Quote Originally Posted by lament View Post
your deductive logic comparison is not a valid comparison at all. The first 3 is a logical line of thinking and is valid. Like "If all boxes are cubes, and i just picked up a box, then that box is a cube." It would be a false assumption to say that "if i picked up a cube, then it is a box." Because all boxes are defined to be cubes, but it is not necessarily true that all cubes are boxes.

That's the sort of reasoning you have in the second logical sequence.

1) since love is blind and god is love, then god is blind
2)Ray charles is blind
3)it is false to assume ray charles is god simply because he is blind. being blind is a requirement of being god, but not a guarantee that one is god. God is blind, but there are things that are blind that are NOT god. By comparison, there are NOT things that are God without being blind. You could say "I am not blind so I am not God," and that would be logical.

It is a scientific fact that M2F transsexuals are genetic males. There are probably genetic factors that influence them to become transsexuals, but that does not change the scientific definition of what a male is. Science has agreed on the "XY sex-determination system," google it and read the wiki page. Basically, if you have xx sex chromosomes, you are female. If you have xy chromosomes, you are male. M2F transsexuals are defined as males, and men who have sex with them are, based on the definition of the terms involved, engaging in homosexual sex.

However, as I said, this is based on the scientific and technical definitions of the terms. These definitions are arbitrary social constructs. They are relative, and you can use your own system to define what your actions for yourself.

Me personally, as a student of science, I like to use general definitions that match mainstream definitions. Language is a tool for people to communicate, and it makes sense that everyone speak the same language. Technically, fucking transsexuals is homosexual. But the key is to not worry about terms and labels, and understand that although genetically male, transsexuals (the hot ones at least) have much more in common with females than males, and that grouping them in with men is based on arbitrary social constructs and definitions of sex, and that humans with xx sex chromosomes don't have a lease on femininity.

Oh.....?

What about women with AIS(Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)???
Which are females born with vagina's but have XX chromosomes instead of the traditional Y in females and have testis inside them instead of ovaries.

Should any man who falls in love with one of the thousands of woman out there like this be deem gay by a technicality? Well tgirl lovers go through a similar struggle.

The point is there's so much more to a person then their private parts. And generalizing people based solely on their sexual appetite it's the biggest character flaw in the book.

So what good are the tools used to communicate if most people are just hanging on to the limited info they think they know about male and female chromosomes as if that's all there is to gender identity?

Long story short, you've been around long enough to witness the actions and characteristics of your peers to understand that all people born with dicks don't grow to be real men. Just like all females aren't ladies.

So I refuse to except societies idea of TS women.