Transgenderism, should it be accepted or not? - General

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;42385434]I think plenty of CIS-gendered individuals would do this too.[/QUOTE]yeah shower room was a valid thought though, but i doubt anyone who has some issue about their body would use one with other people in it. and im not just talking about transgender, fat people, people who think they are fat, puritans (i think thats the term. people who dont reveal themselves openly till they are in love with someone or something like that) so transgender issues probably dont end up happening in the shower room very often xP

Is this seriously even a question. What the fuck.

[QUOTE=The Spicy HUL;42397849]Is this seriously even a question. What the fuck.[/QUOTE] It's a bit confusing for those of us who don't hate our own genitals so yeah I've noticed that pretty much all trannies dress as horrific parodies of the opposite sex, treating it like a sexual fetish which is hilariously ironic considering that shitlibs are against the objectification of such and such.

[QUOTE=Actual Racist;42428974]It's a bit confusing for those of us who don't hate our own genitals so yeah I've noticed that pretty much all [b]trannies[/b] dress as horrific parodies of the opposite sex, treating it like a sexual fetish which is hilariously ironic considering that shitlibs are against the objectification of such and such.[/QUOTE] don't say this

[QUOTE=Slowbro;42430094]don't say this[/QUOTE] It's obviously a troll account. Report and move on.

[QUOTE=Actual Racist;42428974]It's a bit confusing for those of us who don't hate our own genitals so yeah I've noticed that pretty much all trannies dress as horrific parodies of the opposite sex, treating it like a sexual fetish which is hilariously ironic considering that shitlibs are against the objectification of such and such.[/QUOTE] I think you're thinking of crossdressers, of which a lot do for sexual reasons (not all). A lot of transgendered folk dress just like your average girl/guy

Transgenderism should be accepted, yeah. But people should stop getting mad at me for not being some sort of crusader in favor of transgenderism, or not using fuckin' asterisks after the word "trans." That shit is so dumb. And both the concepts of "cisgenderism" and "transgenderism" are fuckin' retarded. Why can't we just be what we are without having to put some stupid ass label on it?

[QUOTE=pdp;42431353]Transgenderism should be accepted, yeah. But people should stop getting mad at me for not being some sort of crusader in favor of transgenderism, or not using fuckin' asterisks after the word "trans." That shit is so dumb. And both the concepts of "cisgenderism" and "transgenderism" are fuckin' retarded. Why can't we just be what we are without having to put some stupid ass label on it?[/QUOTE] I'm especially frustrated with cisgenderism, because I've seen far too many transgendered people (and even cisgender people) use the term as an insult. So what if you feel comfortable in your own skin? Why do we need to have a term for everything in life? And with the term transgender, well, I doubt they want to be called it their entire life, especially if they get a sex change. I dunno, just feels like both terms do more harm than good.

[QUOTE=Splittykitty;42431576]I'm especially frustrated with cisgenderism, because I've seen far too many transgendered people (and even cisgender people) use the term as an insult.[/QUOTE] Using the term as an insult is a really stupid way to invalidate anything you say. The term existing though is completely reasonable, a term to differentiate transgender and cisgender people can be really helpful at times when trying to explain things to someone.

This isn't a debate. There isn't a debate when there is only arguments for one side.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;42431891]Using the term as an insult is a really stupid way to invalidate anything you say. The term existing though is completely reasonable, a term to differentiate transgender and cisgender people can be really helpful at times when trying to explain things to someone.[/QUOTE] Sure, it can be. But far too often it's not used like that. Could just be stigmatized by society right now with that, but far too little do I see people use the term "cisgender" to help explain transgenderism. Might just be something from my own experience. I guess I wouldn't really have a problem with it as much if I saw it actually used more to explain to people what transgender is, but at the same regard I feel like transgender is easily described on its own. As it stands, though, transgenderism is perfectly fine in my book. @Whiterfire: Maybe it's not a debate because, for some reason, transgenderism is more accepted (apparently) than homosexuality. Or people who are against it are staying away from this thread for some reason.

