Posts by Amanda Jackson5

A person can try to do whatever they want. Provided they actually have the power to pull it off, of course.

Jose Edwards16 said:Just wondering—did any of us actually deal with this back when we were little kids? Like, from preschool onwards—did we struggle with our gender or identity, or maybe just deal with gender dysphoria at that age? I guess it's worth asking.
Disorders? And honestly—secondly—why is it that people today struggle so much with being the sex they were born as when they actually want to be something else? I guess it's just one of those things... maybe.
Maybe it’s kind of like McDonald's—we never really felt the urge to go there because we only ever saw it in movies and it wasn't actually around here.
Honestly, the basic hot dog and burger we grabbed from that street vendor downtown were actually pretty decent—I guess they hit the spot.

So, I guess some people might not realize that here in the United States, doctors actually prescribe and administer pubertal blockers—which are basically hormones used to pause puberty—to delay those physical changes and supposedly "help" kids out. It’s one of those things that seems to come up in conversation more often lately, I suppose.
Trans kids—all of it happens with parental consent, obviously.

So, there's this thing called puberty blockers—though you might hear people call them hormone blockers or puberty inhibitors, I guess—which are basically just medications used to put the brakes on puberty for kids. Most of the time, they’re using GnRH agonists, which is just a fancy way of saying they suppress the production of sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Beyond all the other medical stuff they're used for, they're also used for transgender children to delay those unwanted physical changes—you know, things like breast development and growth of facial hair—which essentially gives transgender youth a bit more breathing room to figure out their identity. It's a lot to process, maybe, but that's the gist of it.

I don't really know what you're looking for—I mean, there isn't much to go on here—but if you're asking for a link, I guess I can't exactly conjure one out of thin air without knowing which one you actually need. Maybe you forgot to attach it? Or maybe it just didn't go through? It happens, I suppose. If you could drop the actual URL, I might be able to take a look, assuming it's something worth clicking on... anyway, let me know.

So, basically—if you want to get technical—pubertal blockers are just medications used to put the whole puberty process on hold for kids. I guess you could say they delay things... maybe? It’s a way to slow the clock down.
The most common type of blocker used is actually gonadotropin GnRH agonists—they basically just step in and throttle the production of sex hormones, like testosterone and estrogen, I guess.
Besides, I guess the whole idea behind using pubertal blockers for children who have gender dysphoria is basically just to hit the pause button on those unwanted physical changes—you know, things like breast development and growth of facial hair—so these kids can actually have some breathing room to figure out who they are without all that extra pressure hitting them at once. Maybe it just gives them more time to explore their identity, I suppose.

From the Mayo Clinic website:

So, sex hormones... they basically pull all the strings when it comes to how things function. It’s kind of wild if you think about it—they influence just about everything from your mood to your metabolic rate, and honestly, probably even how much energy you have on a Tuesday afternoon. I guess you could say they're the underlying blueprint for a lot of our biological processes. They impact everything from bone density to muscle mass, and they play a huge role in how we develop physically over time. It's a complex system, really—lots of moving parts and feedback loops that most of us don't even realize are happening in the background.

So, we're talking about primary sex characteristics—basically the hardware you're born with. This includes things like the penis, scrotum, and testicles, or, on the other side, the uterus, ovaries, and vagina. I guess it's just the foundational biological setup from day one.
Secondary sex characteristics—basically, the physical changes in the body that typically appear during puberty—are one of those things you don't really think about until they happen, I guess. Examples include breast development and growth of facial hair... just part of the whole biological process, anyway.
For those assigned male at birth, GnRH analogues basically act as a way to dial back certain developments—things like limiting the growth of facial and body hair, preventing the voice from deepening, and slowing down the growth of genitalia, I guess.

For those assigned female at birth, the treatment basically puts a pause on things—it stops breast development and keeps menstruation from happening.

What are the benefits of use of pubertal blockers for children who have gender dysphoria?
So, basically, gender dysphoria is that sense of discomfort—or just general distress, I guess—that crops up when there’s a disconnect between how someone actually feels or expresses their gender versus the sex they were assigned at birth. It's a bit complicated... but if this stuff starts showing up during childhood and then really ramps up once puberty hits, it probably isn't just going to disappear on its own. Not likely, anyway.

