There's a correct answer to that, by the way, and it's not a positive one.
There's a correct answer to that, by the way, and it's not a positive one.
I don't think the trolls are as likely to actually join the site.
Then why are they in the Discord...?
Not all growth is good growth. But if this is the direction that y'all want to push the site in, then I guess I need to question if that's a direction I want to be a part of.
Also, growing the discord server through spamming invites isn't actually the goal. The goal should be the growth of Debatecraft, not it's discord server. We can't really monetize the discord server as well as we can monetize the site, so if the goal is growth then it should be focused around this website.
And no, mass recruiting into our discord isn't an effective method to grow the website. Out of the 40+ people you spammed our discord link to, I think only two of them from what I've seen so far have made an account? The rest are just flooding the chat channels. That's not growth, that's just making this discord unusable.
Quantity of members also includes some quality members. I just cant separate good debaters from bad ones when sending invites.
That's not necessarily true. You very well could walk into a random discord server and send out 100 invites and not a single one of them could be a "quality" member (though I feel like what you'd consider quality is different from what I'd consider quality). Inviting people is not inherently a bad idea, but just spamming out invites to anyone who will accept them is most definitely not the way. Some element of discretion has to be used.
Small update for the, like, 3 people who care. Had a surprise interview today (they emailed me this morning to schedule something today), so my writing flow got interrupted and ADHD brain is in full effect. So the first chapter will go up tomorrow.
No. the more picky we are, the less people we have.
Last I checked, we're not Russian here. Quantity is not the quality we're looking for.
But we better not be picky.
We're a niche website that practices a niche hobby on a niche corner of the internet. It's kinda our job to be picky.
...you fucking what? How did I never know this was a thing?
Well since it's cringe, I'm sure I got an old man character who I can slot you in for >:P
Current plan is to aim for the pilot release sometime toward the end of next week (so like the 17th or 18th). Then, schedule permitting, new episodes once a week?
Consider this me volun-telling you that you'll be a part of the story in some fashion.
Okay, yeah I've decided on my idea and I figured I'll give this a shot. To avoid spamming the posts, I'll go ahead and make this the sign up thread as well.
Like I mentioned earlier, the setting is going to be high fantasy. I'm planning on writing this from a third person present viewpoint, though who's perspective the story is being viewed from will likely change by the chapter as more characters are introduced. As far as the theme of the story, I'm likely going to be basing it off of a D&D campaign setting I wrote a little under a decade ago, and the story will follow the rough story I had planned for that game. I may even include moments in the story where the readers can vote as to what the main characters decide in crucial moments as a homage to the D&D origins, though none of the choices will result in "everyone's dead, the story ends" levels of disastrousness.
In order to fill the cast out, there are a number of people on this website that I will be volun-telling that they're going to be a part of this. Otherwise, people are free to voice their desire to be a part of the fanfiction and I will do my best to find space in the story for you. Important note, not every character is going to be a user from this website, or even from DDO/DART if I wanted to go back that far. Too many minor characters, literally not enough users to fill everything. User characters will be reserved for characters who are either important to the story or are memorable minor characters.
Lmao, the setting is likely going to be something high fantasy-esque because that's what I typically write in, but I'll see what I can do.
Lmao, how I'd take volunteers is probably along the lines of a sign-up thread and then I take the names and assign them to characters who I think they'd fit, but if you're specifically asking to be a villain I could probably make that work xD
It's been something I've had stewing in my head for a while since I came onto this site. I haven't been writing as much as I would like to be, and need some practice to get back in form. And writing site 'fanfiction' was something that was relatively popular back on DDO.
So I guess my question is would people on here be interested in reading stories that feature users from the site as characters within the story?
Holy shit, this article isn't super relevant to any discussion at hand, but its too fucking good not to share.
https://theonion.com/it-is-journalism-s-sacred-duty-to-endanger-the-lives-of-1850126997/
Holy shit this goes so hard LMAO
That's...hard to necessarily agree or disagree with. I think there's a lot of oversimplification going on if we want to stick with these three groupings, because there's a lot of ground for different positions and ideologies in between the groups.
I think there's also some ethical problems trying to categorize people into groups in this kind of manner, but that's straying a little too far away from the topic at hand.
No problem! More than happy to discuss things.
Will preface by saying that things I say here are my own personal opinion that may or may not be reflective of the general feelings, but I can't claim to speak for all trans people.
It's my impression that trans people typically have a strong aversion to being called "man" or "women" on the basis of sex as opposed to gender. Yet I don't sense as much of an aversion to terms like "assigned female at birth" or "assigned male at birth."
Primarily because what some doctor defines us as the second we come out of the womb is not only obviously outside of our control, but it's also long before we have any real concept of self, so who are we to say that, from the instant we exit the womb that we aren't male or female? Given the population of people who identify as trans vs. the rest of the general population, doctors are right more often than they're wrong in terms of relating sex to gender, so they're just doing the best they can.
