ContextMatters

Yeah, females in certain situations do usually have more privilege than males do. I think it just depends on what specifically we’re talking about. For instance, in the justice system, a female beating a male up vs a male besting a female up is going to spark much different reactions. The female beating up the male might even get a lower sentence than with the male beating up the female. I believe this is due to the fact that the majority of females are not as strong as males, so when a male is seen beating up a female, it sparks stronger reactions because females are often seen as powerless and weak. It’ll often be seen as ‘overdoing’ it or using too much force when a male beats on a female. However, if we are talking about the workforce, males have a higher advantage than females do. Technically, this could be countered by someone simply saying that females have higher job openings compared to males, but if we are looking at who is more likely to get job promotions, the males still have an advantage in that aspect. So in actuality, both females and males have privileges in certain areas.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Discrimination is an inherent survival strategy, exacerbated by formative and social conditioning...There's no escaping the human condition...As you yourself exemplified by being intolerant of intolerant people...

Self-righteousness only vindicates the self, but doesn't validate the hypocrisy.

You explained this so much better than me. Thank you 🙏🏾

I feel this conversation was generally good and productive, at least in my opinion. I apologize if the information was hard to digest and subject to misinterpretation. I’m trying to get better at wording my claims and whatnot, but I think in the end, I might have cleared up any misunderstandings on where I stand. You can still reply to me if you want and I will read it, but I probably won’t respond cause I’m mentally drained from going back and forth and kinda need a break and all. If you still disagree with me, that’s fine. It’s just one of those conversations where we agree to disagree. I just hope that we both learned new different perspectives today. Thank you for having this discussion with me. I know this is very time consuming so I appreciate you indulging in this conversation with me. Have a wonderful day/night 🙏🏾

Anyways, I kinda feel like this has been going on for a long time and I’m kinda mentally drained from going back and forth and everything. I think this was generally a good talk despite some of the misinterpretation/miscommunication we had. I hope I was able to clear up my stance a little better. That’s my fault for not being able to clarify better, so I apologize for that. If you still disagree with me, that’s okay. It’s just one of those times where we have to agree to disagree. Thank you for taking the time to indulge in this conversation with me, I know this is very time consuming so I appreciate it. Have a wonderful day/night 🙏🏾

Alyssa wrote:

I’m not saying that two women or two men cannot successfully raise a child, however, a good influence that is the opposite sex should be introduced.

Why do good influences need to be of opposite sexes? Traits like kindness and empathy aren't gender coded.

That’s what I’m saying. It’s about giving children a wide array of diverse adult figures so that they know that traits such as kindness and empathy aren’t only found in only one sex, and that it’s universal. If a child does not have any influence from the opposite sex in their life, and goes to school and experiences a bad experience with the opposite sex, they might think that those traits are only found in the people who are the same sex as the parents. Giving them diverse adult figures to interact with helps them know what the universal traits of a person should be and what to expect out of everyone rather than just one sex.

are only introduced to these things through their two moms/two dads

Why do good influences need to be part of the familial structure? Hell, I took more example of how to be a good person (and a good father figure) from my soccer coach growing up than I did my own dad.

And that’s completely normal. Having a diverse array of adult figures of all backgrounds gives children of both heterosexual and homosexual parents people they can look up to despite any minor differences such as skin color, sex, etc.

may experience bad influences of the opposite sex through public school.

They're going to experience bad influences in the public space regardless of what their familial support structure looks like. That's just how the world is. Why is that relevant to their child rearing capabilities?

It’s relevant because if they have not been exposed to a good influence from the opposite sex, they may come to believe that the opposite sex is bad or dangerous to talk to based off of experiences from school life and whatnot, rather than coming to the conclusion that someone may just be a jerk just for the sake of being one.

Hell, why do positive influences even have to be real fucking people? I took more queues on how to be a good person from Sora and Kairi from Kingdom Hearts (a video game) than I did from most of the members of my family.

There’s also the fact that most kids do not grow up with two dads or two moms, so once the child begins to realize that other kids have both a mom and a dad, they may feel curious or envious about what that experience of having a father/mother figure may feel like.

Why does that affect whether or not someone grows up to be a good or bad person?

