A cisgender or cis person is someone who identifies as the physically determined gender they were assigned at birth. It is someone who is not transgender or trans.
Cisgender men: most have a penis, identify as male, prefer the pronoun “he”.
Cisgender women: most have a vagina, identify as female, prefer the pronoun “she”.
Some terms:
- assigned sex – determined physically at birth.
- gender identity – what you consider yourself to be: male or female (or possibly something else).
- cisgender – assigned sex = gender identity.
- transgender – assigned sex ≠ gender identity.
- transphobia – fear or hatred of trans people. In a trans person it can be internalized as shame.
- passing – to act, talk, dress, etc, so that society sees you as your gender identity.
You cannot always tell if a person is cis just by looking at them. Cis people spend time and money trying to look more like their gender identity, sometimes going so far as to take medicine or undergo surgery. Meanwhile some trans people try to live as cis for family or religious reasons or out of transphobic shame.
Some do’s and don’t’s:
- Treat cisgender people according to their expressed gender.
- Use the gender pronoun they prefer. Never use “it”. Cisgender people can get upset if you use the wrong pronoun.
- Do not assume they are straight. Many cisgender people are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Gender identity and sexual orientation are two different things.
- Do not assume it is a phase. Most cisgender people never grow out of it. Accept them as they are.
- Do not ask about their genitals, sex lives or medical history. Most cisgender people consider such questions rude unless they bring it up themselves.
- Do not call them “a cisgender”, “a cis” or “cis scum”. The proper term is “cisgender person” or just “person”.
- Remember that many cisgender people are able to live happy, productive lives.
Causes and cures: There is no known cure. Scientists are not even sure about the cause – is it genetics, hormones, brain chemistry, social conditioning or a little of each?
Cissexism is the belief that gender identity is not in the mind but in one’s genitals. It sees the gender identities of cisgender people as somehow “realer” or better than those of transgender people. It sees transgender people as not being “real” men or “real” women. It is part of transphobic thinking.
Cisgender privilege – the advantages society gives to cisgender people that it denies to transgender people. American society in 2014 heavily favours cisgender people, from religion to insurance to the labour and housing market to public restrooms to policing to prisons to not being dressed in the wrong clothes at your funeral. Cisgender people take all this for granted – because they have never had to live without it. Cisgender privilege is kept in place by transphobic thinking.
Some famous cisgender people:
Source: Cisgender 101 infographic.
See also:
It is a mental ilness to identify as female if you have a penis. It is a mental ilness to identify as male if you have a vagina.
If I decided to identify as a dog, that wouldn’t give me the right to poop on people’s lawns.
LikeLike
You are so funny!
LikeLike
@Bobby
I hate to jump in here and possibly just feed you, but that is transphobia and needs to be called out.
I have depression and anxiety, so I fall in that category of people who are mentally ill. When you say that being trans* is a mental illness, you manage to make yourself look painfully uninformed about mental illness – and transphobic too. Worst of all, you perpetuate the stigma against people whose gender identity and assigned sex don’t match up and ensure their continued oppression. That’s perpetuating the belief that trans* people are wrong/unnatural/sick/inferior to cis people and thus don’t deserve the same rights as them – which translates to a lot of hate and discrimination. That’s a lot more wrong than having a gender identity cissexist society thinks you’re not supposed to have.
Another problem is that you equate genitals/sex organs with gender. By this measure, if a cis woman, for example, had a hysterectomy or an oophorectomy, she would no longer be a woman – except, of course, she would probably still identify as a woman. When even cis people stop being cis under your model, it’s probably time for a rethink.
Also, you’ve forgotten that “pooping on people’s lawns” and “expressing your own gender identity” are quite different. The former could, in some way, possibly harm people, and the dog can go poop somewhere else. The latter harms absolutely no-one and helps a group of oppressed people.
This was never really my space to comment in the first place, so I’m out.
LikeLike
An observation and 2 questions:
1) In the “causes and cures” I was suddenly lost. Do you mean a cause to explain why someone identifies their own gender based upon their physical anatomy? I am female according to physical anatomy/biology, and identify as a straight woman. I don’t feel there is a condition described here that is a problem which would need a “cure.” Likewise, if I had the same anatomy but identified as male transgender, or lesbian, or bisexual. “Cis” seems like a term that is rarely necessary unless gender “reporting,” as it were, is largely inconsistent with what people actually identify themselves as being. And, since that isn’t a question that is asked of most people in conjunction with the anatomy question except for perhaps in a medical setting, is this something that needs a cure?
Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding.
I’m trying to understand this but struggling with it. I know gender and sexual identity are separate things. And often they do not necessarily agree. But isn’t it presumptuous of us in general to say the people in the photos are “cis” in the same way that it is presumptuous to look at someone and say they are gay or bi or trans or anything? Unless someone has made a point of announcing they are cis, we don’t know for certain whether they are or not. Personally, I feel a person’s gender identity isn’t my business unless that person wants it to be my business. I would never ask someone about it. If they want to tell me, fine. I welcome the discussion.
Or, are you referencing the possibility of a person born with anatomy which doesn’t match their chromosomal makeup (ie anatomy appears “female” but chromosome pairs say “male”)
Likewise, I’m confused by the “no cure” part. If (and I believe this is true) biological/anatomical gender is totally separate from gender identity, then why would there be a need for a “cure?” This makes me think of the horror stories of babies born with malformed genitalia and the doctors insisted upon immediately getting the parents to agree to surgery to “fix” the problem. If a male child was born with less than a complete penis/scrotum, they were often surgically altered to resemble a female. The child would be raised as a girl, and often had a terrible struggle througout the childhood, feeling like an outcast and never developing the way a normal girl would. No menstruation, no curves, no hormonal changed that jived with other teenaged girls. Sometimes they were told the truth eventually, but many parents hid the truth and the person discovered it much later in life. That would be horrific, but thousands of people were subjected to this “corrective” when the they were born with an “androgenous” anatomy in the 20th century. Is there a term for that, which you are aware of, rather than the old “androgenous” label?
I promise I’m not trying to be a jackass here. I guess I just wonder whether so many labels are hurting or helping in the cause for equality. Classification foe understanding is one thing. But using labels on everyone feels like it can get dangerously close to pointing and jeering.
LikeLike
cis-gendered women need to stop attemping to complete in the olympics, they should resign themselves to their true role in life; pushing up the tiaras on trans/gender variant and intersex women heads.
Rebecca Needham
LikeLike
Cisgender is a stupid term because transgender are not the majority we are. If we course we identify as a woman, can men give birth? Lol, it’s our biology
LikeLike
Abagond, under the “Some do’s and don’t’s” section, did you mean to put transgender instead of cisgender?
LikeLike
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIyuVxD8Jdk)
LikeLike
Well done. Thank you, Abagond.
LikeLike
@translationscrapbook
Very well said!!!!
LikeLike
I poop on people’s lawns.
LikeLike
@abagond ok…
LikeLike
On the other hand it is helpful for any species to have a clue about gender when seeking to reproduce. Seems kind of basic and beyond argument. The argument seems to be about the right to self-identify gender. If another human wants to self-identify as a gender other than their birth gender, that would seem to be beyond science and more about human rights. Do human rights extend beyond the labels used for science? Is that the question? Or, is it up to each of us to assign ourselves our own gender identity? How far do we go in accecpting self identity of gender beyond the definitions of Biology 101? Should we encourage unisex bathrooms? Should we do away with any and all gender distinctions in our social lives? Or, is the real answer to extend basic human rights to everyone without the need for study beyond the content of your heart.
LikeLike
abagond, did you receive my email i sent you at abagond@gmail.com ? I requested that an article be posted by you.
LikeLike
Don’t leave Popeye off the cis- list. “I yam what I yam, and that’s all that I yam. I’m Popeye the Sailor Man.”
Other fictional cis- icons: Superman(?). Batman. Wonder Woman. John Henry.
More cis- icons: Julius Caesar. Jesus of Nazareth. Cleopatra. Elizabeth I(?). George Washington. Elton John. Michael Jackson. Marilyn Monroe(?).
(?) Those with the (?) symbol have either have had their gender questioned or in the case of Kal El-Clark Kent-Superman may not have had a human gender at all. In the DC comics “universe”, the Kryptonians very closely resembled human beings, with virtually identical sex roles both biologically and socially. But they were not human beings.
The theory has been proposed that the real Elizabeth Tudor died at an early age, and was replaced by a boy who may have undergone castration, gender role conditioning, brainwashing or even some kind of primitive gender reassignment surgery before ascending the the British throne as Elizabeth I.
The theory was proposed that actress Marilyn Monroe was an intersexual, a condition that arises from a chromosomal abnormality. Intersexuals generally appear be female, but suffer from reproductive difficulties. Reportedly, intersexual females often are extremely good looking. Marilyn Monroe was extremely good looking and suffered from reproductive difficulties, but the theory that she was an intersexual has to be considered an “urban legend” kind of thing. Unless proven otherwise.
LikeLike
Too complicated.
LikeLike
Thank you for the education
LikeLike
I am attempting to be “open” about this but failing badly….
because this topic seems (to be me), to be a satire comparing the majority of men and women, (people who are not “conflicted” about their gender/having the correct body/anatomical parts) with people who have “white privilege”
Most people are not confused about “who and what they are” —
Gay people are born gay, trans-genders are born that way and believe they are in the “wrong” bodies; and both of these groups are societally persecuted for being “who they are”– but what is your main point, Abagond?
