Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Wiping the faeces out requires a flannel and legs spread wide and it's all pretty obvious. Not cleaning it is asking for a massive dose of nappy rash, so most parents clean it fairly carefully and like I said, you can't not see it.
.... the relatively small numbers of trans people is going to limit how much this is going to occur. It's not like we are going to start seeing situations where an entire varsity team for a high school is all trans women.[....]
Though one could conceive of a college or professional team deliberately recruiting an all trans team from across the country if they felt it could provide a competitive advantage and there were enough trans athlete of high ability to recruit.
Almost everything shakes down as left and right. I don’t know why. Desire to belong perhaps. But it does.
In this area it is typically the right who object to “trans activism” and the granting of privileges that abridge the rights of others (women) and it is the left that screams “transphobia”
Whichever side it is has little bearing on whether it is correct in my view since I tend to agree with a lot of typical right stuff and a lot of typical left stuff which frequently means I am disliked by both camps on a lot of issues (not that I care). In this case I agree with the right. Also FWIW ever since I came across the acronym LGBT[ . . . ] I have always recoiled from it. I am a B in that alphabet soup and never felt any particular connection with any of the other letters but (I suppose) particularly not the T or anything after that. No more of a connection than to anybody else anyway which isn’t much either
Your feeling of connection or lack thereof is not why those categories are tied together. They are united in many forms of treatment by society and arguments used against accepting, tolerating, accommodating, etc, these groups.
For example, the argument that there are more people who are trans than before because it is being 'forced' and 'trendy', and not genuine, is exactly the argument used against lesbians, bisexuals, and gays. It's also the same fallacious reasoning used in arguing modernity is wrong/bad/immoral because there are 'more autism' and 'in my day, ADHD wasn't a thing', and a thousand other silly beliefs. What they mean is that those people went untreated or were forced to hide.
I'm certain that the number of trans and bi people who are 'out' increasing is not down in any meaningful way to an increase in the number of people who are those things but to the consequences of being those things becoming less severe. But of course they are still severe, so fantasies that bad behavior by people who are trans is because of their being trans or the consequences of claiming to be trans are 'too low'. As if being raped by a trans woman is inherently more wrong than being raped by a cis man or cis woman.
Or course there isn't some magical unity for these groups. A lot of the worst bias comes from inside these groups to the others. 'Gold Star' lesbians are often extremely cruel to bi women, especially bi women dating cis men. They use a lot of the same arguments against bi women that people this thread use against trans women.
__________________________________
While I'm under no delusion this information has much chance of changing the ideas of the participants of this thread, for the lurkers or the off chance someone actually cares, I'm going to point out that the augtogynephilia hypothesis is widely discredited. It is fundamentally flawed, factually wrong, and rests entirely on the idea that the overwhelming majority of trans women have not only lied/been deluded about a wide range of their personal experiences and feelings, but lied in ways that are consistent with each other over a long period of time, over several countries. As an idea, it is not accepted by mental-health bodies.
For any trans people reading the thread, don't despair because attitudes here are not actually increasing, and tend not to be supported by the experts, or by governments. The haters (and those deluded to thinking they aren't haters) have the facts wrong, and unless a lot of new evidence changes how we understand the facts or the like, they are going to keep going the way of climate change deniers, 9-11 truthers, and the like. The truth will out.
If you really want to feel better, just watch ContraPoints on youtube. Here, her episode on Autogynephilia will help you laugh at the Blanchard silliness.
Wiping the faeces out requires a flannel and legs spread wide and it's all pretty obvious. Not cleaning it is asking for a massive dose of nappy rash, so most parents clean it fairly carefully and like I said, you can't not see it.
Even in an adult woman with her sexual parts spread as wide as possible the outer opening of the vagina appears very small and it's not at all clear that it goes anywhere. If you think you're seeing a baby girl's vagina in that situation you do not know what a vagina is. The most you may see is a very tiny opening, and only then if you have the baby's legs splayed wide and you're peering in. There is no way at all to see if there is a patent tube beyond that.
My education at an all-girls school with a very embarrassed male biology teacher was woefully inadequate. We girls had to correct him, as he thought the urethral opening into the vestibule was common with the vaginal opening. This was about 1970.
I can't remember how much I know because of detailed veterinary anatomy classes and how much from basic human biology, but much of it must be the latter as other mammals differ quite a lot in that area.
Tyr, we've heard all that before. It isn't just a river in Egypt with these guys. We know they've put a huge effort into providing links that people like you can post to give the impression that Blanchard, Bailly and the actual medical profession have been debunked about this, but the fact is, they have not and they are correct.
As for the question of where the huge numbers of girls were in previous generations that correspond to the wave of girls now insisting that they're boys, we know. They're not saying, oh I wish I'd had that opportunity when I was that age. They're thanking God fasting that they were born early enough that they weren't caught up in the madness of the ROGD social contagion when they were teenagers, and looking at their healthy female bodies and their happy lives as mothers or lesbians or whatever, and despairing for today's girls.
