The Musings of DeletedMember7

[emileh]

Keep making a fool of yourself 👍



Did you offer any counter arguments? ^^^ NO

I gave you answers repeatedly. Based on the science. I also gave you reasons that the answers were the way they were.

Those answers are in the two threads that you've been spamming with your transphobia. Anyone that can be bothered can go back through them and see my responses for themselves.

I cited a published, peer reviewed scientific paper that gave a good explanation based on biological science. You didn't and won't read it. Probably because it'll tell you that your dearly held transphobic opinions are worthless.

Unlike you, if you'd produced properly peer reviewed papers to support your claims, I'd be willing to read them, understand them and be persuaded to change my mind if they held up to scrutiny.

That's science. What you use is pseudoscience, rhetoric and hyperbole.

I should add that you did exactly the same thing under your previous account Tall man. Probably under others as well.

You were shown to be a transphobic bigot then and the same is happening now.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

 

[Deleted member 308590]

When people convey their views and understand biology, say women should have single sex spaces, sports, children cannot consent to puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, body mutilation, people should not be cancelled for not using pronouns, compelled speech, feelings don't have precedence over facts and you repeatedly retort with 'bigot, hatred, transphobe, right wing, agenda!

It has the opposite effect of what you want. You won't gain 'allies' that way. What Emileh does is one of the main reasons trans people are losing the support of the majority. No debate just trying to denigrate people who convey a differing view.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

It's so easy to win against them

 

[Deleted member 308590]

Just for everyone who didn't read almost a whole page of dispute, can you make a bullet point of the points he had? I'll be more than glad to properly address them.

The one I saw is "What are gay people fighting for that they don't already have" - my best answer is that when I went to a small town in Missouri, I felt a lot of hate, and some people got rather aggressive seeing me and my partner.

It's not a debate of rights anymore, it's a debate of respect. Something that Deleted kinda proved - he has no respect for gay people, saying that we're making up problems and such, without really providing any hard proof that being gay is as safe as being straight in small towns in America. THAT is the problem.

Any others I might've missed?

You're making it all about you and you're prevaricating. If some people were aggressive to you and your partner it doesn't mean gay people don't have the same rights as everyone else. Respect is earned it's not incumbent on me to respect anyone because of their sexuality, gay, bi or straight.

Saying 'he has no respect for gay people ' is just you trying to denigrate me because you disagree. I have friends who are gay. I never said gay people 'in general ' are making up problems that don't exist. I said perhaps YOU are. Is being a straight white conservative Christian male safe in woke college campuses, is being a Jew safe in predominantly muslim areas? Probably not.

The world is not America and this is not the 20th century.

 

[emileh]

When people convey their views and understand biology, say women should have single sex spaces, sports, children cannot consent to puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, body mutilation, people should not be cancelled for not using pronouns, compelled speech, feelings don't have precedence over facts and you repeatedly retort with 'bigot, hatred, transphobe, right wing, agenda!

It has the opposite effect of what you want. You won't gain 'allies' that way. What Emileh does is one of the main reasons trans people are losing the support of the majority. No debate just trying to denigrate people who convey a differing view.

Nope. Here are my responses yet again

I gave you answers repeatedly. Based on the science. I also gave you reasons that the answers were the way they were.

Those answers are in the two threads that you've been spamming with your transphobia. Anyone that can be bothered can go back through them and see my responses for themselves.

I cited a published, peer reviewed scientific paper that gave a good explanation based on biological science. You didn't and won't read it. Probably because it'll tell you that your dearly held transphobic opinions are worthless.

Unlike you, if you'd produced properly peer reviewed papers to support your claims, I'd be willing to read them, understand them and be persuaded to change my mind if they held up to scrutiny.

That's science. What you use is pseudoscience, rhetoric and hyperbole.

I should add that you did exactly the same thing under your previous account Tall man. Probably under others as well.

