|
Flagellum posted:My ideal world is world overtaken by the gay agenda. I'm ready for our gay future, but I don't like anal intercourse. What can I do?
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
I feel like a lot of people who claim to be advocating for feminism these days seem to be of the opinion that women actually CAN'T work alongside men or in a male-run workplace. It seems to be taken to an absolutely patronizing extreme now, where everyone has to walk on eggshells to avoid saying anything remotely upsetting, where women undergo "emotional labor" and there's more terminologies and phrases and poo poo to somehow blame any hardship a woman encounters professionally on some external force, robbing her of all actual agency since she's essentially shackled to a shadowy patriarchy that is responsible for all her failures (and ultimately overshadows any of her successes). I fail to see how anything I've read on Tumblr would be a valuable role model for any of the dozens of actually talented women whom I know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Saint Isaias Boner posted:a brutally bad poster don't sign your posts revdrkevind posted:It's almost like most women value life-work balance, including taking more flexible schedules and less dangerous jobs than men, resulting less income as measured by dollars. Woah mansplaining up here Sorry, didn't mean to manterrupt
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:no functional adult actually cares about this or sees this as an issue Agreed, all Internet Feminists are non-functioning adults.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Feminism is by definition the belief that women and men should be treated equally so the term "equalism" is pointless bullshit semantics used by huge pussies afraid of assholes not liking them. That said, can you explain how modern feminism at all attempts to create equality between the sexes? What great inequality actually remains to be solved? Even abortion is protected under rule of law now, even if many culturally oppose it. EDIT: To clarify, how does modern (third wave) feminism seek to elevate women, rather than pull down men? How does talk of privilege accomplish this? 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:A lot of modern day feminism is trying to adjust attitudes with regards to gender inequality. It's convincing men that it's not okay to have sex with a drunk passed out woman at a party, or that transwomen are in fact still people and have a right to use the public bathroom of their choice. one of those things isn't like the other actually What about women who object to transwomen in their safe space? Are they really misogynists?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:No, but they are ignorant to what transgenderism is and are probably victims to news media hysteria that is creating a boogeyman that doesn't really exist. But if a woman is uncomfortable with a man wearing a dress or make up being in her bathroom, isn't that a completely normal response? At what point did one have a right to be the gender they want? I've seen a few openly trans people and they are essentially indistiguishable from men, save that they wear feminine clothing. I can't fathom how anyone would expect the majority of women to be okay with sharing a restroom with a person who does not resemble a woman outside of a few superficial details. EDIT: And besides maybe on Fox News, has the media been anything but overly pro-trans people lately? Caitlyn Jenner gets magazine spreads, the Target bathrooms thing got a ton of coverage and they didn't even bring up any of the "other side" issues like the rate of post-op suicides or anything like that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:See, one is entering a bathroom in good faith and just wants to poop and then get out of there. The other is a man exploiting a sensitive subject and wants to creep on women. All of the cases involving this so far that the media has reported on, have been men that identify as men, they dress like normal men do, and they went into a bathroom to sexually assault women and used transfenderism as a copout. Yes, but what's to prevent that from continuing to happen? Again, what IS to stop a guy from dressing up in women's clothing and creeping under that excuse? That's not a hysterical concern, is it? Why wasn't this an issue before? Were trans people just not using the bathrooms they want for all these years, or had they managed to poo poo in secret up until now? Why should we tear down a perfectly reasonable social barrier simply to cater to an incredibly small minority of people, benefitting them superficially at the detriment to literally everyone else? Why is it fair to hold federal education funding hostage until gender neutral bathrooms are created? For that matter, is it REALLY healthy to stick a prepubescent boy full of hormones, have them surgically altered so they can enter puberty "as a girl"? Is that...does that sound even remotely disturbing to you?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:who cares about bathroom you weirdos it's already illegal to be a weirdo sexual predator creep in a bathroom why does there need to be special protection for icked out manly men? as if anyone is trying to scope your tiny dil anyway Because if you establish a legal "defense" to being a weirdo sexual predator creep, then weirdo sexual predator creeps will attempt to and--knowing how litigious we are--succeed in doing just that. This is America, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:Codifying this stuff into law only invites confusion. Yes, 100 percent, and precisely my point. There's no way where making this a law will not result in a lot more problems than solutions. This isn't a legal issue, it's a cultural one. VVVV -- Less laws is good. Read the Tao Te Ching
