male sexual arousal pattern is the primary sexual motivation that directs male sexual activity to certain kinds of individuals (most often women, but sometimes men) rather than others. Indeed, I content that a man's category specific male sexual arousal pattern IS his sexual orientation. Most women lack this strong directional motivation, and so it is not surprising that their sexual behavior is more malleable and sexually fluid. . .I review research on the male sexual arousal pattern and argue for equating sexual arousal pattern with sexual orientation.

[Anonymous No.2640143]

>>2640127
Why are you using "effect" improperly? Are you okay?

I'm saying that the mental state we look at to determine if a man is transsexual is not the mental state of either transsexual male babies or female babies. I didn't say all babies had identical brains.

[Anonymous No.2640146]

>>2640130
You're trying to argue that the infant brain has NO pre-existing methods of thinking, that it is 100% culturally dependent, and somehow transexuals are simply people who refute their own culture-gender-identity... for whatever reason you think.

[Anonymous No.2640152]

>>2640130

Female babies do not have the same brain as male babies, though. And baby transexuals would, though no such study exists, likely have brains close to those of babies of the opposite gender.

Female things is fairly irrelevant, just cultural flotsam and jetsam. Looking at what females in society do and wanting to emulate or avoid that behavior is what is relevant.

[Anonymous No.2640157]

>>2640146
No. Babies have a way of thinking. This way of thinking is not what is referred to when we describe the way transsexuals think. Therefore, babies are not transsexual. Transsexuals do indeed refute (???) culture-gender-identity, but they also refute physical-gender-identity, both of which lies far beyond the mental range of a baby.

[Anonymous No.2640160]

>>2640142
>she cites only American studies
Yeah, this is the #1 problem with American sexual studies. At least 90-95% of the men research have been sexually mutilated (circumcision). There's plenty of American studies of 1) women not really liking sex 2) women having few orgasms 3) men seeking out sex more than women, etc. BUT when we look the effect circumcision has, it cuts female orgasm rates in half and worse (women who have slept with circ and uncirc men report twice as many orgasms with uncirc men, American women have twice the sexual dysfunction rates, it's well known circumcised penises decrease female lubrication AND cause men to have more forceful intercourse as a result of less nerves)

[Anonymous No.2640165]

>>2640152
If you want to ignore gender roles entirely, then transsexuality becomes almost senseless. Most transsexuals want more than just their genitals changed. They want to change the way they live their lives to change. This means they are making reference to some kind of gender role, be it innate or societal.

Babies cannot think in the same way that transsexual males about the concept of gender shifts.

[You !xSh1lvRXQI No.2640168]

If babies aren't born gay or transgender.

Does this mean talent does not exist either since that is something you're born with?

[Anonymous No.2640178]

>>2640160
Can you provide European sources that show the opposite of American sources? Even better, can you find any source at all which shows differences in the sexual libido of circumcised and uncircumcised men within the same population?
>>2640168
When did I say transsexuals don't exist?

[Anonymous No.2640180]

>>2640165
Gender roles play nothing into all of this except for development.

[Anonymous No.2640184]

>>2640180
Okay, so transsexuals would all (every single one of them) want to change their gender if gender roles suddenly switched? I mean MTF transsexuals would still want to be females if males and females all started acting like the other gender?

[Anonymous No.2640198]

>>2640160
Jesus Fuck, What does this have to do with anything?

***RECAP***

Gay Men are Gay
Straight Men are Straight
Woman gonna Bi

FtM probably exist(incomplete masculinization) MtF don't, the very idea is absurd

/MOTHER-FUCKING-THREAD

[Anonymous No.2640208]

Do women really not have sexual orientations?

Because I always identified myself as heterosexual with no interest in women whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.2640209]

>>2640198
>thread recap
>I will disregard all scientific studies on gender, sexuality, and sex because I am retarded
/THREAD

[Anonymous No.2640211]

>>2640184
Pretty much, do you think every transwoman is a housewife?

