[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
[quote]Aero51 wrote:
So, I am not trying to be a jerk here, but is this “gender transitioning” that seems to be so common today brought on by group-think amongst men? What strikes me is how rarely you see the converse - women transitioning to men. And I am not trying to be a bigger jerk by saying this, but could additives that we use so commonly in everyday things (such as plastics) that are known and proven to reduce testosterone or increase estrogen production, contributing to this cultural shift? It seems strange, that is all, between how quickly it happens and how men seem to be overwhelmingly more moved than women.[/quote]
What Jasmincar said. There are plenty of former gals gone lads but my guess is that the male>female route tends to make bigger headlines; there are a number of ways to explain this, many of them to do with gender roles.[/quote]
It is definitely related to gender roles. Think about society views men who are a hairdresser or airline steward vs how we view women who are construction workers or military.[/quote]
That’s what I meant. A guy becoming a girl decreases his social value in our society. I just decided to separate the facts from the gender studies interpretation of them since the latter are a bit of a red rag to some posters.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Hah. Can always count on you.
Matt Kroc seems like a pretty cool guy.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Personally, I couldn’t give less of a shit what she does with her own body, whether it be take a bunch of gear to get massive gains, or a bunch of gear to grow hips and tits.
I’m only posting to point out how civil the thread has been, and express how impressed I am with the T-Nation community for not making this a shit show.
Circa 2010, this would have been a disaster thread I think. [/quote]
I hope this does not derail anything but, it is only because it is Matt Kroc.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Personally, I couldn’t give less of a shit what she does with her own body, whether it be take a bunch of gear to get massive gains, or a bunch of gear to grow hips and tits.
I’m only posting to point out how civil the thread has been, and express how impressed I am with the T-Nation community for not making this a shit show.
Circa 2010, this would have been a disaster thread I think. [/quote]
I hope this does not derail anything but, it is only because it is Matt Kroc.
[/quote]
I think the civility is because many of the posters matured and their lives got more serious (myself included) and the reckless ones did not or lost interest in posting here.
Although these days I feel very hesitant to post on serious matters on social media and forums, I have been less hesitant here because I believe we have a high quality, mature group here now who can see things from multiple angles and are tolerant to opposing views, dissent, or whatever, thought they certainly do not see eye-to-eye on everything.
[quote]Aero51 wrote:
So, I am not trying to be a jerk here, but is this “gender transitioning” that seems to be so common today brought on by group-think amongst men? What strikes me is how rarely you see the converse - women transitioning to men. And I am not trying to be a bigger jerk by saying this, but could additives that we use so commonly in everyday things (such as plastics) that are known and proven to reduce testosterone or increase estrogen production, contributing to this cultural shift? It seems strange, that is all, between how quickly it happens and how men seem to be overwhelmingly more moved than women.[/quote]
F to M are much more difficult to identify because they blend so easily. Women who “feel like men” are able to dress as such from childhood without causing much of a ripple. There is also a big difference, visually, between a smallish guy with somewhat delicate features and a very large woman with a masculine bone structure, etc.
I would guess that if anything there are more F2M than the opposite, simply because it’s easier to manage physically and emotionally.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I thought the Matt Kroc news was a joke initially. Like a story from the Onion.
Here are my thoughts on the transgender trend:
I think just like there can be aberrations during gestation regarding hearts, brains, etc., so can there be abberations with sex organs. A quick googling told me that 1 in 1,666 babies is born with ambiguous genetalia. So I wonder how many males actually have immature ovaries or a small penis/large clitoris? And how many women have undescended testicles or the like? It’s not really all that far-fetched.
And having a mix of sex organs could most definitely affect one’s hormonal panel, etc. In the past, someone identifying as the opposite sex was labeled as a freak. But the tide of public opinion is changing. And people are getting more brave about “being who they want to be.”
I’m still suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance with this issue, though.[/quote]
It’s demeaning to refer to it as a “trend.” In reality, it’s people coming out of hiding who were there all along, largely because society is becoming less bigoted over time.
This is a question born of genuine curiosity and I’m not trying to call you out or bait you: what specifically is hard about this, in your mind? Do you believe his perspective?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
largely because society is becoming less bigoted over time.
[/quote]
Strongly disagree.
Society isn’t any less bigoted today than it was 5, 20, 200 or 2000 years ago. We’re just bigoted about different things than we were in the past.
I don’t think the human condition allows us to not be bigoted, and that may very well be WHY we’ve thrived as a species. It’s more likely than not an inherent instinct at this point, born in our ancestors necessitated by survival.
And the answer to your hard question is rather simple. It’s hard to understand and/or empathize with something foreign to you, or that you can’t fathom experiencing. Of course people without gender identity issues are going to have a “hard” time understanding, as the vast majority never, ever will, despite their screaming at the top of their lungs they do. They don’t. There is nothing wrong with it being hard for someone, because it being hard doesn’t mean they are going to be an asshole about it.
