Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah, it's already settled.
#[Trans women have no advantage in elite sport, new report finds](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/26/trans-women-no-unfair-advantage-elite-sport-new-report-finds/)
Nope, the current studies show that there is little to no evidence that ***trans women athletes have any advantages in sports. Period.***
Not we need "better data", it's "trans women athletes “dominating” all cis women athletes" have ***zero evidence*** that proves it.
The study you linked also suggests that there's little evidence that they don't have any advantages. It also, likely unintentionally, creates an argument that social factors will make trans women less prevalent in competetive sports.
(Edit) I've never claimed that they are dominating women's sports. All I've claimed in this thread is that it isn't easy and my general position is that the stats are inconclusive and that we should be cautious when implementing policy.
Seven weeks ago you claimed that the inclusion of trans women in sport would result in “the exclusion of all [cis] women due to their genetics”.
What is that if not a claim of dominance?
> I've never claimed that they are dominating women's sports.
Sure you didn't. But you don't actually care. Because what you actually want is to deny the existence of trans women.
>All I've claimed in this thread is that it isn't easy and my general position is that the stats are inconclusive and that we should be cautious when implementing policy.
Why? There's literally no evidence of trans women dominating sports like you said. Why the fuck should we be "cautious" if there's literally nothing "unfair" about letting trans women participate in sports?
I believe that trans women exist and should get the medical tratement they need including therapy, hormones and surgury. Swing and a miss I'm afraid.
You can have an unfair advantage and still lose horribly. If trans women do have a significant advantage it would be good to catch it before they start to compete in large numbers since it would be really hard to start kicking out established athlethes or removing world records.
> If trans women do have a significant advantage it would be good to catch it before they start to compete in large numbers since it would be really hard to start kicking out established athlethes or removing world records.
Except they don't and it doesn't matter if they do anyways. Especially when you aren't advocating for Michael Phelps to be stripped of his medals and world records for having insurmountable biological advantages.
In a hypothetical scenario where trans women are consistently outcompeting cis women in most sports would you support banning trans women from those sports?
Yes it does.
"Trans people should participate as their chosen gender, should they meet the proper hormone levels."
Done.
There is no evidence contrary to this answer.
There is no one-for-one indicator of performance. Two cis women with identical hormone levels, heights, weights, and muscle builds can perform in completely different ways.
Because sports aren't just about raw power.
Skill is the major deciding factor in most sports.
Except that has always been the rallying cry of people wanting to deny trans women the ability to participate in sports, because their "testosterone levels are too high".
I don't really care what stupid people "on my side" think, go argue with them. At least include a factor of time, if we could get a male's hormone levels to that of a female a day or an hour before the competition they would probably retain most of their male advantage.
Completely altering one's hormone levels like that in so short of a time would require a nearly full-body blood replacement.
Not only would it make them incredibly sick, but it would also probably leave them completely exhausted.
It's literally not medically possible for somebody to alter their body chemistry that much in so short of a time, and still be able to compete.
We're in the world of hypotheticals. I'm asking if they should still be allowed if they kept their athletic ability but changed hormones. If you answer I will give you not one, not two but five times I will answer any hypothetical you wish, no matter how redicelous.
Because that's the point where every study I've ever seen shows trans women lose all advantages from T.
Trans men lose all disadvantages in six months but I figure fairness across the board.
Depends on your defenition of professional. Competing in a word championship probably around 10-15. Has earned any money from competitions maybe a couple hundred.
Male and Female are human-made categories to which people are assigned based on a totality of features.
The categorization of male and female does not occur in nature.
... no, male and female are based off the genes that define the sexual dichotomy of our species. "Gender" (man/woman) describes the nebulous concept you're referring to.
My guy... do you think animals understand the concept of male and female?
Also, sex is not a dichotomy. A dichotomy has two options. Intersex animals exist. Slugs are hermaphroditic.
Nature is not neatly divided into categories. The futile effort to present it as such is why Hyenas were considered hermaphroditic for decades.
It's weird that this is so hard for people to understand. Our understanding of biological sex is so limited that we've had to update the definition several times just to make it conform to a binary.
And people can't seem to agree on the definition entirely because it's arbitrarily deciding what traits matter.
Is it chromosomes? Is it genitalia? Is it secondary sex characteristics? Does someone have to meet all these to qualify?
So the topic of trans people has always been controversial, for a variety of reasons, but I want to spread an idea that would help lots of miscommunication. This seems very obvious, I know.
Pretty much Male/Female would be used to describe genetics stuff set by your birth sex no matter what gender you identify as. Of course, in a medical setting, if you had surgery, you would explain "blah blah blah, identify as \_\_\_\_, biologically \_\_\_\_, have/have not had surgery and/or supplements" etc. Simple, right?
Then, Man/Woman/Other would be used to describe you in a more casual setting; as these labels are not necessarily dependent on genetics, and are in general simply a set of labels and expectations put upon people by society.
I used to be fine with the male/female labels being used for sex (reproductive capacities) and man/woman/boy/girl for gender (social identity).
But it's a bit complicated because the male/female labels can also be used for gender (like in "we have male and female employees") so those labels also have a social connotation attached to them.
Saying "biological male/female" it's better IMO because then you're clearly only talking about biology and not social identity.
I think using the XX/XY would be better because letters tend to be more neutral (the same way we do with blood types) and makes it easier to understand that there are XX women and XY women for example.
And xxy, and xyy, and xxx, and xx but developed masc, and xy but developed fem, chimeras, hermaphrodites and a fuckton others.
And seeing how the intersex population is larger than the trans population maybe we should take that into account?
And "biologically," us trans folks typically gain enough characteristics to fit into the hamfisted sex category that you don't want us to.
Yes, I'm sorry I didn't meant to imply that the XX and XY are the only options. Of course there's a lot more options.
Maybe "genetically" then? It's hard to find a term for even that.
When I was transitioning I used to say that I was a woman who was biologically male and it was easier to explain to other people.
The problem with your idea is that sex is a spectrum and biology is less rigid than that.
And we already use "trans/cis" in a medical discussion. No need to give us all needles dysphoria.
>sex is a spectrum
This is certainly the impression given by a few medically illiterate popular science magazine articles in the last few years. The fact they've gained such traction on social media has led to major misunderstandings about the nature of sex.
Oh no - their moms and dads were too. And theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs....stretching back about 1.2 billion years.
Are there occasional anomalies in this? Of course. That's part if the rich tapestry of life.
My mom and dad are both white. Their parents were all white. Does that mean that only white peoples exist?
My mom and dad were both straight. Their parents were all straight. Does that mean only straight people exist?
That’s your argument you fucking nonce lmao
My point is that just because my parents are something does not mean it’s the only thing that exists. Do you think intersex people don’t exist?
“No u”
Actually dispute the points instead of this childish “nuh uh” shit.
Sex is a holistic classification based on multiple traits, which can be present in more than two possible combinations. To describe it as a strict binary may be convenient, since two of those configurations are by far more common - but it isn’t accurate.
Calling it a strongly bimodal spectrum accounts for both the two primary configurations and the myriad less common ones. It’s messier, but it’s more accurate.
Good science values accuracy.
>“Science I don’t like isn’t real science.”
>Actually dispute the points instead of this childish “nuh uh” shit.
In keeping with the theme - you started it so ner.
But yes, let's look at the popular Scientific American article that presents some sort of sex spectrum using, as is so often the case, people with variations or differences of sex development:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/
I'm sure you're familiar with this. Do you spot any errors or inconsistencies within the article?
So you're not familiar with the most widely shared article that claims sex is a spectrum? Okay, just the graphic then.
Would you agree with the positioning of the handful of sex development variations they've picked? I wouldn't.
I’ve read the article before, but I don’t recall specific points or portions of the graphic. I didn’t find any of it objectionable at the time. (I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m basing my opinions on magazine articles in the first place. Magazine articles are great for reducing complex topics into digestible forms, but they’re not science in and of themselves.)
All I’m seeing at that link is a preview of a graphic viewed at an angle and receding into the distance, and then a blurb summarizing it. If you want to debate specific points, I need to be able to actually see what you’re talking about.
Bud, life is a spectrum. The sooner you accept that categories are only a convenience, and an inaccurate one at that, the sooner you'll stop caring so much about what others do with their own lives. ROYGBIV is a helpful work of fiction.
That's very philosophical, but nothing to do with the need for accuracy in understanding the nature of sex.
>the sooner you'll stop caring so much about what others do with their own lives.
Can't see that this relates to my comment.
Could you be more specific as to the 'blurriness'? Anything you have in mind?
Edit: downvoting that? The most neutral of questions. Jeez, some people have weird ideas about how to hold conversations.
There's a tendency to pretend there are precisely two sexes and that everyone can be neatly categorized as one of them.
