Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[spurraider21]

1070756727295897600
you should be suspicious when a politician tells you who to pray to and when a clergyman tells you who to vote for

[Chris]

you should be suspicious when a politician tells you who to pray to and when a clergyman tells you who to vote for

Why should I be suspicious, and which politicians are telling me "who to pray to"? Which clergyman is telling me who to vote for as well. Thanks in advance.

[spurraider21]

Why should I be suspicious, and which politicians are telling me "who to pray to"? Which clergyman is telling me who to vote for as well. Thanks in advance.
it's not their place or their role.

if ted cruz started saying "to all the great citizens of texas, i urge you to pray to allah and the great prophet mohammed" you'd be cool with that?

[Chris]

it's not their place or their role.

if ted cruz started saying "to all the great citizens of texas, i urge you to pray to allah and the great prophet mohammed" you'd be cool with that?

Ah, so you were talking out of your ass.

[spurraider21]

Ah, so you were talking out of your ass.
no, not at all. it shouldnt be a politicians place to tell people who to pray to. and it shouldn't be a clergyman's place to tell people who to vote for. otherwise your clergymen are just part of the political swamp

[Chris]

no, not at all. it shouldnt be a politicians place to tell people who to pray to. and it shouldn't be a clergyman's place to tell people who to vote for. otherwise your clergymen are just part of the political swamp

I see you're not a fan of the 1st amendment. That's fine.

[Pavlov]

I see you're not a fan of the 1st amendment. That's fine.Actually he's describing the establishment clause of the 1st amendment very well.

You don't even know what that is.

lol Chris

[spurraider21]

I see you're not a fan of the 1st amendment. That's fine.
how'd you come to that conclusion?

[Chris]

1071170902166003714

She the real MVP

[Chris]

1071135598717464576

Big Ben all over that ass :lol

[Pavlov]

lol AOC triggering everyone

Especially Chris:lol

[Chris]

1071177050868908032
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FDG00ErU kpoOGY%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1

[Pavlov]

1071177050868908032
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FDG00ErU kpoOGY%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1Yeah, she'll be prosecuted right after Susan Rice.

[Chris]

1071154362875969541

[Pavlov]

1071154362875969541:lmao Chris is so excited about another nothingburger.

[Chris]

1071223227157045253

[Pavlov]

1071223227157045253It's a Republican government, Chris.

lol

[Chris]

1071245055820730368

[spurraider21]

1071245055820730368
what was the pronoun the teacher refused to use?

[Chris]

what was the pronoun the teacher refused to use?

Read the article is thanks.

[spurraider21]

Read the article is thanks.
I did. Just wondering if you read beyond the headline in the tweet

[Pavlov]

I did. Just wondering if you read beyond the headline in the tweetNo chance in hell.

[Chris]

I did. Just wondering if you read beyond the headline in the tweet

Sure thing pal.

[spurraider21]

Student asks to be called “him”

teacher refuses

school instructs teacher to refer to student as “him”

teacher says no

teacher fired

simple stuff. Why the outrage?

[Winehole23]

against his religious beliefs, somehow.

can you explain it, Chris?

how is it contrary to scripture to show respect to a person by using a requested form of address?

[DarrinS]

Student asks to be called “him”

teacher refuses

school instructs teacher to refer to student as “him”

teacher says no

teacher fired

simple stuff. Why the outrage?


:lmao

[Winehole23]

:lmaocan you explain how addressing people respectfully goes afoul of scripture?

[FrostKing]

Student asks to be called “him”

teacher refuses

school instructs teacher to refer to student as “him”

teacher says no

teacher fired

simple stuff. Why the outrage?
He teaches High School. His job should consist of.....teaching. Not cuddling 17 year olds.

Why are the students even being given the option of deciding how they should be called. This is public school, they aren't paying customers like in College.

[Winehole23]

He teaches High School. His job should consist of.....teaching. Not cuddling 17 year olds.

Why are the students even being given the option of deciding how they should be called. This is public school, they aren't paying customers like in College.The teacher is an adult. His employer instructed him to address a student respectfully. He refused to and was fired.

That'll happen when you're insubordinate.

[FrostKing]

The teacher is an adult. His employer instructed him to address a student respectfully. He refused to and was fired.

That'll happen when you're insubordinate.
The student is not an adult, doesn't deserve respect.

But I agree, teacher should bail on this school if he doesn't feel comfortable being part of the circus

[Winehole23]

The student is not an adult, doesn't deserve respect.I pity your children.


But I agree, teacher should bail on this school if he doesn't feel comfortable being part of the circusToo late for that, already pink-slipped.

[FrostKing]

I pity your children.

Too late for that, already pink-slipped.
American schools allow the inmates to run the asylum. That's why foreigners move in during/after college and immediately out perform & take the best jobs. But American students are socially aware and all that jazz

[Spurtacular]

lol AOC triggering everyone

Especially Chris:lol

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez another one of your heroes?

[Spurtacular]

American schools allow the inmates to run the asylum. That's why foreigners move in during/after college and immediately out perform & take the best jobs. But American students are socially aware and all that jazz

They don't care as long as educators are getting fat pensions and the children have access to Fortnite.

[Winehole23]

Lol fat pensions

[koriwhat]

1071223227157045253

bongino :tu


The teacher is an adult. His employer instructed him to address a student respectfully. He refused to and was fired.

That'll happen when you're insubordinate.

nah, they're asking him to lie and pretend. fuck this make believe world we live in nowadays with you loons.

[Winehole23]

NY offered to use eminent domain to scoop up property for Amazon.

It also offered to give Amazon a heads up about any FOIA requests that might make them look bad, so Amazon can challenge them in court.

1072532031735848960

[Pavlov]

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez another one of your heroes?No.

Notice how easy it is to answer a yes or no question.

Is Donald Trump one of your heroes?

Yes or no.

[Chucho]

NY offered to use eminent domain to scoop up property for Amazon.

It also offered to give Amazon a heads up about any FOIA requests that might make them look bad, so Amazon can challenge them in court.

1072532031735848960



Wow. That's huge, but the vast majority of the American people simply won't care. Consumerism before right and wrong in the US.

[Pavlov]

Wow. That's huge, but the vast majority of the American people simply won't care. Consumerism before right and wrong in the US.It would've been yuge issue had it ended up in midtown Manhattan. The place it moved to is really only known for fortune cookies and a neon Pepsi sign.

[Spurtacular]

No.


That's not very progressive of you.

[Pavlov]

That's not very progressive of you.Is Trump your hero?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

Is Trump your hero?

Yes or no.

Relatively, maybe.

[Pavlov]

Relatively, maybe.:rollin what a complete pussy

[Spurtacular]

:cry Muh pigeonholes :cry

:lmao

[ElNono]

1068648404643971073

He's correct.

[ElNono]

nah, they're asking him to lie and pretend. fuck this make believe world we live in nowadays with you loons.

He certainly has the option not to comply, which in turns is grounds for firing. It was always his choice.

[Pavlov]

:lmaoYou're the one who asked me if someone was my hero, dumbass. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

You're the one who asked me if someone was my hero, dumbass. :lmao

Yea, and I didn't cry that you weren't pigeonholed.

[Pavlov]

Yea, and I didn't cry that you weren't pigeonholed.Because I gave a definitive answer, genius.

Good Lord, you're stupid.

[Spurtacular]

Because I gave a definitive answer, genius.

Good Lord, you're stupid.

I gave you a qualified answer; you cried that I didn't pigeonhole myself, "stupid".

[Pavlov]

I gave you a qualified answer; you cried that I didn't pigeonhole myself, "stupid".I pointed out that you can't answer a simple yes or no question if your life depended on it.

Either he is your hero or he isn't.

[Winehole23]

It would've been yuge issue had it ended up in midtown Manhattan. The place it moved to is really only known for fortune cookies and a neon Pepsi sign.It's a more or less revolting disclosure of the public officials involved, regardless of the actual results.

[Pavlov]

It's a more or less revolting disclosure of the public officials involved, regardless of the actual results.It's really nothing compared to how it used to be done there. The redevelopment of the post office was up in the air before the Amtrak deal. I agree cities were kinda falling all over themselves to give shit away and I'm glad Austin didn't care about that for once. Probably a better use of eminent domain than a sports stadium.

[Winehole23]

It's a more or less revolting disclosure ofnthe intentions of the public officials involved, regardless of the actual results.

[Spurtacular]

Because I gave a definitive answer, genius.

Good Lord, you're stupid.

I gave you a proper answer. Now you're crying, genius.

[Pavlov]

I gave you a proper answer. Now you're crying, genius.Nope.

Either he's your hero or he isn't.

Anything other than a yes means he isn't your hero.

That's just the way it is.

[Spurtacular]

Nope.

Either he's your hero or he isn't.

Anything other than a yes means he isn't your hero.

That's just the way it is.

Nope. Completely depends on context and parameters. E.G. If we were talking about triggering your bitch ass, then Trump would be maybe my biggest hero of all-time.

[Pavlov]

Nope. Completely depends on context and parameters. E.G. If we were talking about triggering your bitch ass, then Trump would be maybe my biggest hero of all-time.So his being your hero depends on me.

You are way too dependent on me, derp.

lol derp

[Spurtacular]

So his being your hero depends on me.

You are way too dependent on me, derp.

lol derp

You refers to many of your fellow cucks and snowflakes; sorry to give the impression that you're special. You're not.

[Pavlov]

You refers to many of your fellow cucks and snowflakes; sorry to give the impression that you're special. You're not.Great, under what other circumstances could Trump be your hero while he currently is not.

[Chris]

He's correct.

No.

[ElNono]

No.

Because? When it comes to political strategy, erosion of trust (which, BTW, is one of Trump go-to strategies) is always solid if you can pull it off.

[Winehole23]

Chris does RTs, trolling and oracular pronunciamento.

Lacks the chops and the wit for discussion, he's wise to avoid it.

[koriwhat]

He certainly has the option not to comply, which in turns is grounds for firing. It was always his choice.

we all get that and understand that fully. the problem is the fact that a small minority wants us all to bend over and play make believe with them. fuck that nonsense!

[Winehole23]

TREATING OTHERS WITH RESPECT IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR!

[koriwhat]

TREATING OTHERS WITH RESPECT IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR!

i have 3 trans friends and i treat them with respect no doubt; i even call them the pronoun of their choice because i respect them. if i don't know you though i won't give a fuck; respect is earned!

[Winehole23]

a teacher occupies a place of public trust and responsibility.

is it right for teachers to speak disrespectfully to students solely on the basis of their perceived gender?

[koriwhat]

a teacher occupies a place of public trust and responsibility.

is it right for teachers to speak disrespectfully to students solely on the basis of their perceived gender?

is it wrong to teach biology but throw it out the window because a handful of people don't believe in science?

[Chucho]

i have 3 trans friends and i treat them with respect no doubt; i even call them the pronoun of their choice because i respect them. if i don't know you though i won't give a fuck; respect is earned!


There's always basic human decency tho. If you purposely try to offend them by calling them the opposite and you've been corrected by them prior, that's not a decent thing to do. Decency and respect are two different things.

