Posts by lonegardener

hiddeneagle98 said:Look, if the man says he isn't playing games, then you have to take him at his word.

If he were actually bluffing, he’d probably just admit it. That would make much more sense. 🤣

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I don't know about you, but I think one of my absolute biggest phobias would be any kind of contact with another man's genitals. If that were to happen, even by accident, I honestly think I'd spend the next three months scrubbing myself with industrial disinfectant and fishing in a lake just to feel clean again. So, in that very literal sense, the word 'phobia' is actually perfectly accurate.

On the flip side, I guess every other man feels like a bit of a threat; I think the first thing my brain does when I meet another guy is subconsciously assess whether I could actually take him in a fight if things ever went south. And it's not even a conscious thought, it's just this totally subconscious reflex.

Then again, when I see a woman for the first time, I think my brain's initial subconscious process is basically just wondering if I'd want to sleep with her or not. 🤷

🤣 Well, in your case, "phobia" might actually be an understatement, lol. Personally, I’d probably call it a "strong aversion" or something along those lines.

@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.

It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Wait, what?

It feels like even our vocabulary is undergoing some kind of identity crisis now where words can just change who they are whenever they want!

I mean, at its core, a phobia is just a fear, right? And I really don't think fear and hatred are even remotely the same thing.

Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering. 🤣

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I honestly wish I could just find myself a man in a woman's body! I suppose I would marry him in a heartbeat, since it feels like it might just be the most perfect, ideal way to get the best of both worlds, 🤣

That might actually be a pretty bad idea. In today's climate, you'd probably end up "transitioning"—well, take your pick on the terminology—with gender-affirming therapies before you know it. 🤣

So, you start the testosterone tests... and you might even end up getting some surgical implants to mimic certain anatomy..

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose anyone here who claims to speak on behalf of men is just trolling until they actually marry a trans woman; only then might I consider their convictions to be anything more than a joke.

Yeah, that’s basically just people talking out of their asses to feel important. 🤣

But look, there are definitely people who mean it. Take Blair White's boyfriend, for example. lol.

By the way, here is what Blair White had to say about Matt Walsh's documentary 'What is a woman?'.

lonetrucker4 said:It’s not some kind of admission. Just clearing up the definitions, plain and simple.

This video hits on a massive headache sports leagues are dealing with right now because of gender transitions. You've got guys on hormone therapy who've had bottom surgery, and they look like women through and through—we're talking curves, smooth skin, no stubble, the whole deal.

So what’s the move then? Let them compete in the women's division, or does that guy still carry around an "unfair" advantage just because he was born male and had all that testosterone pumping through him during puberty?

What even is "fairness" in elite sports? Let's be real—top-tier female athletes naturally carry more testosterone than your average woman on the street.

That's a heavy question, and honestly? Way too complicated for you. You wouldn't care even if I gave you the answer.

Look, there aren't even any actual metrics for "trans people" right now—it's basically just based on whatever someone says they are. That's the reality today.

Honestly, you've got a major identity crisis going on. You're just feeling threatened because of how everyone else is defining themselves.

I get it. I’ve been through that same shift myself—back when being gay was just some punchline for a joke and anyone wanting to transition was considered totally insane. Fifty years ago, pretty much everyone thought that way.

Those two categories aren't even the same thing. She spends maybe one whole sentence on the distinction, just tossing out that "treating intersex people sets a precedent for treating transgender people." I'm not buying it. One doesn't just lead to the other like that.

Your disagreement doesn't mean squat. She's talking about decades of research and actual rules set by major sports leagues.

She acts like she’s all about the "science," but let's be real—it's pretty obvious her "data" just follows whatever political agenda she's already decided on.

That’s on you, not her. She isn't out here preaching about gender theory or whatever—she's talking about one specific, real-world issue.

Actually, I care quite a bit. Here is my concise take: the situation should be structured so that the proportion of "trans women" in women's competition is roughly equal to the proportion of "trans men" in men's competition.

😬

It isn't hard to calculate what that means in practice, and it leads to the conclusion that everything else is just empty philosophy—just endless arguing and stalling for purely ideological reasons.

lonetrucker4 said:It’s not some kind of admission. Just clearing up the definitions, plain and simple.

