obfuscator

Of course, it's easier to make fun of someone than actually debate intelligently. I love the internet.

This is laughably incorrect. It's a well understood phenomenon that humans (and most mammals) are aroused by viewing sexual activity, and primary sexual characteristics such as sexual organs. Your argument holds up a little bit when it comes to secondary sexual characteristics like legs or hair, for example. All throughout history bodies (more female than male) have been recorded with ideal primary sexual characteristics such as large breasts and hips, which directly correlate to childbearing success, which is the ultimate driver for the biological urges that drive the impulse to mate. I think you're describing a sterile, asexual dream world where sexual attraction is based purely off an objective rational assessment of someone's personality and intelligence. That's nice, I suppose, but it doesn't reflect reality. Here's a question for you: If primary sexual characteristics do not effect sexual attraction, what does?

No, it wasn't covered already. It was blown off with some irrelevant hand waving about the occasional ancient civilization walking around naked. Sexual assault is: A) A serious crime, which can lead to life inprisonment and even the death penalty. B) Looked down on generally by society (so much so that murderers in prison even have a special distaste for rapists). What more do you want? How can it be "more adequately described as bad"?

I don't disagree, but when it is a biological urge driven by millions of years of evolution as opposed to a concious thought process it's not likely it can just be turned off at a snap of the figures. lel Jeez. That was an accident. Am I becoming dyslexic?

This tired argument is brought up time and time again. Nowhere in our culture is it taught that sexual assault is a good thing. Sexual assault is perpetrated by disturbed criminals, not by "brainwashed" but otherwise healthy members of society. You can teach that "nudity is fine" on an intellectual/societal level all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that humans have a visceral biological reaction to nudity in most cases. You can't legislate that away no matter how much you try.

I don't disagree, but when it is a biological urge driven by millions of years of evolution as opposed to a concious thought process it's not likely it can just be turned off at a snap of the fingers. I don't think the assumption is that trans people are the perverts, it's that allowing this makes it easier for actual perverts (who are probably not trans) to do bad things. I don't agree that this in itself is a good argument against gender neutral bathrooms, but it's clear that this has happened and will continue to, so it's not entirely irrelevant. Society tends to place the protection of woman above that of men. However, I have seen some discussion of the opposite case. Even the increasing numbers of homosexual people (men and women) cause similarly problematic circumstances. I suppose the best way to go about it is only create individual bathrooms (for any gender, obviously). However, that's significantly less efficient and it's unlikely to catch on quickly.

You're acting like this is always a conscious decision. If it was, I'd agree that it would be silly to complain about a straight trans-gendered person but not a homosexual. However, it's often simply an emotional reaction driven by biology. At first glance this is based on appearance, and many people who are transgender are still going to appear to look like their original gender whereas most homosexuals won't.

Implying transgender individuals are members of the opposite sex when they go in the bathroom that correspond to their gender? Implying that it's reasonable to have a biological reaction based on an initial viewing of someone who appears to be a member of a certain sex.

I didn't say a biologically driven aversion to being naked, I said a biologically driven aversion to being in a compromising position including nakedness around the opposite sex. In fact, this is more due to having a sexual reaction than disgust. I didn't say that was directly the reason, but is it interesting that it's the case. Once again, I'm pretty sure no culture would define ceasing to exist as success. So, you're frustrated to receive the same advice from people all the time. Perhaps this signifies that it's reasonable to expect this advice when you post in a public place about your condition. The generic advice is what you're going to get. You're not surrounded by doctors here. If receiving this advice is really so upsetting for you, I'm sure that resuming you're previous behavior would be happier and more fulfilling for you.

Very true, well said. Devil's advocate is a useful position to hold during a debate. Frankly I don't think you have anything to apologize for. When someone posts in a public forum about a problem or dilemma they have it's perfectly natural to see this as an invitation to provide advice or sympathy. I think it's quite strange to be complaining in public and expecting everyone else to either ignore it or only tell you exactly what you want to hear.

I never said it was correct because it was a majority. You referenced the fact that some societies have favoured nudity as evidence that humans in general do not have a biological reaction to nudity (I wouldn't say it's an aversion, but that's irrelevant). If you want to point to that as evidence it's strange that you would assume the minority to be correct and the majority to be incorrect with all other things being equal. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Not sure how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Actually, it's neither dishonest or misleading. Generally speaking we can define the success of a species as its degree of proliferation (and in the case of humanity, technological advancement). It's clear that by both these standards, humanity has been astoundingly successful. It's also difficult to get away with calling a primitive society that favoured nudity successful when they've ceased to exist. Not sure where the unsolicited anti-Christianity rants came from either.

I'm more certain it's a social aversion, not biological. Instinctively, countless animals, humans included, err away from stagnant water. That's a biological aversion. It's not nurtured; it's a genetic disposition. However, plenty of cultures do not shame nudity, modern and historical. Hence, it's more probably to conclude aversion to nudity is nurtured. Unless you want to dismiss anthropology to cater to a conservative viewpoint. The number of cultures that do shame nudity massively outnumber the ones that don't (and have been more successful, which is interesting).

Or, perhaps, people have a biologically driven aversion to putting themselves in compromising positions of partial nakedness around members of the opposite sex.

To be fair, it has already happened: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/10/05/university-of-toronto-alters-bathroom-policy-after-two-reports-of-voyeurism.html

i think i only changed my name once

If it's real syrup you were drinking they're basically interchangeable. There are different grades but most vendors should be the same quality, apart from freshness. source: work on/off for an industrial maple syrup producer

Yeah, it's been quite an interesting election. Given how late the liberals really started gaining, I wonder if the longer campaign benefited them the most. Anyway, it looks pretty likely to be a lib majority at this point. Can't say I'm thrilled, but I suppose it's not that surprising.

The only time a power dynamic is a problem is when it affects a third party due to a conflict of interest, or when it involves someone underage.

They won't all be good. The important thing is that you tried, and can learn from it. The next one will almost certainly go better.

I suppose I have an undercut. I cut my own hair though so I didn't know that's what it was called. Every hairstyle will eventually go out of fashion. The only thing that makes sense to do is follow the trend and don't get too embarrassed later.

why is it weird? I'd agree there are issues that arise with an age gap like that, but I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it.

want to get the ore out of my rocks?

@horatio: you're trying stuff, and making progress. Things aren't going to be magically fixed overnight, but you're taking responsibility for your own happiness and heading in the right direction. Keep it up :thumbup:

Nice. I haven't actually tried doing that in a while. What's your bench at now?

Yeah. Honestly at this point in my life it doesn't make sense (i'm still in an urban area). If I ever move someplace more rural it may be worth getting the surgery, but that's probably a few years away at least.