Gender identity: Crazy/delusional?

[Bells]

Mod Note

Show me ONE example of me sinking to that level. Otherwise, quit lying.

Certainly as a mod you can find one, if they exist.

Read my latest response to the report you just filed. For some examples. Have you called others a dick? No, you haven't. But your general behaviour in this thread has been pretty bad. I ended up withdrawing entirely from the thread as a result of it.

Everyone has been throwing personal insults. But you seem to go out of your way to insult others and then complain when they throw it right back at you. My comment to you in regards to that report.. something something about glass houses and stones should apply here. You threw stones while living in a glass house. People will throw them back. Your complaining that they throw them back is a bit rich, don't you think?

My options are to either caution everyone else to not call you a dick because they would be lowering themselves to your level of behaviour in this thread, while not outright, the manner in which you post your insults are petty inferences and equally offensive. Or I close the thread completely because of your behaviour and because of how everyone has followed you down that particular rabbit hole. Which would you prefer?

 

[iceaura]

enable - permit, allowHow do people transition if it's not allowed? Are there laws against it?

Transition is not the issue.

See, you don't even care why their brain structures differ, e.g. "whatever reason".

You caught me. I don't. They do differ, and they match the self-reports of identity, etc.

You just want to deny any scientific evidence, in favor of appeasing their wholly subjective feelings.

You can't name a single scientific fact or circumstance that I have denied. Meanwhile, you pretend that by typing the word "neuroplasticity" you can dismiss everything from brain structure findings to consistent and intersubjectively verifiable self-reports of orientation.

Again, ad nauseam, behavior alters brain structure, so unless you can show evidence otherwise, you're simply committing the wrong direction fallacy.

Everybody knows that. It's irrelevant.

enable - permit, allow

Please get a dictionary. It's a damn chore dealing with your continual illiteracy.

 

[Syne]

Mod Note


Read my latest response to the report you just filed. For some examples. Have you called others a dick? No, you haven't. But your general behaviour in this thread has been pretty bad. I ended up withdrawing entirely from the thread as a result of it.

Everyone has been throwing personal insults. But you seem to go out of your way to insult others and then complain when they throw it right back at you. My comment to you in regards to that report.. something something about glass houses and stones should apply here. You threw stones while living in a glass house. People will throw them back. Your complaining that they throw them back is a bit rich, don't you think?

My options are to either caution everyone else to not call you a dick because they would be lowering themselves to your level of behaviour in this thread, while not outright, the manner in which you post your insults are petty inferences and equally offensive. Or I close the thread completely because of your behaviour and because of how everyone has followed you down that particular rabbit hole. Which would you prefer?

Then you were lying. Your "larger truth" trumps actual facts. Since you didn't find me calling anyone any names, you're just poisoning the well (ad hominem) saying that would be my level. You demonstrably lack intellectual honesty. Let's see what you cited as "everyone has followed you down that particular rabbit hole".

Unfortunately, your recent report has been rejected: Post in thread 'Gender identity: Crazy/delusional?' - Clicking on random pages, just reading Syne's posts in that thread.. "Are you really THAT deluded? " Post #104 http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-6#post-3444295 ... Out of many, an inference that someone is stupid.. "Apparently you're too uninformed to have any real input here." Post # 124 http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-7#post-3444490 .. Asking if another member is a sexual predator (not to mention inferring that they were).. "Including shower rooms....for your daughter? In high schools? Or are you a predator?" Post #149 http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445002 ... Again inferring someone is stupid "You're a liar. Show me where I said neuroplasticity is "all psychological". Saying transgenderism "sounds all psychological" says nothing about neuroplasticity in general, because neuroplasticity accounts for more than transgenderism. You're basic reasoning skills just really aren't up to the task." Post 153 http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445061

Aside from not even approaching calling anyone a 'dick' (and you "randomly" starting with a reply to YOU), context matters.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-6#post-3444295
You: "You are the one who brought up using bathrooms, remember?"
Me: "Do you really not know how easy it is to go verify that almost everyone in this thread brought up bathrooms before I did? Are you really THAT deluded?"
You: "Oh, you didn't bring it up."​

Demonstrably deluded - impose a misleading belief upon (someone); deceive; fool/to mislead the mind or judgment of.
Seems more likely you left this thread because you got called on your demonstrable intellectual dishonesty.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-7#post-3444490
Full context: "You don't even know that transgenders aren't always attracted to the opposite of their target sex. Apparently you're too uninformed to have any real input here."​