As a flippant example. It’s hard for me to understand how on earth fucking anyone can enjoy golf. That shit is the worst, and those that actively try and watch it on TV baffle me. That said, I’m not boycotting it, or telling people not to play. In fact, I couldn’t give two shits if people do, even though it is hard to understand how on Earth they do it.
I feel like you’re looking for intolerance that isn’t there.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I thought the Matt Kroc news was a joke initially. Like a story from the Onion.
Here are my thoughts on the transgender trend:
I think just like there can be aberrations during gestation regarding hearts, brains, etc., so can there be abberations with sex organs. A quick googling told me that 1 in 1,666 babies is born with ambiguous genetalia. So I wonder how many males actually have immature ovaries or a small penis/large clitoris? And how many women have undescended testicles or the like? It’s not really all that far-fetched.
And having a mix of sex organs could most definitely affect one’s hormonal panel, etc. In the past, someone identifying as the opposite sex was labeled as a freak. But the tide of public opinion is changing. And people are getting more brave about “being who they want to be.”
I’m still suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance with this issue, though.[/quote]
It’s demeaning to refer to it as a “trend.” In reality, it’s people coming out of hiding who were there all along, largely because society is becoming less bigoted over time.
This is a question born of genuine curiosity and I’m not trying to call you out or bait you: what specifically is hard about this, in your mind? Do you believe his perspective?
[/quote]
Not addressed to me, but:
I largely get being yourself, but I don’t get the multiple personalities. I’m all for people being themselves, but the idea of changing clothes, swapping your name, and acting entirely differently seems more like playing dress up. If you want to act like you want, do it, the needing physical changes to “be yourself” I don’t get. Specifically I don’t understand the dual and diametrically opposed personalities in this case. I don’t get how sometimes being yourself is “Alpha Male” and sometimes it means being a “girly girl”.
If gender is now removed from both biology and sex I don’t see much difference between a cross dresser and being “gender fluid”. I don’t understand how there are classes where transgender people can go to learn how to act like who they are supposed to naturally be. I honestly don’t get what the word gender now is supposed to mean. The best I can get is that it means what stereotype of each sex you want to act like and be treated like.
There is a large part of the whole idea that bothers me about stereotyping of the sexes. I’m a girl now so I think like A, look like B, dress like C, and talk like D. Is that really what a girl is? The funny part is that there is some backlash among feminist groups and the like for just that. If a woman can be and act and dress like anything or anyone, changing this inner gender thing shouldn’t affect anything about a person.
But I fully admit that I just don’t get it. It doesn’t make sense, and I can’t grasp the motivations.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As a flippant example. It’s hard for me to understand how on earth fucking anyone can enjoy golf. That shit is the worst… [/quote]
Oh man… wait’ll Utah Lama reads this.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
largely because society is becoming less bigoted over time.
[/quote]
Strongly disagree.
Society isn’t any less bigoted today than it was 5, 20, 200 or 2000 years ago. We’re just bigoted about different things than we were in the past.
I don’t think the human condition allows us to not be bigoted, and that may very well be WHY we’ve thrived as a species. It’s more likely than not an inherent instinct at this point, born in our ancestors necessitated by survival.
And the answer to your hard question is rather simple. It’s hard to understand and/or empathize with something foreign to you, or that you can’t fathom experiencing. Of course people without gender identity issues are going to have a “hard” time understanding, as the vast majority never, ever will, despite their screaming at the top of their lungs they do. They don’t. There is nothing wrong with it being hard for someone, because it being hard doesn’t mean they are going to be an asshole about it.
As a flippant example. It’s hard for me to understand how on earth fucking anyone can enjoy golf. That shit is the worst, and those that actively try and watch it on TV baffle me. That said, I’m not boycotting it, or telling people not to play. In fact, I couldn’t give two shits if people do, even though it is hard to understand how on Earth they do it.
I feel like you’re looking for intolerance that isn’t there. [/quote]
The civilized parts of the world are far more tolerant than at any time in history. We do not discriminate against different races and cultures, we treat women as equal to men, we accept homosexual and transgender people, and we are accepting of different religions.
Last I checked we have not started to burn people at the stake for playing golf.
Definitely i’m not homophobic, but this is too fucking weird.
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As a flippant example. It’s hard for me to understand how on earth fucking anyone can enjoy golf. That shit is the worst… [/quote]
Oh man… wait’ll Utah Lama reads this. [/quote]
Golf is definitely a love hate sort of thing.
[quote]aeyogi wrote:
The civilized parts of the world are far more tolerant than at any time in history. We do not discriminate against different races and cultures, we treat women as equal to me, we accept homosexual and transgender people, and we are accepting of different religions.
Last I checked we have not started to burn people at the stake for playing golf.
[/quote]
You’re ignoring the forest for the trees. All those things we are tolerant of, we weren’t of before correct? So that means we are now intolerant of that which was once the accepted opinion.
We’re now intolerant of slave owners.
We’re now intolerant of spousal rape, wife beating.
We’re now intolerant of selling your daughter into marriage.
We’re now intolerant of child labor.
We’re now intolerant of tyrant kings and queens, dictators.
We’re bigoted towards those things now, that were once seen as the norm.