[Spurtacular]

Great, under what other circumstances could Trump be your hero while he currently is not.

Weeds

[koriwhat]

There's always basic human decency tho. If you purposely try to offend them by calling them the opposite and you've been corrected by them prior, that's not a decent thing to do. Decency and respect are two different things.

i personally don't go out of my way seeking trans people to befriend or simply chit chat with. i don't run in their circles so it's rare i run into a transsexual anyhow unless i tattoo them or i am introduced to them by a friend or client. with that said, i don't go out of my way to be rude either.

i just don't care about this PC sjw virtue signaling bs day and age we're in nor do i think you should be forced to play make believe with others.

[Pavlov]

Weedslol derp can't even talk about his hero Trump
lol afraid of everyhting

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1073323132113453056

[spurraider21]

is it wrong to teach biology but throw it out the window because a handful of people don't believe in science?
what science are you referring to?

[Chris]

what science are you referring to?

There are only 2 genders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system#Humans

[spurraider21]

There are only 2 genders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system#Humans
you linked me to something discussing sex, not gender

[Chris]

you linked me to something discussing sex, not gender

In many species, sex determination is genetic. We're talking science right?

[Pavlov]

lol Chris just throwing out words now.

[Chris]

Simple science.

[Winehole23]

In many species, sex determination is genetic. We're talking science right?The science is hardly as straightforward as you suggest.

Secondary sex differentiation includes a spectrum of physical attributes.

1035246030500061184

[Winehole23]

1035285133652320257

[spurraider21]

In many species, sex determination is genetic. We're talking science right?
i agree that sex determination is genetic.

but we are talking about gender, not sex.

[Chris]

i agree that sex determination is genetic.

but we are talking about gender, not sex.

https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

; )

[Pavlov]

https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

; )Did you actually read that, sensitive Chris?

[Winehole23]

the science isn't simple, it's just that Chris is.

[Chris]

Did you actually read that, sensitive Chris?

Yadda yadda social construct right?

[Pavlov]

Yadda yadda social construct right?It stated quite clearly that sex and gender are different things.

You destroyed your own argument.

; )

[Chris]

It stated quite clearly that sex and gender are different things.

You destroyed your own argument.

; )

That wasn't my argument ;)

21 got triggered by a link and created something out of nothing.

[Winehole23]

lol Chris running away now.

[benefactor]

the science isn't simple, it's just that Chris is.
:lol

[spurraider21]

https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

; )
thanks for proving my point

you never read anything beyond article titles or the tweet about an article :lmao


Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex.

In this report the term ‘sex’ will be used where the practice refers to biological sex and not the more social construct of ‘gender’.

[Chris]

There are only 2 genders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system#Humans


The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes. Females (GENDER) typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males (GENDER) typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex. Exceptions to this are cases of XX males or XY females, or other syndromes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system#Genetic


you linked me to something discussing sex, not gender

i agree that sex determination is genetic.

but we are talking about gender, not sex.


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthabto.files.wordpress.com%2F2013 %2F03%2Fkirk-and-picard-facepalm.jpg&f=1

[Pavlov]

lol Chris losing his shit after an own goal.

[spurraider21]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthabto.files.wordpress.com%2F2013 %2F03%2Fkirk-and-picard-facepalm.jpg&f=1
chris, why did you dishonestly add (GENDER) twice in that post? that page did not discuss gender. it was discussing sex.

that's why in the preceding sentence, it said " the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes"

do you not realize that sex and gender are not the same thing? it's ok to say yes.

[Chris]

:madrun "It didn't have the specific word gender! Please come get lost in the weeds with me!" :madrun

[spurraider21]

:madrun "It didn't have the specific word gender! Please come get lost in the weeds with me!" :madrun
do you think that the words sex and gender are interchangeable?

[koriwhat]

yall are fighting over boys playing with barbies and little girls playing with ken, boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue, boys dancing and girls wrestling, etc....

either way, a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl; the rest is in their head as far as expression of their "individuality".

let's not pretend for the sake of pretending to win a bs argument when yall know exactly what we are all talking about in the first place.

either way, be whoever the fuck you feel like you want to be but don't assume everyone else wants to play in your make believe world with you.

[Chris]

They are being coached and sexualized at a young age. 6 year olds getting their penis cut off. It's disgusting.

[spurraider21]

yall are fighting over boys playing with barbies and little girls playing with ken, boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue, boys dancing and girls wrestling, etc....

either way, a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl; the rest is in their head as far as expression of their "individuality".

let's not pretend for the sake of pretending to win a bs argument when yall know exactly what we are all talking about in the first place.

either way, be whoever the fuck you feel like you want to be but don't assume everyone else wants to play in your make believe world with you.


They are being coached and sexualized at a young age. 6 year olds getting their penis cut off. It's disgusting.
so do you think sex and gender are interchangeable?

[Chris]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FZWbeEcb eo0cKI%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1

[ElNono]

we all get that and understand that fully. the problem is the fact that a small minority wants us all to bend over and play make believe with them. fuck that nonsense!

Decisions in any corporation are normally taken by a minority too, and then it's up to the rest of the workers to decide to comply or quit or get fired. I mean, this same thing operates at every level.

You want to be the idiot that loses a decent job over words, that's certainly your right.

[Pavlov]

They are being coached and sexualized at a young age. 6 year olds getting their penis cut off. It's disgusting.How many six year olds got their penises voluntarily cut off this past year, Chris?


Show your source since you brought this up.

[koriwhat]

so do you think sex and gender are interchangeable?

i think a lot of you are not being genuine is what i think. you know what we are all saying but lets get back to this stupid ass spectrum bs for a make believe world.

like i said, do whatever you want and be whatever you'd like but don't expect others to give a fuck nor play make believe with you.


Decisions in any corporation are normally taken by a minority too, and then it's up to the rest of the workers to decide to comply or quit or get fired. I mean, this same thing operates at every level.

You want to be the idiot that loses a decent job over words, that's certainly your right.

yep. it's just stupid as fuck though. school teaches biology yet preaches the opposite. too comical.

[spurraider21]

Chris i've asked you the same yes/no question several times. you have refused to give a simple yes or no. instead you've responded with "i've never said such" and now a stupid gif. just answer yes/no. i'm not putting words in your mouth. i'm giving you repeated opportunities to use your words

[spurraider21]

i think a lot of you are not being genuine is what i think. you know what we are all saying but lets get back to this stupid ass spectrum bs for a make believe world.

like i said, do whatever you want and be whatever you'd like but don't expect others to give a fuck nor play make believe with you.
i think you're not answering the question. you're the one who brought up people "denying the science"

i asked "what science" and chris responded with some links discussing sex. i'm asking if you think sex and gender are interchangeable or mean the same thing. you're refusing to answer that for some reason.

i'm not even arguing lol, i'm just asking you a question

[DMC]

Chris i've asked you the same yes/no question several times. you have refused to give a simple yes or no. instead you've responded with "i've never said such" and now a stupid gif. just answer yes/no. i'm not putting words in your mouth. i'm giving you repeated opportunities to use your words

You're being the mini-me of Chump, per par.

Get your own schtick. You're not clever enough to goad anyone into your low rent lawyer routine :lol

[koriwhat]

i think you're not answering the question. you're the one who brought up people "denying the science"

i asked "what science" and chris responded with some links discussing sex. i'm asking if you think sex and gender are interchangeable or mean the same thing. you're refusing to answer that for some reason.

i'm not even arguing lol, i'm just asking you a question

i refuse to play your dumbass game when you know damn well what i have been saying all along. you just want to give yourself a pat on the back is all.

[koriwhat]

You're being the mini-me of Chump, per par.

same exact thing i thought. lmao

[spurraider21]

You're being the mini-me of Chump, per par.

Get your own schtick. You're not clever enough to goad anyone into your low rent lawyer routine :lol
endless chirp as usual. contribute zero to any discussion. unless its about guns. then you always turn that into the false dichotomy of "you either have to ban all guns or do nothing at all." thats your entire contribution to the political forum.

it's not a shtick or a routine. dude talks about the science of gender, responds with articles discussing sex. it's a completely fair question, and in fact one necessary to continue the discussion at all.


i refuse to play your dumbass game when you know damn well what i have been saying all along. you just want to give yourself a pat on the back is all.
its not a game i'm playing. you brought up the science of gender. do you think gender and sex are interchangeable or refer to the same thing? you dont think thats a pretty important point to establish if you bring up the science of gender?

[DMC]

endless chirp as usual. it's not a shtick or a routine. dude talks about the science of gender, responds with articles discussing sex. it's a completely fair question, and in fact one necessary to continue the discussion at all.


its not a game i'm playing. you brought up the science of gender. do you think gender and sex are interchangeable or refer to the same thing? you dont think thats a pretty important point to establish if you bring up the science of gender?

Yes or no?

Be specific

Is he under oath? Shouldn't you remind him since you're doing the cross examination?

Feminine and masculine are genders
female and male are sexes

Oddly those who claim to have gender identity issues want the rest of us to consider it as a sex identity issue. The feminine male wants to be called female and the masculine female wants to be called male. I have no problem calling a feminine male "feminine male". I have a problem considering them to be female.

So who has the confusion exactly?

[spurraider21]

Yes or no?

Be specific

Is he under oath? Shouldn't you remind him since you're doing the cross examination?
brings up gender

backs up his point with article about sex

unless gender/sex are the same thing, the article is irrelevant. only way to logically continue that conversation is to establish the relationship between gender and sex

[DMC]

brings up gender

backs up his point with article about sex

unless gender/sex are the same thing, the article is irrelevant. only way to logically continue that conversation is to establish the relationship between gender and sex

So you have an issue with the semantics of the argument. Oddly the semantics of the gun argument don't seem to matter as the resulting responses from the left are ":cry muh guns" when someone points out the differences between semiauto and auto. They get used interchangeably and "you know what I mean" is the response that the left wants to be the rational thought process then.

If you want to talk about masculine vs feminine, why use buzzwords like "gender identity"? Why not just use the two words I used? I think Koriwhat would understand the difference between being feminine and being female.

[spurraider21]

So you have an issue with the semantics of the argument. Oddly the semantics of the gun argument don't seem to matter as the resulting responses from the left are ":cry muh guns" when someone points out the differences between semiauto and auto. They get used interchangeably and "you know what I mean" is the response that the left wants to be the rational thought process then.
the distinction between gender and sex is vital to the conversation. it's beyond mere semantics.

semantic arguments are pedantic when everybody knows what you're talking about, but are just upset with your word choice. like when people say assault weapon instead of assault rifle in a gun conversation. you know what they meant, and they're just not adept with the terminology.

sex and gender are different concepts altogether. that's not just a word choice issue. they're two very different things. ergo saying "there are 2 sexes" is very different than "there are 2 genders"... whereas a ban on "assault weapons" while semantically incorrect is generally understood to refer to "assault rilfes"

[spurraider21]

but by all means, continue to derail the conversation. it's weird that you seem to have some duty to step in and defend chris/koriwhat/derp all the time.

maybe you just like a good underdog story

[Chucho]

but by all means, continue to derail the conversation. it's weird that you seem to have some duty to step in and defend chris/koriwhat/derp all the time.

maybe you just like a good underdog story

Devil's advocate: on the flip side, there's a brigade of people who's only purpose is to insult and take their shots or go in pointless circles with those dudes. They wont have a relevant post in the thread at all, but as soon as one of the aforementioned posts, and EVERYONE knows what to expect, there they are to derail the thread further.

