come on, genders are sooo 19th century.

So... Traps?

I'd never call a trans person a trap unless they didn't mind or liked it. For some people, the implication of attempting to fool someone of their gender undermines the self-determination of their gender and is very offensive. Other trans people don't give a shit, or are trolls about it, or are otherwise just another individual with an individual opinion.

I'd liken traps more to crossdressers I guess, but I legitimately wouldn't know what they would think of that.

I think traps is if you try to hide the fact you're trans with someone who you're a relationship in.

I'd rather you didn't think of "traps" that way because a lot of trans women don't hide their status as transgender from people; or if they do it's not their sole intent since coming out to someone, especially someone you're interested in, is a personal matter and an issue of trust and safety; and if they do generally they'll not withhold that sort of information for long. There remains, however, the possibility of the implication here that trans women aren't women.

Instead, I'd rather people think of "traps" specifically as people who specifically crossdress with the intent of fooling or "trapping" someone, which is really quite different from an individual who is transgender and who would rather not have their existence characterized as a caricature so that they can live out an ordinary-feeling life.

EDIT: Better worded, I think, is that "traps" engage in "trapping" but it is an act of the moment, like an activity that one participates in, and not something that is as natural or common as breathing.

Like, I'm pretty sure even "traps" don't legitimately like the idea of being murdered or assaulted or harassed for what they do or are doing in the moment, much less trans people who would like to avoid having their existence characterized in a way that people use (successfully) as a legal defense for murder, assault, or harassment.

I have a trans friend at work who I refer to by their preferred gender, because I think that's just common human decency and respect for your fellow man (woman now). I do think there are differences though. One is just a human convention, the other is a biological fact. Right now we can sort of change our biology through surgery, hormones, etc, but it's not perfect.

Once we have greater mastery over genetics it will be possible for a trans person to change their gender *perfectly* rather than the imperfect methods of today, then there will be no difference between the human convention and the biological fact.

Of course that's one way of looking at it. Another way is if you treat it is a mental illness. Gender dysphoria. Then we must wait for advances in psychology/neurology. Right now all methods of "curing" someone of being trans are just bogus, usually religious bs (Conversion therapy). But conceivably when the medicine gets there such a treatment will be possible.

This then comes down to the essential question: Which is preferred? Changing the mind to match the body, or changing the body to match the mind?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 2 2016, 5:21 pm by Oh_Man.

I mean yeah, there's the biological/natural viewpoint: Being gay is not natural, because humans couldn't (naturally) exist as a species being all gay, which seems to imply to change the mind.
But haven't we as a society evolved past such blind pragmatism? The obvious answer is: Whatever the person itself prefers, which is likely not always the same.

By that same definition, being a woman is not natural, because humans couldn't (naturally) exist as a species being all women.

Honestly, I'd hate to have my mind match my body. I'd rather just be a girl. People can say I'm sick in the mind all they want, but I wouldn't want them to change me into thinking that I'm a guy.
I don't know if that's just me... But that's how I feel about that.

And by that same definition, being a man is not natural, because humans couldn't (naturally) exist as a species being all male.

Edit: Also post #69. Woot!

The unspoken assumption here is that social interaction must be dictated by biology, specifically chromosomes here.

Society and social interaction are the mechanisms by which discrimination act, not through some determinism based on genetic material.

Further, interestingly, positive social treatment or affirmation of trans people's self-determined identity is a huge factor in general for a trans person's happiness - not necessarily bodily changes.

That is to say, transphobia is a massive source of stress (and death) for trans people, and for a significant number of trans people, its not the body that is the source of stress, but rather a tool to help alleviate the stress (given that if one's body "passes" for a cis person's, they are less likely to be the target of transphobia).

(That is not to say that there aren't also plenty of trans people whose gender dysphoria will disappear with social affirmation. There are indeed many trans people for which gender dysphoria is strongly linked to the body and no amount of social affirmation alone will totally treat that.)

At its base, even with a significant advance in medicine, there is no way to say that genetic manipulation will actually help since social interaction makes up a significant source of stress.

EDIT: What I mean to say is that the "biological facts" you talk about is far faaar separated from social interaction and that using it as an excuse as so many do to treat someone as they would not like to be treated and cause harm (i.e. transphbia) is bad.

Like, it's not important to know someone's genetic makeup to have decent, positive social interaction with them and knowing someone's genetic makeup is not necessary nor sufficient to be a shitlord to that person.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2016, 5:31 am by Sand Wraith.

huh? The natural (best working in terms of reproduction which translates to survival of the species) distribution of sexes is 50% of both, unless the biology is changed, like for snails which are neither male nor female.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2016, 1:34 pm by NudeRaider.

I make no such assumption.

And the natural distribution of sexual orientation is not 100% straight; this is found not only in humans, but other animals as well, and it suggests there are evolutionary benefits. I believe Lanthanide's point is that those who make the argument of what is "natural" are really just abusing the word for the sake of their agenda.

You imply the stance is pragmatic, but it's rather fallacious (and dehumanizing, like you also imply), and thus I wouldn't entertain the argument for this discussion.