Literally anyone could do

Yes, but you need to actually internalize and process this. LITERALLY ANYONE can be a good role model for someone. Doesn't matter how old they are, what gender they identify as, what race they belong to, or any other "key defining" factor you want to bring up. People pick and choose who they model their beliefs after and what examples they follow. So trying to enforce some arbitrary gender requirement on familial upbringing is nonsense that's just rooted in queerphobic rhetoric.

I’m not saying that a certain group of people can’t be a good role model for someone. I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I’m saying that providing different models/influences of different identities, including of the opposite sex, is extremely beneficial for the child. A child can have multiple figures to look up to. Saying that a child should be introduced to someone of the opposite sex of their parents to allow them someone else to look up to isn’t bad. Both heterosexual and homosexual parents have children that do this. It doesn’t mean the child loves them any less. It just gives them the idea that anyone, despite of the minor differences, can have universal traits such as kindness, empathy, etc.

But the only way that could most likely be possible is basically taking the sperm of another species and using that to fertilize the egg (im only addressing the rat example you gave because I do not know what the Dolly experiment is),

We'll start with the Dolly example because that's easier to Google.

Dolly was a sheep that was created by removing the nucleus from an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus from an adult sheep's mammary cell, then medically stimulated into developing an embryo, then implanted in a surrogate mother and carried to term and birth. This effectively 'cloned' the sheep, but the key point for this discussion is that at no point in this process were sperm cells introduced.

Extremely ethically problematic in humans, but again, ethically bankrupt mad scientist.

The lab mice example, which has had a few different iterations in it's methodology, took cells from male mice, changed them into stem cells, then converted those stem cells into egg cells, which were fertilized and carried to term. Technically uses both sperm and egg cells, but no female mice were used. The egg cells originated from stem cells that were created from male mice which, again, not human, but a more more ethically cooperative concept.

Both illustrate the concept that the traditional concept of male + female = baby isn't necessarily the only way to get there, and that it's possible other avenues exist that would allow queer couples that don't follow the traditional family dynamic to naturally have kids.

Thank you for clarifying this, because the original mention of these did have me confused. The only thing that kinda worries me about these is that it does seem to be some form of cloning, which would probably beg a lot of questions considering the ethical, legal, social, moral, etc. aspects of it. It sounds more like an asexual way of reproducing, which also may bring forth many concerns on genetic mutations and whatnot since the cloning aspect means that it may be harder or close to impossible to try and purge mutations over time, but that’s another conversation for another day.

Alyssa wrote:

It may dictate how they perceive or like a person as an individual, but that does not mean that they do not have the capability of being respectful to people despite their beliefs.

Having the capacity to be respectful =/= actually being respectful. Everyone has the capacity for respect and empathy. Not everyone exercises it.

But many religions like Muslims do see it as a sin and believe it is a sin and a choice, so while they may not say a statement such as that specifically, they still have beliefs that are often disagreed upon by the LGB community.

Let me provide an example then:

Back when I coached high school speech and debate ~8-10 years ago, I had a student who was a real bright kid. Played football, studied hard, genuinely a good person. Deeply, deeply Christian beliefs, put Christ first in all aspects of his life. Never made anyone feel lesser than for who they were or what they believed, genuinely loved everyone.

During one topic (well it was really a couple topics, but regardless), he had gotten it into his head that he wanted to run cases that utilized the Divine Command Theory as part of his framework. I was skeptical of it but I said sure, helped him write the cases and research the arguments. He was in a quarterfinals round where, and I forget the context of the statement because it's been a hot minute, but he made the claim that went something along the lines of "trans people are immoral". I was in the round with him as an observer and it took him a second for the reality of the words that just came out of his mouth to actually register with his brain, but the shock and dread on his face when he made that claim was clear as fucking day. Granted he recovered quickly and kept going with the round, but there's no doubt in my mind that, after recognizing what he just said, that he regretted what he said.

Tea doesn't end there because one of the judges in the round happened to be a trans person. Round ends, judges vote, my kid lost 3-0. Granted he lost the debate for more reasons than just the outlandish comment, but every single judge mentioned it to him as a "You really shouldn't have said that" kind of thing.