This video hits on a massive headache sports leagues are dealing with right now because of gender transitions. You've got guys on hormone therapy who've had bottom surgery, and they look like women through and through—we're talking curves, smooth skin, no stubble, the whole deal.

So what’s the move then? Let them compete in the women's division, or does that guy still carry around an "unfair" advantage just because he was born male and had all that testosterone pumping through him during puberty?

What even is "fairness" in elite sports? Let's be real—top-tier female athletes naturally carry more testosterone than your average woman on the street.

That's a heavy question, and honestly? Way too complicated for you. You wouldn't care even if I gave you the answer.

Look, there aren't even any actual metrics for "trans people" right now—it's basically just based on whatever someone says they are. That's the reality today.

Honestly, you've got a major identity crisis going on. You're just feeling threatened because of how everyone else is defining themselves.

I get it. I’ve been through that same shift myself—back when being gay was just some punchline for a joke and anyone wanting to transition was considered totally insane. Fifty years ago, pretty much everyone thought that way.

Those two categories aren't even the same thing. She spends maybe one whole sentence on the distinction, just tossing out that "treating intersex people sets a precedent for treating transgender people." I'm not buying it. One doesn't just lead to the other like that.

Your disagreement doesn't mean squat. She's talking about decades of research and actual rules set by major sports leagues.

She acts like she’s all about the "science," but let's be real—it's pretty obvious her "data" just follows whatever political agenda she's already decided on.

That’s on you, not her. She isn't out here preaching about gender theory or whatever—she's talking about one specific, real-world issue.

You aren't seeing the point at all, Zoki. For goodness' sake, how they "identify" is a minor issue compared to the real problem: people assuming their self-identification is automatically relevant to the entire world (including me).

That is the overarching issue of our era, which I call "special snowflakery." It seems a massive segment of the population believes that "society" should constantly be catering to their specific psychological whims and various other issues.

And this "special snowflakery" pairs perfectly with another widespread modern phenomenon: the famous "virtue signaling." How does this symbiosis work? The "special snowflakes" believe their personal trivialities are somehow significant to society. Meanwhile, the "virtue signaling" crowd panders to them to assert their own moral (and intellectual) superiority over the rest of the "backward" world. That's just my opinion, anyway. 😬

Here is a really solid video by the same woman. My only issue is that she doesn't seem to apply her own logic consistently. We have mountains of evidence regarding how the social sciences actually operate. A lot of that data—take something like publication bias, for instance—suggests that being skeptical of "findings" in those fields isn't even comparable to questioning the rock-solid results we see in physics. 😬

If you want to get a real sense of what's actually going on in the social sciences, you should definitely check out agitator. 😬

lonetrucker4 said:Physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder just dropped a new video about trans women in sports. Check it out. Her channel’s huge—she keeps things snappy, simple, and actually knows her stuff. Even when she tackles topics outside her usual lane, she brings in the right experts to back her up.

She breaks down why this isn't some black-and-white issue like people think, especially those stuck in that rigid, old-school "men are men, women are women, end of story" mindset. Major sports leagues have been wrestling with this for nearly 40 years now. Scientists are digging into it too, and the data isn't exactly straightforward—it varies wildly depending on the sport...

[/I]

It’s like that old saying goes—if you gather enough data, you can use statistical methods to prove just about anything you want. 🤣

Looking at her entire argument, only two points really jump out at me. First off, I have to give her credit for being upfront about the fact that most trans people aren't intersex.

Intersex conditions represent an objective, measurable medical reality. 😬 I don't have any issue with treating them separately.

Look, we don't actually have any objective metrics for "transgender identity" as it stands today—it’s strictly a matter of self-identification.

