Have we become too 'accepting'.

[Craterloads]

Here's some facts.

Some people are born with a female/male brain while their physical body is the opposite(SCIENCE). These individuals literally feel like they're trapped in the wrong body(SCIENCE). How dare you imply politics are the driving force for protecting these individuals. Laws can't stop people having ignorant thoughts but they do help to stop people from acting their ignorance's out by discriminating against others.

Nowhere near enough research has been done to conclude any of the above facts. Politics have been used in this case undeniably, to stop discrimination as you have pointed out yourself.

You cannot choose where you're born, you cannot choose who your parents are, you cannot choose your sexuality, you cannot choose your gender identity or your physical gender. The general public needs to have a big ol'dose of coffee. Sexual identity is defined personally, and quite rightly is protected by law.

"you cannot choose your gender identity or your physical gender." Exactly, thank you/

If your fish acts female, thinks like a female and looks female then by all accounts the fish is female. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

That's about the biggest croc of **** i have ever read. Tell that to someone with peanut allergies, hey it looks like fish, behaves like fish, taste like fish, then it probably is fish. When they are stiff dead on the floor, after suffering from massive allergic reactions to peanuts, we will know who to thank.

 

[Mitzy]

Snip

I had originally typed quite a large response, I subsequently deleted it as I don't believe I could have a reasoned discussion with you.

 

[Woden]

Give it a rest with this nonsense

The blatant lie in this situation would be pretending to be a woman in the first place. Yes pretending, with the knowledge that the vast majority of men would oppose to being duped into a homosexual relationship, is lying.



You state it in past tense like something has actually changed? The mere fact that a majority of partners would oppose such a relationship, and importantly, you knowing this, is reason enough to divulge such critical, life changing information for a potential partner. You can NOT judge the possibility of a developing relationship off such a scandalous deception. I find it absurd you trying to compare "I’m a biological man" to "i have a false leg (insert vulnerability)", when the implications of both are astronomically apart.

Whilst my opinion may be strong on the matter, i will without guilt or
apprehensions state, any man/woman crossbreed who by deception rapes any heterosexual man, deserves everything they get in retaliation when they find out. Anything.

I would change the law, to protect people from such deception and any crimes committed in the heat of the moment, be dealt with leniently.

Let's get this straight shall we? If you are willing to do the nasty with someone before getting to know them well, you have no right to complain, at all, about anything about them. You simply did not care enough to put your head before your libido.
I don't care if they turn out to be a transsexual Nazi Eskimo with a penchant for eating babies. "Rape by deception"? Give me a break, every one night stand that ever happened is based on lies. If you jump in their bed before their photo album, YOU are the one that deserves everything you get.

Advocating violence? I think this puts it rather well:

What disturbs me the most is that some of them like to engage in sexual activity whilst dressed up as babies. o_O

So don't join in. Simple.

 

[Craterloads]

I had originally typed quite a large response, I subsequently deleted it as I don't believe I could have a reasoned discussion with you.

And niether can i have a reasoned discussion with some who states

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Absolutely pathetic, really boils my blood this particular quote.

 

[Mitzy]

So Michael Jackson was Caucasian then, I see.

Clearly you don't. He was black, he was at his death white. He also suffered from a condition of the skin which caused patches of his skin to lose colour. How is this relevant?

 

[Woden]

That's about the biggest croc of **** i have ever read. Tell that to someone with peanut allergies, hey it looks like fish, behaves like fish, taste like fish, then it probably is fish. When they are stiff dead on the floor, after suffering from massive allergic reactions to peanuts, we will know who to thank.

Are you deathly allergic to transsexuals?
Can you name a single peanut that has ever looked, behaved and tasted like a fish?

You make no sense here. Honestly.

 

[^TANK^]

So don't join in. Simple.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you and your strange fetish.

 

[Craterloads]

Are you deathly allergic to transsexuals?
Can you name a single peanut that has ever looked, behaved and tasted like a fish?

You make no sense here. Honestly.

Yes, for them maybe

Yes, if i carve a brazil nut into a shape of a fish (easily done) throw it in a fish tank (easily done) propel it around like a fish (easily done), is it a fish? no

Yes i know its stupid, just about as stupid as the "if it looks like a duck" saying is.

 

[FoxEye]

Give it a rest with this nonsense

The blatant lie in this situation would be pretending to be a woman in the first place. Yes pretending, with the knowledge that the vast majority of men would oppose to being duped into a homosexual relationship, is lying.

It's kind of amazing that some people think you shouldn't need to mention it. Since this thread, I've found some other forums where this issue was being discussed, and there really does seem to be a vocal section who believe a male-to-female has *no need* to inform their partner of their "past". Scary.

But then some of these people were saying that you are "homophobic" if you wouldn't consider having a homosexual relationship... which I strongly disagree with.

But it does show that pretty much anything goes these days.

 

[spoffle]

Clearly you don't. He was black, he was at his death white. He also suffered from a condition of the skin which caused patches of his skin to lose colour. How is this relevant?