After the round, I pulled him aside to talk to him about it to try and figure out what happened that lead to that moment. My expectation going into it was going to be some level of judge bashing and "Oh I got judge screwed because of one comment" kinda talk (most kids I coach who develop this trait get it from me, I was an absolute menace as a high school debater and owe multiple apologies to past judges for things I've said behind their backs).

His reaction? He asked me if Dakota (the name of the trans judge in the debate) was okay and if I could talk to them to see if they'd be willing to hear an apology from him. He clarified that the words he chose in the moment weren't actually the argument he was trying to make (granted the argument he wanted to make wasn't much better from a strategic view, but was infinitely less inflamatory), and he wanted the judge to know that what he said in the round wasn't actually something he believed or defended.

Moral of the story, religious texts can say one thing, but individual religious followers don't always defend or believe every line of text in the books, nor every interpretation of those texts. Listen to what they say and watch what they do. That tells you what they really believe.

Cool story. It’s honestly refreshing hearing other experiences and perspectives. I do get that there are people in religions that do not take every word in the texts for truth per se, however there are still many who do and will still remain respectful despite not being supportive of it. That’s what I’m trying to get at with this point. Just because someone believes something, doesn’t mean they’re going to treat said person with disrespect. Anyone who does that is just a plain jerk, in all honesty. The whole point of society is coinciding with each other despite our differences in beliefs.

Someone saying ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder/illness’ could be considered hateful or offensive if you think having a mental disorder is bad.

My belief is irrelevant to their statement. Their intention with the statement is. If they wanted to say that "transgender issues are rooted in gender dysphoria, which is a mental health issue", that's an altogether different statement than "transgender people are a mental health problem", even though they look similar.

But sometimes the intention isn’t intended to cause harm. It’s to make a claim they believe is true, no matter how controversial it may seem. When we start stopping people from expressing what they believe is true from the evidence they’ve been presented just because it’s controversial or considered offensive, we end up taking away many other freedoms that come along with it. For example, this may be a rather extreme example of what I mean, but the slavery was a pretty controversial topic back in the 1800s. I’m sure many white slave owners were insulted and offended about being called immoral for their racist views and favor for slavery. The point I’m trying to make is basically, even if a claim may be controversial or offensive to a certain group of people, silencing that individual because of it is taking away their first amendment rights.

simply address their arguments with other pieces of evidence and information that challenges their worldview.

Wild that people still thinks that this works in the year of our lord 2026. Hell, I can point you to multiple threads on this site alone that serve as examples of this not actually doing anything.

Just because it is not commonly done anymore in 2026, that does not mean it doesn’t work. Oftentimes, when you have respectful conversations where both sides are actually listening to each other and bringing up specific criticisms on the other person’s argument, it promotes critical thinking and the ability to open your mind up to different perspectives, interpretations, and ideas. This allows for more effective communication and cooperation, as well as an increased chance of coming to a middle ground.

Simply spewing insults go nowhere,

So marginalized groups are supposed to sit down at a table where insults are being thrown at them or are everpresent around them and remain open minded, but aren't allowed to call out those insults for what they are for risk of "closing off the minds" of people promoting hate speech? Make it make sense, please.

If that’s how you’d like to describe it. Personally, I saw a few comments of yours that felt like they could have been personally attacking me and my character. Whether that was the intention, I do not know and I’m not going to accuse you of anything, but even knowing that there was a possibility of the comments being made to attack my character, I did not respond to them and only responded to the points you make. My stance is that even though a claim may be offensive or controversial, it isn’t inherently hateful or hate speech. If the claim is interpreted as an insult, ‘returning the favor’ per se doesn’t help because if it was a genuine claim, you’ve attacked their character which automatically makes most people defensive and more unwilling to consider changing their views. Plus, I just genuinely think back and forth insults are immature and equates to playground arguments. My point still stands that they get you no where. I have met many who made racist claims that I found personally insulting, even my some of my friends, but I have never snapped at them for having those views, as my goal is mainly to challenge and plant the seed of doubt. That’s all that matters. Conversation needs both sides to be respectful and understanding to be effective and productive. A one sided conversation will go nowhere and at that point, if the person continues being disrespectful, it’s a matter of knowing when to leave and let it be.

What you define as hate speech isn’t hate speech though. They are claims you don’t agree with.

