Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

 

cheers for the tag. saying it's biologically impossible to change sex is a very reductive view but that's unsurprising when the concept of biological sex is a very wooly thing. When we say biological sex we're trying to group a number of traits which typically align but don't always into a single classification. like are we talking genetic sex and your chromosomes? reproductive sex (the gonads you produce and the genitals you have)? endocrinological sex (hormonal profile which greatly impacts any sex based responses to medicines or illnesses)? like given this has been said in the context of transition, a post op perisex trans woman would be genetically male, reproductively neuter and endocrinologically female (and vice versa for a trans man). whether she's changed sex or not is very much dependent on which aspect of sex you put the emphasis on, and that depends on the context. screening for sex based genetic disorders? still important to consider her as male. Determining medicines and drug profiles? she'll get the best outcomes if you model her as female.

 

 

 

my unpopular opinion is that sciences should be mandatory in school to 18, because what we teach in lower levels of education are half truths and oversimplifications for accessibility purposes but not then taking a science into further education means the misconceptions from those half truths and oversimplifications are never corrected (as we're seeing in this conversation)

When you say typically align, do you in fact mean align in such a vast majority of cases that if you put a column of a chart for all male, and one for all female, the number of people who don’t fit into one of those columns would be so small as to be invisible to the naked eye?  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Really? That's your response to a set of logical arguments. Take it up with Oxford and Miriam Webster.

 

I don't know if I need to point this out, because I think you already know, a lot of people find what you say offensive, including me. Yet we try and engage in the spirit of what you say respond to the argument put forward rather than just calling you a bigot. Because it is an important debate to be had and it is one that people need to be able to have listening to all sides without it descending to name calling and points scoring and just whatever the fvck arguing technique involves pulling someone up on using a perfectly cromulent word. If you want to continue being able to discuss this highly charged topic you need to stop being a provocative so and so and engage in civilised debate. Otherwise we'll all get banned and the debate will become censored and you'll become the JK Rowling of FT, obviously without the money or talent.

 

 

I’d be genuinely interested to hear what I’ve said that you find offensive.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Was at a talk yesterday, a Swedish doc described how a woman who was born without her uterus, then had a dead persons uterus transplanted in as she wanted to have kids. Successfully gave birth. He predicted a trans woman will be pregnant within the next few years via this method. The investment opportunities are absolutely HUGE

Provided of course the world remains (moderately) stable, one wonders where we'll be in fifty years time in terms of such medical science.

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

When you say typically align, do you in fact mean align in such a vast majority of cases that if you put a column of a chart for all male, and one for all female, the number of people who don’t fit into one of those columns would be so small as to be invisible to the naked eye?  

no. even setting trans people aside, they don't align in intersex people, and intersex conditions are of a similar prevalence worldwide to red hair 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Was at a talk yesterday, a Swedish doc described how a woman who was born without her uterus, then had a dead persons uterus transplanted in as she wanted to have kids. Successfully gave birth. He predicted a trans woman will be pregnant within the next few years via this method. The investment opportunities are absolutely HUGE

Oh there is no doubt that one of the chief beneficiaries of the push to medicalise gender nonconformity will be pharmaceutical capitalism 😉

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Was at a talk yesterday, a Swedish doc described how a woman who was born without her uterus, then had a dead persons uterus transplanted in as she wanted to have kids. Successfully gave birth. He predicted a trans woman will be pregnant within the next few years via this method. The investment opportunities are absolutely HUGE

next few years is an optimistic timescale, if I were a gambler I'd put it at a decade plus simply because it's not going to be a straight adaption, there are aspects of hormonal treatment we'd need to tweak (while oestrogen is the main female sex hormone and prescribed, there are a lot more that go into sustaining a pregnancy) but it will happen. nearly happened a century ago in Weimar Germany, lili Elbe got a uterus transplant and died not long after. of course this was a couple of decades before the development of anti-rejection drugs so all organ transplants were a crapshoot. unfortunately we don't have her medical records to examine the procedure and aftercare for the simple reason that it happened in late 1920s Germany 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Oh there is no doubt that one of the chief beneficiaries of the push to medicalise gender nonconformity will be pharmaceutical capitalism 😉

No doubt, and there's also little doubt that the chief beneficiaries of expanding out into space will in all likelihood by the private capital companies that get to those ore-rich asteroids first.

 

It doesn't however mean that such scientific progress isn't good nor necessary.

[iniesta]

Exciting times ahead for science moving forward -  trans-racialism & perhaps trans-speciesism. Can’t wait 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Exciting times ahead for science moving forward -  trans-racialism & perhaps trans-speciesism. Can’t wait 

That's happening now anyway, at a slower rate. 

 

Shame those pesky miscegenation laws got repealed, right?

[iniesta]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's happening now anyway, at a slower rate. 

 

Shame those pesky miscegenation laws got repealed, right?

Are you suggesting multi-racial people are transracial ? Wow 

[Jon the Hat]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Provided of course the world remains (moderately) stable, one wonders where we'll be in fifty years time in terms of such medical science.

Hopefully it will be banned.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Are you suggesting multi-racial people are transracial ? Wow 

I'm suggesting that the sometimes petty divisions that people put down in terms of sex/gender and race are going to become less and less important and are already becoming so because people's appearances in that regard are going to change - and are already changing, either generationally or faster.

 

Depending on, of course, if those who insist on essentialism and "racial purity" have the power to stop it from happening.

 

21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Hopefully it will be banned.

If it's possible, it would be nice to hear a purely scientific ethics-related reason as to why, rather than simply an emotional desire to maintain the divisions I referred to above.

[Zear0]

I enjoy reading both sides of this debate and want anything but to shut it down, but would one of you kindly make a specific thread on the gender identity issue as it's taking over every single "generic" thread topic? 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I enjoy reading both sides of this debate and want anything but to shut it down, but would one of you kindly make a specific thread on the gender identity issue as it's taking over every single "generic" thread topic? 

You're right, it is bleeding over into a lot of other threads.

[Zear0]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You're right, it is bleeding over into a lot of other threads.

Question is, what's the unpopular view? 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Question is, what's the unpopular view? 

Actually, probably everyone's apart from that of The Doctor and probably the Captain too.

 

I'm damn sure mine is and I'll happily admit my own bias on the topic, notwithstanding that the former of the above posters is the only one who can really speak from authority on this.

[Wymsey]

The word 'woke' is irritating.

[kingkisnorbo]

29 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

The word 'woke' is irritating.

Instantly makes me incapable of taking anyone seriously when its levelled in a conversation. Hollow, buzz word clap trap. 

[Daggers]

The average footy supporter is pig shit thick. 
 

Most of our support is below average. 

[Mike1983]

That Danny Ward is underrated.

[Zear0]

37 minutes ago, Mike1983 said:

That Danny Ward is underrated.

[Nalis]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Actually, probably everyone's apart from that of The Doctor and probably the Captain too.

 

I'm damn sure mine is and I'll happily admit my own bias on the topic, notwithstanding that the former of the above posters is the only one who can really speak from authority on this.

To be fair there are probably a lot of other people that agree but just cant be arsed posting

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Nalis said:

To be fair there are probably a lot of other people that agree but just cant be arsed posting

Perhaps, but who knows? Would have to look at polling dats to get a better general idea, and even that wouldn't give the full picture.

[SystonFox]

Our fan base, and a lot of this members of this forum, are to blame for the “ever obliging Leicester city” aspect of what’s happened in recent years.

Believe something enough and it will likely happen.

[Daggers]

Happy 8th April to those of you who still celebrate it with fervour and alcohol.