I've never denied that there were androgynous folks who didn't clearly fall into one the two normal sexes. I've addressed that reality earlier in this thread actually.
You called them the exception to the rule. What I mostly objected to in your post is the idea that transgenderism is the product of some sort of Marx conspiracy.
Other than that - expand your definition of 'androgynous', I guess.
So most of your post asserting I don't believe in the condition(s) is fighting a strawman of your own construction.
So you don't believe that transgenderism is some sort of Marxist conspiracy?
Please, identify the strawman. It may be that you're misreading something I said, I'm not always perfect with putting my words down in a clear fashion, and maybe you're reading something into my post that I didn't intend to be there.
They are a tiny percentage of the population, I suspect smaller than the gay population. The media emphasis on this tiny percentage of the population and the calls to upend our language and culture to accommodate them is lunacy.
Yes, it's smaller than the gay population. That being said, I'm a programmer. 90% of my coding efforts are to account for the 10% edge cases. There are actually fewer murderers out there, we have plenty of laws and procedures for dealing with them.
As for upending language and culture, you do realize that it's not the trans people calling for that, other than letting them go from 'him to her' and vice versa, as a permanent change, when they're willing to get plastic surgery to make the bits match? It might be weird, but somebody willing to go through the 'ordeal' of sex reassignment has pretty much earned the right. Unlike those that don't want hormones, don't want surgery, but DO want to be referred to has 'Hir' and such. Those are the types I have a beef with.
That actually creates something of a complication. Hormones are easy, relatively speaking. Surgery is expensive. So by refusing to fund their surgeries(or even give them a loan on good terms), one thing to be aware of is that we're actually expanding the 'problem zone' where people have rendered themselves androgynous. Where they've been taking female hormones for long enough that they've developed breasts and such, but haven't yet gotten a vagina(or a convincing fake) because of lack of funds. I don't like paying for this sort of stuff with public funds either, but it's a consequence to be aware of.
Now, this may be weird, but back in the day a trans-woman 'won' a big victory in Iran. Subsequently, there's some issues with 'you like dick? You're either a trans-woman(and we'll pay for the surgery!) or you're a gay male(death sentence!). But they don't have bathroom problems because the process is so fast.
You may believe that the social sciences aren't dominated by cultural Marxists steeped in post modern "thought" but you would be wrong; we can agree to disagree here. I agree with you that post modern thought/cultural Marxism is a problem all western nations are facing, not just America.
No, I said that 'transgenderism' is a
global phenomenon, and is
independent from western thought.
Historically all peoples have had a process for teaching boys how to be men and girls how to be women. Families, tribes and nations are all part of the process of teaching the youth about being a man, a women and a good citizen.
In the US we seem to be OK teaching boys that they can be women, girls that they can be men and that western civilization is an evil that must be cured.
Okay. Responding to this is going to take some thought.
First: Stereotypical gender roles have their downsides as well as upsides. Should my brother be looked down upon because he's a stay at home dad? Should we look down on a woman because she knows how to operate a chainsaw, or a man because he knows how to sew? Or would a better statement be that we should be teaching children to be
adults?
Second: Going by the studies, we don't
need to be teaching boys to be men. Teaching them that they
can be a woman is going to get you looked at funny, unless they happen to be transgender, but then in that case you don't have to tell them they can be a woman - they figure that out on their own. That stuff, it turns out, is set in the womb.
My theory: Current protocols are more or less okay. When somebody ID's themselves as transgender, there's doctors who make sure they aren't doing so out of a desire for attention and what not. Using established protocols, they determine that, yes, the person is male/female in the head. After that, they go into a program where they live as their 'chosen' gender and receive hormones for the same. After being able to pass in public as that gender for at least a certain amount of time, they become eligible for the surgery. Personally, I'm for changing over documents before the surgery, when they're able to pass in public as that gender, because that will generate the fewest weird looks. Done. No big national debate over it needed.