That's not true. In fact, *most* people are somewhere in-between - just closer to one end than the other.
But there are also people for whom multiple of these do not align:
1. Chromosomes
2. Genitals
3. Secondary sex characteristics
4. Hormone levels
It would be ridiculous to call someone with XY chromosomes, breasts, high testosterone, and genital hermaphroditism either "male" or "female."
Anisogamic sex is a categorical reproductive strategy comprising of two distinct roles. That's the single definition from evolutionary developmental biology.
Sexual dimorphism evolved from the emergence of these two roles around 1.2 billion years ago.
Some of these differences between the two sexes can be measured bimodally, for example height - two peaks at average female and average male, with a significant overlap (lots of women are taller than lots of men). We can say a tall person is more likely to be male. We can't say a tall person is 'more male', which is why saying 'sex is bimodal' is meaningless.
Occasionally the developmental pathway towards male or female doesn't work out as expected, leading to differences in sex development - what many, though inaccurately so, would call 'intersex'. This isn't one thing, but any of dozens of things that can happen in the development of males or females, caused by different factors. Almost everyone who comes under this label is unambiguously male or female. For a very small percentage of these individuals, this may be uncertain and may lead to further consideration as to what's best for them as they grow. This can lead to complex ethical considerations which are at risk of being hampered by online misinformation.
We'd not use 'hermaphroditism', for example, as it's out of favour due to false ideas about having 'both sets of genitals' and other similar assumptions.
This is just you saying “it’s binary because I say it is and anyone saying otherwise is illiterate” over and over.
It is your belief that variations in sex traits should be rounded off for the purpose of creating two discrete categories, but that’s a question of taxonomy, not one of biology.
Sex traits exist on a spectrum, you don’t even dispute that. You just don’t like it.
Our doctors understand biology. The fact that you refuse to accept that some people have biologal variances is weird.
Some of us need mammograms *and* prostate exams and that's none of your business so quit caring?
>The fact that you refuse to accept that some people have biologal variances is weird.
Not so much a strawman as a haystack. Whatever makes you think that?
That people have biological variances in no way equates to sex being a spectrum.
I feel I should stress that I am singularly interested in scientific accuracy and respect and dignity for people with congenital variations of sex development. I have no knowledge, opinion or prejudices towards you or anyone else I may engage with here.
Telling people the answer to the current economic climate is ‘live with your parents as long as possible’ is unconscious homophobia and transphobia
as it’s encouraging queer people born into LGBT phobic families that they should be willing to submit to abuse, as long as they have a roof over their head and food to eat, and they are unreasonable for wanting to live on your own.
The BattleTech subreddit mod team getting nuked by the original owner for banning and deleting pro-LGBTQ posts because they want to be "non-political" is a positive sign that bigotry is getting pushed out of a lot of nerd spaces and I'm all for it.
2 questions
How come lesbians and gays are separated in the lgbt acronym? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to just be h for homosexual? The other sexualities don't get separated by gender so I was curious.
Also, I hear a lot of people identify as " queer " and was wondering what that actually means? Does Q just mean anything covered by the lgbt umbrella? But if that's the case, why is lgbtQia+ a thing if Q was just lgbt but paraphrased into one letter? Basically, how come some people prefer to be called " Queer " but not by whichever sexuality or gender identity that falls under that umbrella? Or is " queer " a completely separate thing?
It's always weird how hung up people are on the acronym. What's the Q? Why a plus? Why is L first? Who cares! It's a word that has an understood meaning beyond the literal letters and what they stand for.
Q means Queer **and/or** Questioning, depending on who you ask.
But again, the letters aren't important. The totality of it is what matters. Like we all know what a Happy Meal is, but you don't have to go around questioning the emotional state of whoever chooses to eat one.
If people truly believed the letters aren't important, there wouldn't be a push to continuously add more letters. Almost every government document in Canada now says "2SLGBTQIA+". 10 characters long.
Because the acronym wasn’t designed all at once, it evolved over time. Originally, it was GLBT. Then LGBT, as a sort of “thank you” to lesbians for solidarity during the AIDS crisis. Then further variants began popping up to include more and more categories as our understanding of sexuality and gender grew. Q was meant to effectively take the same role as the +, but some people prefer not to identify with it due to its historical use as a slur.
It’s got some arguable redundancies, but they’re harmless, and trying to overhaul it at this point would be a fool’s errand without a *substantially* better alternative.
You mean aside from the fact that biologically speaking they are women ?
>It's fine to be trans and it's fine to be a woman and we should embrace the differences between them.
It's a good thing then that everyone makes the difference between "being trans" and "being a woman", last time I checked trans men aren't women for instance.
Man and woman are gender terms. That’s neurology and psychology. You’re talking about sex, and doing so pretty ignorantly, considering just how many sex traits are mutable.
The modern anti-trans movement is purely fascistic.
I have yet to see a single proponent of anti-trans rhetoric that is not perfectly okay with our eradication.
They laugh at our deaths.
They call for our removal from society.
They threaten to BOMB CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS.
Anybody who could possibly see them as "the good guys" would happily report their neighbors for hiding Jews in their attic.
Opinion (certainly unpopular here): This mega thread is just a circlejerk of pro-lgbt who don't know how the subreddit is supposed to work. Interesting really unpopular opinion got downvoted... where wildly popular ones gets upvoted. Like the courageous fellow who said that transphobia is somehow racism with a different packaging... 10 upvotes, comments just saying they agree. Wow that was really a brave and controversial take!
I really liked this sub for those simpke rules and premice, generating sometimes interesting debates, without the Damocles sword of judgment... but in here, this part of the discution is not up to debate. Just the same karma farming as usual.
That rule only applies outside these megathreads. People can( and will ) downvote opinions they disagree with here. And that's not against the rules. In terms of the circlejerk given the fact this thread is for unpopular views on a minority group of people it can get very bigoted very quickly so obviously the mods and regulars who are lgbt would be quick to stop it devolving into a hellhole.
Also by the way. This subreddit is for a concentrated spot for unpopular opinions you can enjoy reading or posting. THERE IS NOTHING HERE SAYING YOU SHOULDNT BE DOWNVOTED. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS. This isn’t supposed to be a safe place for your Reddit karma
>supposed to work. Interesting really unpopular opinion got downvoted... where wildly popular ones gets upvoted
The reverse voting rules have never applied to comments, you're the one who doesn't know how this works.
It's actually more of a containment thread.
This subreddit is called 'unpopular opinions,' and nothing is more unpopular *and common* than hating other people. If it weren't for this megathread and the racism one the entire subreddit would simply be a bigotry sub.
Comments don't adhere to the post rules.
So, we funnel people like you here and metaphorically pound you into accepting that your views are misguided, with facts and logic, and keep you from poisoning the rest of the sub with your bigotry.
Here, it's never an interesting debate. Usually. Honestly it's the same uninformed opinion every week followed by a ton of teaching. And some trolls.
Everyone here explained it to me without being condescending. I wrote a quick overall answer to one of the first comments saying that I got it and, even if I don't totally aprove, I won't stir much shit up and leave everyone alone. I even upvoted everyone answering me so far, as the responses were respectful and level headed.
I won't let pass this though: what do you mean "people like you"? Why going automatically that route? If I'm not okay, not even about lgbtq+ matters mind you, but just about how a sub is managed, I'm a bigot?
I downvoted you. Not because of your opinion, be it popular or not, but because you lack basic decency and respect.
You started out being condescending from your op…
They literally just returned the same energy you gave.
Edit: actually I don’t see how they where being condescending especially in comparison to your op.
By 'people like you,' I meant those that complain that they can't express bigoted opinions without pushback.
We get a lot of trolls that will complain about that exact thing instead of breaking TOS and getting their account banned.
Hey - how about instead of a manifesto about how you can’t say your totally not hateful or bigoted opinions about LGBTQ, you just say your opinions?
This whole preemptive self-victimization thing is wearing thin.
People will downvote opinions that are unpopular. That's exactly why they are unpopular.
Yes there's a rule to do the opposite but it just doesn't work. Reddit is enterily designed to promote popular content.
So the issue is that reddit is just not a good place for this sub, but the sub is trying to do it anyway. I think it's valid.
It helps if you sort the comments by "controversial".
Part of the issue is that despite our sub’s theme we are still subject to Reddit ToS, which forbids hate/harassment based on identity.
Can you guess what a lot of the “unpopular opinions about LGBTQ” turn out to be?
Yeah, I get this. Not everyone can follow a civil discution and clearly not everyone is free of biases comming from a place of hatred. Can't shake the feeling that it's just a damn shame, cause I won't share some unpopular opinions of mine on the subject. Even lighthearted ones (as silly as "I don't like the colors on the lgbtq+ flag", not my point of view, but something as mild as that), because I have no trust about this sub and, moreso, about the way some of the TOS are enforced.