Those two categories aren't the same thing, yet she dedicates exactly one sentence to the distinction, merely stating that "the treatment of intersex people sets a precedent for the treatment of transgender people." I have to disagree there. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

Another interesting point here is pure sophistry. It’s that classic move where people try to relativize the concept of "fairness" regarding trans women competing in women's sports by arguing that not all biological females have the exact same physical predispositions. Give me a break. That’s not how this works—sports are defined by competing within the framework of "innate biology plus training." Think about it: why isn't doping allowed? You can't just argue, "Well, sports aren't inherently fair anyway, so what's the big deal if someone uses PEDs?" She tries to frame her argument as being "science-based," but it’s painfully obvious that her version of science always seems to bend toward a pre-existing ideological stance. The funniest part is watching the commenters below praising her for somehow "avoiding ideology." Honestly, those people wouldn't recognize ideology if it painted itself purple, danced naked on a piano, and sang, "Hey look, it's ideology!" 🤣

Sure, anyone can "babble whatever they want"—that’s what we call freedom of speech.

You have the right to counter any "babbling" with actual, coherent arguments. That's how you convince someone of the "scientific truths" being shoved down their throats by people whose "research papers" wouldn't even pass a replication test half the time. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter because their methods are total garbage. They take advanced statistical models and apply them to "data" pulled from surveys as flimsy as the ones used at Gloria. LOL. How does the saying go? You can't make a cake out of crap, no matter how good the chef is.

Honestly, I value basic common sense more than the nonsense some circles try to sell as science today—nonsense they cling to with more conviction than religious dogmas did 400 years ago.

(I'm not usually one to champion folk wisdom, but it helps illustrate my point about gender ideology and other modern nonsense.)

BTW, that wasn't a link to the Sokal affair, but to a stunt performed years later. Sokal published one such paper, though there were many more intended; they actually managed to get four published before those guys finally realized they were being pranked, lol.

lonetrucker4 said:Quote:

Apemant says: They just hand people a survey and call it a day. That's what I call hard science, lol.

Duh, it’s definitely not "hard science"—if you even want to swap that vague term out for "exact science."

The thing is, when you're dealing with this kind of stuff, there aren't any "hard" methods to lean on.

Doesn't stop you from making "hard" claims, though.

Most guys don't sweat being male or female.

But pretty much everyone hits a wall sometimes questioning their masculinity—or whatever I'm calling "manliness" today. Am I really man enough?

That’s the line between sex and gender.

Some German author once wrote a book called "Generation Ally McBeal" about women's struggles in the modern world (and that show was 25 years ago already).

They could probably write a "Generation Y" book based on one of the guys from the show about the mess men deal with.

What kind of "hardline" stances am I even taking? Look, this is a forum, not some stuffy scientific symposium. I don't see any issue with being a bit provocative or doubling down on my views if they even exist to begin with. So, what would they be? Go ahead—pick out three or four of my most "controversial" takes.

Look, I’ll give you a "hard" take: I have zero respect for that specific brand of "science." If a field of study boils down to nothing more than endless hand-wringing and checking off boxes on a survey—without any actual way to externally verify their supposed "findings"—then I'm out. When it feels like a tiny clique of "experts" is just peer-reviewing one another solely to satisfy the formalities of the "scientific method," it loses all credibility in my eyes. I don't buy into it blindly.

Look at this stuff. It’s entirely possible to get scammed by that kind of "science." Or, you know, just hit Google. The "replication crisis" is one of those terms that sounds incredibly academic, but the implications are actually pretty unsettling. Essentially, we’re seeing a massive wave of scientific studies being called into question because other researchers simply can't reproduce the results. It turns out that a lot of what we thought was established fact might just be statistical noise or the result of flawed methodology. It’s a bit of a wake-up call for the entire scientific community. If we can't trust that an experiment will yield the same outcome twice, then the foundation starts to feel a little shaky. It forces us to ask: how much of our "knowledge" is actually solid, and how much is just a lucky fluke? It’s definitely a sobering moment for anyone who values empirical truth..

Back in 2015, a massive study dropped a bombshell on the scientific community: when researchers tried to replicate 97 different studies, they hit a wall. Fewer than 40 percent actually held up under scrutiny. Then, in 2018, another sweeping project took a look at 28 findings spanning from the 1970s all the way through 2014. The verdict? Only about half of them were actually verifiable. It really makes you wonder how much of what we "know" is built on shaky ground.

A landmark study back in 2015 revealed some pretty sobering news: out of 97 attempts to replicate previous research findings, less than 40 percent actually held up. Then, another massive project in 2018 took a look at 28 different studies spanning from the 1970s all the way through 2014. The results? They found evidence to support only about half of them.