I could go on, but if you don’t get it now, I’m not looking to hold your hand here.
Being bigoted isn’t always bad. Being discriminatory isn’t always bad. Those words have meanings, denotations. Stop relying on the connotation, feelings, to guide the thought process.
We aren’t an advanced society. Yes we have a lot of cool technology and some sweet ass medical care, but we are still the barbaric heathens that first roamed the fields, just a lot more subtle about it, much less impulsive and appreciate the benefit of society which requires certain norms or morals to function.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a large part of the whole idea that bothers me about stereotyping of the sexes. I’m a girl now so I think like A, look like B, dress like C, and talk like D. Is that really what a girl is? The funny part is that there is some backlash among feminist groups and the like for just that. If a woman can be and act and dress like anything or anyone, changing this inner gender thing shouldn’t affect anything about a person.
[/quote]
Yep. Kind of ironic, right? The militant feminist / butch lesbians might have the hardest time accepting the transgender woman who wants to dress and act like a 1950’s housewife/ sexy pinup girl. It’s as if the transgender person is personally taking the women’s movement back a few decades. The irony. Of course, some of these women feel that putting on make-up is a sign that you’re ignorantly supporting patriarchy. Strange times.
BTW, I asked my husband if he’d still stay married to me if I decided to become a man. Unconditional love and all that. 
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is a large part of the whole idea that bothers me about stereotyping of the sexes. I’m a girl now so I think like A, look like B, dress like C, and talk like D. Is that really what a girl is? The funny part is that there is some backlash among feminist groups and the like for just that. If a woman can be and act and dress like anything or anyone, changing this inner gender thing shouldn’t affect anything about a person.
[/quote]
Yep. Kind of ironic, right? The militant feminist / butch lesbians might have the hardest time accepting the transgender woman who wants to dress and act like a 1950’s housewife/ sexy pinup girl. It’s as if the transgender person is personally taking the women’s movement back a few decades. The irony. Of course, some of these women feel that putting on make-up is a sign that you’re ignorantly supporting patriarchy. Strange times.
BTW, I asked my husband if he’d still stay married to me if I decided to become a man. Unconditional love and all that.
[/quote]
If that just means you dressed in pants and belch while watching football he’d be crazy not to. Even if that means people would call it “gay” sex.
[quote]gigomoravac wrote:
Definitely i’m not homophobic, but this is too fucking weird.
[/quote]
The good news is that this is OK. I’m really, really weirded out by excessive body piercings and also by hyper girly women. It just means that I will never get pierced myself and will never be close friends with one of those women but I don’t have to love or hate either.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I thought the Matt Kroc news was a joke initially. Like a story from the Onion.
Here are my thoughts on the transgender trend:
I think just like there can be aberrations during gestation regarding hearts, brains, etc., so can there be abberations with sex organs. A quick googling told me that 1 in 1,666 babies is born with ambiguous genetalia. So I wonder how many males actually have immature ovaries or a small penis/large clitoris? And how many women have undescended testicles or the like? It’s not really all that far-fetched.
And having a mix of sex organs could most definitely affect one’s hormonal panel, etc. In the past, someone identifying as the opposite sex was labeled as a freak. But the tide of public opinion is changing. And people are getting more brave about “being who they want to be.”
I’m still suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance with this issue, though.[/quote]
It’s demeaning to refer to it as a “trend.” In reality, it’s people coming out of hiding who were there all along, largely because society is becoming less bigoted over time.
This is a question born of genuine curiosity and I’m not trying to call you out or bait you: what specifically is hard about this, in your mind? Do you believe his perspective?
[/quote]
Not addressed to me, but:
I largely get being yourself, but I don’t get the multiple personalities. I’m all for people being themselves, but the idea of changing clothes, swapping your name, and acting entirely differently seems more like playing dress up. If you want to act like you want, do it, the needing physical changes to “be yourself” I don’t get. Specifically I don’t understand the dual and diametrically opposed personalities in this case. I don’t get how sometimes being yourself is “Alpha Male” and sometimes it means being a “girly girl”.
If gender is now removed from both biology and sex I don’t see much difference between a cross dresser and being “gender fluid”. I don’t understand how there are classes where transgender people can go to learn how to act like who they are supposed to naturally be. I honestly don’t get what the word gender now is supposed to mean. The best I can get is that it means what stereotype of each sex you want to act like and be treated like.
There is a large part of the whole idea that bothers me about stereotyping of the sexes. I’m a girl now so I think like A, look like B, dress like C, and talk like D. Is that really what a girl is? The funny part is that there is some backlash among feminist groups and the like for just that. If a woman can be and act and dress like anything or anyone, changing this inner gender thing shouldn’t affect anything about a person.
But I fully admit that I just don’t get it. It doesn’t make sense, and I can’t grasp the motivations.
[/quote]
You are correct, because some of the preaching’s don’t make sense and they are sometimes bullshit. Physical characteristics do have an influence on mental characteristics and visa versa. In physics this is called two-way coupling. The point is, this “anyone can be anything” attitude is crap and is a byproduct of our entitlement generation.