Religious people say that they are their eternal soul, sent to Earth to live within a human body by God.
Atheists say that religious people are delusional about this; they are, in fact, collections of purely material cells.
Denying that a religious person is an eternal soul is very much denying their core of what they are.
That’s not really the distinction we are making here.
That’s why I actually thought that this fell under a “tiresome topic” rule rather than anything else. If we want to say “we are done with this irrelevant metaphysical question, no more” out of sensitivity for trans users of the board, then that’s fine. But we should do that, not whatever this thread is.
Regardless of a person’s ‘position’ on trans people, I would be stunned if anybody described ‘You are not who you think you are. Your doctors and the field in general are wrong. You are just deluded. I understand your mind better than you do.’ as mere criticism
Well, trans issues actually get their own special section under the rules and are outside the “tired topics” heading, but close enough. They do get special treatment, though with only a practical justification, not a metaphysical one.
Given the incredibly long list of rules referencing that topic it would obviously be impossible to conclude what the why is.
“I can’t explain why without breaking the board rules” is explaining why.
That is going a bit further than saying " I decline to agree with your faith".
Saying Jesus never existed, and if he did he certainly wasn’t the son of god is one thing, saying that you are crazy to think so is an insult to all Christians.
If you want to extend the example, go ahead. “Jesus never existed, and if he did he certainly wasn’t the son of god, and anyone that thinks otherwise is nuts.” I’m fairly sure that this still doesn’t count as hate speech per board rules.
It requires the further step of ‘and that’s why I have these lions on hand’ to turn it into hate speech, IMO. It’s the implied violence to follow that distinguishes mere insult fom hate speech.
If it’s just “this one group is more vulnerable than the other, and that’s why the rules apply differently,” that’s fine as long as one is upfront about it. It’s not philosophically satisfying, but board rules don’t have to be.
I don’t think transpeople are by definition mentally ill, I just think that people’s brains have nothing to do with whether they’re men or women. Being a woman means having a female reproductive system.
I don’t see that this falls foul of any board rule.
Of course, if you link to outside sources there is a possibility that they may make that claim even if you don’t want to, so that requires some checking.
And people on the board may perpetually come back at with you with “Oh! so if you Don’t Think Trans Women Are Women then CLEARLY you DO believe they’re mentally ill, QED, gotcha, don’t dare to deny it” which is tedious, but you can always just keep telling them they’re wrong.
This is manifestly incorrect, and has been for years. Getting hormones on a first visit is completely possible.
Message boards don’t really exist anymore. You can say those things on post-Elon Twitter if you feel you must; he let literal Nazis join, and it’s getting hard to avoid them - that’s why I left and then came back to this site.
Social media is very politically polarised these days. There isn’t anywhere you can have a civil debate with people who have substantially different views from you. It’s all echo chambers.
And this position is based on what scientific evidence?
What about people (I would call them women) with androgen insensitivity syndrome? They have XY chromosomes. They are born with vaginas. Usually, the condition is not noted until they hit the age where puberty should begin, and it doesn’t. Thorough tests usually show undeveloped and undescended testes. However, as the condition’s name suggests- these women are ‘immune’ to testosterone. They not only look typically feminine, they look more feminine than most women. Would you call them women?
Presumably, you would say a woman who underwent a hysterectomy is still a woman.Is that correct?
Come to think of it, you don’t actually define
What exactly and precisely do you mean by that?
I am not a morning person. I see and have read your link. I will deal with it properly once my brain is thoroughly in gear.
Of course you can have debate around topics. We have been over this so many times that it is almost a tired topic itself. You can debate whether the department of education should be shut down, or whether affirmative action does more good than harm, or whether Brexit was a good idea, or the merits of capitalism versus socialism, or the merits of democracy versus anarchism versus monarchism versus meritocracy, or whether species should be renamed to eliminate racist connotations, or a host of other topics.
The board is not an echo chamber on any of those issues.
But when it comes to debating whether people’s fundamental identities should be treated as mental illnesses, with the consequent persecutions and deadly policies that inevitably follow, I suppose we are an echo chamber. If the only thing you want to do is to debate people’s right to exist under their own identities, this board is not the place for that.
I would. Women with CAIS do go through puberty naturally, though. They just don’t menstruate due to lacking a uterus, which is what usually causes the condition to be discovered.
That’s what I hoped. I quit the board before because debating so many people at once was too stressful, and the nastiness, especially in the Pit, made me horribly depressed. But I muted the Pit, and took breaks if it seemed too overwhelming. I thought I was handling it okay this time.
I don’t want to debate that. I haven’t asked to change the rules on this. I haven’t started any threads on trans issues since I came back to the board. I skipped the thread on trans teens. I wasn’t trying to bring up the issue, or debate anyone’s identity. I saw various political debates where the other side wasn’t really represented, and wanted to add a genuinely more conservative opinion. It’s hard to entirely avoid transgender questions when talking about current day social politics, but they are just one aspect of a larger debate.
This is drifting well outside of ATMB bounds. Since we also don’t seem to be heading towards any kind of resolution, I think it’s best if we close this.
If anyone has a compelling reason to re-open it, send me a PM.
Those who wish to discuss or debate transgender issues, please do so in the appropriate forums.