Ask yourself how much of what you claim to "know" actually holds water. You probably read somewhere that "science has proven" it, but let’s be real: a huge chunk of those studies falls into that messy category of results that simply can't be replicated. And I mean *can't*—it's a massive issue. Even when they claim a study has been successfully replicated, if the entire process boils down to nothing more than checking boxes on a questionnaire, can we even call it science? 🤦 That wouldn't be particularly convincing either. Especially if half of them can't even replicate the process to get the same results.

lonetrucker4 said:Quote:

Apemant says: They just hand people a survey and call it a day. That's what I call hard science, lol.

Duh, it’s definitely not "hard science"—if you even want to swap that vague term out for "exact science."

The thing is, when you're dealing with this kind of stuff, there aren't any "hard" methods to lean on.

Doesn't stop you from making "hard" claims, though.

Most guys don't sweat being male or female.

But pretty much everyone hits a wall sometimes questioning their masculinity—or whatever I'm calling "manliness" today. Am I really man enough?

That’s the line between sex and gender.

Some German author once wrote a book called "Generation Ally McBeal" about women's struggles in the modern world (and that show was 25 years ago already).

They could probably write a "Generation Y" book based on one of the guys from the show about the mess men deal with.

I’d call those kinds of questions "psychological struggles." Or maybe existential, or spiritual—take your pick. Honestly, I don't see much purpose in this whole modern concept of "gender." It feels like one of those progressive inventions from the last few decades, lol.
People can call it "gender" if they really want to. But for me, biological reality carries far more weight than any psychological struggle. Take the whole Bruce Jenner situation, for example—someone being unsure if they’re a "real man" or a "woman at heart" isn't a valid reason for me to start calling a healthy, fertile man a "woman."

Amanda Jackson5 said:Who, us? I mean, someone definitely went through that; the statistics suggest it hits about 1 in 30,000 men and 1 in 100,000 women.

In my previous comment, I was trying to touch upon the reasons behind that distress. People have always struggled with this, not just recently; it's just that back then, nobody really talked about it openly.

America 2017 this "scientific paper" (if you can call it that) claims the incidence is 1 in 250.

I guess "brains" just started being born upside down en masse over the last few years. 😬

WE used dati fra national surveys to estimate The population siz of transgender People in The United States. Estimates of The number of transgender adults significantly increased over The pasti decade, with a current best estimate of 390 per 100,000 adults. That is about 1 in every 250 adults, or almost 1 million Americans. Thes numbers May be more typical of younger adults Than of The entire US population. We expect that future surveys will find higher numbers of transgender people and recommend that standardized questions be used, which will allow a more accurate population size estimate.

WE used dati fra national surveys to estimate The population siz of transgender People in The United States. Estimates of The number of transgender adults significantly increased over The pasti decade, with a current best estimate of 390 per 100,000 adults. That is about 1 in every 250 adults, or almost 1 million Americans. Thes numbers May be more typical of younger adults Than of The entire US population. We expect that future surveys will find higher numbers of transgender people and recommend that standardized questions be used, which will allow a more accurate population size estimate.

Of course, the "typical" response to this is that the number of transgender people hasn't actually grown—they were just "hiding" before and are now coming out more often. But look at how this "science" works: they simply hand people a questionnaire to fill out. That’s what I call hard science, lol. Then they toss in these supposed differences in brain structure, but to me, that sounds like a reach. In 99% of these studies babbling about "transgender" individuals, no actual measurement of "brain structure" is even happening. It’s mostly just people filling out surveys. It's nothing more than glorified guesswork.

I finally stumbled upon an incredibly solid, deep-dive documentary that tackles a similar question: What is a man?

🤣

David Robinson26 said:🤦
About what, exactly?
Are we supposed to take a definitive stance just because there happen to be gay individuals among trans people or other groups?
It is as if they don't exist in the rest of the population, which isn't necessarily true either.

