[a_shovel]

I'd like to help you understand why some people might get upset at some of the things you're talking about.

> but the second you point out things like the word "gender" being coined by a pedophile called John Money whos human test subjects eventually both committed suicide

When trans people and trans-friendly people get mad at statements like this, they're usually getting mad at the insinuation that they somehow bear some responsibility for Money's decision to force a boy to live as a gender he didn't identify as and the consequences of that decision, when all of them oppose deciding someone else's gender for them and many of them are suffering the consequences of similar decisions made against them.

> or that sending children to drag shows with very obvious sexual elements and undertones is evil

I've seen some accusations like this. Every time, the drag show has turned out to be completely G-rated, and they're offended at the lie that they would expose children to sexual acts. In many cases, it was the act of drag itself that was the supposed "sexual element".

> or that chopping off their penises or breasts won't help them and instead creates chronic illnesses and increases depression

Genital surgery for transgender people has one of the highest satisfaction rates of any surgery of any type. Additionally, lurid phrases like "chopping off their breasts" is often used as an incoherent rebuttal against other, much less invasive treatments, like hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or even social transition, where they are entirely inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion.

> We don't "validate" people suffering from schizophrenia by telling them that their trees are indeed talking to them about the little green aliens in their attic, so why "validate" other mental illnesses in similar ways?

We do not "validate" people with schizophrenia like that because it does not improve their happiness or well-being. We do affirm transgender people in their identity because it does improve their happiness and well-being, as shown in multiple studies on the subject.

[xwdv]

Please help me understand, if gender doesn’t exist because it’s an abstract concept created by society, is all transgenderism basically just rooted in rebelling against how society has defined genders? Without gender there can’t really be transgenders?

If so, this could explain in my mind why they don’t respond well to jokes: they are actively engaged in a war with society that they are trying to win on all fronts. This has been an epiphany.

[a_shovel]

I don't know what you're referring to by "transgenderism". "Being transgender" is when one's gender identity doesn't match the one assigned to them at birth. Some of them do the whole "war against gender" thing; a lot of them just want everyone else to stop making such a big deal out of it and let them take their hormones in peace.

I'm in some communities with a lot of trans people in them, and in my experience there's quite a lot of jokes about being transgender that they find funny. I'd have to know what kind of joke you're talking about to make a judgement.

[xwdv]

“Gender identity” isn’t actually real. Biology doesn’t assign you a gender, it just gives you male or female organs. The “gender identity” is how a person with certain organs should behave in society.

So to be transgender, may not actually mean you want to physically be the opposite sex, it means you simply want to play a different role than what society says you should be. In essence, to be transgender is to be in opposition to society, not necessarily biology.

Therefore, a transgender is nothing more than a rebel, wanting to go against the norms of society, and now I see why people find them so repulsive, and why a transgender cannot take a trans joke told by a straight laced person.

It also means anyone can become a transgender in any moment, all you need is to find a desire to be the opposite role, and believe it in your heart to be true. Unlike homosexuality, this can be influenced.

[Slighted]

Trans people and trans-friendly people subscribe to his research though, which is the issue. John Money was responsible himself and only himself for what he did. Its obvious that his experimentation was cruel and a complete failure, so with that in mind why use his completely bogus, stupid term "gender" to describe (validate) themselves and human sexuality?

>I've seen some accusations like this. Every time, the drag show has turned out to be completely G-rated, and they're offended at the lie that they would expose children to sexual acts. In many cases, it was the act of drag itself that was the supposed "sexual element".

>turned out to be completely G-rated

Like this one with "It's not gonna lick itself" and men in fishnets running around? https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/dallas-family-friend...

>Genital surgery for transgender people has one of the highest satisfaction rates of any surgery of any type.

This so laughably bad and false that you should feel ashamed for having said it. Please go read https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/top/?t=all

An Appendectomy is what I'd expect to fall under "surgery with one of the highest satisfaction rates", not a festering "neo-vagina" that requires lifelong dilation and will never function similarly to a real vagina while the rest of the (now malfunctioning) male sexual system is still present.

