Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

How’s this gem for a quote then?

There are transvestites who don’t want to be their opposite sex 24/7. I don’t want to address some bearded guy as “lady” just because he put on a dress, painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off. But not, as vika insists on believing, just because he has a penis.

“don’t want to be their opposite sex 24/7”.

He sees transsexuals as individuals who want to be the opposite sex to themselves. The language choice makes it crystal clear he sees it that they are not being themselves by transitioning.

The word “cisgender” in this sense, seems akin to fullwise. “Fullwise” prevents one from pondering such terms as “totalitarity”, “cisgender” prevents one from pondering such terms as “normality”.

Another one, which I also addressed above. He sees those who are the same gender as their birth to be normal people. Thus he sees people who are not the same gender as their birth to be abnormal – freaks basically.

I just want to be somehow certain – if that’s possible – that I’m not drawn into other people’s mental issues. Some mental issues are more visible than other, and if I can detect them, I won’t willingly engage with them.

He goes on to say:

With someone visibly feminine if they wish to be female, or masculine if they wish to be male, my default stance is to call them whatever they wish to be called.

This is the telling part. With a great many such individuals they are stuck bewixt and between. As I mentioned some can never complete the transition no matter how they try. Some atre stuck with garguantian secondary male characteristics. (It’s not the same for FtMs as the more delicate structures are quickly overwhelmed.) So a visual search isn’t immediately obvious.

In those cases a sane person would ask. But:

If I find out it’s a game for them, and if I need to function with them, I’ll play my own game and change my behaviour accordingly.

Combined with his other statements about mental health and visual inspection, its not hard to draw the line connecting them that if he believes there might be any measure of mental strife involved, he’ll play a game at their expense.

I gave him plenty of chances to explain or clarify his position, and each time I got the brush-off, together with long text-walls where he contradicted himself umpteen times.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Or maybe the time you thought I was a bigot for not being sufficiently nice about transhumans, and in both cases you realized you were wrong but only after you’d gone on a holy self-righteous crusade.

Actually the bone of contention there was your statement that a fully prosthetic body would creep you out, as if all the original exterior components had been replaced, you’d never know if the person had started out being a different gender – and that you found wrong. A similar issue to this one.

I triied to seek clarification there as it was an interesting viewpoint I’ve encountered before, but never been able to get those concerned to open up about. If I could find out what was prompting this viewpoint from even one individual then I’d have some ammo to use to find a way to fight it when this does become a reality.

But that turned into a complete disaster, and I learned the best way to deal with this issue with yourself was to avoid it entirely. Other areas of prosthetics were usable, but that way would only result in endless rows and misunderstanding on both sides – too heated. So I dropped it, and am still hoping to run across another here or offline who will open up enough for me to get a good look inside.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Cis is a new term, coined in the 90s but not popularized in English until 2007.

Cis itself isn’t new. It dates back to the time of the Romans. Only the use in this context is new – cisgender. It fits though, as we use trans for all sorts of words with equal abandon. Transition, transgender, transhumanist, transit; all meaning to move or change. Cis is the exact opposite, and works to indicate a lack of movement, a lack of change. The term itself is fine. The use in popular culture is to replace some older terminology (older meaning older than cisgender, not cis itself): ‘genetic girl’ as opposed to ‘trans girl’ but the meaning is if anything greatly clarified with the use of the term cisgender. It means you never left identity with your birth gender. That is literally all it means.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

There are transvestites who don’t want to be their opposite sex 24/7. I don’t want to address some bearded guy as “lady” just because he put on a dress, painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off. But not, as vika insists on believing, just because he has a penis.

Actually it was because as you stated multiple times, if they might be a woman on some days and a man on others then you will refuse to give them the pronoun of their choice. As you went on to say anyone might choose to pretend to be a gender other than their own at any time.

So, the core of the issue is that you don’t consider a transgender individual as any more than a person of the gender other than the one they identify as, with a severe mental illness. You won’t ‘encourage’ the illness, so you won’t accept their transgender identity, and refer to tham as their birth gender always. To hell with them.

Then this whole diatrube about cisgender. Cis is an old latin prefix, so it predates all of this catawhaling about new terms destroying your precious language. It literally means ‘the same as’ as opposed to trans which means ‘across from’ (also Latin).