Por que no los dos.

It can be both, though the examples you gave were claims, not hate speech. When talking of hate speech, it is often when someone demeans, dehumanizes, implies inferiority, says slurs, incites for the exclusion of a certain group of people, maliciously stereotypes, and promotes violence/threats towards a certain group. Simply making a claim is not hate speech.

Some people get plastic surgery because it allows them to express their wanted physical characteristics which could be internalized and has been proven to be internalized considering it is the same thing as a transgender person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics.

Are...are you actually defending that someone getting lip filler is the equivalent of a trans person have gender reassignment surgery? Legit question.

Yes, I do feel it is equivalent to gender reassignment surgery. Considering oneself attractive can be something that is internalized. A lot of things are actually internalized. I perceive someone getting plastic surgery to ‘fix’ a body part they feel dysphoric about (as the word dysphoria separate from gender dysphoria means dislike or dissatisfaction) is equivalent to that of a trans person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics. You are welcome to explain why you believe it is different if you want.

If you don’t mind me asking, what part of my conclusion was confusing?

The problem with your conclusions, at least in this specific quote chain, is that you seem to be looking at statement in a vacuum without considering the context of the intentions of the speaker. I've worded above ways to differentiate statements in a vacuum that make it clearer to tell intent, but the bottom line is people choose their words intentionally, whether that decision is conscious or not.

It is not intentional if it is of the subconscious mind. Subconscious actions and speech are what makes actions and speech unintentional. It is only intentional when it is consciously done.

Hate speech is speech that is intentionally derogatory or marginalizing, and there are lots of ways for that to present itself if we're only considering a single marginalized group, much less every group that is or has been marginalized. Especially over the internet, where we don't have body language queues to help us gauge intentions, our words carry meaning, so the only avenue for productive discourse and opening the avenue for changing people's ideas is if everyone feels comfortable being present in the first place. Hate speech creates an ecosystem where marginalized groups don't feel comfortable, so we're never going to get honest discourse to challenge harmful stereotypes or stygmas because the affected parties aren't going to be there to defend themselves. Ergo, if we care about free speech and the promotion of rigorous and intellectual discourse, hate speech can't be present.

I guess it depends on how we’re defining hate speech. I don’t feel controversial claims are hate speech. It’s only hate speech when you are implying another group is inferior, should be excluded, etc. Someone saying ‘Trans women are men’ may be considered transphobic or bigoted towards trans people, but it is still a claim/belief used in the controversial debate on whether trans women are allowed into single sexed spaces for biological women. And in all honesty, there will probably never be an ecosystem where everyone feels accepted because we all have different opinions and values. Simply someone disagreeing with a statement or popular belief is enough to cause people either exclude said person directly, or to exclude themselves from the platform someone said that controversial opinion on.

Alyssa wrote:

A mother figure and father figure is very important in raising a child. I say mother/father figure because I personally feel as long as the homosexual couple have maybe a friend or uncle or whatever of the opposite sex of whatever they are, that is fine,

LMAO. Oh, that's where this is going. I see now. Regardless, I'll bite. Why can two women or two men not successfully raise a child, without falling back on traditional familial standards?

I’m not saying that two women or two men cannot successfully raise a child, however, a good influence that is the opposite sex should be introduced. If you’ve ever heard the phrase ‘daughters often marry their fathers/sons often marry their mothers’, that is sorta what I’m referring to. It’s all about setting a good example of what the child should expect of the opposite sex (and no, I don’t mean gender roles/stereotypes. I mean basic things like consent, kindness, respect, etc.), because if they are only introduced to these things through their two moms/two dads, they may not know what to expect from the opposite sex, or may experience bad influences of the opposite sex through public school. There’s also the fact that most kids do not grow up with two dads or two moms, so once the child begins to realize that other kids have both a mom and a dad, they may feel curious or envious about what that experience of having a father/mother figure may feel like. That’s why I do believe an adult of the opposite sex should be there as an influence, not to take away from the actual guardians/parents of the child, but to provide the child with as many good influences as possible with many different people, and that includes allowing the child to interact with an adult of the opposite sex. Literally anyone could do, as I said, a family friend, a godparent, an auntie/uncle, etc. I hope that clarifies what I mean a bit more.