You wouldn't care to open your mind and consider that you might be mistaken about this?
Wiping the faeces out requires a flannel and legs spread wide and it's all pretty obvious. Not cleaning it is asking for a massive dose of nappy rash, so most parents clean it fairly carefully and like I said, you can't not see it.
Can't not see what? You really should not be seeing even the opening of the vagina when doing that. The labia block that poop and exposing the vaginal opening would, if anything, increase the chances of vaginal infection. The baby books we read and the medical advice we'd had had already told us this - 'don't delve that deep'. Why are you doubling-down with an insistence on using the colloquial meaning of 'vagina' in this way when the thread is discussing the accurate physiological meaning?
And yes, in case you're wondering, I changed hundreds of a baby girl's nappies.
Men on this forum have actually said that it's vanishingly unlikely that any man would pretend to be trans just to get into women's changing rooms. What planet are you orbiting guys, there is no limit to the lengths some predators will go to to get access to their victims. And second, portraying that as the only danger (because "real transwomen" are all sweetness and light and harmless oppressed souls) completely fails to appreciate the mindset and the aggression of the narcissistic autogynaephile trans.
I do it all the time! I go into the women's locker room at the local gym and start perving up the place by sniffing their panties, lewdly ogle them, grabbing their genitals and such. If staff shows up asking what the hell I'm doing i just say that i identify as female and that they have no right to tell me that i don't belong there, and they slowly back away because they don't want to be imprisoned for a hate crime.
I find it quite creepy that anyone is looking that closely into a baby girl's vulva and vestibule when changing a nappy. But even if they are, they aren't going to see a vagina and Caster Semenya's dad is in no position to know if she has one or not by that means anyway.
My original point was that when a baby with a DSD has ambiguous genitalia they nearly always look female even if the baby is really a boy. An expert examination might well conclude "something not normal here" but simply changing a nappy might easily not arouse suspicion. Having seen similar things in young animals I'd be very surprised indeed if there was a patent vagina in a DSD baby with abdominal testicles and androgen responsiveness.
I think it's likely the vulva-vestibule area wasn't the normal female configuration, but I wouldn't necessarily expect dad to pick up on that. People here are acting like every nappy change is a paediatric gynaecological examination. As Glenn said, you don't poke that deep and if you do you may cause a vaginitis or urethritis/cystitis by getting faecal bacteria where they shouldn't be.
For example, the argument that there are more people who are trans than before because it is being 'forced' and 'trendy', and not genuine, is exactly the argument used against lesbians, bisexuals, and gays. It's also the same fallacious reasoning used in arguing modernity is wrong/bad/immoral because there are 'more autism' and 'in my day, ADHD wasn't a thing', and a thousand other silly beliefs. What they mean is that those people went untreated or were forced to hide.
No, tyr, this is absolutely not what they mean. Rather, you believe it's what's actually the case.
There are a number of reasons to think that the percentage of gays and lesbians hasn't changed, only the the visibility has because of increased social acceptance. Same with autism: awareness increased and diagnostic criteria expanded, and in addition the rates of other mental disabilities not previously diagnosed as autism went down, suggesting that many people with autism were diagnosed with something else.
But the fact that this may explain the increased visibility of gays, lesbians, and autistic individuals does not mean it's the explanation for the increased visibility of transgenders. A priori it's a possibility that needs to be considered, but you're jumping to the conclusion that it's the case without any real evidence.
And there are a number of factors which suggest that maybe the same thing isn't happening, maybe there is something new going on. One of those major factors is detransitioning. It actually happens, it's a real thing. That doesn't really happen with sexuality, and it definitely doesn't happen with autism. So transgenderism is fundamentally different. If a person can stop being transgendered, then a person can start being transgendered, rather than always having been so. It is taboo to say this, but it's also obviously true. And if a person can start being transgendered, then it makes sense that external factors can probably help push a person in that direction.
It's true that we don't yet know if the actual rate of transgenderism has increased, and we cannot assume that the apparent rate is the real rate. It's also true that the fraction of the real rate which is apparent can increase over time, and social acceptance should lead to such an increase. But it doesn't follow that there hasn't also been a real increase. Nobody can say that with any confidence whatsoever. Maybe there hasn't been, but your conclusion isn't based on evidence, it's based on ideology.
I do it all the time! I go into the women's locker room at the local gym and start perving up the place by sniffing their panties, lewdly ogle them, grabbing their genitals and such. If staff shows up asking what the hell I'm doing i just say that i identify as female and that they have no right to tell me that i don't belong there, and they slowly back away because they don't want to be imprisoned for a hate crime.
