Post by: Michael Hardner on June 11, 2017, 08:41:34 pm
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154674292597849&id=197752712848
Thoughts ?
My part in this discussion is mostly to listen to others' thoughts, and to express support for citizen rights as a citizen and ally of LGBT people.
Post by: kimmy on June 11, 2017, 11:14:20 pm
I'm a strong believer in fairness for LGBT people. And I strongly oppose "bathroom bills" of the sort that some US states have been enacting. I can't imagine why it's an issue. Biologically female people are not going to be lining up at the urinal next to men. And if I'm in the ladies' room I really don't care what the biological sex of the person on the other side of the partition is. As long as they-- whatever their biological sex might be-- stay out of my stall while I'm doing my thing, I don't care.
But I feel that locker-rooms, changing rooms, and showers are a different story. I simply don't want to change or shower in the presence of someone with male anatomy. It would be unsettling and uncomfortable for me, regardless of whether they consider themselves male or female. I understand that might be hurtful to some trans people, but that's the reality of it. It's not a switch I could just turn off. It would be unsettling and uncomfortable for me, and I can only imagine it would be even more upsetting and uncomfortable for women from more conservative cultural backgrounds, and for women who may have had traumatic experiences with biologically male people.
Personally, I would probably leave, or wait until the person left, rather than change or shower alongside them. I would probably decide not to return to that establishment in the future, if that was a regular occurrence. I just don't think I could bring myself to do it.
I think that out of consideration for the feelings of the women who would feel uncomfortable in such circumstances (which is probably many or most women...) I think that establishments should either provide accommodation for trans customers, or provide a ****-free safe-space for women who aren't comfortable changing in the presence of biologically male people.
The movie "Starship Troopers" depicted a completely gender-integrated marine unit... the men and women showered together completely without concern. Perhaps there have been real-world cultures where people were equally comfortable with inter-gender group nudity. But our culture isn't, and it won't be any time soon.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 06:07:34 am
I don't have any real stake in this discussion, other than the fact that I am an ally and this involves a human rights question in a country where I am a citizen, but if you are interested, I will offer some observation.
I am a McLuhanite to a fault, and we are perhaps at the end of the electronic era, wherein we are returning to our oral, and tribal roots. As such, this may be the last fight between the dominance of the literate age and the electronic one. I can't do justice to his many writings about clothing, but he explained that clothing and costume denoted one's place in society. Nudity is a shocking thing to a Victorian whereas tribal people, he wrote, merely see nudity as pathetic.
As such, this question make take us back to the origins of humans as the first big book explained it: in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve saw that they were naked and they were ashamed. For us to roll back to a place where nudity is just nudity we will negate that rule.
Personally, my experience with nudity is elementary: as a child, I participated in a backyard game of 'flashing' with a group of other kids and it was a big deal. As such, I have never been comfortable with it. In the last decade, I became part of the BurningMan community where nudity is simply an expression of onesself and I had to get comfortable being around it but never participated. I don't feel comfortable being naked in locker rooms, even, and to me that's the challenge.
Women can legally go **** in Ontario, but they don't. Nudity at Pride has been a sore point for upstanding citizens who need a reason to get upset. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent nudity from being legal, and I do think it's coming.
I think that is the choice that will emerge: do you want to be **** in an environment or not ? It will be your choice. As someone pointed out to me, women-only gyms exist as a descriminatory exception because they offer a 'safe space' and that is something that trans women need perhaps more than anyone. Trans men ARE allowed at this spa.
Post by: BC_cheque on June 12, 2017, 12:56:17 pm
But I feel that locker-rooms, changing rooms, and showers are a different story. I simply don't want to change or shower in the presence of someone with male anatomy. It would be unsettling and uncomfortable for me, regardless of whether they consider themselves male or female. I understand that might be hurtful to some trans people, but that's the reality of it. It's not a switch I could just turn off.
That's fair. When I first read your post and I pictured a moment like that, I kind of agreed it would be awkward.
But upon reflecting on it more, I don't see why it should be other than the fact that it's something not familiar.
Is it awkward to change in front of a lesbian woman who very well may be looking at me sexually? Not at all but probably because I've been around lesbians all my life.
Another thing, other than the showers at my local pool, every gym I've ever visited has changing rooms so this wouldn't be about anyone seeing me naked, it would be about ME seeing a woman with a pe-nis (can't believe that's too vulgar for the forum) who is comfortable enough with her body to get naked in an open room.
Then the onus is therefore on me, not on them.
I think this decision is based on the same notion as the bathroom rules where they're not worried about 'real' transgender women, but creepy straight men in wigs trying to be peeping toms.
In order to not discriminate and have to leave it up to judgement, it's a systematic rule.
I can see the other side but I think it's discriminatory at the same time. Personally I don't agree.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 01:12:00 pm
In order to not discriminate and have to leave it up to judgement, it's a systematic rule.
I can see the other side but I think it's discriminatory at the same time. Personally I don't agree.
You don't agree with BodyBlitz's policy you mean ?
Post by: BC_cheque on June 12, 2017, 01:37:32 pm
You don't agree with BodyBlitz's policy you mean ?
No, I don't. If it's meant to keep the straight men posing out, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water and if they just don't believe transgender women are real women, then it's archaic.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 04:49:11 pm
https://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/7367851-toronto-s-women-only-body-blitz-spa-draws-ire-for-alleged-no-****-rule/
Facebook is still churning... wait... just saw a note that it's going to national news tonight.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 12, 2017, 05:01:07 pm
So now we have a big conundrum now don't we! Personally I don't know what to make of it all yet.
This will be controversial, but as of now my opinion is that trans women are not men, and aren't women. They're trans women. They are unique in that sense and should be respected as equal but different. For instance, I don't agree with trans women competing in sports with biological women because they aren't the same, their biology is completely different, as I said male vs female. Why not have their own category of events, i'd root for them!
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 06:04:18 pm
Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex...
So now we have a big conundrum now don't we!
Nope. There's a difference in opinion between you, and them and the law also. If those come into conflict then you rely on mediating mechanisms.
I'm not insensitive to the trouble some people will have here, but if you are not respectful in these matters, you will get a fight. The fight for gay rights was a long one. This fight will not be, as those who fight for trans rights are fighters and they will stand by to protect this very abused segment of society.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 06:42:36 pm
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwbcoPYJ.jpg&hash=24a2d94479a34a30643b10a51945465510e11014)
Would you use a pronoun that someone asked you to ?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 12, 2017, 07:08:01 pm
Nope. There's a difference in opinion between you, and them and the law also. If those come into conflict then you rely on mediating mechanisms.
I'm not insensitive to the trouble some people will have here, but if you are not respectful in these matters, you will get a fight. The fight for gay rights was a long one. This fight will not be, as those who fight for trans rights are fighters and they will stand by to protect this very abused segment of society.
I edited my opinion somewhat, so re-read my post.
I'm all for trans rights, but we have to deal in facts and science while also respecting people's rights. Trans women are women in the gender sense because gender is fluid and subjective, but what about biology?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 12, 2017, 07:08:44 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 07:15:55 pm
I edited my opinion somewhat, so re-read my post.
I did, but you just added a bit about sports. I don't know what the rules are around that and have no opinion on it.
Quote
I'm all for trans rights, but we have to deal in facts and science while also respecting people's rights. Trans women are women in the gender sense because gender is fluid and subjective, but what about biology?
What about it ? Gender is fluid as you say. I acknowledge that you have an opinion but as I said these issues will go to the law for mitigation and it will get political.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2017, 07:18:36 pm
I would use he or she. Whichever they wanted.
I worked closely with somebody who is trans, so I listened to what others did. I'm a middle-aged male who is new to these things, but luckily I have some sense so I picked up on it. We are good friends now.
What made me think about this issue more was a heartbreaking post about this person, who is so strong and capable, and how they were utterly broken until they made this change. It was heartbreaking. Luckily I have a soul.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 12, 2017, 09:01:18 pm
I did, but you just added a bit about sports. I don't know what the rules are around that and have no opinion on it.
No i added a bit before that. I said before, which you quoted: "Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex..."
I changed that, this: "Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex...unless they've had hormone therapy & surgery, then they're part male & part female biologically.
QuoteWhat about it ? Gender is fluid as you say. I acknowledge that you have an opinion but as I said these issues will go to the law for mitigation and it will get political.
Well, what I'm saying is gender is an expression of masculine or feminine and is fluid, but biology is much harder to change, and most of biology you can't change. If you're a male, and remove your **** and surgically make a mock-**** and insert artificial breasts and take hormone therapies...does that make you female in biology? I would argue it makes you more female in biology, but also can't change male chromosomes or male muscle & bone structure. So biologically, a trans woman post-transition...are they male, female, or a bit of both?
As for pronouns, I'll call a trans male a he if they want, i'll call a gender neutral person "they" if they want. As for the other pronouns like xe or xer etc., i'd have to learn more about it. Using "they" or anything other than male or female sounds most practical for everyone though.QuoteI worked closely with somebody who is trans, so I listened to what others did. I'm a middle-aged male who is new to these things, but luckily I have some sense so I picked up on it. We are good friends now.
What made me think about this issue more was a heartbreaking post about this person, who is so strong and capable, and how they were utterly broken until they made this change. It was heartbreaking. Luckily I have a soul.
It would be interesting to know somebody who is trans, to learn from their perspective. I respect everyone's right to be whatever they want to be, I don't care in fact I think it's great. What's important though is that even though we need to take people's feelings into account, facts also must be considered and I believe are of primary importance even if they hurt someone's feelings. I will call a ie: trans woman as "she" because they are female in gender, but to pretend they are female in all aspects including 100% in biology I will not, because it's contrary to science and the facts. I know that many trans people want to desperately be of the opposite biological sex as they were born, hence all of the medical procedures they have, but this isn't possible, at least not fully. That's why I don't think trans women should compete against born-women in competitive sports like the Olympics. It would be completely ridiculous. Imagine if Bruce Jenner had been Caitlyn Jenner in their Olympic hey-day. It would have been a sham, Caitlyn could have won every medal, and broke records that could never be matched except by other trans women. It might hurt the feelings of trans women to not be considered the "same" as other women, but they aren't quite the same, objectively. Same with trans men.
If the law wants to state that women and trans women are the same biologically, well fine but it still doesn't make it true. I think compelling other people by law to pretend that they are would be dangerous. But hey maybe I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen to other arguments, these social conundrums these issues raise are new to everyone, we need to find the proper solutions that respect everyone.
Post by: kimmy on June 12, 2017, 11:54:27 pm
That's fair. When I first read your post and I pictured a moment like that, I kind of agreed it would be awkward.
But upon reflecting on it more, I don't see why it should be other than the fact that it's something not familiar.
Is it awkward to change in front of a lesbian woman who very well may be looking at me sexually? Not at all but probably because I've been around lesbians all my life.
Maybe it's not about whether someone might be looking at you in a sexual sense.
Another thing, other than the showers at my local pool, every gym I've ever visited has changing rooms
That hasn't been my experience, but if establishments are updating their changing areas to provide more privacy, I think that would do a lot to put their patrons' discomfort to rest.
so this wouldn't be about anyone seeing me naked, it would be about ME seeing a woman with a pe-nis (can't believe that's too vulgar for the forum) who is comfortable enough with her body to get naked in an open room.
Then the onus is therefore on me, not on them.
Ok, hang on... many people now accept the premise that some people are so fragile that we should avoid using the word "rayp" (I can't believe the forum censors that one too...), and do "jazz hands" or snap our fingers instead of clapping. And yet we're also now proposing that women who hold to long-standing social norms regarding intersex group nudity have to just shut up and deal with it?
Do you have to be special in some way before your feelings merit some consideration?
And we're now at a point where some people support providing women-only swimming times at public pools, out of respect for Muslim customs. And yet the mood now appears that women ought to share not just the swimming pool but also their showers and changing room with biologically male patrons. Don't you think there's a bit of a contradiction there?
If a Muslim member of BodyBlitz complained that having to change in the presence of a biologically male person was against her religious beliefs, would people support some sort of "reasonable accommodation" for her?
And, if so, then why shouldn't there likewise be an effort to make reasonable accommodation for people who are just not comfortable changing in front of some unfamiliar person with their dong hanging out?
I think this decision is based on the same notion as the bathroom rules where they're not worried about 'real' transgender women, but creepy straight men in wigs trying to be peeping toms.
If there's a male you don't know in the locker room, what's your first reaction?
In order to not discriminate and have to leave it up to judgement, it's a systematic rule.
I can see the other side but I think it's discriminatory at the same time. Personally I don't agree.
Discrimination isn't necessarily illegal. The very existence of female-only facilities is an example of a situation where it was decided that there was a reasonable justification for discrimination.
Another fair reason for discrimination might be to preserve the patrons' sense of security and privacy.
Another fair reason for discrimination might be to avoid economic hardship-- which might be the result if patrons stop coming to the club because they find the locker-room situation to be uncomfortable or upsetting.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 13, 2017, 05:24:36 am
I will call a ie: trans woman as "she" because they are female in gender, but to pretend they are female in all aspects including 100% in biology I will not, because it's contrary to science and the facts. I know that many trans people want to desperately be of the opposite biological sex as they were born, hence all of the medical procedures they have, but this isn't possible, at least not fully.
I don't think anybody believes that trans people are fully biologically changed to the other sex, that's not even in question. The debate is really about rights and nothing more. The sports question will be decided by those governing bodies.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 13, 2017, 05:42:43 am
If a Muslim member of BodyBlitz complained that having to change in the presence of a biologically male person was against her religious beliefs, would people support some sort of "reasonable accommodation" for her?
Of course that will have to play out. To my mind, religion's archaic and unreasonable segregation of men and women is constitutionally protected so I expect what they denote to be a man and women will also be protected.
We found ways to accommodate different cultures and to broker co-existence in the days before electronic media so we should be able to today even if the ignorant voices - previously ignored by big media - are part of the dialogue. Accommodation means they also have to be accommodated, and ignorant does not mean conservative by the way.
Post by: guest4 on June 13, 2017, 11:01:59 am
I've known 2 well enough to talk to beyond "hi, how are you". Both were male-to-female, one was attracted to women and the other was attracted to men. One changed later in life, after serving in the military and the other changed in her late teens/early 20s.
The most difficult part was the acceptance. For the older woman, she had to accept herself first - military duty was at least partly an attempt to prove her maleness, a desire to conform in a very obvious way. Once she'd made the change, she was able to find partners among other lesbians, although at the time I knew her, she wasn't with anyone.
The other, because she was that much younger, found self-acceptance easier in part because there was more awareness generally and her parents supported her. But what was extremely difficult for her was acceptance from men once they found out she'd once been male.
For them both, belonging and acceptance within society was important, as it is for most humans. I think people who generally fall in with the norms of society don't quite get how much of a drive it is for humans to conform; for them, it is effortless and natural to fit in and they seek ways to differentiate themselves in some small way and congratulate themselves on being unique. For those who really are very, very different it's a real challenge to admit and pursue their own true identity puts them at odds with 99% of the group and that's a very difficult thing to do. That's why it's so laughable when someone says "Oh, teenagers are just making a choice to be gay/trans, to follow a trend - they're just looking for attention", while kids commit suicide because they feel so unacceptable because of their difference.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 13, 2017, 07:07:38 pm
I don't think anybody believes that trans people are fully biologically changed to the other sex, that's not even in question. The debate is really about rights and nothing more. The sports question will be decided by those governing bodies.
That's probably true yes.
Post by: kimmy on June 13, 2017, 09:49:16 pm
I don't think anybody believes that trans people are fully biologically changed to the other sex, that's not even in question. The debate is really about rights and nothing more. The sports question will be decided by those governing bodies.
I competed in a number of sports, team and individual. If I had been told I was expected to face a biologically male opponent in a judo competition, I'd have quit in protest rather than participate in a farce like that.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 13, 2017, 10:20:44 pm
If this was an issue that all their patrons were comfortable with, there wouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't be talking about it. BodyBlitz wouldn't be struggling to create a policy to deal with this issue. There would be no need of a policy to deal with this issue if all the women there were okay with this.
The one-sided InsideToronto article Michael posted makes it sound like everybody wants trans women in the club and BodyBlitz is being a villain because they're hateful.
Well, BodyBlitz is a business and they're not out to **** with people just because they're mean. If they're taking this position, it's because they're encountering pushback from patrons who are unhappy with being **** in the presence of biologically male people. Despite what the InsideToronto article might make it sound like, there isn't a unanimous opinion on this, and if InsideToronto couldn't find someone to state the other side it's either because they didn't want to or because nobody wanted to go on-record opposing trans access because they're afraid of being tarred with the same brush that BodyBlitz is.
I would love to be able to say that I would be completely chill with the situation and have no issue at all sharing showers and change facilities with people with dongs. But that wouldn't be true. The truth is, I'd find it unsettling and stressful and have serious hesitation about returning in the future.
I wouldn't raise a ruckus or tell off the management... I'd just stop going. Not from a desire to make anybody feel excluded, not from an intent to deny a trans person the chance to feel like just one of the girls. Only because my own discomfort with that situation would outweigh my goodwill toward a stranger.
If being able to change in the same facilities as other women will help trans women feel accepted, then that's great. But I'm not going to participate in helping provide that experience. I'm ok with the pronouns, I'm ok with them being in the stall next to me in the washroom... but I don't think I could get past being in a situation where there are dongs out. For me there's a limit.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 14, 2017, 06:14:52 am
Post by: kimmy on June 15, 2017, 02:04:21 am
Sure, but you are missing the point that the government doesn't allow your tastes to dictate policy for a 'public' business, or policy in general. People can be uncomfortable with public toplessness, or women attending their golf club, or Jews or blacks attending their restaurant. In the 1960s, the US decided to enforce a national morality on people. Of course you have a right to not go.
No, I completely understand that point. But government can't simply wave a magic wand and change people's attitudes.
As you say, people have a right to not go. And as I said earlier, I believe a significant number of women will exercise that option if they are uncomfortable with the outcome of this. I believe this is exactly the reason for BodyBlitz's reluctance to get on board with the ****.
If women are told they must share locker room and shower facilities with people with penises, many will take their business to establishments where they are provided more privacy-- individual shower stalls and private changing cubicles, perhaps. If women are told that this clothing-optional space must admit customers with penises who identify as female, then they may rethink whether they want to belong to a clothing-optional space at all.
That might have an effect on whether BodyBlitz remains a commercially viable operation, or it might not.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 15, 2017, 05:09:57 am
No, I completely understand that point. But government can't simply wave a magic wand and change people's attitudes.
As you say, people have a right to not go. And as I said earlier, I believe a significant number of women will exercise that option if they are uncomfortable with the outcome of this. I believe this is exactly the reason for BodyBlitz's reluctance to get on board with the ****.
Ok, so you get the point. And it seems like people will have to take their distaste for this home.
Quote
If women are told they must share locker room and shower facilities with people with penises, many will take their business to establishments where they are provided more privacy-- individual shower stalls and private changing cubicles, perhaps. If women are told that this clothing-optional space must admit customers with penises who identify as female, then they may rethink whether they want to belong to a clothing-optional space at all.
That might have an effect on whether BodyBlitz remains a commercially viable operation, or it might not.
Full male-female nudity in public is coming, in the long run. Businesses don't look at the long term, and in this case it doesn't make sense to. They can easily amend their policy to eliminate nudity and create private spaces as you say.
The 680 News facebook page is where I go to see real debate has a distinct composition of foundational right-wingers who react without knowledge or care of process. The fight on there was, surprisingly, 50-50 pro- and con-. This is what I meant above when I said the pro- side will be fighting.
Post by: BC_cheque on June 15, 2017, 11:14:13 am
Maybe it's not about whether someone might be looking at you in a sexual sense.
That hasn't been my experience, but if establishments are updating their changing areas to provide more privacy, I think that would do a lot to put their patrons' discomfort to rest.
Ok, hang on... many people now accept the premise that some people are so fragile that we should avoid using the word "rayp" (I can't believe the forum censors that one too...), and do "jazz hands" or snap our fingers instead of clapping. And yet we're also now proposing that women who hold to long-standing social norms regarding intersex group nudity have to just shut up and deal with it?
Do you have to be special in some way before your feelings merit some consideration?
And we're now at a point where some people support providing women-only swimming times at public pools, out of respect for Muslim customs. And yet the mood now appears that women ought to share not just the swimming pool but also their showers and changing room with biologically male patrons. Don't you think there's a bit of a contradiction there?
If a Muslim member of BodyBlitz complained that having to change in the presence of a biologically male person was against her religious beliefs, would people support some sort of "reasonable accommodation" for her?
And, if so, then why shouldn't there likewise be an effort to make reasonable accommodation for people who are just not comfortable changing in front of some unfamiliar person with their dong hanging out?
If there's a male you don't know in the locker room, what's your first reaction?
Discrimination isn't necessarily illegal. The very existence of female-only facilities is an example of a situation where it was decided that there was a reasonable justification for discrimination.
Another fair reason for discrimination might be to preserve the patrons' sense of security and privacy.
Another fair reason for discrimination might be to avoid economic hardship-- which might be the result if patrons stop coming to the club because they find the locker-room situation to be uncomfortable or upsetting.
-k
I brought up the lesbian comparison to say that logically, I would think that it be more unsettling to change in front of someone with similar anatomy who is looking at me sexually than someone with different anatomy who is completely oblivious to my sexual existence.
I say that to make a case for the fact that there is nothing logical about being uncomfortable around a transgender woman and that it's just a matter of unfamiliarity. For example, I'm sure 50 years ago the number of women unwilling to change in front of lesbians was a lot more than now than lesbians are more accepted after decades of familiarity.
As for the last couple of paragraphs, as I said before, I do get the other side of the argument, but I think that sometimes the masses have to be forced out of their ignorance. There was a lot of resistance to blacks drinking from the same fountains and gays being able to hold hands without getting killed.
Both societal shifts took decades to happen and it all started with the few people who stood up for their rights.
In other words, if some people wanted to boycott a restaurant back in the 50's that allowed blacks and whites to sit together, continuing segregation wasn't the answer.
I'd like to be on the right side of history when inevitably the same shift happens with transgenders.