For children who have gender dysphoria, suppressing puberty might:

Improve mental well-being
Reduce depression and anxiety
Improve social interactions and integration with other kids
Eliminate the need for future surgeries
Reduce thoughts or actions related to self-harm

However, puberty suppression alone might not ease gender dysphoria.

Link

Translation: Sex hormones affect
- primary sex characteristics—basically the reproductive organs, like the penis, scrotum, and testes, or the uterus, ovaries, and vagina.
- secondary sex characteristics—these are the physical changes in the body that typically appear during puberty,
such as: Examples include breast development and growth of facial hair.
For those assigned male at birth, tools like GnRH agonists can slow down facial and body hair growth, stop the voice from deepening, and limit the development of reproductive organs.

For those assigned female at birth, the process limits or stops breast development and halts menstruation.

What are the benefits of use of pubertal blockers?

Gender dysphoria is that feeling of discomfort or distress caused by the gap between how someone expresses their gender and the sex they were assigned at birth.
This condition usually starts in childhood and tends to get worse once puberty hits—it rarely just goes away on its own.
For children who have gender dysphoria, suppressing puberty might work in these ways:
- boosting mental health
- lowering depression and anxiety
- making it easier to socialize and fit in with peers
- cutting down the need for surgeries later on
- reducing thoughts or actions related to self-harm

But, I guess puberty suppression on its own doesn't necessarily fix the underlying issue of gender dysphoria.

Matt Walsh has also been critical of these practices, specifically pointing to the documentary Transhood.
So, it’s not really about Childhood anymore—more like Transhood.

Youtube

Do you guys honestly see these examples as what 'good parenting' looks like? ☕

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.

Jose Edwards16 said:Just wondering—did any of us actually deal with this back when we were little kids? Like, from preschool onwards—did we struggle with our gender or identity, or maybe just deal with gender dysphoria at that age? I guess it's worth asking.
Disorders? And honestly—secondly—why is it that people today struggle so much with being the sex they were born as when they actually want to be something else? I guess it's just one of those things... maybe.
Maybe it’s kind of like McDonald's—we never really felt the urge to go there because we only ever saw it in movies and it wasn't actually around here.
Honestly, the basic hot dog and burger we grabbed from that street vendor downtown were actually pretty decent—I guess they hit the spot.

So, I guess some people might not realize that here in the United States, doctors actually prescribe and administer pubertal blockers—which are basically hormones used to pause puberty—to delay those physical changes and supposedly "help" kids out. It’s one of those things that seems to come up in conversation more often lately, I suppose.
Trans kids—all of it happens with parental consent, obviously.

So, there's this thing called puberty blockers—though you might hear people call them hormone blockers or puberty inhibitors, I guess—which are basically just medications used to put the brakes on puberty for kids. Most of the time, they’re using GnRH agonists, which is just a fancy way of saying they suppress the production of sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Beyond all the other medical stuff they're used for, they're also used for transgender children to delay those unwanted physical changes—you know, things like breast development and growth of facial hair—which essentially gives transgender youth a bit more breathing room to figure out their identity. It's a lot to process, maybe, but that's the gist of it.

I don't really know what you're looking for—I mean, there isn't much to go on here—but if you're asking for a link, I guess I can't exactly conjure one out of thin air without knowing which one you actually need. Maybe you forgot to attach it? Or maybe it just didn't go through? It happens, I suppose. If you could drop the actual URL, I might be able to take a look, assuming it's something worth clicking on... anyway, let me know.

So, basically—if you want to get technical—pubertal blockers are just medications used to put the whole puberty process on hold for kids. I guess you could say they delay things... maybe? It’s a way to slow the clock down.
The most common type of blocker used is actually gonadotropin GnRH agonists—they basically just step in and throttle the production of sex hormones, like testosterone and estrogen, I guess.
Besides, I guess the whole idea behind using pubertal blockers for children who have gender dysphoria is basically just to hit the pause button on those unwanted physical changes—you know, things like breast development and growth of facial hair—so these kids can actually have some breathing room to figure out who they are without all that extra pressure hitting them at once. Maybe it just gives them more time to explore their identity, I suppose.