[QUOTE=Splittykitty;42432413]Sure, it can be. But far too often it's not used like that. Could just be stigmatized by society right now with that, but far too little do I see people use the term "cisgender" to help explain transgenderism. Might just be something from my own experience. I guess I wouldn't really have a problem with it as much if I saw it actually used more to explain to people what transgender is, but at the same regard I feel like transgender is easily described on its own.[/quote] You must deal a lot with Tumblr-esque steotypes more than a lot of the transgender people in places such as here I think. I don't think on FP I've seen a single person use the term cisgender as an insult. Or at least not seriously. I think I've seen Ownedered or Shadaez or someone make a joke using it as an insult before. [quote]@Whiterfire: Maybe it's not a debate because, for some reason, transgenderism is more accepted (apparently) than homosexuality. Or people who are against it are staying away from this thread for some reason.[/QUOTE] It's definitely not more accepted than homosexuality. It's just that those who typically oppose transgenderism on FP can't actually legitimately argue their points because arguing their points involves ignoring explanations and links to studies and scientific journals and such so they would get banned for not debating worth a damn.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;42432542]You must deal a lot with Tumblr-esque steotypes more than a lot of the transgender people in places such as here I think. I don't think on FP I've seen a single person use the term cisgender as an insult. Or at least not seriously. I think I've seen Ownedered or Shadaez or someone make a joke using it as an insult before. It's definitely not more accepted than homosexuality. It's just that those who typically oppose transgenderism on FP can't actually legitimately argue their points because arguing their points involves ignoring explanations and links to studies and scientific journals and such so they would get banned for not debating worth a damn.[/QUOTE] People think I oppose transgenderism when I could give less of a damn. What I do oppose are people who constantly run their mouth over OBVIOUS issues. Transgenderism is fine. Like, who the fuck are they trying to convince? The term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind. [editline]6th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;42431891]Using the term as an insult is a really stupid way to invalidate anything you say. The term existing though is completely reasonable, a term to differentiate transgender and cisgender people can be really helpful at times when trying to explain things to someone.[/QUOTE] A ton of sweeping generalizations are made in this entire "debate" and it's so irritating. "All men are... <uneducated, stupid opinion>" "All women are... <uneducated, stupid opinion>" "All cisgendered people are... <uneducated, stupid opinion>" "All transgendered people are... <uneducated, stupid opinion>"

[QUOTE=pdp;42432576]People think I oppose transgenderism when I could give less of a damn. What I do oppose are people who constantly run their mouth over OBVIOUS issues. Transgenderism is fine. Like, who the fuck are they trying to convince? The term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you've seen how transgender threads here tend to go but what I was talking about is the people who inevitably go into those threads and ignore every single point anyone is making no matter how much it invalidates what they keep repeating. (It's usually when they show up that the threads go to shit, we've had a fair number that were actually pleasant up until they showed up.)

I think the word cisgender is useful because it gives a needed balance to transgender. Without it there'd be the dichotomy between e.g. transmen vs. men (the implication being that transmen aren't proper men?) or transmen vs. "normal" men (who the hell is normal, anyway?). Using "cismen" in that context instead means they're both on a level playing field - one isn't considered any more a proper or normal man than the other, they're just part of the natural variation. It helps that cisgender is the literal counterpart to transgender as far as the latin goes. I've seen people arguing that we shouldn't need a term because it's the majority, but that doesn't make much sense to me because we have tons of terms for people in the majority, e.g. straight/heterosexual. It'd be weird and kind of offensive to have people saying we should just call straight relationships "normal" relationships, and there should be a dichotomy between "gay men" vs. "men". The same applies to trans* people. Obviously cisgender it shouldn't be used as an insult because that's as nonsensical as using "heterosexual" as an insult, but I personally haven't really seen it used that way that often - certainly less than just using it neutrally as it's supposed to be used. Even with the "die cis scum" stuff, the insult was intended to be the "scum" part rather than the "cis" part.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;42432609]I think the word cisgender is useful because it gives a needed balance to transgender. Without it there'd be the dichotomy between e.g. transmen vs. men (the implication being that transmen aren't proper men?) or transmen vs. "normal" men (who the hell is normal, anyway?). Using "cismen" in that context instead means they're both on a level playing field - one isn't considered any more a proper or normal man than the other, they're just part of the natural variation. It helps that cisgender is the literal counterpart to transgender as far as the latin goes. I've seen people arguing that we shouldn't need a term because it's the majority, but that doesn't make much sense to me because we have tons of terms for people in the majority, e.g. straight/heterosexual. It'd be weird and kind of offensive to have people saying we should just call straight relationships "normal" relationships, and there should be a dichotomy between "gay men" vs. "men". The same applies to trans* people. Obviously cisgender it shouldn't be used as an insult because that's as nonsensical as using "heterosexual" as an insult, but I personally haven't really seen it used that way that often - certainly less than just using it neutrally as it's supposed to be used. Even with the "die cis scum" stuff, the insult was intended to be the "scum" part rather than the "cis" part.[/QUOTE] Are you serious? If anything, the use of separate words only makes the acceptance gap larger. [editline]6th October 2013[/editline] Also, what's with the asterisk after "trans"?

