AbuHammer

Aurora,

First, you claim that the Two-Spirit identity is a homophobic and misogynistic “imposition” of colonial gender roles. This is false and disrespectful. The term Two-Spirit is a modern, pan-Indian umbrella term that encompasses various gender identities and expressions among Indigenous North Americans who fulfill a traditional third-gender or other gender-variant role in their cultures. The term was coined in 1990 by Indigenous activists to replace the derogatory term berdache, which was used by colonizers to refer to gender-nonconforming individuals. The term Two-Spirit is not meant to erase the diversity and complexity of Indigenous cultures and languages, but to affirm the existence and validity of Indigenous people who do not fit the binary and rigid categories of male and female imposed by colonialism. The term Two-Spirit is not homophobic or misogynistic, but rather celebrates the diversity and fluidity of gender and sexuality among Indigenous people, and acknowledges their sacred and historical status in their communities.

Second, you claim that the authority to conclusively define the term intersex does not rest solely with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). This is irrelevant and misleading. The term intersex is not a fixed or definitive category, but a general term that refers to a range of variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies. The term intersex is not a diagnosis, but a description of a person’s biological diversity. The OHCHR does not claim to have the authority to conclusively define the term intersex, but rather uses it as a human rights term to advocate for the rights and dignity of intersex people, who face discrimination, violence, and stigma in many parts of the world. The OHCHR recognizes that intersex people may have different ways of identifying themselves, and respects their self-determination and autonomy.

Third, you claim that the definition employed by the studies include subtle hormonal variations or minor genital anomalies that do not result in discernible physical differences or health concerns, and that they inflate the prevalence rates of intersex conditions. This is false and inaccurate. The studies that estimate the prevalence of intersex people in the population use a broad definition of intersex that includes not only ambiguous genitalia, but also atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones. These variations may or may not be visible at birth, and may or may not cause health problems, but they are all part of the spectrum of intersex diversity. The most thorough existing research finds intersex people to constitute an estimated 1.7% of the population, which makes being intersex about as common as having red hair. This is not an inflated or exaggerated number, but a realistic and evidence-based estimate based on the available medical literature.

Fourth, you claim that a meticulous examination of medical literature spanning from 1955 to the present day reveals the employment of antiquated terminology, diagnostic criteria, and methodologies that skews the prevalence rates of these conditions. This is unsubstantiated and vague. The studies that estimate the prevalence of intersex people in the population are based on a systematic review of the medical literature from 1955 to the present day, and use the most current and appropriate terminology, diagnostic criteria, and methodologies to assess the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female phenotype. The studies acknowledge the limitations and challenges of defining and measuring intersex variations, and provide a range of estimates depending on the criteria and sources used. The studies do not skew or distort the prevalence rates of these conditions, but rather provide a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the existing data.

Fifth, you claim that the scarcity of high-quality, long-term research on the effectiveness and safety of gender-affirming interventions constitutes an impediment to the formulation of evidence-based guidelines and policies. This is partially true but misleading. It is true that there is a need for more high-quality, long-term research on the outcomes and impacts of gender-affirming interventions, such as hormones and surgery, for transgender and nonbinary people. However, this does not mean that there is no evidence or that the existing evidence is not valid or reliable. The current evidence, based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the available studies, suggests that gender-affirming interventions are overall safe and effective, and improve the mental health, quality of life, and well-being of transgender and nonbinary people. The current evidence also supports the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines and policies that facilitate access to gender-affirming care for those who need it.

Sixth, you claim that gender-affirming interventions do not address the underlying social, psychological, or environmental “causes” of gender dysphoria, and that they require other forms of treatment first (psychotherapy or social support). This is false and harmful. Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, but a term that describes the distress or discomfort that some people may experience because of a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth. Gender dysphoria is not caused by social, psychological, or environmental factors, but by the incongruence between one’s sense of self and one’s body. Gender-affirming interventions are not a cure or a fix for gender dysphoria, but a way of alleviating the distress and enhancing the congruence between one’s identity and one’s appearance. Gender-affirming interventions do not require other forms of treatment first, but are part of a holistic and individualized approach to gender-affirming care that may also include psychotherapy, social support, and legal recognition.