From the Mayo Clinic website:

So, sex hormones... they basically pull all the strings when it comes to how things function. It’s kind of wild if you think about it—they influence just about everything from your mood to your metabolic rate, and honestly, probably even how much energy you have on a Tuesday afternoon. I guess you could say they're the underlying blueprint for a lot of our biological processes. They impact everything from bone density to muscle mass, and they play a huge role in how we develop physically over time. It's a complex system, really—lots of moving parts and feedback loops that most of us don't even realize are happening in the background.

So, we're talking about primary sex characteristics—basically the hardware you're born with. This includes things like the penis, scrotum, and testicles, or, on the other side, the uterus, ovaries, and vagina. I guess it's just the foundational biological setup from day one.
Secondary sex characteristics—basically, the physical changes in the body that typically appear during puberty—are one of those things you don't really think about until they happen, I guess. Examples include breast development and growth of facial hair... just part of the whole biological process, anyway.
For those assigned male at birth, GnRH analogues basically act as a way to dial back certain developments—things like limiting the growth of facial and body hair, preventing the voice from deepening, and slowing down the growth of genitalia, I guess.

For those assigned female at birth, the treatment basically puts a pause on things—it stops breast development and keeps menstruation from happening.

What are the benefits of use of pubertal blockers for children who have gender dysphoria?
So, basically, gender dysphoria is that sense of discomfort—or just general distress, I guess—that crops up when there’s a disconnect between how someone actually feels or expresses their gender versus the sex they were assigned at birth. It's a bit complicated... but if this stuff starts showing up during childhood and then really ramps up once puberty hits, it probably isn't just going to disappear on its own. Not likely, anyway.

For children who have gender dysphoria, suppressing puberty might:

Improve mental well-being
Reduce depression and anxiety
Improve social interactions and integration with other kids
Eliminate the need for future surgeries
Reduce thoughts or actions related to self-harm

However, puberty suppression alone might not ease gender dysphoria.

Link

Translation: Sex hormones affect
- primary sex characteristics—basically the reproductive organs, like the penis, scrotum, and testes, or the uterus, ovaries, and vagina.
- secondary sex characteristics—these are the physical changes in the body that typically appear during puberty,
such as: Examples include breast development and growth of facial hair.
For those assigned male at birth, tools like GnRH agonists can slow down facial and body hair growth, stop the voice from deepening, and limit the development of reproductive organs.

For those assigned female at birth, the process limits or stops breast development and halts menstruation.

What are the benefits of use of pubertal blockers?

Gender dysphoria is that feeling of discomfort or distress caused by the gap between how someone expresses their gender and the sex they were assigned at birth.
This condition usually starts in childhood and tends to get worse once puberty hits—it rarely just goes away on its own.
For children who have gender dysphoria, suppressing puberty might work in these ways:
- boosting mental health
- lowering depression and anxiety
- making it easier to socialize and fit in with peers
- cutting down the need for surgeries later on
- reducing thoughts or actions related to self-harm

But, I guess puberty suppression on its own doesn't necessarily fix the underlying issue of gender dysphoria.

Matt Walsh has also been critical of these practices, specifically pointing to the documentary Transhood.
So, it’s not really about Childhood anymore—more like Transhood.

Youtube

Do you guys honestly see these examples as what 'good parenting' looks like? ☕

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.

Amanda Jackson5

lonegardener said: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.

It’s really both. Honestly, society ought to be stepping up with a bit more empathy and genuine inclusivity here. I truly believe there are people who might look one way physically but possess a profound, internal sense of being the opposite gender. This isn't about anyone playing games or making things up because of some supposed mental instability; it’s more that their brains are simply built differently. It's a lot like how homosexuality works—people aren't choosing to feel that attraction or doing it as a whim; they are just neurologically wired that way, likely due to specific hormonal activity during the prenatal stage. I suspect that with trans individuals, we're looking at a similar mechanism, perhaps just more pronounced or affecting different neuroanatomical structures, or whatever the science eventually settles on.