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Uh okay. If I own a building and then I am allowed to set the rules/protocols within the scope of the law for it and if you violate those I am allowed to call the police and have you arrested for trespassing or disorderly conduct. According to my building rules, men aren't allowed in women's restrooms except the night crew janitors. That's not a law and he wasn't asking for a hypothetical you fuckman. where's i said come in i want some real answers
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I think the broader point is that: 1. The subject of transgenderism is not very well understood--period. It's not well understood by researchers, doctors, and it's not even particularly well understood by those who identify under it. There's been absolutely no national discussion, and the biggest trans advocate/most visible trans person is Caitlyn Jenner, who is a bad face for a movement for a half dozen reasons. 2. Rushing to embrace transgendered people is a very noble goal, but in our haste I feel our lack of understanding has hit problems that now we can't discuss. I think it's horrifying to give little boys hormone treatments to become "girls" as they reach puberty. I think the surgery itself is barbaric and ineffective, and I think the broad majority of trans people fail to adequately pass by either their standards or society's. My opinion, whether you agree with it or not, is certainly shared by a vast majority of people in the United States, largely due to point 1 above. There's a lot of willful misinformation on both sides, and the science at the core of sexual reassignment has been questioned quite a few times, and has some troubling flaws. 3. By defining the issue of transgendered persons as a civil rights issue, we are unable to adequately discuss it as a medical one. A civil rights issue begs the intrusion of the federal government. Now, the VA has put trans veterans on a fast track program, while those suffering from cancer enjoy long waiting lists. Federal funding for schools is held ransom until gender neutral bathrooms are constructed. It's not a good solution, and it doesn't sit right with me. Above all, it's infuriating that any critical look at the issue of trans persons is IMMEDIATELY met with rage, hostility, accusations of bigotry, and fury. Trans persons are their own best advocate. If you cannot discuss your condition without flying into a frothing rage, then how can any rational person be expected to take you seriously?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:who cares whether you think they pass or not that isn't the fuckin' point HONK HONK why are you posting like an abject retard I mean even by your standards Also I'm not talking only to you. I put down three broad points of contention, these are points that are holistic to the entire thrust of the trans movement. Moridin920 posted:plus there's the whole issue of 'let me judge what gender you are based on your perceived ugliness' Are you pulling this out of your rear end or are you referencing something specific? Who kicked a biological woman out of the poo poo place?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:like holy poo poo just let people use whatever bathroom they want I can't believe we gotta pass loving laws about that We don't, actually, that's entirely the point. Applewhite posted:Isn't "uhhh but my comfort" the sum total of the counter-argument? If it truly doesn't matter who uses what bathroom then use the bathroom you know society wants you to use. Why should everyone else have to change? And this. I don't quite understand it, and outside of validating "trans experience", I fail to see why this issue needs to be forced in any way whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:i know how dare those minorities want to be treated as equal citizens without worrying about morons harassing them about whether they have the right appearance It is an immensely false equivalent to compare trans persons to black people, for one. Black people are always black--they cannot change their skin color. A trans person has the option to dress like their biological sex. It's not remotely the same thing, and as I said before: 8-Bit Scholar posted:3. By defining the issue of transgendered persons as a civil rights issue, we are unable to adequately discuss it as a medical one. To wit, there is no civil right being restricted to a trans person. It is in no way written that one has a right to being the gender of their choice. Trans people ARE treated as equal citizens, in the sense that no law restricts a trans person from voting, owning a business, or serving in government. They are not treated equally in the sense that our society does not really accept that gender is fluid, particularly because there's no evidence to say that it is. Moridin, you need to be clear--do you think that gender-specific bathrooms serve a valuable function or not? If not, then the issue is mooted--simply vote to establish ALL bathrooms as gender neutral. But if you do, then this is an issue that warrants discussion, reasonable and rational discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:that doesn't mean people are allowed to refuse facility access or services based on minority prejudices Using "minority prejudices" is an extremely disgenuous and I'm not sure if you're being sincere in your professed confusion. You're willfully ignoring perfectly reasonable queries to white noise post nonsensical responses. You're not a D&D cretin, stop acting like one. Moridin920 posted:I suggest you look at the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act which specifically protects fatties from what you just said was allowed you loving moron If fat people is a disability than 70 percent of the loving country is disabled now. That's a really useless law.