You were shown to be a transphobic bigot then and the same is happening now.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

@emileh honest question are you mentally ill? Those are NOT your responses to about 100 of my points and questions I asked you. If you actually READ my posts you would see that. Your pseudoscience 'study' was ONE answer. One . And btw...

Yes well, they're all heavily biased by your obvious prejudice but anyway here you go dumbass here's a source for you, and there are plenty of others all based on good science.

Links aren't allowed so search for this article title: Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation

The article reference number is: PMC6677266 and it's on the American nih gov site.

If the words get too hard for you though, feel free to go and paint a mini-roundabout to relieve the stress.

There's no way for me to even look at that. PMC6677266 . desperately posting that 100 times lol is that ^^^ an answer to this...

@emileh tell me how any of my beliefs, what I say is 'far right ' 'bigotry' ' hatred' ok

1. Women should have a right to single sex spaces

2. Trans women should not be in women's sports or changing areas because they are men

3. Children cannot consent to puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, surgery
4. People should not have to use compelled speech to validate others ,
5. Trans women should not be in women's breastfeeding classes because they are men

6. People should not be fired, cancelled for not using compelled speech, pronouns

7. Men convicted of a crime
should not be moved to women's prisons if they identify as a woman.

8. Language should not be twisted distorted to erase the meaning of woman.

9. People shouldn't be labelled as cisgender. Male/ female, man/woman is suffice
10. Feelings should not have precedence over facts

Does that answer THAT post? NO

 

[Deleted member 308590]

Since when did the gay rights movement indoctrinate children with an ideology 'teaching' them that not conforming to gender stereotypes means they were 'born in the wrong body' and the solution is puberty blockers, cross sex hormones making them sterile for life and mutilated body parts? They weren't.

The gay rights movement were not demanding compelled speech and getting people fired, cancelled if others did not validate them and use compelled speech.

The gay rights movement were not demanding to use the changing areas of the opposite sex, compete in the sports of the opposite sex.

It's an entirely different argument. Trans/ gender ideology is absolutely a threat to children and it's propogated by trans activists forcing their insane ideology onto institutions.

The same arguments used against the trans community have not been used multiple times before, ever.

Still on the same old bigoted agenda pushing rant? Same shite, different thread.

Dogmatists gonna dogmatise eh?

@emileh does your ' peer review scientific paper' answer my QUOTED post? NO.

You have your reply. I QUOTED your reply. Same for many more of your bs ad hominem replies. Stop with your blatant lies and nonsense ty

 

[Deleted member 308590]

 

[emileh]

@emileh honest question are you mentally ill? Those are NOT your responses to about 100 of my points and questions I asked you. If you actually READ my posts you would see that. Your pseudoscience 'study' was ONE answer. One . And btw...

There's no way for me to even look at that. PMC6677266 . desperately posting that 100 times lol is that ^^^ an answer to this...

Does that answer THAT post? NO

I can provide more scientific papers to support the responses I gave if you want them and you can easily view the paper I mentioned. If you had read my post properly, I told you to search for the title: "Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation" and the reference number on the nih gov site. The author is C E Roselli.

I just ran a quick g00gle search on the title and it came up top of the results page. If the link you get only shows you the abstract, click on the reference number I gave you and that'll take you to the full paper.

There, now you have no excuse.

All of my responses to the reason why transsexualism and gender shift is a thing were a dumbed down version of this and other papers on the subject. Addressing the actual reason why human brains don't always match the biological sex of the body they're in. That is why people want to live as a gender other than their birth gender. It's very simple to understand the reasons without having to dive into neuroscience and biology. Transsexualism is a real thing.

I've said this in various ways at various times in my earlier responses to your agenda pushing posts. If people want to go through the thread then they'll see those.

Honestly, if people were less concerned about who another person loves and how they manage their sex lives and concentrated on the fact that they were actually just decent people living their lives their way and contributing to society, the world would be a much better place.

