Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By changing the names we call them? Calling a trans person a "Tom boy" is OK but calling that person just a "boy" somehow threatens the Republic??? I thought being trans was supposed to be a sin. But not if other people don't have to use words for it you don't like?
What does that have to do with anything other than an attempt to appeal to stones?
It has to do with whether your assessment is based on actual people or a fiction created about them.
No that is Klinfelters syndrome, fragile X is when a there is a mutation in the FMR1-gene.
Yes, those with complete androgen insensitivity don't develop male primary or secondary sex characteristics. They are widely seen as women across the world. Even without estrogen replacement
It is called translocation. If the SRY-gene (which determines most of the differentiating int to the male phenotype) gets translocated on to the X chromosome we can say that they are XX SRY+ (positive).
Eh, where have you read that most has ovaries and a uterus? That was not in textbooks from what I can remember. The normal presentation is phenotypically male with small testes, but with out producing sperm.
Are you sure that it is common for them to have a uterus?
They do produce testosterone, but often at a lower level. They don't produce estrogen, normally.
What? The normal presentation is male.
Many of them are not even found at puberty (contrary to what you have said here they go through male puberty normally), but in fertility investigations (they don't produce sperms). Some are never discovered.
Approximately 1 in 20000 boys.
I dont know if you are deliberately being obtuse, or if you are asking a serious question.
I have spoken to at least 4. All of whom had mental health issues on top of their trans delusion. Now this is the part where you appeal to the stone.
Cool. I'm curious, though; what was the nature of these conversations? Just wondering if you may have a skewed sample from which you drew your conclusions.
What stone is that?
Why is trans OK with you if you get to call a trans person a "Tomboy? instead of a "boy?" If being trans is a sin, it's a sin whether you call a trans person a tomboy or a boy. Could you also say "butch" or "dyke" without offending your religious sensibilities?
I explained why I felt it was relevant. A group therapy situation with people facing the same or similar issues would be more skewed toward one issue than four random individuals, for example.
I'll just go with Mick. Who knows how Keith would feel.
Now, girls cannot be tom-boys without liberals grooming them into believing that they are boys trapped in a girl's body.
But the trans activist teachers seem inclined to make it their business as an opportunity to groom.
Well, are the teachers in the OP conservative or liberal? You know, the ones who are grooming and indoctinating trans ideology onto their students?
Did I dismiss your claim by calling it ridiculous or absurd?