Post by: kimmy on June 16, 2017, 10:11:51 am
I brought up the lesbian comparison to say that logically, I would think that it be more unsettling to change in front of someone with similar anatomy who is looking at me sexually than someone with different anatomy who is completely oblivious to my sexual existence.
I say that to make a case for the fact that there is nothing logical about being uncomfortable around a transgender woman and that it's just a matter of unfamiliarity. For example, I'm sure 50 years ago the number of women unwilling to change in front of lesbians was a lot more than now than lesbians are more accepted after decades of familiarity.
It's an assumption that a trans woman has no sexual interest in women. Dia mentioned that one of her trans women acquaintances was a lesbian. I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think that gender dysphoria is necessary linked to homosexuality.
As well, lesbians don't walk into a locker-room with a sign that says "Lesbian". If you've changed in a public facility, you've probably been checked out by lesbians, and women who were curious, and by completely straight women who are still interested in seeing what "the competition" has.
And you keep using the word logic, but none of this has anything to do with logic.
As for the last couple of paragraphs, as I said before, I do get the other side of the argument, but I think that sometimes the masses have to be forced out of their ignorance. There was a lot of resistance to blacks drinking from the same fountains and gays being able to hold hands without getting killed.
Both societal shifts took decades to happen and it all started with the few people who stood up for their rights.
In other words, if some people wanted to boycott a restaurant back in the 50's that allowed blacks and whites to sit together, continuing segregation wasn't the answer.
I'd like to be on the right side of history when inevitably the same shift happens with transgenders.
People accept the premise of a female safe-space free from men, but the reason some women seek out male-free spaces is due to anxiety directly related to naked males, regardless of gender identity.
If someone was traumatized by a dog attack early in life, and later finds themselves standing in front of a big Rottweiler, the owner's assurance that "relax, he's friendly" actually does very little to reassured the frightened person. It's not a switch people can just turn on and off. And someone with anxiety regarding being naked in front of males will not simply feel reassured by "relax, she's trans."
I'm also still curious about the hypothetical Muslim patron. Do her religious sensibilities deserve consideration that other women don't?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 16, 2017, 10:40:06 am
If someone was traumatized by a dog attack early in life, and later finds themselves standing in front of a big Rottweiler, the owner's assurance that "relax, he's friendly" actually does very little to reassured the frightened person. It's not a switch people can just turn on and off. And someone with anxiety regarding being naked in front of males will not simply feel reassured by "relax, she's trans."
Right, but that is an edge case for a safe space. And, although it's a practical concern, it doesn't come into the question about rights.
Quote
I'm also still curious about the hypothetical Muslim patron. Do her religious sensibilities deserve consideration that other women don't?
People are not obliged to provide women-only spaces, but they can't discriminate (a 2nd time) if they do.
Post by: kimmy on June 17, 2017, 11:32:04 am
Right, but that is an edge case for a safe space.
I'm not sure it's an edge case. Based on some of the statistics going around, it seems that a lot of women have actually had traumatic experiences with men. Maybe it's not unreasonable that such people would want a ****-free environment to relax in.
And, although it's a practical concern, it doesn't come into the question about rights.
There's a subjective judgment being made here, that one kind of discrimination is allowable but another is not. It's acceptable for some people to want a safe-space, but not for others.
People are not obliged to provide women-only spaces, but they can't discriminate (a 2nd time) if they do.
Well then there's that. This whole discussion kind of tippy-toes around the fact that we've already agreed that some amount of discrimination is acceptable. If people really feel that strongly about discrimination, then maybe we should just let everybody in. Rebrand Spa Lady as Spa Human.
-k
Post by: BC_cheque on June 18, 2017, 09:57:45 pm
It's an assumption that a trans woman has no sexual interest in women. Dia mentioned that one of her trans women acquaintances was a lesbian. I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think that gender dysphoria is necessary linked to homosexuality.
As well, lesbians don't walk into a locker-room with a sign that says "Lesbian". If you've changed in a public facility, you've probably been checked out by lesbians, and women who were curious, and by completely straight women who are still interested in seeing what "the competition" has.
And you keep using the word logic, but none of this has anything to do with logic.
People accept the premise of a female safe-space free from men, but the reason some women seek out male-free spaces is due to anxiety directly related to naked males, regardless of gender identity.
If someone was traumatized by a dog attack early in life, and later finds themselves standing in front of a big Rottweiler, the owner's assurance that "relax, he's friendly" actually does very little to reassured the frightened person. It's not a switch people can just turn on and off. And someone with anxiety regarding being naked in front of males will not simply feel reassured by "relax, she's trans."
I'm also still curious about the hypothetical Muslim patron. Do her religious sensibilities deserve consideration that other women don't?
-k
No, I don't think a Muslim woman's right trumps a transgender right. I don't think any kind of religious right should trample on any type of human right. If the law regards a transgender woman as a woman, she should have a right to exercise in a woman's facility. If that makes any Jew, Christian or Muslim, uncomfortable, that's too bad.
If the sight of a woman with a **** could cause harm to others, I could see the point, otherwise no.
As for feeling threatened by a ****, I don't think that's why we have segregated gyms. Having worked in gyms when I was younger, I know it's partly women wanting to work out without being watched by men, and also because they don't want to be hit on by men.
Which brings us back to the lesbian comparison. With a lesbian, she is for sure interested in women, but a transgender woman may or may not be interested in women. That's why I said it's more logical to be uncomfortable around lesbians even though we're not.
The point I was making which you did not address was that 50 years ago there was just as much of a fuss put up about allowing gay women into change rooms, but as times passed most of us couldn't care less if they're working out next to us.
In due time, I believe the same thing will happen with transgender women.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 19, 2017, 06:14:28 am
No, I don't think a Muslim woman's right trumps a transgender right. I don't think any kind of religious right should trample on any type of human right. If the law regards a transgender woman as a woman, she should have a right to exercise in a woman's facility. If that makes any Jew, Christian or Muslim, uncomfortable, that's too bad.
You're talking around the problem here. Rights don't 'trump' each other but they have to be resolved when in conflict. Religious rights already supersede human rights in several specific examples. It seems to me, reading this paragraph, that you may not realize that.
Post by: kimmy on June 22, 2017, 12:03:49 am
You're talking around the problem here. Rights don't 'trump' each other but they have to be resolved when in conflict. Religious rights already supersede human rights in several specific examples. It seems to me, reading this paragraph, that you may not realize that.
The answer to this particular dilemma may well be that the hypothetical Muslim woman isn't entitled to a ****-free environment and will have to find somewhere else to exercise. It's entirely possible that this might be the solution that places the least burden on the competing interests of all parties involved.
However, I'm curious to find out whether the gym could, if there was a demand for it, offer a ****-free environment, perhaps ****-free hours or something.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 22, 2017, 12:34:33 am
No, I don't think a Muslim woman's right trumps a transgender right. I don't think any kind of religious right should trample on any type of human right. If the law regards a transgender woman as a woman, she should have a right to exercise in a woman's facility. If that makes any Jew, Christian or Muslim, uncomfortable, that's too bad.
That's my view as well, but as I mentioned earlier we live in a society where a lot of people think that reasonable effort should be made to Muslims' sensibilities-- be it dress codes, food policies, and even the desire for women-only swimming. I'd expect the same people would support accommodating a Muslim woman who felt that being in an open-dongs environment was against her religion.
(as an aside, it's one of my pet peeves that saying "it's against my religion" somehow makes a belief more legitimate than beliefs you arrived at independently. You don't eat meat because your conscience forbids it. Someone else doesn't eat meat because her religion forbids it. Somehow her reason for not eating meat is seen as more worthy. That annoys me.)
If the sight of a woman with a **** could cause harm to others, I could see the point, otherwise no.
As for feeling threatened by a ****, I don't think that's why we have segregated gyms. Having worked in gyms when I was younger, I know it's partly women wanting to work out without being watched by men, and also because they don't want to be hit on by men.
Which brings us back to the lesbian comparison. With a lesbian, she is for sure interested in women, but a transgender woman may or may not be interested in women. That's why I said it's more logical to be uncomfortable around lesbians even though we're not.
I don't think it's just a dislike of being hit on or being oggled.
A lot of us were raised to feel that being naked in front of a strange man is an embarrassing, stressful, and threatening situation.
And a person with a **** is, until you personally know otherwise, a man. They can say "don't worry, I'm a trans woman", but that's probably not going to put people at ease.
The point I was making which you did not address was that 50 years ago there was just as much of a fuss put up about allowing gay women into change rooms, but as times passed most of us couldn't care less if they're working out next to us.
In due time, I believe the same thing will happen with transgender women.
And I'm still wondering whether these gym lesbians wore signs or something that told everybody that they're lesbians. I'm not aware of what fuss might have been made on that issue 50 years ago, and can't comment on it.
If somebody-- male or female-- is oggling you while you're changing, I certainly understand feeling uncomfortable with that.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 22, 2017, 06:07:52 am
However, I'm curious to find out whether the gym could, if there was a demand for it, offer a ****-free environment, perhaps ****-free hours or something.
I doubt that. The trans-protection legislation is through the Senate, I think, so soon to be law. This will have to be tested in court.
I learned a new term yesterday - TERF. It means trans-exclusionary-radical-feminist and is a large schism in the feminist community, apparently between generations of feminists. The CBC ran an opinion piece from a Megan Murphy that is being absolutely roasted on my facebook discussion page as she is dismissing the law outright. It's a rare case of the CBC going to the right of the Liberal party.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 22, 2017, 06:17:03 am
Someone else doesn't eat meat because her religion forbids it. Somehow her reason for not eating meat is seen as more worthy. That annoys me.)
Somehow=religion is protected in the constitution.
Quote
A lot of us were raised to feel that being naked in front of a strange man is an embarrassing, stressful, and threatening situation.
And a person with a **** is, until you personally know otherwise, a man. They can say "don't worry, I'm a trans woman", but that's probably not going to put people at ease.
The idea of excluding men comes from providing a 'safe space' and trans women are arguably the most beaten-down and abused group that I have heard of. The "I'm not comfortable" argument was used in the CBC argument and would simply not be stated in any other argument about rights which in itself raises questions and highlights that trans people are seen as worthy of being dismissed as aesthetic problems for the delicate.
"I am not comfortable with headscarves, it bothers me."
"I'm not comfortable eating in a restaurant with black people."
This is the argument I have read on that line of logic.
Quote
And I'm still wondering whether these gym lesbians wore signs or something that told everybody that they're lesbians. I'm not aware of what fuss might have been made on that issue 50 years ago, and can't comment on it.
They kept people in the closet and denied reality. I even remember women complaining about lesbians in bathrooms in university as if they could make a request to exclude them somehow. This is how far rights have come, and it's informative to see what happens when certain classes ascend in their power. TERFs are an example, I think.
Quote
If somebody-- male or female-- is oggling you while you're changing, I certainly understand feeling uncomfortable with that.
Definitely and a 'no oggling' rule would address that. Of course that's hard to enforce but it can be done. Men harassing women is similarly difficult, ie. he said/she said. But we are getting there.
Post by: kimmy on June 24, 2017, 01:04:18 pm
Somehow=religion is protected in the constitution.
So you'd feel it's reasonable for the Muslim woman to want a ****-free environment, and that the gym should find a way to accommodate her, but everybody else needs to toughen up?
The idea of excluding men comes from providing a 'safe space' and trans women are arguably the most beaten-down and abused group that I have heard of.
So it's like a contest? You only get a safe-space if you're the most oppressed?
The "I'm not comfortable" argument was used in the CBC argument and would simply not be stated in any other argument about rights which in itself raises questions and highlights that trans people are seen as worthy of being dismissed as aesthetic problems for the delicate.
Yes, trivializing the feelings and experiences of those who aren't comfortable in the environment being proposed will assuredly lead to understanding on this issue.
Quote
We’re expected to abandon all prior experiences and notions of ourselves, most especially those that relate to our female embodiment and the oppression that stems from it. Sex-based protections have been effectively dissolved. When it comes to female-only facilities, human rights law is clear: a male who claims the identity of “female” or “woman” can’t be turned away. If a woman has concerns or is in a vulnerable position, her options are to somehow get over it or leave. What this tells women and girls who are survivors of male violence is that females’ right to refuge and privacy away from males is negotiable and that they come last. This is an insidious form of grooming that tells women and girls that they are hysterical for recognizing the epidemic of discrimination and violence directed at them and that they must prioritize the feelings of others over their own sense of self-preservation.--Brandi Sudyk
"I am not comfortable with headscarves, it bothers me."
"I'm not comfortable eating in a restaurant with black people."
But this whole issue started with "I am not comfortable exercising with men" and people accepted that as valid.
They kept people in the closet and denied reality. I even remember women complaining about lesbians in bathrooms in university as if they could make a request to exclude them somehow. This is how far rights have come, and it's informative to see what happens when certain classes ascend in their power. TERFs are an example, I think.
I tracked down the Megan Murphy you spoke of, and I mostly agree with her.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/women-only-spa-counterpoint-1.4170158
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/18/shouldnt-controversial-maintain-women-spaces/
I am not sure this makes me "radical".
Definitely and a 'no oggling' rule would address that. Of course that's hard to enforce but it can be done. Men harassing women is similarly difficult, ie. he said/she said. But we are getting there.
I think there's a general standard of behavior we'd hope for from people we share a locker room with... personally I feel like there's no reason anybody in the locker room should know your sexual preference, and if you're acting in a way that makes your sexual preference known it's probably because you're doing something that makes somebody uncomfortable.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 24, 2017, 04:50:07 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 24, 2017, 11:35:54 pm
So you'd feel it's reasonable for the Muslim woman to want a ****-free environment, and that the gym should find a way to accommodate her, but everybody else needs to toughen up?Whaaaaat ? That's a complete non-sequitur. How did you even get there ? You asked why some food choices are protected by law and I answered you.
Quote
So it's like a contest? You only get a safe-space if you're the most oppressed?
I don't know, but it seems to me excluding men is reasonably rationalized as a way to provide space for women. I don't know how else these things would be decided.
Quote
Yes, trivializing the feelings and experiences of those who aren't comfortable in the environment being proposed will assuredly lead to understanding on this issue.
I don't mean to trivialize those feelings but to point out how using such arguments would not be acceptable in any other context, and yet are seen as acceptable here.
Quote
--Brandi Sudyk
This quote comes from the perspective that trans women simply can not be seen as women. It's an understandable point of view, but it isn't aligned with the emerging view (I can't call it a consensus yet) of human rights for trans people.
Quote
But this whole issue started with "I am not comfortable exercising with men" and people accepted that as valid.
Yes, because of the dynamic of providing a place where people feel safe. The idea of excluding me from a space because of my gender is an affront to my individual rights, because it assumes I am a risk, however on the whole it provides rights to a group. The principle, in theory, is reasonable accommodation.
As such:
A 2015 study [PDF] reported that trans Ontarians had “nearly universally reported” experiences of transphobia, and 67 per cent “feared they would die young.”
That reality is especially harsh for trans women. They are targeted not just because they are transgender, but also because they are women. That means they are “particularly vulnerable,” as the Ontario Women’s Justice Network puts it, to transphobic violence, sexual violence, and transphobic sexual violence. (In 2014, 55 per cent of all victims of hate homicide in the U.S. were transgender women, almost all women of colour.) It’s the perfect example of intersectionality—different layers of identity that co-exist and in this case impede. Gapka calls it “additional hardship.”
http://torontoist.com/2016/06/379820/
Quote
I think there's a general standard of behavior we'd hope for from people we share a locker room with... personally I feel like there's no reason anybody in the locker room should know your sexual preference, and if you're acting in a way that makes your sexual preference known it's probably because you're doing something that makes somebody uncomfortable.
Inappropriate behaviour is always a reason for an individual to be excluded. But you couldn't see BodyBlitz excluding Lesbians because straight women 'felt uncomfortable' about it, nor could you come up with an outlying case where some incident happen and use that as an excuse to ban Lesbians. These are some of the arguments you can see being used against trans women.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 24, 2017, 11:38:18 pm
What if the spa just had a "no dongs" policy? If you're trans after surgery with no dong, you're in, if you're trans with a dong you're out. It wouldn't be about "women" or "men" at that point, just about dongs. A safe space for muffs.
'No dongs' is discrimination in this case. Of course it has to be tested.
Also, as has been pointed out... trans men without breasts and with beards are allowed in which is odd in that people who worry about 'the children' don't seem to mention it.
Post by: kimmy on June 25, 2017, 12:11:06 pm
What if the spa just had a "no dongs" policy? If you're trans after surgery with no dong, you're in, if you're trans with a dong you're out. It wouldn't be about "women" or "men" at that point, just about dongs. A safe space for muffs.
This is the policy Body Blitz currently has, which is what started this controversy in the first place.
If I walk into the women's locker room and see a naked male I'm now apparently supposed to accept that this person is a woman, no questions asked. If I don't feel comfortable with that then I must be a prude or a redneck, and if I don't think that person should actually be there then I'm a radical, apparently.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 25, 2017, 12:15:26 pm
Also, as has been pointed out... trans men without breasts
Women are comfortable changing around women without breasts. Be it our "late bloomer" classmates in school or young people or people who are just very slender, or people who have mastectomies for health reasons.
and with beards are allowed in which is odd in that people who worry about 'the children' don't seem to mention it.
As far as I know of, nobody ever got violated by a beard.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2017, 12:39:50 pm
If I don't feel comfortable with that then I must be a prude or a redneck, and if I don't think that person should actually be there then I'm a radical, apparently.
You can't control what people think, I'm afraid. I definitely accept that my voice is marginal at best in this discussion, and I am definitely sensitive to the voices of cis women who are uncomfortable with this major change in our laws.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2017, 12:40:46 pm
As far as I know of, nobody ever got violated by a beard.
But is it weird for women in general for someone with a beard, who looks like a man ? It must be.
Post by: kimmy on June 25, 2017, 01:12:01 pm
Whaaaaat ? That's a complete non-sequitur. How did you even get there ?
Addressing BC_Cheque earlier on the subject of whether the hypothetical Muslim woman's wish for a dong-free environment should be respected, you said: "Rights don't 'trump' each other but they have to be resolved when in conflict. Religious rights already supersede human rights in several specific examples. It seems to me, reading this paragraph, that you may not realize that."
You seem fairly set on the idea that religious views merit consideration above and beyond what someone's personal conscience is, as a matter of law.
You asked why some food choices are protected by law and I answered you.
I wasn't discussing "protected by law". I was scoffing at the notion that BC_C's vegetarianism, which is a matter of deeply-held conscience, is viewed as being less sincere or less worthy of respect than someone who is a vegetarian because a magic book tells them so.
Quote
I don't know, but it seems to me excluding men is reasonably rationalized as a way to provide space for women. I don't know how else these things would be decided.
For some portion of women who this safe space has been provided for, the presence of trans people will eliminate any sense of safety.
Quote
I don't mean to trivialize those feelings but to point out how using such arguments would not be acceptable in any other context, and yet are seen as acceptable here.
It seems to me that characterizing objections to dongs in the locker room as "aesthetics problems for the delicate" is pretty trivializing.
Quote
This quote comes from the perspective that trans women simply can not be seen as women. It's an understandable point of view, but it isn't aligned with the emerging view (I can't call it a consensus yet) of human rights for trans people.
It might not align with the view of some in the ultra-progressive and Ivory Tower world, I agree. I first off think that any woman who says she's in favor of this should get in a locker room and change while a naked male person watches her, to put her money where her mouth is. It's really easy to *say* you're in favor with something and trivialize or insult the objections of those who don't share your view, but when rubber meets road how many of these ultra-progressives and Ivory Tower types will live up to their talk?
As for whether it's possible to see trans women as women, all I can say is that there's a limit. When it comes to day to day interaction, sure, I have no problem. In the shower? I doubt it. As a romantic partner? Absolutely not.
Quote
Yes, because of the dynamic of providing a place where people feel safe. The idea of excluding me from a space because of my gender is an affront to my individual rights, because it assumes I am a risk, however on the whole it provides rights to a group. The principle, in theory, is reasonable accommodation.
As such:
A 2015 study [PDF] reported that trans Ontarians had “nearly universally reported” experiences of transphobia, and 67 per cent “feared they would die young.”
I absolutely understand that trans people are at great risk of encountering hatred and violence. And I have no wish to contribute to someone feeling unsafe. At the same time, I won't sacrifice my own sense of security in favor of someone else's. I believe that many women-- the silent majority, probably-- feel the same.
And as I mentioned earlier, I think that Body Blitz thinks so as well. I think that they've taken this position not because they are hateful people, but because they know that allowing penises into their ****, women-only environment will be a grave threat to their continued financial viability. I believe that many women will not kick up a fuss over the admission of penises, but will simply decide to stop going to Body Blitz.
Hypothetically, if the human rights commission and the fair play committee and the lawyers and whoever else tell Body Blitz that they have to allow dongs in their spa, and Body Blitz ends up closing 3 months later so that nobody has this safe-space anymore, will that be a tremendous victory for human rights?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2017, 03:06:30 pm
You seem fairly set on the idea that religious views merit consideration above and beyond what someone's personal conscience is, as a matter of law.
Yes, as I said it has to be resolved. The case of Muslims is a whole other complexity I haven't thought about.
Quote
I wasn't discussing "protected by law". I was scoffing at the notion that BC_C's vegetarianism, which is a matter of deeply-held conscience, is viewed as being less sincere or less worthy of respect than someone who is a vegetarian because a magic book tells them so.
You're scoffing at the constitution, but ok.
Quote
For some portion of women who this safe space has been provided for, the presence of trans people will eliminate any sense of safety.
It seems to me that characterizing objections to dongs in the locker room as "aesthetics problems for the delicate" is pretty trivializing.
Point taken, but I was speaking to the comments that people "don't feel comfortable" which to me is not a reasonable test of accommodation. If people have trauma around seeing penises, then that is a serious matter to consider IMO.
Quote
It might not align with the view of some in the ultra-progressive and Ivory Tower world, I agree. I first off think that any woman who says she's in favor of this should get in a locker room and change while a naked male person watches her, to put her money where her mouth is. It's really easy to *say* you're in favor with something and trivialize or insult the objections of those who don't share your view, but when rubber meets road how many of these ultra-progressives and Ivory Tower types will live up to their talk?
