/cuteboys/ - Boypussy

>>373848

What do you mean?

>>373829

There are two aspects

>What you are born

>What you look like

The government doesn't need to be involved,

If people do or don't want ugly trannies switching toilets, let the owner of the toilet decide for themselves.

If consenting adults want to inject themselves with hormones for whatever reason, let them do it.

>You're allowed to implant horns in your head and split your tongue

>So long as I'm allowed to say eww and not hire you

It's the natural auto-balance between creative freedom and conformity.

Also, there ARE only 2 genders.

If a women suddenly starts lifting and doing test she doesn't suddenly transform into a semi-man.

She turns into a woman who looks like a man, while having the side-effects of test.

If she shaves her head and 99% of people thinks she's a man, then they can treat her like one.

This system only fucks up with existing government interference.

Cases where women get free gibs that men don't.

>>373829

Looks very stupid.

>>373829

If you know it is a mental disorder, why would you indulge it? Also

> government should give me special recognition for my fetish.

That's fucked up. You're free to do whatever you want in your bedroom somlong as it doesn't involve an animal or amkid but you can't force society as a whole tomaccept you. What you propose is remaking one of the axioms of society, something pretty hard and withlots of possible repercussions legally wise, and with little to no benefit for the government who wastes millions to put the plan in motion.

TL;DR: You are being selfish.

>>373874

Amen.

Gender as a biological concept is ones state of being male or female, having chromosomes of one sort or another, having a penis or a vagina.

To other species, gender is very different, to the extent that words like "male" and "female" are meaningless.

Let alone "boy" and "girl." The whole thing about facebook coming up with sixty ways to identify ones sexuality disgusts me. We are all different. The answer to putting people in one of two boxes is not to add more boxes; it's to stop putting people in boxes.

If you have to understand what's between a person's legs before you can commit to get to know them then you're just shallow and insecure in your own sexuality. If being able to breed is the most important thing in your quest for a mate, then lead with that. It's just as pointless for a guy like that to romance a woman who doesn't want kids as it is to fall in love with someone whose genitals you can't stand to look at.

You don't get to choose the DNA in your cells. You don't get to choose what sex organs you have. You have very limited control over things like plastic surgery and hormones, but you are 100% in charge of who you are, and that's where you should focus your passion.. not which of 2 or sixty inadequate generalizations of outdated gender roles describes you perfectly.

>>373942

My objection to it is that it all goes back to the idea that it's important to differentiate people by their sexuality.

Most of the reasons a spark doesn't happen between two people have nothing to do with gender identity or gender preference. The guy's a douche, or she only talks about her last boyfriend, or somebody smells like they don't shower, or lives with their mom.

Yeah, every now and then someone brings a transvestite home and is freaked out when they see a dick but that is not a problem with the modern concept of gender identity, that's a combination of one person being dishonest, one person being superficial, and mostly that we live in a world where knowing everything sexual about each other has value.

When our world was divided into boys and girls because of gym class and having two bathrooms, the problem wasn't that there weren't enough bathrooms. It wasn't even that a girl couldn't wear a tux to prom. It's the way people acted when she did.

Another thing I don't like about it is it's really complicated and most people don't understand it at all. They have one or two sexual experiences as teenagers and say okay, I must be a gender-fluid trans homoerotic whatever.. and then by proclaiming themselves as such, prompt a million different assumptions by other people who are equally uninformed about what the terms mean. We'd all be better off getting to know people.

When your boss introduces you to your new coworkers he doesn't tell you this is Jeff, he's a man and he likes dating women and he'll be signing your paychecks… If you want to bang Jeff get to know what he's into and ask him to share a lane with you at the company bowling event. If you don't want to bang Jeff than stay the fuck out of how he likes to get his freak on.

>>373829

i don't like how this assumes a person's character based on what they look like

>>373950

fuck off reddit

I don't see how people continue to conflate gender and biological sex. Just because there's a very strong correlation between gender and sex, doesn't mean they're inextricably linked. Surely you guys can at least understand that there's a distinction between the subjective experience of feeling like a man, and being biologically male, right? If you accept that trans people exist, then this distinction should be apparent to you, because there's a conflict between their biology and their subjective perception of their gender.

I don't really have much of an understanding of gender fluidity, or non-binary genders, but I'm not going to pretend like I know other people better than they know themselves, nor do I have some weird conservative hang-ups that compel me to be an asshole to people and disrespect their wishes. You people really need to get over this shit and move on to something that is actually important.

