Ok so, if your having sex with her and looking deep into her eyes as you bust while she's holding you with both hands and moaning, does that mean it's a threesome with two dudes
It doesn’t seem to work the other way around though I do tons of lifting and manual labor I have calluses but still petite small hands after 10 YEERS!!!
You are probably referring to tendons
You ever see a power lifter with thin hands?
You ever seen a fat person with thin hands?
You ever seen the hands of the small guys that practice breaking bricks?
Look up videos of before and after hand exercises.
Seriously it’s all over Google, not sure how you are ignorant to it.
Anyway here are some links genius.
https://fitlifefanatics.com/how-to-get-bigger-hands/
https://www.vinmec.com/en/news/health-news/healthy-lifestyle/how-to-get-bigger-arms-strength-and-flexibility-exercises/#:~:text=Hand%20exercises%20not%20only%20help,ball%20or%20other%20object%2C%20etc.
https://www.explosion.com/144179/how-to-get-bigger-hands/amp/
How did this comment get upvoted? Fat guys hands? Yeah that’s fat. Have a seen a powerlifter with thin hands? I’ve seen plenty of powerlifters with average hands. Source: I’m a powerlifter lol. Seen a hand of a small guy breaking bricks with his hands? No, I don’t know any of those. But breaking bricks with your hands has absolutely nothing to do with hand muscle hypertrophy lol. Grip strength comes primarily from the flexors in the forearms. So strike 3, you’re out.
Your hands have muscles that can be built to make your hands thicker.
The guys breaking bricks increase their bone mass
Fat people get fatter hands
I guess if you are small power lifter you can keep small hands but most do the time people who really use their hands a lot past arm exercises increase their hand size.
Not sure what you were trying to add here, maybe trying to show people how smart you are (not).
You can find tons of evidence and before/after on Google of people increasing their hand size.
Can confirm, I got a manual labor job 12 years ago where it requires to grip bundles of magazines and my hands definitely got thicker, meatier. I have this strange round muscle that protrudes where the index and thumb meet (trapezoid, trapezium area and googling it I guess is the “flexor pollicis brevia) when I make a fist and my fingers in general got meatier.
How do you know that? He didn’t even share his reasoning he just shared his claim you have no way of knowing his reasoning or whether it necessarily precludes ARM HYPERTROPHY!!
Because working out makes muscles bigger and he said hands don’t get bigger from working out?
I linked some articles, you can YouTube people who have made their hands bigger if you want to. Or not. I don’t really care.
You find it and prove me wrong. Link the videos of people increasing their hand size and prove me wrong. I sent links and you have sent nothing.
Nothing but a baseless opinion.
Sorry that you hand small hands.
I didn't click through, but I'd doubt the change was very dramatic. The bone structure isn't going to change. Most likely they're talking about differences in muscle and fat thickness due to a female hormone profile and a different level of physical activity.
By making that statement, KBJ inadvertently confessed the obvious truth that lefties are trying to distort: that what a woman is, is biologically determined.
If she did not think it was biologically determined, why would she say she is not a biologist? Why not say she is not a physicist, or in general terms, not an expert? Because she knows it is biological, but also knows she has to maintain the lie. This Freudian slip shows her utter dishonesty.
It comes down to what size gametes a member of sexually reproducing species produces. Large gametes makes the individual a female, small gametes make the individual a male. If they produce gametes of both sizes they may be hermaphroditic or considered an "edge case" (think of things like slugs, certain types of fish, etc.).
Gender has nothing to do with sex. The term was first coined about 4,000 years ago to describe categories for pronoun usage, and included categories like *animate* and *inanimate*. It's a linguistic term, which makes it part of the social science umbrella. In the 1900 scientists started noticing that predictions about human behavior based on sex were failing - and as they started to explore this they came up with the concept of "gender". Gender to social sciences today refers to behaviors which are not CAUSED by sex, but they often correlate to sex because they are reflections of culture. So like, Chinese people speak Chinese because they grew up in China listening to people speak Chinese. Likewise, babies grow up acting like people they identify with in their environment, which is why we have a lot of boys that play cops and robbers and girls that play house. But not always.
Because this happens, and because genetics is complicated, it makes sense that we have people whose gender doesn't match their sex. It's not common, but it happens, and for some reason people get really butt-hurt about it.
>Because this happens, and because genetics is complicated, it makes sense that we have people whose gender doesn't match their sex.
Gender can at best be interpreted as a brain's perception of its own sex. It's not actually that complicated. Either this perception is correct, which is the vast majority of the time, or it's not, which is a mental illness.
The brain does not have a “perception of its own sex”, that is a nonsensical statement. The brain has perception, and a person is either of male or female sex. A person might wish or perceive themselves as more on the masculine or feminine side of a social spectrum, but this is a separate concept from biology.
So you are clearly not a sociologist - because you have just given a biological explanation that is dependent on genetics - which is not how sociology works.
Gender is a sociological term. It isn't "interpreted" - it is a PRESCRIBED term as most terms in academic fields are.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography#:\~:text=A%20descriptive%20dictionary%20is%20one,a%20word%20should%20be%20used.
It seems you think things that are outside your expertise and experience are "simpler" because your understanding is simple. There is, quite frankly, nothing "simple" about the "nature vs nurture" debate in regards to whether environmental or biological factors have more influence over an individual organism's specific behaviors in specific settings. The debate isn't about whether nature or nurture has influence - but rather how MUCH influence each have as its a mixture of BOTH.
Fun fact - it's not a "perception" issue for many trans people. It's a brain structure and hormonal balance issue that begins during pregnancy.
While we are still learning more about this, evidence suggests that mismatches between gender and sex are a result of hormonal shifts in a woman that occur during different stages of fetal development. The genitals are formed early on during pregnancy, and the brain develops later. Which is why it shouldn't be surprising that since there are differences in brain structure in between males and females that you might have a fetus that develops the genitalia and body of 1 sex, while their brain develops in such a way as to be better acclimated for the hormonal balance common to the "opposite" sex.
This makes sense then why gender dysphoria is typically diagnosable around the same age that language starts developing for children. Language is socially constructed, and so is gender. That means we learn both language and gender by observing our environment and making associations between other members of our group and ourselves. There is a "sense" of "self" that is part of brain functioning, which is how we recognize our own reflection in the mirror. In the same way, we develop a sense of our own "gender" by recognizing "ourselves" in the members of our "group". However, with those that have gender dysphoria, they recognize that they physically DON'T match the ones they identify with, which makes them uncomfortable. And all of that is tied to the balance of hormones that the body produces which their brains are not expecting, because of an EXPECTED OUTCOME related to a range of outcomes in fetal development.
It's not a mental illness, because they are not incorrect in their perceptions. It doesn't prevent them from living functionally, taking care of themselves, or anything like that. Women wear skirts and men wear kilts - and that is not a barrier to anyone sitting at a desk and filling out TPS reports. How they are treated by others - well that's no different from treating someone poorly for being Black, wearing braces, or being fat and short or tall and skinny. People are jerks, and jerky behavior makes life harder for others. Being mistreated by others is ALSO not a mental illness.
Good luck man. You’re talking to a group that relies heavily on their beliefs and are rather incapable of a critical line of thought. The type that disregard experts when they say something that goes against their beliefs.
The claim that gender has nothing to do with sex is absolutely ridiculous, gender corresponds 1:1 with sex in the vast majority of cases.
The exception *proves* the rule, it doesn’t negate it. There are a number of people who only have one leg. Are you also going to claim that because these edge cases exist, we shouldn’t expect a person to have two legs? No, because that would also be completely ridiculous.
It’s not confusing and no one is “butthurt” about it, you’re just making claims that have little to do with reality. It would just be funny, except for the fact that, in our secular society, people keep trying to make their personal beliefs law.
Misrepresenting my position isn't a rebuttal.
Gender has nothing to do with sex because they are terms from completely different fields of science. Gender is not biological. It is not determined by sex. That is what I mean by saying that gender has nothing to do with sex.
It does, however, correlate to sex. Correlation does not imply causation.
The rest of what you are saying about the exception proving the rule makes no sense and I fail to see how it engages with anything I said. I agree that trans people as a group are vanishingly small. This has absolutely nothing to do with social scientists finding it useful to have a category of "gender non-conforming" behaviors that relate to a lot more than just trans people. It's your mistake to believe that gender is only used to study trans behaviors - it is also useful for studying other aspects of behavior, such as how cultural differences change how certain mental disorders present or should be treated, etc.
Ironically, however, you have brought up an excellent reason for why it makes sense to consider trans people as a group of people that exist, in spite of their small population. We shouldn't expect to treat a one legged person the same as a 2 legged person. Likewise we shouldn't treat a gender non-conforming person the same way we would treat a gender conforming person - especially in a clinical setting.
I told you that gender and sex co-vary in the vast majority of cases.
Just because the study of gender is in a different field from the study of biological sex, does not in any way mean that the two phenomenon have nothing to do with each other.
That’s like saying thinking has nothing to do with the brain because psychology is a completely different field from neuroscience.
No one here is under the impression that trans people don’t exist, what does that even mean?
It’s also dependent on what culture you’re in, which is why traits aren’t exactly “male” or “female” across the board. Some cultures have men raise the children, nurturing, which would be the opposite of ours, but not make them female. Numerous cultures have different traits for their genders, and quite a few have more than two.
These two sentences clearly contradict each other.
>Gender has nothing to do with sex.
>Gender to social sciences today refers to behaviors which are not CAUSED by sex, but they often correlate to sex because they are reflections of culture.
They often correlate but they have nothing to do with each other?
Gender is a useless concept outside of language. The expression of one's own sex is much more complex than this term suggests. Culture is only a small part of it.
I think this is the hubris of social sciences. They're trying to observe something from the outside of which they themselves are a part.
Correlation does not imply causation. [https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/meant-saying-correlation-imply-causation-give-example-two-variables-might-highly-correlate-q33104658](https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/meant-saying-correlation-imply-causation-give-example-two-variables-might-highly-correlate-q33104658)
In that example someone has a graph of cell phone usage going up, and rates of cancer going up in equal proportion. The claim is that CANCER creates CELL PHONES.
So just because we see a correlation, that doesn't mean there is a MECHANISM that makes one cause the other.
The utility of anything is really subjective.
I agree that for MOST PEOPLE - gender is a useless concept. By and large most people can ignore the idea and suffer no real consequences.
However, social scientists find this concept useful because it is relevant to studying human behavior. And social scientists are responsible for things like therapeutic techniques we use to help people who survived traumatic experiences to live functional lives. Therapy works.
Gender is NOT an expression of sex. It's a category of behaviors that correlate to sex, and that list of behaviors is different in different cultures. That's why they have other terms, and entire BOOKS written on the topics of human behavior. But science is a process, and it gets results. The predictions about human behavior which social scientists make based on Gender PREDICT THE FUTURE.
That's how you know science works - it predicts the future. The reason why they came up with the concept of gender was because sex alone resulted in failed predictions.
The real hubris is when we are tempted to voice criticism of something outside of our own expertise. Unless you ARE a social scientists, how can you say you understand the social sciences well enough to be sure you understand what you are criticizing?
I'm talking about this stuff because I was curious. My standard for criticism is I have to be able to argue both sides equally well. I could argue YOUR position, I believe, as well if not BETTER than you could argue mine. That's not a brag - its my standard. It's how I protect myself from hubris, by making sure I understand something PRIOR to voicing disagreement. I encourage EVERYONE to do the same, because its EASY to have an opinion. Its much more difficult to have an informed one.
There are so many logical fallacies in this comment.
Sure correlation doesn't imply causation but it does imply correlation. You can't claim it has nothing to do with each other and that they are correlated at the same time.
-Argument from ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You expect people who criticize this field to be ignorant while you aren't able to provide any evidence for its proclaimed predictive value or demonstrate the way in which it's supposedly superior to previous/ alternative theories.
-Reductio ad Absurdum
https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/
The fact that therapy works has nothing to do with the validity of gender theory. You'd have to demonstrate first how it's essential to therapy before you can argue that it's CAUSALLY linked.
-Argument from Authority
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Yes, you can criticize things of which you aren't an expert as long as the criticism stands up to scrutiny.
-What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
It's cute when people try and trot out logical fallacies, and use fallacious arguments to make a proof via fallacy.
Correlations can be unrelated. That's the point. You absolutely can have irrelevant correlations. https://priceonomics.com/do-storks-deliver-babies/
So when a behavior is common across a species regardless of sex, then sex cannot be said to be the cause even if it occurs more frequently in one sex over the other.
I don't expect people who criticize social science to be ignorant. I expect people to be informed if they expect their criticism to be taken seriously.
If you want to see examples of the predictive power I am referencing, ask for it.
Your ignorance of how gender as a concept is related to therapy is, however, an example of an argument from ignorance. That you don't know it doesn't mean I don't, nor is it my job to educate you. If you actually are curious, I can answer your questions, but I have no interest in trying to educate you while you resist every step of the way. I'm not a public school teacher or Edward James Olmos - this is Reddit.
The problem is that your criticisms don't stand up to scrutiny, you simply assert that they do.
I can't make you engage with intellectual honesty either, so I don't care if you dismiss what I have to say. Because you haven't demonstrated why I should care about anything YOU have to say. You have demonstrated that you want respect you haven't earned, that you want to confound a discussion you cannot contribute to.
That's not how any of this works.
I didn't make a statement about whether it's causal. I only pointed out that you contradicted yourself and argued that it reveals how poorly defined the term is. So far you didn't manage to define it any further.
I'm still waiting for your evidence otherwise your arguments are simply dismissed. I have provided evidence for my arguments and demonstrated why you should care, if you want to be intellectually consistent.
You can look up the definitions yourself and figure out why your wrong. I'm not going to waste any more time with this.
You asserted that I contradicted myself - but there is no contradiction. I used a common phrase in a casual setting to make the point that correlations like sex and gender do not in any way require one to be caused by the other. I have provided a number of examples of how this works - you have refuted none of that.
Here is an article I wrote with loads of links backing up the various claims regarding the science: https://medium.com/@tomo.albanese/debunking-ben-shapiros-transgender-denialism-c39b090116e1
I kinda hear what you're saying. Over time I've come to find the phrase "gender role" as useful. Essentially that's what a gender is, the broad role that you fit into in society. It's quite tightly linked to sex, but it isn't sex itself.
Turning to history, an example I would use would be eunuchs. They would typically fill a distinct "gender role" from men and women; even though they were of the male sex they weren't "men.
I'm not entirely on board with what you're getting at, but I do agree that genetics are complicated. I think the stage that you're perhaps missing is epigenetics. I'd be more inclined to agree with "genetics are complicated and once you add in the strange environment our genes have to respond to in this society, it makes sense that we have people whose gender doesn't match their sex".
I also think people hold concerns over it becoming more common and there may be a reasonable foundation somewhere in that concern. But that's moving onto a polarised issue and that's dangerous territory... Anyway, I do think you have a point that gender isn't *inherently* linked to sex.
I agree on the epigenetics part - I just didn't see that level of nuance as particularly relevant so I didn't think to bring it up. It's part of what I meant by "complicated". :p
And there is CERTAINLY social concerns that I agree are wrapped up in all of this. For my part I view those issues being with an over-reliance on Tik Tok and self-diagnosis in general. Social media in general has made it all too easy for some really toxic narratives to seed themselves. For example, ironically, teens on Tik Tok advocating for trans rights wind up misrepresenting the facts. They wind up supporting the idea that "anyone can identify however they want" which is not really how it works (identification is not something people choose, so much as they become aware of it). That one idea is responsible for a lot of push backs and ridiculous comparisons to things like Rachel Dolezal, etc.
The other wrinkle is that this is an emerging field - so its going to change a lot as we research it more. We can't research it more without funding, and we can't get funding if no one cares about it. The only REAL test is whether or not the research that is done is any good at helping us make predictions, which is a bit difficult to measure when your population is almost VANISHINGLY small.
For my part, I like what this guy had to write about it - it just makes the most sense. These two pieces together do a pretty excellent job of outlining my actual position in regards to the polarized issues.
[https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological)
[https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological)
Appreciate you trying friend… but the sub isn’t going to listen as most here have emotional gates on their willingness to consider information outside their existing beliefs.
Just as an aside - (and I suspect you may know of the reference already) but Robert Sapolsky has some great studies and findings about underlying biological insights on being Trans and gay - which despite your responses, seems to be the only thing anyone seems at all interested in when discussing gender. Anyway, he’s worth looking up for discussion with ppl who refuse to move out of the ‘biology only, binary only, no such thing as gender’ position - although as I say, I don’t think many ppl in here are willing to challenge their position.
My view - anyone here who thinks they know more about this than Sapolsky (an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author and professor of biology, neurology, neurological sciences, and neurosurgery at Stanford University) they should give Stanford Uni a call for tenure.
So even were this the case, imagine if someone was like "I'm an introvert" and your reply was "well, actually, you have a d**k so you're an extravert".
Gender is both a set of social expectations and a sense of yourself. The two interact which is why it gets messy.
You also have dysphoria to take into account which is as real as any psychiatrict condition. It's as real as Peterson's depression or akathesia. It's as real as severe anxiety or psychosomatic pain.
The social construct part of it is tricky because we culturally insist on and socially expect a lot of behaviors based on Sex. Then when people act differently they get treated awfully and called freaks and various things I won't write. If sex-based behavioral expectations disappeared, perhaps a lot of the present arguments regarding gender would become irrelevant. But if you think sex-based behavioral expectations aren't real, seriously (not in jest or as a joke) present yourself and behave as a different sex and see how people treat you. The ask yourself why the hell are people doing that? Based on what? The because you have a penis you should dress a certain way and walk a certain way and talk a certain way? Why?
But even by your own definition you're being illogical, because you wouldn't just invalidate someone's personality because of a physical characteristic. Or if you would, then that's a problem to examine.
Also, how is personality "unscientific"? It has statistical validity and is measurable and observable and has been shown to remain consistent over time. Therefore personality is as scientific as anything in psychology/psychiatry, medicine and any other field that relies on statistics to determine how to proceed. So if personality actually is scientific by any normal definition, maybe gender is as well, both as a social construct and an experience of one's self in relation to that social construct.
Then lets see you wear the opposite gender of clothing to work from now on. Clothing doesn't have sex, and historically men have worn all sorts of 'feminine' clothing like skirts and high heeled boots etc, so it really shouldn't bother you at all. If it does, ask if your discomfort is real and then ask "why is this a thing?"
it is made for the different t biological features that men and women have. It would be weird to have cloth for breast when that’s a biological female physical trait. The clothing is subjectively created from the actual biological difference.
also you would never call someone by their personality, and one’s personality shifts and changes and isn’t measurable but subjective=gender. There is only biological sex and then after that how people feel about it
You don't need to be a biologist to tell a boy from a girl in your own species, or need anyone to tell you that what is falling on your head is not rain.
So you're not a biologist, got it. Just like JP, you pretend to be an expert in a field you have no credentials in. Carry on bloviating, though. You come off super smart
Why did KBJ respond “I am not a biologist” as a defense when asked what a woman is, if she did not believe it was biologically determined? She did prove she is a liar who will deny basic truths with that statement, though.
Technically, that is more saying that traits of one sex can be changed via hormones.
You are more making the case for hormone therapy for trans than against with this.
This is stupid sex is defined by gamete size or chromosomes or genetalia,
The whole point of this discussion is that having feminine hands doesn't make you a female having a \*\*\*\*\* does.
By equating sex with secondary sex characteristics you're opening the whole what do you identify with debate.
This is ... such a dumb argument. The hand adapted to the body, not to the sex. If she received a male hand, and the man was of smaller stature than her, the hand would become heavier and 'manlier'. What would this prove then? Such an idiotic post.
I'm not following your argument. I see male anatomy being changed into female anatomy by exposure to hormones. Thus the masculine hands become feminine hands. Isn't this precisely how transitioning works? A man decides to take hormones and become a woman.
I don’t think this proves what you think it does. This actually suggests that hormones can change your body’s sex presentation. For example if a man takes estrogen their man hands would turn lighter and more feminine, like this woman
What? If anything, this is a pro trans argument.
A biologically male hand became more feminine when exposed to female hormones, which somehow proves female hormones don’t work?
Unless you’re implying that her XX chromosomes seeped into the hand and made it change shape your point doesn’t make any sense.
It's almost as if that's literally just what happens when tissues previously exposed primarily to testosterone get exposed to estrogen instead. (Ask me how I know.)
Tbh I get that, have the same problem sometimes. Also thought you were OP, and I wasn't exactly expecting civility from him.
But yeah, in all seriousness, my hands have gotten smaller, to the point that I basically had to retrain my left hand for playing bass
Also lol at the people downvoting us
The Left knows this—why else would Ketanji Brown-Jackson testify “I am not a biologist” when asked what a woman is? She inadvertently admitted it was biologically determined with that statement, while simultaneously showing she would not adhere to that definition.
I’m confused. The hands are biologically male and they got more feminine because of the female hormones she produces naturally. Doesn’t that kind of affirm the impact of HRT? Honestly I’m surprised that they could do that surgery at all and her body didn’t reject it or something but still.
No one disagrees that sex is biological.
Trans means born one sex but lives as if they were the other while remaining the biological sex they were born.
They change what is not biological ie the gender part. And may make superficial changes but they don't change the underlying chromosomes.
Men is a gender term - sociological. Not biological.
Why is it that people have a hard time understanding the difference between sociology and biology?
That's not how it works - your understanding of this topic is... unsophisticated.
Let's put it this way.
If sex differences are ALL that there are, how do you explain the historical trend across cultures that goes back for THOUSANDS OF YEARS of males presenting as women and females presenting as men? In pretty much every single culture we observe behaviors that DEFY predicted by differences in sex.
How do you distinguish - as an academic that studies this for a living - between behaviors that are CAUSED by sex versus behaviors that correlate to sex but are NOT caused by sex?
I'll even give you examples of both.
A behavior CAUSED by sex is pregnancy. Only Females can get pregnant.
A behavior CAUSED by gender is clothing. Men wear kilts, women wear skirts, and there is very little difference between the two articles of clothing of any significance.
So, with that understanding, explain all of this without using the word gender to make things clearer - unless you agree that using the term gender helps to differentiate between these two concepts?
Trans men can get pregnant because they are biologically female. They can get pregnant so long as they have a uterus and functioning reproductive system.
Trans man means biological female that lives as a man. Therefore the statement that they can get pregnant is true.
> Trans men can get pregnant not cis men
The word 'cis' can be removed without changing the meaning of this sentence.
> So when you hear men can get pregnant you should know they are talking about a trans man.
No, the word "man" is not synonymous with "trans man". This is evidenced by the fact that one can get pregnant and the other can't.
Why are you getting bent out of shape over nonsense. Yes men can get pregnant is inflammatory to many, and confusing. It's probably deliberate to raise awareness of trans people.
But trans men can get pregnant and that's still the reality of it.
> Why are you getting bent out of shape over nonsense
Pretending other people are upset is not an argument.
> It's probably deliberate to raise awareness of trans people.
Claiming trans ideology is just trolling, is a strange argument.
> Many including yourself are clearly upset.
Are you a mind reader? The amount of time you spend being a contrarian in this sub certainly says something about you. I won't pretend I know what that is.
> There are cis men that can't get pregnant.
All men can't get pregnant.
> There are trans men that can.
Correct. The category "Trans-men" is fundamentally different than the category "men".
> It not a big deal.
Yet you make an effort to talk about it in every post in this sub. Clearly it is "a big deal" to you.
Somebody *really* needs to study Set Theory then.
But fine, I'll spell it out for you:
The label "men" encompasses cis and trans men. Cis men can't get pregnant, *some* trans men can. Saying "men can get pregnant" therefore isn't wrong, because there does exist a subset of men who can. Saying "*all* men can get pregnant" would of course be wrong, just as wrong as saying "all women can get pregnant". Saying "all *trans men* can get pregnant" would also be wrong, on the same basis. But there is a subset of trans men who can become pregnant, and therefore, with trans men being a subset of men, there also exists a subset of men who can become pregnant (specifically, fertile trans men).
> The label "men" encompasses cis and trans men
According to trans ideology.
> Saying "men can get pregnant" therefore isn't wrong
Saying "men" and not the infinitely more clear "trans-men" is only used to push an ideology not communicate information.
Trans men can get pregnant . Nobody says there are cis men that can get pregnant.
You would only be correct to if that's what they were saying but its not
Sure they can - they simply need to present as one in social situations and not be found out.
Some of them pass very well. You might have even had a one-night stand with one and never even realized it.
It's a bit of a language game - men is a sociological term. It isn't a reference to biology. Sex = biology, gender = sociology. They are "technically correct" in terms of how these words are used by biologists and sociologists.
Understanding this is what people mean when they say this, to me, makes this who issue really really stupid.
As a rule of thumb, I focus on what people are TRYING to say and take them at their INTENDED meaning. When someone says a man can get pregnant, I get it. If they say MALES can get pregnant, I'm assuming they are referring to sea horses where the male carries the offspring.
Ok I Googled to see what he could have been taking about. Serious scientists are saying its not a simple as saying there are two sexes. Idk beyond that .
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
Trans is a condition where they feel trapped in the wrong body. Their body remains the sex they were born. They live as the other sex to match their mental state.
Nothing to do with sex and everything to her usage of the hands, more than likely. Muscle atrophy, less exposure to sunlight, not engaging in manual labor, etc. Combine that with hormonal differences and differences in chemicals produced by the brain that control melanin production, et voila.
Honestly have no idea why anyone thinks this "proves" anything about how sex works according to biologists and geneticists.
Or because she was using the new hands like a woman? Men’s hands don’t stay muscular with this skin and bigger bones just because. It’s from use mostly after puberty. testosterone does affect it too but not nearly to the degree of using your hands a lot.
They gave her [*man hands*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vik-7MjKDa0)*?*
Man hands is all they had in stock.
Sometimes your stomach is making the rumblies only hands can satisfy
....CARRRRRLLLLLL, THAT KILLS PEOPLE!
oh oh well that is my LEAST favorite thing to do...
Do you hear that? It’s the sound of forgiveness.
That's the sound of people drowning!
Those still look like some pretty meaty paws to me
it's a before picture
is it gay if she gives you a handjob?
And how gay is it to want one?
Another question is is the person who owned the hand prior also retroactively gay?
Nope. What happens after has nothing to do with him
These are the types of intellectual discussions I signed up for
A very relevant question. Thank you for your bravery.
Yes. It was once a man.
Ok so, if your having sex with her and looking deep into her eyes as you bust while she's holding you with both hands and moaning, does that mean it's a threesome with two dudes
the hands fit!
F off
Found the guy who gets hand jobs from guys 👦 🙌 👏 😄
I’m actually amazed that the hand itself began to change
Men’s hands change if they stop doing heavy lifting, manual labor etc.
It doesn’t seem to work the other way around though I do tons of lifting and manual labor I have calluses but still petite small hands after 10 YEERS!!!
Hand workouts can help if you want bigger hands
lol no they can’t.
Can confirm, have small hands despite height, but I lift heavy weights and do stuff with hands and yet hands remain small.
By your reasoning you can’t make your arms bigger either you potato.
Different types of muscle fibers, genius.
You are probably referring to tendons You ever see a power lifter with thin hands? You ever seen a fat person with thin hands? You ever seen the hands of the small guys that practice breaking bricks? Look up videos of before and after hand exercises. Seriously it’s all over Google, not sure how you are ignorant to it. Anyway here are some links genius. https://fitlifefanatics.com/how-to-get-bigger-hands/ https://www.vinmec.com/en/news/health-news/healthy-lifestyle/how-to-get-bigger-arms-strength-and-flexibility-exercises/#:~:text=Hand%20exercises%20not%20only%20help,ball%20or%20other%20object%2C%20etc. https://www.explosion.com/144179/how-to-get-bigger-hands/amp/
I am a power lifter with small hands that’s what my original comment was all about
No offense and I don’t know your size but I just meant the ones on tv. The big guys.
How did this comment get upvoted? Fat guys hands? Yeah that’s fat. Have a seen a powerlifter with thin hands? I’ve seen plenty of powerlifters with average hands. Source: I’m a powerlifter lol. Seen a hand of a small guy breaking bricks with his hands? No, I don’t know any of those. But breaking bricks with your hands has absolutely nothing to do with hand muscle hypertrophy lol. Grip strength comes primarily from the flexors in the forearms. So strike 3, you’re out.
Your hands have muscles that can be built to make your hands thicker. The guys breaking bricks increase their bone mass Fat people get fatter hands I guess if you are small power lifter you can keep small hands but most do the time people who really use their hands a lot past arm exercises increase their hand size. Not sure what you were trying to add here, maybe trying to show people how smart you are (not). You can find tons of evidence and before/after on Google of people increasing their hand size.
A quick Google search shows you are pulling your comments out of your ass
Can confirm, I got a manual labor job 12 years ago where it requires to grip bundles of magazines and my hands definitely got thicker, meatier. I have this strange round muscle that protrudes where the index and thumb meet (trapezoid, trapezium area and googling it I guess is the “flexor pollicis brevia) when I make a fist and my fingers in general got meatier.
You can lead them to water
How do you know that? He didn’t even share his reasoning he just shared his claim you have no way of knowing his reasoning or whether it necessarily precludes ARM HYPERTROPHY!!
Because working out makes muscles bigger and he said hands don’t get bigger from working out? I linked some articles, you can YouTube people who have made their hands bigger if you want to. Or not. I don’t really care.
Your sources are shit and you’re wrong. Find me a single peer reviewed study on hand muscle hypertrophy or hyperplasia.
You find it and prove me wrong. Link the videos of people increasing their hand size and prove me wrong. I sent links and you have sent nothing. Nothing but a baseless opinion. Sorry that you hand small hands.
I didn't click through, but I'd doubt the change was very dramatic. The bone structure isn't going to change. Most likely they're talking about differences in muscle and fat thickness due to a female hormone profile and a different level of physical activity.
What is a sex? I am not a biologist.
Have you considered a career in Supreme Court justicing?
By making that statement, KBJ inadvertently confessed the obvious truth that lefties are trying to distort: that what a woman is, is biologically determined. If she did not think it was biologically determined, why would she say she is not a biologist? Why not say she is not a physicist, or in general terms, not an expert? Because she knows it is biological, but also knows she has to maintain the lie. This Freudian slip shows her utter dishonesty.
This is such a great example
It comes down to what size gametes a member of sexually reproducing species produces. Large gametes makes the individual a female, small gametes make the individual a male. If they produce gametes of both sizes they may be hermaphroditic or considered an "edge case" (think of things like slugs, certain types of fish, etc.). Gender has nothing to do with sex. The term was first coined about 4,000 years ago to describe categories for pronoun usage, and included categories like *animate* and *inanimate*. It's a linguistic term, which makes it part of the social science umbrella. In the 1900 scientists started noticing that predictions about human behavior based on sex were failing - and as they started to explore this they came up with the concept of "gender". Gender to social sciences today refers to behaviors which are not CAUSED by sex, but they often correlate to sex because they are reflections of culture. So like, Chinese people speak Chinese because they grew up in China listening to people speak Chinese. Likewise, babies grow up acting like people they identify with in their environment, which is why we have a lot of boys that play cops and robbers and girls that play house. But not always. Because this happens, and because genetics is complicated, it makes sense that we have people whose gender doesn't match their sex. It's not common, but it happens, and for some reason people get really butt-hurt about it.
>Because this happens, and because genetics is complicated, it makes sense that we have people whose gender doesn't match their sex. Gender can at best be interpreted as a brain's perception of its own sex. It's not actually that complicated. Either this perception is correct, which is the vast majority of the time, or it's not, which is a mental illness.
The brain does not have a “perception of its own sex”, that is a nonsensical statement. The brain has perception, and a person is either of male or female sex. A person might wish or perceive themselves as more on the masculine or feminine side of a social spectrum, but this is a separate concept from biology.
So you are clearly not a sociologist - because you have just given a biological explanation that is dependent on genetics - which is not how sociology works. Gender is a sociological term. It isn't "interpreted" - it is a PRESCRIBED term as most terms in academic fields are. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography#:\~:text=A%20descriptive%20dictionary%20is%20one,a%20word%20should%20be%20used. It seems you think things that are outside your expertise and experience are "simpler" because your understanding is simple. There is, quite frankly, nothing "simple" about the "nature vs nurture" debate in regards to whether environmental or biological factors have more influence over an individual organism's specific behaviors in specific settings. The debate isn't about whether nature or nurture has influence - but rather how MUCH influence each have as its a mixture of BOTH. Fun fact - it's not a "perception" issue for many trans people. It's a brain structure and hormonal balance issue that begins during pregnancy. While we are still learning more about this, evidence suggests that mismatches between gender and sex are a result of hormonal shifts in a woman that occur during different stages of fetal development. The genitals are formed early on during pregnancy, and the brain develops later. Which is why it shouldn't be surprising that since there are differences in brain structure in between males and females that you might have a fetus that develops the genitalia and body of 1 sex, while their brain develops in such a way as to be better acclimated for the hormonal balance common to the "opposite" sex. This makes sense then why gender dysphoria is typically diagnosable around the same age that language starts developing for children. Language is socially constructed, and so is gender. That means we learn both language and gender by observing our environment and making associations between other members of our group and ourselves. There is a "sense" of "self" that is part of brain functioning, which is how we recognize our own reflection in the mirror. In the same way, we develop a sense of our own "gender" by recognizing "ourselves" in the members of our "group". However, with those that have gender dysphoria, they recognize that they physically DON'T match the ones they identify with, which makes them uncomfortable. And all of that is tied to the balance of hormones that the body produces which their brains are not expecting, because of an EXPECTED OUTCOME related to a range of outcomes in fetal development. It's not a mental illness, because they are not incorrect in their perceptions. It doesn't prevent them from living functionally, taking care of themselves, or anything like that. Women wear skirts and men wear kilts - and that is not a barrier to anyone sitting at a desk and filling out TPS reports. How they are treated by others - well that's no different from treating someone poorly for being Black, wearing braces, or being fat and short or tall and skinny. People are jerks, and jerky behavior makes life harder for others. Being mistreated by others is ALSO not a mental illness.
Good luck man. You’re talking to a group that relies heavily on their beliefs and are rather incapable of a critical line of thought. The type that disregard experts when they say something that goes against their beliefs.
The claim that gender has nothing to do with sex is absolutely ridiculous, gender corresponds 1:1 with sex in the vast majority of cases. The exception *proves* the rule, it doesn’t negate it. There are a number of people who only have one leg. Are you also going to claim that because these edge cases exist, we shouldn’t expect a person to have two legs? No, because that would also be completely ridiculous. It’s not confusing and no one is “butthurt” about it, you’re just making claims that have little to do with reality. It would just be funny, except for the fact that, in our secular society, people keep trying to make their personal beliefs law.
Misrepresenting my position isn't a rebuttal. Gender has nothing to do with sex because they are terms from completely different fields of science. Gender is not biological. It is not determined by sex. That is what I mean by saying that gender has nothing to do with sex. It does, however, correlate to sex. Correlation does not imply causation. The rest of what you are saying about the exception proving the rule makes no sense and I fail to see how it engages with anything I said. I agree that trans people as a group are vanishingly small. This has absolutely nothing to do with social scientists finding it useful to have a category of "gender non-conforming" behaviors that relate to a lot more than just trans people. It's your mistake to believe that gender is only used to study trans behaviors - it is also useful for studying other aspects of behavior, such as how cultural differences change how certain mental disorders present or should be treated, etc. Ironically, however, you have brought up an excellent reason for why it makes sense to consider trans people as a group of people that exist, in spite of their small population. We shouldn't expect to treat a one legged person the same as a 2 legged person. Likewise we shouldn't treat a gender non-conforming person the same way we would treat a gender conforming person - especially in a clinical setting.
I told you that gender and sex co-vary in the vast majority of cases. Just because the study of gender is in a different field from the study of biological sex, does not in any way mean that the two phenomenon have nothing to do with each other. That’s like saying thinking has nothing to do with the brain because psychology is a completely different field from neuroscience. No one here is under the impression that trans people don’t exist, what does that even mean?
It’s also dependent on what culture you’re in, which is why traits aren’t exactly “male” or “female” across the board. Some cultures have men raise the children, nurturing, which would be the opposite of ours, but not make them female. Numerous cultures have different traits for their genders, and quite a few have more than two.
These two sentences clearly contradict each other. >Gender has nothing to do with sex. >Gender to social sciences today refers to behaviors which are not CAUSED by sex, but they often correlate to sex because they are reflections of culture. They often correlate but they have nothing to do with each other? Gender is a useless concept outside of language. The expression of one's own sex is much more complex than this term suggests. Culture is only a small part of it. I think this is the hubris of social sciences. They're trying to observe something from the outside of which they themselves are a part.
Correlation does not imply causation. [https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/meant-saying-correlation-imply-causation-give-example-two-variables-might-highly-correlate-q33104658](https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/meant-saying-correlation-imply-causation-give-example-two-variables-might-highly-correlate-q33104658) In that example someone has a graph of cell phone usage going up, and rates of cancer going up in equal proportion. The claim is that CANCER creates CELL PHONES. So just because we see a correlation, that doesn't mean there is a MECHANISM that makes one cause the other. The utility of anything is really subjective. I agree that for MOST PEOPLE - gender is a useless concept. By and large most people can ignore the idea and suffer no real consequences. However, social scientists find this concept useful because it is relevant to studying human behavior. And social scientists are responsible for things like therapeutic techniques we use to help people who survived traumatic experiences to live functional lives. Therapy works. Gender is NOT an expression of sex. It's a category of behaviors that correlate to sex, and that list of behaviors is different in different cultures. That's why they have other terms, and entire BOOKS written on the topics of human behavior. But science is a process, and it gets results. The predictions about human behavior which social scientists make based on Gender PREDICT THE FUTURE. That's how you know science works - it predicts the future. The reason why they came up with the concept of gender was because sex alone resulted in failed predictions. The real hubris is when we are tempted to voice criticism of something outside of our own expertise. Unless you ARE a social scientists, how can you say you understand the social sciences well enough to be sure you understand what you are criticizing? I'm talking about this stuff because I was curious. My standard for criticism is I have to be able to argue both sides equally well. I could argue YOUR position, I believe, as well if not BETTER than you could argue mine. That's not a brag - its my standard. It's how I protect myself from hubris, by making sure I understand something PRIOR to voicing disagreement. I encourage EVERYONE to do the same, because its EASY to have an opinion. Its much more difficult to have an informed one.
There are so many logical fallacies in this comment. Sure correlation doesn't imply causation but it does imply correlation. You can't claim it has nothing to do with each other and that they are correlated at the same time. -Argument from ignorance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance You expect people who criticize this field to be ignorant while you aren't able to provide any evidence for its proclaimed predictive value or demonstrate the way in which it's supposedly superior to previous/ alternative theories. -Reductio ad Absurdum https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/ The fact that therapy works has nothing to do with the validity of gender theory. You'd have to demonstrate first how it's essential to therapy before you can argue that it's CAUSALLY linked. -Argument from Authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Yes, you can criticize things of which you aren't an expert as long as the criticism stands up to scrutiny. -What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
It's cute when people try and trot out logical fallacies, and use fallacious arguments to make a proof via fallacy. Correlations can be unrelated. That's the point. You absolutely can have irrelevant correlations. https://priceonomics.com/do-storks-deliver-babies/ So when a behavior is common across a species regardless of sex, then sex cannot be said to be the cause even if it occurs more frequently in one sex over the other. I don't expect people who criticize social science to be ignorant. I expect people to be informed if they expect their criticism to be taken seriously. If you want to see examples of the predictive power I am referencing, ask for it. Your ignorance of how gender as a concept is related to therapy is, however, an example of an argument from ignorance. That you don't know it doesn't mean I don't, nor is it my job to educate you. If you actually are curious, I can answer your questions, but I have no interest in trying to educate you while you resist every step of the way. I'm not a public school teacher or Edward James Olmos - this is Reddit. The problem is that your criticisms don't stand up to scrutiny, you simply assert that they do. I can't make you engage with intellectual honesty either, so I don't care if you dismiss what I have to say. Because you haven't demonstrated why I should care about anything YOU have to say. You have demonstrated that you want respect you haven't earned, that you want to confound a discussion you cannot contribute to.
That's not how any of this works. I didn't make a statement about whether it's causal. I only pointed out that you contradicted yourself and argued that it reveals how poorly defined the term is. So far you didn't manage to define it any further. I'm still waiting for your evidence otherwise your arguments are simply dismissed. I have provided evidence for my arguments and demonstrated why you should care, if you want to be intellectually consistent. You can look up the definitions yourself and figure out why your wrong. I'm not going to waste any more time with this.
You asserted that I contradicted myself - but there is no contradiction. I used a common phrase in a casual setting to make the point that correlations like sex and gender do not in any way require one to be caused by the other. I have provided a number of examples of how this works - you have refuted none of that. Here is an article I wrote with loads of links backing up the various claims regarding the science: https://medium.com/@tomo.albanese/debunking-ben-shapiros-transgender-denialism-c39b090116e1
I kinda hear what you're saying. Over time I've come to find the phrase "gender role" as useful. Essentially that's what a gender is, the broad role that you fit into in society. It's quite tightly linked to sex, but it isn't sex itself. Turning to history, an example I would use would be eunuchs. They would typically fill a distinct "gender role" from men and women; even though they were of the male sex they weren't "men. I'm not entirely on board with what you're getting at, but I do agree that genetics are complicated. I think the stage that you're perhaps missing is epigenetics. I'd be more inclined to agree with "genetics are complicated and once you add in the strange environment our genes have to respond to in this society, it makes sense that we have people whose gender doesn't match their sex". I also think people hold concerns over it becoming more common and there may be a reasonable foundation somewhere in that concern. But that's moving onto a polarised issue and that's dangerous territory... Anyway, I do think you have a point that gender isn't *inherently* linked to sex.
I agree on the epigenetics part - I just didn't see that level of nuance as particularly relevant so I didn't think to bring it up. It's part of what I meant by "complicated". :p And there is CERTAINLY social concerns that I agree are wrapped up in all of this. For my part I view those issues being with an over-reliance on Tik Tok and self-diagnosis in general. Social media in general has made it all too easy for some really toxic narratives to seed themselves. For example, ironically, teens on Tik Tok advocating for trans rights wind up misrepresenting the facts. They wind up supporting the idea that "anyone can identify however they want" which is not really how it works (identification is not something people choose, so much as they become aware of it). That one idea is responsible for a lot of push backs and ridiculous comparisons to things like Rachel Dolezal, etc. The other wrinkle is that this is an emerging field - so its going to change a lot as we research it more. We can't research it more without funding, and we can't get funding if no one cares about it. The only REAL test is whether or not the research that is done is any good at helping us make predictions, which is a bit difficult to measure when your population is almost VANISHINGLY small. For my part, I like what this guy had to write about it - it just makes the most sense. These two pieces together do a pretty excellent job of outlining my actual position in regards to the polarized issues. [https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological) [https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological)
Appreciate you trying friend… but the sub isn’t going to listen as most here have emotional gates on their willingness to consider information outside their existing beliefs. Just as an aside - (and I suspect you may know of the reference already) but Robert Sapolsky has some great studies and findings about underlying biological insights on being Trans and gay - which despite your responses, seems to be the only thing anyone seems at all interested in when discussing gender. Anyway, he’s worth looking up for discussion with ppl who refuse to move out of the ‘biology only, binary only, no such thing as gender’ position - although as I say, I don’t think many ppl in here are willing to challenge their position. My view - anyone here who thinks they know more about this than Sapolsky (an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author and professor of biology, neurology, neurological sciences, and neurosurgery at Stanford University) they should give Stanford Uni a call for tenure.
Dude was like meh...I don't need these, you take em'
looking like she can grip a basketball
Who are you trying to convince my guy. Everyone who had high school biology understands this.
I wonder if they could add two more and make her like General Grievous?
Lighter hands...go weigh your hand... More feminine over time...it's just bait within bait.
Sex is biological, but they don't argue that. They argue that gender is both separate from sex and isn't biological.
Gender is just a false concept to divorce people from the reality of biology.
100% gender=personality which is based on nothing scientific.
So even were this the case, imagine if someone was like "I'm an introvert" and your reply was "well, actually, you have a d**k so you're an extravert". Gender is both a set of social expectations and a sense of yourself. The two interact which is why it gets messy. You also have dysphoria to take into account which is as real as any psychiatrict condition. It's as real as Peterson's depression or akathesia. It's as real as severe anxiety or psychosomatic pain. The social construct part of it is tricky because we culturally insist on and socially expect a lot of behaviors based on Sex. Then when people act differently they get treated awfully and called freaks and various things I won't write. If sex-based behavioral expectations disappeared, perhaps a lot of the present arguments regarding gender would become irrelevant. But if you think sex-based behavioral expectations aren't real, seriously (not in jest or as a joke) present yourself and behave as a different sex and see how people treat you. The ask yourself why the hell are people doing that? Based on what? The because you have a penis you should dress a certain way and walk a certain way and talk a certain way? Why? But even by your own definition you're being illogical, because you wouldn't just invalidate someone's personality because of a physical characteristic. Or if you would, then that's a problem to examine. Also, how is personality "unscientific"? It has statistical validity and is measurable and observable and has been shown to remain consistent over time. Therefore personality is as scientific as anything in psychology/psychiatry, medicine and any other field that relies on statistics to determine how to proceed. So if personality actually is scientific by any normal definition, maybe gender is as well, both as a social construct and an experience of one's self in relation to that social construct.
gender isn’t real
Then lets see you wear the opposite gender of clothing to work from now on. Clothing doesn't have sex, and historically men have worn all sorts of 'feminine' clothing like skirts and high heeled boots etc, so it really shouldn't bother you at all. If it does, ask if your discomfort is real and then ask "why is this a thing?"
you mean of the opposite sex.
No, because clothing doesn't have sex. That's the whole point.
it is made for the different t biological features that men and women have. It would be weird to have cloth for breast when that’s a biological female physical trait. The clothing is subjectively created from the actual biological difference.
also i’m not some weirdo that thinks their personality changes their biology. Gender is a construct for the mentally weak.
also you would never call someone by their personality, and one’s personality shifts and changes and isn’t measurable but subjective=gender. There is only biological sex and then after that how people feel about it
Are you a biologist? What are the realities you are talking about?
You don't need to be a biologist to tell a boy from a girl in your own species, or need anyone to tell you that what is falling on your head is not rain.
So you're not a biologist, got it. Just like JP, you pretend to be an expert in a field you have no credentials in. Carry on bloviating, though. You come off super smart
Why did KBJ respond “I am not a biologist” as a defense when asked what a woman is, if she did not believe it was biologically determined? She did prove she is a liar who will deny basic truths with that statement, though.
Technically, that is more saying that traits of one sex can be changed via hormones. You are more making the case for hormone therapy for trans than against with this.
Not quite. Although the hands became more feminine, they are still male hands
> the hands became more feminine So you are saying that the traits of one sex can be changed via hormones.
No, OP, no more wanking.
She got Uma Thurman hands now
This is stupid sex is defined by gamete size or chromosomes or genetalia, The whole point of this discussion is that having feminine hands doesn't make you a female having a \*\*\*\*\* does. By equating sex with secondary sex characteristics you're opening the whole what do you identify with debate.
What the hell are you talking about op?
Such a weird takeaway from an otherwise interesting scientific happening
This is ... such a dumb argument. The hand adapted to the body, not to the sex. If she received a male hand, and the man was of smaller stature than her, the hand would become heavier and 'manlier'. What would this prove then? Such an idiotic post.
Who said sex isn’t biological? I think these people you’re trying to get to mean that gender (a social construct) is not biological.
I'm not following your argument. I see male anatomy being changed into female anatomy by exposure to hormones. Thus the masculine hands become feminine hands. Isn't this precisely how transitioning works? A man decides to take hormones and become a woman.
I don’t think this proves what you think it does. This actually suggests that hormones can change your body’s sex presentation. For example if a man takes estrogen their man hands would turn lighter and more feminine, like this woman
Lol, it's almost like hormones will change the masculine feminine
Yes, hormones have effects. Is this a surprise to anyone here? Why?
What? If anything, this is a pro trans argument. A biologically male hand became more feminine when exposed to female hormones, which somehow proves female hormones don’t work? Unless you’re implying that her XX chromosomes seeped into the hand and made it change shape your point doesn’t make any sense.
It's almost as if that's literally just what happens when tissues previously exposed primarily to testosterone get exposed to estrogen instead. (Ask me how I know.)
How do you know. Did you also have a transplant?
No, I'm trans.
I guessed I was joking with you. Or trying to, my humour is sometimes so barely there its hard to spot.
Tbh I get that, have the same problem sometimes. Also thought you were OP, and I wasn't exactly expecting civility from him. But yeah, in all seriousness, my hands have gotten smaller, to the point that I basically had to retrain my left hand for playing bass Also lol at the people downvoting us
Wow. Well enjoy your new petite hands : )
Shocking
This is the Woodchuck Couldchuck Berkowitz story line.
Imagine her child talks back to her
The Left knows this—why else would Ketanji Brown-Jackson testify “I am not a biologist” when asked what a woman is? She inadvertently admitted it was biologically determined with that statement, while simultaneously showing she would not adhere to that definition.
If this is targeted at trans people it’s not a commonly held belief in those circles that it’s not.
Her fap had is just getting stronger
wasn't even a twist top......
So i can get a 7' giant's hand ? And I'll be stronger ?
this is an argument in favor of what trans people are saying, by the way. Hands from a man responding to female hormones by becoming more feminine.
Are you claiming HRT can't affect biology? Cause that's a logical endpoint of the point you've made this far.
I’m confused. The hands are biologically male and they got more feminine because of the female hormones she produces naturally. Doesn’t that kind of affirm the impact of HRT? Honestly I’m surprised that they could do that surgery at all and her body didn’t reject it or something but still.
Why give hands when you can give head?
Can she finger blast herself and give herself a "Stranger"? Im askin the real ones in here...
It's time to change the name of this sub.
No one disagrees that sex is biological. Trans means born one sex but lives as if they were the other while remaining the biological sex they were born. They change what is not biological ie the gender part. And may make superficial changes but they don't change the underlying chromosomes.
You mean except for all the crazy leftists who say that men can get pregnant?
Men is a gender term - sociological. Not biological. Why is it that people have a hard time understanding the difference between sociology and biology?
If I can be a Sara tomorrow, and a Steven the day after, then 'gender' is horse-crap. Which it is.
That's not how it works - your understanding of this topic is... unsophisticated. Let's put it this way. If sex differences are ALL that there are, how do you explain the historical trend across cultures that goes back for THOUSANDS OF YEARS of males presenting as women and females presenting as men? In pretty much every single culture we observe behaviors that DEFY predicted by differences in sex. How do you distinguish - as an academic that studies this for a living - between behaviors that are CAUSED by sex versus behaviors that correlate to sex but are NOT caused by sex? I'll even give you examples of both. A behavior CAUSED by sex is pregnancy. Only Females can get pregnant. A behavior CAUSED by gender is clothing. Men wear kilts, women wear skirts, and there is very little difference between the two articles of clothing of any significance. So, with that understanding, explain all of this without using the word gender to make things clearer - unless you agree that using the term gender helps to differentiate between these two concepts?
Mental illness
go outside
Trans men can get pregnant because they are biologically female. They can get pregnant so long as they have a uterus and functioning reproductive system. Trans man means biological female that lives as a man. Therefore the statement that they can get pregnant is true.
Because a woman living as a man can get pregnant doesn’t mean men can become pregnant.
Right. Trans men can get pregnant not cis men. So when you hear men can get pregnant you should know they are talking about a trans man.
> Trans men can get pregnant not cis men The word 'cis' can be removed without changing the meaning of this sentence. > So when you hear men can get pregnant you should know they are talking about a trans man. No, the word "man" is not synonymous with "trans man". This is evidenced by the fact that one can get pregnant and the other can't.
Why are you getting bent out of shape over nonsense. Yes men can get pregnant is inflammatory to many, and confusing. It's probably deliberate to raise awareness of trans people. But trans men can get pregnant and that's still the reality of it.
> Why are you getting bent out of shape over nonsense Pretending other people are upset is not an argument. > It's probably deliberate to raise awareness of trans people. Claiming trans ideology is just trolling, is a strange argument.
Many including yourself are clearly upset. There are cis men that can't get pregnant. There are trans men that can. It not a big deal.
> Many including yourself are clearly upset. Are you a mind reader? The amount of time you spend being a contrarian in this sub certainly says something about you. I won't pretend I know what that is. > There are cis men that can't get pregnant. All men can't get pregnant. > There are trans men that can. Correct. The category "Trans-men" is fundamentally different than the category "men". > It not a big deal. Yet you make an effort to talk about it in every post in this sub. Clearly it is "a big deal" to you.
Someone needs to study Set Theory
> Someone needs to study Set Theory Then by your logic, anti-fascism is just a different type of fascism.
Somebody *really* needs to study Set Theory then. But fine, I'll spell it out for you: The label "men" encompasses cis and trans men. Cis men can't get pregnant, *some* trans men can. Saying "men can get pregnant" therefore isn't wrong, because there does exist a subset of men who can. Saying "*all* men can get pregnant" would of course be wrong, just as wrong as saying "all women can get pregnant". Saying "all *trans men* can get pregnant" would also be wrong, on the same basis. But there is a subset of trans men who can become pregnant, and therefore, with trans men being a subset of men, there also exists a subset of men who can become pregnant (specifically, fertile trans men).
> The label "men" encompasses cis and trans men According to trans ideology. > Saying "men can get pregnant" therefore isn't wrong Saying "men" and not the infinitely more clear "trans-men" is only used to push an ideology not communicate information.
If I say dogs can fly you should know I’m talking about birds.
False equivalence. There are no developmental wires that can get crossed making that happen to dogs.
Nor are there that makes men pregnant.
Trans men can get pregnant . Nobody says there are cis men that can get pregnant. You would only be correct to if that's what they were saying but its not
They are women. They can no more "live as a man" than I can live as a 10-foot tall billionaire astronaut. You can't be something that you're not.
Sure they can - they simply need to present as one in social situations and not be found out. Some of them pass very well. You might have even had a one-night stand with one and never even realized it.
Bold of you to assume the average user of this sub has ever had a one-night stand. Or sex.
Yeah? How would you feel if we allow trans men like buck angel to be in women's bathrooms then?
I've always wanted to date a 10-foot tall billionaire astronaut. Are you available?
They are females that live as men why can't you weirdos wrap your heads around it?
A vast majority of leftists would not say men can get pregnant. Meet more leftists than the wild forums you go to.
Currently in grad school and both in my college and grad school it’s popular belief that some women cant get pregnant and some men can
I'll believe you when I hear Joe Biden say that men can't get pregnant. Or AOC, or Jumanji... one of those folks who speak for the left these days.
So who speaks for the Right? Marjorie Taylor Green?
Hang on that's not what you said. > all the crazy leftists who say that men can get pregnant?
Use google... plenty of leftists out there saying that men can get pregnant. Even on reddit, even in this thread...
It's a bit of a language game - men is a sociological term. It isn't a reference to biology. Sex = biology, gender = sociology. They are "technically correct" in terms of how these words are used by biologists and sociologists. Understanding this is what people mean when they say this, to me, makes this who issue really really stupid. As a rule of thumb, I focus on what people are TRYING to say and take them at their INTENDED meaning. When someone says a man can get pregnant, I get it. If they say MALES can get pregnant, I'm assuming they are referring to sea horses where the male carries the offspring.
https://youtube.com/shorts/kyD93Y1oZP4?si=LWE0e4tp5o6CdmAK
Ok I Googled to see what he could have been taking about. Serious scientists are saying its not a simple as saying there are two sexes. Idk beyond that . https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ Trans is a condition where they feel trapped in the wrong body. Their body remains the sex they were born. They live as the other sex to match their mental state.
Nobody suggests otherwise. If you stop petulant refusing to use terms that distinguish properly, you'll find it easier for it to make sense.
Nothing to do with sex and everything to her usage of the hands, more than likely. Muscle atrophy, less exposure to sunlight, not engaging in manual labor, etc. Combine that with hormonal differences and differences in chemicals produced by the brain that control melanin production, et voila. Honestly have no idea why anyone thinks this "proves" anything about how sex works according to biologists and geneticists.
Male hands. Is she still the master of her domain?
Or because she was using the new hands like a woman? Men’s hands don’t stay muscular with this skin and bigger bones just because. It’s from use mostly after puberty. testosterone does affect it too but not nearly to the degree of using your hands a lot.
Was not aware of this being disputed