You guys need to watch this interview/documentary with an 11 yr old transgender

Of course not. A man acts "manly" to attract a mate. We see this in other species, though I would say the definition of "manly" varies from species to species. If a man doesn't act manly or is homosexual, he still has the capability to mate, of course. He just can't mate (biologically) with another man. Same for women. No amount of stomping and yelling is going to change biological functions.

No, they are biological. It's like saying the lionesses' role as the hunters for the pride is artificial.

Your premise depends on that we can get rid of masculine and feminine identities. Can we? If so, we can get rid of the "transgender" identity, right? We are not gender neutral, if so there wouldn't be the concept of "transgender". Dog's absolutely have gender identities. I have a pair of white German Shepherds (hoping for puppies this year). They definitely show gender identities. I also have a nano-reef aquarium with a pair of Clownfish. It's interesting, because Clownfish are hermaphrodites. The female dominates the male, and if she didn't the male would turn into a female and kill the other one. Talk to me about gender identities!

If a man decides to wear a dress, is he no longer a man? If he wants to have sex with a woman (who he married in your example) then he is still of gender male, whatever he wears is irrelevant. If clothing preference is your definition of gender than I agree it's artificial. However, I don't think clothing preference is the definition of gender, I think it's much, much more deeper than that and if you think it's about what one wears I don't know what to say.

You know nothing about cats. If you understand the behavior of cats you can easily pick out the males and females without looking at their private parts. I gave the example earlier in regards to lions. Male and female lions are readily distinguished by the mane of course, but if the males didn't sport a mane you could tell them apart easily by behavior and social interactions. The same with any of the Filidae family.

Good for you, I'm heterosexual and can have children. With my mate.

 

Are you saying that a man that first act manly can't attract a mate? I would say that is incorrect. I know several men that have wives that are less masculine and down right feminine.

No, man is only one species. That is man kind or homosapians. Nothing else acts like homo sapiens.

I don't know whyyou are confusing sexual orientation into this. If a man is rather feminine but not homosexual, and there is a woman that prefers feminine men, could they not find each other fall in love, marry, mate and produce offspring?

The only way he would be mating with a man is if he was homosexual. Feminine men, can be heterosexual can they not? I am a homosexual man and I am very masculine.

This is strange. Are you accusing me of stomping and yelling? Why because I am asking you questions?

Incorrect they are social.

It is social purely. There is no biology involved. If lions didn't live in a pride would they still be lions? Would a female and a male mating have the potential to produce offspring? The pride construct is a social behavior. Basically it ensures survival through lean times. It has nothing to do with biology.

Is it plausible that we can eliminate gender identities? Yes, is it likely? No. If we had no gender I identity we wouldn't have transgender because that is a gender identity.

Correct we are not. But that es something taught to you from your birth. We are born gender neutral though we have a specific sex. Put it this way, let's say you are male (no offense I just don't know what sex you are). When you were two months old did you prefer to wear a dress or blue jeans? Did you prefer pink or blue sheets? You probably haven't the foggiest because you weren't trained to associate that bit between your legs with colors and fashions.

So what is feminine behavior for a dog? I have never seen one put on lipstick, paint their toe nails, prefer a pink collar, prefer to be called daisy over duke. I had a black retriever once, I had caught him, he was wild and didn't trust people. I kept him in my back yard. I named him Pete. Pete had puppies one day. Was Pete a transgender dog? Or was my concept of gender influenced by something other than Pete's anatomy. I had to put Pete down three years ago, it broke my heart I loved that dog. But she didn't act "butch" I just didn't know she was female until after I got her to respond to Pete.

I don't think fish are intelligent enough for concepts like identities. That is simply biological imperative.

BTW nano reef? That is awesome is that like an aquarium or is it something else?

Ah hah, you got it. Gender isn't male/female, sex is male/female. Gender is masculine/feminine. What makes a woman feminine? It's not her junk. Because if she doesn't act feminine, say she drives a dump truck, wears flannel shirts no make up, short hair, is tough as nails, speaks in a gruff tone. What about her is feminine? Define feminine. If it's just a synonym for female why would anybody ever describe the lady I just described as not feminine? Is that what feminine means to you?

I agree with you. It's not just clothes somebody wears. It's definitely deeper than that. It's personality it's feelings, it's taste. I don't think it's genitals. I have a cousin he speaks softly he wears clothes that really express his more feminine side. When he was a boy we played together, he like to play with dolls, or cooking toys, so on. I was older than him but I liked to play with him he was and still is a sweet guy. He attempted to be a manly guy in high school. By this time I was already out of the closet and everybody thought he was gay. I told hom he has to be who he feels he is. I'd that means he dyes his hair, wears right sweaters and pink shorts, that is just who you are. He had a problem, he told me he wasn't gay and had no interest in being with a man. He was worried he couldn't find love with a woman. I told him pretending to be real manly won't win him a woman. It will only drive them away. No he wears eyeliner and nail polish. He is a "femboy" (hat tip to androgynousmale). You can't describe him as masculine. Is it masculine to wear eyeliner and nail polish yada yada yada in our culture?

He has been called a more feminine guy, or people say he is getting in touch with his feminine side. But if males can only be masculine they have no feminine side. Right?

This must mean something other than the junk between your legs. Btw my pretty boy cousin is married to this knock out woman and she is four months pregnant.

I don't know much about cats, I just picked an animal that doesn't really have a gender identity. But you again mention behavior and social, I bolded above. Meaning you recognize they aren't biological

So can I and my mate.

 

If it's a choice then they cannot become a protected class like blacks or gays

- - - Updated - - -

It's obvious you didn't watch the documentary as Jazz was showing GID as early as three years old

 

It's interesting that later on in your post you mention that the sex of lion can be determined by observing their social interactions. Can you offer any proof that these female lions are born with an instinctual understanding of these social interactions rather than have learned them by observing the social interactions of their parents?