I addressed the trivializing point above.
You call it 'ivory tower', I call it an 'emerging view'. I expect ultra-progressives will in fact live up to it, but the tough work is ahead in any case as this will be policy soon.
Quote
I absolutely understand that trans people are at great risk of encountering hatred and violence. And I have no wish to contribute to someone feeling unsafe. At the same time, I won't sacrifice my own sense of security in favor of someone else's. I believe that many women-- the silent majority, probably-- feel the same.
And as I mentioned earlier, I think that Body Blitz thinks so as well. I think that they've taken this position not because they are hateful people, but because they know that allowing penises into their ****, women-only environment will be a grave threat to their continued financial viability. I believe that many women will not kick up a fuss over the admission of penises, but will simply decide to stop going to Body Blitz.
Hypothetically, if the human rights commission and the fair play committee and the lawyers and whoever else tell Body Blitz that they have to allow dongs in their spa, and Body Blitz ends up closing 3 months later so that nobody has this safe-space anymore, will that be a tremendous victory for human rights?
It may be that women will not visit the spa, or that the spa will change its nudist policy. It's a tough question, but I will point out there are other women-only spas that don't have nudity which is why BodyBlitz is such a lightning rod.
Also notable that men haven't been making much noise over women-only spas lately, so some questions on human rights do get answered.
Post by: kimmy on June 26, 2017, 12:40:03 am
Yes, as I said it has to be resolved. The case of Muslims is a whole other complexity I haven't thought about.
I'm sure that some hypothetical Muslim could get her imam to explain to a human rights committee that under Islam people with penises aren't considered women even if they claim they are, and that it's haram for a Muslim woman to be in the presence of a strange ****, especially if she's naked. I think she'd have a winning case here. And so then we ask... if a Muslim woman gets special consideration here, why not a Christian woman? I'm pretty sure that most Christian denominations don't consider people with dicks to be women under any circumstances, and I'm pretty sure it's not considered godly for Christian women to be in that situation either. Eventually it'll be just us filthy non-believers who don't have an "out" of this wretched situation.
You're scoffing at the constitution, but ok.
I don't even care. If the law says I'm wrong, then it's a stupid law.
"My religion doesn't let me kill anyone."
"Ok, you are assigned to the Alternate Service corps."
"My conscience won't allow me to kill anyone."
"I don't give a ****. Here's your rifle."
Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't seem right to me that a conclusion that a conclusion that somebody has arrived at through a lifetime of experience and reflection would have less value under the law than a conclusion somebody else got out of a magic book. And I think that if that's the way the law works in Canada then more Canadians will be embracing satirical religions like the Pastafarians or the Satanic Temple, which exist just to ridicule religious privilege.
I don't know if the above draft scenario would actually play out that way in Canada. It might be a moot point, since we haven't had a draft in many decades. In the United States, though, it wouldn't, by the way. In the US, courts have ruled that non-religious right to conscience is protected the same way that religious freedom. You don't have to be religious to be a conscientious objector in the US. If the same case were fought in Canada, I am pretty confident we'd see the same result.
Point taken, but I was speaking to the comments that people "don't feel comfortable" which to me is not a reasonable test of accommodation. If people have trauma around seeing penises, then that is a serious matter to consider IMO.
I think you're well aware that the concerns of women about sharing accommodation with biologically male, self-identified women extend well beyond aesthetic quibbles.
I addressed the trivializing point above.
I'm not referring specifically to you here. There seems to be a desire to heap scorn on anybody who isn't onboard with your "emerging view" here... you mentioned your Facebook friends "absolutely roasted" Megan Murphy for disagreeing with the PC hive-mind, for example.
You call it 'ivory tower', I call it an 'emerging view'. I expect ultra-progressives will in fact live up to it, but the tough work is ahead in any case as this will be policy soon.
I'm skeptical that the Ivory Tower academics and ultra-progressive granola-brigade spend much time at the gym and I'm skeptical whether they actually have any skin in the game (no pun intended.) It's easy to *say* you're in favor of something if you don't actually have to do it.
Likewise, I'm confident that most of the women who think trans-women should be allowed to compete in women's athletics have no intention of ever setting foot in a boxing ring or wrestling mat against a physiologically male opponent.
It may be that women will not visit the spa, or that the spa will change its nudist policy. It's a tough question, but I will point out there are other women-only spas that don't have nudity which is why BodyBlitz is such a lightning rod.
So there are other women-only safe-spaces that they *could* attend, but they want access to this one in particular? Perhaps that suggests that it's not simply a matter of seeking a safe space that's the motivation here. Perhaps there is a desire to push a political agenda. Or perhaps what they are seeking isn't a safe space, but validation... perhaps what they really want is for cisgendered women to look at their dong and still accept them as women. But that kind of validation isn't going to come from a lawsuit or a human rights committee ruling.
So similar question to last time... if the end result of this is that Body Blitz has to abandon their **** spa environment and adopt a clothed environment like every other women-only gym in Toronto, is that a tremendous victory for human rights?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 26, 2017, 06:47:54 am
Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me.
I think freedom of religion is an easy way to keep groups satisfied, and also keep out the spectre of government telling you what to think. We're actually debating that now, with a UofT professor claiming that the new law forces him to use pronouns, rather than simply avoid offensive words.
Quote
I think you're well aware that the concerns of women about sharing accommodation with biologically male, self-identified women extend well beyond aesthetic quibbles.Yes, they extend beyond and include those quibbles also.
Quote
I'm not referring specifically to you here. There seems to be a desire to heap scorn on anybody who isn't onboard with your "emerging view" here... you mentioned your Facebook friends "absolutely roasted" Megan Murphy for disagreeing with the PC hive-mind, for example.
Yes, the PC-hive-mind is on one side and 'TERFs' on the other, ie. trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Both sides are dug in.
Quote
I'm skeptical that the Ivory Tower academics and ultra-progressive granola-brigade spend much time at the gym and I'm skeptical whether they actually have any skin in the game (no pun intended.) It's easy to *say* you're in favor of something if you don't actually have to do it.
My friends in discussion are young, gender-fluid and very open about nudism and many things. It's a ew world.
Quote
So there are other women-only safe-spaces that they *could* attend, but they want access to this one in particular? Perhaps that suggests that it's not simply a matter of seeking a safe space that's the motivation here. Perhaps there is a desire to push a political agenda. Or perhaps what they are seeking isn't a safe space, but validation... perhaps what they really want is for cisgendered women to look at their dong and still accept them as women. But that kind of validation isn't going to come from a lawsuit or a human rights committee ruling.
This is a common criticism of groups wanting equality. The story was about a trans woman whose mate booked them a spa date, and that seems to be how it started - if that matters.
Quote
So similar question to last time... if the end result of this is that Body Blitz has to abandon their **** spa environment and adopt a clothed environment like every other women-only gym in Toronto, is that a tremendous victory for human rights?
It's not to me to say the size of the victory. I firstly ask for dialogue, and reasonable accommodation. Peace will be achieved through those means. Equality will happen over a much longer timeframe.
Post by: kimmy on June 30, 2017, 02:19:48 am
So... my thoughts on the subject were just that... thoughts. Based on intellectual ideas of rights and so on. Until I read my friend's posts on her life before she changed.
Laws and economics can sometimes be ends in themselves, but they exist to make lives better overall. Trans people have very painful lives.
I fully understand that there's a lot of hatred and violence and mistrust and fear directed towards trans people. I really do. And I support efforts to make their lives better, within reasonable limits. I think we just have differing ideas about what might be reasonable and what might be unreasonable.
This is probably not a very good analogy, but suppose for a moment we're talking about someone confined to a wheelchair. I support making buildings and businesses accessible. I support washroom facilities with room for a wheelchair and handrails and whatever else they need. I support public facilities like gyms and pools having equipment and programs that meet the needs of a person confined to a wheelchair. On the other hand, I wouldn't support closing a hiking trail that can't feasibly be made wheelchair-accessible.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be 100% equal. Nothing is 100% equal.
Banning trans women from athletics might seem unfair to trans women, but allowing physiologically male competitors to compete against biologically female competitors would be grossly unfair to the biologically female people these events were created for in the first place. There's a point at which you have to say "sorry, but no".
Personally I feel that demanding an end to spaces for biologically female women is unfair to the people these spaces were created for in the first place.
We can't make everything 100% equal. Everybody has limits of some kind-- limits imposed by health, or finances, or religion, or physiology, or whatever.
Quote
This is a common criticism of groups wanting equality. The story was about a trans woman whose mate booked them a spa date, and that seems to be how it started - if that matters.That may be how it started, but now it appears to be a group action where trans women and their allies are calling for Body Blitz to be boycotted until they admit trans women. So again it seems while the friendly optics would be to say they're asking for access to a safe-space, it appears that there are other safe spaces available but they are demanding access to this one in particular.
Quote
It's not to me to say the size of the victory. I firstly ask for dialogue, and reasonable accommodation. Peace will be achieved through those means. Equality will happen over a much longer timeframe.
My suggestion is that closing Body Blitz or forcing it to abandon its unique format and become like other womens' gyms would actually be a victory for nobody at all. Women who enjoy the existing format lose that, and it either vanishes altogether or becomes a Spa Lady clone in a city that already has a Spa Lady and Spa Lady clones. So what does anybody gain? I guess the Social Justice Warriors get their pound of flesh. Yay for them, I guess?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 30, 2017, 07:32:45 am
I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be 100% equal. Nothing is 100% equal.
Absolutely agree. To get down to the details and mechanics of how reasonable accommodation works, honest, open and clear dialogue is the platform for discussion.
"I'm not comfortable with this" would not pass a test of needing to be accommodate.
"I am traumatized by this and feel unsafe" would pass.
I can accept all views if they're open, honest and clear. And then we take our best shot, and all accept the results.
Quote
There's a point at which you have to say "sorry, but no".
Of course.
Quote
it appears that there are other safe spaces available but they are demanding access to this one in particular.
That argument wouldn't fly if we were considering rights for other groups, so I can't buy it here.
Quote
My suggestion is that closing Body Blitz or forcing it to abandon its unique format and become like other womens' gyms would actually be a victory for nobody at all.
False choice - there are other options that could be explored I'm sure.
Quote
I guess the Social Justice Warriors get their pound of flesh. Yay for them, I guess?
Tagging people who disagree with you isn't helpful either.
Post by: kimmy on June 30, 2017, 09:34:08 am
Absolutely agree. To get down to the details and mechanics of how reasonable accommodation works, honest, open and clear dialogue is the platform for discussion.
"I'm not comfortable with this" would not pass a test of needing to be accommodate.
"I am traumatized by this and feel unsafe" would pass.
Ok, so if we decide that some peoples' desire for a space free from male physiology is legitimate, then what next? Do we appoint a gate-keeper or a panel or something to decide which women are allowed in and which aren't?
Say, **** victims and abuse victims and our hypothetical religion-based objector get allowed in?
That argument wouldn't fly if we were considering rights for other groups, so I can't buy it here.
It frames the demand differently, IMO. "We need a safe space!" makes it sound as if they don't have any alternatives which doesn't appear to be true. "We demand access to this particular establishment" makes clear that this is about their objection to this particular establishment's policy, which to me appears to be a more accurate description of the conflict.
False choice - there are other options that could be explored I'm sure.
Ok, we've talked about three options-- let them continue as is, put an end to open nudity in their establishment, or let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies.
What other possibilities do you envision?
Tagging people who disagree with you isn't helpful either.
Do you object to the characterization as "Social Justice Warriors", or the suggestion that people are after the proverbial pound of flesh?
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 30, 2017, 10:06:41 am
Quote
We're actually debating that now, with a UofT professor claiming that the new law forces him to use pronouns, rather than simply avoid offensive words.
"He" and "she" are not offensive words.
Post by: BC_cheque on June 30, 2017, 10:33:08 am
"He" and "she" are not offensive words.
To you.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 30, 2017, 01:26:33 pm
Ok, so if we decide that some peoples' desire for a space free from male physiology is legitimate, then what next? Do we appoint a gate-keeper or a panel or something to decide which women are allowed in and which aren't?
Say, **** victims and abuse victims and our hypothetical religion-based objector get allowed in?
What's next ? It's sometimes called 'solutioning' which is difficult and which you are starting to do here.
As a straight, cis, male I have no say in that part of the discussion nor do I have any idea what solutions may come.
Quote
It frames the demand differently, IMO. "We need a safe space!" makes it sound as if they don't have any alternatives which doesn't appear to be true. "We demand access to this particular establishment" makes clear that this is about their objection to this particular establishment's policy, which to me appears to be a more accurate description of the conflict.
"Why don't black people just go to their own beaches ?"
Quote
Ok, we've talked about three options-- let them continue as is, put an end to open nudity in their establishment, or let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies.
What other possibilities do you envision?
As I said, I can't really say. If I throw out some possibilities here, it's to show that there are some that haven't really been discussed so please don't just shoot them down as a way to say dialogue is pointless.
They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion. They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****. They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you. They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there. etc.
Quote
Do you object to the characterization as "Social Justice Warriors", or the suggestion that people are after the proverbial pound of flesh?
I think tagging people is at once a mental shorthand, but also a way of boxing people into a category to dismiss them. TERFs vs SJWs. It's party politics, but in a different arena. The people who I personally know who are in this debate are standing up for their friends and relatives and not on any kind of path to punishing those who aren't like them.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 30, 2017, 02:33:50 pm
To you.
If someone takes offence to common pronouns used by everyone everyday, that's not my problem. That might work fine in universities where PC-group-think seems to be the norm and nothing else is tolerated, but good luck in the real world.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 30, 2017, 02:52:57 pm
I realize it's hyperbole but to deny that people have no say in how they're referred to is a dumb starting position. If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.
Post by: BC_cheque on June 30, 2017, 04:21:39 pm
If someone takes offence to common pronouns used by everyone everyday, that's not my problem. That might work fine in universities where PC-group-think seems to be the norm and nothing else is tolerated, but good luck in the real world.
Language is not static. It evolves and is a reflection of society.
Our present language is a reflection of a time when heterosexual white men had all the say. For example, I dislike word mankind which was quite common was I was young. It's now evolving and more people say humankind.
We are on the another paradigm shift where gender binary is being challenged as the accepted norm. There is no reason language should should not evolve to show more inclusiveness to reflect this shift.
Language is always evolving.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 30, 2017, 04:23:25 pm
Language is always evolving.
Blargyx fremple con muxike !
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 30, 2017, 07:08:42 pm
Quote
So I can call you the c-word and that's ok ?
Since when did "****" become a pronoun by which everyone is referred? ::)
Quote
If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.
I will call someone he/she... whatever they wish. I don't care, and I don't wish to cause offence. But to start making up new pronouns based on what someone "feels" is rather silly.
Post by: kimmy on June 30, 2017, 09:04:25 pm
So I can call you the c-word and that's ok ?
I realize it's hyperbole but to deny that people have no say in how they're referred to is a dumb starting position. If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.
I have no complaint about addressing a trans woman with feminine pronouns or a trans man with masculine pronouns, if that is their wish. I'm still a little skeptical about the use of "xe" and "xer" and similar previously fictional pronouns, however. If some accepted standard emerges I will adopt it, but until then I will stick with "he" and "she" as preferred by the recipient.
I confess that I have no understanding of gender-descriptors outside of "he" and "she"... the "non-binary" world somewhat baffles me, and I will wait for others to point me which way to go.
A colleague from my writing group (a progressive gay man from Toronto, if that matters) used "e" and "er" in place of "he/she" and "his/her" when referring to a hypothetical 3rd party whose gender was unknown (in place of using "he" and "his" as an all-encompassing placeholder for someone who may have been male or female). For example, his critique might have read something like:
"The reader might be confused at this point. E might feel as if e is reading a description from the point of view of a neutral observer rather than the biased point of view of the protagonist."
I didn't find this practice to be unreasonable, although I didn't adopt it in my replies.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 30, 2017, 10:01:29 pm
What's next ? It's sometimes called 'solutioning' which is difficult and which you are starting to do here.
As a straight, cis, male I have no say in that part of the discussion nor do I have any idea what solutions may come.
I'm not going to come at you with the ole "you're a straight white male so your opinion doesn't matter!!!" if that's what you're concerned about. I ask because I'm genuinely curious. It may be that I'm simply short-sighted and not seeing the possibilities because I'm biased.
If we look at the question "do women have a right to a space free of male physiology?" there are just 3 possible answers.
1) Yes, all do.
2) Some do, others do not.
3) No, none do.
If your opinion was (1), we wouldn't be having this discussion. If your answer was (3), you didn't say so when I pressed you on this earlier. If your answer is (3) I don't think we'll be able to come to any consensus here.
I gather your view is basically (2) -- some do, others don't, based on the distinction of "traumatic" vs "aesthetics problems for the delicate" as discussed previously. You seemed to be open to the possibility that victims of male violence or religious objectors may have a legitimate claim to a safe-space free of male physiology, for example.
So if the answer is (2) -- some do, others don't... then the question of a "gatekeeper" immediately follows. If you feel that some do and others don't, then the question of deciding which is which is unavoidable. (feel free to correct me, if you feel I am wrong. I am trying to be as logical as I can be when I have consumed this much alcohol.)
I want to get into this "gatekeeper" issue because one of the tenets of the trans community and their allies is that any sort of "gatekeeping" is demeaning and degrading to trans people. The expectation expressed by the trans community and their allies is that anyone demanding access to women's facilities as a trans woman should be taken at their word, and that any demand for "proof" is inherently insulting and degrading.
So now we're at the position where anyone claiming to be a trans woman must be taken at their word, while someone claiming the right to a female safe-space-- a victim of male violence or a religious objector, for example-- must meet some gatekeeper's criteria before qualifying-- which is clearly unfair.
If one proposes that some gatekeeper function be applied to biological females wanting access to a female-only safe-space, then I suggest that fairness dictate that some gatekeeper function ought also be applied to biological males demanding access to female safe spaces.
"Why don't black people just go to their own beaches ?"
I don't think that's a fair comparison, for two reasons.
First off, "the beach" is public land, while Body Blitz is a privately owned facility.
Secondly, I think everyone agrees that there's no rational basis behind a desire for a white-people-only safe-space, while I don't think we've yet agreed that there's no rational basis for a female safe-space free of male physiology.
As I said, I can't really say. If I throw out some possibilities here, it's to show that there are some that haven't really been discussed so please don't just shoot them down as a way to say dialogue is pointless.And as I said, I'm genuinely open to ideas that I haven't considered.
They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion.
IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".
They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****.
IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".
They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you.
IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".
They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there. etc.
Perhaps their reasons for a safe-space free of physiologically male people is valid.
I think tagging people is at once a mental shorthand, but also a way of boxing people into a category to dismiss them. TERFs vs SJWs. It's party politics, but in a different arena. The people who I personally know who are in this debate are standing up for their friends and relatives and not on any kind of path to punishing those who aren't like them.
I apologize if the description of "SJWs" was out of line.
As an outsider-- I'm not from TO, I don't "Facebook", and I'm not part of any social networks that have any opinion one way or the other on this-- there seems to be a definite appearance that some people want to "get" Body Blitz for being anti-trans. And it seems like a lot of people want to "get" Megan Murphy for going "off the reservation" in expressing a view that goes against the grain.
"Boycott her website!" etc.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 10:12:38 am
The Government is planning to reform gender identity rules to make it easier for people to choose their own gender in law.
Under plans being considered by ministers, adults will be able to change their birth certificates at will without a doctor’s diagnosis, while non-binary gender people will be able to record their gender as “X”.
As far as I'm concerned, and, I suspect 90% of other people, if you've got a dick you're a guy. If you don't want to be a guy any more then cut it off. Not willing to do that? Then you're a GUY! Go get yourself some therapy if that bothers you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-rules-reform-gender-dysphoria-changes-2004-gender-recognition-self-identify-a7855381.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-rules-reform-gender-dysphoria-changes-2004-gender-recognition-self-identify-a7855381.html)
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2017, 11:09:12 am
Because that process happened with LGB people.
Post by: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 11:16:58 am
Right. So in ten years will you be saying Muslims are barbaric because they don't accept trans people?
Because that process happened with LGB people.
I have never denied that people could be attracted to their own gender. That would be idiotic. And I seriously don't care. But pretending you are another gender is just as idiotic. And unlike sexual preferences genders are used for identification purposes. We've already got cases where people don't need to have their picture on identification because that offends their religious sensibilities. Now they can have no gender either? What's next, people deciding they're rabbits or dogs? Are we going to see ID with no picture, no gender, no age, and no race? WTH?
If you want to think of yourself as a girl that's fine. I don't give a damn. No skin off my nose. But when government decides to start changing basic identity documents like birth certificates to coddle your psychological issues I have the right to object.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2017, 11:55:54 am
My point is that you are in a precarious position if you laud Western liberal traditions versus the fundamentalist alternative, and yet still decry the results of such decisions.
If you love a pluralistic society, then you have to accept that you will not agree with how things go sometimes.
Post by: cybercoma on July 23, 2017, 12:38:24 pm
Remember when nobody really thought much about trans people? You don't have to remember very far. It was like, not much over a year ago.This is incredibly out of touch with reality. At least you're proud of the rock you live under though. That's commendable in some ways, I guess.
Post by: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 02:27:03 pm
You always have a right to object.
My point is that you are in a precarious position if you laud Western liberal traditions versus the fundamentalist alternative, and yet still decry the results of such decisions.
If you love a pluralistic society, then you have to accept that you will not agree with how things go sometimes.
Valuing western liberal traditions does not mean embracing whatever fashionable bauble of an idea catches the flighty minds of western progressives.
Post by: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 02:28:39 pm
This is incredibly out of touch with reality. At least you're proud of the rock you live under though. That's commendable in some ways, I guess.
Maybe you should come to terms with the reality that a lot of your beliefs, cares and concerns are pretty far out there, by comparison with the greater population, and that it isn't everyone else who is the extremist, but you. If you think any substantial portion of the population ever even thinks about, much less cares about trans whatever people you're kidding yourself.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2017, 03:08:39 pm
Valuing western liberal traditions does not mean embracing whatever fashionable bauble of an idea catches the flighty minds of western progressives.