This is irrelevant considering you completely ignored my point about how eggs cannot fertilize other eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm.

Because that's only how reproduction works if you're wearing blinders?

A human child comes from a fertilized egg that is carried to term. A fertilized egg that is carried to term is the end goal, then. Traditionally, that has been done by introducing sperm cells, sure. So if there are other ways to reach the end goal of a fertilized egg other than introducing sperm, then the classical view of man + woman = baby falls flat. And there's enough evidence out there to suggest something like that is possible. Not guaranteed, not likely, just possible. Granted, there's a ton of legal and ethical issues with doing human variants of the Dolly experiment, but the concept is there if some ethically bankrupt mad scientist wanted to take a crack at it.

But the only way that could most likely be possible is basically taking the sperm of another species and using that to fertilize the egg (im only addressing the rat example you gave because I do not know what the Dolly experiment is), which is still introducing sperm to the egg, it’s just of a different species. That would only break the classical view by making it human woman + male (whatever species) and vise versa. In general, it doesn’t actually break the classical view of man + woman = human baby because it’s requiring species other than human. A man is a human adult male, and a woman is a human adult female, so by using the sperm of other species to fertilize a human egg or vise versa with using human sperm to fertilize another species' egg, you aren’t breaking the classical view, you are simply making it clear that it is somehow possible to mix the human species with another species.

No where did I make the claim that egg + egg = kid. Same with sperm. Save the strawmen for the farms.

By bringing up the idea of finding other ways to fertilize an egg through other means that are not human, you are avoiding the fact that generally a human female and another human female cannot conceive a child together. There has to be sperm somewhere in the equation, whether that means through the sperm of other species, through somehow making artificial sperm (which seems much more likely than humans being able to conceive with other species), or something else. Human Egg + human sperm = human baby is the same as man + woman = baby.

Alyssa wrote:

Simply saying you do not agree with an idea, especially an idea as philosophical and psychological as Transgenderism, does not mean that the individual expressing their disagreement with the said idea is ‘reflective’ of how they treat people.

In what fucking world is this even remotely true? If someone tells me "I don't like brocoli", I'm not going to assume that means that they'll eat brocoli but they just object to the theoretical existence of it or whatever. Likewise, if they say something like "black people are typically criminals" or "muslims are typically terrorists", in what world am I to assume that that's not how they treat people in those groups?

This isn’t as simple as liking or not liking something however. People can like black people and still have unintentionally racist views on black people, whether that be they think black people are gang members or that black people grow up with no father. These are beliefs they have been fed and while it may be ignorant, yes, it doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily going to treat them as awful human beings. It isn’t that simple. So it isn’t exactly a stretch to say that a person’s beliefs dictate how they treat people. It may dictate how they perceive or like a person as an individual, but that does not mean that they do not have the capability of being respectful to people despite their beliefs.

Muslims are generally not allowed by their religion to support Homosexuality (and one is heavily criticized if they do say they support it and are muslim at the same time) but most will still respect those who do

Not being allowed to support something =/= expressing explicitly hateful or derogatory speech towards something. The same theoretical group of people you're referring to probably aren't going around saying "homosexuality is a mental disorder" either, so they wouldn't fall under the types of people I'm criticizing.

But many religions like Muslims do see it as a sin and believe it is a sin and a choice, so while they may not say a statement such as that specifically, they still have beliefs that are often disagreed upon by the LGB community.

It is extremely radical and almost irrational to believe that someone simply disagreeing on something means they are ‘bigoted’, ‘nazi’, or ‘hateful’, and I’m honestly tired of seeing it because it stops us from actually having real conversations on why each of us think the way we do.

Where are these 'real conversations' you're referring to? Are they in the room with us right now? They all boil down to various flavors of "you, as a person, and your existence is immoral to my world view". Religious extremists justify it through whatever codex they defend. Political zealots usually disguise it as the former with more political jargon. Incel chuds are either extremely closeted and full of repressed self-loathing or are doing some variant of licking Andrew Tate's feet (that's one area that I refuse to read more of to spare myself the brain cells).