 

Of course I did. And I saw the lack of any scientific data to support such lunacy like being able to prove what they claim or remove all environmental and psychological influences.

You will never be able to get around the human body's involuntary reaction to sexual stimulus that the body prepares for heterosexual sex. Never.

It is the undoing of every emotional non scientific argument for homosexuality.

You can't fool science Channe.

 

Can you explain why there is no biological evidence that a human body ever prepares for homosexual sex but there is overwhelming evidence all human bodies prepare for heterosexual sex aka procreation when sexually stimulated?

Try to see this from our scientifically rational point of view. You want us to accept the emotional non scientific argument that homosexuals are "born this way" without any conclusive evidence that eliminates environmental factors while at the same time ignore the human body's own basic functions creating genetic material and preparing for that genetic material to be passed naturally on only through heterosexual sex. Why should we just throw science completely out of the window for the gay communities purely emotional pleas?

 

You keep talking to me as if I've ever made an argument that homosexuals are born that way. I never have, and I don't care. I think the entire argument is irrelevant.

 

So why do you support gay marriage? What makes 2 person adult homosexuals more special than all other groups for us to put laws around them and them alone above all other sexual preferences? That's the question.

 

Because I value freedom. It's the same reasoning behind why I support civil rights protections for religious beliefs. Whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant.

Nobody is asking for laws specifically for gays. As others have pointed out many times, gays already have the right to get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Same-sex marriage laws would open the door for heterosexuals to marry people of the same sex, too.

 

The DNA chico, it never lies. She was born with a Y-chromosome.

 

Then you must support pedophilia and polygamy marriage as well by that lazy general logic. After all, you value freedom right?

And religious beliefs are already protected by the Constitution.

LOL Actually that's exactly what they are asking for.

No you are confusing gay marriage with civil unions.

 

Exactly. You can't fool science.

This poor boy is going to go through hell and his parents don't even care.

 

That's the problem. People with no moral foundation believe society needs to adjust to declining moral standards. We need to uphold the standards which are considered the foundation of civilization.

 

I've said over and over on this forum that I support polygamy. I value freedom insomuch as it doesn't hurt others. I believe pedophilia harms the children involved.

Yes, which sets the precedence.

Are you suggesting that heterosexuals would be excluded from same-sex marriage rights?

 

But you can't prove it so you don't support freedom. You only support freedom as you perceive it not the actual definition of freedom itself.

That's like saying the right to assemble paves the way for the right to fight in the streets.

I'm saying same homosexual marriage is for homosexuals. Civil marriages covers far more people. But you don't get to call it marriage which is why your side refuses to support it.

 

I'm sorry, let me clarify. I mean, I value freedom more than some people do, maybe less than some others.

Well, that's just your perception, not the actual definition of precedence. I see no reason why same-sex marriage equates to fighting in the street, as your analogy claims.

So you think there would be specific wording within a same-sex marriage law that would exclude heterosexuals? I mean, what you believe is irrelevant unless the law specifically states that same-sex marriage is only for homosexuals, and if it did, I wouldn't support it.

I don't care what you want to call it. Still now, of all the states that don't allow same-sex marriage, only one state offers civil unions that offer the same rights as marriage. Two states offer domestic partnerships that grant nearly all the same rights as marriage. The rest have no provisions for civil unions or domestic partnerships.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx

Make it the standard across the nation that civil unions and marriages have equal rights on both a federal and state level, and you can call it whatever you want.

 

What he needed was psychiatric help, what he got was accommodation and rationalization for his mental illness. It's like somebody with multiple personalities being given 5 different drivers licenses.

 

This kid looks like a prepubescent boy whose parents have failed to dress him in the customary clothes and hairstyle of a boy. The makeup they slather on him further serves to distort his appearance. They've exacerbated the problem by treating the boy with hormone blockers that fight his body's natural development. Aside from that, he looks no different than any other boy at that age with moderately effeminate tendencies - such tendencies which over the course of life are generally indicative of nothing at all.

The most telling part of this story is that "Greg" (the father) "has been down this road before" with his oldest daughter. Gee, you think this guy's part of the problem? Nah, I'm sure it's just a fluke, total coincidence that gender identity is such a problem in his home.

 

So you don't value freedom, only your perspective of freedom. Got it.

And I see no correlation between religion and sexual preference and you are unwilling to explain how they equate.

Heterosexuals can already marry. You are confusing heterosexual marriage with homosexual marriage.

But once again that isn't what your side is perusing. if it was civil unions there would be far less of a fight. But they aren't are they. Please be honest about the fight.

 

Its almost like the American Psychological Association didn't have a single study to back up their reversal 40 years ago in the face of homosexual terrorism in their meetings. Oh wait, they didn't.

 

Child abuse. Flagrant, deliberate,and in today's Bizarro World, cheered on by the Left.

 

So what?

The equation is choice. One is not born with a religion, yet it is allowed equal rights under the law. That sets a precedence that lifestyle choices can be granted civil rights protections. If people want to state that lifestyle choices should not be protected with civil rights, they should at least be consistent about it and apply it to all such choices.

Heterosexuals can only marry people of the opposite sex. Same-sex marriage laws would allow even heterosexuals to marry people of the same sex.

I'm not on anybody's side. I speak only for myself.

 

"She" is not a person at all, but rather a personality - i.e., a thespian on the stage 24/7. If there's a person in that body he's numb, comfortably or otherwise.

 

It should. They need someone to instill some common sense into their situation. They are making a bad situation worse.

 

That it's ridiculous.