Advocates for transgender ideology are actively *backing* the actions of Zoe Saldana. So, this isn't just some isolated incident involving a "gay guy"; it's a perfect example of how everything fits into a much larger narrative. Zoe Saldana isn't required (sorry, I mean "required," lol) to 'explain' her gender identity to anyone; she simply identifies as a woman, and if you don't accept that, you get labeled a transphobe. 🤣

Here’s a little more food for thought:

This older guy, a local shop owner, hung a sign outside his door that read: "if you were born with a dick, you're not a chick." 🤣

Well, some guy in a skirt—who happens to be a local city councilman—spotted it and demanded the owner take it down. So, you have this tall, burly guy who is very obviously a man. Look, nobody is stopping him from wearing a skirt, but apparently, that isn't enough for him: he wants *society* to loudly "validate" that he is a woman. It’s a very interesting concept.

Then there’s an older example: Ben Shapiro addressed Zoe Tur as "sir" (instead of, presumably, "ma'am" 🤦)

—to which the guy put his hand on Ben Shapiro's neck and said, "you can cut it out, or you'll go home in an ambulance."

Ben Shapiro gave a pretty weak response to that. He really should have said: DUDE! That was soooo ladylike, I'm sure everyone is now convinced that you are, in fact, a woman. 🤣

Sigmunde, I'm honestly not sure if I misunderstood you, or if you've just gotten your wires crossed.

The existence of "tomboyish women," or atypical men and atypical women, isn't up for debate. I don't believe all women "have" to be identical or follow some rigid, stereotypical feminine blueprint. I have nothing against a man being interested in things that might statistically lean more toward female interests, and vice versa.

The mere fact that such people exist—those where there's a visible "mismatch" between biological reality and certain typical interests or psychological traits (what people today call "gender identity")—isn't what I'm disputing. Here is the actual point of contention:

How *should* society react? How should we treat this self-proclaimed identity when it doesn't align with objective, natural reality? Should society prioritize objective facts, or someone's subjective, self-constructed "identity"?

So, let me present Exhibit "A" again: Bruce Jenner, Olympic decathlon winner.

That individual now claims to be a "woman." I’m simply asking: what exactly makes that person a woman? Is it just because he decided he "feels like a woman" (or "identifies" as one, whatever that entails)? If that person ends up in prison for a crime, should they be housed with the women, or how would you handle that? What logic dictates that society should publicly recognize this *man* as a "woman," lol? Or on a personal level—if you were privately discussing Jenner with your own wife at home, would you use female pronouns? (Caitlyn Jenner won Olympic gold in the decathlon...) If you would, why exactly?

I don't really follow your talk about "dignity" either. The person mentioned above is a man. I'm not stripping him of his "human dignity" by refusing to view him as a woman, simply because he isn't one. Period. I am looking at the term "woman" through an objective, biological lens. That's the core of it: this attempt by the transgender movement to redefine the word "woman" so that it no longer describes a natural fact, but instead refers to a person's "gender identity." By that logic, anyone could just stand up and declare, "I am a woman," and instantly *become* one—because there is no way for us to actually "measure" someone's identity.

Sam Martinez9 said:However, if you want to know what the LGBTQ community is pushing, you actually have to take an interest in it. Personally, I haven't the slightest clue what their specific talking points are; at most, I might glance at a headline about a parade in New York City and leave it at that.

In the same vein, I don't follow fashion. I have no idea what’s considered "in" right now, nor do I intend to spend my time scrolling through websites or flipping through magazines to see what the trends are for this season.

I'm guessing you don't watch much modern film or TV. Honestly, that's probably for the best. 👍 It's much better to stick to books than to consume all that garbage on screen. Maybe I should follow your lead and cut back on the streaming too, lol.

Amanda Jackson5 said:The biological distinctions between sexes are actually pretty clearly defined. Just because there are some outliers or transitional cases caused by hormonal imbalances that don't fit neatly into those boxes doesn't mean the definitions themselves are flawed. It’s a simple reality that certain traits and inclinations are biologically hardwired. At the same time, though, you have to recognize that sex serves as the foundation for the cultural and social layers we call gender. Think of sex as the physical hardware and gender as the software running on top of it. They’re like two overlapping circles in a Venn diagram—they share a massive amount of common ground, but they aren't a 100% perfect match.