[koriwhat]

its not a game i'm playing. you brought up the science of gender. do you think gender and sex are interchangeable or refer to the same thing? you dont think thats a pretty important point to establish if you bring up the science of gender?

it's totally a game you're playing and one i don't give a fuck to entertain. it's dumb considering you know exactly where i stand by what i've stated prior.

[Chucho]

Not that there's much to derail on this forum. True "discussion" down here is an unexpected by-product when it does happen.

[koriwhat]

Devil's advocate: on the flip side, there's a brigade of people who's only purpose is to insult and take their shots or go in pointless circles with those dudes. They wont have a relevant post in the thread at all, but as soon as one of the aforementioned posts, and EVERYONE knows what to expect, there they are to derail the thread further.

truth!

[DMC]

the distinction between gender and sex is vital to the conversation. it's beyond mere semantics.

semantic arguments are pedantic when everybody knows what you're talking about, but are just upset with your word choice. like when people say assault weapon instead of assault rifle in a gun conversation. you know what they meant, and they're just not adept with the terminology.

But they don't know what they are talking about. That's the point.


sex and gender are different concepts altogether. that's not just a word choice issue. they're two very different things. ergo saying "there are 2 sexes" is very different than "there are 2 genders"... whereas a ban on "assault weapons" while semantically incorrect is generally understood to refer to "assault rilfes"
If you're going to argue for legislation, you should have your facts straight. Just because one argument doesn't move you and the other does doesn't make one more or less important, only more or less important to you.


but by all means, continue to derail the conversation. it's weird that you seem to have some duty to step in and defend chris/koriwhat/derp all the time.

maybe you just like a good underdog story
Maybe you just like low hanging fruit, afraid to go after the bigger targets. You and your ilk here call a few posters stupid and derp constantly but you spend hours arguing with them and trying to win forum points. Would you box a retarded kid if you knew you could beat him over and over?

Gender and sex are synonyms. Auto and semi-auto are not.

[spurraider21]

Devil's advocate: on the flip side, there's a brigade of people who's only purpose is to insult and take their shots or go in pointless circles with those dudes. They wont have a relevant post in the thread at all, but as soon as one of the aforementioned posts, and EVERYONE knows what to expect, there they are to derail the thread further.
that's fair.

i dont think that's what i'm doing here though. kw thought that people who preferred to be called by certain genders are forcing others to "ignore science"

i think that's a topic worthy of discussion. apparently kw doesn't, despite having been the one to bring it up. chris half-heartedly tried to engage but is now just resorting to gif respones... shame

[spurraider21]

it's totally a game you're playing and one i don't give a fuck to entertain. it's dumb considering you know exactly where i stand by what i've stated prior.
YOU brought up "the science"

now you think wanting to discuss that very science is "playing a game"

[spurraider21]

But they don't know what they are talking about. That's the point.
that's my suspicion. and i think its valid to clear it up so we dont wind up in the same place next time this same topic inevitably comes up


If you're going to argue for legislation, you should have your facts straight. Just because one argument doesn't move you and the other does doesn't make one more or less important, only more or less important to you.
i agree. the text in the ultimate legislation should be very precise and clean. when people slip up and use an incorrect term in a discussion i don't think its as big a deal. maybe you disagree.



Maybe you just like low hanging fruit, afraid to go after the bigger targets. You and your ilk here call a few posters stupid and derp constantly but you spend hours arguing with them and trying to win forum points. Would you box a retarded kid if you knew you could beat him over and over?
who are the "bigger" targets in the political forum, particular those with whom i disagree with on a regular basis? TSA, Darrin, djohn, reck, blake, spurs homer? I've argued with all of them. are you just upset because i dont argue with spurminator, pavlov, and winehole more often? certainly wouldn't be you, as you almost never discuss politics here


Gender and sex are synonyms. Auto and semi-auto are not.
and now i'm beginning to think that you don't know what you are talking about. that's the point.

[DMC]

that's my suspicion. and i think its valid to clear it up so we dont wind up in the same place next time this same topic inevitably comes up


i agree. the text in the ultimate legislation should be very precise and clean. when people slip up and use an incorrect term in a discussion i don't think its as big a deal. maybe you disagree.



who are the "bigger" targets in the political forum, particular those with whom i disagree with on a regular basis? TSA, Darrin, djohn, reck, blake, spurs homer? I've argued with all of them. are you just upset because i dont argue with spurminator, pavlov, and winehole more often?


and now i'm beginning to think that you don't know what you are talking about. that's the point.

gen·der
/ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"
synonyms: sex
"variables included age, income, and gender"

[spurraider21]

gen·der
/ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"
synonyms: sex
"variables included age, income, and gender"
oh now we're using the laymen's dictionary to argue "the science" which koriwhat brought up, even though definition #1 directly contradicts it

[koriwhat]

YOU brought up "the science"

now you think wanting to discuss that very science is "playing a game"

boys are boys and girls are girls, simple as that. individuality in today's day is the stupid "spectrum" that is now part of our society which is delusional and ridiculous.

born with a dick then your a dude. born with a vagina then you're a chick. i don't care to read about hermaphrodites or any other mutations so stop.

[spurraider21]

the same dictionary says that hypothesis and theory are synonyms

[spurraider21]

boys are boys and girls are girls, simple as that. individuality in today's day is the stupid "spectrum" that is now part of our society which is delusional and ridiculous.

born with a dick then your a dude. born with a vagina then you're a chick. i don't care to read about hermaphrodites or any other mutations so stop.
you are 100% accurate when it comes to sex, tbh. if you have XY chromosomes and a penis, you're male. xx and a vagina, you're female.

the point is that sex and gender are different

[Pavlov]

It's not an assault weapon! It's an assault-style weapon!

[Chucho]

that's fair.

i dont think that's what i'm doing here though. kw thought that people who preferred to be called by certain genders are forcing others to "ignore science"

i think that's a topic worthy of discussion. apparently kw doesn't, despite having been the one to bring it up. chris half-heartedly tried to engage but is now just resorting to gif respones... shame


I don't think you are, either. You're an actual contributor and never seem to go out of your way to keep tabs and deliver jabs because of course you should.

[DMC]

oh now we're using the laymen's dictionary to argue "the science" which koriwhat brought up, even though definition #1 directly contradicts it

No, I am showing you that Gender and Sex are synonyms after you said I don't know what I am talking about. Do you prefer Urban Dictionary?

Here's Merriam Webster:

gender noun
gen·​der | \ˈjen-dər \
Definition of gender (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c : an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 3a) showing membership in such a subclass
2a : SEX
the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

[spurraider21]

DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665) same dictionary says magazine and clip are synonyms. i'm sure you'd agree with their interchangeability in a discussion about gun control

[spurraider21]

you're using a laymen's dictionary to discuss a scientific question. that's never going to give adequate results.

[DMC]

DMC same dictinoary says magazine and clip are synonyms. i'm sure you'd agree with their interchangeability in a discussion about gun control

But you'd accept that one, as illustrated above in "everyone knows what they meant".

[spurraider21]

But you'd accept that one, as illustrated above in "everyone knows what they meant".
if its clear from the context of the discussion that the accessory they're discussing is a magazine, yeah i'd probably see it as a semantic error.

and here, its clear from the context of the discussion that "science claims there are only 2" is in fact a reference to sex, yet chris and kw are using that to argue about gender. that is also clear from the conversation given that we're talking about what a student preferred to be called. that's a clear reference to gender.

what's clear is that using a laymen's dictionary is inadequate to have certain discussions. we'd both agree that a clip and magazine are two different things, yet the dictionary will refer to them as synonyms. this is also particularly true when discussing scientific topics. a theory and hypothesis are VERY different things in the world of science, and you know that as well as anybody on this board. yet the dictionary will call them synonyms.

[spurraider21]

DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665) if we were discussing gun magazines and i posted an article that exclusively talked about clips, then that would be worthy of correction. you disagree?

as opposed to a one-off reference during a longer discussion.

or are you going to pretend now that it would be accurate because the dictionary says they're synonyms?

[DMC]

if its clear from the context of the discussion that the accessory they're discussing is a magazine, yeah i'd probably see it as a semantic error.

Then it's not a legitimate example.


and here, its clear from the context of the discussion that "science claims there are only 2" is in fact a reference to sex, yet chris and kw are using that to argue about gender. that is also clear from the conversation given that we're talking about what a student preferred to be called. that's a clear reference to gender.

So if the spectrum of gender identity is wide, what are the extremes? Wouldn't that be male and female or masculine and feminine?

If that's the case, then there are only 2 genders, and the identities therein are a ratio of the two. Just like any binary mix, ratios can change but it's still just two ingredients.

What's the 3rd?


what's clear is that using a laymen's dictionary is inadequate to have certain discussions. we'd both agree that a clip and magazine are two different things, yet the dictionary will refer to them as synonyms. this is also particularly true when discussing scientific topics. a theory and hypothesis are VERY different things in the world of science, and you know that as well as anybody on this board. yet the dictionary will call them synonyms.
It's fine for higher level discussions.

[DMC]

DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665) if we were discussing gun magazines and i posted an article that exclusively talked about clips, then that would be worthy of correction. you disagree?

I would explain the difference to you as I have done here countless times to others. I wouldn't give you yes or no Chump type paths to go down.


as opposed to a one-off reference during a longer discussion.

If you have a counter-argument just make it. Point out that you aren't referring to gender and define gender in how you're using the term.


or are you going to pretend now that it would be accurate because the dictionary says they're synonyms?
I am saying people have the freedom to use either and pundits can whittle down the conversation to specifics.

[Pavlov]

So clips and magazines are the same thing after all?

Cool.

[spurraider21]

I would explain the difference to you as I have done here countless times to others. I wouldn't give you yes or no Chump type paths to go down.

If you have a counter-argument just make it. Point out that you aren't referring to gender and define gender in how you're using the term.

I am saying people have the freedom to use either and pundits can whittle down the conversation to specifics.
i have. i pointed out to chris that the wiki article he posted was discussing gender and not sex.

he then responded with a second article from the world health organization, highlighting a portion discussing there only being 2 sexes. i then pointed out to him that the very same article goes on to distinguish gender from sex, and outright states that in some cultures there are a wider variety of genders than the binary system that we see with sex.

he then responded with

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthabto.files.wordpress.com%2F2013 %2F03%2Fkirk-and-picard-facepalm.jpg&f=1

[spurraider21]

Then it's not a legitimate example.

So if the spectrum of gender identity is wide, what are the extremes? Wouldn't that be male and female or masculine and feminine?

