On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
you misunderstood; the person becomes a women and then slept with women... after first being a man.
If you are trying to make a point, it is a very flawed one.
There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction. Indeed, there are many cisgender women who can't have babies, and nobody directly challenges their gender. Moreover, there are many trans men who CAN have babies, but they are still men. And finally, this will be entirely bunk once medical science allows trans women to have babies.
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
you misunderstood; the person becomes a women and then slept with women... after first being a man.
Random thought experiment. Amusing in itself but, if you want to actually test its logic you must consider whether the quality (of being) "gay" somehow transcends who you are attracted to, and is a inward quality that always makes you attracted to whomever you consider to be of your same gender; or if being gay is simply an "outward" attraction, and not a "inward" metaphysical attribute that stays with you every time you were to hypothetically change genders.
Say you were married to a woman. While you were asleep some (bastard) played a prank on you and changed your sex. Now, since you are heterosexual by "nature", would you instantly wake up no longer being attracted to your wife, even before you yourself knew you were now a woman? I would think not . I would expect you to still be attracted to your wife.
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
you misunderstood; the person becomes a women and then slept with women... after first being a man.
Why would a gay man want to become a woman. If he identifies as a gay man then he likes being a male who has sex with other males whereas if he identifies as a transgender woman then he was never gay, he was always into hetero relationships with men. The entire example is a nonsense, it reads "what if someone is really inconsistent and then acts in an inconsistent way, what are they?", the answer is, of course, that they are inconsistent.
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of being a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Again the genderbread person explains this distinction. But, anyways, look, you can't understand the "sense" of being a man or a woman because of your cissexual privilege. You have never had anyone question the fact that you are a guy, because your sex and your gender are in alignment. Because you've never experienced this, you can't understand the "sense". I can't explain to you what it means to be trans - all I can do is get you to understand that you have a sense of what it's like to be male - you just can't feel it because it is in alignment. But you might become very aware of it if people started treating you like a woman.
On December 06 2012 04:52 Olinim wrote: Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Well, what do you mean by "the characteristics typically attributed to it"? Do you mean stereotypical gender roles (women are feminine, men are masculine), or do you mean truly inherent traits?
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of being a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Exactly. People go through years of hormone therapy and then have the genitalia removed just so they have an excuse for not being able to reverse park.
On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote: Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
As my comparison to furries alluded, the idea that there even is such a thing as a "mental sexual state" is as ridiculous as claiming there is a "mental species state".
Actually there is already a word for it: imagination.
Do you deny that it's possible for someone to mentally feel like a member of a different species? And if there happen to be enough people who have that mental condition, wouldn't it make sense to have a name for it?
You can invent whatever words you want, for whatever reason you want. If it catches in in common speech it might even make it into a dictionary.
I don't like when people try to redefine an existing word, contrary to how it is used in speech, and then go around smugly "correcting" people who use the word properly (the same way it always has been).
as someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria and is a linguistics major... please, stop posting in this thread. you're completely and demonstrably wrong on all fronts. the reason I even bring up my major is because you're not even arguing about the topic at hand anymore. you're arguing about the direction of the english language in a thread about transsexuals. it's great that you're old fashioned when it comes to language and you apparently think that any sort of change in lexicon is a "degradation" of the language, but given the subject of this thread, we reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally don't care. If you want to debate about how words should keep their original meanings, then great, make a new thread.
also, if you're just using this "blah blah I don't like it when new things happen in my language" argument as a front to cover for your "gender and sex are exactly the same thing comment," then guess what, you're demonstrably wrong there, like pretty much every poster has shown you. In our current language usage, gender and sex are two distinctly different things, even if they're used interchangeably in conversation. You constantly repeating that "they're the same thing" with no factual backing whatsoever doesn't change that. It doesn't even matter if they meant exactly the same thing at some point in time (which is debatable). The important thing is that they don't mean the same thing NOW means your entire argument is invalid.
I have no problem with language changing over time. For example "gay" obviously has changed meaning and I wouldn't use the word gay in its historical sense.
But the word gender has not changed. It's used the same as it always has been. The people clamoring for the acceptance of this new definition are a small minority of people in Western nations. These people often see it as a badge of pride to tell the majority of people they are wrong and only this new fabricated definition that has not caught on and probably never will is the truly correct one.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote: Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
As my comparison to furries alluded, the idea that there even is such a thing as a "mental sexual state" is as ridiculous as claiming there is a "mental species state".
Actually there is already a word for it: imagination.
Do you deny that it's possible for someone to mentally feel like a member of a different species? And if there happen to be enough people who have that mental condition, wouldn't it make sense to have a name for it?
You can invent whatever words you want, for whatever reason you want. If it catches in in common speech it might even make it into a dictionary.
