i suppose you aren't going to address you contradicting yourself?

"my point is that you are identifying them as asexual then claiming that their sexuality has nothing to do with their identity"

"I said "Identity is not the same as sexuality". I did not say it "has nothing to do with it"."

"It can be part of someone's identity. And it may not be for others.
And in the case of some asexual people, sexuality is not a factor."

"especially considering your history"

you keep bringing up my history... as i've said i'm almost certain that in 8 years i have been banned for "flaming","trolling" whatever around 3 times

you don't think this is a ridiculous attempt at poisoning the well?

"And since you brought it up, I've been here for 5 years. Never got banned."

i didn't bring it up, you're the person who is running away from the topic of discussion to talk about my history on this site and mother of god seriously? you need to take me under your wing and teach me to be as good a person as you are

"Let's put it this way. A group of people identify with "fighting to reduce the differences between men and women".
Am I supposed to believe that your're not aware that your comment will probably exclusively provoke angry responses or arguments, because they find your comparison unfair?"

no i expect people who discuss these issues to be mature enough to discuss the ideas at hand reasonably, i mean i think everyone here has that expectation otherwise you wouldn't be a moderator would you?

"And I'm asking you to answer my question pertaining to the very first post in this exchange"

this is not true, we were talking about asexual people and you have now decided to throw that discussion away entirely and derail it into something else

i was speaking more specifically about posters who will decry the gendered issues women face in today's society(which are of course an important issue), but now are implying that to be a woman all that is required is a change of dress

are you seriously telling me that you are not seeing this in this thread?

that person who i argued with before was arguing, for example, that gender has nothing to do with biology... well if that's the case well obviously it has to be primarily about dress... would you call that an unreasonable conclusion?

"Your second most recent moderation came as a result of your 'passion' for discussing equal rights for women"

lol it was because i posted a gif my dude, you're really going to argue that i'm some type of monster because i posted a gif? lol

how many times have i been moderated for whatever you are accusing me of doing?

Extreme?The person is going to make a decision that will basically mutilate his body.Not only that, but they will undergo an intense hormone terapy(assuming thats how its called), which regulates multiples parts of your body, and that can even influence your personality and how you feel.

Honestly, this kind of decision is even more important on how old you should be to drive a car for example.Isnt the reason why it is adopted the age 18 for people to start driving?(In most countries anyway)Not only it is for to wait for the body to better develop things like reflex, but also for the one that is about to learn to drive to understand its consequences.Im not saying that 18 is the ideal age for one to make such a decision, but its a good age, for most of humankind, in which someone has already develop its faculties enough so that he understands the consequences of the choices that he makes, wether that be for the dangers of driving a car, if murder is right or wrong, or if changing your whole body in a one way procedure is really what they want.

There are obvious exceptions to the rules.People that are morte mature than others, smart than others and all that.But when you make rules, you make them so that they will cover most of the situations.It sucks for when you are the exception, but life isnt fair and nor is the world.

@AngryLittleAlchemist sorry I was meant to reply to you, but your post didnt appear for some reason.

Ok, we mutilate the bodies of boys all the time without their consent already, so I'm not really sure why you'd use a buzzword to make it sound worse than it is. It's a decision they are making. I'm not even saying that waiting is bad, but 18 is pretty far into a persons life and if they haven't started on hormone blockers they could already have their mind irreparably damaged by not being able to start the transition process. Making it too early may be controversial, but the answer isn't to use a faulty argument like brain development when it's convenient for you. The average person should already know how they identify quite a bit before 18. The longer you wait the worse the damage to the person. The answer is probably a middle ground and not either extreme.

I'm not sure what the driving age is for most countries but I'm also not sure why I'd care, because my entire point is that the brain doesn't stop developing till 25 and that only caring about brain development when it's convenient for your point is disingenuous. Driving in the U.S. is probably different state by state but at least where I live you get a permit at 15 and you can drive with a license by 16 - and supposedly in the U.K. it tends to be something similar, where you can drive with a permit at 15 and 9 months and you can get a license by 17.

You could arbitrarily pick any number under 25 and argue the brain hasn't developed enough to make decisions. In fact the murder thing is a great example - everyone knows if murder is right or wrong before 18. That's why people who are under that age but still pretty far into their life are often judged as if they were adults. People already alter their brain chemistry all the time anyways - things such as overeating often change your habits. 

"Im not saying that 18 is the ideal age for one to make such a decision"

"but its a good age, for most of humankind,"

Ok then you ARE saying it's the ideal age. 

