DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7037
Location: America
Dr Frankenollie wrote:
You asked Sotiris "which is more traumatising: having the baby or having an abortion?" Yet when I say which one I think is more traumatising, you say "The rape itself would be more traumatizing, blah blah blah..." You didn't give that as an option. The options were having the baby, or having an abortion. Don't twist the facts.

Yea. And you added the rape thing which was not part of the original question that I asked. Don't add things when answering the question.

If you want me to answer it when it is added in, then like Alphapanchito said, maybe it depends. Can all victims of attacks realize the growing being inside them is seperate from the rapist and it's not bad? If it really is extremely hard for some people to realize this, and they might never realize it, then I guess that's more traumatizing and in that case I suppose it would have to be a choice, but has there been any research on this at all, to know?

Unfortunately that doesn't answer my question of whether generally abortion or having the baby after 9 months is more tramautizing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:07 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 484
Location: Australia
Sky Syndrome wrote:
Recently, a member at another forum I'm a member of posted about being raped and impregnated by her father at fourteen-years-old and she got an abortion. The damage down there from her father raping her required staples and sutures! She thinks God is punishing her now because she and her boyfriend have been trying for a baby for six months. Also she has doctors who think she is to blame if she can't get pregnant again. I really wanted to hug the poor woman! :cry:


What dreadful stuff to go through. I want to give her a hug as well. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:41 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Alphapanchito wrote:
As much as we'd like to think the world is black and white, there are many (key word. it's not as uncommon as society would lead you to think) men, CAFABs (Coercively Assigned Female At Birth), and other "variants" that are raped and/or have abortions. [...] Just because someone can get pregnant does not mean that they are a women.

Er... only women have uteruses, so only women can get pregnant. Men can't get pregnant. And what is a CAFAB?! :?

Disney Duster wrote:
If you want me to answer it when it is added in, then like Alphapanchito said, maybe it depends. Can all victims of attacks realize the growing being inside them is seperate from the rapist and it's not bad? If it really is extremely hard for some people to realize this, and they might never realize it, then I guess that's more traumatizing and in that case I suppose it would have to be a choice, but has there been any research on this at all, to know?

No, it's NOT seperate from the rapist, because it's HIS SEMEN!!!!!!!!!! The baby has HIS GENES!!!!! How disgusting of you to glance over something like that and suggest that women "don't try hard enough to realize that". And then asking whether research has been done on it... Exactly HOW out of touch are you?????!!!! You are just as bad as those Republican candidates who are trying to dictate whether or not women can use contraception. Yes, you are exactly the same, because you are a man pretending to know better than women themselves what's good for them and you lecture and belittle them because you think you know everything.

:headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake: :headshake:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:35 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8080
Location: Appleton, WI
it may have his genes, but i think he/she means it's a separate person.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:02 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 215
Location: South Florida Gender: Female
Goliath wrote:
Alphapanchito wrote:
As much as we'd like to think the world is black and white, there are many (key word. it's not as uncommon as society would lead you to think) men, CAFABs (Coercively Assigned Female At Birth), and other "variants" that are raped and/or have abortions. [...] Just because someone can get pregnant does not mean that they are a women.

Er... only women have uteruses, so only women can get pregnant. Men can't get pregnant. And what is a CAFAB?! :?


No, only people with uteruses can get pregnant. Gender is a social construct not defined by a physical attribute. Such as a uterus. If someone, even somebody with a uterus, says they are a man, they are a man. It's as simple as that. So, there you are; a man with a uterus. That can get pregnant. I personally know several men (with uteruses) that have gotten pregnant.

There was a pregnant man over here in the US that got pretty famous for it a couple years back. He was only famous because he went to the press. But it really isn't that taboo anymore, and I am pretty surprised that you, Goliath, honestly thought that only women can get pregnant, and that having a uterus makes you a woman. Just because you usually seem so educated about so many issues, specifically social ones, and seem to not even know what I'm talking about here. Even if it isn't super common (but again, it is more common than most think), you are literally erasing certain people when you only refer to women when talking about pregnancies. Sorry from the slight change in the topic, but I just am just trying to be inclusive of everyone, which I don't think is a bad thing.


CAFABs are anybody that was assigned female at birth by the doctor or other official (i.e. "It's a girl!")
Alternatively, CAMABs = "It's a boy!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:37 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8080
Location: Appleton, WI
wasnt that man previously a woman who went through a sex change?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:48 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 215
Location: South Florida Gender: Female
ajmrowland wrote:
wasnt that man previously a woman who went through a sex change?