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Here's a reasonable query that no one answered: how do you legally enforce bathroom separation stuff? Do you really want to make it a police matter every time someone thinks 'hey that woman is a bit ugly I bet she's not really a woman.' No, which is precisely my point. The law has no place legislating in any way, I've told you this multiple times. You've refused to make meaningful responses and you're absolutely wrong about equivocating black persons to trans people, it's entire different circumstances. Nobody is entitled to their choice of gender. Agree or Disagree?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:And I feel like you guys are making it seem like switching gender is super fuckin' easy and people flip back and forth all the time uh it's not like that at all morons we're not quite in the Culture yet. Tell someone who has had their penis removed that it's cool they can just be a boy again when they need to use the bathroom. Isn't that exactly what gender fluid people claim to be? Are you only trans if you have the surgery then? In that case, aren't you now a woman, and not trans at all? Also lol, agree or disagree? Do you believe that one has a right to be the gender of their choice? Are they entitled to it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:it's not loving relevant dude, you don't get to decide for other people what gender they really are thus what bathroom they are allowed to use So you do not believe that gender-specific bathrooms are worthwhile, and all bathrooms should thus be gender neutral then?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:gender specific bathrooms are absolutely worthwhile as a social convention. but you just said Moridin920 posted:people are entitled to use a bathroom like a normal person without having some shrill bitch or weird dude telling them their pee is going into the wrong toilet so if anyone can use any bathroom they want, doesn't that already invalidate the gender segregation? If you think people shouldn't get upset if the seemingly "wrong" gender uses said toilet facility, then why even have the distinctions at all? Again, I'm not advocating for anything at all, I am inquiring as to what reasoning lies behind this. I made a point of saying that it seems impossible for anyone to discuss this without entering into a frothing rage, which you seem to be doing. Why? You can hurl abuse all you want, but this isn't an unreasonable line of inquiry.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:violating a social norm isn't a legal matter whatsoever dog and that's the difference. I want 0 government resources used to enforce men's/women's bathroom segregation crap. Okay, with you so far. please vote gary johnson 2016 quote:the only reason we can't just keep everything as is without expanding minority protections is because some nutters are now harassing people in bathrooms about it and some idiot states are even passing clearly unconstitutional bullshit about it too So a few isolated incidences require minority protections being expanded? I don't think I agree, what protections needs be expanded? If a man goes into a woman's restroom or a woman goes into a man's restroom and the occupants of that restroom object, then the government, by your acknowledgement, shouldn't be pressed to interfere, and this is a social norm. As such, socially, it is unacceptable for trans persons to use the restroom of their chosen gender unless they can "pass" as that gender. Which you'd furiously said didn't matter earlier. And I don't think the right to choose your gender is something that warrants government protection--I don't believe that is a right, and you've not stated that you do either. You also can't seem to settle on whether you think private business owners should be the be-all, end-all voice on this matter or not--you say they have the right to deny use of their facilities, but then say that legislative protections will ultimately strip them of that. You want it both ways.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:The protection should be: you can't deny individuals services or use of facilities based on X. X being race, gender, sexuality, etc. Trans people definitely fall into that umbrella. Simple. I suppose that seems reasonable, although again, I'm not entirely sure I'm on board with it still, on the basis that men could and likely would take advantage of such protections to try and get away with perverse things. Mostly I'm in full agreement with this post: Gammatron 64 posted:I don't care if you're a dude and you want to wear a dress. Cool, more power to you. I may not think chopping off your dick is the best idea, but it's a free country. I don't even care what bathroom you use. So I'm a little wary of the law legitimizing this sort of thing, particularly now that we're allowing children to undergo hormone therapy and surgeries. Again, this should not have been phrased as a civil rights issue and I'm honestly of the opinion that it shouldn't have saddled the gay rights movement either, gender identity is NOT remotely similar to either racial identity nor sexual preference.