Sex isn't strictly binary, but with the exception of intersex people, you can generally categorize people in to groups of mainly having female vs. male sex characteristics (to my knowledge, trans people don't really dispute this). More so pre-op vs post-op, but the point is that one could select some group of criteria they are going off of and then categorize sex based on that. It's kind of an arbitrary thing to categorize people off of, but so is the amount of melanin in one's skin, or how tall someone is, or the color of their hair. And it's still common to use words like "red-headed" or "tall" or "black" to describe people. Or even age, which like sex isn't easily observable but you usually just take someone's word for it.
Correct. The problem lies in that people who tend to be anti-trans then take those sex-defining characteristics and conflate it with gender (i.e. you have penis, therefore you are guy) which isn't really how that works. Even categorizing people by sexual characteristics gets tricky if we were to include populations like intersex people (you were excluding them to make your statement, but even without them how does one classify a girl who lacks ovaries or a girl who possesses testes?)
So my question is: in your view, with regard to misgendering, is the aversion to sex categorizations being made in the first place, or just the terms "man" and "woman" being used? Like if people started using the terms "blargh" and "zog" instead of "man" and "woman," and blargh and zog referred to preponderance of particular sex characteristics, do you think most trans people would still be opposed to that?
It's not necessarily just strictly categorizing things by sex, though. Rather, it's conflating sex with gender that is the primary issue. If we wanted to specifically look at categorizing people by sex, I suppose you could say something along the lines of "Everyone who possesses a penis stand over here and everyone who possesses a vagina stand over here" (again ignoring intersex people for the purposes of the example), and (again, can't really speak for every transgender person out there), I don't think the average trans person would have too many issues with that (outside of general dysphoric feelings). That's strictly where that categorization would have to end, though - the second you try to go further than that is where misgendering typically begins. And given most people seem incapable of stopping there, that's where the issue lies most of the time.
So I guess to directly answer the question: If you wanted to replace penis with "blargh" and vagina with "zog", theoretically I don't see too many trans people having issue with it. In reality, though, it'd end up just being the new medium through which people conflate sex with gender, so it wouldn't change much.
The point of sex is procreation.
I feel sorry for any current/future partners of yours...
On the other hand, this means both sides are incentivized to make the best case possible for their side and put in a lot more effort toward research than they probably would otherwise.
In a vacuum this is true. Contextually, however, I think I've made it clear that this matters a lot to me. As far as the quality of research I'm willing to do, the medium doesn't matter.
That question is one most of us face and struggle with
Correct, and for the majority of people the answer is something other than a problem with the way they view their gender. Each person's struggles are unique to them and it's up to each individual person to seek out the answers that best fit their own experiences.
The barrier to entry for an argument in a competitive debate that a judge takes seriously is infinitely lower than an argument in a normal discussion that a person takes seriously. If I stand up in a debate round and read arguments for why we should allow nations to go to nuclear war and read a bunch of Jean Beadrillard's arguments for hyper realism, so long as I'm "winning" the argument, then judges accept it as true. If I stand up in a public discussion and say "we should let people go to nuclear war", then I'm promptly (and correctly) ignored and likely never invited back.
And it's less about digging deep enough and more about presenting the facts as faithfully and honestly as you can, which isn't the case with a competitive debate, where there is a definitive winner and loser and you're encouraged to not make yourself the loser, regardless of what points your opponent brings up.
I'm not interested in doing a formal debate on this topic given the inherently competitive nature of a debate being less about truth-seeking and more about winning. For obvious reasons, this topic is especially important to represent truthfully for me so I'll pass on this one. More than happy to keep talking here.
The doctors are being unethical as is society. As are these websites that come up presenting a solution to an unstable sense of identity by brainwashing an individual into thinking
I mean, at this point, if this is still something you believe despite the depth of anecdotal and empirical evidence I've provided that shows that this isn't the case, my only response is that someone is definitely being brainwashed here, but I don't think it's me.
You know the saying that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"? This is me, leading you to water. Your choice whether to drink or not.
Had a church got ahold of you first
Funny you should say that. A church did get a hold of me first. I was a regular church-goer from middle school through most of high school and was very active in my church's youth group. And to give credit where credit is due, they were pretty accepting of people who wanted to get to know Christ better, regardless of who they were or where they came from. At this point, though, the repression of my own feelings re: my identity as a person was so ingrained that it took another decade for me to even be capable of asking the question of why I was never comfortable with myself, and by that point I had long since stopped going to church.
sex is pointless. It only lasts a short time
Talk about a self-report...xD
I haven't insulted Alyssa outside of a Mafia game where I was scum and had some incentive for making her think less rationally than she should.
I'll ignore the backhanded comments that I'm delusional for thinking/feeling the way I am that have come up over the course of our conversation for the purposes of this comment.
Pretty sure he was talking about your comment re: Salma Hayek with this reply.
I don't think anyone thinks they can tell the difference pre and post on by looking at somebody's face.
You would think that's true...though it's less about pre-surgery/post-surgery and more trans/not trans.
How would cutting off your dick make people discriminate less. That's very silly. Can you explain how they came to that conclusion?
The claim isn't that it solves/reduces these harms, but rather mitigates them (i.e. It's easier for me to put up with other people's bullshit if I'm happier/more confident with my own self-image).
