runouw.com

~MP3 Amplifier~ wrote:Calling it a MENTAL DISORDER is really the wrong term to use.
It does affect the way a person thinks, feels and identifies themselves as, but saying that it's actually an 'illness' is like saying that homosexuality is an 'illness' too.
(unfortunately, a lot of people still believe that -.-)

So apparently calling it a disorder it's harsh. Ok, after reading Nan's post, how about we call it an "anomally" or "exception of the norm". I already stated my point towards it and would like to point out Nan's opinion. It's not necessary bad, but it isn't normal.*

*OK folks, I browsed both Runouw and other parts of the internet for a good while to see people get offended when someone says homosexuallity/gender bender thing isn't normal. Sorry guys, but it isn't, it's accepted, as Nan pointed, the majority is considered normal and the minority is the accepted (or not, depends on background/country/whatever), also biologically it's not normal, since humans are supposed to reproduce, this is impossible in a homosexual relation. Fortunatelly nowadays there are fertility centers and all, but again both sexes are putting work here, regardless of what kind of couple takes care of the child afterwards. Humans have conscience, morality and all, which led to certain "exceptions" to be added.

Well, what is normal anyway? There's no such thing as normal lol. And if there is, I definitely don't want to be it.

Also, calling it a disorder is not harsh. It's just not fitting at all to the actual definition of gender identity.
I have an eating disorder and it's not harsh to call my illness a disorder, because in that specific case, it is a disorder.

But it just sort of misses the point, that's all.

Anomaly implies it's a freak occurrence that shouldn't have happened.

MessengerOfDreams wrote:Anomaly implies it's a freak occurrence that shouldn't have happened.

Yes, and how does that imply that the anomaly is a bad thing?

MessengerOfDreams wrote:Anomaly implies it's a freak occurrence that shouldn't have happened.

Really? I never got that connotation from the word.

~MP3 Amplifier~ wrote:Well, what is normal anyway? There's no such thing as normal lol. And if there is, I definitely don't want to be it.

Also, calling it a disorder is not harsh. It's just not fitting at all to the actual definition of gender identity.
I have an eating disorder and it's not harsh to call my illness a disorder, because in that specific case, it is a disorder.

But it just sort of misses the point, that's all.

Wiktionary wrote:normal (comparative more normal, superlative most normal)
1. According to norms or rules. Organize the data into third normal form.

Synonyms
(usual): conventional, ordinary, standard, usual, regular, average, expected, natural

Antonyms
(usual): unconventional, nonstandard, unusual

norm (plural norms)
(usually definite, the norm) That which is regarded as normal or typical. Unemployment is the norm in this part of the country.

I would also rather not be like most people. I'd rather be different. Why do people always consider "normal" to be positive and "abnormal" to be negative? The grand majority of people aren't in the history books...

MessengerOfDreams wrote:Anomaly implies it's a freak occurrence that shouldn't have happened.

Wiktionary wrote:anomaly (plural anomalies)

1. A deviation from a rule or from what is regarded as normal.
2. Something or someone that is strange or unusual. He is an anomaly among his friends.
3. (sciences) Any event or measurement that is out of the ordinary regardless of whether it is exceptional or not.
4. (astronomy) Any of various angular distances.
5. (biology) A defect or malformation.
6. (quantum mechanics) A failure of a classical symmetry due to quantum corrections.
7.(dated) An irregularity or disproportion.

Synonyms
(deviation from the norm): abnormality, deviance, deviation, exception, inconsistency, irregularity, phenomenon

I beg to differ.

Can we stop being pedantic (read: arrogant dickwads) and realize that connotations are present in just about all words, and people won't necessarily agree on them? Moy thinks that "anomaly" carries a negative implied meaning (which personally I agree with), but others don't see that.

Anyway, you defined "normal" but didn't actually define what these "norms" and "typical" things are. I've been trying not to get involved in this because it seems like such a polarized issue, but at least in the way I see it, any social classification of people (or other animals, for that matter) simply just can't be labelled "natural" or "normal," whether we're talking about binary genders or seeing people on a gender spectrum, or deciding what qualifies as a psychological disorder, or what someone's personality type is, or pretty much anything else you can think of. We invented it, therefore it is artificial. Maybe we've created definitions that suit the majority and are therefore "normal," but it's not like differing from what is defined to be normal is bad, or that it shouldn't have happened [note: should = used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions]. Gender is a social construct created by humans and nobody is going to naturally fit in anywhere; they look at what's out there and figure out what they associate most with, so then they decide to label themselves as that. At least as far as I know, when you're born, you don't have any notion of what constitutes someone who identifies as male, female, bigender, or whatever else. This is getting a little off topic but the closest thing to concrete in this kind of discussion is biological sex, which is obviously defined by what body parts you have...and still requires more than just the label of "biologically male" or female, because there are still people who are intersex or born without reproductive organs or whatever.

Mostly I just think we need to quit trying to lump people into groups and treating the perceived minorities as special and deserving unique treatment, and instead just start accepting everyone for who they are and quit caring about if someone's male or female or transgender or bigender or agender or straight or gay or lesbian or bisexual or asexual or white or black or Christian or Hindu or atheist or agnostic or ignostic or Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Communist or Fascist or Anarchist or whatever the ♥♥♥♥ else you want to label yourself as. Each of us is an individual, different from everyone else in the tiniest ways. I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather just be myself than try to identify myself as and conform to the ideals/demands of some other group that's trying to fight for special rights or whatever. But that's just me.

I haven't said they are special people who need special treatment. I just meant to say they are human beings just like us who deserve respect.

The word normal is a word which can be roughly defined as "like the majority". Why does it bother people so freaking much.

And I'm not classifying people, nor saying LGBT whatever people need to be more like us, nor anything like that. I don't give a single damn about that. If you're gay or whatever, I'll just treat you the same way I treat everyone else. If you're gay, I don't care. If you're bisexual or transgender, or whatever, I don't care. As long as you're a good person, I don't care about anything else.

And I know I can sound like an arrogant dickwad sometimes, thank you very muchCould be a side effect of hanging out with Xero. I'm just some grammar nazi who decided to give his two cents. *drinks OJ*

to quote myself on the matter (slightly edited some things)

[18:44:37] <OJ> ehhhh I'm regretting posting in that SD thread already
[18:45:42] <OJ> I guess if anything I'm voicing my opinion which is basically that I'm not going to identify myself with anything people decide to classify themselves as
[some point later on but I'm inserting it here because relevant] <OJ> I personally don't identify as any sexuality, any special gender, any political party, or what have you
[18:47:30] <OJ> Like I don't even identify with a religion, or an irreligion for that matter
[18:48:05] <OJ> Mostly I just don't really give a ♥♥♥♥ and I'd rather not oblige myself to conform to the ideals of some external group whether it's claiming to be a minority that deserves special rights or not because it's going to cause unnecessary controversy no matter what I do unless I just stay out of it altogether
[18:54:36] <OJ> my philosophy is in short "stop classifying others, stop caring what others classify themselves as, stop creating classifications, just ♥♥♥♥ realize that people are going to be who they want to be and that's their right as a ♥♥♥♥ living being that exists in the universe so suck it up and quit arguing"

From what I read, it didn't seem like anyone was being an arrogant dickwad. I think there was just misinterpretations on word definitions and arguments. Everyone's pretty much in tandem that being transgender isn't a bad thing.