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:"Imaginary pronouns", as opposed to all those "real" pronouns that were handed down when God dictated the Oxford English Dictionary to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Inventing special terms that you insist on being referred to by is rather petulant. That said, all language is in a state of flux and subject to change and use. Pronouns, however, generally have to serve a purpose of identifying the gender of whomever is being referred to. In English this isn't THAT necessary, but in a language like Spanish, where masculine and feminine words exist, that identifying language is essential for communicating and also for the formation of proper Spanish grammar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:Of the instances of "I prefer xir/xey/xim" I've encountered on the Internet, almost all have been anti-SJWs trying to make fun of SJWs. I'm not denying that it happens, but for the way these guys bitch about it you'd think everyone on the planet invented their own pronouns one day and the English language immediately devolved into meaningless, guttural sounds. It's not "irritating" to me; someone requesting that I use specific pronouns to refer to them is such a weird and petty thing for me to get butthurt about. Nobody is really talking about pronouns though, that just got brought up this page. My issue is that "gender fluidity" is an extremely vague theory based on very little actual science and I am disturbed to see political figures using this to their advantage without any consideration given to what it would actually mean to adopt this theory into practice. I've extreme issues with the surgical element of treating gender dysphoria and I'm very concerned with whether this is going to be taught to children as fact in some attempt at espousing progressive values. The fact that effectively ordinary people are being villified as bigots, the term "cis-gender" is not only now part of the loving lexicon but in more instances than not it is used as a disparaging insult or a means of silencing objection to this gender spectrum, it's all very troubling to see.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:Seems to me that if people are allowed to "choose", and be recognized as, the gender they want, that would make them less likely, not more likely, to undergo gender reassignment surgery. I do find trans people somewhat unnerving, largely because I've never met a transwoman who I couldn't immediately tell was "off" in some way. I don't think there's no reason for that, I think men can tell that women are women, be it through pheremones or other stimuli, unless you've been drinking a whole lot. I think trans men are easier to obscure their identities since even now fully biological women can easily pass as male with some simple make-up adjustments. It's harder for a developed man to become as a woman. I actually fully support people being allowed to dress and act as whatever gender they want (adults can make their own decisions about their own bodies), but I do not feel like I must be obligated to wholeheartedly embrace their identity. I refer to trans people as their preferred gender pronouns largely out of politeness, which I think can be expected largely of anybody, but I do not think a trans woman is actually a woman, nor a trans man a man. Even if you only define sex by physical attributes, there's huge differences in how male and female bodies develop. It's why a trans woman should not be allowed to compete in women's athletics if they were a former male athlete. Their bone structure, muscle size, and so on gives an unfair advantage. The bottom line is that the entire reasoning seems to stem out of a completely non-scientific source. It flies in the face of evolutionary theory, basic biology, and it involves a lot of mental gymnastics and strange societal renovations to accomodate that it begs the question as to why we're even trying to do this in the first place?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:Then you have a disagreement about the meaning of words, not about reality. The map is not the territory. Which words? I mean, if you're saying the map is not the territory, I agree. A transwoman is not a woman, she's a man pretending to be a woman. That's the territory. The map is calling them "she". quote:Depending on the individual athletic association, this reasoning is often rejected. Many of the advantages associated with growing up male disappear after years of hormone therapy (in fact trans women often have much lower testosterone than cis women, due to lacking ovaries). Changes in bone density and bone structure occur, too. Whether it is "fair" to let trans women compete with cis women is ultimately a judgment call that will have to be made by doctors and sport scientists, not Internet armchair experts. So yeah, okay, ten years later a trans woman can then compete at a woman's level, maybe. My big example for this is the world of MMA fighting, where a fighter transitioned and wanted to take part in women's sports, where the issue of their build was brought forward. Agreed, if this is to persist, more study should be done, and I'd ultimately advocate for a third league to allow those...in-between...to participate, if we must. quote:It's a good thing we don't make laws based on evolutionary theory. Indeed society is arguably "civilized" to the extent that it moves beyond the instincts we've evolved. Basic biology is that male organisms possess the male sex organs and female possess the reproductive organs. Human beings and primates, unlike some fish and amphibians, cannot change their biological sex on their own in any natural way. Men and women grow and develop very differently from one another, and are better suited to different things--women tend to be more creative and smarter, men stronger and faster, etc. These are objective facts based upon years of scientific observation. There is no scientific basis to transsexuality--human beings will never transition naturally in their lives, and it is considered a birth defect to be born as a hermaphrodite or intersex, and one that is usually corrected immediately. In terms of society, yes, we definitely have gender roles for men and women, roles that are constantly being questioned. If you are only seeking society to change its perceptions of gender, then I still ask: why?