Someone saying ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder/illness’ could be considered hateful or offensive if you think having a mental disorder is bad. However, if they provide actual reason as to why they think this, even if they are ignorant or unaware of the other evidence on the topic, rather than calling their belief inherently hateful, something that they’ve probably always thought, simply address their arguments with other pieces of evidence and information that challenges their worldview. That is the conversations that I am referring to. Simply spewing insults go nowhere, as harshness often causes people to close their minds off from even considering the idea of changing their viewpoints. The goal isn’t to change their views and values/thought processes right at that moment, it’s to plant a seed of doubt that will cause them to continue trying to become more informed on the topic and finding out the conclusion or compromise that they feel is best on the topic at hand.

Moreover, none of these conversations can actually occur if hate speech is present and accepted in the first place because marginalized people just aren't going to show up and sit down for the conversation. The only way to actually have hope some kind of conversation can take place in the first place is if hate speech is restricted/prohibited.

What you define as hate speech isn’t hate speech though. They are claims you don’t agree with.

For example, I disagree with people getting plastic surgery

Conflating plastic surgery with someone's identity or race is wild.

Some people get plastic surgery because it allows them to express their wanted physical characteristics which could be internalized and has been proven to be internalized considering it is the same thing as a transgender person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics. Would you say those sex characteristics are not something that is internalized just as someone who gets plastic surgery may internalize the parts they get surgically removed or added in order to be perceived as attractive to the majority? Do you believe that wanting to feel attractive is not something that is internalized? These are genuine questions as I am trying to understand your worldview on this.

Someone simply saying ‘I believe that transgender identity is a product of mental disorder’ is not the same as ‘transgender people are purely delusional and should be shamed from society for thinking the way they do’.

Is the Winter Olympics up next in the rotation? The mental gymnastics you're doing here are impressive. You should try out.

I honestly don’t really know how to respond to this. I am a very deep thinker and I think about these topics a lot, so I can see how my thoughts may seem overwhelming or confusing to most as I can word things very weirdly and whatnot. I just write whatever comes to mind so I can see how my claims can be disorganized. Sorry about that. If you don’t mind me asking, what part of my conclusion was confusing? I want to see if I can find another way to rephrase it. Again, sorry about that.

Alyssa wrote:

However surrogacy is generally seen as bad all around since it’s using another woman’s body essentially as a human container.

I mean sure, but if consent is there and we protect that consent then let people do whatever they want.

But a lot of people who do not agree with homosexual individuals will not agree with them having children, especially using these methods

So, y'know, back to the original point of badly disguised hate. Got it.

A mother figure and father figure is very important in raising a child. I say mother/father figure because I personally feel as long as the homosexual couple have maybe a friend or uncle or whatever of the opposite sex of whatever they are, that is fine, however, others are not that lenient about it and do not believe in the idea of a homosexual relationship having any kids at all.

There is no other way to fertilize an egg without sperm.

Any egg? Dolly says hello. Obviously not tried with humans (and for good reasons), but the line exists if people wanted to push it.'

There are also lab cases of using other cells to simulate sperm cells in lab rats. Again, not human, but enough to doubt the claim that only human sperm from a male will work.

This is irrelevant considering you completely ignored my point about how eggs cannot fertilize other eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm. Furthermore, we are fundamentally different in almost every way to other species in the animal kingdom considering our cognitive, structural, etc. functions (yes, even to monkeys, even though we are closely related to them). We are not talking about whether the fertilization of a female human egg can be caused by the sperm of other male species, we are talking about the objective fact that again, eggs cannot fertilize eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize sperm. You cannot conceive a human child without both egg and sperm. A female cannot conceive with another female, and same goes for males. That has stayed true, even with all the alternative artificial ways found in fertilizing eggs without needing copulation.

Alyssa wrote:

Ah, so it's not about sexual reproduction, then because otherwise that complaint would fall through (if anything, it would be lauded as a moral success story because it allows couples who wouldn't have the ability to reproduce the opportunity to). It's just very badly disguised hate. Cool.

That is what IVF at least was originally meant for. To allow women who were ‘infertile’ in a sense to still be able to have biological children. However surrogacy is generally seen as bad all around since it’s using another woman’s body essentially as a human container. But a lot of people who do not agree with homosexual individuals will not agree with them having children, especially using these methods

because it proves that only a man and a woman is capable of conceiving children.