I think in the case of ROGD it would be almost impossible to maintain that it hasn't. The phenomenon of the adolescent girl who wasn't a particular tomboy as a child suddenly announcing that she's a boy, and several of her close friends doing the same thing at almost the same time, was unheard of until very recently. Now there are thousands of them, and online communities of mothers tearing their hair out.
Tyr, we've heard all that before. It isn't just a river in Egypt with these guys. We know they've put a huge effort into providing links that people like you can post to give the impression that Blanchard, Bailly and the actual medical profession have been debunked about this, but the fact is, they have not and they are correct.
They're flat wrong, and discredited. This is why their views are not used in actual research nor treatment regimes advised by the major associations. Not in the general scholarly work, not by the APA, not the WHO. You know, actual medical professions in the actual related fields.
Like with the engineers who are AGW deniers, the actual professions aren't all the confused but that doesn't stop appeals to false authorities.
You wouldn't care to open your mind and consider that you might be mistaken about this?
I had an open mind, but not to the arguments you cling to once I researched them.
You are right that this is a lot like the 'Satanic panic' thing, only you're the side that's panicked. Lots of heat about the harms that all this trans acceptance will bring, but little light.
Like I said, I have no delusions that I'm changing your mind, or most here's minds. After making the leap to supporting such inanely bad ideas like Blanchards, it isn't reasoning that's going to get one out of that. Reason didn't get one there.
No, tyr, this is absolutely not what they mean. Rather, you believe it's what's actually the case.
There are a number of reasons to think that the percentage of gays and lesbians hasn't changed, only the the visibility has because of increased social acceptance. Same with autism: awareness increased and diagnostic criteria expanded, and in addition the rates of other mental disabilities not previously diagnosed as autism went down, suggesting that many people with autism were diagnosed with something else.
But the fact that this may explain the increased visibility of gays, lesbians, and autistic individuals does not mean it's the explanation for the increased visibility of transgenders. A priori it's a possibility that needs to be considered, but you're jumping to the conclusion that it's the case without any real evidence.
And there are a number of factors which suggest that maybe the same thing isn't happening, maybe there is something new going on. One of those major factors is detransitioning. It actually happens, it's a real thing. That doesn't really happen with sexuality, and it definitely doesn't happen with autism. So transgenderism is fundamentally different. If a person can stop being transgendered, then a person can start being transgendered, rather than always having been so. It is taboo to say this, but it's also obviously true. And if a person can start being transgendered, then it makes sense that external factors can probably help push a person in that direction.
It's true that we don't yet know if the actual rate of transgenderism has increased, and we cannot assume that the apparent rate is the real rate. It's also true that the fraction of the real rate which is apparent can increase over time, and social acceptance should lead to such an increase. But it doesn't follow that there hasn't also been a real increase. Nobody can say that with any confidence whatsoever. Maybe there hasn't been, but your conclusion isn't based on evidence, it's based on ideology.
People can and have been misdiagnosed with ADHD, and autism. They didn't 'stop' being these things; they stop being identified as them because they never were.
Also, the idea of 'discovering' and 'experimenting' with one's sexuality is, you know, a widely known thing. People do indeed think they might be a lesbian, then find out they are not. And this actual shows a very important blind spot in your own reasoning, a large bias. Does someone who finds they are trans, and stay trans mean that the prevalence of being cis could be caused by 'trends'? Does someone who thought they were straight finding they are bi, or homosexual mean that being 'straight' is the same?
Moreover, I worded my post carefully. I don't reject the idea that some people who are not trans gender (or bi, or have ADHD) might actually consider the idea that they are those things because of increased visibility and the 'trend'. I am more than confident that the number of those people (who are for any meaningful time are mistaken) are less than the people who refuse to consider they might be trans but actually are. Or are fully aware they are trans, but will not come out because they don't want to be called autogynophil narcissists who want to invade women's spaces.
Don't worry, I don't expect you to alter your ideology one bit.
Both types exist but in the developed world the former category (HSTS) is much less numerous than the latter (AGP). The problematic trans activists are almost entirely narcissistic-personality AGPs.
Thanks, but TL;DR. It's going to say there are all kinds of crossdressing men and they have varying sexual targets.
You say that predominantly they are sexually attracted to women. This could be true. But its representation is the opposite in amateur pornography.
Overwhelmingly, when you see non-professional amateur porn showing crossdressing men they are having sex with a) other crossdressing men, and b) men who are not crossdressing and simply appear as straight.
That doesn't necessarily mean that reality and pornography are the same thing. But porn showing crossdressing men having sex with women (who appear straight) is not so common.
Maybe this part is more about who are the consumers of pornography rather than who represents the predominant kind of crossdressing man.
Unfortunately, the goalkeeper couldn't wait for intermission and slogged to the bathroom with 10 minutes left in the first half. What was a 1 nil lead quickly turned into an 8 goal deficit. The team couldn't recover in the 2nd half and rumor has it the loo maintenance folks weren't too happy either.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