So cisgender was not used to indicate normal (your words) and thus transgender meaning abnormal (logical extension of your own words).

It’s a scientific nomeclature to indicate the person has stayed the same as their birth gender, whereas a transgender person has moved across from their origianl gender to a new state. In most cases they’re still moving.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

My issue is that you are fixiated on their genetalia, and you will use a pronoun relating to whether or not you think you can see a bulge in their pants, basically, without taking their own wishes into consideration.

Personally, even if I think someone is a drag queen, I’m happy to call them by the pronoun they most resemble taken as a whole at that time. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest that way, and if I’m unsure, I’ll ask. But then I factor in any disability as a matter of course, and address the person not the disability.

I strongly suspect this is the key point on which we differ.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
They consider themselves female, so they feel “trapped” in the body that has a penis; they think they shouldn’t have a penis, which is why they have it surgically removed. If it were as easy as renaming it to “female penis”, aka clitoris, it wouldn’t be much of a problem.

I would think it’s more the secondary male characteristics than just the primary that was the most immediate problem.

Incidently, the penis size is used in the case of newborns, to determine their gender. If the penis is very small, then its size is used to determine if the baby should be written up as a boy or a girl. Whether it has a uretha or not is immaterial as that can be surgically corrected later.

For some MtF, there is an additional problem in that they cannot have the corrective surgery done for health reasons – they’re not likely to survive the surgery. In these cases, they will retain the primary male organs, but have them chemically nullified instead.

My issue here is that you by your prior words, would not consider these individuals to be women, and would treat them with a masculine pronoun, solely because their health prevents the full surgivcal rectification from being carried out. That they present as fully female otherwise, is irrelevant to you, as you say “they might pretend to be a man someday”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Originally posted by fma1:

That’s true, strength is still important to an extent. But what about when something like this is perfected and finds widespread use? Which I have a good feeling will happen within our lifetimes. Then, even marching infantry will not have a difference between men and women since all of them will have technology that allows them to have more strength than a normal human could.

Don’t misunderstand; I agree wholeheartedly with the above. Plus such exoskeletons already exist. A woman used one to run the London Marathon last year. She’s usually wheelchair bound, but managed to walk 26 miles across two days using a Rewalk exoskeletal rig.

However, that said, the big problem for such rigs in combat is power. Unlike many other fields, battery power is not improving at an accelerating rate; instead progress is linear. This means that if you are using such a rig, the big limiter is going to be the number of battery packs you can carry out into the field – each one adding to your total weight. Likewise, generators require fuel, and can be quite noisy. A lot of modern combat situations work better when the team is not advertising their exact location to all and sundry.

When the power runs out, you have no choice but to leave the rig behind and rely on your own body strength to haul ass. that’s something to bear in mind, if you’ve been stranded fifteen miles from base. You’ve still got all your necessary equipment to haul; only now you don’t have the frame as an augment any more.

The option that should be a little different is when you’re integrated with an augmented body part rather than wearing a rig. An artificial lower body has many of the same benefits of a rig, but the added benefit that it has been surgically implanted, meaning it can derive it’s power from inside your body itself. The downside of course is that it is going to be a lot less bulky and ultimately weaker than an exoskeletal system can be.

I’ve met a firefighter, some time ago now, who had an early generation Rheo knee implanted. After rehabilitation, he was able to go back to work, the artificial joint being strong enough to support his regular work. You’d never know it from his performance that he was augmented.

So, it can be done. But of course, in most cases, it cannot be done right now.

So once again we’re back to limiting it to those who are physically capable – in terms of everything that is permanently attached to them – of meeting the strength and fitness standards expected, in order to be on the ‘front lines’ as it were. This means very few women will make the grade. However, my stance remains that there is no reason to issue a blanket ban to all women serving in this area. That is deeply unfair to those who otherwise will make the cut.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Originally posted by fma1:

It’s not all about strength though. Back in the days of swords and shields, physical strength and fitness were a soldier’s greatest asset. But times have changed.

Not as much as you might think. Whilst it is true there is a great deal of technology available to the modern solidier, it’s all in separate units that must be carried on the soldier’s person. If memory serves, it’s somewhere around 100lbs of equipment, and would be higher save that’s the limit that can be expected to be carried for the long haul.