Not really? A fertilized egg cell is required for conception. The list of ways to get there is expanding over time.

There is no other way to fertilize an egg without sperm. Even through artificial means such as IVF, they still need sperm to fertilize the egg, and sperm is found in male reproductive systems, so it does prove that only men and women can conceive women. Eggs cannot fertilize other eggs and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm. It is not possible, and most likely won't be possible in our generation.

Alyssa wrote:

Cool, IVF and surrogacy. Next excuse?

To many who feel it is more logical to be heterosexual rather than homosexual, the mere thought of IVF and surrogacy is immoral, especially if said person does not think that homosexual individuals should have kids in the first place, as most believe that a mother and father figure is important when raising a child. Plus, IVF and surrogacy only support the rationalization on why it’s more logical in their minds to be straight, because it proves that only a man and a woman is capable of conceiving children.

Alyssa wrote:

The problem with hate speech is it's never just "speech", since it's reflective of your beliefs and actions. If you say something like "homosexuality/being transgender is a mental disorder", congratz that's what you believe. You just admitted to treating people differently. It is speech that's reflective of how you interact with others, which is action.

Simply saying you do not agree with an idea, especially an idea as philosophical and psychological as Transgenderism, does not mean that the individual expressing their disagreement with the said idea is ‘reflective’ of how they treat people. For instance, Muslims are generally not allowed by their religion to support Homosexuality (and one is heavily criticized if they do say they support it and are muslim at the same time) but most will still respect those who do have take on these labels. It is extremely radical and almost irrational to believe that someone simply disagreeing on something means they are ‘bigoted’, ‘nazi’, or ‘hateful’, and I’m honestly tired of seeing it because it stops us from actually having real conversations on why each of us think the way we do. It is not ‘hate speech’ to disagree with a topic or a way of life. For example, I disagree with people getting plastic surgery because I think it is harmful and promotes negative body standards. However, just because I disagree with people getting plastic surgery does not mean that I am ‘denying your right to exist’ or treating someone badly because of it. Hate speech is only hate speech when it’s actually hateful. Someone simply saying ‘I believe that transgender identity is a product of mental disorder’ is not the same as ‘transgender people are purely delusional and should be shamed from society for thinking the way they do’. The human race did not get to where it is today by simply spewing insults and personal attacks on someone because of pure disagreements. You can disagree with a claim that you feel is unsupported or illogical, but stop trying to make it seem as if any critique or disbelief in a topic you believe in is hateful, because that is not the truth in actuality at all.

Honestly, I understand. I am very gender critical myself and oppose trans/gender ideology. The majority of transgender people (not all, but most) often resort to insults and personal attacks rather than the actual argument. I have yet to find someone actually willing to have a discussion about this topic and open their mind to the critique of this topic, which is why I am gender critical in the first place.

The reason most anyone is straight is for the sexual reproduction of the human race. If everyone was homosexual or most everyone was homosexual, we’d be a pretty fast dying species and we probably wouldn’t have made it this far if this were the case. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not homophobic. I don’t care who people feel attracted to in all honesty, I just wanted to give the logical thinking that goes on in a lot of the heads of those who disagree with LGB. They feel it is illogical to be anything other than straight because that goes against sexual reproductive norms. So while illogical thinking in your mind, it is logical thinking in theirs.

Honestly, I think it really just depends entirely on what you as a person feel is more valuable. Do you value your life itself or the quality of your life. I personally value the quality of my life more, as part of me subconsciously knows how rape would affect me if it were to happen to me. When I think about which one would cause me the most mental suffrage, I’d say rape is worse than DUI because I value the quality of my life rather than the sudden death that may or may not occur. Plus, it is more likely to happen to me as a black female, compared to being caught up in an incident caused by a DUI driver. Others who simply value their lives more would most likely feel DUI is worst because in their mind, it has a higher chance of killing people. They may also think that it has a higher chance of physically impairing a person, or neurologically impairing a person, which can also decrease the quality of your life significantly. All in all, it really just depends on what you value and what you part of these crimes you are focusing on. I can understand both thought processes and I don’t feel any type of malice towards either viewpoint.

