kohlrak: Then there's no point in mentioning that you're leaving the discussion. One can leave the thread without announcing their grand departure, and making a final argument. Rather, it's more like "i have an argument, and i want it to be the last word, don't you dare hold issue with it, form a counter, etc, because I'm leaving." At least, that's how I see it
BlueMooner: You seem to have trouble with this. The other person wasn't making a "grand departure", they weren't making an argument, they weren't trying to get in a final shot, or the last word. They recognized that you were interested in a different type of discussion than they were. It may be they felt you were more emotional about the topic, or more invested, or more interested in a serious argument while they wanted something casual.... maybe you were misreading what he was saying and he was tired of being misinterpreted... I don't know the specifics.
He made a claim, i made a counter-claim, he then made another counter-claim (regardless of whether or not it's valid, since it involved his opinion on something and I can't really argue with opinion) and, simultaneously, poof. Maybe it's childish to say, but this is akin to "punch bug! no punch backs!" I really do hope we're above such games, but, really, ask yourself the difference.
Regardless, he recognized that he wasn't going to have an interesting discussion with you, and so rather than be rude or crass or insulting, he politely bowed out and informed you of such. It seemed to me that you were spoiling for a fight, and I don't think he wanted to be part of that, so he "departed". It's a mature way to end a conversation you no longer wish to be a part of, for whatever reason.
Mature? Making an argument and then say "ok, time to leave, gotta make sure he doesn't say anything else by making him a fool for doing so." That's hardly mature, and that's precisely what i'm calling him (and other who do so) out for. The mature way to deal with such a person is to simply walk away, without the grandeur.
dtgreene: transgender people who are still in the egg or questioning phase.
Starmaker: Ok, I'm just going to call this out one more time. People who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth are not transgender.
Gender operates as a social construct, not as a binary biological reality. People cover their genitals, clothes are culturally arbitrary, and the only test for chromosomal sex a vast majority of people in the world gets is pregnancy and childbirth.
When people sincerely declare their identity (as opposed to lying for profit (catfish) or security (closeted people)), you should believe them. Allowing "you're really a man, you just don't know it yet" as a valid argument means 1) gender is not social and 2) there is a test that can be used to overrule a person's own identity. And that's bullshit. It's bullshit even from a Nazi pov, because at any time a person's identity has a 1:1 correlation with itself.
The transgender identity itself is a social construct originating from
1965. There's no biological predisposition to skirts (Scots) or dresses (Arabs) or long hair (Sikhs, ancient Greeks, metalheads); those are cultural quirks. Knowledge of gendered private parts is acquired, not inborn; Henry Darger was very aware of gender and expressed strong feminist ideas but drew all girls with dicks because the only pee-pee he ever saw was his own. Names are just soundwaves; "Molly" was a man's name 100 years ago. Identifying with one's (presumed) chromosomal sex is also a cultural quirk; it IS a biological reality but so what? there are people out there identifying with star signs (dumbfucks) or blood groups (racist Asian dumbfucks). Hell, there's blood group discrimination. Much like the Black identity only exists in response to colonialism, slavery, and their continuing consequences, the trans identity only exists in response to gendered social expectations and pressure. People who don't go against social pressure even in thought are not trans, because that's the only possible metric of trans-ness.
---
Also, no correlation (linear dependency) exists between a person's willingness to play as another gender and their own conservatism regarding IRL gender issues. Examples all over the spectrum include
- "alpha males" in Steam reviews of Tangledeep, hating the game's female character
- fans of Lara Croft, esp. teen boys, who are reaffirming their masculinity by playing a hyperfeminine character
- yourself, a woman who strongly prefers playing women.
---
Re: OP:
VR is first person, it's not fundamentally different from any other first-person experience. Looking out of a virtual woman's eyes is exactly the same, because it's (presumably) coded the same way (you probably won't even see how it feels to be on average shorter than most of the populace, because height is important for immersive VR and especially for a fighting game to prevent VR sickness). What will be different is harassment, because, unsurprisingly, ownership of pricy fighting-game-capable VR gear self-selects for rich entitled (wannabe-)rapist techbros. And even then you won't learn is how it feels to be a woman, because a major part of "how it feels" is "not a choice, not tourism, not entertainment, and only changeable with massive health and social costs".
If men wearing skirts made people transgendered, it would seem that the biological basis for transgenderism would most easily be found in Scottland. All the Scotts I know are true Scotsmen, and would deny such a thing. Take that how you will.
CymTyr: I was raised to respect women, and while I may be old fashioned, I do respect women in general, unless they give me a reason not to. That's exactly what modern feminists see as a porblem. In their view ALL women must be respected by men, regardless. 