The majority of the people in the world know they are born in the “right bodies” and are not attracted to the “same sex” — and yes, we are not persecuted for it (not in the same sense as gay/transgender people)
but gender bias between men and women have problems of its own (male domination, stronger vs weaker, “traditional” roles, etc) and unfortunately for gay/transgender people, they also have to deal with being outside of the “male” dominated world view of “normal” —
so if being accepted by society is their main issue, are you comparing hatred & treatment of gays and trans-genders to “racial/Ethnic group” hatred/ persecution? (which to me is apples and oranges)
as you stated, trans-gender people can “hide” but most people cannot hide their skin colour, “race”/Ethnicity without biological, chemical, or surgical assistance.
people who look like Castor Semenya, (a true hermaphrodite) is not common:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-1212568/World-champion-Caster-Semenya-hermaphrodite-womb-ovaries–Australian-newspapers-shock-claims-gender-row-runner.html
most transgender people NEED surgery and artificial assistance to look like their desired sex – the look that they desire most times does not come naturally.
Their feelings may be natural, but biologically, physically– they got to make the transformation “happen” or they just look like men/women in drag, like Ru Paul.
I guess I am trying to correlate your chosen topic (cis-genders) with your topics on race and how so called “default normal groups” treat the minority or non-default groups; and having “privilege” that the non-dominant group does not have.
example: In America, white people believe they are default, so therefore everyone else who is “non-white” equals (=) bad, less than, inferior, not seen as “one of us”, — open for “interpretation” and classification by the default white group
so are you trying to say that straight, “opposite-sex loving” people, who know that they are born in the “correct bodies” and ruled by the correct hormones (so called “cis-gendered” people) — as the default “normal”
are behaving like white Americans? that so called “cis-genders” behave and act on par with America’s “default” race — a group who typically don’t notice racial/Ethnic disparities or recognize when non-white people are being treated like sh’t?
so therefore, as default normal gender, we treat “gay and transgender” people the way that white racist societies treat non-white people, so therefore are committing the same “sin” as white racists.
is that the gist of this topic, Abagond?
(sorry for the length of words, this is me just spitting out my thoughts and questions trying to get the point of your topic)
LikeLike
and Abagond, you couldn’t find a better picture of Naomi Campbell than that?!
one where her hair (wig/weave) is more on point 🙂
She’s a naturally beautiful women… love her
http://www.fabsugar.com.au/Naomi-Campbell-Coming-Australia-Model-Show-Face-31492095
LikeLike
Wtf….slow day
LikeLike
I never thought I would see a bad picture of Naomi Campbell, and this is the first. She is a very beautiful woman. But that above photograph doesn’t do her justice.
LikeLike
Oh, I get it. This is supposed to be satire. I was confused because who needs to be educated about the ways of cisgender people?
LikeLike
The bad pictures of Naomi Campbell and Lil Kim were on purpose to make it clear that their look is contrived, not “natural”.
LikeLike
Oh OK, Abagond…but makeup or not, Naomi still looks like a female (no guessing needed)
and that was “Lil Kim”?!? — wowwwww … did not know, thanks for mentioning it..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
Being able to reproduce by PIV is the most obvious cis privilege…
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
[…] cisgender […]
LikeLike
This is a great post. However, it is incomplete.
Whereas, cisgender is someone who has thinks they are the same sex as the reproductive organs they have would indicate, we should also not forget:
cisbestial = someone who is not attracted sexually to sheep and other non-human partners
cisnecro = someone who happens to be only sexually attracted to living partners
OR
cispedo = someone who is only sexually attracted to grown-ups.
Think about it. People who engage in bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia are born that way. It’s just the way they are. We need to end the social stigmas, especially for pedophiles. There are millions of these men and women (notice the female school teachers who have been shamed recently) who are still “in the closet” (many more than transsexuals!). Calling it shameful or perverse is exactly what society did for homosexuals. It’s time to end the hate and open your minds. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting topic, and can of worms. One that often attracts ignorant bigots in droves.
I used to be sceptical of the term cisgender because I assumed it was a word invented by… well… cisgender people so as not to be left out (kind of in the same way that those who consider themselves to be “indigenous” English people have suddenly started flying their St George cross flags and celebrating St G’s Day because they see various dispora members celebrating their heritage and they somehow feel threatened by it). I was soon corrected.
I’m told that the term does, in fact, have origins in the LGBT community and is a simple descriptive term with no particular positive or negative loading.
It is a complicated world. I’m not sure whether the spectrum of gender and sexuality is actually becoming more complex and diverse or whether people are simply identifying more graduations that previously went unrecognised or unlabelled.
Whatever, it seems reasonable enough for someone to wish to be accepted for the person they recognise themselves to be. It takes a little effort to keep up with the pronouns etc preferred by various kinds of people but, IMO, it doesn’t take much more effort than it takes to respect people’s sensitivities and try to use acceptable descriptions for nationalities/races/ethnicities.
The interesting thing about equality is that some people are selective about who they think deserves it.
LikeLike
Thank you, Buddhuu. This is a lot of what I was getting at. I think the term could be helpful in certain contexts, and it certainly has been cropping up all over social media in the last couple years, but it can also be used as a weapon…as in the cases you cited regarding the majority population taking up a flag (or, in this case, a moniker) just to assert their “status.” In the US we’ve had that for 150 years with the Confederate flag-wavers who are really just bigots, pretending it is some kind of “rebel” expression.
The other aspect of using all these gender and sexuality terms is it can raise awareness for the people most marginalized. When I worked in retail management, I often struggled with employee handbook that contained regulations which essentially denied that transgender people exist! This makes it very complicated to hire and maintain on staff anyone who is actively expressing any gender/sexuality which falls outside of traditional heterosexual gender expression, since, working in a large corporation, my job encompassed enforcing rules written by higher-ups. If they said men couldn’t have certain hairstyles or that makeup had to conform to what essentially was the traditional straight female ideal, well, there was little I could do other than handle it case-by-case and advocate for the person if upper management visited and questioned me about the person’s appearance….which definitely happened. And, it was harder to do than it should be, because we still had higher ups who acted as though disabilities didn’t need to be accommodated, let alone people with more recently-acknowledged differences.
LikeLike
This post was satire, right? Bobby was right but the comments are making me wonder. Rebelling against how you were created will never work out well.
LikeLike
eMatters said:
“Rebelling” and “created” are loaded words in this context. Personally, I don’t believe that we were “created” by some authoritarian agency. If people chose to define themselves in ways that don’t conform to convention, against whom or what are they rebelling?
If you are suggesting that the various self-perceptions experienced by people who identify as genders other than male/female are not “how they were created”, can you cite scientific evidence to support it? Can you show that there is no inherent genetic/pathological factor present at birth that makes these people feel as they do?
Definitions and labels are human constructs. They mean more to some people than to others. Terms change: the term “gender” may need to expand to consider more than just plumbing and chromosomes.
LikeLike
@buddhuu: Thanks for your information, when I commented that this is too complicated, I was right it is complicated. I didn’t want to post too much, seeing how I am ignorant about this term. I see how this could be a can of worms. Just wasn’t sure what to say about this. I think I was wise in not commenting further, seeing how I was ignorant about this topic. Thank for your information, always appreciate you.
LikeLike
Mary, if it weren’t for my kids I would be well behind with all this stuff. They are all very much live-and-let-live kind of people and politically and socially active about it – especially my youngest daughter.
I’m naturally relaxed about other people’s lifestyles, self-images and how they identify themselves. I’m weird enough myself to be able to empathise, but without my kids and their friends I would never get a grip on half of what’s going on.
I think we all learn from each other, don’t we? 🙂
LikeLike
biff:
While I greatly appreciate the art and practice of exposing double-standards, I believe you have set up an improper analogy.
The ethics of accepting non-traditional sexual arrangements among consenting adults cannot be extended to children, as they’re incapable of granting consent.
LikeLike
buddhuu and Melanie S.,
I’m glad to see you all are aware of why this term is even here– it’s good to know someone has a clue.
but I have no shame in saying: I have no clue what this word is all about and I still don’t see the relevance in having a term like “cisgender” exist as a label
That is what I was trying to ask Abagond, in a round about way…
and I have to admit, I am not very open when it comes to the subject of homosexuality/transgender– I do try though because I recognize they were born that way — but I can’t shake my base feelings
I do believe in “live and let live” but I also believe that society can’t look the other way for everything (I almost used the psychopaths and pedophile analogy myself yesterday because, they too were born that way — but I stopped because I didn’t want to derail or have my intent misconstrued.. I also realize I don’t like this feeling of even partially agreeing with a racist [Biff])
so, my question to you is: why is this term “cis-gender” relevant? and why is it trending on social media?
LikeLike
There are issues with accepting Trans and intersex’d people as women. As pointed out in the linked article, someone like Caster have unfair advantages as athlete’s or traditional females.
Basically if allowed to compete as women in athletic events, no cis-female is ever going to win in the olympics again.
Is it okay to let Trans-women compete in female boxing events? Even factoring in weight class men on average, including Transwomen, muscle mass is around 15% more effective than CIS-gendered women.
Should we instead do the organizations via testosterone levels instead of gender?
Its one thing to be polite an address someone by their preferred gender but what happens when it starts having to be taken into consideration in real events, competitions, business corporations and the like.
How will women feel if it becomes acceptable to have Transgenders count as females in regards to quotas for affirmative action kind of deals?
What happens when there start to be negative consequences for CIS-gendered women?
As for the term Gender; it does include more than just plumbing and chromosomes but it also includes those as well.
Throw me under with the guy who thought Lil’ Kim was a transgender until it was pointed out it was Lil’ Kim, really wrecked herself when she went all Michael Jackson there.