Demonstrable observation of being uninformed.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445002
Capracus: "I’d say unisex facilities would be a worthy goal as well."
Me: "Including shower rooms....for your daughter? In high schools? Or are you a predator?"​

If he'd said 'yes' to the first two reasonable questions (which we can only assume unqualified advocacy for unisex facilities would be universal), then the third goes to motive. Only his lack of answer infers anything at all.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445061
iceaura: "So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it."
Me: "You're a liar. Show me where I said neuroplasticity is "all psychological". Saying transgenderism "sounds all psychological" says nothing about neuroplasticity in general, because neuroplasticity accounts for more than transgenderism. You're basic reasoning skills just really aren't up to the task."​

Demonstrable lie of any claim I had made, and demonstrable that basic reasoning would have shown it such.

But let's see what clicking on random pages reveals:

You implying emotional "issues": "My feelings aren't hurt by transgender using bathrooms, Syne. That's your issue." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ge...y-crazy-delusional.158986/page-5#post-3444081
You inferring someone is stupid: "Reading and comprehension is an issue for you, isn't it?" http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-5#post-3444081
You escalating what you subjectively considered an insult: "I'll put it this way, you keep calling me "deary", I'll just refer to you as twat." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-6#post-3444341​

Yeah, you're setting a winning example. Not to mention you conveniently bailing on the thread just after I provided you with copious examples of exactly what you asked for (apparently so you wouldn't have to acknowledge it): http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-6#post-3444350

Tiassa implying someone is a pervert: "Or is that actually you? Are you actually that obsessed with other people's genitals?" http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-5#post-3444092​

And this behavior from mods seems to have sanctioned it among other posters:

Inferring someone is stupid: "Still no dictionary on your end, obviously." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-6#post-3444423

"You are once again using big words you don't understand, and that is confusing you." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-7#post-3444878
"I think you're using big words you don't understand." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445072​

Inferring someone suffers a mental condition: "It's not possible to predict your inability to read simple English sentences, or I could maybe head off these weird mental glitches you suffer from." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-7#post-3444515
Ad hominem by association: "Because that would prevent Syne and his wingnut pals from enforcing God's will." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445095
Inferring emotional issues: "You people are really not up on this whole human dimension of morality and ethics, are you - it's all strange to you, you keep wandering off and talking about feelings. Other people's. Always other people's feelings. Is there something you want to share, maybe on another thread?" http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-9#post-3445247
Inferring someone stupid/immoral: "And this blank-brained response to moral or ethical observation, argument, etc, is typical of you guys - characteristic." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-9#post-3445279
Calling someone a 'penis': "That's strange - I've heard some very smart people identify you as a penis in totality." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-10#post-3445837
​

From before I entered this thread:

Calling people deluded/delusional: "You appear to be delusional with trying to rationalise" http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/#post-3440837
Inferring that someone is stupid: "You have no idea what "idiosyncratic" means do you?" http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/#post-3440855
​

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Thank you Syne, for a stunning display and example of misrepresentation and posting things out of context.

Which is a habit of yours.

There are a few reasons why I stopped responding to you. One, it is not my responsibility to provide you with more rope with which to hang yourself. Two, it was clear by the manner in which you were posting, that you were not posting in good faith and it was at the point of repeating the same thing over and over again and simply providing you with another avenue to troll, basically. And thirdly, I had surgery in that time, then had another minor operation when the stitches became undone and the thought of providing you with further chances to troll, thus increasing the likelihood that I would have to put on the mod hat, just did not appeal for some bizarre reason. Strange, I know, you being God's gift to all things argumentative and offensive, but I chose to simply observe and with good reason..

And funny that, because here I am, with mod hat in place.

Your manner of posting is offensive and aggressive. Your views on homosexuals and LGBT are well known and it was your initial bigotry that saw you removed as a moderator in the first place, when you used your position here to crack down on our LGBT members, which resulted in all staff demanding your removal.

You have repeatedly been condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish (how can a grown man resort to emoticon use multiple times in just about every single post is truly beyond me!), you have repeatedly misrepresented people's arguments and taken their posts out of context and twisted it around, not to mention you goad and flame people. You have accused others of being exactly how you behave towards everyone else. Now, if this was only aimed in one direction, then yes, you might have a point. But in this instance, you have repeatedly given more than you have received. Again, if you live in a glass house, you should not be lobbing stones.