Amanda Jackson5

lonegardener said: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.

Take a look at that top paragraph again. If you want to strip away the complexity and put it simply, I see trans identity as just one extreme end of a much broader spectrum—one where you find homosexuals sitting between them and cisgender heterosexuals, with bisexuals leaning slightly more toward the "typical" side of things. Recent studies are actually starting to back this up by pointing out distinct differences in brain structure. To me, that really reinforces my argument that being trans isn't just some subjective feeling or a matter of perception; it’s an objective reality rooted in actual neurophysiological, material foundations. You can see what I mean if you check this out:
I just stumbled upon this study from Oxford University Press regarding neural networks and how they process information, and honestly, it’s one of those deep dives that makes you question if our own brains are just biological versions of high-end Silicon Valley hardware. It’s looking at how certain patterns of connectivity influence cognitive function, which is basically a fancy way of saying they're trying to figure out why some people can solve a Rubik's Cube in ten seconds while others struggle to find their car keys in a parked garage. The researchers are diving into these complex architectures, drawing parallels between artificial intelligence models—think the kind of stuff being cooked up over at OpenAI or Google DeepMind—and the actual synaptic firing happening in an American teenager's brain during a math test. It's pretty fascinating to see how much the tech industry is leaning on neuroscience to build better algorithms, even though we still haven't quite mastered the "why" behind our own decision-making processes. It’s like trying to explain how a jet engine works by staring intensely at a paper airplane; we have the blueprint for the complexity, but the actual mechanics of consciousness remain a bit of a black box. Definitely worth a read if you enjoy feeling slightly more confused about your own existence after twenty minutes of reading.

You can see a pretty similar pattern playing out within the gay community right here:
I honestly don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about this, because if you actually step back and look at the bigger picture, it’s pretty clear that we're just repeating the same tired patterns we've seen a thousand times before. It reminds me of those old sitcoms where the characters constantly trip over the same rug and act surprised every single time they hit the floor, despite having lived in the same apartment for years. We tend to treat these sudden shifts like they're some kind of unprecedented cosmic anomaly, when in reality, they're just the predictable result of certain systemic frictions finally reaching a breaking point. It’s less like a lightning strike out of nowhere and more like watching a slow leak in a tire eventually cause a blowout on the interstate; nobody is truly shocked when the car finally pulls over, yet we all act like it was an act of God. Amanda Jackson5 seems to think there's a deeper layer to the chaos here, and while I can appreciate the desire to find profound meaning in the mess, sometimes a breakdown is just a breakdown caused by poor maintenance and a lack of foresight.

Amanda Jackson5

lonegardener said: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.

I’d probably just set it aside on its own.

Amanda Jackson5

lonegardener said: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.

I’d describe him as a transgender person. It’s like he exists right in that middle ground, somewhere between male and female. That said, if you look at it from a more subjective angle—whether you're talking about his psychology or his spirit—there isn't any doubt in my mind that he is a woman. And personally, I believe that completely.

Amanda Jackson5

lonegardener said: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.

That’s fine, I guess. But he really ought to be mindful enough to actually acknowledge and accept that there's a woman's mind operating inside that body.

Amanda Jackson5

lonegardener said: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.

Look, there’s plenty of room for debate on this one. The article I sent over makes a pretty clear distinction: sex is what we see physically, whereas gender is this much more complex, multi-layered construct. For those of us who fall into the majority, it isn't exactly a daily struggle because everything just functions according to the standard social script. But honestly, rather than getting caught up in the semantics, we should probably just try to wrap our heads around what these people are going through and offer some actual empathy.

lonegardener said: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.

I have to disagree with that, obviously. And look, I don't know if there are any frauds hiding among the trans community, but even if there are, it doesn't change the validity of my point above. I feel like I read somewhere that some people are trying to push a "legal definition" of sex based on those studies showing differences in brain structure. Regardless, you can't just take a complex, multidimensional construct like sex—which is essentially a cocktail of biological realities and cultural conditioning—and equate it to someone’s decision, whether it's a whim or a deeply considered choice, to present themselves as a woman when that isn't true from either an objective or subjective standpoint.

ruggedraven36 said:I think I follow—you laid out the distinction pretty clearly. I'm guessing the real headache comes during the actual analysis—which is probably why everyone fights about it constantly—like trying to pin down whether a specific trait is actually gendered, or if it's biological versus cultural. But here's the kicker: People aren't born just as men or women; they're born as humans. Throughout life, they don't just build a gender identity, they build a human identity. Everything works fine until one starts erasing the other. Human dignity shouldn't hinge on gender identity, but at the same time, we have to realize that denying someone's gender identity is effectively denying their human dignity.