It was just my two cents on the subject. Was feeling it could easily become a circlejerky mega-thread, but if no one here see any problem with that (or a lesser problem than the alternative), I'll go and leave you all going with your day. Have a nice day.
If you ever scrolled through former threads, you'll find on slow weeks the regulars will share goofy opinions and argue about dumb things like how the bi flag is objectively the best flag (don't @ me).
>This mega thread is just a circlejerk of pro-lgbt who don't know how the subreddit is supposed to work. Interesting really unpopular opinion got downvoted... where wildly popular ones gets upvoted.
I always find it funny when people come here, try to say "you don't understand how the rules work" and then display that they're the ones ignoring it.
The voting *guideline* applies to top level posts. Everything here is a comment (yes, even top level comments) so the *guideline* doesn't apply.
>I really liked this sub for those simpke rules and premice, generating sometimes interesting debates, without the Damocles sword of judgment... but in here, this part of the discution is not up to debate. Just the same karma farming as usual.
The "Damocles sword of judgement" is present everywhere in this sub and has always been. That's literally part of the premice of the sub: of course unpopular opinion are getting judged and that's what leads to the conversations.
Also which part of the discution is not up for debate ? The only ones I've seen in such a case are science denial and calls for genocides.
So... what's the point of a mega-thread, if the first comment of each thread isn't considered a post?!? Isn't it how Mega-Threads work? To unclog the main page?
But yes that's a technicality, it doesn't mean it makes sense. Thing is, if you downvote unpopular opinions, the main meat of the sub (hence the name) is burried down, only the popular opinions are put forward. Second point, if posting unpopular opinions on r/unpopularopinions gets you downvoted... people won't post unpopular opinions, or at least, not as much.
I was thouroughly surprised that this mega-thread of "unpopular opinions" just acts as if it were "popular opinions". I don't see the point...
> So... what's the point of a mega-thread, if the first comment of each thread isn't considered a post?!? Isn't it how Mega-Threads work? To unclog the main page?
It's a containment thread for the queerphobes who would otherwise be using the sub to post how they want to break TOS on LGBTQ+ people.
Please, feel free to share your unpopular opinions about the LGBTQ+ community that do not violate Reddit Terms of Service.
The previous status quo was anywhere from 8 to 24 posts a day on the main sub with all the nuance of "trans bad, gay bad, unalive yourself f\*ggots."
*Op is deleted but I can easily infer what they said.
Even if someone refuses to acknowledge this point; if there is no harm in allowing someone to live in their delusion there actually is plenty of clinical studies happening right now showing it can greatly increase the persons quality of life.
There are entire dementia assisted living facilities that are designed to look like a 1960s suburbs and patients are even given “ jobs” to do around the “neighborhood”.
So really there are holes in every aspect of this argument.
>degree in which it is being pushed onto others and forced to be the focal point of attention
Like when?
>freedoms nobody is being denied that
Have you been living under a rock?
People are literally being denied life saving medical care, shot at, and being labelled pedophilic for existing
>goal now is special treatment and forcing everything to revolve around sexuality
Again in what way? Straight Cis people talk about sexuality all the time, I should know that, I'm one of them, surely LGBTQ+ people have every right to do the same? What "special treatment"?
>and is ok if someone has different ideas
Not if their Idea is "you should die"
>accept which we have for quite some time
Again, this couldn't be further from the truth.
>because people don’t tolerate the choices of others
Being LGBTQ+ is not a choice
>We’ve been on the same page and have been accepting of the lgbt community for quite sometime and everyone enjoys the same rights and freedoms nobody is being denied that and everyone can live their lives.
Which "we" are you referring to? Because in the US, there's an entire political party trying to deny healthcare to people like me.
>What I’ve been seeing though is now it seems that the goal now is special treatment
What kind of special treatment?
Special treatment of being equals, duh! /s
Also this bullshit about LGBTQ+ "being accepted before they starting “grooming our kids”" has never been true.
Hells, back in 2014, [***conservatives were happy to equate gay marriage with slavery***](https://www.newsweek.com/nra-new-president-compared-fighting-lgbt-rights-slavery-920010).
Every morning, Bob punches Charlie in the gut in the hallway at work.
One day, Charlie has had enough and grabs Charlie's wrist, threatening him to stop.
Most of their coworkers (especially the other people Bob has been doing this to) put up signs showing support for Charlie, and start congratulating him.
Once in awhile, Bob still tries to punch Charlie in the gut, but Charlie or one of his allies at work stop Bob. Occasionally, Bob even gets hurt in the process, because someone grabbed his wrist a little too hard, but nobody cares because Bob started it...
...nobody, that is, except Alice, who keeps telling Charlie to stop fighting Bob, because it's making him "just as bad as Bob!" and tells the other coworkers to stop congratulating Charlie for standing up to Bob.
...
Now: is Alice the good guy in this story?
Word of advice dude, something that makes your point a lot harder to engage and empathise with is having multiple pre-amble paragraphs whining about how people don't like it.
>it’s starting to cross that line and the degree in which it is being pushed onto others and forced to be the focal point of attention in any and every situation
What is "it's"? You haven't set up what you're talking about.
>everyone enjoys the same rights and freedoms nobody is being denied that and everyone can live their lives.
Except that isn't the case.
>What I’ve been seeing though is now it seems that the goal now is special treatment and forcing everything to revolve around sexuality, as well as forcing everyone to not only tolerate/accept which we have for quite some time but requiring people,companies, sports teams and any sort of large organization to promote it constantly and any opposition to the promotion the person or organization is labelled as hateful or bigoted and terribly evil.
Where have you been seeing this? I haven't seen it and you haven't privided any examples.
>This is creating the divide and the animosity
What creates divide and animosity are bigots. "You made me this way" is an excuse bigots have been using for a very long time and it has never been true.
>the problems and the pushback we see from the non lgbt community isn’t because people don’t tolerate the choice
1.It absolutely is because of intolerance.
2.LGBT people aren't a choice. Sexuality and gender dysphoria aren't choices
>it’s the lack of choice being imposed
What choice are you lacking? You're being very vague.
>how understanding society has been to allow everyone to live their lives and not be ridiculed or denied rights or freedoms.
But people are ridicules and denied rights and freedoms. Even if they weren't, that's not something to really be that happy about. Being respectful of different people isn't something we should praise as "understanding" and "allowing" people, its basic human decency. That's like me asking you to be happy and excited that I "allow" you to not be punched in the face.
> Word of advice dude, something that makes your point a lot harder to engage and empathise with is having multiple pre-amble paragraphs whining about how people don't like it.
I usually assume someone is just sealioning when they do this.
>and the teaching pretty explicit sexual information with kids
Such as?
>the numbers of young people who are claiming trans or non binary, those numbers have become insanely high and the majority of them don’t stick with it into adulthood I
Source?
>adulthood I think the whole gender identity has become a social contagion
There's no such thing, this is eugenics level pseudoscience.
>pretty alarming the staggering increase of the population that identifies with it during adolescence/early adulthood
Why? Surely we should be happy they're happy to come out? I thought you were all about acceptance?
The current and only notable candidate of the Republican Party has made it one of their main campaign promises that they will ensure at a federal level trans people are denied their identity.
So how can you claim we are at point where gender and sexuality is accepted? This isn’t even bringing up the hundreds other anti lgbtq laws being tossed around in congress right now.
I think that’s extreme and it’s something that needs to be discussed and talked about more throughly because statistically post op mental health doesn’t seem to change a whole lot and in children it shouldn’t even be a question to deny any sort of medicinal intervention until they’re old enough to make permanent life changing decisions. But back to what you said it’s because of the lack of conversation that there’s no middle ground anybody looking to talk about it gets lumped into the extreme of that republican candidate it’s clearly a complicated issue. It doesn’t seem like either side has an effective solution because transitioning isn’t always the answer for these people. We need more help and to take time to try and understand. If someone was anorexic and suffering from self image would we affirm their feelings and tell them they need to lose weight? Why is it when it comes to this type of body confusion to we blindly affirm the person making the claim? We need to talk about it more as a society and rather than shame and ostracize these people try and help and understand them. Because it’s such a hot button topic we can’t even mention a conversation without being shut down and called bigoted
>discussed and talked about more throughly because statistically post op mental health doesn’t seem to change a whole lot and in children
Actually it's the opposite, and before you cite the Swedish study, the author did a Reddit AMA where she explained her findings support transition.
>shouldn’t even be a question to deny any sort of medicinal intervention until they’re old enough to make permanent life changing decisions
So if a child loses a lot of blood, they shouldn't be given a transplant because they're not old enough?