This is actually why infantry assistance units like Boston Dynamics’ BigDog were developed in the first place; they’re additional equipment carriers, there to take the loads of additional equipment the soldiers cannot realistically be expected to carry themselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

Nope, it isn’t like I’m going to check their genitals. I’m willing to restate that as “is undergoing surgeries or hormonal therapy” or is about to do either. It’s rather irrational, but I know that such choice and having to go through procedures required to fulfill it are difficult, so I think a person who wants to be a man on Tuesdays and a woman on Sundays is just mentally ill, and I don’t want to play games with them, by referring to them accordingly to their moods.

You are aware that one of the requirements for that surgery is them living as their desired gender full time for years beforehand, right? That they’re taking hormones with permanent effects?

It truly just sound like you’re bringing your own bigotries into this. I didn’t wish to believe it was that simple, but faced with this evidence and the fact you clearly don’t give a shit about actually doing research on the subject, what other conclusion can I be left with?

It’s similar with “female penises” (I still don’t know what that is and something tells me googling it isn’t the best idea)

The female penis is the clitoris. They’re the exact same organ, just that the female one is much smaller, and mostly embedded. Stimulating it produces the exact same type and intensity of sensory data as stimulating the larger penis head does, at least according to signal data.

Barring a congenital deformity or malicious damage, every woman in the world has one the same as every man does.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Originally posted by radar816:

I would respond wholesale to you Koolaid, but you’re just twisting my words by taking everything I say way too literally. To writ:

Speeding is illegal, and cops don’t bar you from speeding. Anyone can speed, but if caught, you pay the price. If your car had technology to limit you to the posted speed limit, that would be barring you from speeding.

Not as easy as it sounds. Such limiters already exist and are frequently used in trucks by haulage firms. They’re quite often bypassed. Illegal as all get out, but still done quite routinely by some firms.

A lot of people I have talked to about not letting people in the military, them saying they know what’s best for the army, haven’t served; and when they bring up their solutions to people who have served, they’re solutions rarely pass a sniff test.

The biggest problem you’ll face with every military, even amongst those who serve/have served is that everyone has a different opinion of how things should be done, and you’ll get precious little consensus save in the base issues – where raw instinct is involved.

I’ve not been in the armed forces myself, but I’ve put back together more than a few who have. That’s where the bulk of my own experience comes from.

In support positions certainly, there is no reason a woman cannot serve. Whilst she’s serving support, it frees up a he to go to combat. In combat positions, so long as the standards don’t slip at all, and she knows what she’s letting herself in for, the same must be said.

Hell, I’m fully in support of the physically handicapped of both genders serving in the armed forces, providing we can remove the disability from being a problem, or integrate their unique perspective into equipment directly. I can off the top of my head think of quite a few ways to take advantage of a different embodiment to create a better fighting machine.

Embodiment is only a problem if the individual doesn’t have means to push beyond it. If they do, then it’s only old policies dragging things needlessly back.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

Well, no. If someone identifies themselves e.g. as a woman (and has gone through necessary surgeries), I don’t see a problem calling that person a “she”.

Why does the surgery matter? It’s not like you’re going out of your way to see the parts of the body affected after all.

Also why is she in quotes?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:


I’m really speaking only of alterations to language(s), not bodies.

Yes, I got that. You call them what they were born as, regardless of changes to the body. If they are a FtM, you call them she in public and private. If they are MtF you call them he in public and private. If they change their name, you use the old one, so as not to ‘obsfucate the gender’. It’s all about never changing the language, regardless of how their body changes.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Robin Williams Suicide

Well, it is selfish in a way, when someone takes their own life, Ubermorgen. They’re thinking of themselves, usually that they want an unbearable pain, whether physical or mental to stop. That they cannot go on like this, or it is too much. However, what people have to remember (and many don’t) is that when a person is in that state, they’ve usually been driven to their limit, and selfish is literally all they are capable of at the time.

As I said before, some get through it. They enter that black, yawning chasm, and by luck more than judgement they make it out the other side. However, that’s not the case for everyone, and when they’re in that dark place it is usually difficult to see the good in anything not by choice, but because it is where their mental state has left them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Sharangir:

I also liked the part where you used nonsense like “deliberately obfuscating someone’s gender”, whatever that means and the part where you called it newspeak without explaining either. So I’d say we’re even.