But also, it's harder for people to say that I'm not a girl if I've had breast augmentation surgery and am now rocking a b or c-cup, at least without them looking senile. Same thing with bottom surgery if I'm lounging by a pool in a bikini. The anti-trans crowd is always awfully curious what we have in our pants...
This study below seems to show the opposite, that suicide increases post surgery.
I mean...it literally says in the abstract that "Of the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the majority indicated a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment". Like, you can critique the methodology if you'd like, and it goes into good detail about ways in which we can improve the methodology in the future, but to say that it's saying that suicide-risk increases is...a choice. Not to mention the bevy of other sources I provided that all say the same thing I'm saying.
They may not even be consciously aware of it tbh.
I mean, doesn't that defeat your point either way? Either they're aware of it and are transitioning for reasons that are morally questionable and, thus, are reasons that I would discourage, or they aren't aware of it and thus isn't factoring into their active decision making calculus?
That's really the only healthy reason to even consider it doesn't help change the self hatred or the unstable sense of identity other transitioners experience
Not only would I argue that transitioning for fetishistic reasons is the least healthy reason to transition, but I'd argue that transitioning is what fixes these "self hatred" and "unstable sense of identity" problems you like pointing to. The origin of a lot of these feelings of self-hatred and identity issues is rooted in the gender dysphoria that trans people experience, where they know that they're one gender, but looking in the mirror doesn't align with their self-view. Taking steps to correct this dysphoria has been shown, through anecdotal analysis and empirical study, to reduce these feelings of dysphoria and produce healthier mindsets.
how do you explain that transgenderism is so common among kids of hyper liberal parents,
So this is actually super easy to explain, but I'll address the end assumption in that transgender people don't only come from liberal backgrounds - while my own parents weren't hardcore conservatives, they are very far from liberal, and were even further away when I was an adolescent. My dad especially was extremely anti-trans when I was growing up, and it took me coming out as transgender for him to be open to the idea that being trans is okay, and even as things are now he still doesn't really understand it.
But to actually answer your question, it's just culture. The more conservative the upbringing, the more we're taught to repress/reject these feelings in order to align with more traditional modes of thought, which is heavily rooted in religious and historical precedent of what the role of the male and the female identity is supposed to be. It's only been within the past twenty to thirty years, with the increase public prevalence of LGBTQ+ individuals, that a lot of these mindsets and stigmas have been challenged, all of which have met very staunch resistance from more conservative schools of thought. So it makes sense that the less conservative someone's upbringing is, the more willing someone is likely to be to be open to exploring these feelings, and the safer they will feel in doing so of not being discriminated against for doing so.
And to respond to this idea specifically:
Gender affirming care is kinda a crazy concept in itself. A psychologist shouldn't be affirming a delusion.
The idea that this is a 'delusion' has historically and, in terms of the modern day debate, been the problem that trans individuals have had to combat in order to even seek help combating their dysphoria. It doesn't matter how well we can track dysphoria psychologically (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26835611/), nor does it matter that we're starting to get a better picture physically of the differences in body and brain development of people who tend to experience gender dysphoria compared to those who don't (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32801984/) (though this area of research is still ongoing, but initial findings do suggest that there are marked differences in body and brain development), all that matters is that we're different and different is bad to conservative and traditional modes of thinking. We just want to live our lives in peace, but until people can accept that our feelings aren't just 'delusional', that doesn't seem to be possible. Hence why this discussion is happening.
I am aware of these studies, which is why I didn't challenge you on them. I am pointing out a distinction between regret and general overall happiness. The IKEA effect I am using to explain the lack of regret and the high suicide rates (that are highest post surgery) to help support my argument of lower levels of happiness.
The reason for higher suicide rates post op cannot be from more discrimination as nobody can honestly tell the difference. The reason would have to do with something else and I believe I gave the most reasonable explanation.
I just worry I am tip toeing around highly specialized knowledge that would take so long to explain that you would lose interest in the conversation.
I'm a little concerned that you're starting to patronize me...
There are those who get sexual impulses around being in another genders body.
That's...not what I'm talking about. Chasers/people who fetishize transgender individuals are people who are sexually attracted to the idea of transgender individuals (i.e. woman with penis or man with vagina) and that is what we are reduced down to (that is to say that transgender individuals, to them, are strictly and solely woman with penis/man with vagina) and generally deny us any other aspect of personhood. I shouldn't have to explain why that is bad.
Additionally, I actively cannot recall meeting a trans individual who decided to transition because they were sexually aroused by the concept of having the opposite gentialia, and there's a pretty clear reason as to why that might be: not everything a person does in their life is sexually stimulating. The common barrier for entry that you're going to hear from any trans person is "Imagine that you're a [insert gender of preference], sitting in a doctors office filling out paperwork". If you think you would be happier filling out paperwork at the doctors office because you're a [insert gender of preference] instead of [insert current gender], that's the point where I'd encourage someone to look into transitioning. If someone were to ask me if they should transition and the reason they gave me is because they're turned on by the thought of being the opposite gender, I'd actively discourage them from transitioning.