If that's the case, then there are only 2 genders, and the identities therein are a ratio of the two. Just like any binary mix, ratios can change but it's still just two ingredients.

What's the 3rd?

It's fine for higher level discussions.
colors are on a spectrum. if the spectrum of colors are wide, what are the extremes? woulnd't that be red and violet? if thats the case, then there are only 2 colors, and the colors therein are a ratio of the two. just like in any binary mix, ratios can change but it's still just two ingredients.

what's the 3rd?

[spurraider21]

honestly, i dont pretend to understand what all the genders are when people claim there are dozens of them.

i just know the concept of gender is distinct from the concept of sex. so when people say your gender is decided on birth based on your chromosomes and sex organs, that is a conflation between sex and gender.

[spurraider21]

I don't think you are, either. You're an actual contributor and never seem to go out of your way to keep tabs and deliver jabs because of course you should.
i like to think i do both. DMC pretends to hate it when people go out of their way to deliver jabs (aka chirp) but that seems to be all he does lately.

[DMC]

So clips and magazines are the same thing after all?

Cool.

2cents right on cue! :lol

[DMC]

honestly, i dont pretend to understand what all the genders are when people claim there are dozens of them.

i just know the concept of gender is distinct from the concept of sex. so when people say your gender is decided on birth based on your chromosomes and sex organs, that is a conflation between sex and gender.

Are there more than 2 genders, yes or no?

[DMC]

colors are on a spectrum. if the spectrum of colors are wide, what are the extremes? woulnd't that be red and violet? if thats the case, then there are only 2 colors, and the colors therein are a ratio of the two. just like in any binary mix, ratios can change but it's still just two ingredients.

what's the 3rd?

It's a legit question. There are primary colors of course, would you agree?

[spurraider21]

Are there more than 2 genders, yes or no?
yes or no? stop being chump!

my understanding is yes. more germane to the conversation is that they are not genetically assigned at birth, as opposed to sex (which is determined by chromosomes and reflected via your reproductive organs)

[spurraider21]

It's a legit question. There are primary colors of course, would you agree?
yeah.

look, i'm not going to pretend to be incredibly knowledgeable about the various genders. i know the 2 most common ones are male and female, and that in a vast majority of cases, people of the male sex also occupy the male gender and same goes for female. that would describe almost everybody i'm acquainted with.

the conflation between the two is pretty understandable considering we use the same "male/female" terms for both... which makes sense considering they are in most cases the same for an individual.

[Pavlov]

2cents right on cue! :lolI'm just relieved that you won't throwing your little technical gun term hissy fits anymore, Suzy.

[spurraider21]

I'm just relieved that you won't throwing your little technical gun term hissy fits anymore, Suzy.
we're comin after those AR-47's and AK-15's like no tomorrow. assault weapons are going down. extended clips too

[DMC]

yes or no? stop being chump!

my understanding is yes. more germane to the conversation is that they are not genetically assigned at birth, as opposed to sex (which is determined by chromosomes and reflected via your reproductive organs)

So then feeling more feminine should qualify a man to use the women's restroom, to compete on women's pro sports teams, to have birth certificate altered to reflect different sex than born with?

[DMC]

I'm just relieved that you won't throwing your little technical gun term hissy fits anymore, Suzy.

You routinely wrongly classify others here as opposite gender but you're somehow a champion for gender neutrality.

[DMC]

yeah.

look, i'm not going to pretend to be incredibly knowledgeable about the various genders. i know the 2 most common ones are male and female, and that in a vast majority of cases, people of the male sex also occupy the male gender and same goes for female. that would describe almost everybody i'm acquainted with.

the conflation between the two is pretty understandable considering we use the same "male/female" terms for both... which makes sense considering they are in most cases the same for an individual.

I'm just asking for one other gender besides male and female.

[ElNono]

yep. it's just stupid as fuck though. school teaches biology yet preaches the opposite. too comical.

You're confusing sex (biological) with gender (social construct). Many people use it (incorrectly) interchangeably. That can be easily remedied by grabbing a copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and educating oneself.

[ElNono]

I'm just asking for one other gender besides male and female.

Intersex would be one of them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

[Chris]

Yadda yadda social construct right?

YUP.

[ElNono]

You could also look up 'Berdaches' in Native Americans...

If you're interested in reading about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Ones-Fourth-Genders-America/dp/0312224796

[ElNono]

The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) uses the following two sentences to illustrate the difference, noting that the distinction "is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."

The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient.
In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.

[ElNono]

In other words, gender goes towards social constructs (ie: derived from traditionalism), as opposed to strict biological differences.

Another example: "Females have traditionally been the best cooks". In that context, females specify gender, not sex: Men can also cook, and there's nothing stopping a man to be the best cook ever.

[DMC]

Intersex would be one of them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

That's not gender though.

[DMC]

You could also look up 'Berdaches' in Native Americans...

If you're interested in reading about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Ones-Fourth-Genders-America/dp/0312224796

At that link:

"who embodied both genders "

Both meaning two.

The term 'berdache' is a little-known, rarely discussed reference to Native American individuals who embodied both genders - what some might classify as 'the third sex.' Berdaches were known to combine male and female social roles with traits unique to their status as a third gender, defying and redefining traditional notions of gender-specific behavior. In Changing Ones , William Roscoe opens up and explores the world of berdaches, revealing meaningful differences between Native American culture and contemporary North American culture. Roscoe reveals that rather than being ostracized or forced into obscurity, berdaches were embraced by some 150 tribes, serving as artists, medicine people, religious experts, and tribal leaders. Indeed, Roscoe points out, berdaches sometimes even occupied a holy status within the tribal community. Roscoe begins with case studies of male and female berdaches, blending biography and ethnohistory, and he builds toward theoretical insights into the nature of gender diversity in North America. What results is highly engaging, readable, and illuminating. Changing Ones combines the fields of anthropology, sociology, queer theory, gay and lesbian studies, and gender studies to challenge conventional schools of thought and to expand every reader's horizons.


Notice how "third sex" and "third gender" are used interchangeably?

[ElNono]

That's not gender though.

Scroll down to Language. Sex and gender are interrelated, but that doesn't mean they describe the same thing.

[ElNono]

At that link:

"who embodied both genders "

Both meaning two.

Right. Embodied both genders, not both sexes. iow: did things that socially were circumscribed to one-gender-only. Thus, third gender.

[DMC]

Scroll down to Language. Sex and gender are interrelated, but that doesn't mean they describe the same thing.

If gender is social sexual identity, then biology is irrelevant to gender since the sex, male, female or a combination of both can decide on which gender it prefers.

[DMC]

Right. Embodied both genders, not both sexes. iow: did things that socially were circumscribed to one-gender-only. Thus, third gender.

Regardless how you move the slider in the spectrum of masculinity/femininity, there's no third gender on the scale. If there were, you could possibly say that person X is part 3rd gender. Instead, 3rd gender is part something else, or as they said, "a combination of the two genders". So the two genders are precursors and whatever comes from the two is a product, both in natural birth and in gender identity. Since no one is 100% masculine nor 100% feminine, but some combination of the two in some ratio, everyone could, in essence, be a distinct gender if we changed the concept of gender.

[ElNono]

If gender is social sexual identity, then biology is irrelevant to gender since the sex, male, female or a combination of both can decide on which gender it prefers.

It isn't irrelevant because society has traditionally assigned certain roles based on sex, despite the ability of other sexes (in most circumstances) to be able to perform the same role.

That's why I mentioned that traditionalism has a lot to do with gender, and why movements like feminism were strong advocates on the proper differentiation of gender vs plainly biological sex.

[DMC]

It isn't irrelevant because society has traditionally assigned certain roles based on sex, despite the ability of other sexes (in most circumstances) to be able to perform the same role.

That's why I mentioned that traditionalism has a lot to do with gender, and why movements like feminism were strong advocates on the proper differentiation of gender vs plainly biological sex.

But gender is still a binary product, meaning a ratio of masculinity:femininity (until someone can illustrate a real 3rd option). I can accept that many different names can be conjured up to describe each ratio, however it's still a ratio of two parts.

[ElNono]

Regardless how you move the slider in the spectrum of masculinity/femininity, there's no third gender on the scale. If there were, you could possibly say that person X is part 3rd gender. Instead, 3rd gender is part something else, or as they said, "a combination of the two genders". So the two genders are precursors and whatever comes from the two is a product, both in natural birth and in gender identity. Since no one is 100% masculine nor 100% feminine, but some combination of the two in some ratio, everyone could, in essence, be a distinct gender if we changed the concept of gender.

The problem is that in society, we split certain roles based on biological sex, where it wasn't necessarily needed. For example, there was a time where only men could vote. And so gender came to describe that, roles originally assigned to certain sexes, strictly for social/traditional reasons, not because of the biological sex impeding the ability to carry out the role. So, when you throw a freak of nature like an intersex in there, which one of these virtual social roles can he/she do? both? neither? whatever roles were assigned to him/her based on whatever some arbitrary person wrote down when they were born?

You don't even need such a freak (even though it makes for a good example). Some people feel more comfortable in a social role that might not match what society assigned to them due to the biological sex their were born with. And then we get to this discussion.

We could obviate that society has, and continues to (up to an extent) hand out societal roles by connecting them directly to biological sex, but it's disingenuous.

[DMC]

The problem is that in society, we split certain roles based on biological sex, where it wasn't necessarily needed. For example, there was a time where only men could vote. And so gender came to describe that, roles originally assigned to certain sexes, strictly for social/traditional reasons, not because of the biological sex impeding the ability to carry out the role. So, when you throw a freak of nature like an intersex in there, which one of these virtual social roles can he/she do? both? neither? whatever roles were assigned to him/her based on whatever some arbitrary person wrote down when they were born?

You don't even need such a freak (even though it makes for a good example). Some people feel more comfortable in a social role that might not match what society assigned to them due to the biological sex their were born with. And then we get to this discussion.

We could obviate that society has, and continues to (up to an extent) hand out societal roles by connecting them directly to biological sex, but it's disingenuous.

Assume for the sake of arguendo that two people are born and abandoned (Blue Lagoon and shit), one male and one female biologically. What societal pressure would force the male into gender roles of societal males elsewhere? Once Brooke goes into estrus and homey into the rut, won't they still eventually sniff each others' genitals?

On said island of slain pretend Jesus (Indian owned island), where they haven't been disturbed in however long, what societal pressure keeps them procreating?

[ElNono]

But gender is still a binary product, meaning a ratio of masculinity:femininity (until someone can illustrate a real 3rd option). I can accept that many different names can be conjured up to describe each ratio, however it's still a ratio of two parts.

Not necessarily binary, but more of range with two distinct ends. A hermaphrodite is far enough away from both ends to classically be determined to be neither male nor female in the animal world.

This goes to your slider comment, which I think it's a better description. The problem is that traditionally in society we've assigned certain roles more in strictly binary fashion, rather than in a range, purely for arbitrary reasons. So the description of those fake-sex requirements have been called gender.

[DMC]

Not necessarily binary, but more of range with two distinct ends. A hermaphrodite is far enough away from both ends to classically be determined to be neither male nor female in the animal world.