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:I think the fact that people are sometimes massively uncomfortable with their birth sex, or with the corresponding gender role, adequately answers this question. This doesn't mean that they should be encouraged to mutilate themselves so as to no longer resemble their birth sex. I think everybody at times questions themselves, and many people have body issues, self-esteem problems, etc. Shouldn't the healthy solution be to encourage them to accept themselves for who they are? Aschlafly posted:Think about this for ten seconds. Suppose your statements about reassignment surgery and the suicide rate are correct. Now suppose we normalize the concept of "genderfluidity", so that a person who is born male can "choose" to be female, and legitimately be treated as such, without having to undergo surgery. Wouldn't that cause fewer people to want to undergo reassignment surgery? Then the concept of female loses all meaning, doesn't it? If somebody can "choose" to be female, that's really just everyone saying that a spade is a shovel, isn't it? They still have a cock, balls, hairy chests, they do not have periods nor can they bear children. What exactly makes them female?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:It's almost like gender is a social construct with ultimately arbitrary definitions But they aren't arbitrary, men are men and women are women. Everyone fundamentally knows this, a child knows this. Aschlafly posted:This goes back to the point above. You have a disagreement about the meaning of words, not about reality. I'm saying, you can't just call a man a woman and then they become a woman. You want a society where homosexual sex is then classified as heterosexual sex solely because one of the men identifies as a woman. You're not talking about reality, you're literally talking about the meaning of words. If the definition of female is "whomsoever identifies as female" then...I mean, again, there's no point to the term, it no longer accurately describes a biological woman. You can't just brush off biological sex as some sort of antiquated concept, it's precisely why these words exist in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:what's wrong with that though really? Why fight for gay rights, for the right for a man to love another man or vice versa for women, if you're ultimately going to just make everyone a "heterosexual" after all? Doesn't it invalidate THAT identity?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:Even if that's how we define "female", I can still inquire about someone's biological sex, or the state of their genitals, or their karyotype, or their ability to bear children, or whatever, in plain, unambiguous English, without introducing any bizarre new words or concepts. So what's the problem? If you truly think biological sex has no bearing on anything but aesthetics, are you saying a heterosexual man should be sexually attracted to both women and transwomen? Is there no distinction in whom you are sexually attracted to? Do you have no gender preference? If so, do you not think that colors your perspective slightly on this issue?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:Do transwomen get tattoos on their foreheads stating that they are, in fact, trans? I don't understand your question. People are attracted to whomever they're attracted to. Well you seem to think that we can create a society where sex doesn't matter. I was curious as to whether it mattered for you. Again, you have this theoretical society that has no bearing on reality. You're not going to be able to convince a straight man that another man is a woman. That's why the stereotype of trans people is that they prey upon very drunk men who can't tell the difference until they're balls deep, but even then, that's hardly a good basis for a relationship, isn't it? Have you seen Priscilla Queen of the Desert? Out of curiosity, what do you think of the main character's arc, that is that he has to accept responsibility as a father, and become a part of his son's life, despite fleeing those responsibilities and hiding behind a stage persona? Applewhite posted:Well who's infringing on whom here? Why is it "infringing" to want males and females to use the bathrooms 99.9% of the population agrees to use, but it's not infringing to barge into a space explicitly designated to exclude you just because you feel like you belong there and that exclusion isn't fair? This, is also a very good point. It seems to me that the accomodations for a very small minority create incredible complications for the vast majority, and I do not see why this is prudent or ideal, particularly if the only goal is to validate the gender identity of strangers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:eh kinda dangerously close to 'it makes whites uncomfortable to eat around blacks so segregation isn't oppressing black people it's just protecting white people's rights to not be uncomfortable.' Only if you stretch logic and try constantly to define trans rights as a civil rights issue, and until you are willing to state that you believe gender choice is a natural born human right, I fail to see why it should be defined as such. Nobody is oppressing trans people--but nobody is saying that it's totally normal and fine for a man to wear women's clothing and go about town insisting to be called a woman either. Not validating an identity is not oppression, and you keep making this false equivalency.