I said I would call you a twat? Yes, and what you left out of that particular narrative was the fact that it was in response to your deliberately and condescendingly, not to mention insulting manner of referring to me as "deary", after pretty much accusing me of being stupid and deluded, and your response to that was to refer to me as "woman", as though I was an object. But hey, context is a foreign concept to you, so perhaps I should give you a pass? Or how about when you questioned how deluded I was? Oh wait, what's good for the gander and so on and so forth.

Now, no one else reported your posts in this thread, because, they recognised that they too were giving as good as they got and had they reported it, my response to them would have been the same as it was to you.

I provided you with numerous links of your equally problematic behaviour. I'll put it this way, if I action everyone else's, I would be remiss to not action yours in a similar fashion.

Instead of moderating everyone, I felt that a general warning to everyone, sufficed. It was also a reminder to everyone to not lower themselves to your manner of posting in the hope that they could respond to your frankly offensive display here with reason. I also understand how after nearly half a dozen pages, they are frustrated, but I would hope that they no longer allow their frustration to shine through their posts. I would also remind you that bringing up your penis/mentioning your penis into the discussion was probably not the most intelligent thing you have done.

If people are unable to continue with this thread without resorting to personal insults and whatnot, then I will close this thread.

I'll be blunt, Syne, if you cannot post in good faith, do not expect people to respect you or your posts in this thread and frankly, elsewhere on this website.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have on the matter.

::Edited to remove sexual harassment of member::

My apologies to Syne for making him feel sexually harassed. It was not intentional or intended to come across that way.

 

[iceaura]

Inferring that someone is stupid: "You have no idea what "idiosyncratic" means do you?

That's not stupid, that's ignorant. You use a lot of words whose meaning you don't seem to know, for some reason.And you probably aren't using "infer" correctly, although there's an outside chance you are, so - - later.

iceaura: "So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it."
Me: "You're a liar. Show me where I said neuroplasticity is "all psychological".

I showed you. It was a direct implication of your argument, that you had apparently overlooked.

Inferring someone is stupid: "Still no dictionary on your end, obviously."

Get a dictionary, look up "infer", and pay attention to the "common errors" section of the usage notes. Along the way, reread the fifteen times people have had to point out to you that ignorance and stupidity are two completely different intellectual deficits.

Ad hominem by association:

No comment.
Look: half your posts belong in the Linguistics subforum as questions - "What's wrong with this?" type questions. But people here have actually taken the time and trouble to sort through the inept and illiterate usage and figure out what you seem to be talking about. And that turns out to be worse - your inept language actually works to hide the problems with your thinking, and makes whacking your latest Foxnation notion a lot harder than it should be. It does so consistently. And at some point this consistent role, and your repeated resort to it, starts to look like dishonesty rather then ineptitude.

So show us how it isn't. Use words correctly, say what you mean. Start here, with this transgender stuff, and your claim that transgender people suffer from delusions, have beliefs that conflict with established facts. What delusions are you talking about? Put it simply, like "transgender people people believe ____, but the established fact is ______".

 

[Capracus]

Demonstrable observation of being uninformed.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445002
Capracus: "I’d say unisex facilities would be a worthy goal as well."
Me: "Including shower rooms....for your daughter? In high schools? Or are you a predator?"If he'd said 'yes' to the first two reasonable questions (which we can only assume unqualified advocacy for unisex facilities would be universal), then the third goes to motive. Only his lack of answer infers anything at all.

What does a lack of answer to any of those questions infer? I’ve repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I have no problem with trans women using locker rooms for women. Since an untransitioned trans woman is physically a man, by extension I have no problem with men using women’s locker rooms either. I imagine if a man or a woman entered a locker room with the intent to commit a criminal assault, that could conceivably make them a predator. Why would you insinuate that to be a personal motive of mine?

 

[Dinosaur]

I hope that my remarks in this Thread do not lead any Posters/readers to believe that I an homophobic.

In my youth (many decades ago), I frequented coffee shops in center city Philadelphia & became friendly with more than a few gay men, which were called faggots in that era & often subject to physical abuse by red necks. The best man at my first marriage was gay.

I want to go on record as denying any belief that homosexuality between consenting adults is immoral, illegal, neurotic, or fattening.

From Billvon Posts # 3 & #7

. . . . Gender identity is not insanity, any more than homosexuality is.