>>373978

>there's a conflict between their biology and their subjective perception of their gender.

The one who promoted this view, and actually gave us the new definition of sex, was a pedophile who, after a child had a botched circumcision forced him to live with a girl, and him and his twin brother engage in "sex roleplay" with him as the feminine partner while he watched, under the guise of studying. Both of those children later killed themselves. You're using the term and promoting his legacy, instead of using it's original definition, a polite way to refer to sex as well. Feel free to watch the documentary about him and the two boys that later committed suicide because of him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

>you accept that trans people exist

Do not conflate transexuals and transgenders in this argument. Transsexuals reinforce the current sexual binary. Transexuals feel they are the wrong sex and may go through various surgeries to accomplish congruence. Transgenders are those that just "change genders" which involves no heavy lifting whatsoever. You just wake up one day and say "I'm voidgender" and no medical intervention is seeked, just new pronouns.There have been biological studies done into MtFs and how their brain is more similar to women and less similar to men in physical structure. But due to being accepting the word "gender" the base biological differences mentally between man and woman can't even be investigated let alone built on for functionally understanding for how different they are.

Now, begrudgingly, if we use the word gender as it has become, that means gender, being a social construct, must contribute something to society enough to warrant it's own category. Fucking SJWs love mentioning "Hijra's from India! The two-gendered person's in Native American tribes!" However, both these "gender"s served a religious function within their culture. Whether you agree with that religion or not, is besides the point. These "third gender options" had a use to society and a big enough sub population to put the foothold in. SJWs aren't talking about that shit when they say "I'm demi-gender my pronouns are demi, demi and demiself" They are trying to be unique by creating their own one man "social construct" as a means of making themselves unique, that culture in no way needs.

In fact, if we're going to push this idea of gender even further, as culture becomes more modernized and there is less and less distinction between man and woman, as far as socially, if anything all genders should disappear! If society doesn't need women and men to be two different things because a "woman can be anything!" then there's no need for the sexual binary and separate pronouns at all! Once you make it so that males and females fulfill the same function in society, they do not need to be separated or treated differently, right? Because, again, "gender" is used to describe the "social construct" of what someone's role in society is and how it differs. People can not keep creating genders, without also creating societal roles for those genders to fill. This is especially true of the oxymoronic term "gender fluid" where gender is anything but fluid. If you have the ability to constantly be switching "genders" (i.e. roles in society) your "genders" are so poorly defined they help no one not even yourself. Genders need to be consistent in their use because it's how people within a society group others for interacting socially.

>>373988

>I'd say the link is strong enough that any anomalies can be written off as just that.

I'm not saying it isn't rare. I did say there was a very strong correlation between gender and sex, but there are people who experience an incongruence between the two, and the fact that they're in a minority of people doesn't mean that their experience isn't real.

>What exactly does "feeling like a man" constitute?

I think it's just a feeling of agreement between what's between your legs and what's between your ears. I'm not a particularly masculine guy, but I feel like a man, so at least to me it goes beyond conforming to some arbitrary ideals of being masculine or feminine.

>Reals > feels as the meme goes. Perception and feeling don't matter because we've already established that biological sex is real.

The brain is as real and physical as any other body part. This is just retarded reasoning.

>An individual is a terrible judge of their own character because self-awareness is a bitch.

This is more akin to someone telling you their mood, or their preferences. What you people are doing is about as silly as insisting that someone doesn't like pizza no matter how many times they tell you that they do.

>Then stop bringing up inane bullshit in an attempt to change the definition of words.

This argument doesn't really work. Language is a tool to convey ideas, and inevitably changes. And I see like 50x as many alt-right dickheads whining incessantly about gender for every person on the left whining about it. I think you're projecting when you accuse me of bringing up inane bullshit.

>>373992

>You're using the term and promoting his legacy, instead of using it's original definition, a polite way to refer to sex as well.

>muh definitions

I'm well aware of the Reimer case. What you're doing here is an association fallacy, and a fairly insulting one at that.

Just so you can't make these definition arguments, let's just disregard everything except biological sex here, since that's something that we can both agree exists. Can you not distinguish between biological sex, and one's perception of their biological sex? You clearly seem to recognize that for some people there is a conflict between these two. Is it really that far-fetched to you that someone would feel no congruence between their perception and the idea of being either male or female, biologically?