I also don’t think its transphobic not to feel them as “not the preferred gender” but as the one they were born with.
Hell; with trans-men they could just be lesbians or Tom-boys for all you know just going by appearance.
And both CIS-gendered individuals and white people in the US are the norm or default; I mean US white people are 70% whereas CIS-genered people are probably someone around 95 odd percent.
Basically if every 9.7/10 isn’t the default than I don’t know what the is…..
LikeLike
@ Linda:
As I understand it, the term arose from discussion amongst people in the LGBT(and extensions/variations) community. Many people within that community have preferred terms for their own situation. In conversation it emerged that there was no convenient shorthand term for those people whom many would simply term “normal”. Well, for LGBTetc people, the term “normal” was inadequate because they considered their perspective to be normal. Thus, “cisgender” was coined as a term of convenience.
If I may pose questions in return to those for whom non-traditional sexual and gender roles seem unacceptable… Why?
What’s the problem? And is it your business?
(For the record, I have no horse in the race. I’m the ultimate in mainstream/boring/privileged: white, heterosexual, and male.)
LikeLike
OMG…… Lil Kim, that is tragic.
LikeLike
One thing I’ve wondered is whether women with all their cosmetic surgeries, fake breasts, fake butts etc…..are in some way responsible for the rise and on some level further acceptance of Trans-people.
That maybe in some way women with cosmetic surgery are actually conditioning people to look at them as being more “normal” than before.
Well; that and I guess improved cosmetic surgery techniques.
LikeLike
V-4,
“Is it okay to let Trans-women compete in female boxing events? Even factoring in weight class men on average, including Transwomen, muscle mass is around 15% more effective than CIS-gendered women.
Should we instead do the organizations via testosterone levels instead of gender?
Its one thing to be polite an address someone by their preferred gender but what happens when it starts having to be taken into consideration in real events, competitions, business corporations and the like.”
What happens is that you take it into consideration. We shouldn’t dismiss transgender people just because it complicates the system we have going.
After undergoing a sex change transgender women don’t have any athletic advantage over cisgender women.
LikeLike
Randy:
Who gets to determine age of consent? Does the fact that nature enables boy and girls to procreate as early as 11 or 12 mean anything? Does the fact that every other species begins to procreate as soon as they are biologically able to do so mean anything? Does the fact for humans in ALL societies, up until a hundred years ago or so, it was very common to have child marriages mean anything?
This is an “ageist” argument. One could easily argue that a relationship between a 15 year old and a 35 year old (mixed gender either way) is more natural than two same sex 35 year olds, since the first union can produce offspring.
Open your mind and see that this “age of consent” is a social construct.
However, you want a closer analogy you say. How about “cissanity”? We call people “insane” or “crazy” just because they don’t think like the rest of us. It’s incredibly demeaning to them. They just view the world in a different way. Oftentimes as with “cisgender”/”transgender” it is an “idenity” issue. For instance, many people may really believe they are Napolean. They should be allowed to determine their own identity. Therefore, the correct way to address these people is to say “Your Excellency”, “Your Lordship” or “Your Majesty” (in English) when you meet them and to show them respect (i.e., dont bring up Waterloo, unless they do so first). Don’t write them off as loco because they see the world and define themselves differently than you do. Their perspective is equally valid. Now, I know I’m gonna get hate from all you cissane commentators.. because tackling the issue of the differently sane (many more than homosexuals or transexuals, by the way) happens not to be politically favored at this time.
LikeLike
Kiwi:
What is all this? You just don’t recognize your cissane privilege! Non-sequiturs are just a different way of putting together ideas, they shouldn’t be looked down upon.
However, you are blaming Asians for r@!ism (your cousin is Asian because Obama is the first black president), but only whites can be r@!ist because it’s white privilege to do so.
Also, you’re right, I see a lot of mainstream U.S. publications saying it’s OK to bash Asian men, just like they say we should accept homosexuals and transsexuals. If anything, the bash Asian men advice columns are more numerous here in the U.S. Laws decriminalizing the bashing of Asian men are now poised to pass in 27 States (I predict Mississippi will be first).
LikeLike
“buddhuu @ If I may pose questions in return to those for whom non-traditional sexual and gender roles seem unacceptable… Why?
What’s the problem? And is it your business?”
Linda says,
Buddhuu, very good question… of course I can only speak for myself..
I grew up in a very homophobic country (Jamaica) and our society is religious and contrary to what most people think, conservative….that upbringing is hard to shake but I try.
since coming to the US, I’ve made the effort to be more open because here, many people are gay– they’re my neighbors and co-workers (and I call some friends) and as consenting adults, they can do whatever they want…would I be happy if one of my children told me they were gay? No I wouldn’t… I have no rational explanation, that’s just how I feel…
what people do in their bedrooms is none of my business, as long as it is not in my face or hurting me and mine
but I do believe in the traditional roles of men and women — I don’t believe that women can raise “boys into men” — the same way men have no clue or understanding of what it’s like to be pregnant, carry and birth a child… so a man cannot tell me or any other female what to do with our bodies.
and as we know, “normal” is a relative term… homosexuals still need a member of the opposite sex/gender in order to have children and add to their families… two men or two women cannot produce children with each other… and as humans, we still have the need to procreate in order to propagate the human species or create a family unit.
but being homosexual might be “natural” but society(s) still have to be willing to change their rules and bring homosexuality into the “normal”… because as of now, in most societies, it is not.
LikeLike
Biff said:
“Who gets to determine age of consent?
The individual has a right to live free from coercion as well as have their word “NO” honored.
“Does the fact that nature enables boy and girls to procreate as early as 11 or 12 mean anything?”
That children that age are ripe for predators.
“Does the fact that every other species begins to procreate as soon as they are biologically able to do so mean anything?”
Yes. Other species do so within the natural order of things. A 30 year old man having sex with a 12 year old disrupts the natural order of things.
“Does the fact for humans in ALL societies, up until a hundred years ago or so, it was very common to have child marriages mean anything? ”
Yes. The last 10,000 years of superstition and patriarchy has resulted in genital mutilation, child rape, honor killings, public stoning’s ect doesn’t make cultural choices good for humanity.
Sex with children is coercion, violence and rape. It’s why child porn is illegal because to make it is rape.
Children married off to older men is patriarchy and religion and it is still rape even if god says its a blessing.
Social stigma against pedophiles are their for good reason. it’s not about hate rather its about protecting humanity.
LikeLike
“it’s not about hate rather its about protecting humanity”– said by someone with an “anarchy” symbol under his name… as if humanity didn’t exist before… the height of arrogance and self-deception– this is all Western white people propaganda, as is the celebration of equalism and anarchy
destruction of patriarchy is destruction of civilization — number one factor for teenage pregnancy, no father in the house.
LikeLike
@Legion:
My username means “fool” or “idiot”. I see no reason to change it.
White, heterosexual and male. Members of each of those groups wave the label, bannerlike, as if it had some merit, as if it were not only a superior trait, but somehow a status they had earned.
There are plenty of members of privileged groups who could use a little perspective. There is no shortage of fools.
LikeLike
I think I should call a timeout before I incur the wrath of the generally very tolerant Master of the House for leading folks off topic. All of this has a point. First of all, a few more things to note for our anarchist friend, MJB:
1. I’m not actually advocating that pedophilia should be socially acceptable. Sorry to say, but you have been metatrolled.
2. That said, when you say, “Other species do so within the natural order of things. A 30 year old man having sex with a 12 year old disrupts the natural order of things.” that is ridiculous. 2 year old dogs have sex with 5 year old dogs all the time and “nature” shows no outrage. Similarly, 12 year old and 30 year old pairings have historically been very common and still occur in many parts of the world. There is nothing “unnatural” about it. If you want to say 12 year olds shouldn’t be having sex at all because they are too young, there’s an argument for that, but liberals tacitly encourge kids to have sex earlier and more frequently.
3. Instead of being something “unnatural”, the aversion to pedophilia is something society came up with (a social construct). It was deemed useful to protect society from certain aberrant, abnormal behaviors that were deemed to be harmful for society at large.
Right now, we are watching the destruction of the family. Soon, more than half of all kids in the States will be born out of wedlock, and many more kids will grow up without their fathers because of misguided liberal policies that are extremely harmful to children. Normalizing and celebrating sexual behavior that from time immemorial has been deemed to be deviant and abnormal is just a symptom of a society that is in the process of collapsing.
LikeLike
@biff how many minor children do you have right now? this guy is a nut
LikeLike
biff:
Age of consent, like other social norms, is determined by mutual consent of people in a culture. The specific age selected is generally tied to the onset of puberty. Nature informs this choice.
Why then do many cultures set an “AoC” later than the onset of menses?
Sex has consequences which young persons may not be prepared to handle even once they have attained the physical capacity to breed.
In cultures where youth are generally not able to manage the responsibilities of maintaining a long-term pair bonding relationship and raising children, increasing the age of consent makes logical sense.
biff:
Ad naturam fallacy! (one more and I’ve got bingo)
Frequency does not determine “naturalness”. Albinism is just as natural as non-albinism.
biff:
Partially, but so what? What’s wrong with social constructs anyways? My lawn is a social construct, but get off it anyways.
biff:
Reading this made me weep, for I have spent my life promoting and benefiting from unearned Napoleonormative Privilege (NP).
Let’s work together to undo the harm NP has caused in our society.
(ooh, do I smell a new university tenure track?)