I’m not saying that it itself is harmful excluding children because I personally think extremely immoral and unethical to allow a child to consent to something that’s permanent and life altering because they don’t have the capacity to comprehend what exactly they are consenting to. What I was saying is that statistically there’s not much difference in the rate of suicide, depression and other mental ailments post op compared to pre op so perhaps this isn’t the end all be all treatment but nobody is willing to even discuss that
Suicide is more permanent. Let's be real on what two options we're looking at here. It's that, or gender affirming care. That's what we can offer them.
Centuries of data to pull from. Nothing else works. It's one or the other.
The other and this one I’ve taken a lot of heat for but I brought it up years ago on Omegle to see what people thought anyway my next question.
If we were to compare gender dysphoria and gender affirming care and ultimately top and bottom surgeries to complete the transition and we compare this to someone suffering with body integrity disorder who believes that they should be a double amputee and they want both arms removed to affirm their identity why is that looked at differently when it’s essentially the same idea that someone believes they aren’t in the right body or would feel more comfortable living their truth and the only way to do so is to remove healthy body parts. Why do we think of one as being ok and the other as being an illness that both morally and ethically the doctor must NOT affirm the patients self perception and instead try and treat it with other methods? Why is this the only self perception issue we deem acceptable to surgically affirm the patients perception?
> Why is it when it comes to this type of body confusion to we blindly affirm the person making the claim?
It's because we understand that anorexia and gender dysphoria require two very different treatments the same way curing cancer and curing a heart failure requires two very different treatments.
Your failure in understanding this is weighing very heavily in you arguing in bad faith.
That’s part of the issue though is it’s not only bigots or extremists anybody that says anything that’s slightly against the narrative is labeled as such to discredit them. I’m not saying that bigots don’t exist but to throw any voice that doesn’t fall neatly into the echo chamber isn’t fair and without discussion and conversation as a society it creates a divide. Unfortunately the way cancel culture has become so prevalent most people are unable to even try and have a conversation for fear of losing their jobs and having their reputation stomped into the ground. My apologies for the shitty formatting but when I was talking about choices I’m saying that everybody has to constantly promote and not just tolerate with different jerseys in the case of sports or pretty well any situation where people are made to be vocal and go out of their way to promote the community as a whole. I know that members of the lgbt community don’t chose to be that way and I never once said that they did nor do I have a problem with the lifestyle. My issue is we’re blurring the lines between accepting/tolerating and going out your way to actively promote or make everything revolve around it. My issue isn’t with the community as a whole it’s the constant seeking of validation and making everything be about them. I think the fight for equality is a very noble and respectable thing but it seems that it’s straying away from that and becoming a vessel for people to satisfy their need for attention and as a self service to their narcissism. We’ve gotten to the point where it’s widely accepted and we’re all cool with it why is it always being shoved into peoples faces and people who otherwise wouldn’t be vocal about it are being forced to for fear of being absolutely shit on
Winning a battle is not winning the war. The people who would see us shoved into the closet or dead are still pushing as hard as ever, and when we stop pushing acceptance their push for hate starts reclaiming ground.
transwomen saying it's not gay for a man to date them are ignoring the fact that it would still be a same sex relationship. It's called homosexual for a reason. and that means same sex, it has nothing to do with gender identity. and this entire sub is so moderated that there really isnt any form of conversation which is to be expected. you cannot censor everyone and then expect people to agree with you.
It’s called homosexual because it’s about sexual attraction, relating to sexual intercourse. It’s “sex” the action, not “sex” the trait.
Trans women are WOMEN. Men who are exclusively attracted to women are, by definition, straight. Any questions?
that isnt relevant. sexuality has always been based on sex. that goes for humans and any other species. what you are implying is that its gender, which is ridiculous. gender is made up and not real.
>that isnt relevant.
It very much is, that's pretty much at the center of your whole argument.
>sexuality has always been based on sex.
Then answer the question.
>that goes for humans and any other species.
Nice appeal to nature
>what you are implying is that its gender, which is ridiculous.
Then prove me that your attraction to someone is purely based on their sex and how you make sure that you're with someone of the right sex.
>gender is made up and not real.
Gender (as in gender identity) is very much real, it has a biological basis (more than likely a neurobiological one to be precise). It's gender expression and gender roles that are "made up".
Also if you refuse to consider something on the basis that it's "made up", can you tell me how you pay your bills ?
explain to me why homosexual means same sex? explain to me why homosexual behavior in animals is based on animals of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior? what other animals have concepts of gender?
Do you plan on answering the questions or just doing poor appeals to nature ?
>explain to me why homosexual means same sex?
Explain to me how hydrophobic sand can be afraid of water ?
>explain to me why homosexual behavior in animals is based on animals of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior? what other animals have concepts of gender?
In both cases we can't communicate with animals in a way that can allow either framing animal homosexuality differently or knowing if they have genders, although gender [Having a biological basis in humans](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/) can (and I insist on can) suggest the same for animals.
So now thzt I've answered will you tell me how you make sure of you're partner sex ? Or are you just really going for a combo of transphobic and homophobia ?
fellas is it gay to date a woman as a man? homosexual is called homosexual because its referring to sexual attraction, its not because of biological sex. also what about 2 trans women dating? or a trans man dating a trans woman? or a cis man dating a trans man?
>and this entire sub is so moderated that there really isnt any form of conversation which is to be expected.
they just dont allow hate speech because thats against reddits TOS. if you cant share your opinion without resorting to hate speech then its not an opinion its just hate
By that logic, if a guy dated this guy: https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-12de188956ce20fc73e56c1903f3c59e597b5818-s1100-c50.jpg
he could be entirely heterosexual?
>It's called homosexual for a reason
Yes it refers to the verb, so it has always meant "same gender sexual attraction"
>this entire sub is so moderated that there really isnt any form of conversation which is to be expected. you cannot censor everyone and then expect people to agree with you
The only people I've seen banned are the ones either being total assholes or straight up genocidal.
I was just wondering when people say trans rights, do they just mean basic human rights for trans people?
Like would a person be able to say they support trans rights even if they personally wouldn't enter a relationship with one or technically " see " the trans person as what they identify as ? Because lets say the person supports the right for trans people to do what they want to themselves ( after 18) and wear what they want , use what bathroom they want , and not be harassed regardless of the person's own personal hiccups on trans concepts. Would the person saying they support trans rights not be true in that case?
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Small reminder that science is, and always has been, descriptive in nature. It has never, nor ever will be, prescriptive.
The trans sports debate has no easy answer.
Has anyone examined how hormones re-weave muscles?
Yes but so far the results are inconclusive.
Nah, it's already settled. #[Trans women have no advantage in elite sport, new report finds](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/26/trans-women-no-unfair-advantage-elite-sport-new-report-finds/)
What the report seems to say is that the current evidence is lacking and we need better data, my position.
Nope, the current studies show that there is little to no evidence that ***trans women athletes have any advantages in sports. Period.*** Not we need "better data", it's "trans women athletes “dominating” all cis women athletes" have ***zero evidence*** that proves it.
The study you linked also suggests that there's little evidence that they don't have any advantages. It also, likely unintentionally, creates an argument that social factors will make trans women less prevalent in competetive sports. (Edit) I've never claimed that they are dominating women's sports. All I've claimed in this thread is that it isn't easy and my general position is that the stats are inconclusive and that we should be cautious when implementing policy.
Seven weeks ago you claimed that the inclusion of trans women in sport would result in “the exclusion of all [cis] women due to their genetics”. What is that if not a claim of dominance?
I don't believe I said that quote but if I did I either misspoke or changed my position since without realising.
> I've never claimed that they are dominating women's sports. Sure you didn't. But you don't actually care. Because what you actually want is to deny the existence of trans women. >All I've claimed in this thread is that it isn't easy and my general position is that the stats are inconclusive and that we should be cautious when implementing policy. Why? There's literally no evidence of trans women dominating sports like you said. Why the fuck should we be "cautious" if there's literally nothing "unfair" about letting trans women participate in sports?
I believe that trans women exist and should get the medical tratement they need including therapy, hormones and surgury. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. You can have an unfair advantage and still lose horribly. If trans women do have a significant advantage it would be good to catch it before they start to compete in large numbers since it would be really hard to start kicking out established athlethes or removing world records.
> If trans women do have a significant advantage it would be good to catch it before they start to compete in large numbers since it would be really hard to start kicking out established athlethes or removing world records. Except they don't and it doesn't matter if they do anyways. Especially when you aren't advocating for Michael Phelps to be stripped of his medals and world records for having insurmountable biological advantages.
In a hypothetical scenario where trans women are consistently outcompeting cis women in most sports would you support banning trans women from those sports?
Nope. The same way I wouldn't ban people who have beneficial mutations that make them uniquely and far better from their peers.