This goes to your slider comment, which I think it's a better description. The problem is that traditionally in society we've assigned certain roles more in strictly binary fashion, rather than in a range, purely for arbitrary reasons. So the description of those fake-sex requirements have been called gender.

This is what I am referring to by "slider". The two distinct ends are the binary components, and the range between them the ratio. If a human was born with no genitalia, that would be an anomaly (unless said human was a Lakers fan), so it's not worth it to include those in the discussion tbh

[ElNono]

Assume for the sake of arguendo that two people are born and abandoned (Blue Lagoon and shit), one male and one female biologically. What societal pressure would force the male into gender roles of societal males elsewhere? Once Brooke goes into estrus and homey into the rut, won't they still eventually sniff each others' genitals?

On said island of slain pretend Jesus (Indian owned island), where they haven't been disturbed in however long, what societal pressure keeps them procreating?

I know what you mean, but it's a bad argument. Societal pressures exist when there's a society, which would be pretty sketchy to say there's on an abandoned island by two people whom had no contact with the outside world.

We do know from past history that we've more or less modeled our society on top of what the Greek and Romans built, but we also do know there were very different societies also (Egyptians, Incas, etc) that were quite different in how they assigned their roles (albeit, they also did assign roles by biological sex).

At any rate, I don't want to derail from the core point, which is that there's a clear distinction between strictly biological sex, and what certain societies assign as a role for the sexes (which, have changed throughout history).

[DMC]

I know what you mean, but it's a bad argument. Societal pressures exist when there's a society, which would be pretty sketchy to say there's on an abandoned island by two people whom had no contact with the outside world.

We do know from past history that we've more or less modeled our society on top of what the Greek and Romans built, but we also do know there were very different societies also (Egyptians, Incas, etc) that were quite different in how they assigned their roles (albeit, they also did assign roles by biological sex).

At any rate, I don't want to derail from the core point, which is that there's a clear distinction between strictly biological sex, and what certain societies assign as a role for the sexes (which, have changed throughout history).

There is a difference, sure. However we've been asked as a civilized society to pretend biology is a social construct.

[ElNono]

This is what I am referring to by "slider". The two distinct ends are the binary components, and the range between them the ratio. If a human was born with no genitalia, that would be an anomaly (unless said human was a Lakers fan), so it's not worth it to include those in the discussion tbh

See, that's a great example. Laker fans has to live in our society, and if they want to win at something that's not basketball, they may need to take on roles that society has built for them, sometimes based on gender. For example, Lakerfan might one day want to pretend they're Chuck Norris, a symbol of masculinity, despite having no balls. The notion that Chuck Norris can only be played by the male gender is entirely a social construct.

[Chris]

https://assets.rbl.ms/10724045/980x.png

"These are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions."

"Gender is not a matter of opinion; it's a scientific fact. Penis or vagina, vagina or penis?"

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/there-are-only-two-genders

[ElNono]

There is a difference, sure. However we've been asked as a civilized society to pretend biology is a social construct.

Well, I would argue that what has happened is that we've advanced enough where we can change biological sex, in order to 'fit in' better with the gender-based social constructs that makes those people more comfortable.

As long as somebody isn't forcing me to change sex, I don't particularly see what the problem is. Much like religion, if it helps some people live better lives and doesn't get involved in mine, then it's fine by me.

[ElNono]

See, Chris looks increasingly agitated with the notion that somebody might want to change their sex to fit a different social role, despite the fact that it doesn't affect him at all, nor it points to him being gay or anything.

His fear is the usual traditionalist fear.

[Chris]

See, Chris looks increasingly agitated with the notion that somebody might want to change their sex to fit a different social role, despite the fact that it doesn't affect him at all, nor it points to him being gay or anything.

His fear is the usual traditionalist fear.

You're projecting.

[ElNono]

You're projecting.

Am I? What are your thoughts on that graph you posted above?

[Chris]

Am I?

Yes, you were projecting. I'm familiar with this tactic and identity politics.


What are your thoughts on that graph you posted above?

They are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions. If you have a penis, you are a male. If you have a vagina, you are a female. Two genders.

If someone wants to chop their pee pee off and wear a dress it means nothing to me and is a separate subject.

[ElNono]

Yes, you were projecting. I'm familiar with this tactic and identity politics.

:lol what is your conspiracy theory about these 'tactics'? You don't know what projecting is either, considering what you just wrote.


They are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions. If you have a penis, you are a male. If you have a vagina, you are a female. Two genders.

If someone wants to chop their pee pee off and wear a dress it means nothing to me and is a separate subject.

Exactly, strict traditionalism. And a lie to boot, it clearly means enough to you, since attacks your traditional views. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[UnWantedTheory]

Well, I would argue that what has happened is that we've advanced enough where we can change biological sex, in order to 'fit in' better with the gender-based social constructs that makes those people more comfortable.

As long as somebody isn't forcing me to change sex, I don't particularly see what the problem is. Much like religion, if it helps some people live better lives and doesn't get involved in mine, then it's fine by me.
This. I don't understand why people feel so threatened and give such a fuck about such things. No one is asking them to cut off their dick and go by Nancy in agreement, just respect other people's lives. Not sure why that is difficult.

[Winehole23]

Tory deep state uses think tank as a cutout to spread anti-Russian propaganda and slag Labor:

1073499027768045568

[Winehole23]

In a weird twist, the guy who runs it was a Bernie Sanders campaign worker in 2016.

[DMC]

Well, I would argue that what has happened is that we've advanced enough where we can change biological sex, in order to 'fit in' better with the gender-based social constructs that makes those people more comfortable.

As long as somebody isn't forcing me to change sex, I don't particularly see what the problem is. Much like religion, if it helps some people live better lives and doesn't get involved in mine, then it's fine by me.

Until we can change the DNA of a human being, we cannot change biological sex. Cutting off organs and hormone therapy =/= biological sex change any more than gluing feathers on your back makes you a bird.

The problem is that forcing the rest of society to accept and repeat a total fabrication for the collective mental comfort of people who are mentally imbalanced is a very slippery slope. Should we start telling Christians that we too hear God?

[ElNono]

Until we can change the DNA of a human being, we cannot change biological sex. Cutting off organs and hormone therapy =/= biological sex change any more than gluing feathers on your back makes you a bird.

The problem is that forcing the rest of society to accept and repeat a total fabrication for the collective mental comfort of people who are mentally imbalanced is a very slippery slope. Should we start telling Christians that we too hear God?

The DNA argument is debatable. There are chemistry signatures that differentiate male and female, and as you say, it's a slider and we have more and more control of that slider (we do now that ever before, and that will likely continue to increase), then we're at that point where it's not just a matter of dressing as the opposite sex, but going much further than that, which psychologically apparently is helpful for them.

It's a two way street. The people that have these inclinations didn't get to choose the gender-based societal roles that rule them, they're imposed on them.

We could easily make the same argument that religious people are mentally/emotionally imbalanced too, yet we protect their right to practice their religion. And as much as I expressed my dislike for organized religion in general, I've also expressed that I know first hand that it helps certain people, and if it works for them, and it doesn't affect me, what's the big deal?

The major difference between both is that people has practiced mysticism for centuries, while the ability for having a relatively effective trans-gender therapy is relatively new (homosexuality has existed for centuries too). One is fully embedded in traditionalism, the other isn't (yet anyways).

Realistically, if we're really looking at the slippery slope of allowing/accepting irrational behavior, that ship has sailed a long time ago.

[DMC]

The DNA argument is debatable. There are chemistry signatures that differentiate male and female, and as you say, it's a slider and we have more and more control of that slider (we do now that ever before, and that will likely continue to increase), then we're at that point where it's not just a matter of dressing as the opposite sex, but going much further than that, which psychologically apparently is helpful for them.

It's a two way street. The people that have these inclinations didn't get to choose the gender-based societal roles that rule them, they're imposed on them.

We could easily make the same argument that religious people are mentally/emotionally imbalanced too, yet we protect their right to practice their religion. And as much as I expressed my dislike for organized religion in general, I've also expressed that I know first hand that it helps certain people, and if it works for them, and it doesn't affect me, what's the big deal?

The major difference between both is that people has practiced mysticism for centuries, while the ability for having a relatively effective trans-gender therapy is relatively new (homosexuality has existed for centuries too). One is fully embedded in traditionalism, the other isn't (yet anyways).

Realistically, if we're really looking at the slippery slope of allowing/accepting irrational behavior, that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Religious people are mentally and emotionally imbalanced. In fact, we expressly prohibit any laws that respect a specific religion and we do not require people to acknowledge even Christmas (happy holidays, xmas... etc...) yet somehow Bob who you've worked with for 20 years is now Barbara and you have to pretend to believe Barbara is actually a female despite the straggler chest hairs poking through the blouse and the missed spots while shaving. Oh but Barbara has purple hair now and suddenly has a high pitched voice that cracks after 8am. Now Bob... errr.. Barbara uses the women's restroom and talks openly about her boyfriend, and shakes her head in empathy for women who are PMSing.

Imagine being required to acknowledge someone who think's they are a prophet for a god? "Hello prophet Bob.." "Just call me prophet if you don't mind"

[DMC]

"Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future."

I agree with this statement.

I also agree that salving the desire factor of mentally troubled people does not equate to mental healthcare.

[ElNono]

Religious people are mentally and emotionally imbalanced. In fact, we expressly prohibit any laws that respect a specific religion and we do not require people to acknowledge even Christmas (happy holidays, xmas... etc...) yet somehow Bob who you've worked with for 20 years is now Barbara and you have to pretend to believe Barbara is actually a female despite the straggler chest hairs poking through the blouse and the missed spots while shaving. Oh but Barbara has purple hair now and suddenly has a high pitched voice that cracks after 8am. Now Bob... errr.. Barbara uses the women's restroom and talks openly about her boyfriend, and shakes her head in empathy for women who are PMSing.

Imagine being required to acknowledge someone who think's they are a prophet for a god? "Hello prophet Bob.." "Just call me prophet if you don't mind"

We have pastors that truly believe they're the ambassadors of some deity in the world and would really, really prefer if you called them pastors. Or bishop, or your majesty, or whatever.

Do churches clog up the parking in the area when there's church service? Sure. Is it annoying? Sometimes. Is it really that important? It really isn't, IMO.

If calling Bob then, Barbara now, makes him/her a better functioning person in society and happy to boot, I don't particularly have a problem with that either.

[ElNono]

"Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future."

I agree with this statement.

I also agree that salving the desire factor of mentally troubled people does not equate to mental healthcare.

The easiest counter-argument to that is that there's not a single person that understands the human psyche fully. We do grasp certain things, and there's a lot of trial and error to get there, but a whole lot is driven by patient response/feedback.

Again, we can go back to religion as a parallel. The fact that they think there's an all powerful imaginary person everywhere with them doesn't mean there is. But it would be hard to take a look at a lot of cases where lives have been turned around for the better due to that thinking, or even historically, at the effective grip that religion has had in ample swats of population (for both good and bad). So we can't certainly debate the merits of some of this make believe stuff, but I think their relative effectiveness is fairly indisputable.