[Anonymous No.2640212]

>>2640208
You probably experience genital arousal when you see two hot young lesbians sucking each other's nipples sensually. Ergo, you are bisexual.

[Anonymous No.2640214]

>FtM probably exist(incomplete masculinization) MtF don't

It's a weird feeling having someone tell you you don't exist.

[Anonymous No.2640218]

>>2640211
No, I don't think they're all housewives. I think they're all uppity self-empowered feminists.
>>2640214
Do you prefer one gender sexually to another?

[Anonymous No.2640223]

>>2640212
No I haven't and how would that make one bisexual?

>>2640218
How are they feminist? But are you the one who has been ignoring every scientific link handed to you? Because you sound like a little troll.

[Anonymous No.2640232]

>>2640223
Because it would mean you're attracted to men and women. I think it's somewhat surprising that you really don't feel any sexual arousal at the sight of females making love. It's common knowledge that women typically have more bisexual tendencies.

What do you mean "How"? Do you want me to link you the myriad numbers of catty MTF post-ops? I haven't been ignoring scientific data, no.

[Anonymous No.2640233]

>>2640218
I prefer men to women. Technically I'm bi, but I swing towards men more often than not.

[Anonymous No.2640236]

>>2640212
I thought about sucking a few dicks yet I'm not homosexual.

Sexuality doesn't work like that. I have been debating on rather or not I am pansexual since I think I could find myself falling in love with a man if he had a lovely personality.

[Anonymous No.2640239]

>>2640209
I'm the only one posting studies in this thread

I'm the only one posting Motherfucking FACTS

>>2640214
you're a dude, deal >>2639751

Number One Rule of Science: Never trust what a human says, only trust empirical data

And the Data Says:
Gay Men Gonna Gay
Straight Men Gonna Straight
Women Gonna Bi
FtM probably exist, MtF don't

[Anonymous No.2640240]

>>2640165

Nobody was talking about gender roles in specifics, they were talking about how babies pick up cultural cues as they age.

Female babies take their cues on how they should act from who they identify as female role models, and male babies do the same for male role models. Transexual babies, because of their abnormal brains, pick up a number of cues from the other gender. This is over years and years as they pass through childhood, and probably still goes on as an adult to some degree.

The specifics of what men and women do in any society are not relevant.

[Anonymous No.2640241]

>>2640233
Your sexual arousal patterns are therefore male rather than female. This implies you have something specifically male about your mind. Therefore, you are not really a woman in a man's body.
>>2640236
Yes, that kind of pansexuality is indeed the sort of thing I am exactly not talking about. I'm talking about genital arousal, not love or personalities or anything.

[Anonymous No.2640242]

>>2639242
dude, see all of human history, the greeks, Romans, the fucking Spartans. Homosexuality is quite real and no one's propaganda.

And Transgenderism is probably real in the sense of a psychological disorder ( and being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean you want to be a woman)

[Anonymous No.2640245]

Guys, just fucking stop responding.

We know it's a fucking troll.

[Anonymous No.2640248]

>>2640240
Next time read the thread, I already responded to this.
"Okay, so transsexuals would all (every single one of them) want to change their gender if gender roles suddenly switched? I mean MTF transsexuals would still want to be females if males and females all started acting like the other gender?"

[Anonymous No.2640254]

I, as a male feminist, am offended by the fact that many say women have no sexuality. You all are seriously retarded trolls.

[Anonymous No.2640255]

>>2640242
Spartans were not homosexuals. They were ephebophiles. If a Spartan male was having sex with men beyond the age of 18, he was considered very bizarre. Homosexuality was not a full-fledged sexual orientation.

[Anonymous No.2640257]

>>2639305
sci isn't the place for fucking retarded bigots or anything said in any holy book or any analysis or the interpretation of such. The best that can be done is offer up rational explanations and answers for your nonetheless shit questions.

[Anonymous No.2640261]

>>2640254
I, as a faggot, am offended by you not reading carefully. No one said women didn't have sexuality. In fact, they have more sexuality than males! They don't discriminate between genders as much.