No but it means embracing the process. It also means that you acknowledge that progressivity is a continuum
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 24, 2017, 07:59:43 am
Post by: cybercoma on July 24, 2017, 08:18:40 am
Maybe you should come to terms with the reality that a lot of your beliefs, cares and concerns are pretty far out there, by comparison with the greater population, and that it isn't everyone else who is the extremist, but you. If you think any substantial portion of the population ever even thinks about, much less cares about trans whatever people you're kidding yourself.I'm sorry, but if you think that trans people and their concerns didn't exist until a year or so ago, you've been living under a rock. End of story. I don't give a **** whether you care about trans people or not, but to pretend that nobody was talking about them or concerned with what was going on is so tone deaf that it makes me laugh. Do you think LGBT was an acronym that was just made up last year or something? These have been concerns for as long as I can remember. Hell, there's been movies about trans people for decades, so they've even been part of popular culture.
I don't think you're an extremist, I just find you utterly clueless about the world you live in.
Post by: cybercoma on July 24, 2017, 08:26:52 am
i think you should be able to be whatever gender you want, and frankly aren't even the business of the state to put on documents. But I don't think you should be able to change your biological sex on documents. Genetics are unchangeable.What designation do you give to intersex individuals? What designation do you give to people with various chromosomal syndromes (eg, XYY syndrome, XXY syndrome)? Biological sex isn't even as binary as you think it is. And if you won't take my word for it, maybe an article from Stanford Medicine would be more convincing: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/sex-biology-redefined-genes-dont-indicate-binary-sexes/
The issue here is that culturally we're programmed to think in terms of sex and gender binaries and the reality is far more complex than that. What's more is that we categorize people into these classifications because we then ascribe to them a whole bunch of other cultural baggage about what "normal" men and women should do and be, how they should behave, how they should dress, how they should act, how they should live and love and all sorts of other **** that is socially constructed.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 24, 2017, 09:10:58 am
Post by: cybercoma on July 24, 2017, 09:20:37 am
Post by: cybercoma on July 24, 2017, 09:26:31 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6p7uhb/transgender_health_ama_series_im_joshua_safer/
Post by: SirJohn on July 24, 2017, 10:27:45 am
I'm sorry, but if you think that trans people and their concerns didn't exist until a year or so ago, you've been living under a rock
I'm sure they were of desperate and ongoing concern to you and your clique of ultra-leftists activists and progressives, just as I'm sure 95% of the population never gave it a second thought except to snicker about men dressing as women. That's reality. Sorry if you find the intrusion on your starry eyed world view upsetting.
Post by: guest4 on July 24, 2017, 12:12:07 pm
Maybe you should come to terms with the reality that a lot of your beliefs, cares and concerns are pretty far out there, by comparison with the greater population, and that it isn't everyone else who is the extremist, but you. If you think any substantial portion of the population ever even thinks about, much less cares about trans whatever people you're kidding yourself.
Since when did majority opinion automatically equal the correct thing to do? If it weren't for people pushing boundaries against the status quo, the generally accepted and the majority opinion, we'd be approximately as socially advanced as the Muslims you love to criticize for their backwardness.
Post by: SirJohn on July 24, 2017, 12:32:15 pm
Since when did majority opinion automatically equal the correct thing to do? If it weren't for people pushing boundaries against the status quo, the generally accepted and the majority opinion, we'd be approximately as socially advanced as the Muslims you love to criticize for their backwardness.
You mean the Muslims you spend all your time defending for their peacefulness? All the time defending for their progressive nature and how kind they are to everyone, and their wonderful feminist beliefs? Even criticizing the way women are treated in the middle east draws you out to shriek that they're just as well off as Canadian women.
In any event, you are using the same argument MH put only far less coherently. Admiring our modern, sophisticated culture does not mean embracing every stupid fashionable idea the Left embraces.
Post by: guest4 on July 24, 2017, 12:46:33 pm
You mean the Muslims you spend all your time defending for their peacefulness? All the time defending for their progressive nature and how kind they are to everyone, and their wonderful feminist beliefs? Even criticizing the way women are treated in the middle east draws you out to shriek that they're just as well off as Canadian women.
I've had posts removed on Muslim discussion lists for criticizing those very things you mention. The problem you have with me is that you fail to see how xenophobic and Islamaphobic you are. You bring up good points, but then you haughtily ascribe behaviors to everyone Muslim, pretend you can read an individual's mind based on what she is wearing, and support unequal treatment for them. While you claim to be supporting women in this endeavor, in other posts you complain about any iota of political status given to women because "Surely there was a guy more qualified" and bemoaning female empowerment generally.
Quote
In any event, you are using the same argument MH put only far less coherently. Admiring our modern, sophisticated culture does not mean embracing every stupid fashionable idea the Left embraces.It's just fun for me to point our your hypocrisy.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 24, 2017, 12:49:40 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 24, 2017, 01:39:42 pm
That's also not true. There's examples in nature of genetic mutations occurring changing an animal's sex.
Show me examples of it occurring in humans. I want to see vaginas turning into penises.
Post by: guest4 on July 24, 2017, 01:48:16 pm
Show me examples of it occurring in humans. I want to see vaginas turning into penises.
Not penises turning into vaginas?
https://stillselecting.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/natural-human-sex-change/
Post by: Goddess on July 24, 2017, 02:11:52 pm
Gender/Sexual orientation is not a choice.
Your religion is a choice.
Accomodating gender/sexual orientation/people with disabilities, etc. should be done as much as possible to include as many people as possible. Trans people are becoming more accepted and perhaps one day there will be 4 types of bathrooms - men's, women's, trans men's and trans female's.
Accomodating religious beliefs is another beast, IMO. Your religion is a choice. If your religion demands you only eat halal food (for example), then that is your choice. Find restaurants, grocery stores that offer it or do without. I don't agree with forcing restaurants (or any other type of business) to accomodate religious beliefs. If your religion is against homosexuals, then that is your choice. Don't open a bakery, if you feel that strongly about not baking a cake for a gay wedding.
I think accomodating people who have no choice in what they are - such as those with disabilities is the compassionate way to go.
Accomodating ridonkulous religious beliefs.....well, where would that end?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 24, 2017, 03:40:45 pm
Not penises turning into vaginas?
https://stillselecting.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/natural-human-sex-change/
These appear like disorders that change output of hormones so they change mainly secondary sex characteristics, like males growing breasts or females growing facial hair. But secondary sex characters do not change the biological sex/chromosomes. Similar to things that happen during puberty when hormones rage & change, but during puberty you don't become "male " or "female" or whatnot, your sex and chromosomes are determined when you're in the womb.
Unless there's a disorder that can go back in time, stick you back in the womb, and make your **** into a **** & switch up your chromosomes I'll maintain that biological sex is unchangeable.
Trans people and whomever else can take hormones and have surgeries that change secondary sex characteristics, or even cosmetically alter parts of primary sex organs, and more power to them I think people should be free to look & feel who they want to be.
Post by: guest4 on July 24, 2017, 03:50:52 pm
These appear like disorders that change output of hormones so they change mainly secondary sex characteristics, like males growing breasts or females growing facial hair. But secondary sex characters do not change the biological sex/chromosomes. Similar to things that happen during puberty when hormones rage & change, but during puberty you don't become "male " or "female" or whatnot, your sex and chromosomes are determined when you're in the womb.
Unless there's a disorder that can go back in time, stick you back in the womb, and make your **** into a **** & switch up your chromosomes I'll maintain that biological sex is unchangeable.
Trans people and whomever else can take hormones and have surgeries that change secondary sex characteristics, or even cosmetically alter parts of primary sex organs, and more power to them I think people should be free to look & feel who they want to be.
Fair enough. I was being a little bit tongue in cheek with that cite. So how about intersex people? If someone is born with a **** and then grows breasts at puberty, should they be required to remove one or the other in order to satisfy the majority expectations of male and female?
Post by: SirJohn on July 24, 2017, 04:04:18 pm
I've had posts removed on Muslim discussion lists for criticizing those very things you mention.
Which shows how intolerant they are, that even the most diffident, obsequious questioning of their rigid cultural codes gets your post deleted.
Quote
The problem you have with me is that you fail to see how xenophobic and Islamaphobic you are.
On the contrary. The problem I have with you is you're a typical self-hating, hand-wringing progressive awash in guilt over what you imagine are white sins against 'brown people' and desperate to make it up to them all by being their great protector. Your own innate racism causes you to turn your eyes aside at their blemishes and problems and make excuses for them as if they were little children who couldn't stick up for or protect themselves.
Quote
You bring up good points, but then you haughtily ascribe behaviors to everyone Muslim,
You make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that the discussion is not about individuals but about "THE MUSLIM WORLD", and so is with regard to THE MUSLIM WORLD and its cultural mores and behavior. But you refuse to accept evidence and polls about beliefs within that world as expressed by 70%-80%-90% of respondents, and blithely dismiss such views as if they're only that of an occasional extremist. All because your earnest belief that you must defend brown people from any and all criticism. Ninety two percent of women in Egypt have been subjected to FGM but to you, Egypt is a wonderful land of gender equality where women walk the streets proudly. Oh, perhaps there's a little occasional harassment, but hey, nothing like the den of **** and abuse that is Canada, eh!
Quote
pretend you can read an individual's mind based on what she is wearing,
Uh, yeah, if someone is wearing a KKK hood I have a pretty good idea what they think of Jews and black people. And if someone is wearing Islamist headgear I have a pretty good idea of what they think of Jews and infidels and gays and women. It's not rocket science. There is no one wearing a KKK outfit who believes in racial equality and there is no one wearing a burka who believes in gender equality.
Quote
in other posts you complain about any iota of political status given to women because "Surely there was a guy more qualified" and bemoaning female empowerment generally.
Because I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I believe in gender equality - clearly unlike you - I think that giving women jobs because they're women, and not because they're the better person for the job, is stupid, demeaning and also inefficient. I'm a firm believer in meritocracy and self reliance, whereas you're a firm believer in identity politics and in doing things FOR people because you believe they're too stupid to do it for themselves.
Quote
It's just fun for me to point our your hypocrisy.
My opinions are never hypocritical. Just like yours never contain much thought or intelligence.
See, I don't discriminate. I'll call a person a moron whether they're male or female, black or white.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 24, 2017, 04:57:14 pm
http://bust.com/arts/16202-artist-drags-sexism-toxic-masculinity-and-double-standards-in-epic-comic-takedowns.html
Post by: SirJohn on July 24, 2017, 06:00:39 pm
A thoughtful and illuminating cartoon series:
http://bust.com/arts/16202-artist-drags-sexism-toxic-masculinity-and-double-standards-in-epic-comic-takedowns.html
I would suggest that your approval of it is more about it agreeing with you than being either quality drawing (it's not) or insightful (it's not).
It's simply more of the sneers progressives like to make towards the people they hate the most - straight white males.
Post by: guest4 on July 24, 2017, 07:02:08 pm
Which shows how intolerant they are, that even the most diffident, obsequious questioning of their rigid cultural codes gets your post deleted.You think I'm diffident and obsequious? Wow. Anyway, yeah - they don't like to be criticized. Neither do you; you and they are rather the same, but you can't delete my posts.
Quote
On the contrary. The problem I have with you is you're a typical self-hating, hand-wringing progressive awash in guilt over what you imagine are white sins against 'brown people' and desperate to make it up to them all by being their great protector. Your own innate racism causes you to turn your eyes aside at their blemishes and problems and make excuses for them as if they were little children who couldn't stick up for or protect themselves.Hogwash. You make so many assumptions about people you know nothing about.
Quote
You make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that the discussion is not about individuals but about "THE MUSLIM WORLD", and so is with regard to THE MUSLIM WORLD and its cultural mores and behavior. But you refuse to accept evidence and polls about beliefs within that world as expressed by 70%-80%-90% of respondents, and blithely dismiss such views as if they're only that of an occasional extremist. All because your earnest belief that you must defend brown people from any and all criticism. Ninety two percent of women in Egypt have been subjected to FGM but to you, Egypt is a wonderful land of gender equality where women walk the streets proudly. Oh, perhaps there's a little occasional harassment, but hey, nothing like the den of **** and abuse that is Canada, eh!They seem to walk the streets proudly, at least when I was there. Yeah, I am aware of the incidence of FGM in Egypt, and also that it applies equally to Christians in Egypt. That is the part that you consistently ignore: FGM and many other practices within the Middle East are cultural and not specifically Islamic. That is what I object to when you go on about how barbaric Muslims are. And objecting to ignorance that you spew constantly, your xenophobic comments doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the issues or the problems that women and minorities have in the Middle East or even that some of them bring those same practices to Western Countries.
Quote
Uh, yeah, if someone is wearing a KKK hood I have a pretty good idea what they think of Jews and black people. And if someone is wearing Islamist headgear I have a pretty good idea of what they think of Jews and infidels and gays and women. It's not rocket science. There is no one wearing a KKK outfit who believes in racial equality and there is no one wearing a burka who believes in gender equality.
If the only time these people wore a burka was to oppress woman, your analogy might stand. But sadly for you, a woman in a burka may actually not follow the agenda you've set out for her. But again, you make assumptions about people because you are too lazy to look at people as individuals. Instead you put them in groups: lefties, Muslims, Aboriginals, feminists, etc.
Quote
Because I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I believe in gender equality - clearly unlike you -Nah. You proved that wrong when you argued passionately that the women JT chose for his cabinet could not have been as qualified as any male available.
Quote
I think that giving women jobs because they're women, and not because they're the better person for the job, is stupid, demeaning and also inefficient. I'm a firm believer in meritocracy and self reliance, whereas you're a firm believer in identity politics and in doing things FOR people because you believe they're too stupid to do it for themselves.Nope. You assume that if JT appointed a woman, then it was for political reasons, not because she merited it. You assume that a better-qualified man was available and was passed over in favor of a woman. That is gender-bias right there. You reject the notion that perhaps in previous administrations, fully-qualified women were passed over in favor of men - because in your world, men are the natural recipients of status and power.
Post by: kimmy on July 24, 2017, 07:16:27 pm
simply more of the sneers progressives like to make towards the people they hate the most - straight white males.
whaaaa???
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 24, 2017, 07:36:20 pm
whaaaa???
-k
You didn't know white males were so hard done by?
Post by: kimmy on July 24, 2017, 07:43:33 pm
You didn't know white males were so hard done by?
I've heard rumors. I'm just trying to piece together how the comic MH linked to could be interpreted as a sneer against straight white males.
-k
Post by: guest7 on July 24, 2017, 08:07:31 pm
You didn't know white males were so hard done by?
He didn't say they were hard done by. He said progressives hate them the most. Which is pretty much a given, as progressives aren't allowed to hate anyone else.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 25, 2017, 07:47:47 am
I've heard rumors. I'm just trying to piece together how the comic MH linked to could be interpreted as a sneer against straight white males.
-k
Me too. It seems like the whole thing is a plea for listening. There is nothing in that that threatens anyone, except those who think that old narratives about gender need to be protected against discussion.
Post by: cybercoma on July 25, 2017, 11:44:27 am
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 12:23:34 pm
Me too. It seems like the whole thing is a plea for listening. There is nothing in that that threatens anyone, except those who think that old narratives about gender need to be protected against discussion.
It was a collection of very poorly drawn cliche's which have been around for decades. Why anyone would laud this as some sort of insight into gender relations is beyond me.
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 12:24:50 pm
Conservatives need a safe space from social change. It hurst their fragile little sensibilities.
Really? And yet nowhere have conservatives ever asked for or designed such a space. Odd, that, don't you think? It always seems to be progressives desperately in need of safe spaces to protect their delicate sensibilities from opinions which might disturb them.
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 12:32:05 pm
I've heard rumors. I'm just trying to piece together how the comic MH linked to could be interpreted as a sneer against straight white males.
-k
It was part and parcel of the continuing message progressives have been delivering for some time now. Whether it's imaginary '**** culture' on campuses or the plethora of protective rules and regulations around normal human interactions. Progressives claim women are equals but they want them treated and coddled and encouraged like infants.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 25, 2017, 12:44:29 pm
It was a collection of very poorly drawn cliche's which have been around for decades. Why anyone would laud this as some sort of insight into gender relations is beyond me.
Maybe you read more feminist comics than I do, then, as some of these ideas were new to me.
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 12:53:35 pm
You think I'm diffident and obsequious?
I have ZERO doubt on that score, not when you're addressing Muslims. Probably bow your head too.
Quote
Anyway, yeah - they don't like to be criticized. Neither do you;
But you weren't criticizing THEM. You were criticizing religion, a topic. Most often when we discuss Islam I am criticizing Islam and you, in turn (as here) are criticizing ME.
I know you don't understand the difference. It outrages you that anyone disagrees with you and you can't restrain yourself from attacking them.
Quote
Yeah, I am aware of the incidence of FGM in Egypt, and also that it applies equally to Christians in Egypt. That is the part that you consistently ignore: FGM and many other practices within the Middle East are cultural and not specifically Islamic.
And Egypt is what percentage Muslim? Where does the culture and values of Egypt come from? Not from Christians, who are a despised and endangered minority. Give Egypt another fifty or sixty years and there will be no Christians there anyway.
Quote
That is what I object to when you go on about how barbaric Muslims are.
Name one Muslim country anyone sane would choose to live. In every list, be it human rights abuses, educational achievements, violent religious extremism, it is clear that the Muslim world is the slow kid in the class. There are fifty of them and not one is a real democracy.
Quote
If the only time these people wore a burka was to oppress woman, your analogy might stand. But sadly for you, a woman in a burka may actually not follow the agenda you've set out for her.
Your continued insistence that a devoted, conservative Muslim who wraps herself in stiffing bedsheets everywhere she goes might not follow the agenda GOD set out for her is as brainless as the thought that someone in a KKK hood has a deep and abiding respect for Jews and Blacks.
Quote
You proved that wrong when you argued passionately that the women JT chose for his cabinet could not have been as qualified as any male available.
Again, reality eludes you. I'm the one who believes in equality. Which means, I presume that men and women in Trudeau's caucus are equally talented (which is probably an error in that the ways are greased for women and minorities, but never mind). So if roughly a quarter of his caucus is female but he names half his cabinet as female that is a pretty strong indication - born out by experience now - that he's named women as minister simply because they ARE women.
Quote
Nope. You assume that if JT appointed a woman, then it was for political reasons,
Everything Trudeau does is for political reasons. This is the style over substance government, after all.
Quote
You reject the notion that perhaps in previous administrations, fully-qualified women were passed over in favor of men - because in your world, men are the natural recipients of status and power.
First, I've never rejected any such notion, as it's never been discussed. Second, what is this but an inference that if there was prejudice against women in the past we should give them jobs now regardless of whether they deserve them?
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 12:55:30 pm
Maybe you read more feminist comics than I do, then, as some of these ideas were new to me.
Name one.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 25, 2017, 03:09:55 pm
Name one.
?
Weird. Seems like you want to help me make my point. I don't think I CAN name one. So I'm at zero. How about you ?
Post by: msj on July 25, 2017, 03:12:50 pm
Really? And yet nowhere have conservatives ever asked for or designed such a space. Odd, that, don't you think? It always seems to be progressives desperately in need of safe spaces to protect their delicate sensibilities from opinions which might disturb them.
Agreed.
Conservatives would rather impose spaces upon all of the rest of us to protect themselves and their precious delicate sensibilities.
Well, maybe it's time the rest of us to tell the conservatives to F'off, suck it up, and pee next to other human beings in a civilized manner.
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 06:05:29 pm
?
Weird. Seems like you want to help me make my point. I don't think I CAN name one. So I'm at zero. How about you ?
I said they were cliches. You said they were new to you. Now you can't name any which are new and think I'm making your point?
Post by: SirJohn on July 25, 2017, 06:06:55 pm
Agreed.
Conservatives would rather impose spaces upon all of the rest of us to protect themselves and their precious delicate sensibilities.
What spaces to conservatives want to impose on the 'rest of us' to protect themselves?
Quote
Well, maybe it's time the rest of us to tell the conservatives to F'off, suck it up, and pee next to other human beings in a civilized manner.
Conservatives, unlike progressives, are not obsessed with toilets. Perhaps because, unlike progressives, the majority of our policy beliefs don't belong in them.
Post by: msj on July 25, 2017, 10:43:52 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 25, 2017, 10:48:21 pm
I said they were cliches. You said they were new to you. Now you can't name any which are new and think I'm making your point?
I thought you were asking me to name feminist comics ?
Post by: kimmy on July 25, 2017, 11:00:39 pm
It was part and parcel of the continuing message progressives have been delivering for some time now. Whether it's imaginary '**** culture' on campuses
If you think that "**** culture" is imaginary, I invite you to read about the Steubenville case, or Clinton-nemesis Ken Starr and his efforts to cover up **** at Baylor University.
or the plethora of protective rules and regulations around normal human interactions. Progressives claim women are equals but they want them treated and coddled and encouraged like infants.
I don't think anything in the comics Mike linked to are calls for rules and regulations. I think they were an attempt to point out blatant double standards. I think the real criticism of the cartoons Mike linked to isn't that they're wrong, but rather that they're so obviously true that one wonders why they even need be pointed out. (answer: they need be pointed out because there are dolts to whom they're not obvious.)
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 26, 2017, 12:04:54 am
Should I have assumed she were a male trapped in a female body? Or a woman who simply adopted a masculine style of dress and deportment (as I myself do, to a lesser degree)? Given the circumstances, would you assume she was a she or a he? Given the situation, would you suppose that she were a cisgendered female who enjoys masculine accoutrements, or a trans person who hasn't attempted to biologically transition?
As it happens I didn't interact with either s/he or er companion, so it's a moot question. Still, it made me think of this conversation.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 26, 2017, 12:15:24 am
Nonetheless.
I want to get back to the question of "gatekeeping", which I mentioned in previous posts.
I think as the notion of "chicks with dicks" becomes normalized, it will be exploited. We have already seen this, as Christian kooks have been encouraging biologically male individuals to hang out in the womens' rest room at Target stores in the US, supposedly to "protect women". Whether it be from individuals with an ideological axe to grind, or from mooks out for a lark, or from perverts, the idea of biologically male individuals entering women-only safe-spaces *will* become an issue.