Nope, no more so than homosexuality or monogamy is delusional.

I have already apologized for using the word insanity, which implies a serious level of dysfunctional behavior.

First, I have never claimed or made remarks indicating that I consider homosexuality or monogamy delusional. That would be a ridiculous claim since homosexuality & monogamy are observable behaviors.

Gender identity notions being discussed here indicate a mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics & the thoughts relating to gender identity.

The above is fundamentally different from homosexuality. A homosexual does not consider himself to have a female brain in a male body. He merely prefers sex with a man to sex with a woman.​

I do not know of a word other than delusion which better describes a gender identity mismatch. I wonder if psychologists have a specific term for this mismatch between anatomy and self descriptive thoughts.

 

[Jeeves]

Gender identity notions being discussed here indicate a mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics & the thoughts relating to gender identity..

The problem - or rather, the central one in a cluster of problems - is: much of the anatomy isn't obvious at all. Outer and inner anatomy may be "mismatched" in any number of ways, in practically all organ systems. In a very complex machine, not only are most of the workings invisible, but far too many relations and interactions may work in non-standard ways for anyone to say with certainty what the standard should be.
There is a broad, dense band of appearance/self-perception/behaviour patterns that are similar enough to be designated "the norm", and a relatively sparse outer fringe, of individuals that are different in various particulars, along either side of it. This non-standard fringe population can be viewed with benign acceptance, indifference, curiosity, anxiety, derision, pity, superstitious dread, moral indignation, loathing, rejection or hostility. How a social structure responds to its fringe specimens is a function of the norm-setting power elite, not of the non-standard specimens. This holds true in all highly developed organisms and is most striking in the social species.

So, when you are looking for a word to describe the mismatch between appearance and self-perception, it's helpful to look both ways: toward the center, as well as toward the edges.

 

[Syne]

Mod Note

Thank you Syne, for a stunning display and example of misrepresentation and posting things out of context.

Which is a habit of yours.

Yet you only make the bare assertion, rather than actually citing an example and explaining why it's supposedly "out of context". This is just more poisoning the well in lieu of actual argument. When you make assertions, you are required to support them...unless you're a transparent hypocrite.

There are a few reasons why I stopped responding to you. One, it is not my responsibility to provide you with more rope with which to hang yourself. Two, it was clear by the manner in which you were posting, that you were not posting in good faith and it was at the point of repeating the same thing over and over again and simply providing you with another avenue to troll, basically. And thirdly, I had surgery in that time, then had another minor operation when the stitches became undone and the thought of providing you with further chances to troll, thus increasing the likelihood that I would have to put on the mod hat, just did not appeal for some bizarre reason. Strange, I know, you being God's gift to all things argumentative and offensive, but I chose to simply observe and with good reason..

Just because you do not agree doesn't mean someone is not posting in good faith. Contrary to many in this thread, I have provided supporting sources for much of what I've said (that you conveniently failed to acknowledge). And yes, it does get repetitive when people refuse to acknowledge the facts and citations provided....only to reassert points already shown to be erroneous.

Your manner of posting is offensive and aggressive.

What specifically makes them "offensive" (other than you not agreeing) and "aggressive" (other than you getting your feeling hurt for not being taken seriously on your word alone)?

You have repeatedly been condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish (how can a grown man resort to emoticon use multiple times in just about every single post is truly beyond me!), you have repeatedly misrepresented people's arguments and taken their posts out of context and twisted it around, not to mention you goad and flame people. You have accused others of being exactly how you behave towards everyone else. Now, if this was only aimed in one direction, then yes, you might have a point. But in this instance, you have repeatedly given more than you have received. Again, if you live in a glass house, you should not be lobbing stones.

Aside from the ridiculous hypocrisy in claiming that ONE person gives more than they get from MANY people, your objections boil down to tone policing...a form of trolling. And more bare assertions such as "you...flame people". Where are the examples? Don't you need to support you own claims?
I've shown many examples, and could find plenty more, of others being "condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish", but I assume there's a double standard here.
And if you don't like emoticons, have the admin get rid of them. They provide context lacking in text alone.

I said I would call you a twat? Yes, and what you left out of that particular narrative was the fact that it was in response to your deliberately and condescendingly, not to mention insulting manner of referring to me as "deary", after pretty much accusing me of being stupid and deluded, and your response to that was to refer to me as "woman", as though I was an object. But hey, context is a foreign concept to you, so perhaps I should give you a pass? Or how about when you questioned how deluded I was? Oh wait, what's good for the gander and so on and so forth.