Yes; sorry if I wasn't clear before, but thats *mostly* what i'm talking about. But, as you just referred to him as a man, and he calls himself a man, and he presents himself as a man; he is a man. A man with a uterus, and a man who was pregnant. And he isn't the only one. So all I am saying is that by only mentioning women when you are talking about abortions, you leave people like him out.. which I don't think is right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:38 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2698
Disney Duster wrote:
Yea. And you added the rape thing which was not part of the original question that I asked. Don't add things when answering the question.


You're blatantly lying now...

Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Being pregnant for 9 months if it was caused by sexual assault is clearly much more traumatising. If you honestly believe that raped women can't have abortions, then...you disgust me.


I said that being pregnant for nine months is probably worse than having an abortion for someone who was raped. I didn't add anything else in, like you claim. And I know you'll point out how I said 'probably' above, and say that means that I don't know for sure, but I put it there because even though I am virtually certain which one is more traumatising, I'm not going to say I know best (unlike you) when I've never been in the situation we're talking about.

Disney Duster wrote:
If you want me to answer it when it is added in,


I DON'T. :roll:

Disney Duster wrote:
Unfortunately that doesn't answer my question of whether generally abortion or having the baby after 9 months is more tramautizing.


:brick:

_________________
http://onethousandandonemovienights.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7037
Location: America
Goliath, oh so a person is only their genes, are they? You are only your mother and father? I see. You don't have your own soul or mind or will or identity. You're not a seperate person. Got it.

And no I'm not the same as you say I am. I am asking for research to find out which is worse for women, getting an abortion or having the baby, period. And as has been mentioned, it is not only women who can have babies anyway.

If only men could kill something I'd tell me they shouldn't do it, too.

ajmrowland wrote:
it may have his genes, but i think he/she means it's a separate person.

Yes, and I'm a he by the way.

Dr. Frankenollie, no I'm not lying. Maybe you have to go back and look, but what I asked was "which is worse, getting an abortion or having the baby after 9 months". When you specified a rape case, that might be worse but I don't even know because no one has yet said if there's been research on how victims will always feel about having a child from that, or if they could end up not feeling that way through talking, information, therapy, etc.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2698
Disney Duster wrote:
Dr. Frankenollie, no I'm not lying. Maybe you have to go back and look, but what I asked was "which is worse, getting an abortion or having the baby after 9 months".


You asked that in response to something Sotiris said:

Sotiris wrote:
I believe that it's quite unfair (to say the least) to force a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy just because of a mistake or worse, a sexual assault. Forcing her to go through 9 months of emotional and physical anguish, and go through a painful labor where it's possible to die and then go through post-natal depression all for a pregnancy she never wanted. It could ruin her life forever.


Sotiris specified the rape case, not me.

However, if you're asking which could be more traumatising between an abortion and a pregnancy in a scenario which involved no sexual asssualt...I don't think either would be particularly 'traumatising.'

_________________
http://onethousandandonemovienights.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Edited to add this:

Alphapanchito wrote:
ajmrowland wrote:
wasnt that man previously a woman who went through a sex change?


Yes; sorry if I wasn't clear before, but thats *mostly* what i'm talking about. But, as you just referred to him as a man, and he calls himself a man, and he presents himself as a man; he is a man. A man with a uterus, and a man who was pregnant.

AAAAHHHHHAAAAAA! So you are talking about women who were formerly men! So I *was* right after all!


Here was what I had originally written, before reading the reply quoted above:

Alphapanchito wrote:
No, only people with uteruses can get pregnant. Gender is a social construct not defined by a physical attribute. Such as a uterus. If someone, even somebody with a uterus, says they are a man, they are a man. It's as simple as that. So, there you are; a man with a uterus. That can get pregnant. I personally know several men (with uteruses) that have gotten pregnant.

I call bullshit. Twice. One time on gender being a social construct. Either one is a man or a woman. That's it. And second I call bullshit on you knowing pregnant men; especially you *personally* knowing them and them being "several" men. Statistical chances are far too miniscule for that to be true. Besides, like I said, men don't have uteruses. Your whole post seems to me to be one big effort to come off as overly PC, overly inclusive; and overly sensitive over semantics.

Alphapanchito wrote:
There was a pregnant man over here in the US that got pretty famous for it a couple years back. He was only famous because he went to the press. But it really isn't that taboo anymore, and I am pretty surprised that you, Goliath, honestly thought that only women can get pregnant, and that having a uterus makes you a woman. Just because you usually seem so educated about so many issues, specifically social ones, and seem to not even know what I'm talking about here.

No, there isn't a taboo "anymore", because there never was a taboo to begin with, because, as I said, men don't get pregnant. Men don't have a uterus. I am very well-informed about social issues, but if there's one thing I cannot stand it's "concern trolls" (no offense, just an expression) trying to be "inclusive" for the sake of "being inclusive". It's a form of political correctness that I don't like at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that women have a uterus and thus get pregnant and men don't. And the fact that you found one mistake of nature in the news doesn't mean we have to include that one example in a discussion about abortion, because it's a very, very rare deviation of the biological rule. So no, I'm not gonna include men just for semantic's/PC's sake.