Because

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

That either applies universally, or doesn't at all.

He was born black, in his later life had surgery and bleached his skin (whether he had vitiligo or not) and ended up looking like a weird white woman.

So according to;

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

He was a crazy looking white woman.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Even by GD standards this has got to be a low tide mark.

On the upside, at least we know who thinks (or doesn't think) what, so I suppose that's useful.

 

[spoffle]

It's kind of amazing that some people think you shouldn't need to mention it. Since this thread, I've found some other forums where this issue was being discussed, and there really does seem to be a vocal section who believe a male-to-female has *no need* to inform their partner of their "past". Scary.

But then some of these people were saying that you are "homophobic" if you wouldn't consider having a homosexual relationship... which I strongly disagree with.

But it does show that pretty much anything goes these days.

The homophobia thing is carted out way too much anyway, especially since it means a fear of homosexuals.

I find it disturbing that people think it's not required for a transsexual to outline their past to a prospective partner. If the person cares at that stage, then they shouldn't be in a relationship together anyway, if they're fine, then great for the both of them.

 

[spoffle]

Even by GD standards this has got to be a low tide mark.

On the upside, at least we know who thinks (or doesn't think) what, so I suppose that's useful.

Maybe you're confusing acceptance with people saying it shouldn't be allowed.

I have no issues with it being allowed, this shouldn't even be discussed because people should be allowed to do anything they want provided that they aren't infringing on the rights of others.

But I don't think it's right to label people as ignorant because they don't accept that a man can become a woman through surgery.

It's why I've been using the Michael Jackson example too, just because he's had surgery and ended up looking like an old white woman who'd live a hard life, doesn't mean he was an old white woman.

Yet you have people saying "if it looks like, sounds like and walks like, then it's what it's claiming to be" when it doesn't really work like that.

 

[Craterloads]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I can't even fathom how anyone with even a couple of brain cells, could use such a ludicrous saying. Honestly worst saying ever created in history.


Hey son you need an Intel CPU for your LGA1155 system, well here's an AMD CPU, its looks like an Intel CPU (if i shave off the pins), behave like an Intel CPU, get hot like an Intel CPU, well then it must be an Intel CPU.

OOh tough ****, doesnt work does it.

 

[Mitzy]

It's kind of amazing that some people think you shouldn't need to mention it. Since this thread, I've found some other forums where this issue was being discussed, and there really does seem to be a vocal section who believe a male-to-female has *no need* to inform their partner of their "past". Scary.

Can't comment for other forums or discussions, but since I've been reading this thread I don't believe anyone has said that it shouldn't be discussed. What I have stated is that you don't need to mention it straight off the bat.

But then some of these people were saying that you are "homophobic" if you wouldn't consider having a homosexual relationship... which I strongly disagree with.

This is alien to me, why would anyone be labelled homophobic for choosing not to have a relationship with someone. You'd really have to read between the lines with the person to be fair, are they labeling people as gay men when discussing the male to female? Perhaps they don't understand that the person who's had the operation(s) considers themselves to be straight? I wouldn't call them homophobic on those grounds, perhaps just confused or lacking understanding.

But it does show that pretty much anything goes these days.

Agreed.

 

[FoxEye]

It's why I've been using the Michael Jackson example too, just because he's had surgery and ended up looking like an old white woman who'd live a hard life, doesn't mean he was an old white woman.

MJ might have looked like an old white woman, and sounded like a middle-aged white woman, but in his heart he was a pre-teen white girl

 

[spoffle]

MJ might have looked like an old white woman, and sounded like a middle-aged white woman, but in his heart he was a pre-teen white girl

 

[Mitzy]

Because



That either applies universally, or doesn't at all.

He was born black, in his later life had surgery and bleached his skin (whether he had vitiligo or not) and ended up looking like a weird white woman.

So according to;



He was a crazy looking white woman.

Was there any reason to treat Michael Jackson any differently or was he required to act differently as a result of his skin condition / surgeries? The answer is no, as before your example is simply not relevant to the discussion.

 

[spoffle]

Was there any reason to treat Michael Jackson any differently or was he required to act differently as a result of his skin condition / surgeries? The answer is no, as before your example is simply not relevant to the discussion.

That was never the argument though, and my example is very relevant because you keep coming out with;

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

My point about Michael Jackson shows that your example doesn't work. You have to apply it universally or not at all.

I never said they should be "treated" differently or have act differently due to the way they look.

Just because people don't accept that a man can become a woman (and the other way around), it doesn't have to mean anything beyond that.

Do you think people should be treated differently due to how they look?

 

[Craterloads]

Was there any reason to treat Michael Jackson any differently or was he required to act differently as a result of his skin condition / surgeries? The answer is no, as before your example is simply not relevant to the discussion.

Well it depends

If he was to receive the "black man of the year" (insert American black award here), would he still be eligible, since he’s an old white woman now?

If he needed a transplant of some sort, does he need one from a old caucasian white woman, or an old black man?

His biological children. What shall we put on their birth certificate, are they African American or European American?