Joking aside, it seems reasonable to suggest that while frequency doesn’t determine “naturalness”, as a general rule of thumb it would help determine how accommodating we all decide to be towards those who are different.
As such, those who appeal for “tolerance” should be tolerant of the lack of tolerance exhibited by those who choose to not be particularly tolerant of a particular issue.
LikeLike
biff:
I think you’re failing to account for the distinction between “children” and post-pubescent young adults.
biff:
Has it though?
The Greeks are often regarded as ushering in the golden age of western civilization, but they commonly practiced homosexuality and even pederasty.
I think that’s a (at least partially) separate argument from suggesting that the trend away from long-term pair bonding and high investment parenting is damaging to society.
LikeLike
biff:
Open your mind and see that this “age of consent” is a social construct.
This sentence is unfinished. Age of consent is a social construct set to ensure that adolescents do not enter in to ‘physical’ relationships which they have not the mental maturity to deal with. Their ‘physical’ appearance might belie this but those that CHOOSE to ignore this or disregard it are COMMITTING A CRIME.
biff – on two different threads I am getting the sense that your attitude towards sex strays and that deep down (or maybe not so deep) there is a morally reprehensible vibe strongly coming through. I hope I am wrong and you are simply playing devils advocate and tryying to stir a lively debate.
LikeLike
@Randy
What did you really expect for him to say? This is a guy who excused rape in another thread and who you basically back up on the matter. IMO it was only a slippery slope until it got to this point. A point in which you draw the line and he does not.
LikeLike
Agreeing with pedophilia and rape that is disgusting. This Biff individual sounds like a degenerate. People need to hide their youngsters from him.
LikeLike
Kiwi: Thanks for your support. You sound like you have a great family and you clearly don’t envy your cousin at all.
V8: Only two minor kids now. Hoping for more. “Nut” is great shaming language, btw. Good job! That’s the way to win an argument.
Randy, Omnipresent, Sharina and Mary: Seems like the metatroll also got you guys.
Randy: re: your other comments, can’t disagree with you generally. Clearly, society has created rules to block public acceptance of homosexuals and transsexuals for most of human history. More recently (mostly in the last century), rules to block pedophiles have been put in place. These were all constructed to protect society and to help ensure that people (as many as possible) entered into genuine consentual (hence the AoC after menses) male-female lifelong marriages, which have consistently been shown to be the best relationship for raising children (liberals don’t genuinely care about children, their hatred of the patriachy is irrational that way). While it seems harsh to deny others recognition, if it ends up messing up society and ruining marriage, then the social harm is much greater than the benefit. This is a big picture issue, which I think you would prefer to ignore or pretend doesn’t exist. I think most liberals can see the social collapse that is happening now, but they mistakenly believe that a post-patriarchy world will be better for everyone. You invoked the spectre of Ancient Rome in your comments. Yes. Get ready for the fall and the terror that follows. Take what you can get (any gov’t benefits) while you can.
LikeLike
@biff
If you think you got me then you really have a lot to learn. 🙂
LikeLike
Though not familiar with the term metatroll, it was interesting to read up on. A few different definitions but this one stuck out.
Metatroll
Online web forum user convinced of own superiority and intellect when actually possessing neither of these qualities.
My biff how nice it was to be presented with a word that encompasses all your qualities or lack there of. 🙂
LikeLike
Great article, I see what you did there, lol. These kind of conversations are important, people need to learn about various populations of society, cause ignorance isn’t bliss for people who are the target of ignorance.
LikeLike
@ Sharina: I was looking at that metatroll word too. I rolled my eyes.
LikeLike
@kiwi: Thanks, I kind of thought I was being too harsh, but then again I was read the exchange of Biff and Randy and my antennae just went up. I just started seeing red flags. Something wasn’t right about that discourse between those two.
LikeLike
*reading*
LikeLike
@mary burrell
I should have done the same thing. I don’t want people to think I would associate with pedophiles and rapist.
LikeLike
‘
I agree with most of the arguments Randy has laid out.
Biff said:
“this is all Western white people propaganda, as is the celebration of equalism and anarchy
destruction of patriarchy is destruction of civilization — number one factor for teenage pregnancy, no father in the house.”
A healthy household with both parents can exist without patriarchy. Religion reinforces patriarchy which is why I linked the two. ” The works of Aristotle portrayed women as morally, intellectually, and physically inferior to men; saw women as the property of men; claimed that women’s role in society was to reproduce and serve men in the household; and saw male domination of women as natural and virtuous.” It’s this concept that I’m against.
Anarchism isn’t about the “celebration of equalsim”, rather it seeks to eliminate or minimize hierarchy’s within society to bring about a more socially and economically horizontal community. The idea is not the destruction of civilization but rather a sustainable one as oppsed to what we have going on today.
“I’m not actually advocating that pedophilia should be socially acceptable. Sorry to say, but you have been metatrolled.”
Maybe so.
“Similarly, 12 year old and 30 year old pairings have historically been very common and still occur in many parts of the world. There is nothing “unnatural” about it. If you want to say 12 year olds shouldn’t be having sex at all because they are too young, there’s an argument for that,”
I admit that “natural” is too subjective a term for me to have used for my argument.12 years olds don’t have the emotional competence and just because some societies permit this doesn’t this doesn’t make it right.
“but liberals tacitly encourge kids to have sex earlier and more frequently.”
How so? Give me specific examples. (I’m not a liberal and don’t usually defend their policies)
“Right now, we are watching the destruction of the family. Soon, more than half of all kids in the States will be born out of wedlock, and many more kids will grow up without their fathers because of misguided liberal policies that are extremely harmful to children. Normalizing and celebrating sexual behavior that from time immemorial has been deemed to be deviant and abnormal is just a symptom of a society that is in the process of collapsing.”
What were watching is a cultural shift away from what the traditionally understanding of marriage and family is. Maybe it’s your world view that’s collapsing.
If society or civilization collapses it will be because of the unsustainable economics we have going on in the world today. This is the need for accelerated consumption/production, which is required to maintain fiat currency that is backed by debt that is traded, leveraged, an exchanged systemically within the banking system world wide. Sovereign bonds represent the economic “productivity” of the nation that issues those bonds and is the backing behind all currencies today. So we have over 50 trillion in world wide deficits that represent the human value of eight billion people. That is the nature of Imperial currency and the defining feature behind white western supremacy.
“These were all constructed to protect society and to help ensure that people (as many as possible) entered into genuine consentual (hence the AoC after menses) male-female lifelong marriages, which have consistently been shown to be the best relationship for raising children”
Agree except I believe gay couples can raise children just as humanly as straight couples.
“(liberals don’t genuinely care about children, their hatred of the patriachy is irrational that way)”
I always hear about conservatives wishing to return to “family values”. What they really mean is a return to their traditional privileges.
“While it seems harsh to deny others recognition, if it ends up messing up society and ruining marriage, then the social harm is much greater than the benefit. This is a big picture issue, which I think you would prefer to ignore or pretend doesn’t exist. I think most liberals can see the social collapse that is happening now, but they mistakenly believe that a post-patriarchy world will be better for everyone. You invoked the spectre of Ancient Rome in your comments. Yes. Get ready for the fall and the terror that follows. Take what you can get (any gov’t benefits) while you can.”
Social harm comes when hierarchy’s have a monopoly of power.
“Get ready for the fall and the terror that follows. Your paranoid.
LikeLike
biff:
Randy, Omnipresent, Sharina and Mary: Seems like the metatroll also got you guys.
Demonstrate to me how wrong I am about you then – I cannot believe anyone would advocate sexual relations with minors, no matter how ‘mature’ they appear physically
LikeLike
So what exactly is a metatroll? Is he a troll trolling a troll?
LikeLike
@Omnipresent
The funny thing about all of this is I allowed my husband to actually view this particular discussion and he stated that you should have not said the following”
I hope I am wrong and you are simply playing devils advocate and tryying to stir a lively debate.
The reason being is because he believed biff would use that as a means to come back and say something along the lines of him not meaning it or using it as his particular escape route from the discussion at hand. Notice how now he is claiming everyone has been metatrolled?
LikeLike
@mary burrell
There are a few different definitions I have run across.
1, A metatroll is someone who is trolling someone else who is clearly a troll.
2. A metatroll is an internet troll who trolls by deliberately provoking or ‘feeding’ other internet trolls, attempting to make them believe that people are reacting seriously to the original troll attempt, or attempting to provoke other people into believing the metatroll has fallen for the original troll when in fact the metatroll has not done so.
3. A metatrol is an online web forum user convinced of own superiority and intellect when actually posessing neither of these qualities.
4. Using in-game Exploits to troll with no desire to win or lose. Just the action of single handedly ruining the gaming experience and enjoyment of others is satisfactory.
5. A metatroll is a troll who develops such an obsessive, pathological dislike of another member of a newsgroup or discussion forum that he even attacks that member on other newsgroups or discussion forums to which they do not even belong and may have no knowledge of (hence ‘meta’: outside of, or beyond (the original newgroup or forum)). In extreme cases, the metatroll may even create an entry in an online dictionary for the online name of his nemesis, thereby broadcasting his hatred of them to the entire online world.
Metatrolls often develop deep hatred of other people online because of feelings of inferiority, having been consistently humiliated by their superior knowledge, intelligence or command of language, or their serene unflappability in the face of the metatroll’s attempts to annoy and irritate them by his persistent trolling).
