he says, with no trace of humor or irony

Trans activists are the ones taking it to the transcendent domain when they make claims of an innate connection to “true gender”.

I’m completely fine with framing the issue using identity, in which trans people are strongly identifying with the gender incongruent with their bio sex. So then, let’s talk about whether or not that is desirable and the role celebration and social influence have on increasing the number of trans youth.

I place my moral bets from a rock solid foundation.

That doesn't come close to presupposing the existence of souls. Instead, it's simply referring to the brain chemistry that informs one of one's gender.

Of course, even if you were right (you're not), the fact remains that religious people have been using religious concepts to oppress LGBTQ+ people en masse for centuries.

OK. Personally, I think it is indeed "desirable" that people are starting to be able to come out of the closet with increased frequency. In the past, these people would be stuck living lives of quiet desperation and misery for the remainder of their lives, although, I admit, out of the line of internet mockery from revolting transphobic cretins like meisner and others. Is this something which with you (somehow) disagree?

I'm sure this bit of nonsense is very compelling to certain types of religious nutcases.

Leaving the top apologetics of 1934 aside, do me a favor and don't oppress any gay and/or trans people this week, ok?

Back to this. Do you assume the existence of energy? If so, how is your feeling of energy tangible and documented. How about willpower?

Can you prove “in a tangible and documented way” energy or willpower as a truthful cause instead of spirit?

So “true gender” is correlated with a measurable brain disposition? That is a bet you want to make?

I didn’t ask whether or not it is desirable that trans people are able to socially identify as trans. I asked whether or not it is desirable to have a strong gender identity which doesn’t match your bio sex.

Energy - sure, as in the thing that humans' bodies convert calories into that gets us to move around. I assume that's thoroughly documented by biologists, nutritionists and others. I can't be bothered to do a bunch of research to prove this banal point which has nothing to do with trans issues, so, consider me gotcha'd if you wish.

I'm not very interested in engaging in some esoteric, mental masturbation-style exercise with you. Instead, I want you to fully accept the existence of trans people and stop trying to dismiss and marginalize them, particularly while using religious rhetoric to do so (as that adds a whole new layer of hate on top of it). That's about it.

You're the one going on about "true gender". That's not a phrase I've used. Whatever gender one's brain chemistry informs one of belonging to IS one's gender. Their "true" gender, although, of course, there's no need for that qualifier.

As a Marxist, I'm more concerned with how class and wealth move societies than issues of identity do. So, I'm no expert, but I do know that a society-wide rejection of the identities of trans+ people would be a deeply regressive and awful thing for all LGBTQ+ people and their allies.

On the question of the identity of certain individuals and if it's "desirable to have a strong gender identity which doesn't match (their) bio sex", well, that sounds like a case-by-case kind of thing.

You will be denying the existence of many trans identifying people with this brain chemistry standard.

Stating the mind-numbingly obvious point that desirability can be measured in each individual is a convenient way to avoid addressing if it’s desirable on the whole, which is what you already knew I meant.

Why? Whether or not this is desirable to you or me or anyone else here is rather inconsequential, and this is the Politics forum.

What? Why? What else other than the brain could possibly inform one of one's gender? It's not one's genitals, as I hope you'd agree. What else does that leave? The soul? Again, that bullshit is a fairy-tale to comfort dying people. You won't win over anybody who's not already on the team by appealing to your religious concepts.

You made a weird assertion with zero backing behind it. Pretty annoying.

I was giving you a bit of credit by assuming that you get the difference between sex and gender, if I'm wrong on that, let me know. It does seem to befuddle many on the right.

Nah, it wasn't that. To be honest, you post in this really bizarre manner. In post A, you'll be way overly opaque, then in post B you flip it and bluntly spurt out a wild assertion with zero backing and boom, that's the entire post.

I'm a nice guy. Let me take another crack at it:

It may, or may not, be desirable for any particular individual to have a strong gender identity which doesn't match their biological sex. You'd have to ask them -- which is basically what I said earlier.

Is it desirable for society to ALLOW people to have a strong gender identity which doesn't match their biological sex? Sure. It definitely beats the earlier times when these people were oppressed and coerced into being who they weren't for the remainder of their lifetimes.

On the third try, I'm guessing you're asking something close to that. Please believe me, nobody on this planet is too scared of your basic apologetics to properly reply; the problem is that you worded your post poorly.

If you are saying this because of a belief in moral relativism, then I reject your view. If you think I’m only concerned about my own self interest with this issue, I reject this as well.

You seem oblivious to what is going on. Do you actually think trans people are identifying as trans because they know the disposition of their brain?

OK. Your rejections don't change the fact that whether or not you think people identifying with gender in a certain way is "desirable" is inconsequential. Your approval isn't required. And it also doesn't change the fact that this doesn't seem all that relevant to a politics forum.

I agree with you here. Still, allowing it, in terms of law, is different than celebrating it socially to the point of creating more of it in future young people with weak gender identities (eg: tomboys).

There is a middle ground between celebration and bigotry. Each extreme creates more suffering. One in the immediate and the other over a longer time frame.

ah ok, I give you an honest attempt and you come back with THIS pathetic display

good faith indeed

I'm sorry, is this a real-life sentence? The disposition of their brain? Brains don't have dispositions, bro. Why do you hate the English language?

Trans people identify as trans because the physical processes that occur within their brain informs them (not explicitly) that their gender does not necessarily match their sex.

Anyway, it's already been thoroughly explained to you why and how you are wrong about everything, and your little Socratic snippets aren't changing that, so, take your fairytale soul and **** off somewhere

How does this not apply to any other opinion shared on this forum? “Your opinion is inconsequential” is simply a tyrannical tactic to limit speech.

This issue is obviously political. Gimme a break.

"weak gender identities"

This is not a thing. I mean, I Googled it to be sure. This phrase you invented means that these people you're worried about suffer from a weakness of some sort. Congrats on inventing a new term of bigotry!

Oh really. Why do people de-transition?

Most opinions on this forum aren't about whether or not how someone identifies is "desirable" or not, especially when said identification has little to no direct impact on anyone else.

LOL, how am I limiting your speech?

There are many issues concerning transgender people that are political. Their choice to identify as such shouldn't be one of them.

You’re not limiting my speech yet. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a desire to. Do you deny this desire?

The issues concerning trans people are dependent on what transgender means, and I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to identify as trans.

I don't know how this idea compares with the real world.

People proposing/fighting to make it illegal for medical care to be provided by licensed medical professionals isn't somehow the middle ground of celebrating and bigotry.

Middle ground legislation would be a standard of care of requiring a mental health professional assessment before providing the more permanent care, not banning all treatment options (similar to plastic surgery standards).