And despite the insistence of trans-women and their allies, I think that it is reasonable that some degree of "gate-keeping" be established for biologically male individuals wanting to enter women-only safe spaces.
I don't think some frat-boys should be able to say "I identify as female today" and be taken at their word.
-k
Post by: msj on July 26, 2017, 09:28:36 am
But but but that Hilary would have brought people into the US who would really not like Trans people so all is ok....
Once again, conservatives "keeping us safe." ::)
Post by: kimmy on July 26, 2017, 09:39:28 am
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 26, 2017, 10:34:48 am
Post by: SirJohn on July 26, 2017, 11:51:15 am
If you think that "**** culture" is imaginary, I invite you to read about the Steubenville case, or Clinton-nemesis Ken Starr and his efforts to cover up **** at Baylor University.
All large institutions try to cover up bad news.
That a drunken girl would be sexually abused by a bunch of drunk/half drunken boys is hardly an example of **** culture. Where is the 'culture' which encourages ****? Even in my time, where getting a girl drunk to 'persuade her' was considered fair game, nobody, even among **** teenage boys, thought **** was acceptable (they just didn't think getting them drunk was **** back then and the law agreed).
But we're a long way from then. I'm continually surprised at how much more respectful (in general) towards girls/women young guys are compared to us in my generation - for whom they were largely odd people who just had attractive body parts. That being said, young men are prone to doing supremely stupid things (young women too) and especially when drinking. But a '**** culture' evokes thoughts of a general agreement on behavior among young men at college that they approve of **** and that's absolutely stupid. The stats don't show young college women are **** more often than their counterparts not in college either.
Quote
I don't think anything in the comics Mike linked to are calls for rules and regulations. I think they were an attempt to point out blatant double standards.
Of course there are double standards. But double standards impact both sides, just in different ways. And a lot of those alleged double standards are kind of old and cliched and not really so applicable any more.
Want a double standard? If a drunken girl has willing sex with a drunken boy the boy gets charged with **** if she decides to do so the next day. Why? Because she was drunk and so not able to consent. But what if he was drunk too? Ah, the legislation takes care to say that is no defense whatsoever. So her inebriated and impaired state means she is completely lacking any responsibility for the sex, but his inebriated and impaired state cannot be used to excuse his responsibility for the sex.
Yes, there are double standards about behaviour but in law, the woman generally gets the break in all things, be it family law or criminal law, BECAUSE of those double standards, because women are presumed to be kindly, innocent people who would never do wrong unless some man made them. See the case of Karla Homolka.
Post by: SirJohn on July 26, 2017, 11:55:39 am
And despite the insistence of trans-women and their allies, I think that it is reasonable that some degree of "gate-keeping" be established for biologically male individuals wanting to enter women-only safe spaces.
Well, my understanding of new human rights legislation means you can't even question their uhm... gender decisions.
But even if they are 'trans', how safe and comforting would, say, a government ID 'proving' a biological male is female be to teenage girls in a dressing room with some 200 lb guy standing around naked?
Post by: cybercoma on July 26, 2017, 11:58:21 am
Conservatives want to ensure well marked bathrooms with someone checking for **** at the door....They also need safe shopping spaces where no one offends them by saying "happy holidays." They need safe schools, where people teach creationism alongside evolution. They need safe militaries where gay people don't come out and transgendered people aren't serving. They need safe theatres where the actors don't talk about politics during an inherently political show. The list goes on and on. But Argus doesn't see those as "safe spaces."
Post by: SirJohn on July 26, 2017, 12:11:18 pm
They also need safe shopping spaces where no one offends them by saying "happy holidays."
That's a neat way to turn that around. I'm pretty sure you know that what irritates Conservatives about that phrase is that its a deliberate effort to ignore our traditions and history and culture so as to not offend newcomers. Conservatives tend to value those things rather more than progressives, who will go miles out of their way to avoid offending anyone (other than white straight people, of course, who they love offending).
Quote
They need safe schools, where people teach creationism alongside evolution.
Conservatives believe in evolution. Even the freaking pope believes in evolution. Don't call those wack jobs down south in Kansas and such conservatives.
Quote
They need safe militaries where gay people don't come out and transgendered people aren't serving.
Again, this is a US religious war thing and not the product of conservatism.
Quote
They need safe theatres where the actors don't talk about politics during an inherently political show. The list goes on and on. But Argus doesn't see those as "safe spaces."
Not the crap you make up. The actors in that show were not speaking as part of the show, but afterwards, to Pence (who is a dick, but still). So it was considered inappropriate for the actors to harangue a member of the audience. Not as inappropriate as that fat moron Trump giving a stupid politicized speech to boy scouts ,but still, inappropriate.
Post by: cybercoma on July 26, 2017, 12:15:33 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 26, 2017, 12:33:57 pm
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/890255276301070336
Military rules and regulations allow trans people to serve their country. Even the commander-in-chief cannot change those via Twitter.
Post by: SirJohn on July 26, 2017, 12:50:20 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
You mean like, when conservatives express disdain for progressives wanting to eliminate use of the word Christmas so as to create a "safe space" for non-Christians, and then you claim this disdain is itself a demand for a safe space?
Post by: msj on July 26, 2017, 06:52:23 pm
It's a body part for f's sake.
Stupid filters.
Yep did it again. It starts with "p" and ends with "s."
Post by: msj on July 26, 2017, 10:20:58 pm
Rather than sucking it up and treating queer people like humans gotta discharge them as "mentally unfit."
Heaven forbid if a homophobic conservative turd had to share the same trench as a queer.... ::)
Post by: msj on July 27, 2017, 08:35:59 am
But I guess not all wars are fought in bathrooms!
Post by: SirJohn on July 27, 2017, 11:28:48 am
The irony over not allowing trans people into the US military is we are supposed to fear being alone with one in a bathroom.
But I guess not all wars are fought in bathrooms!
No, this is an urban-rural war. Trump (most definitely not and never a conservative) is throwing some meat to his rural base of support. It's not something everyone even who calls themselves a conservative in the US wanted.
Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory T. Angelo said Wednesday that “the president’s statement this morning does a disservice to transgender military personnel,”
And from bible thumping Orrin Hatch of Utah, came the following twitter reply to Trump:
"I don't think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them. I look forward to getting much more information and clarity from our military about the policy the president tweeted today."
And Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, from Iowa, told the Des Moines Register that she disagrees with the military ban and says anyone who's qualified should be allowed to serve.
Post by: SirJohn on September 11, 2017, 08:58:06 am
The couple said under the school's bullying policy their son faced being disciplined for "mis-gendering" the six-year-old pupil.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41224146 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41224146)
Post by: JMT on September 11, 2017, 08:59:54 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 11, 2017, 09:06:14 am
How moronic can progressives get when they adopt a 'cause' like transgederism? How about suspending a six year old boy from school because he was confused about why another boy came to school dressed as a girl?
Right, but a story like that goes Global not because it's especially concerning, not because it calls serious issues into question, but because it's sensational.
The best way to ignore extremism is to ignore it, for the most part.
Post by: SirJohn on September 11, 2017, 11:26:41 am
Right, but a story like that goes Global not because it's especially concerning, not because it calls serious issues into question, but because it's sensational.
The best way to ignore extremism is to ignore it, for the most part.
Unless government adopts that extremism. There are a lot of people who feel Trudeau's inclusion of transgenders in human rights legislation will leave people open to prosecution for not using what nouns they want to be used to describe themselves, for example, or to harken back on an earlier time in this topic, if they refuse anatomical males who say they're female access to female restrooms and changing rooms.
Post by: cybercoma on September 11, 2017, 11:28:58 am
Unless government adopts that extremism. There are a lot of people who feel Trudeau's inclusion of transgenders in human rights legislation will leave people open to prosecution for not using what nouns they want to be used to describe themselves, for example, or to harken back on an earlier time in this topic, if they refuse anatomical males who say they're female access to female restrooms and changing rooms.There's also many people who think Trudeau is a secret Muslim who's instituting Sharia Law in Canada and importing terrorists.
Post by: SirJohn on September 11, 2017, 11:33:36 am
There's also many people who think Trudeau is a secret Muslim who's instituting Sharia Law in Canada and importing terrorists.
Well, I don't think he's a secret Muslim. I don't think Trudeau believes in religion at all. As for importing terrorism, since almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world, the more Muslims you import, the more terrorism you will get. It's no coincidence that terrorism in Europe is heaviest in countries with the most Muslims and non-existent in those with no Muslims.
Post by: Omni on September 11, 2017, 11:51:36 am
Well, I don't think he's a secret Muslim. I don't think Trudeau believes in religion at all. As for importing terrorism, since almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world, the more Muslims you import, the more terrorism you will get. It's no coincidence that terrorism in Europe is heaviest in countries with the most Muslims and non-existent in those with no Muslims.
"Almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world"? Think you put your foot in it again there. I'd like to see your stats to back that one up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df
Post by: cybercoma on September 11, 2017, 12:06:39 pm
As for importing terrorism, since almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world, the more Muslims you import, the more terrorism you will get.Aside from the fact that right-wing lone wolf extremism is characterized as a much greater threat to people in the West, this is just entirely wrong.
You think we're just drawing a random sample of people from the Muslim world, including radicals and whatnot? You think the doors are completely open? That's the only possible way you can believe this nonsense. Aside from it being an ecological fallacy, there is a multi-million dollar vetting process that happens for immigrants, as well as refugees. It also ignores the fact that almost every person you would consider from the "Muslim World" (whatever that means anyway) comes here to escape the violence back home. We're not just taking in random samples of people that have the same percentage of radical Islamists in it as the entire demographics in whatever countries you're considering. We take in professionals, families, and people fleeing violence.
Of course, an Arab is an Arab, eh? Forget the Lebanese Christians who come in. They're from the "Muslim World" so they must be terrorists. Forget the Muslim Asians from places like Indonesia. Terrorists. Forget that countries in the Muslim World have elected women leaders, when we've yet to do it ourselves. Those voters must have been terrorists too.
I've said it before, you do not recognize that there's as much differences in Muslim people from around the world as there is between Bernie Sanders and The Westboro Baptist Church. You seem to think we're letting in a bunch of the Westboro Baptists with zero evidence that this is the case. Hell, they don't even have to be Muslims. Look at that woman who was shouting in Jagmeet Singh's face. She's too stupid to even realize what religion he follows, let alone to understand that Islam has no central authority and there's as much difference between Muslims as there are between Christmas and Easter Catholics and Evangelical Hate-Mongers like Westboro. And you too seem to suffer from this ignorance. A Muslim is a Muslim and they aren't welcome in your country because they look funny, they talk funny, and they dress funny, so they all must be terrorists. Surely the government doesn't vet applicants who want to live here. All that money they spend on immigration must be going towards other things.
Post by: SirJohn on September 13, 2017, 07:54:40 pm
Aside from the fact that right-wing lone wolf extremism is characterized as a much greater threat to people in the West, this is just entirely wrong.
I've looked at that. The statistics are based on all these far right cranks living out there, survivalist types, anti-government types, extremist rednecks. They're not dangerous except to the authorities who try to police them. They're not going to be setting off car bombs in markets or opening fire in shopping malls or trying to blow up the CN tower. When they commit violence it is, in most cases, by resisting police and authorities. And any groups of more than a half a dozen probably have an FBI/RCMP informant planted among them. And they're not going to be flying fully loaded passenger liners into buildings, either, because suicide is not high on their bucket lists.
Quote
You think we're just drawing a random sample of people from the Muslim world, including radicals and whatnot? You think the doors are completely open?
Yes, and yes.
Quote
Aside from it being an ecological fallacy, there is a multi-million dollar vetting process that happens for immigrants, as well as refugees.
No, there really isn't. In fact, ninety percent of immigrants never even meet an immigration officer until they land in Canada and go through customs. They send in forms and documentation, some of which might or might not be fake (such as university degrees). Their names are checked against lists of known terrorist organization members, and they're checked to see if they have a criminal record. That's it, as far as security vetting goes. It isn't any better for refugees. How can we check up on a Syrian we find in a refugee camp who has no papers anyway? Ask the Syrian government? If they're not on a terrorist list that's as far as it goes.
And, of course, the political elites have specifically rejected the idea of trying to ascertain whether they're religious/cultural/social views are hostile to the ones we hold.
Quote
It also ignores the fact that almost every person you would consider from the "Muslim World" (whatever that means anyway) comes here to escape the violence back home.
Not actually. Almost every person who comes here does so because this is a rich country and they want some of that. They have an opportunity for a better, richer life here, as do their kids. There are lots of peaceful poor countries and nobody wants to go and live there for the peace, now do they? All those migrants that flooded into Europe wanted nothing to do with Turkey, Greece, Italy, Serbia and those other countries they were desperate to get past. They wanted to get to the rich northern European countries like Sweden, the UK and Germany.
Further, I doubt any of them thought the violence was because of Islam, so there's no reason for them to forswear any aspects of Islam.
Quote
Of course, an Arab is an Arab, eh? Forget the Lebanese Christians who come in. They're from the "Muslim World" so they must be terrorists.
Why do you people keep resorting to brainless snot like this? I've already said I'd rather have taken twice as many Syrian Christians than Syrian Muslims. I have no problem with Lebanese Christians either. It's not a racial thing. I had my hair cut today by a Lebanese Christian guy and his skin was as white as mine.
You also resort to that knee-jerk accusation that I believe all Muslims are terrorists when I've explicitly stated on MANY occasions I believe no such thing. I don't even believe every Muslim from the Muslim world is extreme in their social beliefs. And I've said that repeatedly, as well.
Quote
I've said it before, you do not recognize that there's as much differences in Muslim people from around the world as there is between Bernie Sanders and The Westboro Baptist Church.
Yeah? Which of the 57 Muslim nations around the world treats women equal to men? Which one treats non-Muslims equal to Muslims? Which one has no problem with Jews? Which one has gay pride parades? The rate of female genital mutilation is over 90% in Egypt, and Mali - and in Malaysia - and rising in Indonesia where it was 50% last study. What does Mali have to do with Malaysia other than Islam?
Find me this mythical land of liberal, tolerant, peaceful Muslims that we can import. Do.
My position has always been perfectly clear, clear enough I would have thought anyone of moderate intelligence would have discerned it by now. We get more economically successful immigrants from almost anywhere else, according to the government's own studies. And the ones from other parts of the world don't come with the threat of extreme social views which are hostile to our own, views which are embedded in their religious values. So why should we be bringing in so many from the Muslim world?
You have a university where half the students you hire wind up being fired within the first year for incompetence, and three more universities where almost none get fired in the first year - with lots and lots of candidates. Why the hell would you go recruiting at the first university again? Because you want to prove how inclusive you are? How bloody precious.
Who's going to assimilate faster, an Irishman or an Afghan?
Post by: Omni on September 13, 2017, 09:34:44 pm
I've looked at that. The statistics are based on all these far right cranks living out there, survivalist types, anti-government types, extremist rednecks. They're not dangerous except to the authorities who try to police them. They're not going to be setting off car bombs in markets or opening fire in shopping malls or trying to blow up the CN tower. When they commit violence it is, in most cases, by resisting police and authorities. And any groups of more than a half a dozen probably have an FBI/RCMP informant planted among them. And they're not going to be flying fully loaded passenger liners into buildings, either, because suicide is not high on their bucket lists.
Yes, and yes.
No, there really isn't. In fact, ninety percent of immigrants never even meet an immigration officer until they land in Canada and go through customs. They send in forms and documentation, some of which might or might not be fake (such as university degrees). Their names are checked against lists of known terrorist organization members, and they're checked to see if they have a criminal record. That's it, as far as security vetting goes. It isn't any better for refugees. How can we check up on a Syrian we find in a refugee camp who has no papers anyway? Ask the Syrian government? If they're not on a terrorist list that's as far as it goes.
And, of course, the political elites have specifically rejected the idea of trying to ascertain whether they're religious/cultural/social views are hostile to the ones we hold.
Not actually. Almost every person who comes here does so because this is a rich country and they want some of that. They have an opportunity for a better, richer life here, as do their kids. There are lots of peaceful poor countries and nobody wants to go and live there for the peace, now do they? All those migrants that flooded into Europe wanted nothing to do with Turkey, Greece, Italy, Serbia and those other countries they were desperate to get past. They wanted to get to the rich northern European countries like Sweden, the UK and Germany.
Further, I doubt any of them thought the violence was because of Islam, so there's no reason for them to forswear any aspects of Islam.
Why do you people keep resorting to brainless snot like this? I've already said I'd rather have taken twice as many Syrian Christians than Syrian Muslims. I have no problem with Lebanese Christians either. It's not a racial thing. I had my hair cut today by a Lebanese Christian guy and his skin was as white as mine.
You also resort to that knee-jerk accusation that I believe all Muslims are terrorists when I've explicitly stated on MANY occasions I believe no such thing. I don't even believe every Muslim from the Muslim world is extreme in their social beliefs. And I've said that repeatedly, as well.
Yeah? Which of the 57 Muslim nations around the world treats women equal to men? Which one treats non-Muslims equal to Muslims? Which one has no problem with Jews? Which one has gay pride parades? The rate of female genital mutilation is over 90% in Egypt, and Mali - and in Malaysia - and rising in Indonesia where it was 50% last study. What does Mali have to do with Malaysia other than Islam?
Find me this mythical land of liberal, tolerant, peaceful Muslims that we can import. Do.
My position has always been perfectly clear, clear enough I would have thought anyone of moderate intelligence would have discerned it by now. We get more economically successful immigrants from almost anywhere else, according to the government's own studies. And the ones from other parts of the world don't come with the threat of extreme social views which are hostile to our own, views which are embedded in their religious values. So why should we be bringing in so many from the Muslim world?
You have a university where half the students you hire wind up being fired within the first year for incompetence, and three more universities where almost none get fired in the first year - with lots and lots of candidates. Why the hell would you go recruiting at the first university again? Because you want to prove how inclusive you are? How bloody precious.
Who's going to assimilate faster, an Irishman or an Afghan?
More unsubstantiated "statistics" from Argus. Our immigration system is at least as stringent if not more than that of the US. The main difference is we don't discriminate based on religion, kinda like your buddy Trump wants to do. The point system launched years ago has proven very successful. We purposefully don't rely on interviewing immigrants because of the potential for bias. Can you imagine if you were an immigration officer conducting interviews? I expect anybody with brown skin would be doomed as soon as they walked in the door.
https://www.geramilaw.com/blog/canadas-immigration-and-refugee-screening-process.html
http://www.chatelaine.com/living/politics/canadian-immigration-citizenship/
Post by: cybercoma on September 13, 2017, 09:35:12 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 14, 2017, 06:05:45 am
I've looked at that. The statistics are based on all these far right cranks living out there, survivalist types, anti-government types, extremist rednecks. They're not dangerous except to the authorities who try to police them. They're not going to be setting off car bombs in markets or opening fire in shopping malls or trying to blow up the CN tower. When they commit violence it is, in most cases, by resisting police and authorities. And any groups of more than a half a dozen probably have an FBI/RCMP informant planted among them. And they're not going to be flying fully loaded passenger liners into buildings, either, because suicide is not high on their bucket lists.
Is this information reflected in my post on MLW ?
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26901-freedom-of-speech/?do=findComment&comment=1267387
For a much smaller group, the far-right seems to do a similar amount of damage.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 14, 2017, 06:08:00 am
Who's going to assimilate faster, an Irishman or an Afghan?
An Irishman. But the question isn't that as such, it's what do they bring, and can they assimilate well enough ?
I have already proposed that the government should (or perhaps does) submit all key variables into a formula and find out what happens.
Post by: SirJohn on September 14, 2017, 11:54:57 am
You simply don't operate in reality. I've worked with plenty of Muslim people,who,I would rather have as a neighbour and share more in common with than I do with you.
"I know some nice muslims" is not in any way, shape or form information that should or can be used to discuss broad scale policy with regard to immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Post by: SirJohn on September 14, 2017, 11:59:27 am
Is this information reflected in my post on MLW ?
For a much smaller group, the far-right seems to do a similar amount of damage.
The concern about terrorism is not what has been done - aside from the major attacks, but what might be done. 106 victims of right wing wackos in the last 16 years? If a Muslim terrorist succeeds in downing one major airliner that will triple overnight. We don't have to show up three hours early at the airport because anyone fears a right wing kook will blow up the plane, you know.
But in any event, this should not be reduced to terrorism. My issue with wide scale immigration has never been mainly about terrorism but about the degree to which a religious backed culture with values inimical to ours can grow and sustain itself in Canada and produce a sub-national group hostile to the rest of us.
Post by: SirJohn on September 14, 2017, 12:13:00 pm
An Irishman. But the question isn't that as such, it's what do they bring, and can they assimilate well enough ?
Well, according to the government an Irishman is also far more likely to be economically successful than the Afghan - or a Libyan or an Iranian etc. And economics is why we have an immigration system - or at least, it's supposed to be.
Quote
I have already proposed that the government should (or perhaps does) submit all key variables into a formula and find out what happens.
There is too much resistance among the progressive set of the political and media elites to the concept that our national culture and values might be 'better' than anyone elses's.
Post by: Omni on September 14, 2017, 12:31:44 pm
You don't challenge posts. That's your problem. I don't think you even know how to challenge posts. When you see a post you don't like your instant reply is to insult the poster. In reply to something like a fifty line post of mine about various aspects of immigration under discussion all you come back with is we don't discriminate like 'my buddy' Trump and I wouldn't let brown people into the country. Are you really not aware of what a brainless, stupid, non-contribution that is to any sort of intelligent discussion?
Pius I posted 2 links to surveys that clearly contradicted yet another series of assumptions you toss around to try and support your anti immigration stance. You reply with insults, as per usual. not my problem if contradictory data raises your ire.
Post by: JMT on September 14, 2017, 01:35:28 pm
I asked about ignore, btw. Never got an answer back.
Point made, so I've now deleted the posts.
Post by: JMT on September 14, 2017, 01:55:30 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 14, 2017, 02:37:43 pm
Well, according to the government an Irishman is also far more likely to be economically successful than the Afghan - or a Libyan or an Iranian etc. And economics is why we have an immigration system - or at least, it's supposed to be.