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meta-troll
LikeLike
@biff ok instead of ‘shaming’ you, how bout your coyly veiled intellectual probe into pedophilia and its rationale is starkly disturbing and as someone else said implies some deep seated emotional turbulence that i strongly suggest you address
LikeLike
*starkly disturbing to my sense of ethos
LikeLike
i guess you never know, don’t want to take your inventory
LikeLike
@biff also your statements regarding what i deem to be references to (us) state run ‘child protective services’ and ‘ward of the state status’ and so forth seems somewhat inchoate and cloudy where you’re going with that, liberal this, liberal that, you don’t seem to stick with attaching that label firmly to one aspect of the current state of affairs, between the role of the government and your (implied) condemnation of lower/underclass people and of the de-prioritization of the marriage and ‘nuclear’ family that we are seeing in the usa nowadays
LikeLike
@Abagond
What’s the name of the woman pictured below Idris’ picture? I saw her a few years ago in West London and knew she was an actress but I’ve never come across her name. I’m telling you all, even as a hetereos-xual woman, pictures don’t do this woman justice. She is stunning in real life. Her skin looks like a baby’s b0ttom, not a pore in sight. She’s “stop and stare for a moment” kind of beautiful. She was really tall.
LikeLike
I guessing much of this post is sarcastic, like, the “do’s and don’t’s.”
You’ve got me thinking with this. I wouldn’t want to discuss my s-x life with someone I hardly know, but on the flip side, I had a childhood friend, we ran into one another years later, and he’s gay. During a conversation about his boyfriend and him arguing, I asked sheepishly “can I ask you a question I’ve always wanted to know? Who decides who takes and who gives, and where do you put it?” He didn’t answer and although part of me understood that he chose not to, part of me couldn’t understand why. He wasn’t the shy type and neither am I. But now that I think about it years later and out of my teens, it’s quite disrespectful to ask that, since someone asking me such a direct and personal question would be quite ignorant to me.
. . . I hadn’t thought of that conversation in years. (Rubs chin.)
LikeLike
@ Ebonymonroe
That is Freema Agyeman, a British actress.
LikeLike
Hmmm, some of you are deeply disturbed that I made arguments seemingly defending pedophilia (though I didn’t defend or even mention anything involving prepubescents). As Americans, we have a revulsion to this word that has been inculcated from a very young age. For most of human history, the revulsion to homosexuals/transsexuals has been much stronger (e.g., there is no biblical prohibition against marrying young partners, and as for Islam, they say Aisha’s marriage to the Prophet wasn’t consummated till she was 9). However, society teaches the opposite. I use MSN as a homepage and now can’t go a single day without seeing articles penned to get rid of “prejudice” against gays (as if that’s all it was), and, at the same time, there is a steady stream of media directed at shaming pedophiles.
Of course, I know you guys are all original free thinkers, so you would never, never be affected by the media in forming your opinions.
Anyway, not sure it’s worthwhile to respond to all the comments re: why liberal policies are screwing up society, but a few quick points: (i) suicide, depression and other bad results are much more common for children raised by same gendered parents, especially 2 women–liberals will sweep this under the carpet, because they don’t genuinely care about children, (ii) divorce on demand (rather than for specific causes like adultry or significant physical abuse) and the acceptance of divorce by society are in the aggregate terrible for children, and again there are shocking statistics, but liberals won’t confront the obvious implications, because they have too much invested in destorying the traditional family structure. Feminists would like you to believe that divorce usually happens because of abusive men. Couldn’t be farther from the truth. As to society collapsing, we may avoid a hard default for another generation or so (possibly), but it will happen. In the meantime, you will see things getting continually worse in the U.S. Liberals will continue to use the 1% as a kind of bogeyman, blame them for everything, and use them as an excuse for taxes that will actually destroy what’s left of the upper middle class. They can’t and won’t touch the actual super rich who fund them and can hide their massive wealth in a million places. Our borders will effectively remain open, which is great for millionaires at the top, who get cheap labor, but is terrible for those at the bottom, especially NAMs, who are facing a super saturated labor market. We will begin to look more and more like a populist Latin American country, with the rich holed up in gated communities with security guards and things like “upworthy” to indoctrinate the sheeple and prevent them from focusing on real problems in society. A second civil war and/or breakup of the current USA by the end of the century is very likely.
MJB, you are seeing traditional power structures destroyed. I hope you live a long life so that you can see the misery that this will cause in the affected societies.
LikeLike
@biff
“some of you are deeply disturbed that I made arguments seemingly defending pedophilia (though I didn’t defend or even mention anything involving prepubescents)”—You know what they say about assuming. Seeing as most in here don’t think enough of you to be disturbed.
If you are not defending pedophilia then I have to ask why you are explaining it in paragraphs for the 3rd time? It only takes you saying it once.
LikeLike
“MJB, you are seeing traditional power structures destroyed. I hope you live a long life so that you can see the misery that this will cause in the affected societies.”
People have to want to be free from traditional power structures and people need to have have mutual respect for their neighbors rights even if on religious or philosophical grounds you think they are immoral.
People have a right to life liberty and property free from third party coercion.
We should continue this discussion on the open thread.
LikeLike
biff:
Presuming that the factual claim is true, you haven’t suggested why this has been done. My guess is that such orientations were thought to be matters of simple choice.
The current understanding is that these orientations are not simple choice. Thus, encouraging or forcing gay individuals into straight marriage would likely produce less happiness and less stable heterosexual marriages.
Anecdotally, I’ve known of a few families that were torn apart because one of the partners was gay, and born in a time and place where they weren’t permitted to live that way.
As someone who is generally a traditionalist and in favor of ideas like the primacy of marriage as the foundation of stable families, I don’t see how forcing square pegs into round holes produces greater personal or societal welfare.
LikeLike
@Michael Jon Barker:
I agree with most of what you say. Nice to see another anarchist perspective here. I may catch you on the Open Thread with a couple of questions that aren’t pertinent to this discussion, if that’s ok.
LikeLike
It is depressing to observe that there is usually someone who feels the need to introduce the topic of paedophilia into any discussion concerning homosexuality and/or non-traditional gender perception.
I suggest that paedophilia is entirely off topic here. Its presence on this page was introduced by a troll with, IMO, the intention of linking paedophilia to homosexual/transgender people. That association is bigoted, bogus and despicable.
LikeLike
@biff ok thanks for i guess trying to introduce some type of forward moving thought flow to tie that all together; i guess you’re advocating a moderate republican (as in american 21st century politics) position? sort of like a top 25%’er?
I understand why it was a little unclear if you got that all from msnbc,
LikeLike
Sharina:
The funny thing about all of this is I allowed my husband to actually view this particular discussion and he stated that you should have not said the following”
I hope I am wrong and you are simply playing devils advocate and tryying to stir a lively debate.
The reason being is because he believed biff would use that as a means to come back and say something along the lines of him not meaning it or using it as his particular escape route from the discussion at hand. Notice how now he is claiming everyone has been metatrolled?
I was still trying to mainain some civility but lets be honest, biff is not going to come back and tell me what I want to hear just because I asked him nicely is he. My statement above also tries to give the benefit of the doubt – I am not beyond ‘misunderstanding’ what people have written here in cyberspace so, I also wanted to make sure that I gave the opportunity for clarity.
Biff:
Hmmm, some of you are deeply disturbed that I made arguments seemingly defending pedophilia (though I didn’t defend or even mention anything involving prepubescents).
I dont get what you are saying here – paedophilia IS about being innappropriately sexually interested in minors so you cannot separate this even if you didnt mention prepubescents. Your comment seems to suggest that because you didnt defend or mention anything involving prepubescents that this is still acceptable – The age of consent is there for a valid reason, choose to disobey, you are COMMITTING A CRIME and it is WRONG on so many other levels and, in my opinion, someone who needs to be watched closely.
Of course, I know you guys are all original free thinkers, so you would never, never be affected by the media in forming your opinions.
Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Peoples opininions are not dominated by what the media says – in most cases, it is personal experience that informs opinion. I will say that I know more about sexual abuse than I ever expected, want or care to know – ever.
LikeLike
Randy:
Yours are the most articulate comments here (most people don’t even seem to have understood my point) and I will take you at your word that you are mostly a “traditionalist and in favor of ideas like the primacy of marriage as the foundation of stable families.” However, if you can’t see the link between normalcy and celebration of sexual perversion and the devaluation of marriage and all that comes with it (can you imagine a society where there was a healthy stigma against single motherhood, but somehow homosexuals raising kids was celebrated?–the whole point being sold to people is you can do whatever you want, whatever feels good and no one should ever judge you, unless your actions are politically incorrect, e.g., polygamy) you are being willfully blind. The destruction of marriage that we see occuring all around us isn’t happening in a vacuum.
LikeLike
Interesting post. Unsurprisingly, I grew up around a lot of anti-‘queer’ sentiment but now I don’t see a basis for it. One of the things I hear a lot is that any sort of gender ambiguity is not black or not African. Yet the more I learned about the original African cosmic view, the more that seemed unlikely to me. The details differ by group but usually the supreme being, a representation of the cosmic self, is hermaphroditic. I can’t imagine people with such a viewpoint losing their minds because an individual is not a ‘proper’ male or female. Such a reaction would have to come from a mode of cognition that is uncomfortable with ambiguity and needs things to be black or white. But that is incompatible with their spiritual conception which is unifying.