You're lying again. Go look. I just posted the context to that exchange:

You escalating what you subjectively considered an insult: "I'll put it this way, you keep calling me "deary", I'll just refer to you as twat." http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-6#post-3444341

​

See where I quoted the part about me calling your 'deary'?

I provided you with numerous links of your equally problematic behaviour. I'll put it this way, if I action everyone else's, I would be remiss to not action yours in a similar fashion.

Only because you equivocate observation for actual name calling by conflating "problematic" with actual forum rule violations.

Instead of moderating everyone, I felt that a general warning to everyone, sufficed. It was also a reminder to everyone to not lower themselves to your manner of posting in the hope that they could respond to your frankly offensive display here with reason. I also understand how after nearly half a dozen pages, they are frustrated, but I would hope that they no longer allow their frustration to shine through their posts. I would also remind you that inserting your penis into the discussion was probably not the most intelligent thing you have done.

Again, you've completely failed to support that my "level" is that of calling others a "penis".
And you have been reported for sexual harassment for: "I would also remind you that inserting your penis into the discussion"
You should refrain from referring to anyone "inserting your penis". I was asked a direct question about genitalia and gender, and I answered it. That does not give anyone the excuse to call me a "penis" or suggest where I have or have not "inserted" it.

If people are unable to continue with this thread without resorting to personal insults and whatnot, then I will close this thread.

I'll be blunt, Syne, if you cannot post in good faith, do not expect people to respect you or your posts in this thread and frankly, elsewhere on this website.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have on the matter.

Your subjective opinion isn't the criteria of 'good faith'.
You're a hypocrite who refuses to see the lack of good faith in others denial of the science of neuroplasticity.

 

[Oystein]

Syne, where do you live? The reason I ask is that I want to be sure that I never, ever go there, just in case all the people there are like you.

 

[Equinox]

It's a bit of a shame the thread has degenerated into a slogging match between a poster and a mod, would it not make more sense to take these grievances into a private chat?

 

[Randwolf]

Again, you've completely failed to support that my "level" is that of calling others a "penis".

Just for the record, I didn't call you a dick - I merely reported what some very smart people have been saying - just like your hero the SCROTUS regularly does. In any event, I apologized for lowering myself to the debased level of the Orange one. Let it go, you're acting like a snowflake - perhaps there is a nearby safe zone for you.

(thanks to DrKrettin - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-52#post-3445782)

It's a bit of a shame the thread has degenerated into a slogging match between a poster and a mod, would it not make more sense to take these grievances into a private chat?

Word...

 

[Syne]

It's a bit of a shame the thread has degenerated into a slogging match between a poster and a mod, would it not make more sense to take these grievances into a private chat?

Agreed. Too bad a mod decided to attack the person instead of the arguments.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Syne, I have addressed the issues raised in my previous post. I am not going to go over this with you again, since this was addressed in my responses to you multiple times via reports which came to you via PM, where you were provided with multiple links and an explanation, and also in this thread, after you decided to respond to a Mod Note I addressed to others to comment on my responses to the reports you filed, which were handled via PM.. If you do not like the decisions I have taken, you are more than welcome to PM another moderator to seek a review of the thread and the issue. As far as I am concerned, this issue is now closed. And I won't be addressing it any further in thread or via PM with you. And your still going on about it is just further derailing the thread.

 

[Syne]

Glad to hear it, Bells. Maybe next time you won't feel the need to impugn the person reporting a forum violation (blaming the victim) while addressing it publicly.

The problem - or rather, the central one in a cluster of problems - is: much of the anatomy isn't obvious at all. Outer and inner anatomy may be "mismatched" in any number of ways, in practically all organ systems. In a very complex machine, not only are most of the workings invisible, but far too many relations and interactions may work in non-standard ways for anyone to say with certainty what the standard should be.
There is a broad, dense band of appearance/self-perception/behaviour patterns that are similar enough to be designated "the norm", and a relatively sparse outer fringe, of individuals that are different in various particulars, along either side of it. This non-standard fringe population can be viewed with benign acceptance, indifference, curiosity, anxiety, derision, pity, superstitious dread, moral indignation, loathing, rejection or hostility. How a social structure responds to its fringe specimens is a function of the norm-setting power elite, not of the non-standard specimens. This holds true in all highly developed organisms and is most striking in the social species.