@AngryLittleAlchemist Sorry man, your posts simply dont show up when I click reply.Gonna have to tag you from now on.

Im sorry if the word Im using is strong but its no buzzword when its being applied correctly.When they do the surgery, they are doing something that is irreversible.If thats not mutilation, I dont know what it is.And dont get me wrong:While this word is usually associated with horrible acts, in this case its something good, assuming the person REALLY wants to do that.But its still a mutilation.Which is precisely why its a very important decision.And this applies to boys and girls mind you.When you cut a penis to make a vagina, or a vagina to make a penis, its irreversible as far as I know.If Im wrong, please correct me on this.

And Im going to be mean now, and I dont mean to be mean, but this ''rule'' isnt meant to be fair for everyone.Its meant to be fair for most.You say that the longer we wait to perform the surgery, the worse is the damage to the person.Ok.I dont really disagree with this.But what of the ones that do end up regreting, that decided to do the surgery at lets say 10 years old, but by 14 they regret doing the gender swap?What about the damages that have been done to that person?You might say ''But they will be sure that they want that''.But how sure a child can be of that?If even we, as an adult, can be lost on what we want for our lives?

The idea of implementing a minimum age to do that, wether its 18, or 25 or even 16(I can see 16 also being fair) is to minimize the chance of that person being wrong on what he/she wants.How can you be against that?Do we really think that a child at age 3 saying ''Im a girl'' really understand what he is saying, or even means?Or if, at that point, its more the parents will rather than the childs?There are so many ifs that a simple rule of '' cant do that until you are 18'' could fix.Again, some people will be left out.And suffer too, sure.But the world isnt fair or perfect, and thats the best we can do without reading the childs mind and seeing the future.

And dont get too hang up on the driving example.Its just an example.It was just to show that you dont go giving cars to 8 year old children just because they say they can drive.And even if they can, its a minority.But that minority would open a whole can of worms on the sense that other children, the ones that are not capable of driving, wants to drive and causes acidents.You get the drill.

Regarding the murder example: and yet, there are laws that only allow children to be trialed as an adult after a certain age, and exceptions, yeah EXCEPTIONS, are made for henious crimes, when said children are discovered to be sociopaths or something like that.They are not the rule.

And yeah, I think 18 is the ideal age, but I wouldnt be against it being 16 or 21 for example.

I feel like you guys are kind of arguing different things. People aren't having sexual reassignment surgery at 10. People aren't even usually taking puberty blockers at ten. When someone is transitioning, there are several steps that are taken:

1) Social transitioning: Basically just being treated as and expressing yourself as the gender you identify with. This obviously is not irreversible in any way and this is the only transitioning you see on kids under ten(ish).
2) Puberty blockers: Assuming someone has not gone through puberty already, the individual will often begin taking puberty blockers to prevent or delay the onset of secondary sex characteristics. This is generally considered to be reversible in the sense that when you come off the puberty blockers, it is expected that those sex characteristics will form in the absence of other treatment.
3) Hormone therapy: This allows the development of characteristics of characteristics matching the gender an individual identifies with. This is permanent in the sense that something like surgical intervention would be required in order to reverse something (ex removing/adding breast tissue). From what I can tell, under current guidelines, this cannot be done to anyone under 16.
4) Sexual reassignment surgery: This seems to be what you are talking about where an individual's genitals are changed by a surgical procedure. This is not a reversible process (however I suppose you could possible get the surgery again but I highly doubt that would be advisable). This step is also not always taken by the individual transitioning. From what I can tell, under current guidelines, this cannot be done to anyone under 18.

You seem to largely be arguing against something that doesn't happen, which is fine, but I don't think anyone in this thread is actually arguing in favor of sexual reassignment at ten years old.

Thank you. I know this is going to sound too convenient but I was going to mention this even in my first reply. I was convinced that maybe I somehow misunderstood the OP and that what Natilus was describing was as he said,  but as an unfortunate exception. 

Assuming steps 1 through 3 arent irreversible and that dosent inflict damage to the body if they stop taking it(like the blockers) then Im kind of fine with this.I just assumed that the articles were trying to imply that the surgery should be done as soon as possible.

Having said that, I dont think this should be encouraged like its something normal.I mean, in the sense that parents and doctors jump to this series of procedure, just because the child says he/she wants,without extensive research on the child first(therapists and all that talking with the child to know if they really want that)

"What is your issue with that?"

i pointed out the contradiction in what you said previously... if that wasn't your intent so be it

"If you're referring to bans in relation to trolling, flaming, and antagonizing people, then it's still a couple more than what you suggested.
But it's not just bans that are relevant, but warnings as well. As are other factors."

i'm talking about bans, how many bans have occurred over that time period? i don't know how to view this information as a regular user

what are the stats for other users?