Exactly. Now the real question is whether the term "woman" refers to that biological reality—an adult human female—or if it refers to this social/psychological construct called "gender," which isn't a perfect match for the former.

Personally, I lean toward the first definition. 😬 Because the second one is just a can of worms. "Gender" isn't necessarily limited to two categories anymore; on Facebook, you can choose from sixty different "identities" if you want. People are already mass-producing entire new grammars just to accommodate these invented labels.

he/him
she/her
xe/xir
ze/zir
ey/em
ve/ver
ne/nem
per/pers
...

and so on.

Sam Martinez9 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about who gets what kind of recognition. People try to honor Reagan as some sort of founding father figure, but frankly, it doesn't move the needle for me.

And that’s really the core difference between us. I'm indifferent to the whole thing, whereas you seem to be deeply invested in it for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around.

Well, would you be interested in finally learning why I actually "care" about this topic—even if it's something you find completely trivial? 😬

Sam Martinez9 said:I wrote:

Fair enough, perhaps I wasn't being clear—what I find interesting are the people who actually find transgender individuals interesting.

Why? 🤔 What’s so fascinating about that?

Secondly, I'm not even that particularly interested in "transgender" people myself (well, just a little bit). What actually interests me are social phenomena—like the one you're illustrating perfectly right now: claiming you "aren't interested" in a topic, yet you just can't help but comment on it. It reminds me of that old fable... honestly, I run into a whole crowd of people like this all the time. They go out of their way to insist they aren't interested, but then they're suddenly incredibly intrigued by "what makes someone else drawn to it," lol.

Take stamp collecting, for example. I have zero interest in it... and consequently, I have no interest in why anyone else might enjoy it. I am totally indifferent to the whole thing. 😍

lonetrucker4, if anything is "boring" today, it isn't "transphobic propaganda"—it's exactly what you're doing right now: the tedious repetition of trans dogmas like "trans women are women."🤣

Seriously, you can't open a single non-right-wing news outlet these days without seeing a whole flock of sheep eagerly chanting the obvious nonsense that "trans women are women."

The reality is quite the opposite: trans women are men (who either dress as women, shave to look like women, or undergo various surgeries and medical treatments to appear female).

lonetrucker4 said:More of the same boring, basic propaganda against "gender ideology" and mocking "trans" folks.

If we actually wanted to get philosophical, we could have a real debate about
what it means to be a woman, or even broader—what "female" actually signifies—instead of just clowning on random non-philosophical statements.

Once you try to pin down a precise biological definition that covers more than just Homo sapiens, it turns out things aren't nearly as clear-cut as people pretend.

Sure, the simple version is: penis equals male, vagina equals female. But nowadays, surgery can change that, and hormone therapy can flip physiological sexual traits entirely.

Inevitably, the debate crashes into social roles and personality variations—basically "gender studies." And honestly, some people just flat-out ignore biological facts. Meanwhile, others dogmatically insist that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," acting like that's the beginning and end of the conversation.

A philosopher's job is to question what "everyone knows" to be true.

But just sitting there saying "we don't know" isn't doing philosophy.
So, I did some digging and found an essay by a philosophy professor over in Australia: https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

He writes specifically about the biological definition of sex: it's not about physiology, it's about genetics—specifically, what kind of gametes an individual produces. On the flip side, there's the whole discussion regarding the definition of "woman," which brings in gender.

There it is again—that "boring" trans-dogmatic way of muddying the waters. Sure, "sex" can ultimately be viewed as two dominant reproductive strategies. And yes, nothing in biology is 100% "binary"; there are always deviations and so-called "errors." That's why genetic conditions exist where it can actually be difficult to categorize an individual as "male" or "female."

But that has almost nothing to do with transgender ideology. That ideology explicitly *denies* any connection to biology or biological phenomena like genetic malformations; instead, it claims that a perfectly healthy man can be a "woman" simply because he "identifies" as such.

I have to ask... when did *you personally* start believing that if a healthy man starts taking female hormones and dressing "like a woman," 😕 — he actually becomes a "woman"? I'm genuinely curious. 😬 How did that logic even work for you? What arguments managed to convince you of such blatant nonsense? lol