Ok. Well, I would be ok with importing more Irish if it could be quantified however I'm not ok with setting some national quotas at zero. You could emphasize recruiting foreign nationals from better matches though.
Quote
There is too much resistance among the progressive set of the political and media elites to the concept that our national culture and values might be 'better' than anyone elses's.
Because that's vain and frankly unCanadian. We don't have to say our system is better, we obviously believe it or we would be dismantling it instead of moving it forward.
------------
I'm a big fan of playing off flaws against strengths so to speak. What I mean here is that I would like to use our endless busybody and never-shut-up nitpicky nature (reminder I AM Canadian :) ) against our government services to create some kind of real culture of criticism of our services. There should be endless surveys on quality and volume of service, as well as cost comparisons. Maybe in a forum. We could redirect some of the energy we use discussing diversity to the end of the earth on THAT.
Me, conservative.
Post by: SirJohn on September 14, 2017, 04:48:58 pm
Ok. Well, I would be ok with importing more Irish if it could be quantified however I'm not ok with setting some national quotas at zero. You could emphasize recruiting foreign nationals from better matches though.
I don't know as we need to set quotas. I think we should, however, focus our efforts on recruiting people from the nations which A) have a lower failure/high success rate, and B0 have a technological and cultural background which is more compatible with ours.
Quote
Because that's vain and frankly unCanadian. We don't have to say our system is better, we obviously believe it or we would be dismantling it instead of moving it forward.
So honesty is unCanadian?
Quote
I'm a big fan of playing off flaws against strengths so to speak. What I mean here is that I would like to use our endless busybody and never-shut-up nitpicky nature (reminder I AM Canadian :) ) against our government services to create some kind of real culture of criticism of our services. There should be endless surveys on quality and volume of service, as well as cost comparisons. Maybe in a forum. We could redirect some of the energy we use discussing diversity to the end of the earth on THAT.
Me, conservative.
I have no idea how that relates to gender culture, much less immigration and its impact on gender relations, or even if you're serious or pantomining conservatives. But the comparison of their quality should be with what other nations do. And if you compare our health care or legal system with Europe we come out very far behind despite spending roughly the same.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 14, 2017, 04:54:53 pm
1. So honesty is unCanadian?1. Honesty doesn't preclude vanity.
2. I have no idea how that relates to gender culture, much less immigration and its impact on gender relations, or even if you're serious or pantomining conservatives. But the comparison of their quality should be with what other nations do. And if you compare our health care or legal system with Europe we come out very far behind despite spending roughly the same.
2. Thread drift, sorry. "Pantomiming" ? I haven't heard any such suggestion from Conservatives either. Remember the Liberal Red Book ? I was enthusiastic about that one, ie. I was a sucker. I agree that other nations are a benchmark, but if we do this I am convinced we can do better than any nation. We should start by benchmarking ourselves and expecting, as citizens, continual improvement.
Post by: TimG on September 14, 2017, 05:12:26 pm
Would you use a pronoun that someone asked you to ?I would use whichever standard singular pronoun someone wanted me to use (he/she/it). If there was agreement on a new pronoun like 'Ms' for the gender ambiguous such as 'xe' then I would use that too. I would not use 'custom' pronouns and expecting people do use them in discussions with third parties is an unreasonable demand. 'Their' as a singular is as pretentious as the royal 'we' so I would not use that either.
Post by: guest18 on September 14, 2017, 06:11:18 pm
Post by: cybercoma on September 15, 2017, 08:19:09 am
"I know some nice muslims" is not in any way, shape or form information that should or can be used to discuss broad scale policy with regard to immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands.There is nothing you've ever presented that leads me to believe that the government vetting process is failing and we are in some sort of imminent danger. There is nothing I've seen from meeting Syrian refugees and working with Muslims from all different cultural backgrounds that makes me fear them as much as you do.
Post by: SirJohn on September 15, 2017, 10:03:53 am
There is nothing you've ever presented that leads me to believe that the government vetting process is failing and we are in some sort of imminent danger. There is nothing I've seen from meeting Syrian refugees and working with Muslims from all different cultural backgrounds that makes me fear them as much as you do.
I take it you speak Arabic? You know, from meeting them, what's in their minds and souls and hearts because they've openly discussed it all with you? I once had a manager who was very nice. Well, he WAS very nice. But it turned out he was one of those 'adult baby' people. Totally freaking weird! Hadn't a clue!
Working with someone does not give you a hell of a lot of insight into whether they go home and beat their wives, or like to get spanked, or whether they pray daily for an Islamic state and the death of all Jews, or send their 6 year old daughter back 'home' to have her clitoris removed so she doesn't become a ****.
I know, I know, OUR Muslims are COMPLETELY different from all the rest of the world's Muslims because, well.. they came here! So they must be!
Somehow.
Post by: cybercoma on September 15, 2017, 10:06:59 am
This might just blow your mind, but not all Muslims are Arab. You might want to digest that.
Post by: SirJohn on September 15, 2017, 10:13:04 am
So you get to just make up whatever wild assumptions you want about how awful they are and I'm supposed to just believe you?
What have I made up? What assumptions have I made which are not logically derived from existing evidence? I've looked at the Muslim world and its values and cultures, looked at the religious extremism, looked at the surveys of Muslim world opinions, and the extreme misogyny of things like FGM, and decided I don't want any part of that. Is my decision illogical in some way?
Have I ever suggested every member of the Muslim world believes the same way, that they all hate Jews, all treat women like cattle, all want a global caliphate?
Nope. My position is, though, that many, even, in some countries, most of them do, according to polls and surveys and behavior, and that given what the government says about the economic success of immigrants based on source country it makes little sense for us to be taking so many immigrants from these areas.
Quote
This might just blow your mind, but not all Muslims are Arab. You might want to digest that.
Yes, but most of the ones who come to Canada are. And as I stated earlier, Malaysia might not be an Arab country but over 90% of the women there have been subjected to FGM as girls. Islamic extremism is growing in Indonesia, as well. Pakistanis aren't Arabs but those seem like waters we should definitely not be fishing in. Yet it is one of our primary source countries.
Post by: cybercoma on September 15, 2017, 12:28:47 pm
How about you look at the Muslim immigrants and the Canadian-born Muslims here, if you're going to make an argument about our immigration system.
For the umpteenth time, we don't let in just some random sample of Muslims from around the world. There is a lengthy process people go through to get admitted into our country, whether you believe it or not.
Post by: SirJohn on September 15, 2017, 04:36:33 pm
You've looked at the Muslim world, have you?
Enough. I think you know I'm not exaggerating, which is why neither you nor any other of the people who get so angry about my positions on this topic ignore my repeated queries to give me a list of Muslim states which have gay pride parades, where women have equal rights, or where non-Muslims are treated equally to Muslims. Because you know there aren't any.
Quote
How about you look at the Muslim immigrants and the Canadian-born Muslims here, if you're going to make an argument about our immigration system.
I look very closely at any sorts of surveys/polls of Muslim Canadian attitudes, and have discussed them frequently. You missed all that?
The desperation of progressives to assure everyone OUR Muslims are different from THEIR Muslims seems to rest on one of two possible beliefs. Either they follow a different Islam than everyone else. Or they don't really pay much attention to Islamic doctrine. I think this comes from the fact progressive themselves are virtually never very religious and certainly don't take moral lessons from any religion, so they presume nobody else does either (except those horrible fundie Christians).
Of course, that doesn't explain why Muslim women are donning burquas and hijabs in ever greater numbers....
Quote
For the umpteenth time, we don't let in just some random sample of Muslims from around the world. There is a lengthy process people go through to get admitted into our country, whether you believe it or not.
Evidence? None. Simply because you believe it does not make it so.
To repeat, to get into our country you apply by mail. You fill out forms. You send in documents and photocopies (some of which may or may not be faked). This is what attests to whether you qualify to immigrate here. The only security screening consists of checking databases to see if you're listed as a criminal or known terrorist. That's it. There is absolutely no screening done to determine a person's suitability in terms of cultural adaptation, religious extremism, or values that are hostile to ours.
Post by: cybercoma on September 15, 2017, 05:30:15 pm
Post by: SirJohn on September 15, 2017, 06:18:32 pm
Post by: SirJohn on September 15, 2017, 06:22:33 pm
There's literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants in Canada right now. If there was a concerted effort towards violence, you would already be dead.
No, they would be. Muslim numbers are still low in Canada as a percentage of the population to get really militant. And a big chunk of them immigrated decades ago, before the Islamic world became as intolerant as it is now.
Quote
You're suffering from a moral panic. Muslims are your folk devil and it clearly pisses you off when others are shaking in their boots like you are. They're not because the situation isn't remotely close to how you characterize it.
No, what pisses me off is when dumb people insist on turning the conversation away from whatever we were discussing onto ME, so they can rant about their disapproval of my morality. That being the case, I tend to turn the subject to THEM and my disapproval of their ignorance and fatuous stupidity.
Post by: guest4 on September 15, 2017, 08:41:56 pm
I take it you speak Arabic? You know, from meeting them, what's in their minds and souls and hearts because they've openly discussed it all with you? I once had a manager who was very nice. Well, he WAS very nice. But it turned out he was one of those 'adult baby' people. Totally freaking weird! Hadn't a clue!
Working with someone does not give you a hell of a lot of insight into whether they go home and beat their wives, or like to get spanked, or whether they pray daily for an Islamic state and the death of all Jews, or send their 6 year old daughter back 'home' to have her clitoris removed so she doesn't become a ****.
I know, I know, OUR Muslims are COMPLETELY different from all the rest of the world's Muslims because, well.. they came here! So they must be!
Somehow.
This is hilarious from someone who knows the hearts and minds of people he has never spoken to, merely seen on the street or on TV.
Here's an hijabi wearing gay woman who rolls her eyes at people like you:
https://thequeerness.com/2016/04/14/queer-and-hijabi-its-complicated/
Here's another one .. a girl in a Muslim majority country who decided to wear an hijab at age 14, even though her father said she should wait till she was older; she is also queer.
https://www.bgdblog.org/2014/04/tragic-queer-muslim-story/
Here are 8 more women, all Muslim, all queer, from all over the world.
Yes, I know you will attempt to misrepresent my views so you can keep telling yourself how wrong I am, so here are my qualifying statements:
Islam is generally a misogynistic religion.
Muslim majority countries do not feature equal rights for women or gays.
Finding a few stories about gay Muslim people doesn't change either of the above facts, but what it does do is demonstrate just how wrong you are in your assumptions.
Post by: kimmy on September 16, 2017, 02:15:12 am
I know, I know, OUR Muslims are COMPLETELY different from all the rest of the world's Muslims because, well.. they came here! So they must be!
I don't think this is particularly an Islam thing, and more of a "crappy cultures" type thing. I don't think East African Muslims are any worse than West African Christians, for example. That's why western Africa has been such fertile ground for US Christian hate-preachers like Scott Lively.
Now, of course most of the Muslims who do arrive in Canada will be from places that are various shades of awful, whereas most of the Christians who arrive here will be from places that are at least slightly civilized. But that's not explicitly an Islam issue.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 16, 2017, 02:50:22 am
so here are my qualifying statements:
Islam is generally a misogynistic religion.
Muslim majority countries do not feature equal rights for women or gays.
...but you don't get why people are concerned with bringing large numbers of people from places with widespread homophobia and misogyny into Canada?
I expect that we're getting tens of thousands of Rohingyas in the near future. I'm sure they're highly progressive.
-k
Post by: Omni on September 16, 2017, 07:21:19 am
...but you don't get why people are concerned with bringing large numbers of people from places with widespread homophobia and misogyny into Canada?Sounds like a little argus influence to me . tsk tsk.
I expect that we're getting tens of thousands of Rohingyas in the near future. I'm sure they're highly progressive.
-k
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 08:19:28 am
...but you don't get why people are concerned with bringing large numbers of people from places with widespread homophobia and misogyny into Canada?
Perhaps it's the way in which people present the concerns that has me convinced they are not credible.
Using a survey to "prove" that Muslim Canadians are not integrating into Canada, while denying the parts of the same survey that demonstrate they are, by claiming that the Muslim respondents must have lied about those parts.
Claiming that all Muslims "look and think the same".
Claiming that Muslims can't and won't change, despite clear evidence that they have and do.
Claims that the government is just itching to bring in Sharia law to impose on all Canadians.
Claiming that Sharia law is always brutal, when it has many different forms and, especially in secular countries, is often simply dealing with family matters such as divorce and inheritance (and this might be bad enough, but since there is never any discussion beyond "OMG, Sharia - they'll cut off your head if you aren't Muslim" - well, who knows?).
Claiming that M-103 is actually a bill against Free speech.
Bringing up every misdeed by anyone Muslim, as if non-Muslim Canadians don't do exactly the same kinds of things.
Claiming that when Muslims get to X%, they "take over", when in actuality there are several examples, worldwide, of Muslims having those numbers and yet not "taking over".
Investigating news stories about "Muslims demand (something terrible)" and finding out the actual situation is nothing like described.
Being invited to "look at what is happening in Europe" and not being able to find credible evidence that what is being claimed is accurate. Now, maybe it is - this is one area where I remain unsure because while I can find lots of scary headlines, I can't find much in way of what I would consider credible reports. Still, Europe is quite far away and I may indeed be missing something. So - for example - while I have no doubt that something happened on New Year's in Germany, I remain unsure if it was coordinated, if it really involved 100s of Muslim immigrants, and if all the incidents were sexual assaults, or if most were robberies. Same with the report of the concert that was cancelled because of "Muslims": Something like 12 sexual assaults in a crowd of 30,000 resulted in organizers saying they weren't going to risk women's safety. Good on them. Some sources were only too eager to declare this was because of "Muslim refugees". But were all 12 assaults perpetrated by Muslims - none of the less biased sources claimed they were Muslim. Do similar assaults never happen in Canada when 10s of thousands of people are gathered? Why, yes they do - but again, Muslims are not mentioned. And of course, the claim that "the MSM isn't reporting them because of political correctness" or whatever, just seems like an excuse to believe what one wants to believe, and not really credible either.
So yeah, I'm pretty damn skeptical of a lot of these stories and claims.
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 08:45:20 am
...but you don't get why people are concerned with bringing large numbers of people from places with widespread homophobia and misogyny into Canada?
-k
I would agree that by and large, Muslims are more conservative than the general population. But so are Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., so I don't see Muslim conservatism as any kind of existential threat.
I recognize that domestic violence is an issue with Muslims (and Hindus and Christians and many other religious groups), and that it tends to be higher among immigrant groups (regardless of origin) than among the general population. In my opinion, domestic violence within the Muslim community can and should be addressed within the wider issue of domestic violence in Canada and within immigrant groups.
I recognize that homophobic attitudes also exist in higher numbers among the Muslim population, but homophobia is not, by any means, limited to Muslims: rednecks all across the country would agree with them. And again, in my opinion, homophobia should be addressed within Canada for all groups, not just Muslims.
I think "large numbers" is relative. Not all of our 250,000 immigrants to Canada are from "conservative" countries (Middle East, Africa, etc). Even for those who are from those countries, not all of them are going to be misogynistic or homophobic. I agree that most will probably have that "man as head of the house" attitude and will disapprove of homosexuality, but most of those will also not be interested in imposing those beliefs on the rest of us. Even in Muslim-majority countries where homosexuality is illegal, homosexuals live - their family/friends even know, and do not turn them in so while they may disapprove, most don't disapprove enough to want to harm that person. As for "misogyny" - that term is somewhat subjective. By some opinion, every Christian household who has man as head, female as submissive is misogynistic. By other opinions, the 'good ol' boys' club in corporate culture isn't the least misogynistic - women are kept in lower/female professions because they 'choose' to be there by having babies and other such frivolous behavior.
This isn't to say that I think there is no misogyny in Islam, because I do - their whole notion that women are entitled to less inheritance or that their word is less credible and similar is pretty disgusting. Cultural practices like FGM and marrying a woman to her rapist, or blaming a woman for being **** - even more disgusting. Still, we have laws against that kind of stuff in Canada and while it's true that not everyone will follow the law, it's also true that as a species, humans are more inclined than not to behave within the norms of their society - that inherent attribute is a key component of why we've managed to live in successfully in large groups, in Saudi Arabia or Canada. There are always outliers, of course, whether it's a woman in SA who wears a miniskirt in public or a man in Canada who kills "his" woman for any reason whatsoever.
The problem I see with deciding that because Muslims come from countries which have laws against gays and fail on gender equality, then all Muslims must agree and so we should limit or eliminate their entry into our country is that we fail the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt, we fail the homosexuals who are trying to live safely within their country, we fail the men and women worldwide who are working to reform Islam, whether from outside or inside their Muslim-majority countries. Instead of giving a battered woman a chance to leave her batterer, we say no - stay where you are until you are just like us. Instead of offering a safe place for a Muslim person who might be gay - we say no - the risk to us is too great because while you might be ok, your family/friends might not be. I personally don't want to do that.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 09:45:49 am
This is hilarious
A series of cites about a few gay Muslims is somehow supposed to answer all the polls and surveys on Muslim attitudes, not to mention the preponderance of FGM in your favorite, woman friendly Muslim country - Egypt? No, of course not. Even you admit that. I'm not even sure what your post is about then, other than to try to once again argue against the straw man I've denied many times, that I believe ALL Muslims are horrid.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 10:00:28 am
Perhaps it's the way in which people present the concerns that has me convinced they are not credible.
What, with facts and figures and polls, you mean?
Quote
Using a survey to "prove" that Muslim Canadians are not integrating into Canada, while denying the parts of the same survey that demonstrate they are, by claiming that the Muslim respondents must have lied about those parts.
As I recall, the survey in question was a much softer duplicate of one taken in the UK. Both asked whether Muslims were proud of being Canadians/British, and both returned very high numbers in the affirmative. You suggested this meant they were integrating. However, the British poll also asked questions the Canadian poll didn't, like should homosexuals be imprisoned. Half of British Muslims said they should be. Is there a reason to believe half of Canadian Muslims wouldn't agree?
Quote
Claiming that all Muslims "look and think the same".
Never made any such claim. Although I do believe that devoted Muslims believe in Islam. That seems to bother you endlessly.
Quote
Claiming that Muslims can't and won't change, despite clear evidence that they have and do.
Never made that claim either. I simply pointed out that cultural values reinforced by religion are far more difficult to shed than those which derive from a country left behind.
Quote
Claims that the government is just itching to bring in Sharia law to impose on all Canadians.
Nonsense.
Quote
Claiming that Sharia law is always brutal
It is. End of discussion. Anyone who believes in Sharia has no place in Canada. Anyone who supports Sharia has no place in Canada. Deport them all, whether they're Muslims or not.
Quote
Claiming that M-103 is actually a bill against Free speech.
No, its a bill that calls for a study which would set the stage for laws against free speech.
Quote
Bringing up every misdeed by anyone Muslim, as if non-Muslim Canadians don't do exactly the same kinds of things.
If I brought up every misdeed by anyone Muslims I wouldn't have time to do anything else but post them 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.
Quote
Claiming that when Muslims get to X%, they "take over", when in actuality there are several examples, worldwide, of Muslims having those numbers and yet not "taking over".
This, once again, is a figment of your tormented imagination.
Most of your claims are just shrill blathering from a person whose entire view of the subject is governed by her in-laws who are nice to her.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 10:07:09 am
The problem I see with deciding that because Muslims come from countries which have laws against gays and fail on gender equality, then all Muslims must agree and so we should limit or eliminate their entry into our country is that we fail the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt,
I'm not interested in what happens to the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt. This is the major failing all you progressives have on immigration. You regard it as a giant welfare scheme intended to create better lives for the world's poor and downtrodden. It's NOT. It's sole intention is to make life better for Canadians.
There is only one genuine reason for mass immigration, and as tenuous as the support for the belief is, that's to improve our economic well-being. That being the case, why are we bringing in so many people from areas of the world the Canadian government has found produce the least economically successful immigrants? When you add on the cultural issues which make it much harder for Muslims to integrate as well as creating potential dangers for gays and Jews in Canada, and potentially increasing the odds of terrorist events, that adds up, to me, to bypassing this region.
There is no way to argue against the logic of that position so you resort to emotionalisms and personal attacks.
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 10:08:06 am
A series of cites about a few gay Muslims is somehow supposed to answer all the polls and surveys on Muslim attitudes, not to mention the preponderance of FGM in your favorite, woman friendly Muslim country - Egypt? No, of course not. Even you admit that. I'm not even sure what your post is about then, other than to try to once again argue against the straw man I've denied many times, that I believe ALL Muslims are horrid.
Yes, you do sometimes say "Not all Muslims are bad", and then you also say things like "they all look and think alike" and "they can't change" and "they're backwards and ignorant" and only allow the "anti-Muslim" part of a survey to stand as truth. Like the tweets that come from Trump's hand speak more loudly than his teleprompted speeches, your constant anti-Muslim screeds outweigh your occasional acknowledgement that Muslims aren't all horrid.
So, my identification of real Muslims who are nothing like you claim "most" Muslims are is merely the tip of the iceberg you refuse to see. I can admit they are not yet the majority; how about you try seeing the reality that the 'horrid' Muslims are not nearly the monsters you'd have us believe.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 10:10:27 am
Yes, you do sometimes say "Not all Muslims are bad", and then you also say things like "they all look and think alike" and "they can't change" and "they're backwards and ignorant"
I've never said they all look alike or think alike. I've never said they can't change. I do believe anyone who clings to the severe religious dogma of Islam is backwards and ignorant, however.
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 10:47:21 am
What, with facts and figures and polls, you mean?You mean, those facts/figures/polls that you will only accept the part that supports YOUR anti-Muslim agenda? The Muslims who said "I'm proud of Canada" or "I appreciate Canada's diversity and freedoms" must be lying? Those were YOUR words. If you don't remember, I will find the post. And, incidentally - you are the only one I'm aware of who has actually outright rejected the part of the poll that didn't support his claim by saying the respondents must have lied.
Quote
As I recall, the survey in question was a much softer duplicate of one taken in the UK. Both asked whether Muslims were proud of being Canadians/British, and both returned very high numbers in the affirmative. You suggested this meant they were integrating. However, the British poll also asked questions the Canadian poll didn't, like should homosexuals be imprisoned. Half of British Muslims said they should be. Is there a reason to believe half of Canadian Muslims wouldn't agree?