Alphapanchito wrote:
Even if it isn't super common (but again, it is more common than most think), you are literally erasing certain people when you only refer to women when talking about pregnancies. Sorry from the slight change in the topic, but I just am just trying to be inclusive of everyone, which I don't think is a bad thing.

I already adressed this above. If there's one mistake of nature in a man on a total of a million men, that's not worth including.

Alphapanchito wrote:
CAFABs are anybody that was assigned female at birth by the doctor or other official (i.e. "It's a girl!")
Alternatively, CAMABs = "It's a boy!"

Impossible. You have a vagina, you're a girl. You have a penis, you are a boy. It's as simple as that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Disney Duster wrote:
Goliath, oh so a person is only their genes, are they? You are only your mother and father? I see. You don't have your own soul or mind or will or identity. You're not a seperate person. Got it.




Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:22 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7973
Goliath wrote:
You have a vagina, you're a girl. You have a penis, you are a boy. It's as simple as that.


So you're saying that only genitalia defines gender? What about intersex people then?

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Sotiris wrote:
So you're saying that only genitalia defines gender? What about intersex people then?

Intersex people? You mean people who had a sex change? A guy who's on the way to becoming a woman and who has the breasts but not yet the vagina?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7973
Goliath wrote:
Intersex people? You mean people who had a sex change? A guy who's on the way to becoming a woman and who has the breasts but not yet the vagina?


No, I mean people who were born with both male and female genitalia (in part or in whole); hermaphrodites.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:18 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Sotiris wrote:
No, I mean people who were born with both male and female genitalia (in part or in whole); hermaphrodites.

Oh, those very rare exceptions to the rule! Really, when making definitions (like: people with penises are men, people with vaginas are women) you can't take those rare exceptions into account. And to bring it up anyway, even though you knew what I meant with my post, is a bit like mind-f*cking IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:21 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4790
Sotiris wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Intersex people? You mean people who had a sex change? A guy who's on the way to becoming a woman and who has the breasts but not yet the vagina?


No, I mean people who were born with both male and female genitalia (in part or in whole); hermaphrodites.


Usually it's a female who gain both of those(dick and uterus) which aka "traps" or futarnari. Most often those people always have boobs.

I've yet to see or hear of a full out male(no boobs) with a uterus.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:30 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2698
Goliath wrote:
Image


:lol:

Sadly, Duster will never follow these instructions.

_________________
http://onethousandandonemovienights.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7973
Goliath wrote:
Oh, those very rare exceptions to the rule! Really, when making definitions (like: people with penises are men, people with vaginas are women) you can't take those rare exceptions into account.


Rare or not, it was you who proposed an absolute binary. And you still haven't addressed the issue of how you would "classify" an intersex person. Wouldn't you refer to them by the way they identify and present themselves? That was the point I was trying to make. Sex is biological signification. Gender is a social construct. Although these terms are used interchangeably in every day usage, they are not the same.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Last edited by Sotiris on Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 215
Location: South Florida Gender: Female
Goliath wrote:
AAAAHHHHHAAAAAA! So you are talking about women who were formerly men! So I *was* right after all!


No.. I was talking about people born as a female (physically) and later transition to present as a man.. Which I believe is the opposite of what you just said.

Wow.. but.. they aren't women. They just aren't. Being a women does not mean having any physical trait. If someone was born with a penis, is there exactly no way that they can ever be a women in your book?

Goliath wrote:
I call bullshit. Twice. One time on gender being a social construct. Either one is a man or a woman. That's it. And second I call bullshit on you knowing pregnant men; especially you *personally* knowing them and them being "several" men. Statistical chances are far too miniscule for that to be true. Besides, like I said, men don't have uteruses. Your whole post seems to me to be one big effort to come off as overly PC, overly inclusive; and overly sensitive over semantics.


I appreciate that you call bullshit, because I do agree that that second part about me personally knowing several men who have been pregnant does seem a little odd without explaining myself. By personal, I meant I am friends with them. I am friends with them because I am actively involved in the genderqueer community, and know a ton about this stuff. No offense, but you seem not to know much about it and are just saying what you think might be true. Gender is, in fact, a social construct, and the fact is undeniable. Ask anyone slightly involved in gender issues. And our gender is whatever we feel we are, not what happens to be in our pants.