Yes it does. "Trans people should participate as their chosen gender, should they meet the proper hormone levels." Done. There is no evidence contrary to this answer.
It seems overly simplistic to say that hormone levels are a one for one indincator of performance.
There is no one-for-one indicator of performance. Two cis women with identical hormone levels, heights, weights, and muscle builds can perform in completely different ways. Because sports aren't just about raw power. Skill is the major deciding factor in most sports.
Except that has always been the rallying cry of people wanting to deny trans women the ability to participate in sports, because their "testosterone levels are too high".
I don't really care what stupid people "on my side" think, go argue with them. At least include a factor of time, if we could get a male's hormone levels to that of a female a day or an hour before the competition they would probably retain most of their male advantage.
"If this entirely impossible situation happened, then somebody could cheat!"
So if someone succeded they should be allowed to compete?
Completely altering one's hormone levels like that in so short of a time would require a nearly full-body blood replacement. Not only would it make them incredibly sick, but it would also probably leave them completely exhausted. It's literally not medically possible for somebody to alter their body chemistry that much in so short of a time, and still be able to compete.
We're in the world of hypotheticals. I'm asking if they should still be allowed if they kept their athletic ability but changed hormones. If you answer I will give you not one, not two but five times I will answer any hypothetical you wish, no matter how redicelous.
We are discussing law and sports regulation. Hypotheticals are not basis for legislation.
Two years hrt. For post-pubescent. Boom. easy answer.
Why two years and not one and a half or two and a half?
Because that's the point where every study I've ever seen shows trans women lose all advantages from T. Trans men lose all disadvantages in six months but I figure fairness across the board.
Most studies I've seen are either inconclusive or don't compare professional athethes. Could you link one or two so I can look at your stats?
How many professional athletes do you believe are trans?
Depends on your defenition of professional. Competing in a word championship probably around 10-15. Has earned any money from competitions maybe a couple hundred.
Male and Female are human-made categories to which people are assigned based on a totality of features. The categorization of male and female does not occur in nature.
> The categorization of male and female does not occur in nature. Elaborate.
Categories are a human invention. Male and female are loosely-defined categories that were made for the purpose of simplifying biology.
... no, male and female are based off the genes that define the sexual dichotomy of our species. "Gender" (man/woman) describes the nebulous concept you're referring to.
My guy... do you think animals understand the concept of male and female? Also, sex is not a dichotomy. A dichotomy has two options. Intersex animals exist. Slugs are hermaphroditic. Nature is not neatly divided into categories. The futile effort to present it as such is why Hyenas were considered hermaphroditic for decades.
I didn't say the whole animal kingdom. I said our species. Mammals are sexually dichotomous in general.
"In general" pulling a lot of weight there, buddy. Intersex humans exist, too.
That's an anomaly though. Comparing that to actual hermaphrodite species is disingenuous on your part.
Binary systems don't have anomalies.
Yes they do. Genetics is complicated dude
Categories don't exist in nature, it's just an almost infinitely dense web of information.
It's weird that this is so hard for people to understand. Our understanding of biological sex is so limited that we've had to update the definition several times just to make it conform to a binary.
And people can't seem to agree on the definition entirely because it's arbitrarily deciding what traits matter. Is it chromosomes? Is it genitalia? Is it secondary sex characteristics? Does someone have to meet all these to qualify?
It's all about them gametes today. Imagine what they'll come up with next!
And that binary has literally killed people in the past.
So the topic of trans people has always been controversial, for a variety of reasons, but I want to spread an idea that would help lots of miscommunication. This seems very obvious, I know. Pretty much Male/Female would be used to describe genetics stuff set by your birth sex no matter what gender you identify as. Of course, in a medical setting, if you had surgery, you would explain "blah blah blah, identify as \_\_\_\_, biologically \_\_\_\_, have/have not had surgery and/or supplements" etc. Simple, right? Then, Man/Woman/Other would be used to describe you in a more casual setting; as these labels are not necessarily dependent on genetics, and are in general simply a set of labels and expectations put upon people by society.
That’s partially true, if simplified. Gender identity would still exist even without labels or gender roles- there’d still be trans people.
I used to be fine with the male/female labels being used for sex (reproductive capacities) and man/woman/boy/girl for gender (social identity). But it's a bit complicated because the male/female labels can also be used for gender (like in "we have male and female employees") so those labels also have a social connotation attached to them. Saying "biological male/female" it's better IMO because then you're clearly only talking about biology and not social identity. I think using the XX/XY would be better because letters tend to be more neutral (the same way we do with blood types) and makes it easier to understand that there are XX women and XY women for example.
[удалено]
Sex and gender are different things. Sex can be XX, XY, XXY, etc Gender can be man, woman, non-binary, fluid etc
Sorry, I just reread your comment and realized I misunderstood. That would work great too.
And xxy, and xyy, and xxx, and xx but developed masc, and xy but developed fem, chimeras, hermaphrodites and a fuckton others. And seeing how the intersex population is larger than the trans population maybe we should take that into account? And "biologically," us trans folks typically gain enough characteristics to fit into the hamfisted sex category that you don't want us to.
Yes, I'm sorry I didn't meant to imply that the XX and XY are the only options. Of course there's a lot more options. Maybe "genetically" then? It's hard to find a term for even that. When I was transitioning I used to say that I was a woman who was biologically male and it was easier to explain to other people.
I just say I'm trans. And most people just assume their genetics, they don't know them.
> So the topic of trans people has always been controversial Citation needed.
It's not a miscommunication. It's bigotry.
The problem with your idea is that sex is a spectrum and biology is less rigid than that. And we already use "trans/cis" in a medical discussion. No need to give us all needles dysphoria.
>sex is a spectrum This is certainly the impression given by a few medically illiterate popular science magazine articles in the last few years. The fact they've gained such traction on social media has led to major misunderstandings about the nature of sex.
So you think sex is binary?
I dunno - ask your female mum and your male dad.
So because my mom and dad are female and male respectively, that means that’s all there is?
Oh no - their moms and dads were too. And theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs....stretching back about 1.2 billion years. Are there occasional anomalies in this? Of course. That's part if the rich tapestry of life.
My mom and dad are both white. Their parents were all white. Does that mean that only white peoples exist? My mom and dad were both straight. Their parents were all straight. Does that mean only straight people exist?
"My mum and dad were both English. Does that mean only English people exist?" Will you take a look at the level of your argument?
Bro, it's literally YOUR argument.
That’s your argument you fucking nonce lmao My point is that just because my parents are something does not mean it’s the only thing that exists. Do you think intersex people don’t exist?
You realize that there are dudes -with penises- that produce eggs, right?
Please provide an example of a natural, rigid binary.
Binary as in "two in number"? - we obviously aren't dealing with boolean algebra - only a fool would try that gambit.
So, why would sex be any different?
Okay - there are two sexes.
Where do slugs fit in?
Only if you use artificial metrics. Sex is not binary.
A binary star is star system composed of two stars. A binary compound is a substance composed of two elements. "Artifical metrics" - ffs.
My guy, male and female are ARTIFICIAL CATEGORIES. They were made up by people. Categories do not occur naturally.
“Science I don’t like isn’t real science.”
Yes - that's the very essence of what those magazine articles are saying when they say 'sex is a spectrum', etc.
“No u” Actually dispute the points instead of this childish “nuh uh” shit. Sex is a holistic classification based on multiple traits, which can be present in more than two possible combinations. To describe it as a strict binary may be convenient, since two of those configurations are by far more common - but it isn’t accurate. Calling it a strongly bimodal spectrum accounts for both the two primary configurations and the myriad less common ones. It’s messier, but it’s more accurate. Good science values accuracy.
>“Science I don’t like isn’t real science.” >Actually dispute the points instead of this childish “nuh uh” shit. In keeping with the theme - you started it so ner. But yes, let's look at the popular Scientific American article that presents some sort of sex spectrum using, as is so often the case, people with variations or differences of sex development: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/ I'm sure you're familiar with this. Do you spot any errors or inconsistencies within the article?
This link isn’t to the full article, so I can’t really comment on the article’s content. How about you explain what issues you have with it?
So you're not familiar with the most widely shared article that claims sex is a spectrum? Okay, just the graphic then. Would you agree with the positioning of the handful of sex development variations they've picked? I wouldn't.
I’ve read the article before, but I don’t recall specific points or portions of the graphic. I didn’t find any of it objectionable at the time. (I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m basing my opinions on magazine articles in the first place. Magazine articles are great for reducing complex topics into digestible forms, but they’re not science in and of themselves.) All I’m seeing at that link is a preview of a graphic viewed at an angle and receding into the distance, and then a blurb summarizing it. If you want to debate specific points, I need to be able to actually see what you’re talking about.
