Me lmao

You can be trans and be completely mentally healthy

X doubt

It's actually surprising how little you gamer bros know about trans people lol, but you manage to have VERY strong opinions on us at the same time.

No investigation, no right to speak :)

Why do you support notions that often cause damage to trans people?
You can be trans and be mentally healthy apart from having gender dysphoria, although trans people have higher rates of other mental afflictions such as autism. Having gender dysphoria doesn't make you insane or dangerous, although it often causes depression and eating disorders.
It's actually surprising how little you gamer bros know about trans people lol, but you manage to have VERY strong opinions on us at the same time.
I do so hope you're not talking about me here.

Definitely not talking about you, I was more referring to the people who unironically think just being trans is a mental illness and ignore all the scientific literature about trans topics.

hey guys who here is trans and actually knows what they're talking about

hey that's a logical phallucy but what would you know about that amirite xd

I know it is a fallacy, but it is true that trans people are much more likely to know what they're talking about.

@zoe way to take my comment, twist it, then respond to only 1 small part of it.... I feel like it was pretty obvious I was responding to the comment directly before the one I posted, neither of those are from Cornell, and the small sample size is not even the main critique. I view the convenience sampleing as the main problem in those 2 examples.

Remember that if you're trans and say crazy shit, it reinforces the stereotype that they're all crazy.

Maybe I am going crazy, but does anyone else think Zoe is trolling us?

Edited 6/15/2019 19:23:46

I highly doubt it.

Look at the political situation in America and ask yourself if it's entirely unlikely that a lefty (or anyone of any sincere political persuasion) might find their way here.

At least to me, rather someone is on the left or right doesn't matter. People have different views, and beliefs. I think that is good, if not necessary. What matters is if someone participates in these conversations in good faith. But from my perspective, Zoe has repeatedly and consistently failed to respond to any thing I have posted in a substantive, straightforward way. I would love to have a conversation about why we should define gender in one way or another, or rather young children should take hormone blockers to aid in their transition. But, at least from my perspective, Zoe doesn't seem interested in a conversation. Instead he has repeatedly flung insults, and tried to talk down to the people on this post who hold different opinions, while ignoring or side stepping any reasonable points made against him.

Edited 6/15/2019 21:12:18

I only talk down to people who deserve it lol. I feel I've been pretty straightforward, Cata Cauda asked, "what kind of scientific studies did those people do to come to those conclusions?" so I linked the meta-analysis from Cornell University. I also want to have a productive conversation about these topics but it's impossible when people just reject every study or analysis I provide as being "biased" or "propaganda", this is why I used the term anti-Science, because they're against scientific analysis and would rather go with their feelings on issues like this. Also, as you should be able to tell by my name, I'm a woman.

I'm up for a rational debate, but you're all missing the point. It's not supposed to be politics talk that makes sense, hence the name of the thread.

Should i make a "there isn't enough rational and civil politics talk" thread?

@zoe I get that. You keep insisting on looking at gender from a scientific view point. Which again, is one valid way to view it. But it is not the only valid way. I keep trying to point out that the terms "gender", "male", "female" are words that have existed before contemporary science, exist and are used outside of contemporary science, and have definitions that have nothing to do with contemporary science. Thus it is not only rational, but also not anti-science, to recognize that science doesn't have the ability or inherent right to redefine words used outside the scope of science. Are you able to consent to that?


@Japanball lol, you know you are right... maybe I am in the wrong thead?

Sure I guess? I don't see how you could form an opinion on a topic like, "What is the best course for trans people" without looking at what all the studies and research around it say. That's pretty much definitionally irrational.

Damn you and your big words