"What's A Woman?"

 

 

 

Davee-Boi's wet dream....

Originally posted by: Vegas Todd

 

 

 

Davee-Boi's wet dream....


Notice the low cleavage too.  Like anyone cares to see any of that.  Uggh

 

That is definitely a bad look for Trump supporters

Jesus, Todd. Not before breakfast.

Originally posted by: Boilerman

If one is born with a dick, you're not a chick.  Even Dr. Suess had it figured out.


Anatomically this is not necessarily correct.  Ever heard of "intersex"?  Used to be called "hermaphrodite."  I witnessed one in the Operating Room of a childrens hospital in 1972  Baby boy, maybe one year old having an inguinal hernia repair, scheduled case, routine stuff.  Upon opening the surgical area it was discovered that in addition to a robust penis the baby had a uterus, ovaries, and testicles.  The surgeon called for specialists (geneticist, endocrinologist).  The genetticist said "this is a true hermaphodite."  Today it would be called "intersex" or maybe something else.

 

At that time the parents would be counseled and asked what they wished be done (later), e.g. remove the female parts and supplement the child with male hormones, which seemed to be the logical action.  Years later it is recognized that such action would not necessarily be beneficial at that time.  It became kind of 'wait and see' how the child responded as he matured, i.e. did he continue the rest of his life self-identifying as a male or would he begin to self-identify as a female?  It became known that even if the female parts were removed the child, as he approached puberty, still may self-identify as a female and choose to 'trans' to female.  Thus early surgical intervention may be detrimental, which is what is being struggled with today...those decisions, who, what, when, etc.  Some have already regretted early surgical intervention.

 

Candy


Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

Anatomically this is not necessarily correct.  Ever heard of "intersex"?  Used to be called "hermaphrodite."  I witnessed one in the Operating Room of a childrens hospital in 1972  Baby boy, maybe one year old having an inguinal hernia repair, scheduled case, routine stuff.  Upon opening the surgical area it was discovered that in addition to a robust penis the baby had a uterus, ovaries, and testicles.  The surgeon called for specialists (geneticist, endocrinologist).  The genetticist said "this is a true hermaphodite."  Today it would be called "intersex" or maybe something else.

 

At that time the parents would be counseled and asked what they wished be done (later), e.g. remove the female parts and supplement the child with male hormones, which seemed to be the logical action.  Years later it is recognized that such action would not necessarily be beneficial at that time.  It became kind of 'wait and see' how the child responded as he matured, i.e. did he continue the rest of his life self-identifying as a male or would he begin to self-identify as a female?  It became known that even if the female parts were removed the child, as he approached puberty, still may self-identify as a female and choose to 'trans' to female.  Thus early surgical intervention may be detrimental, which is what is being struggled with today...those decisions, who, what, when, etc.  Some have already regretted early surgical intervention.

 

Candy


The current idiot RepubliQ anti-LGBTQ kerfuffle ignores realities such as this. Just as it ignores the fact that transgender"ism" has been a significant part of thousands of cultures for all of recorded history. There's nothing "immoral" about it and certainly nothing unnatural.

 

The significant distinction between sex and gender evades the understanding of simple minds like Boiler's, I think that we can all agree, though, that gender roles and how they play out are at least as much behavioral and societal as they are anatomical. And I for one don't care how someone wishes to self-identify, if it makes them happy.

 

You know, it's SO much easier to just be tolerant than to spend energy getting ginned up about people who aren't exactly like yourself!

Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

Anatomically this is not necessarily correct.  Ever heard of "intersex"?  Used to be called "hermaphrodite."  I witnessed one in the Operating Room of a childrens hospital in 1972  Baby boy, maybe one year old having an inguinal hernia repair, scheduled case, routine stuff.  Upon opening the surgical area it was discovered that in addition to a robust penis the baby had a uterus, ovaries, and testicles.  The surgeon called for specialists (geneticist, endocrinologist).  The genetticist said "this is a true hermaphodite."  Today it would be called "intersex" or maybe something else.

 

At that time the parents would be counseled and asked what they wished be done (later), e.g. remove the female parts and supplement the child with male hormones, which seemed to be the logical action.  Years later it is recognized that such action would not necessarily be beneficial at that time.  It became kind of 'wait and see' how the child responded as he matured, i.e. did he continue the rest of his life self-identifying as a male or would he begin to self-identify as a female?  It became known that even if the female parts were removed the child, as he approached puberty, still may self-identify as a female and choose to 'trans' to female.  Thus early surgical intervention may be detrimental, which is what is being struggled with today...those decisions, who, what, when, etc.  Some have already regretted early surgical intervention.

 

Candy


Well said about the age at which surgery should be allowed - its a difficult decision whose parameters of maturity are still being studied.     

 

But this is also an issue that is very much like gay marriage.  They people who opposse it arent hurt by it.  It doesnt impact their life in anyway whatsoever.  It just makes them feel "icky".  And despite all their lecturing about living in a free country  - when it comes down to it they really have a severe intolerance and willingness to share the country with people who make them feel "icky".   its just something they have in common with the people who run Iran.

Originally posted by: Jerry Ice 33

Notice the low cleavage too.  Like anyone cares to see any of that.  Uggh

 

That is definitely a bad look for Trump supporters


Even worse when you consider that this is one of the most physically attractive and intellectually sharp members of the base.

What I related about the intersex child taught me a lot, and the more I think about it the more I pray I didn't let myself fall into what teens so often do, which is to make fun of (overtly or in group whispers) someone, i.e. a female classmate with more masculine features or the male classmate viewed as "sissy" or effiminate (I'm sure I misspelled that one, Kevin).  But I sure didn't know all the misadventures our DNA could take from birth to adulthood, and probably most don't either.   Now I know that nothing can be counted on, and nobody should assume they can judge someone based on looks or behaviors.  Thanks for reading.

 

Candy

 

Edited to say "misadventures our DNA could take from conception to adulthood..."  That's where it all happens.  I'm told that at the nanosecond of conception every 'being' is female with changes happening rapidly from that point.  I'd need to find a source for that, but interesting.

Edited on Aug 7, 2023 3:26am
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

What I related about the intersex child taught me a lot, and the more I think about it the more I pray I didn't let myself fall into what teens so often do, which is to make fun of (overtly or in group whispers) someone, i.e. a female classmate with more masculine features or the male classmate viewed as "sissy" or effiminate (I'm sure I misspelled that one, Kevin).  But I sure didn't know all the misadventures our DNA could take from birth to adulthood, and probably most don't either.   Now I know that nothing can be counted on, and nobody should assume they can judge someone based on looks or behaviors.  Thanks for reading.

 

Candy

 


PJ nailed it. Transgender people don't hurt others by their mere existence, but conservitards think that anyone who makes them feel "icky" should be wiped out. Then they do the most odious thing of oll--they wrap their bigotry in the tenets of their religion (supposedly).

 

That's why I loathe conservitards. They're so filled with hate and bigotry. I prefer to let people live the way they want if it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now