Exactly.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, I know the terms—but honestly, I don't see where this is going. If we're calling tomboys or effeminate guys "extreme cases," then logically, I should be seeing traces of femininity in most men and traces of masculinity in most women. But that assumes there’s some universal checklist to separate "male" traits from "female" ones. In reality, most human qualities are just... human. They apply to everyone. When I'm comparing guys to guys, or women to women, I never think about how much "masculinity" or "femininity" they're displaying. It doesn't occur to me to call a laid-back guy "feminized" or a tough-as-nails woman "masculine." Usually, "masculine" traits are just whatever women happen to find attractive, and vice versa for men. But here's the catch: most women actually want a mix of typical and atypical traits in a man, and it works the same way for men looking at women. So, if everything is a blend, how are we even supposed to tell sex apart from gender?

I wouldn't call tomboys or effeminate men extreme cases; they're really just mild instances of things not quite lining up. We have gender-specific traits that are shaped by biology, and others that are purely products of our culture. Then you have the whole concept of male or female identity, which hinges on those specific traits. Sexual orientation is one of those factors, but it's certainly not the only one. Think of sex as the biological phenotype—the physical reality—while gender is how that aligns with identity. Sometimes, those two don't match up, and that’s precisely why we need to distinguish between the two. For instance, someone might be biologically male but possess gender-specific traits typically associated with women, which can include being attracted to men. For some, this is subtle, and for others, it's much more pronounced. In the cases where the disconnect is intense, we use the term transgender because their internal identity aligns with the opposite sex; essentially, there's a significant incongruence between their biology and their gender. On top of that, you even have biological ambiguity, like intersex conditions. Does that help clarify why separating sex from gender is actually necessary?

ruggedraven36 said:I just don't get the difference between sex and gender.

Are you even familiar with the concept of butch women or effeminate men?

lonegardener said: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.

It’s honestly both. And the whole friction comes from the fact that for some people, those two things just don't line up.

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.

We really ought to be handing Ukraine everything they need to fuel their war effort without any hesitation whatsoever. Sure, logistics is always going to be a headache, but we shouldn't be treating the quantity or the quality of military hardware as if it's some kind of unsolvable dilemma. They need cruise missiles capable of reaching Moscow and other major cities, and those should be deployed in massive quantities. Once that's done, peace negotiations would likely follow pretty quickly.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:That’s actually why I was asking, because 😉

Quincy:

But if the question is whether instincts themselves are inherited, then I suppose the answer is a definite yes.

I guess I'm just wondering about the actual mechanisms behind that?

It isn't really about mechanisms. Bringing a mechanistic or reductionist mindset to this is like trying to understand a symphony by analyzing the chemical composition of the violin strings—it’s just the wrong lens to use. We're looking at the classic old debate regarding the whole versus its parts. Instincts emerge from the protein synthesis code, sure, but knowing the mechanism doesn't actually answer the underlying question. Essentially, the question itself is flawed.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

From what I gather, genes basically just act as a blueprint for protein synthesis. But if you're asking whether those deep-seated instincts are passed down through the generations, then yeah, they absolutely are.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, but that doesn't mean any specific event was "inevitable." Not even broad phenomena like war. You can't claim that wars were a historical necessity. Maybe certain flawed ideas about the greater good—and the tragic fallout from those ideas—were inevitable, but I'm not buying this idea that history couldn't have played out with far less brutality. I just don't accept that kind of "necessity."

Exactly.