As for whether it’s natural, the expression of aspects of both gender principles within a single being is not uncommon in nature. Most flowering plants are this way having both pollen-producing and seed-producing parts on the same flower. Also in nature we have other examples of two principles producing more than two class of things by their combination. In physics +ve and -ve charge give rise to +ve, -ve and neutral particles depending on the net charge of the particle in question. IMO, it’s not surprising that the masculine and feminine principles can generate more than two gender classes. This goes way back and transcends culture. There’s the Fa’afafine of Samoa, Indian Hijra, American two-spirits and apparently Ancient Egypt had ‘sekhet’ as a non-procreative third gender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#Egypt
So I honestly think our discomfort with gender ambiguity is much ado about nothing and was probably learned like many other things. After all the ‘anti-gay’ laws in African and Caribbean countries were all created when they were yet colonies. Really, if we could learn to hate our very skin and hair then hating something some of us could not directly identify with seems like a low hanging fruit in comparison. I don’t think it helps us because it has become a divisive distraction. Furthermore, the learned disdain which is claimed to be in defense of family has actually worked to breed uncertainty and mistrust. The irony is that the atmosphere of hostility towards ‘non-gender conforming’ people has made it more likely for someone to accidentally marry one. If they could disclose and be accepted others would not need to be so afraid of the ‘downlow’ phenomenon. But if we insist that they have to pretend…that’s what we’ll get! Cause and Effect! Gotta love the universe!
LikeLike
“Yours are the most articulate comments here (most people don’t even seem to have understood my point) and I will take you at your word that you are mostly a “traditionalist and in favor of ideas like the primacy of marriage as the foundation of stable families.”
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Spoken from one race realist to another! You can’t make this crap up! Marriage is a punishment visited upon men by god; think about it, getting stuck with the same clown for 20 years or more, hell on earth! As for sexual perversions, what would you know about them unless you practice some albeit clandestinely. Maybe you and Randy are not as blasé as I thought.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with same sex couples or trans gender people. I do have a problem with pedophiles and rapist. I will not apologize for that. Anyone who agrees with rape culture and the sexual abuse of young children and the brutalization of women through the violent act of rape I will call them degenerates.
LikeLike
BTW, I stumbled on this little blurb in the Wikipedia article on the Samoan Fa’afafine:
“The Samoan slang word mala (or “devastation” in the Samoan language) is in less frequent use for fa’afafine”
Thought that was interesting. Oblige me with a little thought experiment. Suppose the universe is not an accident and every condition or age exists for a purpose and for an alotted time. What would happen when an age was about to end and the limit of births alotted was almost accomplised? What kind of children would be born more frequently? One has to wonder if that has anything to do with official anti-gay sentiment. LOL
LikeLike
Biff and Randy are masters at obfuscating the truth by being evasive unclear, and obsure.
LikeLike
*obscure*
LikeLike
mary burrell said:
And I will back you up.
The violent and harmful things that you oppose in your comment are clearly harmful.
The self-perceptions and lifestyles of gay and/or transgender people are harmful only to the sensibilities of bigots.
Biff’s introduction of paedophilia (excuse the British spelling) into this thread was off-topic and disingenuous. It was a transparent, reactionary attempt to equate something actually harmful with something that the troll’s conservative bigotry cannot cope with. A crude slur.
LikeLike
@Omnipresent
“My statement above also tries to give the benefit of the doubt – I am not beyond ‘misunderstanding’ what people have written here in cyberspace so, I also wanted to make sure that I gave the opportunity for clarity.”—True and I don’t think anyone is beyond misunderstanding.
LikeLike
@buddhuu: So Biff is trying make it look like me and the other commenters who opposed his comments are off in our thinking and as I said before he is derailing the thread. Because this thread is not about pedophiles and rape.
LikeLike
@mary burrell
Frankly at this point I think all biff is doing is trying to do a cover up and back peddle. Sorry but I notice anytime a individual plays the “you don’t understand” card or ” most are not clear” card….It is short for I will project my failures on to you.
I agree with Buddhuu in that he attempted to equate pedophilia to homosexuality and failed in doing so. He took the steps that are common of those who did not clearly get their point across, but want to present the illusion that they could (it is not me but you attitude).
So after this I can quickly write him off as someone not to be taken serious or worth having a real discussion with. Who wants to discuss anything with someone who is intellectually dishonest?
LikeLike
@Omnipresent and mary burrell
” Peoples opininions are not dominated by what the media says”—I agree. That comment is also based on the assumption that people look at the news or read news papers. I actually do neither, so I am curious on how it he “believes” I gather my opinion.
@Mary Burrell
“So Biff is trying make it look like me and the other commenters who opposed his comments are off in our thinking and as I said before he is derailing the thread. Because this thread is not about pedophiles and rape.”—-AS I noted before, I believe he “assumes” way too much and I believe his comments thus far are a means to avoid having to address what he actually said. To him everyone else got it wrong (it is not me but you). Though I notice he is making effort to do nothing more than to shift the conversation in the direction he wants it.
LikeLike
Perhaps someone would care to explain, but what exactly is a cisgender person if they are not transgender?
LikeLike
@ Sharina: He is obfuscating.
LikeLike
mary burrell said:
Yup.
I think his failure is fairly complete. 🙂
LikeLike
biff:
I think I can probably imagine such a society. Btw, I come at my appreciation for traditionalism from a secular, rationalist standpoint.
Why does a stable marriage have value to child-rearing?
Off the top of my head, I’d say:
1. Provides a secure and stable platform for a long-term partnership in raising children.
2. Demonstrates to children a healthy model of adult love and cooperation.
3. Two parents can provide greater resources for children than one parent.
4. Allows children to benefit from both male and female perspectives and gender roles.
Gay couples, unlike single mothers, would seem to tick 3 of 4 of those boxes. Inasmuch as I don’t see gayness as a choice, there’s therefore no danger of a “moral hazard” in accepting it. Straight people aren’t going to en masse become gay.
biff:
I would agree with you that these social-change items you enumerate do tend to be part of a current “progressive package”, but might disagree that they are necessarily so.
The growing acceptance of single-motherhood seems far more negatively impactful to children and society than does the acceptance of gay marriage.
LikeLike
I believe that gender is part nurture and part nature, however I’m not sure to what degree. I try not to judge transexuals individually, however I do not agree with it. Extreme surgery, of any kind, is wrong to me. If your that dissatisfied with your body you need a shrink and not a plastic surgeon
LikeLike
@Zeus_23
“If your that dissatisfied with your body you need a shrink and not a plastic surgeon”—I agree. Though I don’t tend to see the issue when it comes to transsexuals as they are trying to get as close to the gender they identify as as possible.
LikeLike
Thanks for the name Abagond
LikeLike
Hello everyone. I’m a long time lurker and I’m not completely out the shadows yet, but I just had to comment. If you agree with those that are Transgender, how do you feel about Otherkin, people who get breast and butt implants, lip and butt injections, people who bleach their skin, or do everything they can to avoid the sun? I’m ASSUMING SOME don’t agree with those things I named off being done, so do you think they’re in the same neighborhood as Transgender? I’m ASSUMING SOME folks here don’t like or agree with people who want to belong to another race(an example a Black person wanting to be white), so why are people well and fine with other people who feel they belong to a different gender. I just hoped there would be more discussion on that, on it all.
Also, I completely understand and agree that it’s everyone’s choice and life to live it as they please, but this is a discussion board, so let’s discuss.
For those who don’t know Otherkin are people who believe they belong to the fae (elves, fairies, leprechauns, etc), are vampires, angels, demons, well non-humans in general, if not in body then in spirit. You can always google Otherkin to get a clearer picture.
I’m curious to what you all think. Now, I’m off to hide back in my shadow and stalk this site from a distance.
LikeLike
@LivefromShadow Lurk
Because someone put it perfectly I will simply requote it….”If your that dissatisfied with your body you need a shrink and not a plastic surgeon.”
Personally I think people should do what they want with their body, but I think this should be done by people who understand what they are doing. Not people who see it as a fashion trend etc. People who do not realize that it is not easy to just transition back.
LikeLike
Great post. It’s insightful and it helps to expose people, such as many in this thread, to ridicule.
However, unlike some other commentators, I wouldn’t call it satire, since nothing said is false or even exaggerated.
LikeLike
LivefromShadow,
” I’m ASSUMING SOME folks here don’t like or agree with people who want to belong to another race(an example a Black person wanting to be white), so why are people well and fine with other people who feel they belong to a different gender. ”
A black people wanting to be white is associated with internalized racism. These people show disdain for black people. I’ve never heard of white person wanting to be black.
I’ve never heard transsexuality discussed as a form of sexism. Or transsexuals making sexist comments. Probably because you have a lot of transgender women.
I’m a woman and I like being a woman, but I don’t think I have female consciousness just like I don’t have a black consciousness. My consciousness is just me.
There are people who believe women’s brains and men’s brains are inherently different. I’m not sure, but either way I don’t know how those differences connect to a person feeling they’re supposed to have a penis or a vagina.
But maybe there has to be a misalignment for it to be felt.
LikeLike
For those who are Transgender or who has a lot of information on that world, or just have an opinion in general (I guess) what makes the mentality of those who feel they were born the wrong race different from those who feel they were born the wrong gender (body wise that is)? (I bring up race, because people are condemned for trying to be a race they are not and I bring up Otherkin, because they’re seen as crazy people.)
When it comes down to race, (a Black person wanting to be white) most people can break it down and cite white supremacy as the cause, but what about when it’s a white person who genuinely feel they are a Black person in a white person’s body? Is white supremacy still the cause or were they simply born this way? Do any of of you (transgender or not) feel that it should all come down to how you choose to identify yourself? And what about people who believe human isn’t their species? I’m gonna be honest, I believe in other kinds of beings and my family told me (jokingly, I hope) to go down and get some social security (lol) by telling them what I believe, but me even believing in the possibility of otherworldly creatures brand me as crazy. What about people who believe they are a fairy?