Anyway, whether you understand it or not is beside the point, because you don't know other people better than they know themselves, just like you know your own perceptions better than anyone else. I'm not going to be a dick and refer to someone as he or she if they don't want that. I'd be a bit loathe to use obviously made up pronouns, so I'd see if they'd compromise with the gender-neutral they/them/their, but if it's really that big of a deal to them, I'd probably still respect their wishes. I have not run into a single person yet that isn't okay with male, female, or neutral pronouns. It seems like something that is over-exaggerated by the right and used to make transgender people seem ridiculous and unreasonable.

>>373966

What does this mean? I know what reddit is but I've only ever used it twice to ask questions about motorcycles and computers and shit.

Are you saying mine is a typical attitude there?

>I'd say the link is strong enough that any anomalies can be written off as just that.

I disagree, because one of them is a scientific concept based on the study of biology, and the other one is a social construct based on the way people act around people who are different.

You could rationalize racism the same way.

>You could rationalize racism the same way.

Not to be super edgy or /pol/, but stereotypes exist in every culture for a reason. And some amount of racial prejudice is a holdover from the days where the only people you could afford to trust were the ones who looked like you.

I'm not sure if it's your intention, but calling something a "social construct" implies that it's somehow unreal or limited to one place and time. The fact of the matter is that every society has expected men and women to act a certain way.

>>374278

I appreciate that both racism and gender stereotypes extend from real events in history, but one area where they have no rational basis is in science. Not to say that race and gender are "not real," but to a biologist, they're not real. To a sociologist or a psychologist, they're extremely real, and interesting because they exist only in the minds of cultures/individuals. I think the most important right that transgendered people have (and men and women too) is to not be governed based on what other people think of their sexuality, but to be treated by everyone based on who they are as a person. Call me a sappy idealist.

Proponents of racism and sexism have attempted to use phony scientific evidence to further their cases. Women have different kinds of brains or can't get as muscular. Black people are one step closer to monkeys on the evolutionary road map. But when you use real science and look at what's happening all around us (like the fact that women have better-built bodies for some sports and black, white, yellow and brown people are all 99.99% the same genetic material as all species of monkeys, and share a lot with cows, chickens, dogs, ferns, and sea algae).. you don't come up with a lot of "real" evidence to support notions like race and gender.

Facebook is a very influential force in US culture. I mean, look at what Putin was able to do with it. For MZ to take the political position that people now have sixty genders and to use its highly sophisticated peer-pressure network to make us pick a new stereotype to conform to, without showing us some kind of evidence that it's real.. is irresponsible. Today we live in an era where if you want to know if a man is related to a monkey or if a woman has a certain structure in her brain, you can look at an MRI or a DNA sample and find out for yourself. We don't need to keep making up new cultural movements based on bullshit ideas like gender and gender roles.

When scientists see an exception to what they know as the law, they don't say "oh that's weird"; they change the law.

>>374298

Bathrooms aren't segregated because of "safety and privacy" (those are just buzzwords), they're segregated because of the taboo against sex. Women assault other women all the time, and just because a transwoman used to be a man doesn't automatically mean they're going to be physically stronger than all women. That's an absurd catchall similar to the idea that any dude off the street can outperform a top-level female athlete, just because he's a man. As for privacy, that's a joke. Are bathrooms sex-segregated but with everyone able to see everyone else? No. There are stalls, or at least partitions between the urinals, for the men. Increasingly, privacy is being ceded in the name of "safety", anyway. If there were a huge string of rapes in schools that took place in bathrooms, and some congressman proposed putting cameras in there for safety, probably nobody would object. There's cameras fucking everywhere else.

At what point is a biological male not a male anymore? Cut off his genitals, give him hormones to change his body structure and alter his moods, dress him as a female, and you're going to claim this person is still 100% male just because he has a y-chromosome? The fact is, the only reason this argument holds any water is because sex-reassignment surgery is still very new and they aren't very good at it. What's going to happen in fifty years when they have genetic engineering and stem cells and can regrow nerves and whole organs? What's going to happen when there will literally be no difference between someone born as one sex and someone transformed into it? Will their birth certificate still define their entire lives? That sounds completely absurd.

Or they could, I dunno, just build unisex bathrooms.