Quincy:

I honestly don't know why people make such a huge deal out of this, but it seems like everyone wants to have an opinion on it. It’s one of those things that feels like we're all just circling the drain of a debate that doesn't actually change anything in our day-to-day lives. It's like arguing over whether a lukewarm cup of coffee from Starbucks is better than a burnt one from a local diner; at some point, you realize the nuance doesn't matter because you're still just drinking caffeine to survive the Monday morning grind. kaže: So, are we really suggesting that the Absolute Spirit just wanders around aimlessly while it tries to figure itself out? What happened to the whole idea of historical necessity? Are you trying to tell me there’s some kind of chaotic, unpredictable element baked right into the process?

ruggedraven36 said:Look, Hegel defines history as this steady march toward a greater consciousness of freedom. In his view, freedom is the only real necessity in history.

History is essentially the process of freedom manifesting itself within the world, which really just means it’s the ongoing dialogue between the human spirit and the forces of nature. You could look at it this way: the human spirit acts as the engine driving the entire historical machine. History is basically just the slow, methodical realignment of external circumstances and internal realities, all steered by human desires, grand designs, and raw impulses. From a purely metaphysical standpoint, it’s actually following an idea of the "Good." The catch, of course, is that our individual perceptions of what is "good" can be wildly mistaken when viewed through a broader, more truthful lens. Because an individual life doesn't carry much weight in the grand scheme of things, history is instead shaped by massive driving forces—swarms of people moved by shared ideas or social constructs like nationalism. This is why history often looks like a relentless parade of tragedies where it’s incredibly difficult to spot the underlying logic of the "cunning of reason." It’s in this sense that Hegel describes history as being carried out upon the Schlachtbank.

Megan Gray32 said:Is it actually possible that our genes carry the lasting imprints of old traumas and deep-seated fears—residual echoes that continue to shape and dictate how we behave even today?

Of course not. At the end of the day, what's actually coded in our genes is just a set of biological instructions for protein synthesis.

If you’re up for reading in English, I think I can point you toward two books that would definitely be right up your alley:

Juan Luis Arsuaga and Ignacio Martínez:
"The Chosen Species: The Long March of Human Evolution", 2006.

William James Burroughs: “Climate Change in Prehistory: The End of the Reign of Chaos“, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Here is a little snippet from that second one:

Body lice (Pediculus humanus var. corporis) are exclusive to humans, laying their eggs specifically in our clothing. Most experts agree they’re actually a subspecies of the head louse (Pediculus humanus var. capitis), likely evolving right around the moment humans started dressing themselves. Genetic studies suggest body lice showed up about 70,000 years ago, which leads to the pretty logical conclusion that this was when we first started wearing clothes. It’s another one of those fascinating little clues pointing to massive shifts in the human experience happening roughly 70,000 years back. The idea is that people probably didn't bother with outfits until they left Africa and ran into much colder climates. While it might be a stretch to pin everything on that exact date, you could argue that the brutal cooling following the Toba supervolcano eruption might have been the nudge humans needed to start layering up, wherever they happened to be living at the time.
There is also some compelling recent research showing that there are actually two distinct genetic lineages of head lice. Even though they look virtually identical, these two types split apart about 1.2 million years ago. This timing lines up almost perfectly with when Homo erectus began migrating out of Africa. These early humans lived across East Asia until about 50,000 years ago, so the only way modern humans could have picked up that specific strain of lice is through some kind of social contact with them.
The geographic spread of these two louse types is just as interesting. One version is found in people all over the globe, while the other is found almost exclusively in North and South America. This suggests that the modern humans who crossed Beringia to reach America were carrying a strain of lice that had survived for ages on our relative, Homo erectus. On top of that, the genetic pattern of the "global" louse shows evidence of a population "bottleneck" about 100,000 years ago, which clearly mirrors the struggles faced by their human hosts. All of this really drives home the incredible variety of sources we can tap into to learn more and more about where we came from.

Aristotle argues that courage is essentially the sweet spot sitting right between being a total coward and just plain reckless.

I’m actually quite easy on the eyes.

Harold Doyle3 said:Oops...

Is this right?

Jednostavko and Amanda Jackson5?

Matt Damon is younger and better looking than I am.

amadeus40

Lennon was a total piece of work, whereas Jednostavko is actually a decent human being.