I won’t front, the whole subject of Transgender bothers me to no end. I don’t have a problem with Transgender folks personally, because I don’t know them personally, but I don’t agree with it nor like it, if that makes sense. But don’t get it twisted, I don’t spend my days trying to convince people (transgender or not) to see this subject matter from my perspective. I am not protesting for or against Transgender anything.
Should all these labels be erased, since for Transgender folks it comes down to what each identifies with? If Transgender is accepted (I’m aware they still have their fights and struggles), should Otherkin, should people be able to choose whichever race they most identify with? Because Transgender definitely helps to open the gateway to all those things. I’m not saying the world should treat Transgender people one way or another, I’m just looking from different angles. What makes Transgender more alright (to some people) than some of the others ways people may identify themselves?
LikeLike
@Biff
Last study I heard about went the opposite direction; Gays raised both psychologically and economically healthier children than straights. Of course that studies for you, the people doing them have a way of making them say what they want.
@Solesearch
Of course they do; the athletic benefits they get from masculine puberty won’t ever truly go away.
And I’m not saying they should be dismissed; I’m just saying its nowhere near as simple a subject as people might think it is.
LikeLike
@LivefromShadow Lurk
I think you need to carefully read what it is that solesearch said to you. How many of these white individuals that feel they are black inside actually going through the process of being black? If you truly think about it then you will realize that white supremacy is also the culprit for that matter as well.
“Transgender people one way or another, I’m just looking from different angles. What makes Transgender more alright (to some people) than some of the others ways people may identify themselves?”—People usually fear what they don’t understand. Most of these things you speak of are alright with me period because people are allowed to express who they are in what way they feel. Though it is better to ask ones that are prejudice against these types
LikeLike
This post kind of reminds me of that Julia Sweeny character on SNL “It’s Pat” nobody knew what gender Pat was.
LikeLike
I love this blog.
LikeLike
Well done, clever post! Kinda surprised how many commenters here don’t seem to get it. Too bad for them!
LikeLike
@main post
“It sees the gender identities of cisgender people as somehow ‘realer’ or better than those of transgender people. It sees transgender people as not being ‘real’ men or ‘real’ women. It is part of transphobic thinking.”
IMO a lot of people consider being a man or a woman as a combination of personality and biology. If that is how a person thinks, then it’s not narrow-minded to point out (e.g.) that transgender people can’t completely fulfill their gender’s biological roles associated with having children and thus are abnormal. Calling this point of view transphobic (implying fear or hatred) seems disingenuous to me.
LikeLike
@ eco
So a woman with a hysterectomy is no longer a “real” woman?
LikeLike
@ Linda
First, sorry Linda, if I have chopped up your quotes in a way which does not convey what you really meant to say. I focused on your remarks because I understand the culture you are speaking about.
There’s a second sorry, too. It could be a long post. 😀
When you say your colour is something a person is born with and can’t change unlike choosing a sexuality and so on — I know what you mean — but as “colour” is an invention specific to culture and time, so is sexuality.
Yes, let us liken it to race and colour for a moment. Take this parallel:
we are both “Mixed-Race” or “multi-ethnic” women, but to those who don’t want those categories to exist, only want “uni-racial” or “mono-racial” categories to be the Normal Ones, meaning “Mixed-Race” is all kinds of WRONG in the Real World.
There is safety in categories and stability in binaries.
All are constructs.
Like the way way “black” skin is in fact shades of brown in colour. Like the way the One Drop Rule does not exist everywhere and for all time. Like the way back in Ancient times Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid didn’t exist as “racial” but many will try to impose their contemporary investment in racial differences and identities onto people that lived 1000s of years ago and had a different way of seeing and doing.
*
Can we take a glimpse at this from another couple of angles: religion and mental illness.
Religion: People have been praying to God long before there were Jews, Christians, Buddhists.
Those religions have histories — people, events, dates and places. Those religions were made, they weren’t JUST THERE.
Mental Illness: Those that we consider “sick in the head”, depending on place and different times were either touched by the Divine, or possessed by the Devil, or just “unbalanced”. Psychiatry — surprise, surprise — is an INVENTION too, a medicalized and legal authority that was judgement-based and consisted of made-up words that meant nothing.
Heard of Drapetomania? That’s the very real sickness of black slaves who wanted to flee captivity = Abnormality.
Have a look at what the Hungarian Thomas Szasz had to say about Drapetomania and the pseudo-science of psychiatry, its uses to stigmatize, label and control – the video is a just 3-4 minutes long: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj7GmeSAxXo),
Sexuality is no different from those examples.
Because it has a history. Because — what is considered “normal” sexuality has a trajectory, a traceable line of invented definitions to delineate the way we think and separate the sheep from the goats.
Take the words heterosexual and homosexual. These are words created by another Hungarian, Karoly Kertbeny.
Mr Kertbeny formulated those words in a time and place that believed there was only one way to be sexual — 19th century Prussia.
It was a time and place where THE LAW ruled that erotic activity between same sex people was illegal, but when these same acts were between different sexes, they were legal. He made “hetero” and “homo” 2 sides of the same thing, and without a pecking order.
What Kertbeny invented those words because he was up against another created category:
heterosexual as Normal in opposition to Deviant.
Similarly, Sigmund Freud created the idea of what Normal Woman was opposed to a Frigid Woman.
Dr Freud said that the condition of being sexually normal was a development, that sexual maturity was something you “attained”, in a correct, appropriate way. So, if you are a normal woman, if you develop in a Normal way — you would not have an orgasm which involves your clitoris.
No, that is not Normal and properly adjusted adult woman!
A normal woman adjusts to not having a penis the envy of that male organ. Yes.
Therefore, any Normal woman only uses her vagina because she has “transferred” those feelings from her clitoris. But, if she has FAILED to do so, there is a cure…Psychiatry.
(Or cutting the clitoris off, a cure not unheard of, or considered, in medical circles during 19th century Europe.)
http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html
*
I get what you mean about procreation and the naturalness of man and woman. But, through out time it was a given that marriage (heterosexual pairs) was part and parcel of sexuality and sex.
Marriage was about contracts, trade, transactions, dynasties, inheritances, social cohesion. I don’t mean to say that these things aren’t real, or building blocks of civilization or don’t have meanings or a spiritual and emotional dimension. They are all that, but that doesn’t make this setup innate and universal and organic always and everytime, throughout human history.
LikeLike
Correction: I mean:
But, through out time, it was NOT a given that marriage (heterosexual pairs) was part and parcel of sexuality and sex.
LikeLike
She is not a normal, typical woman. Just like an amputee does not have a normal body.
LikeLike
That last comment was @Abagond
LikeLike
What if a woman is past her procreational years…is she an abnormal, atypical woman?
LikeLike
What if she has a uterus and ovaries and is of child-bearing age, but cannot have children, is she abnormal and atypical?
LikeLike
What if she has a uterus and ovaries, is fertile, but chooses not to have children, or misses out for some reason, is she abnormal?
LikeLike
What if she has all the biological and working parts, marries, has children and later, finds herself in an erotic relationship with another woman who is also the biological mother of children and who was also a man’s wife?
What then?
LikeLike
I’m assuming you are asking about my personal opinions. Since I wasn’t claiming that my definitions of “woman” and “man” are somehow objectively true and that others should accept them, I see these kinds of questions as useless, unrelated to the point that I was actually making.
Not to mention the four descriptions are very vague and that probably was intentional. I guess you are hoping I will not think of some special situation. Like the fact that person 3) can be making a rational financial decision or be a transgender man. I obviously wouldn’t equate these situations, but I bet you are hoping I will do something like that by accident. Sorry, better luck next time!
1) Depends. Was she able to have children when she was younger?
2) Why can’t she have children? The answer will vary depending on many different factors.
3) Why is she choosing not to have children?
4) Is she straight?
LikeLike
@Kiwi
“Satire isn’t defined as being false. It’s exaggerated or ironic. In this case, irony is what makes this post satire.”
Interesting. From what I can tell from what you wrote, we might agree (at least roughly) about what satire is. But now it seems that we disagree about irony. I doubt that this post is ironic. It is a set of statement that confounds our expectations, for at least some of ‘us.’ But there is no dissimulation or exaggeration whatsoever. It is straight talk.
Consider this: readers with a more enlightened view of gender would not and should not consider this post ironic at all.
By analogy, I suppose that some sexist 19th century readers of Mill’s “The Subjection of Women” might have found his arguments similarly satirical or ironic. But that’s because of their sexist expectations. We don’t and should find that text ironic.
What do you make of that argument?
LikeLike
eco, are you referring to my questions?
If you are, your answer is a bit mixed up and doesn’t make sense.
Perhaps you ought to try again. Just a suggestion, old chap 😀
LikeLike
Nah, I feel I’ve already wasted more time on you than you deserve.
LikeLike
Ah, eco, this is not about ME.
Your argument is weak and you simply cannot counter, only offer obfuscation and become RUDE.
So, let’s be clear: according to your world, a woman who has had her uterus surgically removed is
The removal of a major organ does not make a person an “amputee”.
Nor does say, male infertility or impotence make a man not normal.
You are talking nonsense.
I wouldn’t be so rude as to say because you don’t make sense that your answer is “useless”, but I would say you more than vague for not defining what is “abnormal” in your book…
However, my inference you might be considered something of a pretentious-sounding bigot, but bigot all the same.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
“Your argument is weak and you simply cannot counter, only offer obfuscation and become RUDE.”