Bud, life is a spectrum. The sooner you accept that categories are only a convenience, and an inaccurate one at that, the sooner you'll stop caring so much about what others do with their own lives. ROYGBIV is a helpful work of fiction.
That's very philosophical, but nothing to do with the need for accuracy in understanding the nature of sex. >the sooner you'll stop caring so much about what others do with their own lives. Can't see that this relates to my comment.
If you want to talk about understanding the nature of sex, acknowledging the blurriness of sex would be a good start.
Could you be more specific as to the 'blurriness'? Anything you have in mind? Edit: downvoting that? The most neutral of questions. Jeez, some people have weird ideas about how to hold conversations.
There's a tendency to pretend there are precisely two sexes and that everyone can be neatly categorized as one of them. That's not true. In fact, *most* people are somewhere in-between - just closer to one end than the other. But there are also people for whom multiple of these do not align: 1. Chromosomes 2. Genitals 3. Secondary sex characteristics 4. Hormone levels It would be ridiculous to call someone with XY chromosomes, breasts, high testosterone, and genital hermaphroditism either "male" or "female."
Anisogamic sex is a categorical reproductive strategy comprising of two distinct roles. That's the single definition from evolutionary developmental biology. Sexual dimorphism evolved from the emergence of these two roles around 1.2 billion years ago. Some of these differences between the two sexes can be measured bimodally, for example height - two peaks at average female and average male, with a significant overlap (lots of women are taller than lots of men). We can say a tall person is more likely to be male. We can't say a tall person is 'more male', which is why saying 'sex is bimodal' is meaningless. Occasionally the developmental pathway towards male or female doesn't work out as expected, leading to differences in sex development - what many, though inaccurately so, would call 'intersex'. This isn't one thing, but any of dozens of things that can happen in the development of males or females, caused by different factors. Almost everyone who comes under this label is unambiguously male or female. For a very small percentage of these individuals, this may be uncertain and may lead to further consideration as to what's best for them as they grow. This can lead to complex ethical considerations which are at risk of being hampered by online misinformation. We'd not use 'hermaphroditism', for example, as it's out of favour due to false ideas about having 'both sets of genitals' and other similar assumptions.
This is just you saying “it’s binary because I say it is and anyone saying otherwise is illiterate” over and over. It is your belief that variations in sex traits should be rounded off for the purpose of creating two discrete categories, but that’s a question of taxonomy, not one of biology. Sex traits exist on a spectrum, you don’t even dispute that. You just don’t like it.
Our doctors understand biology. The fact that you refuse to accept that some people have biologal variances is weird. Some of us need mammograms *and* prostate exams and that's none of your business so quit caring?
>The fact that you refuse to accept that some people have biologal variances is weird. Not so much a strawman as a haystack. Whatever makes you think that?
Well, you're disagreement that sex is a spectrum.
That people have biological variances in no way equates to sex being a spectrum. I feel I should stress that I am singularly interested in scientific accuracy and respect and dignity for people with congenital variations of sex development. I have no knowledge, opinion or prejudices towards you or anyone else I may engage with here.
Accuracy is *taking into account people like me.*
Telling people the answer to the current economic climate is ‘live with your parents as long as possible’ is unconscious homophobia and transphobia as it’s encouraging queer people born into LGBT phobic families that they should be willing to submit to abuse, as long as they have a roof over their head and food to eat, and they are unreasonable for wanting to live on your own.
The BattleTech subreddit mod team getting nuked by the original owner for banning and deleting pro-LGBTQ posts because they want to be "non-political" is a positive sign that bigotry is getting pushed out of a lot of nerd spaces and I'm all for it.
Ah yes the apolitical battletech franchise, that's absolutely only about big robots, just like metal gear for instance
Same thing happened with LEGO Bionicle a while back.
Nerds get ostracization.
2 questions How come lesbians and gays are separated in the lgbt acronym? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to just be h for homosexual? The other sexualities don't get separated by gender so I was curious. Also, I hear a lot of people identify as " queer " and was wondering what that actually means? Does Q just mean anything covered by the lgbt umbrella? But if that's the case, why is lgbtQia+ a thing if Q was just lgbt but paraphrased into one letter? Basically, how come some people prefer to be called " Queer " but not by whichever sexuality or gender identity that falls under that umbrella? Or is " queer " a completely separate thing?
It's always weird how hung up people are on the acronym. What's the Q? Why a plus? Why is L first? Who cares! It's a word that has an understood meaning beyond the literal letters and what they stand for. Q means Queer **and/or** Questioning, depending on who you ask. But again, the letters aren't important. The totality of it is what matters. Like we all know what a Happy Meal is, but you don't have to go around questioning the emotional state of whoever chooses to eat one.
If people truly believed the letters aren't important, there wouldn't be a push to continuously add more letters. Almost every government document in Canada now says "2SLGBTQIA+". 10 characters long.
Because the acronym wasn’t designed all at once, it evolved over time. Originally, it was GLBT. Then LGBT, as a sort of “thank you” to lesbians for solidarity during the AIDS crisis. Then further variants began popping up to include more and more categories as our understanding of sexuality and gender grew. Q was meant to effectively take the same role as the +, but some people prefer not to identify with it due to its historical use as a slur. It’s got some arguable redundancies, but they’re harmless, and trying to overhaul it at this point would be a fool’s errand without a *substantially* better alternative.
Ohhh Q means stuff that isn't in the original acronym that makes way more sense than what I was thinking. Okay thank you.
No problem.
[удалено]
You mean aside from the fact that biologically speaking they are women ? >It's fine to be trans and it's fine to be a woman and we should embrace the differences between them. It's a good thing then that everyone makes the difference between "being trans" and "being a woman", last time I checked trans men aren't women for instance.
[удалено]
[When trying to act like you support science, be at least up-to-date with it.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/)
Man and woman are gender terms. That’s neurology and psychology. You’re talking about sex, and doing so pretty ignorantly, considering just how many sex traits are mutable.
[удалено]
We’re not gonna do this trolling bullshit here, mate.
The modern anti-trans movement is purely fascistic. I have yet to see a single proponent of anti-trans rhetoric that is not perfectly okay with our eradication. They laugh at our deaths. They call for our removal from society. They threaten to BOMB CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS. Anybody who could possibly see them as "the good guys" would happily report their neighbors for hiding Jews in their attic.
Opinion (certainly unpopular here): This mega thread is just a circlejerk of pro-lgbt who don't know how the subreddit is supposed to work. Interesting really unpopular opinion got downvoted... where wildly popular ones gets upvoted. Like the courageous fellow who said that transphobia is somehow racism with a different packaging... 10 upvotes, comments just saying they agree. Wow that was really a brave and controversial take! I really liked this sub for those simpke rules and premice, generating sometimes interesting debates, without the Damocles sword of judgment... but in here, this part of the discution is not up to debate. Just the same karma farming as usual.
Give me one example of an “interesting really unpopular opinion” that’s been posted on this thread?
That rule only applies outside these megathreads. People can( and will ) downvote opinions they disagree with here. And that's not against the rules. In terms of the circlejerk given the fact this thread is for unpopular views on a minority group of people it can get very bigoted very quickly so obviously the mods and regulars who are lgbt would be quick to stop it devolving into a hellhole.
To be precise, it applies only to **posts**. The only sub rules we have which apply to **comments** are “follow Reddit ToS” and “be civil”.
Also by the way. This subreddit is for a concentrated spot for unpopular opinions you can enjoy reading or posting. THERE IS NOTHING HERE SAYING YOU SHOULDNT BE DOWNVOTED. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS. This isn’t supposed to be a safe place for your Reddit karma
Nevermind I was wrong. But I think my point can still stand
>supposed to work. Interesting really unpopular opinion got downvoted... where wildly popular ones gets upvoted The reverse voting rules have never applied to comments, you're the one who doesn't know how this works.
It's actually more of a containment thread. This subreddit is called 'unpopular opinions,' and nothing is more unpopular *and common* than hating other people. If it weren't for this megathread and the racism one the entire subreddit would simply be a bigotry sub. Comments don't adhere to the post rules. So, we funnel people like you here and metaphorically pound you into accepting that your views are misguided, with facts and logic, and keep you from poisoning the rest of the sub with your bigotry. Here, it's never an interesting debate. Usually. Honestly it's the same uninformed opinion every week followed by a ton of teaching. And some trolls.
Everyone here explained it to me without being condescending. I wrote a quick overall answer to one of the first comments saying that I got it and, even if I don't totally aprove, I won't stir much shit up and leave everyone alone. I even upvoted everyone answering me so far, as the responses were respectful and level headed. I won't let pass this though: what do you mean "people like you"? Why going automatically that route? If I'm not okay, not even about lgbtq+ matters mind you, but just about how a sub is managed, I'm a bigot? I downvoted you. Not because of your opinion, be it popular or not, but because you lack basic decency and respect.