RexFavilla wrote:

RemyBrown wrote:

Are you doing satire right now?

No, I firmly believe that rape is worse than drunk driving. You of course have no counterargument. Typical rapist - persuasion isn't their strong suit. It's somewhat atrophied as a faculty.

The notion that anyone who has a different opinion from someone else is a rapist or nazi or whatever irritates me to no end. If you think that’s going to truly change someone’s viewpoint on things, you are sorely mistaken.

In all honesty, there is no proof that being gay is a choice, nor is there any proof that being gay isn’t a choice. I personally believe that having some people who are homosexual is just a product of being in the animal kingdom. Although there is no evidence of specific genes that may cause this same-sex sexual attraction, it most likely is just a matter of diversity in the human race. I like to think that homosexuals exist in the animal kingdom in general to control population, but I haven’t seen anything that justifies this claim. Also, there are quite a few individuals in the LGB community who do indeed make out straight ‘cis’ people in general to be something bad, disgusting, or invalid. Not saying that everyone in the LGB community does it, but I do come across that viewpoint a lot.

Debby wrote:

…from a human rights and many scientific viewpoints, gender identity is an internal sense of self, not merely a choice that can be willed into existence. While some religious or philosophical views may differ, the prevailing understanding is that a person's gender identity is a deeply personal and often innate aspect of their being, which they have the right to express and have affirmed by others. 

I acknowledge that many state that gender identity is an internal sense of self that is innate, however, the fact that there are some scientific viewpoints that think it is innate doesn’t mean that proves it is. Currently, many scientists and researchers have come up with different views on the matter, with some disagreeing with gender identity being innate, and some agreeing to it being innate. Whether it’s natural has not been found to be definitive. There are still many things that need to be thought of and addressed first, one of them being the fact that not everyone has this sense of a gender identity. They don’t feel womanly or manly or nonbinary or anything, they just are. The other major aspect that needs to be discussed is the fact that the gender incongruence isn’t considered the disorder part, the gender dysphoria is, so that essentially makes it harder to find out whether the gender identity and the gender dysphoria that sometimes comes along with it is innate or caused by something biologically/neurologically related. As far as I’m aware (and correct me if i’m wrong), the only scientific studies that have happened in regards to gender identity (that I know of) being somewhat biological was the MRI scan study, and this study is heavily criticized for leaving out important aspects such as whether the individuals being tested were on certain hormones, were homosexual (sexual attraction wise, not gender), etc. If you are referring to the scientific studies on gene variation in transgender individuals, while some scientists think that this gene variation they have found is something that gives reason to why gender dysphoria is caused, they are still unsure about this factor. Not to mention the fact that it has already been found that neurodiversity such as Autism, ADHD, etc. is extremely prevalent. From the research that I have done into these studies, a lot of them do not take into account many things, and the majority are only theories that have not been proven or disproven, so there isn’t necessarily a scientific viewpoint that does lean towards gender identity being something innate. Of course, that doesn’t rule out the possibility, but evidence leans more philosophical/psychological than anything, especially considering the gender roles and the way society treats certain sexes based on their scales of masculinity or femininity. These roles can cause many to feel they are not ‘man’ or ‘woman’ enough, as seen with the rising increase of detransitioners and their experiences they often share with the world. That begs the question of whether the gender identity in itself is something that is truly universally deeply internal and personal. It doesn’t completely rule out that the gender identity could be internal to some, but it’s still something to think about. Then there’s also the aspect that gender dysphoria can also shows up as a symptom of something else rather than just a simple diagnosis for those with gender incongruence (for instance, sexual assault victims may experience gender dysphoria due to the trauma they experienced, or an Autistic child may feel overwhelmed during puberty due to all the new sensations it brings to the table, causing some sort of gender dysphoria), making it relatively hard to conclude on whether or not it is naturally caused by biological/neurological factors. However, I am not a biologist, geneticist, or anything along the lines of that, I am simply observing the information at hand, so if I am incorrect on something, feel free to point it out and correct me. So, I guess the point is, there are not any scientific consensuses that accept nor deny that gender identity is something innately internal, as the research is rather unclear.

I do not agree with Trump at all, but I can’t help but wonder what rights trans people are exactly losing? This is a genuine question!