The only thing I can think would mean “deliberately obfuscating someone’s gender” would be the act of transition itself; moving the physical body from havingh the secondary physical characteristics of one gender, to having the secondary physical characteristics of the other.

It’s not obsfucating anything technically, but I can see how it might make some uncomfortable; either because they knew the person prior to transition or because the transition itself was not perfect.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

vika, it is rather obvious that YOU just don’t understand what being WEALTHY is all about.

I’d say I have a good idea…

I certainly DID NOT say EVERY.
Again, YOU hear what you choose.

You stated the risk was near-zero. i’m just pointing out that’s boulderdash. Not my problem if you don’t wish to hear it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Do you seriously think WEALTHY ppl aren’t capable of near-zero mitigation of such a risk?

Yes I do. There’s no practical (or political) way to screen every person’s hand for pathogens before you shake it, or to check every door handle or door plate before you touch it. There’s no real way to screen the entire executive washroom for pathogens before you go in, or to filter out micrometer-sized particles from the entering the car. There’s no way to screen every mouthful of air you breathe in and eliminate the contaminants before they touch tissue.

Unless you stop networking with people – including aides who themselves network with other people – then you are always going to be at risk from the disease vectors that are all around us. You can certainly keep your immune system strong (although usually the immune system is fairly weak in overworked individuals) and you can certainly take preventative measures, but to claim the risk is near-zero simply because you have financial resources is ridiculous.

It’s like claiming you’re immune to cancer if you have enough zeroes in the bank – it’s a laughable claim.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
it is one of using their money to build a very high, very dense, very scary wall between them and the woes of the world the masses are so prolific at having.

That much I will agree to. Eg I live in a heavily converted farmstead rather than in a 2 up, 2 down terrace in the city proper. There are stong advantages to being heavily recessed from the road, and to having enough room to swing a cat in some rooms, and enough room to swing a tourbus in others. Plenty of advantages to likely having more rooms than that whole terrace too.

My own financial state is modest. Those with real money can afford far more luxurious appointments equally well protected from the main road, walled and garded.

One best believe that the wealthy are in no way going to be exposed to most any diseases….let alone Ebola.

This one I don’t agree with. No matter how much money you have, you are not fully protected from exposure to pathogens unless you choose to live out your life in an airtight bubble. Even just shaking hands with another person, or breathing in the air they exhale is enough to risk catching one pathogen or another.

With ebola the big risk is coming into physical contact with a surface that an ebola victim with active symptoms touched four, maybe six hours previously. It could be as innoculous as a door handle, or a piece of paper.

The advantage if you have the financial resources there, is you can get a quick and expert treatment response in an emergency, but even that does not guarantee you’ll make it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

In this day and age, borders are becoming increasingly less relevant anyway, especially for those with means.

The only real obstruction related to borders is the language barrier. Without that, it wouldn’t really matter where you set up shop.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Try to use more sources than just skimming Wikipedia and dictionary sites for your knowledge, Daniel. Seriously.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Yeah… As tenco so helpfully pointed out, the goal is to use Wikipedia to back you up as a convenient source. Not to read a page and assume you’re an expert. Especially not to skimp on reading the page and then pretend to be an expert. Taking shortcuts with knowledge is bad enough. Cheating at taking shortcuts is mind-boggling.

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

And I was using doctor stereotypical sense, you know, tongue depressors, listen to your heart, diagnosing you, ect. So you call a MD doctor but you call a psychologist a shrink

A psychologist does not have a medical degree. That’s the key difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.

This is why it’s a good idea to actually know what you are talking about before you speak on a subject. Saves you looking like a nitwit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / UFOs

Originally posted by MarkNutt2012:

If we play that game, then from the perspective of my pet aardwolf Nero who lives in my garden eating slugs all day, all animals are either UFO, UGO or USO. In the true sense of “unidentifieds” it is prudent to apply a certain sensibility… otherwise there is always going to be somebody out there somewhere, who can’t identify a certain object therefore unidentifying it again xD

Going back to the other extreme, the one radar was talking about. You would have to do this, as Mark says, provide a general consensus definition, because if you did not, then even a genuine extraterrestial UFO could not be considered a UFO as the pilot mind of mechanism of the craft would know what it was.