If your narrow world view can't deal with that simple proposition then you might be better off moaning on a site where people support those views. At that point I'm just going to call you out for what you are with no apologies for doing so.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

---

I can provide more scientific papers to support the responses I gave if you want them and you can easily view the paper I mentioned. If you had read my post properly, I told you to search for the title: "Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation" and the reference number on the nih gov site. The author is C E Roselli.

I just ran a quick g00gle search on the title and it came up top of the results page. If the link you get only shows you the abstract, click on the reference number I gave you and that'll take you to the full paper.

There, now you have no excuse.

All of my responses to the reason why transsexualism and gender shift is a thing were a dumbed down version of this and other papers on the subject. Addressing the actual reason why human brains don't always match the biological sex of the body they're in. That is why people want to live as a gender other than their birth gender. It's very simple to understand the reasons without having to dive into neuroscience and biology. Transsexualism is a real thing.

I've said this in various ways at various times in my earlier responses to your agenda pushing posts. If people want to go through the thread then they'll see those.

Honestly, if people were less concerned about who another person loves and how they manage their sex lives and concentrated on the fact that they were actually just decent people living their lives their way and contributing to society, the world would be a much better place.

If your narrow world view can't deal with that simple proposition then you might be better off moaning on a site where people support those views. At that point I'm just going to call you out for what you are with no apologies for doing so.

In the 'studies' you cited at the end, the Conclusions part, they say quote ' The data summarised in the present review SUGGEST that both gender identity and sexual orientation are significantly influenced by events occurring during the early developmental period when the brain is differentiatimg under the influence of gonadal steroid hormones, genes and maternal factors. HOWEVER, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are NOT always consistent.

For every C.E. Roselli there's ten more neuroscientists, biologists etc who refute his ' studies ' Mr Roselli probably has a trans son lol or went to an ideologically captured university and to reiterate none of this 'study' is an answer to or 99.9 per cent of my questions I asked you or salient points I conveyed. You know that.

I've no problem with people wanting to live as the gender other than their biological birth gender, the issue is when they demand that everyone else must play along and affirm them as the opposite sex, use their pronouns and it's forced onto institutions, it has real implications on everyday life for people i.e women's changing areas. It's not about who people love, their sex life's I've already explained in this thread what the issues are.

You are the one with the narrow world view, you can't deal with opposing views thus your insistence that people who convey opposing views are bigots, hateful, transbobes, pushing an agenda etc people have the right to disagree without being vilified.

The reason LGBT people have rights 'and rightly so' is because of the right to disagree and now some trans activists are trying to take away our right to disagree hence cancel culture.

 

[Deleted member 293502]

I'm unwatching this thread.

I'm disgusted by Chat Avenue at this point. But fine, freedom of speech and belief and such.

Look, it's fine if you disagree Mr.DeletedMember, but you're refuting a scientific article with no other evidence. Not only that, but you're attacking the scientist who performed the article (ad-homiem, might I add)

But using someone's preferred pronouns is a basic form of respect. If I called you a she (or a he, if you are AFAB - assigned female at birth) would you take kindly to it? Would you not care? I've met some men that get very aggressive if you deliberately use the wrong gender. Why would a trans person *not* act the same way?

This kind of thinking is rather hostile, and it's shown throughout this thread that you yourself are very hostile, and that's why I'm disgusted with Chat Avenue right now. You can speak about your beliefs, but degrading people the way you have is unacceptable.

That goes for the other person in the argument as well, this disagreement has gone long past what it needed to. Ignore and move on.

 

[Deleted member 293502]

@Inkandtatts I don't know what can be done about some of this behavior, but I want you to take a peek anyway.

Deleted is being blatantly transphobic and unfortunately, despite having gay friends, is missing the point behind both trans and gay rights. Namely the right to live with peace of mind, not worrying about being murdered for being yourself.

I doubt Chat Ave has policy against this, but just in case...

Also, this is the LGB forum, so even if isn't against site rules, it needs to be moved to Debate or similar, since it's unraveled into that.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

I'm unwatching this thread.