[DMC]

We have pastors that truly believe they're the ambassadors of some deity in the world and would really, really prefer if you called them pastors. Or bishop, or your majesty, or whatever.

Which is fine. I don't mind calling them that since the term doesn't conjure up images of a respectful person, just someone affiliated with the church. I don't feel someone is requiring I "play along" with the charade. I am atheist, but I can call a church a church and a Christian a Christian, and I can recognize their terminology. I don't have to pretend to believe what they believe though.


Do churches clog up the parking in the area when there's church service? Sure. Is it annoying? Sometimes. Is it really that important? It really isn't, IMO.

If calling Bob then, Barbara now, makes him/her a better functioning person in society and happy to boot, I don't particularly have a problem with that either.

Would you do that if Bob didn't have a gender transformation?

I don't care what name to call someone. I don't care what they wear or how they sound. I don't care who they marry or fuck. I only care that I am expected to pretend a male isn't a male because they disguised themselves as female. It would be the same as expecting someone to consider your date as your wife, although they know your wife and that isn't her. But it makes you feel better for them to pretend, and not only pretend, live as if it's true.

[DMC]

The easiest counter-argument to that is that there's not a single person that understands the human psyche fully. We do grasp certain things, and there's a lot of trial and error to get there, but a whole lot is driven by patient response/feedback.

That's argument from ignorance though. Not knowing doesn't open possibilities.


Again, we can go back to religion as a parallel. The fact that they think there's an all powerful imaginary person everywhere with them doesn't mean there is. But it would be hard to take a look at a lot of cases where lives have been turned around for the better due to that thinking, or even historically, at the effective grip that religion has had in ample swats of population (for both good and bad). So we can't certainly debate the merits of some of this make believe stuff, but I think their relative effectiveness is fairly indisputable.
Suicide rates post op vs pre op aside - Religion is invasive thus a bill of rights was needed to both ensure freedom to worship and freedom from it. I believe in freedom of expression. If someone wants to live as the opposite sex, go for it. I don't believe in brow beating the rest of us into pretending it's not a facade. I don't have to pretend religion isn't a facade. I can be openly atheist and no one here will label me as a bigot because of it.

[ElNono]

Which is fine. I don't mind calling them that since the term doesn't conjure up images of a respectful person, just someone affiliated with the church. I don't feel someone is requiring I "play along" with the charade. I am atheist, but I can call a church a church and a Christian a Christian, and I can recognize their terminology. I don't have to pretend to believe what they believe though.

Well this is no different. I mean, if Bob is going to get mad and retaliate because I slipped one time and didn't call him Barbara, then it does affect me. Then it's problematic, but honestly, I don't feel we're at that level.

Just like, you know, I don't actively seek pastors and call them charlatans (even if I had a solid case), because it's not that important.


Would you do that if Bob didn't have a gender transformation?

I don't care what name to call someone. I don't care what they wear or how they sound. I don't care who they marry or fuck. I only care that I am expected to pretend a male isn't a male because they disguised themselves as female. It would be the same as expecting someone to consider your date as your wife, although they know your wife and that isn't her. But it makes you feel better for them to pretend, and not only pretend, live as if it's true.

We pretty much all called at one point or another a fake bearded, fat, dressed in ridiculous red, Santa. It was just a normal guy in the mall whose name was very likely not Santa. It's going to happen many times again in just a few days (probably already happening all around). One could make the argument we didn't know better, yet, how many people continue that tradition with his kids, etc...

So this is another example where traditionalism wins over rationality. And God forbid(tm) you take Santa away from Christmas.


That's argument from ignorance though. Not knowing doesn't open possibilities.

That's not correct. An argument from ignorance means that you make an affirmative claim because there's no evidence to the contrary. But that's not what I'm saying, and not knowing is a perfectly normal position in science which does open a lot of possibilities, you just can't make an affirmative claim on them unless and until you find testable evidence.

To declare these people are mentally ill or unstable, we would need to have testable evidence of that, and I don't think we do. There's plenty of academic debate on the matter, and mostly because psychology is a science (which I'm not a fan of at all) driven more by response/feedback than tangible evidence. Now, we can't entirely say therapy never works, or has been largely demonstrated to be a placebo. But we have to take it as a theory, because largely we don't know why it works on some people (and doesn't in others).

It's like the utilitarian aspect of religion in a lot of ways. Even if you're an atheist, there's no hypocrisy in admitting there's an utilitarian aspect to it, even if we were to argue the whole construction is irrational.


Suicide rates post op vs pre op aside - Religion is invasive thus a bill of rights was needed to both ensure freedom to worship and freedom from it. I believe in freedom of expression. If someone wants to live as the opposite sex, go for it. I don't believe in brow beating the rest of us into pretending it's not a facade. I don't have to pretend religion isn't a facade. I can be openly atheist and no one here will label me as a bigot because of it.

I agree with all that, but I don't truly see the difference. If you go to your job and shout to a visiting pastor that he's a fraud, you run the risk of losing your job. If you work for the government, things might go different.

In this case, it's much of the same. If you're at work and Bob wants to be called Barbara and the company agrees, your options are to call him Barbara, quit or wait until you get fired. Again, if you work for the government, there's a different set of much more complicated rules.

[Pavlov]

You routinely wrongly classify others here as opposite gender but you're somehow a champion for gender neutrality.lol Daisy's upset.

[ElNono]

I actually enjoy my conversations with DMC very much, even if we don't agree in certain things. Seems like it happens every year around the holidays... :bobo

[DMC]

I actually enjoy my conversations with DMC very much, even if we don't agree in certain things. Seems like it happens every year around the holidays... :bobo

:bobo

[DMC]

I would just offer that gender dysphoria is a diagnosis, so it stands to reason that it's a mental illness. No one gets diagnosed as cisgender, for example. Also the suicide rate of transgender and transexual people is exponentially higher than cisgendered people. That alone should support the notion that gender dysphoria is a mental condition (perhaps illness is too strong a word) that needs to be addressed. The lack of success in that area, I think, could be a major reason why the "solution" has been to try to force the rest of society to pretend. It's like someone has a gun to their own head, or they are on a ledge, and they are saying they are Napoleon Bonaparte... and no one believes them... so you say "I believe you, come down off that ledge my friend, we could cut ties with all the lies you've... errr.. never mind.. just step down let's talk about it, general"

[koriwhat]

You're confusing sex (biological) with gender (social construct). Many people use it (incorrectly) interchangeably. That can be easily remedied by grabbing a copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and educating oneself.

nah, we want to believe there's no differences between genders but there most definitely is and that's the real issue; playing make believe. sure, there's some out there who don't fit into that nice little box of boys wear blue and girls wear pink but let's not kid ourselves into believing all this isn't propagated by the very small minority we capitulate to on a daily basis so we all don't look like assholes for standing up and having a spine.

let's just break it down to its core; you got a dick your a boy, got a vagina you're a girl, but if you want play make believe don't expect others to play with you.

[ElNono]

I would just offer that gender dysphoria is a diagnosis, so it stands to reason that it's a mental illness. No one gets diagnosed as cisgender, for example. Also the suicide rate of transgender and transexual people is exponentially higher than cisgendered people. That alone should support the notion that gender dysphoria is a mental condition (perhaps illness is too strong a word) that needs to be addressed. The lack of success in that area, I think, could be a major reason why the "solution" has been to try to force the rest of society to pretend. It's like someone has a gun to their own head, or they are on a ledge, and they are saying they are Napoleon Bonaparte... and no one believes them... so you say "I believe you, come down off that ledge my friend, we could cut ties with all the lies you've... errr.. never mind.. just step down let's talk about it, general"

I would agree there's something "abnormal" (ie: an altered state, not necessarily right or wrong, otherwise, these people wouldn't suffer). Dysphoria in general is "a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction", which I think you'll agree it's pretty vague (this is why I'm not a fan of psychology/psychiatric). Normal common people experience dysphoria in their daily lives all the time for all sorts of reasons. Some get over it, some end up with anxiety, depression, etc. which in turn can end up in suicide, etc.

Like I said, there's still debate in academia about gender dysphoria. The DSM used to use the "gender identity disorder" term, but now has changed it to "gender dysphoria". This again, IMO, goes straight to the lack of a solid understanding of the psyche (chemical, electric, etc). While we don't know all about it, there's people still facing these issues, so it makes sense we try different approaches, especially when we already know that further stigmatization and social shunning only deepens the condition (as seen forever with, say, homosexuality).

When I brought up the Constitutional protections for religion, my point was squarely aimed at your comment about disallowing people to indulge in the self-delusion. However, if that has therapeutic value, and the societal cost is relatively minor (I believe it is, the major argument against it, besides the direct rationality case, which is valid, is tearing down traditionalism), then let's provide that tool. For some people it's going to be entirely make-believe, that's fine, but for these people it could be a valuable way to overcome.

[ElNono]

nah, we want to believe there's no differences between genders but there most definitely is and that's the real issue; playing make believe. sure, there's some out there who don't fit into that nice little box of boys wear blue and girls wear pink but let's not kid ourselves into believing all this isn't propagated by the very small minority we capitulate to on a daily basis so we all don't look like assholes for standing up and having a spine.

let's just break it down to its core; you got a dick your a boy, got a vagina you're a girl, but if you want play make believe don't expect others to play with you.

The bolded is a social construct based on traditionalism. Has nothing to do with biological sex, dicks or vaginas. Once you have that understanding, then we can analyze why it takes a much bigger spine for a boy to wear pink in our society without being shunned. Pointing fingers at somebody else for what they wear or what they want to do with their bodies or names because it defies your notion of what's traditional doesn't involve having a spine at all, it goes directly to having your traditional social values threatened.

[DMC]

I would agree there's something "abnormal" (ie: an altered state, not necessarily right or wrong, otherwise, these people wouldn't suffer). Dysphoria in general is "a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction", which I think you'll agree it's pretty vague (this is why I'm not a fan of psychology/psychiatric). Normal common people experience dysphoria in their daily lives all the time for all sorts of reasons. Some get over it, some end up with anxiety, depression, etc. which in turn can end up in suicide, etc.

Like I said, there's still debate in academia about gender dysphoria. The DSM used to use the "gender identity disorder" term, but now has changed it to "gender dysphoria". This again, IMO, goes straight to the lack of a solid understanding of the psyche (chemical, electric, etc). While we don't know all about it, there's people still facing these issues, so it makes sense we try different approaches, especially when we already know that further stigmatization and social shunning only deepens the condition (as seen forever with, say, homosexuality).

When I brought up the Constitutional protections for religion, my point was squarely aimed at your comment about disallowing people to indulge in the self-delusion. However, if that has therapeutic value, and the societal cost is relatively minor (I believe it is, the major argument against it, besides the direct rationality case, which is valid, is tearing down traditionalism), then let's provide that tool. For some people it's going to be entirely make-believe, that's fine, but for these people it could be a valuable way to overcome.

