Transexuality

[cwhaley]

Christ. Needs a 2023 update to include men who have converted to woman, but who don't have a cervix but want to feel 'inclusive' by going through the screening process.

 

[hellopaul2]

I wonder if that person read a tweet (viewed ~100,000 times) that someone posted, after they deliberately misinterpreted a Canadian Cancer Society's message?

Tweet misleads on cervical cancer guidance for trans women

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context.

apnews.com

 

[Brigadier]

No they don't have one -- their demand is to be made to feel more inclusive by going through a screening test. I don't know how representative it is of that 'community'.

Agree there are stupid people all over!

Are you sure it is not a case of "life imitating art"?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Roy is pretending to think that "not all women" means "no women"

Don't be silly and impose your own ideas on my comments.
I said "not all women", by all interpretations that does not mean "all" to most people, although you might think so.
The clue is in the first word "NOT all women".

If you want to divert the discussion into a pathetic discussion about English Grammar, you're certainly trying hard.
It's not clever and it's not funny. If you want to continue with an intelligent debate, then act sensibly.

 

[Deleted member 221031]

Don't be silly and impose your own ideas on my comments.
I said "not all women", by all interpretations that does not mean "all" to most people, although you might think so.
The clue is in the first word "NOT all women".

If you want to divert the discussion into a pathetic discussion about English Grammar, you're certainly trying hard.
It's not clever and it's not funny. If you want to continue with an intelligent debate, then act sensibly.

John’s right, you’ve been back peddling through this tread.

You’ve clearly got mental health issues. Please take a step back and breath.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Interesting to see which questions Roy finds awkward.

Again you're resorting to pathetic arguments. I don't find your questions awkward, I find it an unnecessary, closed binary, logical fallacy question designed to try and prove your point and does not deserve an answer.
It's like a typical religous mindset that goes like this:
Do you believe Jesus was real? Yes.
In which case the bible must be the word of God because Jesus is mentioned in the bible. And therefore everything in the bible must be true.
The obvious answer does not prove that one thing is true because something else is.

Because two trans-sexual people have a baby does not mean that trans sexuality cannot or should not exist.

This one he finds impossible.

Here's an interesting riddle.
A transman and a transwoman are shipwrecked on a desert island. There are no other inhabitants or visitors.
A year later, one of them has a baby. Which, and how do you know?

It's a binary question, as you well know, It was designed to illicit the answer that you think will prove and support your argument.
There's multiple possible answers, which you have intentionally disallowed
That's not an intelligent way to conduct a debate.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It's certainly part of it.
It's like saying being a man is not about supplying the sperm.

A man identifying as a woman, and a woman identifying as a man, could have children, but not in the way they dream of, just in the way it naturally occurs.

It's obvious that not all women can reproduce, and not all mean can supply sperm.
That does not prevent them from being a woman or a man.

 

[Deleted member 221031]

That does not prevent them from being a woman or a man.

Yes it does.

 

[JP_]

It's obvious that not all women can reproduce, and not all mean can supply sperm.
That does not prevent them from being a woman or a man.

Yes, we can agree on that. But being a man does prevent a woman from becoming pregnant, just as being a woman can prevent a man having sperm.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Yes. That is why in the past women in families would stick together, and if a mother could not feed a newborn a sister, mother, aunt or somebody else would take up the role. In wealthier circles people would have a wet nurse for this purpose. Men never played a role in this for very obvious reasons.

For everybody else in this situation, the baby would die. Infant deaths were very common in the old days.

Your initial post was superfluous because you've provided alternative solutions to your original point that implied lactation of all mothers is necessary.

Nowadays men can play a role, they can bottle feed with milk produced by another lactating person.
I suspect animal milk has been used in desparation in the past, which is very much frowned on these days.
And versions of infant formula has been available since time immemorial. Granted infant death was far worse than today in civilised societies.

"Finding an acceptable alternative to breast milk has proved to be a complicated quest that continues today with an ever-growing assortment of modified and specialized infant formulas.
If you are a "mature" pediatricianone older than 40 years or sothere is a good chance that, if you were not breastfed as an infant, you were fed a formula created by mixing 13 oz of evaporated milk with 19 oz of water and two tablespoons of either corn syrup or table sugar. Every day, parents prepared a day's worth of this formula, transferred it to bottles that they had sterilized in a pan of boiling water, and stored it in a refrigerator until used. In addition to formula, infants received supplemental vitamins and iron.1
Infant nutrition has a fascinating history that began long before pediatricians recommended evaporated milk formula, and eventually commercial formula, as alternatives to breastfeeding. In this first article in an occasional series that puts the practice of pediatrics into historical perspective, we'll take a look at how infant formulas were developed and how they evolved over time."

A concise history of infant formula (twists and turns included)

Finding an acceptable alternative to breast milk has proved to be a complicated quest that continues today.

www.contemporarypediatrics.com

 

[Roy Bloom]

And a "man" could not do it, even if he wore a dress and called himself a woman.

Biology is real.

Trans-sexuality does not mean that every one is obliged to trans into another gender.
Trans-sexuals will always be a minority.
Men can wear whatever they like, and call themselves whatever they like to bottle feed an infant.

 

[JP_]

And versions of infant formula has been available since time immemorial.

No, it hasn't.

Formula is called formula because these "formula" were handed down in desperate attempts to keep babies alive. They never worked. Well, only if the milk dried up after a few months, then there would be a chance.

I suspect animal milk has been used in desparation in the past, which is very much frowned on these days.

Modern day formula is made from cow milk, but has all the bits taken out that babies cannot digest / make them sick.

Anybody feeding their baby with formula is feeding them cow milk.

The only natural way to feed a human baby is from a human female, aka a woman, aka a mother.

 

[JP_]

Nowadays men can play a role, they can bottle feed with milk produced by another lactating person.

Yes, nowadays. But I was specifically talking about the days before formula, before sterilisation, before electricity etc. It was not very long ago in human history.

Millions of years of evolution lead to human mothers feeding babies at their teet, and men looking after the fire and meat. But lets pretend that women are no longer a necessity and that men can be mother too.

All this nonsense is obviously a fight back against feminism. It's all pretty disgusting really.

Let women be women, and men be men. Sure, if a few want to swap roles, fine, just don't expect the rest of the planet to play along.

 

[Roy Bloom]

We encourage certain types of behaviour, yes. I'm not sure what behaviour has to do with challenging biology, though.

A man can be a father, yes. He could be a mother if you were not familiar with the rules of English, but he couldn't be one in practice, as he lacks the ability to breast feed.

We should question all the time, but I am not going to question scientific fact.

I did say that a man can fulfill the role of a mother.
He/she can call her/him self whatever he/she wants.
We've sorted out the breast feeding problem, we bottle feed as a woman who cannot lactate does.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I think it's daft. I mean, I wouldn't want somebody calling me Miss, but I don't feel the need to write it on my social media bio.

What if you had a unisex name? Would you then add a preferred pronoun?