@endurancefun: a denial? It's an attempt to represent myself, and the motivation behind what I say. I realize that since we only discuss one topic on this forum, it can pretty easy for others to misunderstand me, and the entire purpose of communication is to be understood. Does this satisy your interest?

Astor a sex change being the 'biggest most fundamental change you could ever make', I disagree. The only part I consider an 'extreme' part of reassignment is hormone therapy, as it affects brain chemistry, and our brains are who we are. But that is no more extreme than prescription drugs or recreational drugs. Your brain is what makes you who you are, not your dangly bits. And if you're thinking of ploughing that field, banning hormone therapy requires that we also ban prescription painkillers for the same reason. That seems unrealistic and not in service of the interests of the people.

Perhaps it was merely a slip of the tongue, but being gay is not reversible. You're either gay, or you're something else. Someone may have a fluid orientation but that doesn't mean they're 'turning' one way or the other.

Lastly, the part about 'socially damaging'. The only reason a sex change is socially damaging is because a certain group of people has decided to make it as socially damaging as they can. And then they look at their actions as proof that it's 'socially damaging'; it's a case study for meme theory. With this exact same argument, X is bad because it's socially damaging (and so we must restrict it), you could fill X with anything; interracial marriage, evangelical Christianty, feminism or anti-feminism, or mouthing off against the British government. That others in society may act abusively if you do X is no way a valid criticism of X, it's merely a slavish dogmatic clinging to status quo, regardless whether it is just or unjust.

As for euthanasia I've never argued the issue out in order to figure out the most just and free solution to it. Because that's what I do, I don't just pick a side because 'grrr I hate dem libs/theists', I approach issues like a judge would, and look for an egalitarian, universalist doctrine that remains just in both common and edge cases, that does not violate the Constitution and that upholds the highest ideals of freedom, justice and liberty. So I don't want to go through it completely or change the topic, but I suppose I would support assisted suicide with both the proviso that they're found to have legal consent and maybe make them complete a semi-obstructive form or have a mandatory waiting period, since its been proven that suicide is often very spur-of-the-moment and people often reconsider with time. ... Then again, as I'm saying this I'm pretty sure doing anything obstructive in this manner would be unconstitutional. So I'd have to think of a modified solution that best serves everyone. If that sounds difficult and rigorous then welcome to the vagaries of free society.

So... I can't have a stereotypical or racist view on anything? I mean... If I can't call a fat chick "fat" then whats the point of living? This stuff seems a little blown out... but I do see the point of not going into a crowd of people and saying that kinda of stuff. Its easy, do what I do... talk bad to people behind their backs.

That can still govery,verywrong.

After feminists and white knights called out Tomb Raider as sexist I gave up on the whole discussion. Lara Croft in the latest Tomb Raider game is the epitome of a strong, female lead character. She kicked ass, she wasn't overly sexualised and yet still, somehow, they found something to complain about. "She sounds like she's having sex when she gets hurt. And the men are mean to her. It's all violence porn." I don't know how you have sex, granted, but I can normally tell the difference.

In essence: I'm done with listening to feminists talking about games. Nothing can be done to appease them, so why bother with listening to them?

@ransnack: Gender expression has nothing to do with biological sex, it has to do with gender. Dressing in a masculine way, boots, slacks, blazer _has nothing to do with my biological sex_. I think you have gender expression confused with secondary sex characteristics. A feminine haircut is gender expression, breasts are sex characteristics. How you grow body hair is biological and determined by chemicals, how you choose to groom it is part of your gender expression (which under current social mores says femininity means you're completely bald except for the top of your head).

There is also a difference between gender identity and gender expression, but this I admit I am less well read on and hopefully someone else is informed.

@brodehouse: It just felt an odd thing to say in the middle of a discussion, a self-justification. I'm no psychiatrist, but that would suggest to me you don't truly believe what you're saying and some of the ridiculous aspects of your argument, such as cutting your toenails or taking cold medicine is the same as hormonal changes.

I totally disagree that a sex change is not the most fundamental change you can make, it is one of the most defining aspects of a human being from birth to death. If you break down a sex change into every little thing and compare them all to similarly little things, you may fool someone into believing this is not a big deal, but altogether it certainly is one. I'm not going to argue about being gay as it does not involve surgery or medication to achieve happiness. It may well do, as I've said previously a lot of gay people have mental problems, but it is not a requirement to be gay. Insert a cliché line here about how I have gay friends.

What a pointless argument about society. Society looks down on people who have sex with dogs, clearly we need to remove these social stigmas so that these proud beastophiles can walk around with their significant other! Though that is extreme, most weird fetishes or hobbies are accepted today, even being a transsexual is unlikely to affect you beyond the obvious repercussions of being someone who chose to change their gender because they have a self-identification problem in their brain.

I must respect your opinion because you've shown time and time again, as in that final paragraph, that you think about what you post. Faith restored.

@endurancefun: I said it because it represented how I feel, I was relieved to be involved in an argument where the side doing the moralizing hand-wringing and advocating restricting people's freedom was not the one I lean to for once on this forum. The cutting toenails jibe is more a response to an inane statement ("I would never cut off pieces of my body!") and while I recognize they are different (axiomatically), my position actually remains the same; one has no more moral authority to condemn someone for cutting off their penis than they do to condemn someone cutting off their fingernails, or trimming their beard. It's their body, and the government and the rest of the populace have no business being involved. In some cultures, trimming your beard is seen as a moral issue, and I would not tolerate it in any free society. Despite what I said earlier, I actually have no problem with adults being circumcised, but I do have a problem with infants and children being subjected to cosmetic surgery they can't consent to.

Simply put, I think we are at an impasse if you feel sex is the most defining aspect of a human being. I think the intellectual nuances our highly evolved brains allow us to grasp, what a person thinks, what a person knows, how a person feels, this is immeasurably more defining of their humanity than merely what dangly bits they have. This is the entire reason I'm so fundamentalist as regards equality; I want no person measured by anything beyond what they say, do, think. What someone was born as is merely a result of the genetic lottery, but it's not who they are.

Do you know why, ethically and morally, having sex with dogs is considered wrong? Because a dog is not a human, cannot give consent, making any sexual encounters with that dog into rape, making any sexual encounter with that dog into animal cruelty which we hold as immoral (my stance on animal rights is that they should not be made to suffer, but I don't hold their lives as sacred. I guess that makes me a human supremacist). It's not merely because "ewwww" or because "it's a sin". If dogs were sentient beings who could go "no, I totally want to have sex with this guy, back off society" then I suppose... I would have to deal with it. Much like if the Star Trek/Mass Effect dream ever comes true and we meet aliens who totally want to hook up, WHAT SIDE WILL YOU BE ON?! I'll be on the side getting action from blue ladies.

Ultimately, the thing that's changed me from the typical liberal guy a couple years back into who I am now is the realization that merely because I don't want something does not mean that other people should not be allowed from having it. I never wanted a gun, so I inhaled all the gun control statistics and ignored any that contradicted it, and said people didn't deserve to have guns. Now I realize that whether I feel this way or that, people's freedom needs to come first, provided it doesn't infringe on anyone else's. Now I believe the citizenry of a free nation should have access to any weaponry the police can legally use on them (and the rest is for the military to use on those gerderm furenners). Now I'd say I'm closer to... like a social libertarian, in that I want as much freedom for everyone as possible, but I still believe in taxation and social programs and health care and so on.

@epicsteve: Yeh but Anita is part of the problem.