What transgender activists don't want you to know...

Post Reply New Topic

I need more pictures or a video clip to determine which one is a trans woman. I'd probably be able to guess with a 99% accuracy if I saw the women in the pictrue move or talk. A CAIS woman is a woman with male chromosomes, but who is otherwise a woman (i.e. walks, sounds and is like a woman). CAIS shows it's first signs a few weeks into the trimester, and thus prevents the fetus from becoming a boy. Sexuality has little to do with gender; there are plenty of gay men who have a lot of testosterone and plenty of lesbian women who have a lot of estrogen.

Let's turn the tables: What's the difference between a transwoman and a man that looks like a woman, or a transman and a woman who looks like a man? Usually, you can see it in a second if a woman is a trans woman:

Most transwomen are way more pretty and feminine than I am. Not that that makes a bloody difference to anything, it's just that sex is (mostly) a binary (barring intersex) whereas it's quite patently obvious that gender isn't. Society wouldn't go apeshit in prescribing roles for people if that wasn't the case.

Kurgan, I get that you're only attracted to people who fall are female in sex and on the superfeminine end of the gender spectrum. Just because you're not attracted to transwomen who are male in sex but still on the superfeminine end of the gender spectrum (when other people are like - 'why not? How can you tell?' I don't personally care if you fancy transwomen or not) - doesn't mean you're qualified to say what is and isn't a 'real woman' - because that's a value judgement. Saying 'transwomen are male in terms of sex chromosomes and early development' is a basic statement of fact, saying 'they're not real women' isn't. But I'm not sure that you're actually saying 'they're not real women' and I suspect people are just taking you the wrong way.

And for the record, in real life I can usually tell a transwoman (I can't tell from photos) even they are 1,000% times girlier than me. It's not totally accurate though, and as SRS gets more sophisticated, it's going to be very difficult to tell.

You really can't "see it in a second". Not with any accuracy if you actually record people's guesses. People guess wrong all the time, and plenty of trans people are capable of and choose to live without ever telling new acquaintances that they're transgender.

Anyone that thinks people just "know" should try hanging out with some very butch cisgender women. I guarantee at least one of them will have a story about other women confronting them in the bathroom about why a "man" is in the women's restroom!

when you consider that the individual in the left of this picture is a cis-woman, Kurgans grievances with the 'legitimacy' of transwomen seem trite at best.

I've mistaken men for women in lesbian bars and done flirtatious dancing with them

It's not bad for me because I like men as well, but it looks bad around all those lesbians to see what to them looks like a straight invasion of their space.

if you were flirting with mtf's its unlikely they want to be considered as men.

No, these guys were men presenting as men going to lesbian bars to pick up drunken bi girls like me - they weren't trying to present as women. You get them in the Gay Village.

I'm just quite s**t at telling who is a butch woman and who is a man sometimes.

Okay, so we now know Kurgan doesn't believe whether or not someone is a real woman is based on the chromosomes or skeletal features alone.

What, then, about a transwoman who transitions pre-puberty, and thus has the skeletal features of a female but XY chromosomes, putting her in the same position as a woman with CAIS?

(By the way, those were two cis women. I was seeing if you'd label one as trans after being primed.)

I'm still waiting to hear from Kurgan how to tell if someone is a proper man or a woman. What if they have XY chromosomes, and were born with testicles? Proper woman, or not?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article basically boils down to saying that transgenderism is based entirely in sexuality? Transgendered people are either homosexuals that want to become more attractive to the same sex or some weird "autogynephilia" fetishist? Seems rather broad and simplistic doesn't it?

What is the relevance to transgendered activists by the way? Either way this doesn't change the basic principle that people should be free to live their lives the way they see fit does it?

I can explain this in a much shorter statement than that article...here we go...

PEOPLE BELIEVE LIES ALL THE TIME.

Many folks credit Hitler with the quote, "If you tell a lie long enough, often enough, and loud enough, people will believe it."

I've been tempted by homosexual thoughts sometimes, and have even been approached by gay guys more than once...but I refuse to accept that way of life as good or appropriate in any context. People can (and will) argue "emotional design" like crazy, but they ignore the design of their own bodies. Men were made for women, and vice versa; it's that simple.

So, you're not gay. Neat.

Some people are gay, though, through no choice of their own. I know some of them; heck, I am one of them. We're certainly capable of living good and appropriate lives, too. And our bodies fit our purposes just fine ... quite fine, actually. Indeed, some men live out their lives just fine with other men; some women do the same with other women; and of course, many men and women will build happy lives together, too. We're nothing if not a diverse species.

Some people are also transgender: that is, their gender identity doesn't match their biological sex. It happens, sometimes. Talk to people with gender dysphoria and find out for yourself, rather than making generalisations based on quotes attributed to Hitler. I mean, the article that the OP posted brings up some interesting points about the possible motivations of some transgender people, but it doesn't negate the real-life experiences of those with gender dysphoria.

If you are attracted to men, you are bisexual. Whether or not you act on your desires, or suppress them into a tight, angry ball, this remains so.



Being gay, or having a same-sex relationship (however long or short) is not a "way of life". Being gay does not inform the morality or decision-making of homosexuals in any way outside of choosing their carnal partners. To dismiss a group of people as being "not good or appropriate in any context" is, in my view, morally repugnant.



I am not a proponent of emotional design, nor do I have any regard for those who assert that the human body has been designed. Despite this, I disagree with your assessment.

Had you argued that sexuality that is different from the established norm (i.e. straight) is a result of nurture, then you might have had something resembling a point - and one which I happen to agree with. The environment we are brought up in, however, is almost completely outside our control until such a time as those who influence us most - usually our parents - are no longer perceived as infallible.

I am not bisexual. I've never pursued another man with any kind of sexual interest, period. The very thought of it creeps me out, to be honest. Temptation does not equal desire, and not every thought which enters our minds is truly our own.

I like how Frank Turek answered the cliche question of "choosing to be straight"...

"I don't remember where my desires originally came from, because I was a just a baby. I do know that I was born in bed with a lady."

He also points out that those who believe in "survival of the fittest" should actually reject homosexuality, since the implication behind such a hypothesis is that if a genetic component actually existed, it would've been erased by now through mutation. He even goes so far as to ask how such desires would be passed between generations with the phrase, "Did you have homosexual parents?"

Was Frank Turek into incest, then?

He obviously doesn't believe genetic science, so maybe.

He addresses the subject of incest being practiced prior to the Ten Commandments in one of his lectures, answering the question of where Cain got his wife from. He also uses science to explain how mutation actually works, as opposed to the "increasing information" theory offered by evolutionists.