I haven't heard an argument why being gay helps your species to survive, but I'd be interested to hear it. Or we have a different understanding or usage of 'natural/biologic'. When I use it in this context I mean strictly what has been proven by evolution to work best for that species.
I recognize homosexuality as a naturally occurring phenomenon, but I regard it more like a "nature's mistake", akin to sterility, or something like it, rather than a trait to improve fitness.

Alright, two things:

1) That's not what evolution means. Not all evolutionary traits are driven by survivability (in fact, only one aspect, described as "survival of the fittest", is applicable to the term). "Evolution" is relatively synonymous with "development".
2) By "natural/biological", I assume you mean "that which occurs in nature or naturally". Evolution is part of nature, but it is not all nature is.

Your strict definition of what is natural is, ironically, unnatural. You may as well say tornadoes are unnatural mistakes of nature.

Humans are a bad example to look at for benefits of evolution, since we are removed from the survivalist food chain, but I was merely mentioning that homosexuality is a naturally occurring part of not only our species, but of those that are still within the food chain, which implies it has inherent merit to a species' interests (whether they be from a social aspect or otherwise). To call it "nature's mistake" is not only dehumanizing and insensitive, it is also wrong. It is simply nature: it exists, it's intentional, and we can only speculate as to why it's there.

To the topic at hand, it isn't possible to observe gender identity in other species, because as far as I'm aware, only humans have the cognitive ability to make such a distinction.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2016, 8:05 pm by Roy.

Well, being stupid certainly doesn't help the species survive.

Again, humans aren't struggling for survival anymore, so any traits or characteristics we develop aren't necessarily related to survivability. That's why, for example, lots of us have bad eyesight, which may be deadly to other species, but is just a mild inconvenience for us.

Though we do have the Darwin Awards for those who manage to be unfit even in our relatively safe living standards.

If I knew the correct term I'd use it instead of describing it and putting it in quotes. But I guess using "natural" was pretty misleading. Anyways, I'm not defining a word here, I was describing a concept. I'll try explaining again.
No, I don't mean "which occurs naturally" (like irregularities that can occur), I mean "how it is supposed to be". (if you modeled the ideal individual of that species) To elaborate on that: Every successful life form has developed strategies that help it to not die out and be successful at continuing the species. That's part genetics and part behavior, maybe more aspects. Being gay certainly (or at least that's my thesis) isn't helping humans being a successful species.



I won't, because that analogy doesn't work at all.



Not sure what your point is here, because obviously there's lifeforms that barely have intelligence but are so successful that nobody would go "damn, why are these things so stupid, they really should develop intelligence". On the other hand, intelligence in humans is THE defining factor. How can you imply that humans shouldn't be or wouldn't have needed intelligence?

Reread your post. What originally irked me was the suggestion that a "perfect transition" exists or is desirable or is necessary.


Being gay has no inherent value for success or failure and can only be analyzed based on retrospection of its context. Such value is difficult to begin to define given how well removed humans are from typical survival conditions. Even so, humans have such a high degree of autonomy, social skills, and cognitive skills that the "success" or "failure" of homosexuality as a trait would be the result of people's efforts. Ex. in a "success" case, societies come to terms with the fact that violence and hate are self-replicating and self-destructive toxic behaviours, that "being gay" is not a trait likely to self-replicate, and if it does, then we as a species likely have developed and distributed the understanding that reproductive labour can be a labour on its own.

Like, a "failure" case would be an example of a failure of human society as a whole to come to grips with reality and scientific understanding IMHO, or an example of the abuse of power by a influential amoral individuals.

moral of the story is that humans suck and i hope all life is annihilated in mutual nuclear catastrophe, because it's what people deserve^tm

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2016, 11:35 pm by Sand Wraith.

It's pretty obvious how having a low proportion of individuals in a species that are less likely to reproduce, overall increases survivability of the species. Also note that just because an individual is gay, or bi, doesn't mean that that individual will never reproduce. It just gives them a lower likelihood.

This is a reasonable factor in animals that are fairly social, ie stick with their mates and live in familial groups. Every adult that regularly reproduces, adds additional strain onto the food sources in the area for those animals. There are lots of animals that have boom-and-bust population cycles, where in times of plenty they reproduce rapidly, then the food source is exhausted and they die off again. Having members of the species that reproduce less, will prolong the boom part of the cycle, since they'll produce less offspring and have less impact on the food sources.

Also again in familial animal groups, the 'gay aunty' can help gather food for the rest of the babies in the group, increasing their survivability, while also not adding additional mouths to feed herself.

Roy's right anyway, in that there are plenty of traits owned by humans or animals that are completely neutral to survival, or in some cases negative for survival, yet they continue to exist anyway. Evolution as a process should not be anthropomorphised, it doesn't "choose" good adaptations - it's just random. It can easily choose bad adaptations, leading to extinction of a species. It also shouldn't be factored backwards, that any trait that exists today must exist because it provides some positive benefit for the species.