Here is a gay British Muslim's man's thoughts regarding that poll - it both supports the anti-Muslim interpretation and invites people to think a little bit differently about this issue: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-gay-british-muslim-this-is-what-i-think-of-the-survey-finding-over-half-of-british-muslims-want-a6978881.html
Quote
Never made any such claim. Although I do believe that devoted Muslims believe in Islam. That seems to bother you endlessly.Yeah, you did. Do I have to go find the post? Not that you are the only one that thinks like that - so that statement wasn't just referring to you.
Quote
Never made that claim either. I simply pointed out that cultural values reinforced by religion are far more difficult to shed than those which derive from a country left behind.
I don't know if you've made this statement or not, but it has been made by many people who share your agenda. Keep in mind, not everything is about you, even if I post it.
Quote
Nonsense.I agree it's nonsense, but as I have said before - and which you seem to have trouble understanding - not everything I post is explicitly about you.
Quote
It is. End of discussion. Anyone who believes in Sharia has no place in Canada. Anyone who supports Sharia has no place in Canada. Deport them all, whether they're Muslims or not.Sharia law as practiced in many countries does not include any kind of physical brutality. One may disagree with the family law aspect of Sharia, but the claim that it is always about cutting off limbs/heads or stoning people is simply wrong. And as long as such ignorance continues, then the discussion is not over. And, again a reminder - since many people accept ignorance over knowledge, this statement is not explicitly about you, in case you thought it was.
A true debate cannot happen about anything when people prefer lurid exaggerations over fact and substance.
Quote
No, its a bill that calls for a study which would set the stage for laws against free speech.Funny how the same warning was sounded for the Ottawa Protocol in 2010, yet Canadians are still free to criticize Isreal.
Quote
Nov 10, 2010 – Free speech advocates warn that Canadians face severe restrictions on freedom of expression if the definition of anti-Semitism recommended in Ottawa this week is adopted.https://seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.com/cpcca/icca-ottawa-protocol/ (https://seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.com/cpcca/icca-ottawa-protocol/)
The definition of anti-Semitism advocated by the self-styled Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (ICCA) would outlaw legitimate political opinion as a means to silence criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.
According to the Seriously Free Speech Committee, if governments and other bodies adopt the proposed definition contained in the Ottawa Protocol. the following statements would be condemned or criminalized:
• I consider Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in 2009 that resulted in the killing of 1,400 Palestinians, many of them children, to be a crime against humanity.
• Israel’s apartheid policies make it an appropriate target for an international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions
So excuse me if I call bunk on a similar claim made against M103.
Quote
If I brought up every misdeed by anyone Muslims I wouldn't have time to do anything else but post them 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.This is not something that you do. But then my post wasn't specifically about you, despite your conviction that everything I post is about you.
Quote
This, once again, is a figment of your tormented imagination.And, once again, not specifically abut you - despite your tormented imagining that I only ever post about you or to you.
Quote
Most of your claims are just shrill blathering from a person who seems to have devoted their life to the expansion and protection of Islam.Islam, along with Christianity and every other religion, can go hang as far as I'm concerned. But the ignorance and hyperbole that is being spread about Muslims as people, and resulting in law-abiding Muslism (not to mention Sikhs and other brown people) being attacked verbally and physically, is as wrong as the religions themselves.
Post by: guest7 on September 16, 2017, 11:24:11 am
But the ignorance and hyperbole that is being spread about Muslims as people, and resulting in law-abiding Muslism (not to mention Sikhs and other brown people) being attacked verbally and physically, is as wrong as the religions themselves.
Just in today's paper, ISIS has claimed responsibility for yesterday's London bombing fail, and a Christian has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy.
At what point do we have to stop talking about such things to avoid them being considered ignorance and hyperbole?
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 16, 2017, 11:29:15 am
Option 1: Blame & Shame Muslims in Canada
Option 2: Stop talking about Islam
Stupid choices.
Post by: guest7 on September 16, 2017, 11:31:16 am
Talking past each other.
Option 1: Blame & Shame Muslims in Canada
Option 2: Stop talking about Islam
Stupid choices.
That was my point...
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 16, 2017, 11:32:41 am
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 11:37:05 am
Just in today's paper, ISIS has claimed responsibility for yesterday's London bombing fail, and a Christian has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy.
At what point do we have to stop talking about such things to avoid them being considered ignorance and hyperbole?
Maybe at the point that a Christian who performed an honor killing in Isreal last July is highlighted with screaming headlines, status updates and posts as an example of the barbarity of Christians? Or when the Jewish and Christian practice of circumcising boys is condemned and it's religious adherents have to undergo 'screening' to prove they are worthy of being admitted into Canada? How about noting how many parents who horrendously mistreat their children in American and Canada because they are "Christians"? Or maybe when Christians who disapprove of homosexuality are condemned as roundly as Muslims, because some Christians in Africa and the Middle East kill homosexuals? How about when we start insisting that Nigerian and Russian Christians should not be welcome in Canada because gays are jailed in both of those predominantly Christian countries? Maybe when RW and LW terror groups aren't excused from their crimes because 'they're lone wolves, and not religious'.
How about that, eh? And please don't start with 'but it doesn't happen as much ...', because really that's irrelevant. If you are going to condemn one person or group for some action, you can't give a pass to another person or group who does the same thing because they have a different reason or religion.
Post by: guest7 on September 16, 2017, 11:45:36 am
Maybe at the point that a Christian who performed an honor killing in Isreal last July is highlighted with screaming headlines, status updates and posts as an example of the barbarity of Christians? Or when the Jewish and Christian practice of circumcising boys is condemned and it's religious adherents have to undergo 'screening' to prove they are worthy of being admitted into Canada? How about noting how many parents who horrendously mistreat their children in American and Canada because they are "Christians"? Or maybe when Christians who disapprove of homosexuality are condemned as roundly as Muslims, because some Christians in Africa and the Middle East kill homosexuals? How about when we start insisting that Nigerian and Russian Christians should not be welcome in Canada because gays are jailed in both of those predominantly Christian countries? Maybe when RW and LW terror groups aren't excused from their crimes because 'they're lone wolves, and not religiious'.
How about that, eh? And please don't start with 'but it doesn't happen as much ...', because really that's irrelevant. If you are going to condemn one person or group for some action, you can't give a pass to another person or group who does the same thing because they have a different reason or religion.
Actually, the prevelance of an action is not at all irrelevant. All of the things you mention have been condemned on this site and the other. (well, I don't know about this site. I haven't been on here as much) I have posted about Christian atrocities, posted against MGM, (not as vociferously, for obvious reasons) posted about barbaric african cultures, including witchcraft and Albino dismembering. I admit Russian Christian immigration has managed to find its way under my radar.
The point is, when something awful happens, how often it happens is very important. The idea that Muslim atrocities are posted on because of racism is nonsense. They are posted on because they are atrocious. And common.
Post by: kimmy on September 16, 2017, 11:49:39 am
I would agree that by and large, Muslims are more conservative than the general population. But so are Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., so I don't see Muslim conservatism as any kind of existential threat.
Not an existential threat, just another obstacle against progress.
Earlier in this thread we were talking about how Megan Murphy's view (that trans people with male physiology shouldn't be in female-only safe spaces) makes her a "radical" in the eyes of the progressives, and how they want to "get" her for not being progressive enough.
Meanwhile the same progressives are all in favor of bringing in tens of thousands more people from countries where people don't think men and women should even pray together, let alone shower together, and where trans people would be imprisoned or worse.
Megan Murphy is the devil incarnate for not being progressive enough on trans rights, while bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants and refugees who for the most part think trans people are an abomination is a great idea that should be encouraged.
I just don't get it.
I think "large numbers" is relative. Not all of our 250,000 immigrants to Canada are from "conservative" countries (Middle East, Africa, etc).
I looked at this a while back and concluded that of the roughly 250,000 there were a bit under 100,000 from countries I viewed as being conservative Muslim nations-- North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East aside from Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
Even for those who are from those countries, not all of them are going to be misogynistic or homophobic. I agree that most will probably have that "man as head of the house" attitude and will disapprove of homosexuality, but most of those will also not be interested in imposing those beliefs on the rest of us.
They might not come to Canada with the idea of turning it into the new Saudi Arabia, but when politicians like Jason Kenney reach out to them and say "hey, we oppose gay people too! let's be friends!" they may well listen. That was the basis of the Conservative Party's "ethnic outreach" efforts about 10-12 years ago. Taking out ads in non-English community papers-- the Sikh newspapers, the Arabic newspapers, promoting a socially conservative message that was well to the right of what the party was willing to say in English.
The problem I see with deciding that because Muslims come from countries which have laws against gays and fail on gender equality, then all Muslims must agree and so we should limit or eliminate their entry into our country is that we fail the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt, we fail the homosexuals who are trying to live safely within their country, we fail the men and women worldwide who are working to reform Islam, whether from outside or inside their Muslim-majority countries. Instead of giving a battered woman a chance to leave her batterer, we say no - stay where you are until you are just like us. Instead of offering a safe place for a Muslim person who might be gay - we say no - the risk to us is too great because while you might be ok, your family/friends might not be. I personally don't want to do that.
I believe that homosexual people living in Muslim countries are treated by Canada as valid refugee claimants. As for the woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to wear a mini-skirt, she's not coming to Canada. She can't even drive to the airport or leave the house without a male guardian. Saudi Arabia is a dirt-bag country in so many ways that are so much worse than not being able to wear mini-skirts. There's apparently not much we can do about it.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 11:50:02 am
The point is, when something awful happens, how often it happens is very important. The idea the Muslim atrocities are posted on because of racism is nonsense. They are posted on because they are atrocious. And common.
Bingo.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 11:55:26 am
Talking past each other.
Option 1: Blame & Shame Muslims in Canada
Option 2: Stop talking about Islam
Stupid choices.
I don't think I've ever 'blamed' Muslims in Canada. Shame, on the other hand, can be useful in remediation of anti social behaviour. Or if not shame then certainly criticism. Certainly if we take the view of progressives, who declare Muslim reformers as 'Islamophobes' we're never going to encourage Muslims to change their archaic and stupid views of society, values and tolerance. The only way they're going to change is by talking about it and pointing out how backward and intolerable everyone else finds the misogyny and religious chauvinism being taught. And being taught HERE. I have no doubt that Irshad Manji's experience in a Muslim school in Richmond is being duplicated today at other Muslim schools.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 12:01:52 pm
I looked at this a while back and concluded that of the roughly 250,000 there were a bit under 100,000 from countries I viewed as being conservative Muslim nations-- North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East aside from Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
I agree with pretty much all you've said. I'd just like to point out that it isn't JUST Muslims who have extremely archaic and vicious views of women and gays. We've seen a ton of that in India, as well, a country which is generally acknowledged as among the most misogynistic and racist in the world - not one that thinks much of gays either btw. And India is our number two source country.
My concerns have often been depicted as solely about Muslims but anyone but it's really for any great flood of people with what I view as violently intolerant, anti-Canadian social views, especially when they're supported by deeply held religious beliefs.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 16, 2017, 12:03:35 pm
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 12:06:40 pm
More hypberbolic binary choices...
I don't know if you meant to communicate something with that but if so... it didn't work very well.
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 12:43:49 pm
Actually, the prevelance of an action is not at all irrelevant. All of the things you mention have been condemned on this site and the other. (well, I don't know about this site. I haven't been on here as much) I have posted about Christian atrocities, posted against MGM, (not as vociferously, for obvious reasons) posted about barbaric african cultures, including witchcraft and Albino dismembering. I admit Russian Christian immigration has managed to find its way under my radar.
The point is, when something awful happens, how often it happens is very important. The idea that Muslim atrocities are posted on because of racism is nonsense. They are posted on because they are atrocious. And common.
So one of my guilty pleasures is true crime stories. I've read a lot, and watched a lot on TV. It's quite eye-opening how often some Christian-based belief is implicated in abuse of children and wife-beating. The parents or man may not intend to kill their children/wife, but only to 'discipline' this as part of their Christian duty. When these stories are broadcast (if they are), the religious aspect is rarely reported on unless it's really sensational. With crimes committed by Muslims, it seems the religion is the *only* thing that is considered significant.
In terms of spousal abuse and the death of women at the hands of their partners, even when there is no connection to religion, one wonders why so many men think it's acceptable to beat their woman to the point of death. What is it about our Western culture that makes this acceptable in anyone's mind? Why should a Muslim who beats his wife be more blameworthy than a non-religious person who beats his wife?
Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed? Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS? Not knowing about these things does not mean they don't happen; it means that we are being led by the nose to underestimate barbaric behavior by some groups and, by comparison, overestimate it by other groups.
It's all horrible. People are, basically, horrible. Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity. However, I believe most individuals within every group are relatively decent human beings who don't wish harm, nor cause harm to others. If it were the other way around, there would be a lot less of all of us in the world.
Post by: guest7 on September 16, 2017, 01:18:22 pm
So one of my guilty pleasures is true crime stories. I've read a lot, and watched a lot on TV. It's quite eye-opening how often some Christian-based belief is implicated in abuse of children and wife-beating. The parents or man may not intend to kill their children/wife, but only to 'discipline' this as part of their Christian duty. When these stories are broadcast (if they are), the religious aspect is rarely reported on unless it's really sensational. With crimes committed by Muslims, it seems the religion is the *only* thing that is considered significant.
In terms of spousal abuse and the death of women at the hands of their partners, even when there is no connection to religion, one wonders why so many men think it's acceptable to beat their woman to the point of death. What is it about our Western culture that makes this acceptable in anyone's mind? Why should a Muslim who beats his wife be more blameworthy than a non-religious person who beats his wife?
Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed? Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS? Not knowing about these things does not mean they don't happen; it means that we are being led by the nose to underestimate barbaric behavior by some groups and, by comparison, overestimate it by other groups.
It's all horrible. People are, basically, horrible. Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity. However, I believe most individuals within every group are relatively decent human beings who don't wish harm, nor cause harm to others. If it were the other way around, there would be a lot less of all of us in the world.
I suppose it just gets back to the prevalence. I don't read true crime stories, but I'm addicted to the major news sources. I almost never do not have the internet, TV or radio tuned to the BBC, CBC, NPR, or one of the major British or North American Broadsheets. Muslims make the news more often because Muslims make the news more often.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 02:25:46 pm
So one of my guilty pleasures is true crime stories. I've read a lot, and watched a lot on TV. It's quite eye-opening how often some Christian-based belief is implicated in abuse of children and wife-beating. The parents or man may not intend to kill their children/wife, but only to 'discipline' this as part of their Christian duty. When these stories are broadcast (if they are), the religious aspect is rarely reported on unless it's really sensational. With crimes committed by Muslims, it seems the religion is the *only* thing that is considered significant.
That's nonsense. No one really even pays attention to crimes by Muslims UNLESS they touch on religion. Do Muslims rob banks? Yes. Do Muslims engage in fraud? Yes. Do Muslims get involved in fights? Yes. Do Muslims steal cars? Yes, sure. Nobody cares.
Quote
In terms of spousal abuse and the death of women at the hands of their partners, even when there is no connection to religion, one wonders why so many men think it's acceptable to beat their woman to the point of death. What is it about our Western culture that makes this acceptable in anyone's mind? Why should a Muslim who beats his wife be more blameworthy than a non-religious person who beats his wife?
Who says he is? But here's what you leave out. We have made spousal/domestic violence a high priority for police. There are numerous public campaigns decrying it, organized groups working to end it, shelters available and special laws and specially trained police in every city to deal with it. Thus most of the incidents today generally relate to alcohol and drug abuse.
There are no special laws in the Muslim world dealing with spousal violence, no shelters, and no police units assigned to it. In most Muslim countries it would astonish police to have such a thing reported, and they'd almost certainly ignore it if it were. A man's right to beat his wife is assumed. In some surveys of Muslim women they take it for granted they'd be beaten if they did something like make a doctor's appointment for themselves without their husband's permission, or go out without his permission, or if the house is dirty.
Quote
Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed? Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS?
Cite? I presume it's some minor cult, not recognized by mainstream Christian Churches. That's a hell of a difference right there. Such things are largely unknown in the Christian world, but common in the Muslim world. No one has said Christians can't be crazy or religious wackos. But there seems an awful lot less of them.
Quote
People are, basically, horrible. Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity.
Absolute bullshit. Our western culture and values are centuries ahead of the primitivism of the Muslim world in almost every way.
Post by: cybercoma on September 16, 2017, 03:39:06 pm
I don't think this is particularly an Islam thing, and more of a "crappy cultures" type thing. I don't think East African Muslims are any worse than West African Christians, for example. That's why western Africa has been such fertile ground for US Christian hate-preachers like Scott Lively.Most of the Muslims coming here are fleeing the ****. The **** don't want to live in a plural, democratic and mostly Christian country.
Now, of course most of the Muslims who do arrive in Canada will be from places that are various shades of awful, whereas most of the Christians who arrive here will be from places that are at least slightly civilized. But that's not explicitly an Islam issue.
-k
Post by: cybercoma on September 16, 2017, 03:41:37 pm
Yes, you do sometimes say "Not all Muslims are bad", and then you also say things like "they all look and think alike" and "they can't change" and "they're backwards and ignorant" and only allow the "anti-Muslim" part of a survey to stand as truth. Like the tweets that come from Trump's hand speak more loudly than his teleprompted speeches, your constant anti-Muslim screeds outweigh your occasional acknowledgement that Muslims aren't all horrid.And the horrid ones are not the ones emigrating here.
So, my identification of real Muslims who are nothing like you claim "most" Muslims are is merely the tip of the iceberg you refuse to see. I can admit they are not yet the majority; how about you try seeing the reality that the 'horrid' Muslims are not nearly the monsters you'd have us believe.
Post by: cybercoma on September 16, 2017, 03:44:32 pm
I don't think I've ever 'blamed' Muslims in Canada.by going after the immigration system you sure as **** do.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 06:01:12 pm
Most of the Muslims coming here are fleeing the ****. The **** don't want to live in a plural, democratic and mostly Christian country.
Most of the Muslims coming here are not fleeing the ****. They're coming here because we're rich and they can have far better lives. The ones who are swarming into Europe aren't stopping at the first safe place. Hell, they didn't even stop at Turkey. They're marching right through the poorer southern and eastern European countries headed for nirvana, the rich northern European countries.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 06:05:19 pm
by going after the immigration system you sure as **** do.
I'm pro Canadian, not anti-foreigner. I'm not afflicted with the desperate guilt so many on the Left have that we aren't losers in life. I think the only immigrants we should bring in are those who can adopt our ways and be an economic benefit to Canada.
I don't see how that is 'blaming' Canadian Muslims.
Post by: Omni on September 16, 2017, 07:11:38 pm
I'm pro Canadian, not anti-foreigner. I'm not afflicted with the desperate guilt so many on the Left have that we aren't losers in life. I think the only immigrants we should bring in are those who can adopt our ways and be an economic benefit to Canada.
I don't see how that is 'blaming' Canadian Muslims.
And if you chose to check any accurate statistics you would find that most of the immigrants that we allow into Canada DO benefit the country economically. But we know that doesn't fit with your "perception" of things.
Post by: SirJohn on September 16, 2017, 08:06:39 pm
And if you chose to check any accurate statistics you would find that most of the immigrants that we allow into Canada DO benefit the country economically. But we know that doesn't fit with your "perception" of things.
There are no statistics which show that. The government has never undertake a study justifying the economics of immigration. There are some very lefty think-tanks which will say how immigration is a wonderful thing but there are no realistic statistics or studies which show this.
And even if there were, the fact that the government, as well as others, have found immigrants from the Middle East are the worst economic performers ought, by itself, to persuade any reasonable person that we should be aiming our immigration at other sources.
Post by: Omni on September 16, 2017, 08:44:48 pm
There are no statistics which show that. The government has never undertake a study justifying the economics of immigration. There are some very lefty think-tanks which will say how immigration is a wonderful thing but there are no realistic statistics or studies which show this.
And even if there were, the fact that the government, as well as others, have found immigrants from the Middle East are the worst economic performers ought, by itself, to persuade any reasonable person that we should be aiming our immigration at other sources.
Sorry to burst your bubble...again.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/immigration-is-a-net-economic-benefit-this-is-a-story-canada-should-build-on/article31854798/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
http://www.immigration.ca/assessing-economic-impact-migration/
Post by: SirJohn on September 17, 2017, 09:45:29 am
Sorry to burst your bubble...again.
I'm going to guess you neither read, nor if you did, understood any of the cites you posted. Nevertheless, I will deal with them one by one.
1. Andrew Coyne and his opinion that Canada should grow to a population of 100 million, not because it will help our economy, but because it will give us clout on the international scene and allow us to 'live bigger lives'. What fatuous blather. There are no statistics here. It is just the opinion of an internationalist who hates Canada as it is. Much like you do.
2. Beesma Momani and her opinion that immigrants are a benefit to Canada - small wonder given she is one, but contains no statistics or evidence. It's simply an opinion piece.
3. The web site of an immigration lawyer recruiting clients which throws out a scattering of quotes from other sources. The only one of note is an OECD study which says, and I quote "Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits."
Let's leave aside how you quantify their social contribution vs the taxes they consume and look at the study itself. Oh, no link is provided. How odd. Never mind. I found it regardless. And it's very important to the discussion. First, the backup for the above statement.
Recent work on the fiscal impact of migration for all European OECD countries, as well as Australia, Canada and the United States, has provided new and internationally comparative evidence (Liebig and Mo, 2013). The study suggests the impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past 50 years in OECD countries is on average
close to zero, rarely exceeding 0.5% of GDP in either positive or negative terms.
Did you understand that? The study was conducted 4 years ago and concluded there was no positive or negative economic benefit. And it was of ALL OECD countries going back 50 years. Most OECD countries don't allow much migration except from very skilled people. Canada and the US are exceptions. And this study examines immigrants as a collective group dating back as far as 1963. Which means most of the immigrants to Canada, the US and Australia for the first 20 years of the study were Europeans. Now here's the kicker from that report.