It all becomes completely nonsensical at that point.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

Wtf lol you claim that I don’t have knowledge of things and then exclude for your benefit some knowledge. I call your bluff that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Phd- Doctor of Philosophy
MD- doctor of medicine
Md phd- doctor of medicine and philosophy

Bluff called and met. I have no idea where you got your definitions from, but a Phd is the title used for almost any field, as the next level up from a Masters. Perhaps because most of the sciences historically grew out of philosophy?

Medicine is a bit different because it’s a practical degree where someone’s life hinges on your decisions. It gives you access to be able to prescribe medication amongst other things, and as such is a special case compared to most doctorates.

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

and for someone who is so “smart” why do you persist when you know that I’m a troll?

Because I’m aware it is entertaining the hell out of everyone else :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

A doctor has a MD, Daniel. It’s the equivalent of a Phd, but isn’t the same thing. They’re not interchangable.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

that is essentially what happened……..

Making a fully functional pancreas is a heck of a lot more complex than growing a number of insulin-producing cells. Without a blood supply crafted to reach each cell, the cells will die off rapidly. You won’t get a pancreas more than a single layer thick without a dedicated blood supply.

Then of course it’ll need connection to the nervous system. The pancreas is awash with nerves. Three major branches pass through it, all of which have to be replicated to some extent in order to ensure it knows when to produce which compound, and when not to. That’s not even counting how it is stratified into different sections each with a different purpose.

No, producing a handful of insulin-producing cells is not even remotely like producing a working pancreas.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:
Just being honest. and I know you’ve said you’re a medical professional however I find that a little hard to believe. I explained why I’m here but why would a doctor feel the need to come to a forum to spit knowledge that wouldn’t usually fall on deaf ears and not make a difference? I didn’t have you pegged as a doctor eather.

It speaks volumes about your knowledge of medical fields, that you believe that medical professional has to mean doctor.

In other words, your knowledge of the medical professions is sorely lacking. Why am I not surprised?.

I could be a nurse, a paramedic, a surgical technician, a physician associate… the list of medical professionals who are not doctors goes on and on and on…

Personally, I’m a prosthetic technician and sensory interface specialist researcher. I deal in biomechanics, and their interface with the peripheral nervous system. As to why I come here, as I’ve said before I find interest in picking the brains of people who are not subject specialists, nor patients undergoing treatment. Besides, this site has served me well in the past, and I’ve made friends here.

I’ll agree that your own input has been completely useless and time-wasting to date, but you get some rough with the smooth, anywhere.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola cases popping up all over texas

Originally posted by jhco50:

It is partly to do with our porous boarders and the fact we are allowing open flights from Africa.

You’re aware I hope, that most countries in Africa aren’t a problem. It is only specific countries where the outbreak has taken place.

The two Ebola patients we know about at this moment are probably not the only cases in the country.

Probably not, since symptoms don’t crop up anywhere from two days to two weeks from infection, depending on the resistance of the individual. Good news though: whilst the symptoms are not visible, the patient is not infectious.

When symptoms do appear, it resembles malaria, so you do not need to fret over every random individual who might cough or sneeze.

We have opened our boarders to all of these illegals, shipped them all over the country, and brought in an untold amount of disease.

By that logic, you need to ban US citizens from going on vacation outside the country, and ban US citizens from serving in the armed forces at any time when the military might be in or near a foreign country. Pathogens don’t care what your nationality is; they’ll infect a citizen and a non-citizen equally well, and the disease vector could come from literally anyone.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Even if Daniel is not impressed, I for one, would like to thank you for the overview, Sharangir. This area’s so far outside my core expertise areas, I was (and mostly still am) lost as to where to start to research. Which theories had been discarded, et al. You’ve given me and others, more of a solid foundation upon which to build (and if Janton admires your description, I trust it).

I’ll try to make less of a fool of myself in socio-economic topics in future :)

Oh, and Daniel, for what it’s worth, I too did not have you pegged as a financial advisor. You come across a little bit immature, and I had you pegged as a high school student.