"I brought up your history because you seem to be at it again."

how so?

"You brought up your specific amount of bans in relation to how long you've been here, as if to say "it's not that bad considering it's over 8 years"."

yeah my intent was to say that as you have pointed out i am not a perfect person but i'm still not a full on demon, do you disagree with that?

i mean if we round the numbers it comes out at about 1 ban for every 2 years

"Looks like you're not even trying to come across sincere any more."

why do you feel that way?

"And you highlighting some text is not a discussion."

lol i pointed out that you were contradicting yourself? what else was i supposed to do? put up neon signs or something? 

"but seems like you wanted me to pick up on a contradiction you perceive."

that i perceive? you mean to tell me that you don't see the contradiction?

"You know there have been times when one person perceives a contradiction where there is none due to a misunderstanding or miscommunication"

well i suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that before clarification the contradiction has still occurred right?

"I'll be able to respond to your comment about your perceived contradiction regarding asexual people when you explain where and how you perceive a contradiction there."

if you can't see how this

"It can be part of someone's identity. And it may not be for others.
And in the case of some asexual people, sexuality is not a factor."

contradicts this

"I said "Identity is not the same as sexuality". I did not say it "has nothing to do with it"

then the only reasonable conclusion is that you don't know what a contradiction is

"Because in your original comment you said "the people normally fighting to reduce the differences between men and women.""... "in this topic" was the full statement and obviously it was a generalisation

"It was not because of a gif. And there was no gif in the post."

if i remember correctly the moderator told me it had something to do with gifs but i could be wrong

can you post the context here so i can see what you are referring to?

"It was because you were adamant about arguing women's rights in a topic that was not about that, even after a moderator warned you to stop."

why do you think its problematic for someone to be enthusiastic about women's rights?

"Quote those conflicting comments, and tag the users."

i already did with one of them since i was engaged in discussion with him

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9001190

"Gender is a social construct in the sense that what each gender is expected to do and how each gender is expected to behave are mostly socially created and have nothing to do with biology."

he states here that gender has nothing to do with biology and is socially created, are we in agreement on that?

"As for 'how many times', in regards to flaming, trolling, antagonizing, etc, one time is one too many."

is the policy now to permaban users after one infraction?

"And as I said above, it's more than the amount you suggested when it comes to bans alone. Add in the warnings, and it's quite the list."

can i get some numbers?

Firstly dont disagree with me on something i never said and turn it on me.

Bolded: Support the 3-6 year old in the way it needs support ofcourse and no one disagrees on that ,you can read that in previous comments.

What you fail to understand is that every child is mentally different and you just put them into one big group that apparently have the same needs,and you also don't understand that most problems with these kids come in their teens and later life and that research is also on the site you use links from,did link it before.You cannot call this an overal healthy practice for a childs development and ignore the years that come after.

So your so called evidence is no evidence but partial information that is good research on its own but it belongs to a bigger whole.

Not all of the children should be pushed towards another gender because children can not always make a healthy decisions for themselves and parents can make children believe they want it so we need to be very carefull and that is why people think not every "support"is in reality support and therefore it is open for abuse.

You're the one that said I'm misunderstanding the point of most of the posters in this thread who have concerns. So I'm telling you what I'm arguing against and what you are vicariously defending. If you want to stick with just what you've said I'm fine with that, but you're the one that wants to defend what the group in this thread are saying and not just your own words with statements like:

"That is kinda your problem in your first comments in this thread you immediately start putting words in other posters mouths and make an argument about something most people just agree on like in this very post you again think we talk about children being "supported"."

Once you say that I feel it's fair game to ask you to defend the statements of others since you've already decided to do so. And I think it's totally fair to think that the discussion is on whether or not you support a child that thinks they are trans considering that the OP contains two examples both of which are of parents who responded to what their child said. That's what led off this discussion. 

If you don't give me the specific studies that disagree with what I've posted I've got nothing to debate against so I guess I'll leave it at that until you provide links. I will say, however, that what I'm failing to see from "your side" is the admission that a lack of support for a child going through gender questions is also abuse. If your kid consistently insists they're a girl and you insist "no, you're a boy" then there's a sizable chance that you've just shut down someone with legitimate concerns. I'm personally much more concerned with that scenario over this idea that people all over are pushing their kids to be trans. If that's something that is happening with regularity I would have to see some proof of that.