I'm disgusted by Chat Avenue at this point. But fine, freedom of speech and belief and such.

Look, it's fine if you disagree Mr.DeletedMember, but you're refuting a scientific article with no other evidence. Not only that, but you're attacking the scientist who performed the article (ad-homiem, might I add)

But using someone's preferred pronouns is a basic form of respect. If I called you a she (or a he, if you are AFAB - assigned female at birth) would you take kindly to it? Would you not care? I've met some men that get very aggressive if you deliberately use the wrong gender. Why would a trans person *not* act the same way?

This kind of thinking is rather hostile, and it's shown throughout this thread that you yourself are very hostile, and that's why I'm disgusted with Chat Avenue right now. You can speak about your beliefs, but degrading people the way you have is unacceptable.

That goes for the other person in the argument as well, this disagreement has gone long past what it needed to. Ignore and move on.

'look it's fine if you disagree Mr DeletedMember' oh really, then why did you tag ink and tats crying for this thread to be closed? 'Refuting a scientific article ' ? In my previous post I've covered this. The 'scientific article ' is NOT conclusive. If you actually read my previous post you would see that. 'attacking the scientist' lol talk about clutching at straws!.

'using someone's preffered pronouns is a basic form of respect ' No it's not. I don't need validation, I don't need people to affirm me as male. Women don't need people to affirm them as female, they don't identify as female, they simply are female. Woman does not need a prefix.

Our sex is not 'assigned ' at birth. Our name is. Trans people misgender themselves. I degraded no one however you tried that with me in your other post when you opined ' He has no respect for gay people ' you try to denigrate me because you disagree.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

@Inkandtatts I don't know what can be done about some of this behavior, but I want you to take a peek anyway.

Deleted is being blatantly transphobic and unfortunately, despite having gay friends, is missing the point behind both trans and gay rights. Namely the right to live with peace of mind, not worrying about being murdered for being yourself.

I doubt Chat Ave has policy against this, but just in case...

Also, this is the LGB forum, so even if isn't against site rules, it needs to be moved to Debate or similar, since it's unraveled into that

Straw man argument. Give any examples of me being 'transphobic' You're being truthphobic. Stop pretending it's the 20th century trans and gay people are not being murdered for being themselves in western countries. Looks like victimhood is fundamental to you. You're just crying because of my reply to your other post

 

[Deleted member 308590]

This one...

 

[Deleted member 308590]

way too boring to read yes. he is another user who doesnt know the meaning of the word 'concise' xd

yet, and still, ... deleted has some valid points.
no?

yes, no, maybe?
perhaps ... possibly?

Just for everyone who didn't read almost a whole page of dispute, can you make a bullet point of the points he had? I'll be more than glad to properly address them.

The one I saw is "What are gay people fighting for that they don't already have" - my best answer is that when I went to a small town in Missouri, I felt a lot of hate, and some people got rather aggressive seeing me and my partner.

It's not a debate of rights anymore, it's a debate of respect. Something that Deleted kinda proved - he has no respect for gay people, saying that we're making up problems and such, without really providing any hard proof that being gay is as safe as being straight in small towns in America. THAT is the problem.

Any others I might've missed?

 

[Deleted member 308590]

I replied

You're making it all about you and you're prevaricating. If some people were aggressive to you and your partner it doesn't mean gay people don't have the same rights as everyone else. Respect is earned it's not incumbent on me to respect anyone because of their sexuality, gay, bi or straight.

Saying 'he has no respect for gay people ' is just you trying to denigrate me because you disagree. I have friends who are gay. I never said gay people 'in general ' are making up problems that don't exist. I said perhaps YOU are. Is being a straight white conservative Christian male safe in woke college campuses, is being a Jew safe in predominantly muslim areas? Probably not.

The world is not America and this is not the 20th century.

 

[Deleted member 293502]

Dude. Take the hint. Stop pinging me.

 

[Deleted member 308590]

G00gle NHS worker Jennifer Melle misgendering controversy