[QUOTE=pdp;42432665]Are you serious? If anything, the use of separate words only makes the acceptance gap larger.[/QUOTE] Well, that remains to be seen, I think. I don't really see why it need make a gap any more than heterosexual does, and its use makes sense to me for the reasons I gave. [QUOTE=pdp;42432665]Also, what's with the asterisk after "trans"?[/QUOTE] It basically means it's an inclusive term for everyone who doesn't fit into the gender binary, be they transgender or androgynous or whatever. The asterisk is a wildcard character, like what's used in programming or doing a search, so using it appeals to my inner nerd.

Only a dickhead hates on people for being different.

[QUOTE=Luafox;42432785]You don't want a word to exist because some people use it for blanket statements?[/QUOTE] "Some" is an understatement. I challenge you to find a neo-fem who doesn't generalize against men or cis people.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42432860]Only a dickhead hates on people for being different.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately it's kinda human nature to be hostile towards the unknown and as most people struggle to understand transgenderism since it's so far out of their personal experience it's a very unknown thing to them.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;42432908]Unfortunately it's kinda human nature to be hostile towards the unknown and as most people struggle to understand transgenderism since it's so far out of their personal experience it's a very unknown thing to them.[/QUOTE] Human nature or not, it's still something a dickhead does. Sometimes it's in human nature to be a dickhead. Doesn't make it alright, honestly.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;42432908]Unfortunately it's kinda human nature to be hostile towards the unknown and as most people struggle to understand transgenderism since it's so far out of their personal experience it's a very unknown thing to them.[/QUOTE] Yeah... no. Only retards do that. Like, what kind of shitty person would it take to hate a trans person just because they're unfamiliar? There are the obvious, socially inept and culturally dense idiots who are out of touch with this generation, but those people are pretty much universally hated by anyone with a sense of intelligence. Everyone I know who complains about the current state of acceptance of trans people always goes back to the phrase "spreading awareness," but I don't think someone stupid enough to think that trans people are bad would be capable of using the internet as a medium of intelligent discussion. With that, I'll segue into my point - why bother?