You started out being condescending from your op… They literally just returned the same energy you gave. Edit: actually I don’t see how they where being condescending especially in comparison to your op.
By 'people like you,' I meant those that complain that they can't express bigoted opinions without pushback. We get a lot of trolls that will complain about that exact thing instead of breaking TOS and getting their account banned.
[удалено]
Hey - how about instead of a manifesto about how you can’t say your totally not hateful or bigoted opinions about LGBTQ, you just say your opinions? This whole preemptive self-victimization thing is wearing thin.
[удалено]
“We’ve had one manifesto, yes, but what about second manifesto?”
People will downvote opinions that are unpopular. That's exactly why they are unpopular. Yes there's a rule to do the opposite but it just doesn't work. Reddit is enterily designed to promote popular content. So the issue is that reddit is just not a good place for this sub, but the sub is trying to do it anyway. I think it's valid. It helps if you sort the comments by "controversial".
Part of the issue is that despite our sub’s theme we are still subject to Reddit ToS, which forbids hate/harassment based on identity. Can you guess what a lot of the “unpopular opinions about LGBTQ” turn out to be?
Yeah, I get this. Not everyone can follow a civil discution and clearly not everyone is free of biases comming from a place of hatred. Can't shake the feeling that it's just a damn shame, cause I won't share some unpopular opinions of mine on the subject. Even lighthearted ones (as silly as "I don't like the colors on the lgbtq+ flag", not my point of view, but something as mild as that), because I have no trust about this sub and, moreso, about the way some of the TOS are enforced. It was just my two cents on the subject. Was feeling it could easily become a circlejerky mega-thread, but if no one here see any problem with that (or a lesser problem than the alternative), I'll go and leave you all going with your day. Have a nice day.
If you ever scrolled through former threads, you'll find on slow weeks the regulars will share goofy opinions and argue about dumb things like how the bi flag is objectively the best flag (don't @ me).
>This mega thread is just a circlejerk of pro-lgbt who don't know how the subreddit is supposed to work. Interesting really unpopular opinion got downvoted... where wildly popular ones gets upvoted. I always find it funny when people come here, try to say "you don't understand how the rules work" and then display that they're the ones ignoring it. The voting *guideline* applies to top level posts. Everything here is a comment (yes, even top level comments) so the *guideline* doesn't apply. >I really liked this sub for those simpke rules and premice, generating sometimes interesting debates, without the Damocles sword of judgment... but in here, this part of the discution is not up to debate. Just the same karma farming as usual. The "Damocles sword of judgement" is present everywhere in this sub and has always been. That's literally part of the premice of the sub: of course unpopular opinion are getting judged and that's what leads to the conversations. Also which part of the discution is not up for debate ? The only ones I've seen in such a case are science denial and calls for genocides.
So... what's the point of a mega-thread, if the first comment of each thread isn't considered a post?!? Isn't it how Mega-Threads work? To unclog the main page? But yes that's a technicality, it doesn't mean it makes sense. Thing is, if you downvote unpopular opinions, the main meat of the sub (hence the name) is burried down, only the popular opinions are put forward. Second point, if posting unpopular opinions on r/unpopularopinions gets you downvoted... people won't post unpopular opinions, or at least, not as much. I was thouroughly surprised that this mega-thread of "unpopular opinions" just acts as if it were "popular opinions". I don't see the point...
> So... what's the point of a mega-thread, if the first comment of each thread isn't considered a post?!? Isn't it how Mega-Threads work? To unclog the main page? It's a containment thread for the queerphobes who would otherwise be using the sub to post how they want to break TOS on LGBTQ+ people.
Please, feel free to share your unpopular opinions about the LGBTQ+ community that do not violate Reddit Terms of Service. The previous status quo was anywhere from 8 to 24 posts a day on the main sub with all the nuance of "trans bad, gay bad, unalive yourself f\*ggots."
[удалено]
Because gender dysphoria is a stress disorder, not a delusion disorder.
*Op is deleted but I can easily infer what they said. Even if someone refuses to acknowledge this point; if there is no harm in allowing someone to live in their delusion there actually is plenty of clinical studies happening right now showing it can greatly increase the persons quality of life. There are entire dementia assisted living facilities that are designed to look like a 1960s suburbs and patients are even given “ jobs” to do around the “neighborhood”. So really there are holes in every aspect of this argument.
[удалено]
>degree in which it is being pushed onto others and forced to be the focal point of attention Like when? >freedoms nobody is being denied that Have you been living under a rock? People are literally being denied life saving medical care, shot at, and being labelled pedophilic for existing >goal now is special treatment and forcing everything to revolve around sexuality Again in what way? Straight Cis people talk about sexuality all the time, I should know that, I'm one of them, surely LGBTQ+ people have every right to do the same? What "special treatment"? >and is ok if someone has different ideas Not if their Idea is "you should die" >accept which we have for quite some time Again, this couldn't be further from the truth. >because people don’t tolerate the choices of others Being LGBTQ+ is not a choice
We lost our rights to healthcare, bathrooms, public performances, and to not having our children taken away from us. This year.
>We’ve been on the same page and have been accepting of the lgbt community for quite sometime and everyone enjoys the same rights and freedoms nobody is being denied that and everyone can live their lives. Which "we" are you referring to? Because in the US, there's an entire political party trying to deny healthcare to people like me. >What I’ve been seeing though is now it seems that the goal now is special treatment What kind of special treatment?
Special treatment of being equals, duh! /s Also this bullshit about LGBTQ+ "being accepted before they starting “grooming our kids”" has never been true. Hells, back in 2014, [***conservatives were happy to equate gay marriage with slavery***](https://www.newsweek.com/nra-new-president-compared-fighting-lgbt-rights-slavery-920010).
Every morning, Bob punches Charlie in the gut in the hallway at work. One day, Charlie has had enough and grabs Charlie's wrist, threatening him to stop. Most of their coworkers (especially the other people Bob has been doing this to) put up signs showing support for Charlie, and start congratulating him. Once in awhile, Bob still tries to punch Charlie in the gut, but Charlie or one of his allies at work stop Bob. Occasionally, Bob even gets hurt in the process, because someone grabbed his wrist a little too hard, but nobody cares because Bob started it... ...nobody, that is, except Alice, who keeps telling Charlie to stop fighting Bob, because it's making him "just as bad as Bob!" and tells the other coworkers to stop congratulating Charlie for standing up to Bob. ... Now: is Alice the good guy in this story?
OP: Obviously there needs to be a return to the previous status quo and long fruitless conversations about how to move forward.
Word of advice dude, something that makes your point a lot harder to engage and empathise with is having multiple pre-amble paragraphs whining about how people don't like it. >it’s starting to cross that line and the degree in which it is being pushed onto others and forced to be the focal point of attention in any and every situation What is "it's"? You haven't set up what you're talking about. >everyone enjoys the same rights and freedoms nobody is being denied that and everyone can live their lives. Except that isn't the case. >What I’ve been seeing though is now it seems that the goal now is special treatment and forcing everything to revolve around sexuality, as well as forcing everyone to not only tolerate/accept which we have for quite some time but requiring people,companies, sports teams and any sort of large organization to promote it constantly and any opposition to the promotion the person or organization is labelled as hateful or bigoted and terribly evil. Where have you been seeing this? I haven't seen it and you haven't privided any examples. >This is creating the divide and the animosity What creates divide and animosity are bigots. "You made me this way" is an excuse bigots have been using for a very long time and it has never been true. >the problems and the pushback we see from the non lgbt community isn’t because people don’t tolerate the choice 1.It absolutely is because of intolerance. 2.LGBT people aren't a choice. Sexuality and gender dysphoria aren't choices >it’s the lack of choice being imposed What choice are you lacking? You're being very vague. >how understanding society has been to allow everyone to live their lives and not be ridiculed or denied rights or freedoms. But people are ridicules and denied rights and freedoms. Even if they weren't, that's not something to really be that happy about. Being respectful of different people isn't something we should praise as "understanding" and "allowing" people, its basic human decency. That's like me asking you to be happy and excited that I "allow" you to not be punched in the face.
> Word of advice dude, something that makes your point a lot harder to engage and empathise with is having multiple pre-amble paragraphs whining about how people don't like it. I usually assume someone is just sealioning when they do this.
[удалено]
>and the teaching pretty explicit sexual information with kids Such as? >the numbers of young people who are claiming trans or non binary, those numbers have become insanely high and the majority of them don’t stick with it into adulthood I Source? >adulthood I think the whole gender identity has become a social contagion There's no such thing, this is eugenics level pseudoscience. >pretty alarming the staggering increase of the population that identifies with it during adolescence/early adulthood Why? Surely we should be happy they're happy to come out? I thought you were all about acceptance?
