Misgendering

Hahaha...how ironic

 

Ok after doing some looking up of this stuff, I am beginning to follow where you are going with this.

I will start with that I have been under the impression that intersexed individuals were those who had physical, as opposed to genetic or chromosomal, ambiguities. Turns out that while there are doctors who do claim as such, that is not the only professional stance out there. In fact there isn't a singular overall stance on exactly what is and isn't intersexed.

So it does seem that what I am suggesting as possibilities for one being transgender includes various intersex conditions. Now that is not to say those can be the only sources. And not all intersex conditions are seen or even learned about.

And I guess a lot also depends upon what you want to say is "anatomy".

I personally wouldn't call such a genetic anomaly "anatomy", but such does seem to still fall under intersexed.

My argument is first, I'm not seeing anyone showing off their gentials or medical history, so we, the public, are not privy to whether they are physically intersexed or not. But some people are assuming that they aren't. Secondly, that while the genitals may form normally, there are possible variations to humans where as the mind will not match the body. Chimerism is one, especially since it stems from fraternal twins and we know there can be male/female twin sets. But it all goes back to the one statement: some people will never know they are intersexed. While some claim it to be extremely infrequent, is it really? How many out there have anomalies that don't result in transgenderism? How many transgenders have them but because there is no other problems, are never looked at on the genetic or chromosomal level?

I'm not trying to claim that all intersex will result in transgenderism, nor even that all transgenderism is caused by intersexed conditions. I am saying that these things are out there, and we simply don't have a true idea of frequency because we don't look if there isn't (usually) a physical associated problem. We are also only just starting to get a grasp on these kind of things, so there are holes in our knowledge that we haven't realized yet.

The article is not long. I'd suggest going over all of it. It looks there might have been aspects to intersex we both didn't know.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...watts-posed-boy-sexually-assault-girls-police

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article240810436.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/south-carolina-woman-kidnapped-sexually-assaulted-girl-under-12-feds.
Looks like it's so widespread we need to ban women from the women's restroom too.

 

That's the POINT.

It's no one else's business. No one but the individual is required or obliged to be involved in any way.

 

This is a contradiction.

You either believe that it's no one else's business (damnd to anyone else's feelings etc), or you 'want to accommodate people'. Which is it?

How can you say 'damned to anyone else's feelings', while simultaneously worrying about peoples' feelings?

 

You SHOULDN'T.

Yet you claimed to care about it in your very first post.

 

We don't. We only 'care' when they expect us to join in on their personal fantasy life.

As you guys keep protesting very loudly .. it's NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS!

 

Sure thing. And when people start demanding all sorts of patently problematic things based on an assumed identity, you'll be okay with that?

 

Domme?

 

Such as?

 

Here in the natural world (you know, that place in which members of a 'pack' are expected to toe the line in the interests of survival), there are limits to how we can behave and expect to get away with it. If the pack deems such self-indulgence - and make no mistake, that much focus on the self and the 'inner being' is profoundly self-indulgent - to be a risk factor for group harmony and therefore survival, the pack will turn on it.

You can not simply will away our survival instincts. It's bloody minded hubris to imagine you can .. and for such horrifically petty and vain reasons, no less.

 

yes it is. women have full control over their fertility unless they're raped.

 

The possibilities are literally limitless. The fact that you've apparently never thought about the implications is exactly why this stuff is soooo dangerous. The people pushing it have never stopped to consider how it will come back to bite them.

 

The female version of Dom, short for Dominant.

 

So you got nothing. Got it.

 

Luckily for them their pack has their back, which is why we fight to defend them. I see your pack going the way of the packs that fought against interracial marriage and women's voting rights, and other such packs.

 

You are apparently choosing 'obliviousness', because your need to protect a specific iteration of self identity is overwhelming.

Just consider what legal self-identification will mean .. in practice. Consider how much of what we do and have is predicated upon our legal identity. You MUST have considered this .. no sane adult could have missed the very very obvious and very very alarming implications.

 

I get it...you have nothing. I “heard” you the first time. You didn’t have to double down with nothing.

 

Which pack is 'theirs'? Do you mean their families? No one has a problem with their kith and kin supporting them, if their pack is happy to carry someone who's chosen self over pack.

We don't expect random strangers to have the same attitude to us as those who love us. Unless we're flaming narcissists, of course.

 

Wow .. you are very invested in your own special fetish thing, ain't ya. Even at the cost of social collapse, apparently. Nice.

LEGAL SELF-IDENTITY. I'll keep saying it, and you can keep musing on what that means. Muse on the profound corruption and exploitation that will necessarily follow.

 

Your third post and still you offer no specific examples of your claim...”people will start demanding all sorts of patently problematic things based on an assumed identity”
Why is it so difficult for you?

 

I've just decided that I'm a 14 year old indigenous female orphan. Give me all the stuff I'm owed.

A week later I'm a disabled athlete .. and would like you to provide a pathway to the Olympics.

Following week, I'm an unemployed black single parent. Give me my due.

Now I'm an 8 year old cancer sufferer, give me my trip to Disneyland.

Whoops, sorry .. now I'm a persecuted, disabled, migrant from a Third World country (in war), hoping for a full Harvard scholarship .. give it to me now.

 

And that's just the soft stuff. Wait til it comes calling on you at home, in a form you never expected. When it impacts your kids, and your work, and your everything. When YOU are impacted horribly by the millions of people who'll simply identify in any way which provides a pay off.

But it's worth, it right? Just to avoid hurting the feelings of a few confused and self-absorbed men in dresses?

 

It really doesn't matter who is right. When you are dealing with other people, and you want their cooperation, I suggest you call them what they want to be called. If you just want to annoy trans people and create an antagonistic relationships, then call them whatever you want.

 

Yes - by name if known, and by appearance if not. Unless you're suggesting we should all carry crystal balls?