Seventh, you claim that there is evidence that the people undergoing gender-affirming interventions experience regret or dissatisfaction with the outcomes, and that the interventions have negative effects on their mental health. This is false and misleading. The evidence shows that the rates of regret or dissatisfaction with gender-affirming interventions are very low, ranging from 0.3% to 3.8%, and that most of the cases are related to surgical complications or poor cosmetic results, rather than a change in gender identity. The evidence also shows that gender-affirming interventions have positive effects on the mental health of transgender and nonbinary people, reducing the symptoms of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and improving self-esteem, body image, and social functioning.

Eighth, you claim that one of the foremost challenges with expanding gender categories is the absence of unequivocal, objective criteria by which to ascertain gender identity, and that self-identification is inadequate to substantiate the veracity of one’s gender identity. This is false and oppressive. Gender identity is not a fixed or objective category, but a subjective and personal sense of who one is and how one sees oneself. Gender identity is not determined by external criteria, such as chromosomes, hormones, genitals, or appearance, but by internal feelings, thoughts, and experiences. Self-identification is the only valid and reliable way to ascertain one’s gender identity, and it should be respected and recognized by others. Expanding gender categories is not a challenge, but an opportunity to embrace the diversity and complexity of human identity and expression, and to promote the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of their gender identity.
Ninth, you claim that the system would be at risk of manipulation by those who feign a gender identity for self-serving, nefarious purposes. This is false and baseless. There is no evidence that people would pretend to have a different gender identity for malicious or fraudulent reasons, such as to gain access to certain spaces, resources, or benefits. There is also no evidence that people who identify with a different gender identity pose a threat or a harm to others, especially to women and children. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that transgender and nonbinary people are often the victims of discrimination, violence, and abuse, especially in settings where their gender identity is not respected or protected.

Tenth, you claim that the binary gender paradigm has been a cornerstone of societal organization, its roots anchored in cultural traditions and scientific knowledge, and that departure from established scientific knowledge would have far-reaching negative societal consequences. This is false and biased. The binary gender paradigm is not a universal or natural phenomenon, but a social and historical construct that varies across time and place. The binary gender paradigm is not based on scientific knowledge, but on cultural norms and values that privilege certain forms of gender and sexuality over others. The binary gender paradigm is not a cornerstone of societal organization, but a source of oppression and exclusion for those who do not fit or conform to it. Departure from the binary gender paradigm would not have negative societal consequences, but positive ones, such as fostering diversity, inclusion, and equality for all people.

I have nothing more to say to you, since you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite who objectifies gay men. You have been complaining and talking about homophobia and denying that you are fetishizing them, but your actions have revealed the truth.

Pizzaislove,

Gender identity and sexual orientation are two separate aspects of one’s identity, as you correctly stated. However, this does not mean that they are unrelated or irrelevant to each other. Both are important dimensions of diversity and expression, and both are subject to discrimination and violence in many parts of the world. Transgender and nonbinary people, who identify with a gender that does not match their assigned sex at birth, face especially high rates of harassment, abuse, and murder, simply for being who they are.

Holding critical views on gender identity means that you do not respect or acknowledge the existence and validity of transgender and nonbinary people. You are essentially saying that they are wrong, confused, or delusional about their own identity, and that they should conform to the binary and rigid categories of male and female that society imposes on them. This is a form of transphobia, which is a type of hatred and fear towards people who do not fit the normative expectations of gender and sexuality.

Transphobia and homophobia are closely linked, as they both stem from the same oppressive ideology that seeks to control and punish people who deviate from the dominant norms of gender and sexuality. Transphobia and homophobia often overlap and reinforce each other, as transgender and nonbinary people may also identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or other sexual orientations. Therefore, it is not possible to hold critical views on gender identity and not be homophobic, as you claim. You are either supportive of all people’s rights to live and love freely, or you are not.

It’s pointless to argue with BL fans. They are not interested in LGBT rights or realities. They only use gay men as a source of amusement. Many of the commenters are contradictory. They claim to oppose homophobia, but they reject and erase other gender identities and TQ+ people.ྀིྀི How can you believe in only 2 genders and still say you fight against all forms of homophobia? That doesn’t make sense at all.

Samsung advertisement is so obvious 😭

I thought I was the only one 😭

Aurora,

Oh, I get it. You’re too young to handle a grown-up discussion, so you need to resort to arts and crafts and silly games. Well, if that’s what it takes to make you listen, I’m game. Let’s play rock-paper-scissors. But don’t cry if you lose, okay? There’s no crying in debating.

Aurora,
Excluding the broader LGBT community and recognizing only gay individuals is homophobia. That’s like saying only serving meat at a party is veganism.