>We do not "validate" people with schizophrenia like that because it does not improve their happiness or well-being.

And its the exact same case with trans people. The suicide statistics, r/detrans testimonies, and general trans lifestyle problems are not testaments to "We do affirm transgender people in their identity because it does improve their happiness and well-being". Its obvious that "validating" them is only a minimal, temporary solution, if even that.

[a_shovel]

A lot of the terminology Money coined is still in use because it is perfectly serviceable and it describes the experience of many trans people decently well. Ultimately, the validity of an idea is not dependent on whether the person who first proposed it was a horrible bastard or not.

> "It's not gonna lick itself" and men in fishnets running around

Everyone in that video is more covered up than any woman at the beach, and if innuendo that kids won't understand is unacceptable to you, then basicly every animated kids' movie from the past twenty years would disagree.

> please go read /r/detrans

Please go read these statistics. https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_af...

There's a trend of anti-trans detrans people (this distinction is necessary, as not all detransitioned people hold the same opinions as those on /r/detrans) who describe genital surgery in a way completely different from what transgender people report. "Neo-vaginas" do not "fester", they don't require "lifelong" dilation, and those who've spoken about it assure us that they are perfectly functional for all relevant purposes (if you know what I mean).

> Its obvious that "validating" them is only a minimal, temporary solution, if even that.

Here's another study for you to read. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Sometimes we have to make do with anecdotes when there isn't enough data on a topic, but "is gender-affirming healthcare beneficial" is absolutely not one of those topics.

[Slighted]

The terminology is not perfectly serviceable. Note how in my previous post I referenced his experiment, calling it a complete failure. The term "gender" came into existence because Money believed that a biological male could be "socially female" through surgical intervention and social influence. That obviously didn't work because the child refused to believe he was female and eventually committed suicide, as did his brother who was forced into sexual intercourse with him. This is what "gender" is based off of. Male and female roles have been dynamic throughout human history but both sexes maintained distinct sex-related behaviors from one another despite this fact.

>Everyone in that video is more covered up than any woman at the beach, and if innuendo that kids won't understand is unacceptable to you, then basicly every animated kids' movie from the past twenty years would disagree.

The human body isn't inherently sexual, as evidenced by ancient humans and various current societies, so its not a matter of coverage but rather a matter of context and purpose (of the particular types of clothing used in that video). You are either extraordinarily ignorant, malicious, or both if you don't think that men dressed up as sexual versions of women along with sexual innuendo "It's not gonna lick itself" on the wall in a bar/nightclub is a bad place for children to be.

>Please go read these statistics...

>Here's another study for you to read...

There are so many problems with simply linking individual (confirmation-bias-fueled cherry-picked) studies that I'm not even going to bother touching this.

The big "seeing the forest rather than the trees" idea that needs to be known is that mental illness is rampant in trans people and communities (aside from the transgenderism itself) and suicide rates are extremely high. "Neo-vaginas" do not have the same faculties as a normal vagina to maintain their cleanliness and will attempt to heal themselves over time unless dilated (As they are nothing more than glorified puncture wounds). Those that manage to de-transition rather than committing suicide are overwhelmingly regretful and suffer from numerous health-related issues.

[a_shovel]

In your terminology, (one definition of) Gender is the idea that the social/cultural aspects of sex are distinct from its physiological aspects. What the failure of Money's experiment showed was that one cannot intentionally alter the gender of someone else through medical or social means--in other words, that conversion therapy does not work. You say that the terminology is "not serviceable" but don't actually explain how it fails.

> There are so many problems with simply linking individual (confirmation-bias-fueled cherry-picked) studies that I'm not even going to bother touching this.

The closest you've gotten to citing a source is a link to a subreddit. You are in no position to dismiss multiple scientific studies you haven't read as "cherry-picked."

[mftrhu]

Fractal wrongness. Fascinating.