So, when you are looking for a word to describe the mismatch between appearance and self-perception, it's helpful to look both ways: toward the center, as well as toward the edges.

So your argument is...it's complicated?
It's not just appearance, it's science.

 

[timojin]

Yet you only make the bare assertion, rather than actually citing an example and explaining why it's supposedly "out of context". This is just more poisoning the well in lieu of actual argument. When you make assertions, you are required to support them...unless you're a transparent hypocrite.

Just because you do not agree doesn't mean someone is not posting in good faith. Contrary to many in this thread, I have provided supporting sources for much of what I've said (that you conveniently failed to acknowledge). And yes, it does get repetitive when people refuse to acknowledge the facts and citations provided....only to reassert points already shown to be erroneous.

What specifically makes them "offensive" (other than you not agreeing) and "aggressive" (other than you getting your feeling hurt for not being taken seriously on your word alone)?

Aside from the ridiculous hypocrisy in claiming that ONE person gives more than they get from MANY people, your objections boil down to tone policing...a form of trolling. And more bare assertions such as "you...flame people". Where are the examples? Don't you need to support you own claims?
I've shown many examples, and could find plenty more, of others being "condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish", but I assume there's a double standard here.
And if you don't like emoticons, have the admin get rid of them. They provide context lacking in text alone.

You're lying again. Go look. I just posted the context to that exchange:

​

See where I quoted the part about me calling your 'deary'?

Only because you equivocate observation for actual name calling by conflating "problematic" with actual forum rule violations.

Again, you've completely failed to support that my "level" is that of calling others a "penis".
And you have been reported for sexual harassment for: "I would also remind you that inserting your penis into the discussion"
You should refrain from referring to anyone "inserting your penis". I was asked a direct question about genitalia and gender, and I answered it. That does not give anyone the excuse to call me a "penis" or suggest where I have or have not "inserted" it.

Your subjective opinion isn't the criteria of 'good faith'.
You're a hypocrite who refuses to see the lack of good faith in others denial of the science of neuroplasticity.

Friend : I would not talk to this woman , I agree, she is poison and she is using her position to intimidate.

 

[Jeeves]

Dinosaur's question:

Gender identity notions being discussed here indicate a mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics & the thoughts relating to gender identity.

Jeeves' response:

The problem - or rather, the central one in a cluster of problems - is: much of the anatomy isn't obvious at all. Outer and inner anatomy may be "mismatched" in any number of ways, in practically all organ systems. In a very complex machine, not only are most of the workings invisible, but far too many relations and interactions may work in non-standard ways for anyone to say with certainty what the standard should be.... etc.

 

[billvon]

I hope that my remarks in this Thread do not lead any Posters/readers to believe that I an homophobic. In my youth (many decades ago), I frequented coffee shops in center city Philadelphia & became friendly with more than a few gay men, which were called faggots in that era & often subject to physical abuse by red necks. The best man at my first marriage was gay.

While I am not claiming you are homophobic, saying "I have gay friends; I am not homophobic!" has no more validity than the tired "I have black friends; I'm not racist!"

First, I have never claimed or made remarks indicating that I consider homosexuality or monogamy delusional. That would be a ridiculous claim since homosexuality & monogamy are observable behaviors.

So is transgenderism.

Gender identity notions being discussed here indicate a mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics & the thoughts relating to gender identity.

Interestingly, Syne (the other person advocating for such labels) claims that "My penis isn't the totality of my identity as a man." So he'd disagree there.

 

[Syne]

Gender identity notions being discussed here indicate a mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics & the thoughts relating to gender identity.

Interestingly, Syne (the other person advocating for such labels) claims that "My penis isn't the totality of my identity as a man." So he'd disagree there.

My gender identity isn't a "mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics". Genitals don't have to be the totality of gender identity for the other parts of gender identity to also correlate to having particular genitals. Basic reasoning people.

 

[timojin]

My gender identity isn't a "mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics". Genitals don't have to be the totality of gender identity for the other parts of gender identity to also correlate to having particular genitals. Basic reasoning people.

My testicles are my identity of male , there is were sperm is formed , the penis can be cut of an give to an animal for meat . But my testicles will produce sperm which can come out though the opening , and this sperm can be collected and introduced into a woman to get her pregnant.