Aurora,
First, you claimed that the Two-Spirit identity was a designation that denied the full humanity of non-conforming people, and that it was based on homophobia and misogyny. This is not true. The Two-Spirit identity was a term that some Indigenous North Americans used to describe people who fulfilled a traditional third-gender or other gender-variant role in their cultures. These roles were often respected and valued by their communities, and they were not based on homophobia or misogyny. The term Two-Spirit was coined in 1990 as a way to reclaim and honor the diversity of Indigenous gender expressions and experiences, and to replace the pejorative term berdache, which was used by colonizers.

Second, you argued that the studies that arrived at the 1.7% estimate of intersex conditions relied on inaccurate definitions and limited populations. This is also not true. The studies used a broad definition of intersex that included any variation in sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies, such as chromosomes, gonads, hormones, or genitals. This definition is consistent with the one used by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which recognizes intersex as a natural variation of human diversity. The studies were also based on a review of the medical literature from 1955 to the present, and they considered the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female in terms of sex chromosome composition, gonadal structure, hormone levels, and the structure of the internal genital duct systems and external genitalia.

Third, you suggested that the research in the area of “gender identity” is inconclusive, and that it would be hasty and imprudent to implement modifications to public policy and legislation at this juncture. This is not the case. There is a growing body of evidence that supports the existence and validity of gender identity as a distinct aspect of human identity, which may or may not align with one’s assigned sex at birth. Gender identity is influenced by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors, and it is not a choice or a disorder. There is also evidence that affirming one’s gender identity through social, medical, or legal means can improve one’s mental health and well-being, and reduce the risk of suicide, depression, and anxiety. Therefore, it is not hasty or imprudent to implement modifications to public policy and legislation that respect and protect the rights of people with diverse gender identities. On the contrary, it is a matter of human dignity and justice.

Fourth, you asserted that expanding gender categories will open loopholes and avenues for manipulation, and that a person might claim a non-binary gender identity to access the benefits or resources allocated for non-binary identifying people. This is a baseless and unfounded claim. Expanding gender categories will not open loopholes and avenues for manipulation, but rather reflect the reality and diversity of human gender experiences, and allow people to express their authentic selves without fear of discrimination or violence. There is no evidence that people would claim a non-binary gender identity to access the benefits or resources allocated for non-binary identifying people, as these benefits or resources are often minimal or non-existent. Moreover, there are safeguards and criteria in place to ensure that people who seek to change their legal gender are doing so in good faith and with informed consent.

Fifth, you stated that binary genders have been the foundation of society for centuries, and that altering them will have unintended negative consequences. This is a false and ahistorical claim. Binary genders have not been the foundation of society for centuries, but rather the result of a social and historical construction that has imposed a rigid and hierarchical system of gender norms and expectations on people, often with negative consequences for their health, freedom, and happiness. Altering them will not have unintended negative consequences, but rather positive ones, such as fostering a more inclusive, diverse, and respectful society, where people can thrive and contribute regardless of their gender identity or expression.

Aurora, fetishization is not the sexualization of something that’s not sexual, but an unreasonable or excessive interest in something, often at the expense of other aspects of a person or a culture. For example, the fetishization of a person’s race or ethnicity means reducing them to stereotypes or exoticizing them, rather than seeing them as a whole person. The definition avoids the transphobic mischaracterization of a healthy interest in gender identities and pronouns as a pathological obsession. But in the “facts-mean-whatever-I-want-them-to-mean” modern world where reality bends to the tune of your personal bias, (trans)gender (something non-sexual) and (trans)gender relationships (something non-sexual) can be fetishized.

Methinks that your all-consuming, intense aversion to gender identities and pronouns borders on unhealthy bigotry. The bigotry permeates every interaction you’ve had with me. It’s a phobia of sorts.

If my answers are too complex for you to understand, then maybe I need to teach you basic English and reading comprehension. Or maybe I need to shorten my answers to fit your tiny attention span, which has been shrunk by binge-watching too much BL media.

It’s like talking to a wall that doesn’t even understand basic English and asks the same question like a toddler, over and over again. Even robots are better than this, because they can at least learn from their mistakes and improve their skills. But you are just stuck in your ignorance and arrogance, and refuse to listen to reason or evidence.

You are not addressing the main issue, which is the impact and representation of BL media on the LGBT community and gay men. You are only trying to insult me and avoid the discussion. I have answered your points and questions with facts and logic, but you have ignored them and repeated the same fallacies and assumptions.