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:Why would I have to? Trans women are out there in the world, not hiding in dungeons with goblins and liches. You've probably crushed on one (you might've even slept with one, GASP) without realizing she was trans. Oh the horror! Lol, no, I'm extremely confident I haven't. Moridin920 posted:I mean dude how is it NOT oppressive to not validate an identity? You're literally denying that person the right to self determine their self of self that's like the definition of dehumanizing. I identify as Napoleon Bonaparte. By not validating my identity and giving me command of the French military, you are oppressing me. I want you to read that bolded statement several times and then tell me that you actually have any loving clue what you are trying to say. You're being extremely dense about this; it is not the role of government to validate people's feelings, in most cases, and it certainly isn't its role in this case. Validating trans people is not even tried and true to be a good thing, medical science still hasn't concluded whether validating their feelings of dysphoria even helps treat the malaise. Also NC attempted to pass a law that stated you have to use the bathroom that matches the gender on your birth certificate, something that you can change if you want. That's a very big distinction.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:You're sitting there going 'no actually I have all the truths here and you're just wrong and mentally ill' and denying them their very identity and saying it isn't oppressive come on man. What falsehood have I stated? Gender dysphoria is a mental illness currently, that's the medical definition. If a man says that he's a woman, how is that somehow less crazy than a man saying he's actually a dog? Out of curiosity, what's your stance on otherkin?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:ooooh she can't REALLY be a woman she's too uggo and too fast gotta somehow be a tranny CHEAT This is from 50 years ago, why on earth is it relevant based on modern science and knowledge? You're being silly. You've defined oppression so broadly that literally just saying "you're wrong" could be taken as not validating your identity and thus dehumanizing you. It's absurd. Moridin920 posted:Once upon a time a woman having an orgasm was a mental/medical disorder as well. Actually, feminine hysteria was thought to be treated WITH orgasms, hours upon hours of doctor-assisted fingerbangs. And look, I'm sure there are tons of weird medical conditions that can obscure or alter perceived norms about gender--like a woman could get that weird disease that gives you super muscles that will poo poo your colon out after thirty years. That's a medical problem though, that must/should be cured and treated. It's not a perfectly healthy gender identity. Since you refuse to answer the question of rights, then how about this: is somebody with gender dysphoria "healthy"? Is wanting to be the opposite gender as your birth one a normal state of being, and if so, why? Aschlafly posted:Merely theoretically being able to change a characteristic doesn't mean it isn't protected, or else "no Muslims allowed" would be A-OK (religion is mutable). It's not theoretical, you can absolutely do it. I think it costs a little money? I do not think gender identity is quite equivalent to religion, outside of both being things you can choose later in life.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Aschlafly posted:It is theoretical. I can't will myself to "feel" female. You're not really making a strong case that these aren't simply mental delusions. A person may "feel" they are a dog, a cat, Walter Cronkite, or as a woman. The only reason that trans identity isn't similarly dismissed is because we can, theoretically, use surgery and hormones to give somebody the basic appearance of the sex of their choice. But even if we can do it, should we?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:honestly? as long as I don't have to pay for it go hog wild. But you do have to pay for it, the VA has sexual reassignment surgery on the docket. In fact, you will get fast tracked for it, as opposed to having cancer treatments, where there's lengthy waiting lists. EDIT: Stop double posting so much you fuckman
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
^^^^ -- You don't have that right though.Applewhite posted:I don't get why bathroom usage is the hill anyone has chosen to die on, but in particular the transsexual community. What "right" exactly are transsexuals fighting for? The "right" to use the bathroom of their choice? qft
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Luxury Communism posted:Historical fact: In the late 19th century all restrooms were unisex until the proto-feminists attacked. Wait really? That'd be loving hilarious if so. History really is a pendulum. Aschlafly posted:We might as well do away with all civil rights legislation, amirite? Less laws is always better. In truth, nobody should question anybody's civil rights because the Constitution declares all people to have these rights. Your argument lies in the fact that you are defining things like "gender identity" as a human right somebody has, but you've not really backed this statement up. You are not entitled to be perceived how you want. An ugly person doesn't have a right to be perceived as beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:we wouldn't need it if people in the South stopped making laws that say 'the state determines what bathroom you are allowed to use.' As I recall, social media had a sustained campaign that was meant to say that you shouldn't question the gender identity of bathroom users well before NC legislated it. In this day and age, where trans people feel more empowered to express themselves in that way, it seems inevitable that somebody would put a legislation like this forward. The fact is is that it is no more discriminitory than the social mores it seeks to enforce--that men use men's rooms, women use women's rooms. This didn't need to be enforced by a law because it was not really challenged at all because everybody liked that arrangement.. As Applewhite pointed out, this is really an issue that is being forced, and it isn't prudent or rational. It doesn't do anything to actually help trans people, it just serves to make women less safe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 22:53
|
|