>>374423

>those are just buzzwords

You cut that shit out. Voyeurism is frowned upon because no one wants some creep spying on them, not because nipples are scary.

>If there were a huge string of rapes in schools that took place in bathrooms, and some congressman proposed putting cameras in there for safety, probably nobody would object.

You are out of touch with reality. This is not an insult, you straight up have no idea how the real world works and live in a fantasy land. People still get jailed for setting up cameras in restrooms. I doubt women will suddenly start allowing Billy Bob the mall cop to watch them pee over a single rape. If anything armed guards outside restrooms would come first.

>The only reason this argument holds any water

is because you have not drawn the line yet. Stop talking about future what-ifs and theoreticals and answer the damn question.

By the way, unisex bathrooms already exist in many public buildings. They're typically rooms with a single toilet, changing table for a baby or small child, and a sink. Ironically these have a higher degree of privacy than segregated restrooms as they have an actual door with a lock.

>>374287

>but one area where they have no rational basis is in science

Haha, that's funny.

>muh Pootin

Opinions discarded.

>>374452

>pic

nice fucking strawman pic my nigger

>small differences between sets of people justify my racism

Racism is prejudice towards a racial group, you half-wit, so yes it can and does. If a race(let's just say niggers) are more violent on average than another race(let's say east asians) then just by feeling more safe in an east asian neighborhood than a black neighborhood purely because you know that fact then you are a racist. You'd be pretty dumb in my opinion and anyone else who's sane to think that that's bad.

Also, as >>374472 said, nice strawman /leftypol/.

>>374485

There is no race more violent than whites. Every single major war has been started by them. All the great genocides and famines, whether fascist or communist, have been caused by white men. What's some gang violence by some dumb niggers in Chicago, next to those millions slaughtered? You completely lack perspective of reality. You fear for the violence of invisible black boogymen, while ignoring the fact that your life is already under threat of violence of the white men that control you. Step out of line, and they will arrest you, imprison you, and murder you, within their power of "law". You blind fool.

>>374627

>All the great genocides and famines, whether fascist or communist, have been caused by white men.

That's the funny thing about genocides, they're "planned" and "intentional" so, for instance, the constant warring in Africa, even though thousands of people are dying every day, doesn't count, even though it's been that way forever. I don't know what's more violent, how efficiently a group effort to kill millions Ukranians in the span of two years can take or constantly killing each other generation after generation. And even if suppose whites were the most violent race at the time, that isn't the case now as our beloved mudslimes show off.

>>374661

Well maybe if the imperialist white countries would stop destabalising the rest of the world then they wouldn't have so many wars.

I mean there were massive empires and impressive civilisations in Africa before they got destabalised first by the europeans, and now by exploitative multinationals owned by Europeans

>>373879

this

>>374664

>whites are the most violent

<i-it's whities fault brudda's be killing each other all the time

Nice goalpost shifting. I will admit though, destabalising the area by stopping the imperialism was a big mistake, South Africa, India, various others weren't the gigantic shitholes they are today when "whitie was keeping them down." Now after being released by the Europeans and having plenty of time to develop themselves, the chinks are flocking en masse to enjoy the riches and African can still not pull their heads out of their asses.

>>374664

>condemns European empires

>praises African empires that were defeated by them

Not to be that guy, but that's what happens when you lose a war. It's shitty to be disadvantaged due to circumstances beyond your control but that's how it is on this bitch of an Earth.

You cannot say with a straight face that, given the opportunity, those civilizations wouldn't have done the same thing. War and violence aren't owned by the white man.

>>374661

Muslims might kill a lot of people through terrorism, but while that's newsworthy it's still a drop in the bucket. A few hundred per year at most if you don't count the wars sponsored by white countries like the USA and Russia.

Compare that to the hundreds of thousands dying of cancers from the chemicals in food, lack of healthcare because the rich need their tax cuts, violence from guns used to prop up the NRA lobby, lung disease from big tobacco, rampant obesity and cardiovascular disease caused by poor diet because they're deliberately kept so poor they can't afford to eat anything but junk food filled with subsidized corn sugar.

Violence isn't just a man who plunges a knife into his wife in a screaming rage. Violence is also a woman who slowly poisons her husband's food over a decade until he dies, while she sports a manipulative smirk. Violence can be slow and careful, just as it can be quick and dramatic.

test2