I don't like when people try to redefine an existing word, contrary to how it is used in speech, and then go around smugly "correcting" people who use the word properly (the same way it always has been).
as someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria and is a linguistics major... please, stop posting in this thread. you're completely and demonstrably wrong on all fronts. the reason I even bring up my major is because you're not even arguing about the topic at hand anymore. you're arguing about the direction of the english language in a thread about transsexuals. it's great that you're old fashioned when it comes to language and you apparently think that any sort of change in lexicon is a "degradation" of the language, but given the subject of this thread, we reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally don't care. If you want to debate about how words should keep their original meanings, then great, make a new thread.
also, if you're just using this "blah blah I don't like it when new things happen in my language" argument as a front to cover for your "gender and sex are exactly the same thing comment," then guess what, you're demonstrably wrong there, like pretty much every poster has shown you. In our current language usage, gender and sex are two distinctly different things, even if they're used interchangeably in conversation. You constantly repeating that "they're the same thing" with no factual backing whatsoever doesn't change that. It doesn't even matter if they meant exactly the same thing at some point in time (which is debatable). The important thing is that they don't mean the same thing NOW means your entire argument is invalid.
I have no problem with language changing over time. For example "gay" obviously has changed meaning and I wouldn't use the word gay in its historical sense.
But the word gender has not changed. It's used the same as it always has been. The people clamoring for the acceptance of this new definition are a small minority of people in Western nations. These people often see it as a badge of pride to tell the majority of people they are wrong and only this new fabricated definition that has not caught on and probably never will is the truly correct one.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
you're not going to last long here. what you're doing right now is essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "NANANANANNAA IM RIGHT IM RIGHT IM RIGHT" even though virtually every other person in this topic disagrees with you and many have provided reliable factual (read: scientific) evidence that you're wrong. good luck on your future tl endeavours.
On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote: Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
As my comparison to furries alluded, the idea that there even is such a thing as a "mental sexual state" is as ridiculous as claiming there is a "mental species state".
Actually there is already a word for it: imagination.
Do you deny that it's possible for someone to mentally feel like a member of a different species? And if there happen to be enough people who have that mental condition, wouldn't it make sense to have a name for it?
You can invent whatever words you want, for whatever reason you want. If it catches in in common speech it might even make it into a dictionary.
I don't like when people try to redefine an existing word, contrary to how it is used in speech, and then go around smugly "correcting" people who use the word properly (the same way it always has been).
as someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria and is a linguistics major... please, stop posting in this thread. you're completely and demonstrably wrong on all fronts. the reason I even bring up my major is because you're not even arguing about the topic at hand anymore. you're arguing about the direction of the english language in a thread about transsexuals. it's great that you're old fashioned when it comes to language and you apparently think that any sort of change in lexicon is a "degradation" of the language, but given the subject of this thread, we reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally don't care. If you want to debate about how words should keep their original meanings, then great, make a new thread.
also, if you're just using this "blah blah I don't like it when new things happen in my language" argument as a front to cover for your "gender and sex are exactly the same thing comment," then guess what, you're demonstrably wrong there, like pretty much every poster has shown you. In our current language usage, gender and sex are two distinctly different things, even if they're used interchangeably in conversation. You constantly repeating that "they're the same thing" with no factual backing whatsoever doesn't change that. It doesn't even matter if they meant exactly the same thing at some point in time (which is debatable). The important thing is that they don't mean the same thing NOW means your entire argument is invalid.
I have no problem with language changing over time. For example "gay" obviously has changed meaning and I wouldn't use the word gay in its historical sense.
But the word gender has not changed. It's used the same as it always has been. The people clamoring for the acceptance of this new definition are a small minority of people in Western nations. These people often see it as a badge of pride to tell the majority of people they are wrong and only this new fabricated definition that has not caught on and probably never will is the truly correct one.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
Also arguing with a mod on an account with 27 posts will probably get you banned or even nuked.
On December 06 2012 04:57 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
We have provided scientific evidence on numerous occasions in this thread.
On December 06 2012 04:52 Olinim wrote: Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Well, what do you mean by "the characteristics typically attributed to it"? Do you mean stereotypical gender roles (women are feminine, men are masculine), or do you mean truly inherent traits?
Yes I meant gender roles.
Earlier you said "There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction". Well, what is there to being a woman according to you?
On December 06 2012 04:57 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
There was actually a lot of research done regarding differences in neuroanatomy hinting at how one's gender identity is rooted in their neuroanatomy that does not match the rest of the body in the case of transsexual people, hence creating an incongruence between the sex of the brain (gender) and the sex of the body.
On December 06 2012 05:04 Olinim wrote: Yes I meant gender roles.
Earlier you said "There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction". Well, what is there to being a woman according to you?
Look at the post below yours. There's a lot of information on the neurological differences between men and women, and the neurological similarities between cis women and trans women.
EPT
. I would expect you to still be attracted to your wife.