You are using a straw man fallacy to misrepresent my argument. I did not say that BL media has to contribute to society, or that it is the only genre that is subject to this criterion. I asked how BL media has or has not contributed to the awareness or respect for the LGBT community, and how BL media has or has not portrayed gay men in a respectful and realistic way. These are valid questions to ask, especially for someone who identifies as gay and uses they/them pronouns, like myself. You are also using a false equivalence fallacy to compare BL media to other entertainment aimed at girls or boys, without acknowledging the differences and nuances between them. BL media is not just entertainment, it is a cultural phenomenon that has a significant impact on the perception and representation of LGBT people, especially in Asian societies where homosexuality is still stigmatized or criminalized.

You are making several assumptions and generalizations that are not supported by evidence or logic. First, you assume that BL media has a positive effect on the tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people in homophobic countries, but you do not provide any data or examples to back up this claim. In fact, there is evidence that suggests the opposite: that BL media may reinforce negative stereotypes and prejudices about gay men, and that it may create a false sense of representation and diversity that does not reflect the reality of LGBT people’s lives. Second, you assume that western media only tries to advocate against homophobia, but you ignore the diversity and complexity of western media, which includes many genres and forms of expression that portray LGBT people in various ways, some more realistic and respectful than others. You also ignore the fact that western media is not monolithic, and that it is influenced by different cultural, political, and social factors, just like BL media. Third, you assume that I only know how to attack anyone who does not share my beliefs, but you do not address the substance of my argument, which is based on facts and logic, not emotions or opinions. You also resort to ad hominem attacks, which are a logical fallacy that tries to discredit the person rather than the argument. Fourth, you assume that the idea of multiple gender is a belief, while homosexuality is a reality, but you do not explain what you mean by this, or how you arrived at this conclusion. You also imply that supporting gay people means supporting everything that the USA democratic party supports, which is a false dilemma that tries to force a choice between two extremes, while ignoring other possibilities and nuances.

The LGBT community is diverse and complex, and we should celebrate and respect that. Non-binary people are part of the community, and they face many challenges and barriers in society. We should stand with them and empower them. The status quo is based on the false and harmful assumption that there are only two genders, and that they are determined by one’s biological sex. We should challenge and change that, and create a more inclusive and progressive society. I do not have a narrow and limiting view, but rather a broad and liberating one. I believe that accepting all gender identities is not only a way to support the community, but also a way to support yourself and your own identity. Because by accepting all gender identities, you are also accepting yourself and your own identity, whatever it may be. You are allowing yourself to be free.

Aurora,how am I fetishising the TQ+ community? Do you even know what fetishisation means? Believing in two genders is not progressive, it is regressive. You are ignoring the diversity and complexity of gender identity and expression. You are fetishising gay men and you want to do the same to TQ+ people, which is disgusting. You are not alone, though. There are many BL fans like you who fetishise gay men.

Believing in only two genders excludes many people and is homophobic. Being part of the LGBT community means accepting all gender identities. Remember, gender is a social concept, not just biological. So, if you’re upset about a show removing BL content, ask yourself if it’s really about supporting the community or just about what entertains you. Entertainment shouldn’t ignore the diversity of the community.

Aurora, the understanding of gender has indeed evolved over time, and while many cultures have historically operated within a binary framework, this is not universally reflective of all human experiences. Research indicates that various cultures have recognized more than two genders, such as some Native American societies with the concept of Two-Spirit individuals.

Regarding gender identity, it is a complex interplay of biology, identity, and culture, and there is no unanimous conclusion among scholars and researchers. Gender identity can be deeply personal and varied, and while some intersex individuals may identify with binary genders, others may not. The estimated prevalence of intersex conditions can be up to 1.7% of the population, which is not insignificant.

The expansion of gender categories in public policy and legislation is not necessarily about creating confusion but about recognizing and respecting the diversity of human experiences. It aims to ensure that all individuals have equal rights and protections under the law. While practical challenges exist, many countries and institutions are successfully implementing policies that are inclusive of all gender identities.

Promoting equality within any model requires acknowledging and addressing the needs and rights of all individuals, including those who do not fit within the traditional binary gender framework.

Who said I am part of the fetish homophobic community? This comment section proved that you all love to fetishize cis gay men and discard the existence of other sexualities. Are you proud of being exposed?

Thank you for this ❤️Finally someone said this