Sex is the thing that is determined by nature. What makes us feel more "masculine" or "feminine" based on society's standards is in our brains. Which one can physically see the difference between a standard "male" brain and one who identifies as a women, but was born male. There are SO many different coctails that can make someone like this, a lot actually having a a mosaic of cells with different DNA in them; some XXY, some XX, and so on. I honestly wouldn't be surprised that as more research in intersex individuals is done, that one day all transgender people will be considered to have a form of intersexuality. Just because of the great physical difference between a trans girl and a cis male, before any hormones or surgeries.

Goliath wrote:
No, there isn't a taboo "anymore", because there never was a taboo to begin with, because, as I said, men don't get pregnant. Men don't have a uterus. I am very well-informed about social issues, but if there's one thing I cannot stand it's "concern trolls" (no offense, just an expression) trying to be "inclusive" for the sake of "being inclusive". It's a form of political correctness that I don't like at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that women have a uterus and thus get pregnant and men don't. And the fact that you found one mistake of nature in the news doesn't mean we have to include that one example in a discussion about abortion, because it's a very, very rare deviation of the biological rule. So no, I'm not gonna include men just for semantic's/PC's sake.


Goliath wrote:
I already adressed this above. If there's one mistake of nature in a man on a total of a million men, that's not worth including.


Want me to include statistics? Sadly, the statistics on this stuff aren't the best, because non-cis people aren't exactly safe to put all this on their census. The best estimates range from 1 in every thousand to 1 in every 100,000 being transgender. Thats a little more helpful than pulling numbers out of the air. It's not as rare as thought, though. Unless you were talking about what YOU consider a man is born with a uterus. Which is so wrong. I'll explain why later.

EDIT: It seems the most respected estimate for the number of trans people in the world is one in every 10,000 people are trans women and 1 out of every 25,000 are trans men. Thats not nearly one in a million, and I think it is definitely significant enough to consider in all these issues. Thinking about these people is not being overly inclusive. And these statistics are just for transgender people, mind you, not including intersex people, which, admittedly, are a much smaller percentage of the population.

I understand what you mean by me being over PC just for the sake of being overly PC. But.. how is being inclusive of tens of thousands of people being overly PC? We aren't talking about 1 in a million here. The transgender community is large enough to have several large organizations to help them. Here in America, the WPATH is the largest and works on helping trans people getting the medications they need, change their gender on documents, and so on. And the Netherlands actually is the world leader in the treatment of transgender individuals, which is another reason why I found it odd that you seemed not to know much about trans issues.


Alphapanchito wrote:
CAFABs are anybody that was assigned female at birth by the doctor or other official (i.e. "It's a girl!")
Alternatively, CAMABs = "It's a boy!"

Goliath wrote:
Impossible. You have a vagina, you're a girl. You have a penis, you are a boy. It's as simple as that.


Okay, I am going to assume you are cis (meaning you identify as the same gender as the sex you were born in), and I'm sorry, but you just don't have the right to misgender people like that. I bring my argument to Ms. Kim Petras. Look her up if you care. Would you honestly tell someone like this that she is a boy? Just because she was born with a penis? She got the full Sexual Reassignment Surgery at 16, so was she a boy up until that fateful moment, despite years of prior hormone therapy and a life of living as a girl? Not to mention she is a german pop star, and is considered a girl, no different from any other girls, by her thousands of fans. Because that is how she presents. Beating a dead horse, but this is why gender is a social construct. If you present as a girl, you are considered a girl by society. Not because of what is between your legs (or in this case, what once was). And no, they aren't "tricking" anybody. Because they really do feel they are a certain gender, just as much as you feel you are male. You just happened to be lucky enough not to have to deal with the difficulties of transition because you feel you are the gender that matches your birth sex.

You are confusing sex with gender, and while doing this, you are totally stripping people of their identity because of some idea that gender is linked to physical attributes. I will say again, if one says they are a certain gender, they are, and thats that. A cisgender (again, assuming) man does not have the authority do deny anyone this identity, because you aren't trans. How in the world can you expect to understand that these people legitimately feel the SAME, no different, than a cis female. Because you just don't have the experience, you have to take the word of these people.

And yeah, that pregnant man we were talking about before did have a kind of phallus. Taking testosterone does that to a person. Exactly when is it that you consider it a penis? Thereby making him a man? I guess? I just don't understand your reasoning, or how you came up with it. Especially that second part.. where did you get this information? Because it totally contradicts everything I've learned about this in the past 15 years. Again, this is an issue thats really close to home for me.

Additionally, I agree 100% with everything Soitirs has said, though it may not be as uncommon as he thinks. As he said though, just because something is relatively uncommon does not mean you can forget about it.

I think further discussion on this would best take place in the "Gay" thread, because I wouldn't want to derail this thread any more than it already is, and I'm assuming gay includes the whole lgbT spectrum. I would love to further understand your views on this, because I do respect your point on most of your arguments.


Last edited by Alphapanchito on Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group