The issue arises when these people get into positions of power and create and enact legislation that supports or enforces their dogma (religion) or their delusion (gender dysphoria).

Personal freedom: I have the right to not acknowledge your tradition. You have the right to not acknowledge mine. This is true only for individual rights.

I disagree with Koriwhat's take on it. I don't think either shows a spine or weakness. I think though that denying reality (i.e. biological factors) in favor of fantasy and desire (in both religion and gender identity because let's face it, the gender identity issue is becoming a religion) cannot have a socially positive outcome eventually. Once you break down the fabric of rationality in favor of comforting the social fringe, all things are up for sale.

[koriwhat]

The bolded is a social construct based on traditionalism. Has nothing to do with biological sex, dicks or vaginas. Once you have that understanding, then we can analyze why it takes a much bigger spine for a boy to wear pink in our society without being shunned. Pointing fingers at somebody else for what they wear or what they want to do with their bodies or names because it defies your notion of what's traditional doesn't involve having a spine at all, it goes directly to having your traditional social values threatened.

who's pointing fingers? idgaf how someone wants to express themselves even if that means chopping off their tits and dicks; doesn't bother me one bit. what bothers me is this notion that we regular folk have to play pretend with them and if not we get shamed, fired from our jobs, etc... they've got problems obviously but now we're all supposed to act like they don't.

like i said, i have 3 trans friends and i treat them with the utmost respect and have even before we were friends. as well, i call them by the name they want to use and the pronoun they associate with because i respect them. if you're just off the street and come at me a certain way i won't give a fuck about you or anything you wish of me. it's how it is.

if i had to lay odds on what really transpired between that student and teacher i'd probably assume the student was making a bigger deal out of this then it should be. either way, the teacher deserves respect too, right? why's it all one sided?

[ElNono]

The issue arises when these people get into positions of power and create and enact legislation that supports or enforces their dogma (religion) or their delusion (gender dysphoria).

Personal freedom: I have the right to not acknowledge your tradition. You have the right to not acknowledge mine. This is true only for individual rights.

I disagree with Koriwhat's take on it. I don't think either shows a spine or weakness. I think though that denying reality (i.e. biological factors) in favor of fantasy and desire (in both religion and gender identity because let's face it, the gender identity issue is becoming a religion) cannot have a socially positive outcome eventually. Once you break down the fabric of rationality in favor of comforting the social fringe, all things are up for sale.

And now we get to the actual political meat of the problem. I understand your concern, and share it, since it then would affect me individually, however here is where the attitudes split up: some people don't really care about tradition and will like to afford these people the possibility of better integrating to society (provided the therapy works for them, and being cognizant there's a fine line), and other people feel themselves uncomfortable with breaking tradition and the potential slippery slopes (that when you actually dig a bit deeper, have a lot to do with what's 'normal', where 'normal' means traditional social constructs), and they rather just close the door to this threat to their traditional values from the get go.

This doesn't happen just with this specific issue, we've gone through this with a lot of items: from same sex marriage, to religion, to women's suffrage, to slavery, to political correctness, to immigration (ie: DACA). So this really isn't new, just part of a general shift of looking at ourselves and our social rules and re-prioritizing what we individually think it's important.

And that's actually rational. Also rational is for people that are suffering greatly in the framework of our social construct due to it, that they'll seek solutions to that suffering. Whether they're a minority or a majority is really immaterial in so far as that their struggle is real. Rationality and tradition are not the same, and they don't go hand in hand. As I pointed out before, the fact that men could only vote was irrational on it's face. It took a fairly massive social movement to change that however, and now we look at that as the normal, but it clearly wasn't back then, and at some point it was also a fringe. It also opened the same slippery slope you mention, things like what happens when women are a majority and their vote decide who our president is going to be, which would affect everybody. We can also surmise that the notion of a change in the status quo prompted dysphoria on the majority at the time.

So, personally, I'm not that big of a fan of social traditions and I don't fear them going away. I find some of them arbitrary, and sometimes even irrational. I'm also mindful that if you indulge too deep into that, you could end up in the moral relativism end, which is also a trap. So there's a careful balance, and there has to be a constant re-evaluation of where we're at and where we're headed. With the advances in science, this will only get more pronounced. From IVF, to AI, there's much bigger possibilities for disruption (and thus, social unease), and I honestly don't think people can just obviate this or outright forbid it, if they want to shape it.

[ElNono]

who's pointing fingers? idgaf how someone wants to express themselves even if that means chopping off their tits and dicks; doesn't bother me one bit. what bothers me is this notion that we regular folk have to play pretend with them and if not we get shamed, fired from our jobs, etc... they've got problems obviously but now we're all supposed to act like they don't.

like i said, i have 3 trans friends and i treat them with the utmost respect and have even before we were friends. as well, i call them by the name they want to use and the pronoun they associate with because i respect them. if you're just off the street and come at me a certain way i won't give a fuck about you or anything you wish of me. it's how it is.

if i had to lay odds on what really transpired between that student and teacher i'd probably assume the student was making a bigger deal out of this then it should be. either way, the teacher deserves respect too, right? why's it all one sided?

Well, you mentioned that one way to battle this would be to have a spine, stand up to them, even if we look like assholes. That might work to allay your concerns, but I don't think it really does anything for them, or makes the issue go away. Ask your trans friend about it.

As far as the teacher, I think it's stupid simply because even in the case where he might've been just looking for an excuse to get fired, this was possibly the worst way to do it, due to the almost guaranteed immediate media attention. Just to be sure, that doesn't imply the kid and school are right and the teacher is wrong (we can debate that). I'm talking strategy here.

[DMC]

And now we get to the actual political meat of the problem. I understand your concern, and share it, since it then would affect me individually, however here is where the attitudes split up: some people don't really care about tradition and will like to afford these people the possibility of better integrating to society (provided the therapy works for them, and being cognizant there's a fine line), and other people feel themselves uncomfortable with breaking tradition and the potential slippery slopes (that when you actually dig a bit deeper, have a lot to do with what's 'normal', where 'normal' means traditional social constructs), and they rather just close the door to this threat to their traditional values from the get go.

This doesn't happen just with this specific issue, we've gone through this with a lot of items: from same sex marriage, to religion, to women's suffrage, to slavery, to political correctness, to immigration (ie: DACA). So this really isn't new, just part of a general shift of looking at ourselves and our social rules and re-prioritizing what we individually think it's important.

And that's actually rational. Also rational is for people that are suffering greatly in the framework of our social construct due to it, that they'll seek solutions to that suffering. Whether they're a minority or a majority is really immaterial in so far as that their struggle is real. Rationality and tradition are not the same, and they don't go hand in hand. As I pointed out before, the fact that men could only vote was irrational on it's face. It took a fairly massive social movement to change that however, and now we look at that as the normal, but it clearly wasn't back then, and at some point it was also a fringe. It also opened the same slippery slope you mention, things like what happens when women are a majority and their vote decide who our president is going to be, which would affect everybody. We can also surmise that the notion of a change in the status quo prompted dysphoria on the majority at the time.

So, personally, I'm not that big of a fan of social traditions and I don't fear them going away. I find some of them arbitrary, and sometimes even irrational. I'm also mindful that if you indulge too deep into that, you could end up in the moral relativism end, which is also a trap. So there's a careful balance, and there has to be a constant re-evaluation of where we're at and where we're headed. With the advances in science, this will only get more pronounced. From IVF, to AI, there's much bigger possibilities for disruption (and thus, social unease), and I honestly don't think people can just obviate this or outright forbid it, if they want to shape it.

There's not really a careful balance though. What would facilitate that?

[DMC]

Well, you mentioned that one way to battle this would be to have a spine, stand up to them, even if we look like assholes. That might work to allay your concerns, but I don't think it really does anything for them, or makes the issue go away. Ask your trans friend about it.

As far as the teacher, I think it's stupid simply because even in the case where he might've been just looking for an excuse to get fired, this was possibly the worst way to do it, due to the almost guaranteed immediate media attention. Just to be sure, that doesn't imply the kid and school are right and the teacher is wrong (we can debate that). I'm talking strategy here.

My sister is a psychiatrist and deals with this stuff regularly. She was saying a couple days ago that at least some of the issues we are facing when dealing with gender dysphoria is that the person isn't always necessarily looking to fix anything by transitioning. They want to get out of what they are, and not long after they transition they come to realize that they are still the same person. They didn't get away from themselves as they'd hoped. Often this leads to suicide attempts. This is why I said it's a mental illness, just as BPD would be. We wouldn't take a bipolar person and try to get society to act as if there's nothing going on there.

[DMC]

who's pointing fingers? idgaf how someone wants to express themselves even if that means chopping off their tits and dicks; doesn't bother me one bit. what bothers me is this notion that we regular folk have to play pretend with them and if not we get shamed, fired from our jobs, etc... they've got problems obviously but now we're all supposed to act like they don't.

like i said, i have 3 trans friends and i treat them with the utmost respect and have even before we were friends. as well, i call them by the name they want to use and the pronoun they associate with because i respect them. if you're just off the street and come at me a certain way i won't give a fuck about you or anything you wish of me. it's how it is.

if i had to lay odds on what really transpired between that student and teacher i'd probably assume the student was making a bigger deal out of this then it should be. either way, the teacher deserves respect too, right? why's it all one sided?

These folks want to be accepted into the gender they choose, but they rarely if ever truly are accepted. This cannot be changed by wishcasting (waiting for someone to collect all the time's I've used that term lately). If your best friend (guy) tells you he's now a girl, you'll spend 10 years thinking of that person as a guy, maybe never think anything but that. Just as if you take a Volkswagon frame and put a Ferrari chassis on it, you'll think of it as a Volkswagon with a Ferrari chassis. You'll never think of it as a Ferrari no matter how much the owner wants you to. Had you never known, you could be fooled.

[ElNono]

There's not really a careful balance though. What would facilitate that?

The same social shunning/rejection when somebody tries to crowbar dogma into the government, for example. I mean, sometimes it's not entirely preventable from happening, but the irrationality eventually comes to the forefront, and normally ends up being deflated by it's own vapidity. A good example du jour of indulging into delusion is the border wall. (And notice I'm not against comprehensive immigration reform)


My sister is a psychiatrist and deals with this stuff regularly. She was saying a couple days ago that at least some of the issues we are facing when dealing with gender dysphoria is that the person isn't always necessarily looking to fix anything by transitioning. They want to get out of what they are, and not long after they transition they come to realize that they are still the same person. They didn't get away from themselves as they'd hoped. Often this leads to suicide attempts. This is why I said it's a mental illness, just as BPD would be. We wouldn't take a bipolar person and try to get society to act as if there's nothing going on there.

There's an identity crisis for sure. I honestly don't think mental health is taken as seriously as it should be. A lot of people think we'll just pop a pill or two, or people will just get over it, and move on. Sometimes it's temporary, sometimes it's deep rooted. It has serious consequences, including deaths or suicides and affects the fabric our society. If anything, progress in the form of automation, etc, have brought additional societal pressures and anxiety. And sometimes there's really no easy answers. I just think being dismissive doesn't help the situation at all (not that you are, but some people do take that route).

