3 ms·

What is confusing? What are you lost about? It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the

What is confusing? What are you lost about? It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter. That's something you're allowed to do, though there was a reason I tried to focus the conversation on the gay issue. The fact that that situation is more resolved makes the whole thing more obvious, but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment being confusing and I don't care to have the argument you seem to want to have

dcow 4y ago
> It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter. No I don't agree with that characterization (I think being trans is more complicated than a hormone imbalance for some people and you can be perfectly "normal" balanced and still identify as whatever you want while also it being possible that some people experience gender dysphoria because of a hormone imbalance that can be corrected if desired). That's why I'm confused. I don't understand what stance you're taking. I don't understand why you're bringing gay into the mix. I'm genuinely confused because the way you worded things make in ambiguous whether you were supporting the comment you first responded to but didn't think last bit was the right way to approach the argument, or if you disagreed with the comment you were responding to because of the way the last part was worded. I'm not trying to have any argument just share my context because I'm actually confused.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Fair, sorry for that, feeling a tad defensive. Let me try to be clear, being while acknowledging there are things I have clear opinions on and thing I don't. I had two big problems with the original comment. First the implication that identities based on hormones are weird in anyway (hormones make a big part of who we are), and the tone in which it was written. I also took some issue with the idea that it's likely the cause of some sort lgbtqness, because yes it's the sort of thing that gets expressed mostly by people who think other groups of people are in essence broken and it's tempting so we have seen it about all sorts of issues including the gay people. I am not confident on the last note though, I can believe that some environment factor has contributed, but if so being careful about your language, and worried about falling into bias is the proper way to talk about it. Certainly some day we will have the ability to mold things like sexuality to our desire, but we'll still need to decide how we label such things 1. Not everyone agrees that trans people are trans because of hormone imbalances, at least not in the same way 2. Using language of damaged, or brokenness to express the idea of environmental influences where not warranted is wrong especially where it's used to imply that adult trans people are invalid in some way

dcow 4y ago

> It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter. No I don't agree with that characterization (I think being trans is more complicated than a hormone imbalance for some people and you can be perfectly "normal" balanced and still identify as whatever you want while also it being possible that some people experience gender dysphoria because of a hormone imbalance that can be corrected if desired). That's why I'm confused. I don't understand what stance you're taking. I don't understand why you're bringing gay into the mix. I'm genuinely confused because the way you worded things make in ambiguous whether you were supporting the comment you first responded to but didn't think last bit was the right way to approach the argument, or if you disagreed with the comment you were responding to because of the way the last part was worded. I'm not trying to have any argument just share my context because I'm actually confused.

space_fountain 4y ago
Fair, sorry for that, feeling a tad defensive. Let me try to be clear, being while acknowledging there are things I have clear opinions on and thing I don't. I had two big problems with the original comment. First the implication that identities based on hormones are weird in anyway (hormones make a big part of who we are), and the tone in which it was written. I also took some issue with the idea that it's likely the cause of some sort lgbtqness, because yes it's the sort of thing that gets expressed mostly by people who think other groups of people are in essence broken and it's tempting so we have seen it about all sorts of issues including the gay people. I am not confident on the last note though, I can believe that some environment factor has contributed, but if so being careful about your language, and worried about falling into bias is the proper way to talk about it. Certainly some day we will have the ability to mold things like sexuality to our desire, but we'll still need to decide how we label such things 1. Not everyone agrees that trans people are trans because of hormone imbalances, at least not in the same way 2. Using language of damaged, or brokenness to express the idea of environmental influences where not warranted is wrong especially where it's used to imply that adult trans people are invalid in some way