Can a man really turn into a woman?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Saying the 'world is not black and white' is too black and white.

If gender is 'fluid' and simply a 'social construct' then why would someone mutilate themselves in order to be what they imagine is their 'correct gender'?
The whole thing is fraught with absurd contradictions like this--what a surprise, since it's the PC who are putting about this crap and brainwashing children with it. The PC are the stupidest, least logical, most unreasonable, self-righteous and smug people on the planet (and that's saying something).

[henry quirk]

The two poll questions are fixed: black or white, yes or no, this or that, period.

Fluidity and fixedness can vary, or apply in different ways.

Yes, the question (about gender, not the world), and the two possible responses, are black and white.

No, when it comes to gender, it's all very simple and straight forward. A man can become a woman (gender is fluid), or, a man cannot become a woman (gender is fixed).

There's no in-between position.

If you believe there is: state it.

Please, do a better job of stating it than Sculptor.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The world is not black and white.

To think only in black and white is to be extraordinarily limited, perhaps for the purpose of claiming to know ultimate truth and rightness, which is surely the workings of the ego in its quest for controlling reality in a self-serving way.

Not about a black and white world: it's about gender, its fluidity or fixedness.

The two poll questions are fixed: black or white, yes or no, this or that, period.

Fluidity and fixedness can vary, or apply in different ways.

There's a certain irony in the use of the word 'period' in all this.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I think that the person thinking up this bit of nonsense is incapable of any sort of mutability in his thinking. A person that finds comfort in portraying the world as black and white; his mind bound by the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, rigid, and predictable.

Before citing a fallacy, a person should know what that fallacy means. Otherwise, it's a fallacy fallacy.

"No True Scotsman Fallacy" has nothing to do with "rigidness" or "predictability," far less with "black and white". You'll find it has to do with claims that "No true X will do Y," and such. You'll also find it's not always a fallacy, too: in cases in which the X is definitionally intrinsic to the -Y, it's justified.

So, the claim "No true Scotsman drinks gin" is a case of the NTSF, if it is the case that some Scotsmen drink gin.

But the claim "No true Scotsman is female" is definitionally true, and is not a case of NTSF; such are Scotswomen. And "No true Scotsman doesn't come from Scotland" is also true, and not a case of NTSF, by definition.

"No true man is a woman" is not a case of the NTSF. It's definitionally true. Even transgender people insist that's so, because they plead to be indulged to move from man to woman, which means they have to believe that both are genuine realities, and not fluid at all. You can't "move from" one to the other if neither is a real thing.

Good post (I do give credit where it's due). Not a hint of religion or politics (even if they might be still lurking beneath the surface). It's still true though, and no amount of religion or politics can alter what's true.

[Atla]

Leave Sculptor alone. Poor old man had to repress his desire to dress up in skirts all his life (her life?) and now the regrets are surfacing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And if it has 'nothing to do with sexuality' then why the faux vagina? What possible purpose could faux vaginas and penises serve other than a sexual one?

[Lacewing]

Saying the 'world is not black and white' is too black and white.

How would you say it?

How about, the world is not limited to black and white. Better?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Expressions like 'the world isn't black and white' are frequently used to cover up a lack of a logical argument. It's meaningless.

[henry quirk]

Leave Sculptor alone. Poor old man had to repress his desire to dress up in skirts all his life (her life?) and now the regrets are surfacing.

Me, I got no problem with Sculptor, or any man, dressin' like a chick, pretendin' to be a chick, or actually believin' he's a chick.

I object, however, to him tellin' me I have to participate in his fetish or delusion.

Simply: Sculptor, or any man, dressin' like a chick, pretendin' to be a chick, or actually believin' he's a chick, does not make him a chick, and I won't be boondoggled or nagged or guilted or threatened into sayin' he's a chick, or treatin' him like a chick (cuz he's not).

[henry quirk]

[Immanuel Can]

Good post (I do give credit where it's due).

And I say thanks where thanks is appropriate.

So thanks.

[Lacewing]

when it comes to gender, it's all very simple and straight forward. A man can become a woman (gender is fluid), or, a man cannot become a woman (gender is fixed).

There's no in-between position.

Why have you concluded that there are no in-between positions?

Can it vary depending on people? Fluid or fixed for some, not for others?
Can it be a mental issue for some, and a physical issue for others?
Can there be developmental variances/detours when babies are forming?
Could there be spiritual/other levels/vibrations we don't understand?

Personally, I can imagine that all sorts of things are possible. It's not something I have personally experienced, so I don't know what it feels like.

I think people can use gender identity changes for all kinds of reasons. It seems that a lot of them are genuine about how they think and feel. It's not an easy process or stance to take.

The physical body (to my way of thinking) is just a container for whatever energy animates it... and the energy animating it may prefer a different container. At some point, science is probably going to make such switcheroos readily possible. Or maybe we'll evolve to resemble the gray aliens, and reproduce without requiring certain physical body parts and methods. When we take things too seriously or inflexibly, we're only affecting and reflecting our immediate experience/awareness -- we are not reflecting anything much beyond that. New day... new world... so many things possible.

[henry quirk]

"Why have you concluded that there are no in-between positions?"

Pretty sure I posted that somewhere in-thread. It all has to do with XX & XY and what invariably extends out from those pairs.

#

"Can it vary depend ing on people? Fluid or fixed for some, not for others?"

Nope.

#

"Can it be a mental issue for some, and a physical issue for others?"

It can be a delusion or a neuro-dysfunction: it ain't a preference or an alternative.

#

"Can there be developmental variances/detours when babies are forming?"

Biological deviance is just deviance. Hermaphroditism, for example, doesn't redefine the baseline, it just deviates from it.

#

"Could there be spiritual/other levels/vibrations we don't understand?"

This doesn't mean anything to me.

#

"Personally, I can imagine that all sorts of things are possible... which I know pisses you off, so it's especially fun repeating it."

Why do you think you imaginin' stuff pisses me off?

#

"I think people can use gender identity changes for all kinds of reasons. It seems that a lot of them are genuine about how they think and feel. It's not an easy process or stance to take."

Fetishes and and delusions.

#

"The physical body (to my way of thinking) is just a container for whatever energy animates it... and the energy animating it may prefer a different container. At some point, science is probably going to make such switcheroos readily possible. Or maybe we'll evolve to resemble the gray aliens, and reproduce without requiring certain physical body parts and methods. When we take things too seriously or inflexibly, we're only affecting and reflecting our immediate experience/awareness -- we are not reflecting anything much beyond that. New day... new world... so many things possible.
[/quote]

My view: we're composite beings, flesh & spirit. One is not more important than the other.

And: till we can re-code XX into XY, and vice versa, any reshaping of the flesh, gross or subtle, is purely cosmetic.

[Lacewing]

…

Thanks for your response voicing your conclusive, inflexible positions. No surprises, but entertaining none-the-less. The world needs such thinking, apparently, as an example of potential extremes to rebound away from.

Have you ever met men who are very feminine, and women who are very masculine, without them even trying to be? What might be causing that?

And I wonder, how can you be so certain about something you have not personally experienced? Is your experience the only truth?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Likewise Henry