[QUOTE=pdp;42432956]Yeah... no. Only retards do that. Like, what kind of shitty person would it take to hate a trans person just because they're unfamiliar? There are the obvious, socially inept and culturally dense idiots who are out of touch with this generation, but those people are pretty much universally hated by anyone with a sense of intelligence. Everyone I know who complains about the current state of acceptance of trans people always goes back to the phrase "spreading awareness," but I don't think someone stupid enough to think that trans people are bad would be capable of using the internet as a medium of intelligent discussion. With that, I'll segue into my point - why bother?[/QUOTE] Honestly Alice does have a point. It is pretty natural for humans to be shitheads to each other. I mean, look at how much hate bronies get. It's like, who gives a flying FUCK what TV shows they like to watch, why does everyone shit on them just because they like a little girl's TV show? It's another thing, like transgenderism, that doesn't harm anybody but people hate it because it's weird or different.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42432991]Honestly Alice does have a point. It is pretty natural for humans to be shitheads to each other. I mean, look at how much hate bronies get. It's like, who gives a flying FUCK what TV shows they like to watch, why does everyone shit on them just because they like a little girl's TV show? It's another thing, like transgenderism, that doesn't harm anybody but people hate it because it's weird or different.[/QUOTE] People don't like bronies because they're annoying, and people don't like trans people, unfortunately, due to the masses of people "supporting" them on online blogs like Tumblr, or the general attitude that this new cult of online feminists seem to have. The way they type and handle themselves - you can recognize them. "wow r u fuckin serious lmao theres no way anyone can be that stupid" (Ironic typing, ad hominem fallacy) Alternatively, <reaction image of a baby crying or something completely irrelevant to the discussion or something> (Genuine lack of interest in any alternative opinions) When most culturally aware people hear "trans," that is generally what they will think of. Some skinny ass white boys with male guilt or something.

A majority of people don't like transgendered people because their religion says it's bad, actually. That's kinda where it all started.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42432938]Human nature or not, it's still something a dickhead does. Sometimes it's in human nature to be a dickhead. Doesn't make it alright, honestly.[/QUOTE] Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's okay. It's just understandable that it ends up happening with how often people seem to actively avoid having to put thought into their actions. [QUOTE=pdp;42432956]Yeah... no. Only retards do that. Like, what kind of shitty person would it take to hate a trans person just because they're unfamiliar? There are the obvious, socially inept and culturally dense idiots who are out of touch with this generation, but those people are pretty much universally hated by anyone with a sense of intelligence. Everyone I know who complains about the current state of acceptance of trans people always goes back to the phrase "spreading awareness," but I don't think someone stupid enough to think that trans people are bad would be capable of using the internet as a medium of intelligent discussion. With that, I'll segue into my point - why bother?[/QUOTE] Unfortunately the majority of the human race isn't exactly terribly intelligent. In my area at least you get people who are actually proud of the fact they're stupid as if it's some sort of badge of pride. With transgenderism in particular a ton of it is related to misconceptions or, in the case of young transgender people, people not bothering to actually research it well enough and assuming that a kid can just go get on hormones at the age of 5-6 which is utterly and completely incorrect. Numerous times here I've seen people post in transgender threads saying how kids shouldn't be allowed on hormones, they should have to wait until they're adults, and that they should be more careful to be certain that people won't regret these changes. But both of those are complete misconceptions about how it works because the very earliest you can even get on hormones anywhere is 16 with puberty blockers (which are completely reversible) coming at puberty. And that combined with the fact it takes tons of counseling for therapists to even approve hormones in the first place is exactly what some people argue should be happening. (Er, I think I missed the point I had started out trying to make by a long shot here... :v:)

I wish a ship of trans-friendly aliens would come to earth and bitch-slap the idiots in our species. Because we have far too many.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42433156]I wish a ship of trans-friendly aliens would come to earth and bitch-slap the idiots in our species. Because we have far too many.[/QUOTE] really First contact with an alien species would change everything, especially if they were more advanced than our entire race, it'd force us to get our shit together as a species so we can be prepared for whatever else might be out there. providing our first contact isn't like Independence Day. we can hope and dream it'll happen but we have better odds at trying to solve the problem ourselves without a alien influence.

[QUOTE=Whiterfire;42432117]This isn't a debate. There isn't a debate when there is only arguments for one side.[/QUOTE] I'll provide the other side. I'm a right-leaning Christian. I don't approve of this. But [I]please[/I], guys, I don't have negative attitudes towards transgender people. Just transgenderism itself. One of my biggest problems with it is teaching impressionable kids about it when they're young, and influencing them to think that they're gay/transgender/other things, such as this (read it in a doctor's waiting room): [url]http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20712691,00.html[/url]

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;42446232] teaching impressionable kids about it when they're young, and influencing them to think that they're gay/transgender/other things[/QUOTE] How common is this though to the point of where it shouldn't be accepted?