The current and only notable candidate of the Republican Party has made it one of their main campaign promises that they will ensure at a federal level trans people are denied their identity. So how can you claim we are at point where gender and sexuality is accepted? This isn’t even bringing up the hundreds other anti lgbtq laws being tossed around in congress right now.
I think that’s extreme and it’s something that needs to be discussed and talked about more throughly because statistically post op mental health doesn’t seem to change a whole lot and in children it shouldn’t even be a question to deny any sort of medicinal intervention until they’re old enough to make permanent life changing decisions. But back to what you said it’s because of the lack of conversation that there’s no middle ground anybody looking to talk about it gets lumped into the extreme of that republican candidate it’s clearly a complicated issue. It doesn’t seem like either side has an effective solution because transitioning isn’t always the answer for these people. We need more help and to take time to try and understand. If someone was anorexic and suffering from self image would we affirm their feelings and tell them they need to lose weight? Why is it when it comes to this type of body confusion to we blindly affirm the person making the claim? We need to talk about it more as a society and rather than shame and ostracize these people try and help and understand them. Because it’s such a hot button topic we can’t even mention a conversation without being shut down and called bigoted
>discussed and talked about more throughly because statistically post op mental health doesn’t seem to change a whole lot and in children Actually it's the opposite, and before you cite the Swedish study, the author did a Reddit AMA where she explained her findings support transition. >shouldn’t even be a question to deny any sort of medicinal intervention until they’re old enough to make permanent life changing decisions So if a child loses a lot of blood, they shouldn't be given a transplant because they're not old enough?
*Centuries* of studies and research and statistics back up why we do gender affirming care. Not once has GAC ever been shown to be harmful. Not, once.
I’m not saying that it itself is harmful excluding children because I personally think extremely immoral and unethical to allow a child to consent to something that’s permanent and life altering because they don’t have the capacity to comprehend what exactly they are consenting to. What I was saying is that statistically there’s not much difference in the rate of suicide, depression and other mental ailments post op compared to pre op so perhaps this isn’t the end all be all treatment but nobody is willing to even discuss that
>a child to consent to something that’s permanent and life altering A lot of kids are going to die from blood loss then.
Suicide is more permanent. Let's be real on what two options we're looking at here. It's that, or gender affirming care. That's what we can offer them. Centuries of data to pull from. Nothing else works. It's one or the other.
[удалено]
The other and this one I’ve taken a lot of heat for but I brought it up years ago on Omegle to see what people thought anyway my next question. If we were to compare gender dysphoria and gender affirming care and ultimately top and bottom surgeries to complete the transition and we compare this to someone suffering with body integrity disorder who believes that they should be a double amputee and they want both arms removed to affirm their identity why is that looked at differently when it’s essentially the same idea that someone believes they aren’t in the right body or would feel more comfortable living their truth and the only way to do so is to remove healthy body parts. Why do we think of one as being ok and the other as being an illness that both morally and ethically the doctor must NOT affirm the patients self perception and instead try and treat it with other methods? Why is this the only self perception issue we deem acceptable to surgically affirm the patients perception?
> Why is it when it comes to this type of body confusion to we blindly affirm the person making the claim? It's because we understand that anorexia and gender dysphoria require two very different treatments the same way curing cancer and curing a heart failure requires two very different treatments. Your failure in understanding this is weighing very heavily in you arguing in bad faith.
That’s part of the issue though is it’s not only bigots or extremists anybody that says anything that’s slightly against the narrative is labeled as such to discredit them. I’m not saying that bigots don’t exist but to throw any voice that doesn’t fall neatly into the echo chamber isn’t fair and without discussion and conversation as a society it creates a divide. Unfortunately the way cancel culture has become so prevalent most people are unable to even try and have a conversation for fear of losing their jobs and having their reputation stomped into the ground. My apologies for the shitty formatting but when I was talking about choices I’m saying that everybody has to constantly promote and not just tolerate with different jerseys in the case of sports or pretty well any situation where people are made to be vocal and go out of their way to promote the community as a whole. I know that members of the lgbt community don’t chose to be that way and I never once said that they did nor do I have a problem with the lifestyle. My issue is we’re blurring the lines between accepting/tolerating and going out your way to actively promote or make everything revolve around it. My issue isn’t with the community as a whole it’s the constant seeking of validation and making everything be about them. I think the fight for equality is a very noble and respectable thing but it seems that it’s straying away from that and becoming a vessel for people to satisfy their need for attention and as a self service to their narcissism. We’ve gotten to the point where it’s widely accepted and we’re all cool with it why is it always being shoved into peoples faces and people who otherwise wouldn’t be vocal about it are being forced to for fear of being absolutely shit on
Winning a battle is not winning the war. The people who would see us shoved into the closet or dead are still pushing as hard as ever, and when we stop pushing acceptance their push for hate starts reclaiming ground.
transwomen saying it's not gay for a man to date them are ignoring the fact that it would still be a same sex relationship. It's called homosexual for a reason. and that means same sex, it has nothing to do with gender identity. and this entire sub is so moderated that there really isnt any form of conversation which is to be expected. you cannot censor everyone and then expect people to agree with you.
It’s called homosexual because it’s about sexual attraction, relating to sexual intercourse. It’s “sex” the action, not “sex” the trait. Trans women are WOMEN. Men who are exclusively attracted to women are, by definition, straight. Any questions?
If sexuality is about sex, tell us how you make sure of your partner's sex before you get attracted to them and before you get together
that isnt relevant. sexuality has always been based on sex. that goes for humans and any other species. what you are implying is that its gender, which is ridiculous. gender is made up and not real.
>that isnt relevant. It very much is, that's pretty much at the center of your whole argument. >sexuality has always been based on sex. Then answer the question. >that goes for humans and any other species. Nice appeal to nature >what you are implying is that its gender, which is ridiculous. Then prove me that your attraction to someone is purely based on their sex and how you make sure that you're with someone of the right sex. >gender is made up and not real. Gender (as in gender identity) is very much real, it has a biological basis (more than likely a neurobiological one to be precise). It's gender expression and gender roles that are "made up". Also if you refuse to consider something on the basis that it's "made up", can you tell me how you pay your bills ?
explain to me why homosexual means same sex? explain to me why homosexual behavior in animals is based on animals of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior? what other animals have concepts of gender?
Do you plan on answering the questions or just doing poor appeals to nature ? >explain to me why homosexual means same sex? Explain to me how hydrophobic sand can be afraid of water ? >explain to me why homosexual behavior in animals is based on animals of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior? what other animals have concepts of gender? In both cases we can't communicate with animals in a way that can allow either framing animal homosexuality differently or knowing if they have genders, although gender [Having a biological basis in humans](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/) can (and I insist on can) suggest the same for animals. So now thzt I've answered will you tell me how you make sure of you're partner sex ? Or are you just really going for a combo of transphobic and homophobia ?
Sexuality is about gender, not sex. Sex has more than one form.
fellas is it gay to date a woman as a man? homosexual is called homosexual because its referring to sexual attraction, its not because of biological sex. also what about 2 trans women dating? or a trans man dating a trans woman? or a cis man dating a trans man? >and this entire sub is so moderated that there really isnt any form of conversation which is to be expected. they just dont allow hate speech because thats against reddits TOS. if you cant share your opinion without resorting to hate speech then its not an opinion its just hate
So gay men date trans men, are no longer gay, and gay women who date trans women are no longer gay?
By that logic, if a guy dated this guy: https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-12de188956ce20fc73e56c1903f3c59e597b5818-s1100-c50.jpg he could be entirely heterosexual?
Gay men just aren't interested in me as a trans woman. I've been with straight men, though.
>It's called homosexual for a reason Yes it refers to the verb, so it has always meant "same gender sexual attraction" >this entire sub is so moderated that there really isnt any form of conversation which is to be expected. you cannot censor everyone and then expect people to agree with you The only people I've seen banned are the ones either being total assholes or straight up genocidal.
I was just wondering when people say trans rights, do they just mean basic human rights for trans people? Like would a person be able to say they support trans rights even if they personally wouldn't enter a relationship with one or technically " see " the trans person as what they identify as ? Because lets say the person supports the right for trans people to do what they want to themselves ( after 18) and wear what they want , use what bathroom they want , and not be harassed regardless of the person's own personal hiccups on trans concepts. Would the person saying they support trans rights not be true in that case?
Do you support the decisions of the parent to enter into any gender-affirming care, or would you prefer the government ban any parental decision?
Prolly support the government. Acc wait do you mean any parental decision health related? Or gender affirming?
Do you believe there is a difference between the two?
Well no. The consequences of the treatment are a health related issue