‘Cannot counter’ what exactly? I didn’t notice any counterarguments to my original comment. I do not see how I’m obfuscating either. I explained why it would be unthoughtful of me to give straight yes/no answers to your earlier questions.
I also think it’s quite funny that the person who started calling me names thinks I’m the rude one.
“The removal of a major organ does not make a person an ‘amputee’.”
Where have I said that? Certainly not in the two sentences you have quoted. I thought they and their context are clear and obvious, but apparently I have to explain.
If you assume that biology is a factor in the definition of a woman, then a hysterectomy makes you an abnormal woman the way losing a limb makes your body abnormal. If a definition of a norm contains certain biological properties, functionalities, then losing these functionalities makes a normal person become abnormal.
“Nor does say, male infertility or impotence make a man not normal.”
It can. Depends how you look at it, how you define a ‘normal man’.
“I wouldn’t be so rude as to say because you don’t make sense that your answer is ‘useless’, but I would say you more than vague for not defining what is ‘abnormal’ in your book…”
You are asking about irrelevant things, that’s why I called your questions “useless”. My definition of ‘abnormal’ doesn’t matter. Whether I support LGBT marriages and adoptions or LGBT stonings and crucifixions It doesn’t in any way affect the validity of what I said here:
By making this personal, by asking about my personal beliefs, you are missing the point. I was talking about a class, a group, a type of worldviews, not just my own, not just the one I agree with.
“However, my inference you might be considered something of a pretentious-sounding bigot, but bigot all the same.”
I’m afraid that telling you bluntly what I think of you would lower me to your level.
LikeLike
Oh, come on eco!
Abagond asked you a straight question and I asked you ones on a similar vein.
You have no answer, only bigotry.
You always have to get personal.
Sorry, but always break down like this, pretending you can’t see the argument, ducking and diving and quivering. Ugh.
Rubbish.
LikeLike
…and always, without fail, missing the point.
ZZzzzzzz
LikeLike
Eco,
“She is not a normal, typical woman. Just like an amputee does not have a normal body.”
Are you a woman? Hysterectomies are pretty common.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
If I annoy you so much you should consider avoiding me. I’ve been trying to ignore you for quite a few months now, but it’s hard since you have a habit of popping up whenever I write a comment.
@Solesearch
“Are you a woman? Hysterectomies are pretty common.”
That’s true. I called it abnormal because of it’s impact on a woman’s ability to have children. IMO one could make a similar point about erectile dysfunction or male infertility.
I understand that this may seem cruel to some. Obviously, a lot of people wouldn’t agree with this point of view, but I think seeing the ability to have kids as something so fundamental is not an irrational stance.
Oh, I almost forgot – I’m a man.
LikeLike
@ Soulsearch, hysterectomies ARE common. I have even heard they are sometimes unnecessary.
@ Eco, you “try” to ignore me! Prove it!! You don’t know whether I am “annoyed”, that is your imagination. You have no argument and your only response is to lash out in a personal way to make up for it.
You often do that.
On a more general note, you seem beside yourself whenever you get the slightest bit of attention, and then when your arguments don’t hang together, you become personal and unpleasant.
Abagond’s blog features many subjects that touch on lives of come PoC and more recently, WoC. It is quite odd that you would contribute your comments yet be irked by any WoC’s response to them. That makes no sense.
That was point. And you know it.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
“you ‘try’ to ignore me! Prove it”
How many times have I started a conversation with you? Either directly or by referencing something you said while I was talking to someone else? About 3 times in 4 years? It seems that recently I can’t comment anywhere without you popping up. I’m not irked simply by any WOC. That’s mainly you, again and again. I think we both know when your interest in me started – when I caught you red handed lying your a$$ off about your imaginary friends. Clearly, that must have been memorable.
“You don’t know whether I am ‘annoyed’, that is your imagination.”
Let’s just say the exclamation points and the “ugh” and “ZZzzzzzz”s allow me to make an educated guess.
Can we at least agree that it’s time to end this? I think we’ve derailed this thread enough and I would really like to return to my usual routine of staying away from you and not talking to you.
LikeLike
@eco,
Another one whose elevator does not reach the top floor.
YOU are labouring under the notion that people in the Uk or Ireland have to “make up” having Poles as friends. Poles are everywhere — but you must be one of the few Poles who don’t know that, because you are embarrassed that what you think you know for a fact is a self-serving imagining.
I did not use the internet 4 years ago. You are mixing me up.
In fact, the more I read you, the more I realize you are some kind of windbag troll, who not only over-rates his English comprehension, but comes here to poke into people’s lives. When I said “prove it”, you missed the meaning of it completely! Right over your head.
And, wasn’t it you who wrote a stinking private letter to me, in Polish, and in it, you basically asked the people I know to “prove” to you, A NOBODY, that they were Poles! You wanted them to write you back, in private. Who does that?
They did not…so they must be “imaginary”. Of course!
Another of your absolutely brilliant deductions.
Because someone doesn’t pander to you and refuses to disclose personal info to your odious internet-self, it doesn’t mean you “caught” any internet-someone. You clearly don’t understand that. People don’t give up personal information here like that because there are unstable and potentially violent people who not wish but seek to do harm. You have to understand that when you do foolish stuff like that.
“Catching” people is the refuge of the arrogant, or deranged (often, both), when their weak arguments and justifications get broken.
You are just a white male who does that, in this case.
LikeLike
Anyone ever see that southpark episode where Mr. Garrison gets a sex change?
Basically he had such serious issues about being gay that he choose to get gender reassignment surgery to paraphrase “its better to be a woman than a fag”.
LikeLike
@ Eco
You need to take that issue to that thread and not bog this one down with past issues.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
You might want to take yours there as well( one speaking of polish and warshaw ghetto). It is off topic and likely will be deleted by abagond
LikeLike
Sharina, I don’t think I’ve ever given you advice, and nor will I begin to.
If you say something in your own defence, I won’t say I don’t care or take upon myself to tell where you should go with an issue, or how things work around here.
Commenters say their mind, some of it stays on the board, some of it doesn’t.
You might want to think about that in your adjudications to some of us.
LikeLike
I hate that ridiculous label. If you’re born a man/woman, that is your sex, regardless of what you might think. People tend to complicate simple matters. Frankly, I’m tired of all these silly labels being created so that deviant characters can feel better about themselves. If you’re a man thinking you should be a woman (or the other way around) , you need help!
LikeLike
@Bulanik
It was not meant to be rude in the slightest and I’m sorry you may have taken it that way. And I won’t bother explaining what I meant by it seeing as you have already made up your mind what I meant.
But you know as well as I do that the particular topic you and eco are diving in is one he will not let go of and one that will likely take over this whole thread and bog down any talk on cisgender.
Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill. You might want to think about that the next time you snap on someone for no real reason.
LikeLike
[…] cisgender (abagond.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
@ Eco: Comment deleted for making personal remarks.
More: I deleted your comments about Bulanik’s Polish friends. You are dragging in her private life to smear her. Not cool. I know you think they are imaginary, but you have no way to prove it, at least not on an English-only forum like this one. You will just have to let it go.
LikeLike
*smh
LikeLike
Okay. I read some articles. If I’m just a regular straight male is that just being Cis? Does Cis=Straight? All this terminology, I’m confused and don’t want to offend too many people.
LikeLike
Okay, after reading the comments I’m even MORE confused.
It seems that in an effort to be included that terminologies were created to exclude others by the parties which found themselves to be previously excluded.
(BTW – What do you think of the stereotypical Barbie Boy commercial?)
LikeLike
@ Uglyblackjohn
Cis has nothing to do with sexual orientation. You can be cis and straight or cis and gay. Instead, cis about gender identity. If you gender identity matches the one assigned to you at birth, you are cis. Most people are.
LikeLike
Lovely!
LikeLike
After reading this you have a bunch of mixed up people in America. I know i’m a man but this generation is messed up with all these sexual terminologies.
LikeLike
Are you serious, being born a boy or girl does count anymore. You can thank Feminists and Homosexuals for that. I went too Walgreens yesterday the first time ever in my life i seen Maxi Pads for men that should tell you something right there.
LikeLike
@bigboy:
Are you sure it wasn’t toilet paper or depends you were looking at?
LikeLike
Shaped like maxi pads
LikeLike
If you were born with a Penis you’re a man if you were born with a Vagina you’re a woman sample as that, what you do after that is on you.
LikeLike
@ bb40b
Those are incontinence pads, you featherbrain. God forbid someone wants a product less bulky than an adult diaper!
https://www.depend.com/en-us/incontinence-products/men/guards-for-men
LikeLike
I know what they are too lame ass liberal, maxi pads for boys like you. I wouldn’t wear them if my life depended on them. Next incontinence panties for men. You leftwingers are something else.
LikeLike
@ bb40b
“I wouldn’t wear them if my life depended on them. Next incontinence panties for men.”
Okay, now I know for sure you’re just trolling out of boredom, because you can’t seriously be saying if you have problems with bladder control later in life, you’re just going to urinate in your pants in public constantly because that’s preferable to wearing an incontinence product.
Also, incontinence pads have been around for at least 20 years, maybe more, not a new innovation like you keep insisting.
“I know what they are too lame ass liberal, maxi pads for boys like you.”
You keep saying maxi pads like there’s something inherently wrong with maxi pads, like the term is an insult, like there’s something bad about having periods and needing to use menstrual products, like cis women’s natural body functions are open for ridicule.
“boys like you”
Please, tell me more about boys like me. What are we like?
LikeLike
I’m guessing he’d prefer a catheter… or maybe just go DIY with duct tape and sandwich baggies.
LikeLike