[DMC]

The same social shunning/rejection when somebody tries to crowbar dogma into the government, for example. I mean, sometimes it's not entirely preventable from happening, but the irrationality eventually comes to the forefront, and normally ends up being deflated by it's own vapidity. A good example du jour of indulging into delusion is the border wall. (And notice I'm not against comprehensive immigration reform)

There will be a border wall, if for no other reason than other GOPers saw that Trump got elected running that scam. It might not happen in the next few years but I believe there will be a wall, because Mexico isn't gaining any ground in the "developing" part of "developing countries".


There's an identity crisis for sure. I honestly don't think mental health is taken as seriously as it should be. A lot of people think we'll just pop a pill or two, or people will just get over it, and move on. Sometimes it's temporary, sometimes it's deep rooted. It has serious consequences, including deaths or suicides and affects the fabric our society. If anything, progress in the form of automation, etc, have brought additional societal pressures and anxiety. And sometimes there's really no easy answers. I just think being dismissive doesn't help the situation at all (not that you are, but some people do take that route).

Folks are often dismissive of anything that doesn't directly affect them. I believe a lot of conservatives see the gender identity issue as a "look at me" moment for socially awkward people, a way to be noticed when they never really have been. I don't know how true that is, but there are enough examples of people jumping on the gender identity bus to at least cause me to raise an eyebrow. Like the #MeToo movement, there are genuine, core cases that need to be examined and then a lot of attention seekers who cloud the issue with their own agenda.

[koriwhat]

Well, you mentioned that one way to battle this would be to have a spine, stand up to them, even if we look like assholes. That might work to allay your concerns, but I don't think it really does anything for them, or makes the issue go away. Ask your trans friend about it.

my trans friends have nothing to say tbh... they never went out of their way to draw attention to them being trans in the first place. i'm 3 for 3 at this point in calling a spade a spade and all three of them are great people. i feel like most trans are like my friends who don't care to put themselves out there and just go about their "transitioning" on their own terms.

it's like politics, you have both sides at each others throats but more so the far left & far right. the regular folk in each party sit back and just observe.


I'm talking strategy here.

there is no strategy when you allow the loons to run the asylum.

[ElNono]

there is no strategy when you allow the loons to run the asylum.

Sure there is. People deal with things they find offensive/contrarian all the time. I mean, what does the loon and asylum look like are fairly debatable, tbh.

[spurraider21]

Also the suicide rate of transgender and transexual people is exponentially higher than cisgendered people. That alone should support the notion that gender dysphoria is a mental condition (perhaps illness is too strong a word) that needs to be addressed.
well i think you have to ask the next question and figure out why their suicide rates are higher. is it because of the social shame they have to endure? in that case, you can pin the blame on the society around the individual, and not the individual himself.

that's supported by the finding that suicide rates among the trans community are nearly 50% higher when the person is "out" of the closet... in that they have to openly face a world that likely doesn't accept them.


Suicide rates post op vs pre op aside
this also contemplates that all transgendered people are going to go under the knife. there have also been studies showing that suicide rates drop after surgery...

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ss/2013-v59-n1-ss0746/1017478ar/


ast-year serious consideration of suicide was highest among those who were planning a medical transition (55% considered suicide in this group), significantly higher than among those who had completed a transition, and among those who were not planning to or did not need to transition. Those planning or in process of medically transitioning sex also had very high prevalences of past-year attempts (27% and 18%, respectively), each significantly higher than prevalences of attempts in the other two groups: 1% among those who completed medical transition and 3% among those not planning a transition or for whom the concept did not apply.

[DMC]

Suicide as an answer to the fact that they cannot smoothly transition physically and socially to what they feel they should be clearly indicates a disorder. Neither medicine nor the social landscape can be customized to fix that.

Adults commit suicide because of how they feel about themselves. This is the reason they transition as well. Even cisgendered people abuse cosmetic surgery, some do it because they dont like who they are. So should we also pretend homely people are attractive? Should they get modeling jobs?

So do you suggest everyone pretend to believe men are women to prevent suicides? Do you think thats a viable solution?

In airport, will address your orher points later.

[spurraider21]

Suicide as an answer to the fact that they cannot smoothly transition physically and socially to what they feel they should be clearly indicates a disorder. Neither medicine nor the social landscape can be customized to fix that.

Adults commit suicide because of how they feel about themselves. This is the reason they transition as well. Even cisgendered people abuse cosmetic surgery, some do it because they dont like who they are. So should we also pretend homely people are attractive? Should they get modeling jobs?

So do you suggest everyone pretend to believe men are women to prevent suicides? Do you think thats a viable solution?

In airport, will address your orher points later.
“Pretend to believe men are women”

i think this mischaracterizes the issue because of the sex/gender distinction. Nobody expects you to believe a penis is a vagina. But that person with a penis, on a social level, behaves and relates a lot closer to the “female” role ie wearing pink and enjoying dolls more than action figures. That has nothing to do with physiology. what would prevent somebody with a vagina from primarily wearing blue, and preferring to play with action figures/toy trucks instead of pink and dolls? and yet socially, we would call those "male" behaviors.

the confusion is inherent because we use the same male/female nomenclature to define both sex and gender, and further because a vast majority of the population is cis

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1074613245812596736

[spurraider21]

imo sports eligibility should be based on sex and not gender where strength/physique are paramount to the sport.

that said, if you're biologically a female who is taking hormones in an attempt to transition, then you should also be disqualified from women's sports due to the unfair advantage. let them move up to play with men, if they wish to participate. but i dont see a circumstance where a biological male should be able to compete with female athletes.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1075116944221556736

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/PolishPatriotTM/status/1075058678049456128

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1075116944221556736

Another Dem gem.

[Isitjustme?]

https://twitter.com/PolishPatriotTM/status/1075058678049456128

Twitter gave you access back?

I know they banned you for posting like a bot iirc lmao

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1075465791355514883

[Winehole23]

FASCISM! LEAVE LAURA LOOMER ALONE!

1075610692554801152

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1075465791355514883
lol felon

[Chris]

lol felon

lol you didn't watch

lol snarky troll

[Pavlov]

lol you didn't watch

lol snarky trollDescribe what he says in your own words.

I predict it's something something slavery, something something KKK, something something Jim Crow and history stops at 1968.

Right?

[ElNono]

lol felon

[Spurminator]

D'Loser trying to milk any last dollar out of his bomb of a film.

[Winehole23]

Abolish ICE? At least maybe let someone else handle intellectual property law.



Operation In Our Sites is the same one that was named when ICE seized all those sites I mentioned earlier -- in which blogs and discussion forums were seized, with no evidence to back them up, and held by the US government for between one and five years, before finally being handed back to the original owners because no one could ever prove those sites actually broke the law. Seems kinda weird to now tout that same operation as a roaring success.

And, need we remind you that, under the "Operation in Our Sites" banner, ICE once accidentally seized 84,000 sites (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/00082213144/homeland-security-wont-even-admit-whether-not-it-seized-mooocom-taking-down-84000-innocent-sites.shtml), denied it for nearly a week and then finally admitted they fucked up (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/17533013176/ice-finally-admits-it-totally-screwed-up-next-time-perhaps-itll-try-due-process.shtml)? This is the same Operation they're now promoting for seizing one million sites? It's not clear if they include those 84,000 that were done "accidentally" in that total.


Roughly 33,600 website domain names were criminally seized in a collaborative effort between ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Europol, Interpol and police agencies from 26 different countries. Industry partners participating in the operation were fully responsible for civilly seizing 1.21 million domain names and shutting down 2.2 million erroneous ecommerce links featured on social media platforms and third-party marketplaces.



Hmm. "Industry partners" were "fully responsible for civilly seizing" these domain names. Does that mean the US government "seized" them... or that the "industry partners" got the domains. Because if it were the latter... that seems extraordinarily questionable. I know that, in some of those earlier seizures, we found it odd and distasteful that ICE announced the seizures of sites from a Hollywood studio, but it's another thing altogether if the federal government is literally taking domains and handing them to private companies without even a whiff of due process. Even if this just means that the "industry partners" gave ICE a big list, then we're still left with a fairly long list of due process questions. Did ICE really check all 1.21 million domains before having them seized? Considering that they fucked up so badly a few years ago at a time when they merely seized five domains, forgive me for questioning the amount of review that went into 1.21 million.https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181213/18030341224/ice-seizes-over-1-million-websites-with-no-due-process-apparently-unaware-that-copyright-trademark-are-different.shtml

[spurraider21]

D'Loser trying to milk any last dollar out of his bomb of a film.


Budget
$6 million


Box office
$5.9 million

[boutons_deux]

Why is fucking Immigration and Customs doing IP enforcement?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1075863835448352768

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1075824977419649025

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1075863835448352768If they broke the law, why not?

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1075824977419649025:lol just walked out on her when she started lying again

[Chris]

:lol just walked out on her when she started lying again

He's a piece of shit.

[Pavlov]

He's a piece of shit.It's was a labored metaphor, but nothing you should be freaking out about.

[Winehole23]

lol filing overwrought Congressional grandstanding under FASCISM

[Chris]

Never go full retard


https://twitter.com/talibkweli/status/1076264241336930307?s=21

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1078014230987767813?s=21

[Winehole23]

Twitter suspends Jews for saying "Goy" but maintains safe spaces for your alt-lite bretheren.

You probably can't see it for the availability bias in your filter bubble, but a lot of other people get picked on for bullshit reasons too.

[koriwhat]

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1078014230987767813?s=21

they did the same to me a few months ago and many many yrs ago. calling out pedo's is not allowed on twitter the pedo-isis-far leftist-platform.

[Spurminator]

For every alt-right tool whining that his/her account got suspended, there's a liberal like David Simon complaining about the same thing. Finding examples of tweets that didn't get users suspended and comparing them to tweets that did get a user suspended is the laziest form of confirmation bias journalism.

Twitter's not a right.

[koriwhat]

For every alt-right tool whining that his/her account got suspended, there's a liberal like David Simon complaining about the same thing. Finding examples of tweets that didn't get users suspended and comparing them to tweets that did get a user suspended is the laziest form of confirmation bias journalism.

Twitter's not a right.

funny you bring this up because they didn't ban the pedophile. lmao! i think jack dorsey is a pedo himself tbh.

[Chris]

funny you bring this up because they didn't ban the pedophile. lmao! i think jack dorsey is a pedo himself tbh.

Easy money tbh

[Winehole23]

Easy money tbhthought you didn't bet

[Winehole23]

are you encouraging others to?

[Chris]

Ever heard of a figure of speech?

[Winehole23]

yah, you think jack's a pedo because his platform did something you didn't like.

you're an ignorant crybaby.

[Spurminator]

Chris has such strong convictions against Jack Dorsey that he spends hours a day patronizing it and making money for him.

Courage.

[koriwhat]

yah, you think jack's a pedo because his platform did something you didn't like.

you're an ignorant crybaby.

you mean like giving a platform to pedophiles? guess we now know who you side with.

i'd rather be an ignorant crybaby than a pedophile supporter like yourself.