Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you really believe that if you flirt with someone that they should be obliged to reciprocate?

That is sexual predatory action in a fucking nutshell.

He’s talking about dating adverts, not flirting.
I suppose it’s like ‘no dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ from one POV. But everyone has preferences. Rich, thin, blonde, big dick, educated - it’s not a rabbit hole I want to descend.
 
He’s talking about dating adverts, not flirting.
I suppose it’s like ‘no dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ from one POV. But everyone has preferences. Rich, thin, blonde, big dick, educated - it’s not a rabbit hole I want to descend.

It's nothing like the no blacks, no irish thing at all.

Dating is a very personal thing, you're looking for someone to spend time with and sexual connection is a massive part of that, personally I don't fancy blondes, dunno why, also not attracted to blokes, that's an easy one for me, transgenders, if they pass I may be interested but most of them seem to still have cocks, so fuck that.
 
It's nothing like the no blacks, no irish thing at all.

Dating is a very personal thing, you're looking for someone to spend time with and sexual connection is a massive part of that, personally I don't fancy blondes, dunno why, also not attracted to blokes, that's an easy one for me, transgenders, if they pass I may be interested but most of them seem to still have cocks, so fuck that.

I said “I suppose it’s like ... from one PoV” - please don’t misrepresent me in order to virtue signal in future. Thanks in advance.
 
I said “I suppose it’s like ... from one PoV” - please don’t misrepresent me in order to virtue signal in future. Thanks in advance.


Fucking virtue signal, say what you fucking mean instead of bringing external bias into personal coupling.

Daft cunt.

No i dont belive this at all. Perhaps read again what I wrote.

I did, several times and all I get is that you should accommodate sexual partners that you are not attracted to because of 'reasons'
 
Fucking virtue signal, say what you fucking mean instead of bringing external bias into personal coupling.

Daft cunt.



I did, several times and all I get is that you should accommodate sexual partners that you are not attracted to because of 'reasons'
Well then i catagorise you as being a turgid thick idiot. Why dont you quote the bits of what I wrote that informs your vom sorry view?
 
It's nothing like the no blacks, no irish thing at all.

Dating is a very personal thing, you're looking for someone to spend time with and sexual connection is a massive part of that, personally I don't fancy blondes, dunno why, also not attracted to blokes, that's an easy one for me, transgenders, if they pass I may be interested but most of them seem to still have cocks, so fuck that.

'Transgender' is an adjective, not a noun.
 
Well then i catagorise you as being a turgid thick idiot. Why dont you quote the bits of what I wrote that informs your vom sorry view?


Being able to make things and design things on this planet instead of being a gobshite on the internet makes me a lot more above you, what have you done in the world that has changed anything?
 
But when people are openly stating their desires, how they do so is useful for instance in assessing whether they are a bigot, a racist or indeed transphobic.

Indeed, someone who says "no blacks" on a personal ad could well indeed be a massive fucking racist. Or they're simply not turned on by dark skin. Since racists can be attracted to dark skin, it doesn't seem unreasonable to extrapolate that the inverse can happen, people who aren't raging bigots who aren't attracted to dark skin.

Trying to police that sounds like an ethical and moral minefield at best. I'm not sure what good it would do either.
 
Sorry, I have looked :facepalm: but I can't find that info anywhere in the pdf you linked to. Could you quote it here or point to the exact page no & paragraph, please?

I'm on my phone so I can't quote it. But it's on the first paragraph of the second page. It cites Dutch research.
 
I'm on my phone so I can't quote it. But it's on the first paragraph of the second page. It cites Dutch research.

First paragraph of the second page is this -
These figures indicate that about 1% of the UK population, some 650,000 people, are likely to be gender incongruent to some degree. So far, only about 30,000 have sought medical help for gender dysphoria. Dutch research indicates that around a fifth of the 650,000 will do so, amounting to a further 100,000 people.

Nothing about genital surgery?
 
What does "believing in" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that) dysphoria have to do with grammar?

So why bring it up as a grammar attack when you haven't got a fucking clue what I am leading towards, did you just want to shut down that tangent of discourse?

Do you believe gender dysphoria is real?
 
'transgenders' is offensive, just as ''gays' or 'disableds' would be. They're people, not things. The adjective describes the people.


How is transgender offensive?

How else does the layperson who doesn't give a shit about 0.3% of the population refer to them? Especially when they are so vocal, violent and predatory?
 
So why bring it up as a grammar attack when you haven't got a fucking clue what I am leading towards, did you just want to shut down that tangent of discourse?

Do you believe gender dysphoria is real?

Well I experience it myself, so yes.

What exactly were you leading towards that couldn't be said just as well with the grammatically correct and non-dehumanising phrase "transgender people" (or "transgender women" or whatever)?
 
First paragraph of the second page is this -


Nothing about genital surgery?

No, not explicitly. But...

Medical treatment are classified as hormones, top surgery and genital surgery or a combination thereof. Not necessarily all three. So if a fifth of all transgender people seek medical treatment, and not all are going to seek all the treatment, then it is reasonable to say that less than 20% will have genital surgery, meaning that more than 80% do not.
 
No, not explicitly. But...

Medical treatment are classified as hormones, top surgery and genital surgery or a combination thereof. Not necessarily all three. So if a fifth of all transgender people seek medical treatment, and not all are going to seek all the treatment, then it is reasonable to say that less than 20% will have genital surgery, meaning that more than 80% do not.

Ah right, I get where you're coming from now, cheers.

I'm still not entirely convinced, but I cba looking up all the research and I probably don't understand statistics enough anyway :D
 
Ah right, I get where you're coming from now, cheers.

I'm still not entirely convinced, but I cba looking up all the research and I probably don't understand statistics enough anyway :D

The 700,000 figures is "people who are gender incongruent to some degree" - of these around a fifth are estimated to go on to seek medical assistance and so less than that will actually have treatment.

This figure will though include occassional crossdressers, non binary people or other variations who will probably never even socially transition and don't want to - so I'm not sure it is that useful to say 80% of people who would normally be thought of as transgender, as in people who live in a different gender to the one assigned at birth will never seek any assistance or treatment. The pool is much larger than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom