oh boy...nothing good will ever come of such a pic...

and i didn't put an artist as i'm not sure which name in this pic is that of the artist.

Identity politics, furry style. It had to come sooner or later, I guess. Well, what you're waiting for? Kill it with fire!

Two hearts on his chest and there's two genders. Fitting.

I think the gendercorn is a great idea. I guess not many here agree. IDK that this is really the place for a positive response to it, anyhow XD

SpaceMustard said:
Two hearts on his chest and there's two genders. Fitting.

Gender != sex. Sex is what you physically are, gender is what you emotionally or socially are. There are societies that don't adhere to a gender binary.

SpaceMustard said:
Two hearts on his chest and there's two genders. Fitting.

Fun fact: there's actually 3 physical genders to be born with. Male, Female, and in rare cases, hermaphrodite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

EDIT: I just realized this comment would be perfect for the child post

Bongani said:
Gender != sex. Sex is what you physically are, gender is what you emotionally or socially are. There are societies that don't adhere to a gender binary.

There are also societies that treat gender as a synonym for sex. Them doing so doesn't make them wrong just because you don't.

HeartSoul said:
Fun fact: there's actually 3 physical genders to be born with. Male, Female, and in rare cases, hermaphrodite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

EDIT: I just realized this comment would be perfect for the child post

actually, hermaphrodite (like all intersex) isn't a 3rd sex. it's just when something has both male and female genitals.

I'll be sure to keep myself updated on how this comment section goes.

HeartSoul said:
Fun fact: there's actually 3 physical genders to be born with. Male, Female, and in rare cases, hermaphrodite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

EDIT: I just realized this comment would be perfect for the child post

Intersex is a disorder. It's no different from polydactyly.

treos said:
actually, hermaphrodite (like all intersex) isn't a 3rd sex. it's just when something has both male and female genitals.

You mean male and female gonads. I don't think it's possible to have both a penis and a vagina at the same time since both develop from the same tissue.

Why must tumblr leak into everything?

On a side note anyone else notice the unicorns creepy black stoned eyes?

Anon_e-moose said:
Why must Hellsite™ leak into everything?

Because that's what cancer does?

BlueDingo said:
There are also societies that treat gender as a synonym for sex. Them doing so doesn't make them wrong just because you don't.

That is largely because to them there aren't genders, only sexes.

Bongani said:
That is largely because to them there aren't genders, only sexes.

Actually, it's because gender was originally a grammatical term for grouping words based on their relation to sex.

Duck Duck Go - 1st definition
merriam-webster.com - 1st definition
thefreedictionary.com - 1st definition
Wiktionary - 1st definition

It became a synonym for sex after that due to its inherent link with sex, then this "feelz before realz" thing after that by people who hate their sex enough to want it changed.

HeartSoul said:
Fun fact: there's actually 3 physical genders to be born with. Male, Female, and in rare cases, hermaphrodite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

EDIT: I just realized this comment would be perfect for the child post

That's not really as much as a "gender" as it is a physical deformity, or at least that's what the doctors in amerifat land said.

"Sexual Orientation" =/= "Personality Type" =/= "Biological Sex" =/= "Romantic Interest"

Goddamn is it annoying to see all of those traits mushed together.

Whether or not somebody acts 'girly' or 'manly' doesn't mean a thing in terms of what said individual is attracted to. Being bisexual isn't the same thing as being transgender. Emotional interests in romance too is something that naturally will change over time and warp depending on one's mood... there's no reason to think that somebody really wanting a girlfriend (or boyfriend) in 2016 might spend all of 2017 not even looking for a relationship due to stress (that's life, damn it).

And, of course, whether or not there are two biological sexes (I think there is) is totally irrelevant to whether or not somebody should use the government to try to be a dick to other people (no, seriously, the government shouldn't be fucking people over and discrimination based on sex/race/looks/whatever is bullshit).

Skybridge said:
I'll be sure to keep myself updated on how this comment section goes.

Just as I expected.

My question is, why do we bother identifying as one way or another if we want everyone to be equal? Why do we limit ourselves with complicated and confusing labels like this?

ForThePlot said:
My question is, why do we bother identifying as one way or another if we want everyone to be equal? Why do we limit ourselves with complicated and confusing labels like this?

I don't think it's that the categories themselves are wrong. It's more that people want to hurt other people and use category differences as an excuse. For goodness' sake, look at sports teams. Same ethnicities, same religions, same nationalities, same languages, and same everything else often-- with people from other sides of a neighborhood, so alike that they might as well be clones-- yet people literally beat each other senseless in riots just because Team A wearing red won and Team B wearing blue lost. Alas.

"Gender" is a six letter word, six is an even number, 6\3= 2

Two genders confirmed.

ForThePlot said:
My question is, why do we bother identifying as one way or another if we want everyone to be equal? Why do we limit ourselves with complicated and confusing labels like this?

Because man can't give birth and woman can't get another woman pregnant, no matter how much hormone therapy they undergo. There's also other biological differences but talking about then would cause even bigger flamewar so I'm not gonna do that.

Jormeli said:
Because man can't give birth and woman can't get another woman pregnant, no matter how much hormone therapy they undergo. There's also other biological differences but talking about then would cause even bigger flamewar so I'm not gonna do that.

I don't know if you're technically correct, or technically wrong xD

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/trans-man-pregnancy-dad-trnd/index.html

I've heard that drinking clorox bleach is a better alternative to this, because at least that has an actual affect on your body compared to this shit.

GreatestEver said:
I've heard that drinking clorox bleach is a better alternative to this, because at least that has an actual affect on your body compared to this shit.

It's very effective at cleansing your palate. I'm more of a Domestos man myself.

CCoyote said:
Sheltered much? Instead of trying to impose on others how things should be, try looking at they actually are. A person was born with female genitalia and a male identity. We have the technology to address that gender dismorphia, so we did. Now there is a man with a uterus carrying a baby. It is happening, so it is clearly possible. If you can't handle that, well, that's for you to deal with, not everyone else.

A man is male by definition. If you have a female reproductive system (excluding a surgically implanted one, of course) , you are not male, therefore not a man.

treos said:
ugh...fake news network...

TRIGGERED

...

And then you posted a link to the Daily Mail, which well predicted the rest of your response. I don't blame you for finding it unusual and confrontational. But if you're incapable of comprehending it or feeling the need to leave it out of your world of consideration, just make sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out ;)

procrastinator said:

TRIGGERED

...

And then you posted a link to the Daily Mail, which well predicted the rest of your response. I don't blame you for finding it unusual and confrontational. But if you're incapable of comprehending it or feeling the need to leave it out of your world of consideration, just make sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out ;)

oi, males do not have, nor are they born with, the physical anatomy required for child birth. it is about as unnatural as one can get. MALES are biologically incapable of giving birth to anything. but i see you're among those who have difficulty understanding facts and how biology works.

therefore, that was not a father who gave birth but rather a mother.

where would a kid even come out of for a male? his ass?

and don't pull that "triggered" bullshit with me. i'm not a snowflake like that woman pretending to be a man. nor am i a stupid SJW. unlike those people i happen to be both sane and normal.

Jormeli said:
Because man can't give birth and woman can't get another woman pregnant, no matter how much hormone therapy they undergo. There's also other biological differences but talking about then would cause even bigger flamewar so I'm not gonna do that.

I mean aside from biology. We can't change biology (at least not yet). I mean things like who you prefer to have sex with. I don't think that can properly be labeled because who you find attractive can change, and isn't always under clear-cut rules. Why bother calling ourselves straight, gay, bi, whatever, when it's just an arbitrary grouping based on the few common traits of the people you're attracted to?

treos said:
oi, males do not have, nor are they born with, the physical anatomy required for child birth. it is about as unnatural as one can get. MALES are biologically incapable of giving birth to anything. but i see you're among those who have difficulty understanding facts and how biology works.

therefore, that was not a father who gave birth but rather a mother.

where would a kid even come out of for a male? his ass?

and don't pull that "triggered" bullshit with me. i'm not a snowflake like that woman pretending to be a man. nor am i a stupid SJW. unlike those people i happen to be both sane and normal.

All this whining about what's "natural" or not. I don't know if you've noticed, but we humans have been giving nature the finger ever since agriculture was invented about 10,000 years ago. At least now we're changing our own bodies instead of the land itself. For shit's sake, you're typing this on a damn furry porn site.

CCoyote said:
Sheltered much? Instead of trying to impose on others how things should be, try looking at they actually are.

Not even sure what to say here.. *rollseyes*

CCoyote said: A person was born with female genitalia and a male identity. We have the technology to address that gender dismorphia, so we did. Now there is a man with a uterus carrying a baby. It is happening, so it is clearly possible.

Correction. That's a female with a uterus carrying a baby, who thinks and acts like they are a man. (not a male)

I could see that you're clearly misinformed and very confused about this topic. These might help some.

h_ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproductive_system
h_ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

CCoyote said: If you can't handle that, well, that's for you to deal with, not everyone else.

That's our (the other 99%'s) line. But I find it really funny given the rest of your post that you would say something like this.. irony *rollseyes*

CCoyote said:

Gender and genitals are not the same thing.

No one said they were.

CCoyote said:
Okay, I get it. You've made up your mind, and you're not listening any more. Ears plugged, head in sand. Thinking beyond your preconceived ideas isn't your thing. I understand. But for the six-hundred-billionth time, I'm going to say it anyway—

a big part of why so many people oppose and dislike trans and pro-trans people is the denial of facts and reality.

you can say otherwise and deny things all you want but...

Gender and genitals are not the same thing.

this is true but it doesn't change the fact that men can't give birth as they lack the necessary anatomy.

*gasp* one of my comments on this post was reported for the dreaded crime of TRANSPHOBIA! oh, whatever shall i do? lol

treos said:
*gasp* one of my comments on this post was reported for the dreaded crime of TRANSPHOBIA! oh, whatever shall i do? lol

why you are like this

CCoyote said:
Then why, during a discussion about gender, was evidence presented from two Wikipedia pages on the subject of genitalia? It's right there for everyone to see.

Because 99.999% of the time, males have a male reproductive system and females have a female reproductive system. You're the one refusing to accept that.

CCoyote said:
It looks like you're the one denying facts and reality.

What the title says: Transgender man gives birth to baby boy.
What you think it means: Man gives birth to baby boy.
What it actually means: Female gives birth to baby boy.

A female by any other name is still a female.

CCoyote said:
I never said I had a problem accepting that. What I don't accept is the assertion that that means males have male reproductive systems 100% of the time. They don't.

I know. Defects and deformities exist, surgical procedures (castration, penectomy, etc.) are a thing and some lose it via injury. You'll never find a female with a penis, though, unless it's been grafted on or something. This is why I said 99.999% instead of 100%.

CCoyote said:
It looks like you're the one denying facts and reality.

um...as bluedingo pointed out. that's still extremely likely a female giving birth.

CCoyote said:
Neither of you is listening. You're not trying to understand. You don't want to understand. I don't feel compelled or see any reason to continue this discussion.

you're trying to argue that a male human can give birth to children. unless what bluedingo said happens or some borderline impossible miracle of nature happens where a male human is born with a female reproductive system, a male human can not give birth to children. it simply is not possible.

you're the one refusing to listen and understand.

if the person in those linked articles was born with female genitals and a female reproductive system then that person was female. no amount of arguing or debating will change that in the slightest. and until said person gives birth, has the sex change operation and other stuff done to their body they are still a biological female regardless of how they look, feel, or think.

this is something that cannot be changed. not yet anyway.

CCoyote said:
Neither of you is listening. You're not trying to understand.

Because we're right. You're the one who's not understanding.

If I had a dollar for each gender, I'd have 2 dollars and hundreds of dollars in monopoly money

Untamed said:
If I had a dollar for each gender, I'd have 2 dollars and hundreds of dollars in monopoly money

Unless you land on Old Kent Road and lose that $2 from rent.

CCoyote said:
I never said I had a problem accepting that. What I don't accept is the assertion that that means males have male reproductive systems 100% of the time. They don't.

1. Males not having male reproductive systems 100% of the time =/= females having functioning male reproductive systems any % of the time!

2. The whole "but some members of ____ group don't have a natural biological ____ because of injury or defect, so the logic of ____ always naturally = ____ isn't true! and thus anything goes." is a massive red herring and logical fallacy, but used all the time in these types of debates.

CCoyote said:
Neither of you is listening. You're not trying to understand. You don't want to understand. I don't feel compelled or see any reason to continue this discussion.

What else is there to understand?? Other than buying into essentially ideological new think.

ForThePlot said:
My question is, why do we bother identifying as one way or another if we want everyone to be equal? Why do we limit ourselves with complicated and confusing labels like this?

We don't want everyone to be equal.
Communism sucks.

The poor thing looks like it's suffering and just wants someone to take it out back to finish it.

post #282245

I am confused as hell... (Wow that's rare.)

Back in my day nobody worried about this, it was kept personal.

There are only two genders, anything else was a birth defect. Simple as that. And anyone who suffered a birth defect of any kind should NEVER EVER be looked down upon.
Accidents happen, but that shall never make a victim any less human than a normal person. Victims shall never feel ashamed of their defects, they had no control of it.

I do have zero tolerance for bigotry, and discrimination against transgender/transsexuals fall under this as well.

Now is this appropriate for young children? Perhaps not. But it is important to effectively educate them that defects like this do happen and there is no need to fear or discriminate against it.

BlueDingo said:
Actually, it's because gender was originally a grammatical term for grouping words based on their relation to sex.

Then we have Spanish where dresses are (grammatically),El vestido, male. And keys are (grammatically) female, la llave.

the funny part is that this is so hard to follow

Datgayboi said:
Then we have Spanish where dresses are (grammatically),El vestido, male. And keys are (grammatically) female, la llave.

Isn't Spanish one of the languages where everything is masculine until specified otherwise?

Goddamn I fucking love how judgmental furries can be. Themselves rejected by mainstream society as freaks and sexual deviants, they jump at the chance to start hella drama over this sort of shit as soon as it appears... always talkin mad shit like the worst kind of hypocrites. I guess it makes y'all feel better to know that there's someone lower down on the "societal acceptance" totem pole than you XD

"Males can't give birth" except they can, because seahorses exist.

"Changing gender is unnatural!" Except it's not, because other species do it all the time. :)

mr_krinkle said:
"Males can't give birth" except they can, because seahorses exist.

"Changing gender is unnatural!" Except it's not, because other species do it all the time. :)

I know this comment is incredibly old and that adding another comment to this image is basically like beating a dead horse, but:

While there may be species on this planet where it's possible (and even normal) for the males to give birth or for the creature to change genders, it is neither normal nor possible for humans.
Human (biological) males cannot give birth.
Humans cannot (biologically) change their gender.

What's normal for other species isn't always normal for humans. Just because something is natural for other species doesn't automatically mean it's natural for humans.
Otherwise you're going to have to explain how the symbiotic relationship between male and female anglerfish also applies to humans, along with other "strange" gender/sex phenomenon that may exist within particular species.

For those with interest: Someone even made a bunch of comics about unique mating habits in other species.

There is no going back.

jormeli said:
Because man can't give birth and woman can't get another woman pregnant, no matter how much hormone therapy they undergo. There's also other biological differences but talking about then would cause even bigger flamewar so I'm not gonna do that.

Actually science has allowed for the induction of DNA from the bone marrow of a woman to be implanted into the egg of another woman, allowing for a completely female based pregnancy, however this will result undoubtedly in a female Chromosome set, or if the stars align, they just might get the birth defect that gives you both genitals, allowing for two females to have a pregnancy without the use of surrogates.

autisticbronyguy said:
Actually science has allowed for the induction of DNA from the bone marrow of a woman to be implanted into the egg of another woman, allowing for a completely female based pregnancy, however this will result undoubtedly in a female Chromosome set, or if the stars align, they just might get the birth defect that gives you both genitals, allowing for two females to have a pregnancy without the use of surrogates.

As a matter of fact it is actually possible for us to develop an artificial womb designed from the dormant DNA of a male specimen, allowing for insemination from another male specimen, which means that no matter your gender, it is theoretically possible for you to give birth, and for you to impregnate someone, with this knowledge at hand, it is entirely possible to have had a 'male' impregnated by a 'female,' although in fairness, I must admit that this is just the use of the cloning technologies we currently have on hand today being used to subvert the need for a human pregnancy or insemination. All in all, science has surpassed the capabilities of even the fictional unicorn, so no matter your argument, you have to either accept that it is now scientifically more feasible for there to be a child with two biologically same gender parents to exist, than it is for something like a war theater taking place in Europe to happen.

I know I'm late but autism and the need to share this borderline cloning technology has eaten me up for weeks, thanks for listening to my Ted talk on how to beat a dead horse

Super old, but I'm genuinely curious. What does one's gender have to do with sex and pregnancy? That's completely irrelevant. There are structures in the human brain that are sexually dimorphic and react to androgens differently, such as the stria terminalis. It has nothing to do with genitals.

Its sad to see the people who still believe there are only 2 genders here on this site. Please, non-binary individuals exist too