Cross-country differences in the fiscal position of immigrant households are shaped by the design of tax and benefit systems and, even more so, by differences in the composition of the migrant population in terms of age and migrant-entry category. In countries where recent labour migrants make up a large part of the immigrant population, immigrants have a much more favourable fiscal position than in countries where humanitarian migrants account for a significant part of the immigrant population.
So the more skilled immigrants you get in, the better. Letting in large numbers on humanitarian purposes, as Canada does, both in terms of refugees and 'family class', is not good, economically.
So there you are, defeated by your own cite - AGAIN.
Post by: guest4 on September 17, 2017, 11:18:33 am
Not an existential threat, just another obstacle against progress.
Earlier in this thread we were talking about how Megan Murphy's view (that trans people with male physiology shouldn't be in female-only safe spaces) makes her a "radical" in the eyes of the progressives, and how they want to "get" her for not being progressive enough.
Meanwhile the same progressives are all in favor of bringing in tens of thousands more people from countries where people don't think men and women should even pray together, let alone shower together, and where trans people would be imprisoned or worse.
Megan Murphy is the devil incarnate for not being progressive enough on trans rights, while bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants and refugees who for the most part think trans people are an abomination is a great idea that should be encouraged.
I just don't get it.
Herein lies the problem with naming 'groups' and claiming they all have the same thoughts - I agree with Murphy that male-looking people don't really need to be in women-only spaces, but because I also don't see a problem with Muslims immigrating to Canada, I'm lumped in with people you might consider hypocritical or inconsistent.
I think Canadian culture is strong enough to withstand conservatism. People from India are generally more 'conservative' than Canadians when it comes to social acceptance of homosexuals or trans people, yet we have still moved ahead with progressive policies despite the hundreds of thousands of Indians that have emigrated to Canada in the last two decades. If conservative immigrants were such a threat to Canadian progressiveness, why does Canadian progressiveness happen despite the ever-increasing number of 'conservative' immigrants within Canada?
Overall, only about 30% of Canadians vote for "Conservative" in any given election, even the immigrants who might want to support a party who espoused family values and whose members were also more likely to disapprove of homosexuality and trans people. The claim is that of course the "immigrants" want to support the party who will 'let more people in', but would they really abandon their intolerance against gays/trans if that were such an inflexible aspect of their culture or religion? Especially since the immigration rate doesn't change much between governments.
Quote
I looked at this a while back and concluded that of the roughly 250,000 there were a bit under 100,000 from countries I viewed as being conservative Muslim nations-- North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East aside from Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.According to this source (http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigrants-by-source-country-2016/ (http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigrants-by-source-country-2016/)), in 2016 we accepted about 71,000 immigrants from conservative Muslim nations. If I were worried about "conservatism" and anti-LGBT attitudes, I would also include India, Eritrea and Russia, all of which have legal sanctions against LGBT, which add another ~49,000 for a total of ~120,000 people with alleged "cultural or religious views not in line with Canadian values". We also accepted ~113,000 people from countries which don't criminalize LGBT activity, although social acceptance isn't as certain. Ultimately, Canada is at the forefront of the world in terms of progressive values, so nearly any country we accept immigrants from is likely to be somewhat socially behind us in terms of 'progressive' values.
And I point out, once again, that we have been accepting refugees from the essentially the same countries, in roughly the same ratios for decades, yet we have still managed to implement progressive policies, and have increased the rights of gays, trans and women. It simply does not seem logical that only those from Muslim-majority countries will suddenly turn us on our ear and result in going backwards in this regard.
Quote
They might not come to Canada with the idea of turning it into the new Saudi Arabia, but when politicians like Jason Kenney reach out to them and say "hey, we oppose gay people too! let's be friends!" they may well listen. That was the basis of the Conservative Party's "ethnic outreach" efforts about 10-12 years ago. Taking out ads in non-English community papers-- the Sikh newspapers, the Arabic newspapers, promoting a socially conservative message that was well to the right of what the party was willing to say in English.
This flies in the face of the conservative argument that "immigrants will only vote Liberal because of Liberals open door policy on immigration, that's why Liberals let in unlimited numbers of immigrants and refugees". I did a quick search and couldn't find anything I considered credible on voting habits of immigrants, but judging by who I see running for various parties, it looks to me as if immigrants tend towards more socially liberal platforms by a slight margin. But I could be wrong about that.
Quote
I believe that homosexual people living in Muslim countries are treated by Canada as valid refugee claimants.
Are homosexuals in Eritrea (50% Christian/50% Islamic), Russia (Catholic official religion) and Uganda (Christian) treated as refugees as well? All three of those countries jail homosexuals, and in Eritrea and Uganda especially, there is not much backlash for attacking and killing them.
Quote
As for the woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to wear a mini-skirt, she's not coming to Canada. She can't even drive to the airport or leave the house without a male guardian.
I agree, the girl from SA wearing a miniskirt isn't coming to Canada, and she is one of the many that gets lumped into the 'Muslims are bad' narrative. And sure, not able to wear a miniskirt is pretty mild compared to other abuses women endure in SA - but the yearning and bravery I saw in this stuck with me.
Quote
Saudi Arabia is a dirt-bag country in so many ways that are so much worse than not being able to wear mini-skirts. There's apparently not much we can do about it.
SA is a dirtbag country and while we could do something about it, we'd rather have oil.
Post by: Omni on September 17, 2017, 12:49:39 pm
I'm going to guess you neither read, nor if you did, understood any of the cites you posted. Nevertheless, I will deal with them one by one.
1. Andrew Coyne and his opinion that Canada should grow to a population of 100 million, not because it will help our economy, but because it will give us clout on the international scene and allow us to 'live bigger lives'. What fatuous blather. There are no statistics here. It is just the opinion of an internationalist who hates Canada as it is. Much like you do.
2. Beesma Momani and her opinion that immigrants are a benefit to Canada - small wonder given she is one, but contains no statistics or evidence. It's simply an opinion piece.
3. The web site of an immigration lawyer recruiting clients which throws out a scattering of quotes from other sources. The only one of note is an OECD study which says, and I quote "Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits."
Let's leave aside how you quantify their social contribution vs the taxes they consume and look at the study itself. Oh, no link is provided. How odd. Never mind. I found it regardless. And it's very important to the discussion. First, the backup for the above statement.
Recent work on the fiscal impact of migration for all European OECD countries, as well as Australia, Canada and the United States, has provided new and internationally comparative evidence (Liebig and Mo, 2013). The study suggests the impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past 50 years in OECD countries is on average
close to zero, rarely exceeding 0.5% of GDP in either positive or negative terms.
Did you understand that? The study was conducted 4 years ago and concluded there was no positive or negative economic benefit. And it was of ALL OECD countries going back 50 years. Most OECD countries don't allow much migration except from very skilled people. Canada and the US are exceptions. And this study examines immigrants as a collective group dating back as far as 1963. Which means most of the immigrants to Canada, the US and Australia for the first 20 years of the study were Europeans. Now here's the kicker from that report.
Cross-country differences in the fiscal position of immigrant households are shaped by the design of tax and benefit systems and, even more so, by differences in the composition of the migrant population in terms of age and migrant-entry category. In countries where recent labour migrants make up a large part of the immigrant population, immigrants have a much more favourable fiscal position than in countries where humanitarian migrants account for a significant part of the immigrant population.
So the more skilled immigrants you get in, the better. Letting in large numbers on humanitarian purposes, as Canada does, both in terms of refugees and 'family class', is not good, economically.
So there you are, defeated by your own cite - AGAIN.
I can see your fear of/bias against immigration, especially by other than WASP's is deeply seated, and not about to be edified by any amount of data which actually supports the practice, so there you'll likely stay. Luckily others, especially those who operate and monitor the system, know better.
Post by: SirJohn on September 17, 2017, 03:28:56 pm
I can see your fear of/bias against immigration, especially by other than WASP's is deeply seated, and not about to be edified by any amount of data which actually supports the practice, so there you'll likely stay. Luckily others, especially those who operate and monitor the system, know better.
I can see that you believe throwing any piece of crap opinion up there ought to be enough to satisfy anyone who dares to question Immigration, but I'm afraid most of us are a lot less ideologically committed to the program and require actual evidence rather than bland reassurances from columnists and immigration lawyers.
By the way, did you notice that NONE of them supported your statement there were statistics and evidence to support the belief immigration helps the economy? No, I suppose not. I guess that's what life is like when you have a closed mind.
Post by: Omni on September 17, 2017, 03:39:12 pm
I can see that you believe throwing any piece of crap opinion up there ought to be enough to satisfy anyone who dares to question Immigration, but I'm afraid most of us are a lot less ideologically committed to the program and require actual evidence rather than bland reassurances from columnists and immigration lawyers.
By the way, did you notice that NONE of them supported your statement there were statistics and evidence to support the belief immigration helps the economy? No, I suppose not. I guess that's what life is like when you have a closed mind.
Speaking of a closed mind, I guess you managed to ignore comments such as:
Labour markets
Migrants accounted for 47% of the increase in the workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past ten years.
Migrants fill important niches both in fast-growing and declining sectors of the economy.
Like the native-born, young migrants are better educated than those nearing retirement.
Migrants contribute significantly to labour-market flexibility, notably in Europe.
Public purse
Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits.
Labour migrants have the most positive impact on the public purse.
Employment is the single biggest determinant of migrants’ net fiscal contribution.
Economic growth
Migration boosts the working-age population.
Migrants arrive with skills and contribute to human capital development of receiving countries.
Migrants also contribute to technological progress.
Post by: SirJohn on September 17, 2017, 04:31:01 pm
Speaking of a closed mind, I guess you managed to ignore comments such as:
Labour markets
Migrants accounted for 47% of the increase in the workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past ten years.
Migrants fill important niches both in fast-growing and declining sectors of the economy.
Like the native-born, young migrants are better educated than those nearing retirement.
Migrants contribute significantly to labour-market flexibility, notably in Europe.
Public purse
Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits.
Labour migrants have the most positive impact on the public purse.
Employment is the single biggest determinant of migrants’ net fiscal contribution.
Economic growth
Migration boosts the working-age population.
Migrants arrive with skills and contribute to human capital development of receiving countries.
Migrants also contribute to technological progress.
All of that boiled down to a section of the OECD report, which I derived the actual summary facts from. I know you're not interested in actual facts, however, but the point remains even this report said there was no economic basis for immigration. Furthermore it was a wide scale study over 50 years of all OECD countries combined, as I said. Very few nations import hundreds of thousands of third world people every year like Canada does and has been doing for over 30 of those years. Thus the statement in the report that migrants neither helped nor hurt an economy can't be taken as fact for Canada and paid more in taxes than they used in services is not relevant. The only such study done of Canada was by the Fraser Institute, which concluded otherwise.
Post by: Omni on September 17, 2017, 07:01:36 pm
All of that boiled down to a section of the OECD report, which I derived the actual summary facts from. I know you're not interested in actual facts, however, but the point remains even this report said there was no economic basis for immigration. Furthermore it was a wide scale study over 50 years of all OECD countries combined, as I said. Very few nations import hundreds of thousands of third world people every year like Canada does and has been doing for over 30 of those years. Thus the statement in the report that migrants neither helped nor hurt an economy can't be taken as fact for Canada and paid more in taxes than they used in services is not relevant. The only such study done of Canada was by the Fraser Institute, which concluded otherwise.
I know you often ignore information that refutes your opinion, but surely even you must be aware that this country was built by immigrants. And I'm sure you can comprehend the idea that, since we not having many babies, and we are getting older, without immigration we could well end up a country of old folks seeking health care and pensions, with nobody at work to pay for those things. Reality trumps xenophobia I'm afraid to have to tell you.
Post by: SirJohn on September 17, 2017, 08:12:05 pm
I know you often ignore information that refutes your opinion, but surely even you must be aware that this country was built by immigrants.
I'm not sure what you mean about 'ignoring' opinions. I read an opinion and then I judge it as to its merit. I'm sorry that it bothers you that I judge almost all of yours to be without merit, but you never have any facts to back up those opinions.
This country was built by immigrants? How is that even relevant? Are you saying that we need to always do what we did a century ago? I could say "This country was built by shoving all the natives aside and ignoring them". Does that mean that's what we should always do? We brought in immigrants when it was in this country's economic interest and in the interest of its people to do so. Those immigrants were, by and large, of the same technological and educational abilities as us and the same or close to the same cultural background for most of the existence of this country. Should we do that again? Bring in mostly immigrants of the same cultural and linguistic background as us?
Quote
And I'm sure you can comprehend the idea that, since we not having many babies, and we are getting older, without immigration we could well end up a country of old folks
That argument would hold some merit if every demographics expert I've looked at (and cited) didn't totally refute immigration as a means to address either a low birth rate or an aging population.
Quote
seeking health care and pensions, with nobody at work to pay for those things.
It's good to have someone else pay for stuff for you, isn't it? That IS the liberal mantra, after all. Unfortunately, the logic escapes me as to how bringing in masses of people who don't earn enough to pay taxes is going to wind up paying for our health care or pensions.
Post by: Omni on September 17, 2017, 08:21:11 pm
I'm not sure what you mean about 'ignoring' opinions. I read an opinion and then I judge it as to its merit. I'm sorry that it bothers you that I judge almost all of yours to be without merit, but you never have any facts to back up those opinions.
This country was built by immigrants? How is that even relevant? Are you saying that we need to always do what we did a century ago? I could say "This country was built by shoving all the natives aside and ignoring them". Does that mean that's what we should always do? We brought in immigrants when it was in this country's economic interest and in the interest of its people to do so. Those immigrants were, by and large, of the same technological and educational abilities as us and the same or close to the same cultural background for most of the existence of this country. Should we do that again? Bring in mostly immigrants of the same cultural and linguistic background as us?
That argument would hold some merit if every demographics expert I've looked at (and cited) didn't totally refute immigration as a means to address either a low birth rate or an aging population.
It's good to have someone else pay for stuff for you, isn't it? That IS the liberal mantra, after all. Unfortunately, the logic escapes me as to how bringing in masses of people who don't earn enough to pay taxes is going to wind up paying for our health care or pensions.
It's more like the stupidity of your argument fails to trump reality.
Well, here's some reading for you which I'm sure will inspire more, but oh well, we're all used to it.
https://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html#gs.IotxFz0
Post by: SirJohn on September 17, 2017, 09:13:35 pm
And once again you show all you can do when challenged and shown wrong is flail around spewing insults. Well, here's some reading for you which I'm sure will inspire more, but oh well, we're all used to it.
https://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html#gs.IotxFz0
First, it provides 5 'scenarios' related to ever increasing immigration, in the top one bringing our population up to 100 million. At the end of listing the five scenarios it says this.
While these scenarios slow the pace of the overall population aging, it is evident that none of them reverse it. In each of these scenarios, the share of the population over the age of 65 exceeds 22 per cent in 2030 (up from 6.1 per cent today). Even in the scenario where Canada’s population reaches 100 million by the turn of the next century, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over never falls below 20 per cent.
I'll throw in another quote. This is from scenario one, which is basically not increasing immigration at all, but keeping it at 268,000, where it was before the Liberals increased it.
If Canada’s current fertility rate of 1.55 continues, the natural increase in the population (births minus deaths) becomes negative by 2034, despite the continued downward trend in death rates. immigration levels rise gradually, but immigration as a share of the population remains the same throughout the forecast. in this scenario, Canada’s population reaches 53.7 million in 2100.
A population of 53.7 million by 2100! I know I'm not worried! Why then do they call for increasing immigration? Because the entire report is based on a macroeconomic desire for growth. Ie, all it cares about is growth in GDP. It only focuses on growing the pie. But with so many extra mouths at the table, growing the pie doesn't necessarily help any of us. Further, the report says absolutely nothing about the type of immigrants coming in. The assumption seems to be that all immigrants will come in and pay taxes to help support the government. Bringing in masses of third world rabble who can only do low skilled jobs is not going to do that. Particularly as low skilled jobs, like taxi driver, are going to disappear over the coming decade or two.
Post by: Omni on September 17, 2017, 09:24:57 pm
You really have to stop sniveling when people insult you back. If you can't take it then stop insulting people. Now, as to your cite, which again, I know you are too intellectually lazy to have actually checked out, let me quote you from the actual report. First, it provides 5 'scenarios' related to ever increasing immigration, in the top one bringing our population up to 100 million. At the end of listing the five scenarios it says this.
While these scenarios slow the pace of the overall population aging, it is evident that none of them reverse it. In each of these scenarios, the share of the population over the age of 65 exceeds 22 per cent in 2030 (up from 6.1 per cent today). Even in the scenario where Canada’s population reaches 100 million by the turn of the next century, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over never falls below 20 per cent.
I'll throw in another quote. This is from scenario one, which is basically not increasing immigration at all, but keeping it at 268,000, where it was before the Liberals increased it.
If Canada’s current fertility rate of 1.55 continues, the natural increase in the population (births minus deaths) becomes negative by 2034, despite the continued downward trend in death rates. immigration levels rise gradually, but immigration as a share of the population remains the same throughout the forecast. in this scenario, Canada’s population reaches 53.7 million in 2100.
A population of 53.7 million by 2100! I know I'm not worried! Why then do they call for increasing immigration? Because the entire report is based on a macroeconomic desire for growth. Ie, all it cares about is growth in GDP. It only focuses on growing the pie. But with so many extra mouths at the table, growing the pie doesn't necessarily help any of us. Further, the report says absolutely nothing about the type of immigrants coming in. The assumption seems to be that all immigrants will come in and pay taxes to help support the government. Bringing in masses of third world rabble who can only do low skilled jobs is not going to do that. Particularly as low skilled jobs, like taxi driver, are going to disappear over the coming decade or two.
Now I know all this analyses is just going to fly right over your head and you'll come back with something insulting, probably about xenophobia, so go ahead.
The majority of immigrants that do arrive in Canada do go to work, do pay taxes, and do contribute to our society. Yes there are Syrian refugees for instance who may take a bit more time to integrate fully, but then again they are escaping a war zone they had nothing to do with creating. We have to be compassionate, at least in my opinion, but apparently it's not yours.
I see Trump has changed his approach to immigration and people of your ilk are burning their MAGA hats. Have you burned yours yet?
Post by: JMT on September 18, 2017, 09:57:17 am
Have a discussion. If you don't want to, just don't talk.
Post by: SirJohn on September 18, 2017, 12:01:40 pm
The majority of immigrants that do arrive in Canada do go to work, do pay taxes, and do contribute to our society.
So given I have completely demolished your argument you've shifted to this. The problem with it is, of course, the total lack of supporting evidence. Further, the illogical nature of it almost goes without saying. If the majority of people don't commit murder does that make society a peaceful place? Hardly. If the majority of employees at a business actualy do some work does that make the place efficient? Clearly not. Multiple reports from multiple sources have documented the deteriorating economic success ratio of our immgriants, largely due to the growing gap between the technological nature of the workplace here vs the third world shitholes they come from.
Given our progressive taxation system means the lower earning 50% of the population is only responsible for 3% of income taxes I don't want to import a bunch of taxi drivers, security guards, janitors and shop clerks. They're not going to do anything but consume taxes.
Quote
Yes there are Syrian refugees for instance who may take a bit more time to integrate fully,
In all likelihood they will NEVER integrate fully, and most will never be taxpayers.
Quote
but then again they are escaping a war zone
They were living safely in Turkey.
Quote
We have to be compassionate, at least in my opinion, but apparently it's not yours.
Compassionate with other people's money. If you want to be compassionate take YOUR money, presuming you have any, and send it to a relief fund that takes care of refugees in Turkey or Lebanon or Jordan. I prefer to be compassionate to people here.
Quote
I see Trump has changed his approach to immigration and people of your ilk are burning their MAGA hats. Have you burned yours yet?
I have always been in favour of allowing children who have grown up in the US to stay there. Further, my opinion of Trump is a matter of substantial record you couldn't possibly fail to have noticed.
Post by: Omni on September 18, 2017, 09:35:10 pm
So given I have completely demolished your argument you've shifted to this.
You've demolished nothing. You continue to try and distance yourself from Trump, but at the same time continue to espouse similar concepts as to immigration.
Post by: kimmy on September 18, 2017, 11:19:15 pm
Most of the Muslims coming here are fleeing the ****. The **** don't want to live in a plural, democratic and mostly Christian country.
I really don't think they're coming here because they have a thirst for democracy, or pluralism, or multiculturalism. I think that for the most part they're coming here because they want a higher standard of living, or because their home countries are being torn apart by sectarian strife. Not because they're upset at the way religious minorities or gay people get treated back home.
And the horrid ones are not the ones emigrating here.
Clearly plenty of horrid ones have emigrated to England and France and Germany and other parts of Europe. What makes you think we're any different?
Alert the authorities....religious people go to religious services!
The disappointing (I did use the word disappointing, not alarming) is that this number is increasing rather than decreasing. I've always assumed that as newcomers come to Canada they'll become more secular, as religious Canadians have over the years. Clearly that isn't happening.
Considering I'd be put in prison or worse if I went to their countries, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in feeling concerned that these attitudes are growing in Canada.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 18, 2017, 11:59:36 pm
Herein lies the problem with naming 'groups' and claiming they all have the same thoughts - I agree with Murphy that male-looking people don't really need to be in women-only spaces, but because I also don't see a problem with Muslims immigrating to Canada, I'm lumped in with people you might consider hypocritical or inconsistent.
Not necessarily hypocritical or inconsistent. But unconditional support for trans rights is a huge litmus test for progressives, and support for mass third world immigration is also a huge litmus test for progressives, and if you're not in favor of both, you might not be very progressive after all-- ask Megan Murphy.
And I point out, once again, that we have been accepting refugees from the essentially the same countries, in roughly the same ratios for decades, yet we have still managed to implement progressive policies, and have increased the rights of gays, trans and women. It simply does not seem logical that only those from Muslim-majority countries will suddenly turn us on our ear and result in going backwards in this regard.
While the ratios may be the same, the numbers have risen dramatically in recent years. Sooner or later, if it's not already happening, we're going to have Muslim enclaves, kind of like Richmond has become essentially a Chinese city within Canada. And when you do get these areas where immigrants can go through all your business in a day without interacting with anybody from outside their culture, integrating with the Canadian mainstream is no longer a priority. They have this in England. We'll have it in Canada before long. Is that good?
This flies in the face of the conservative argument that "immigrants will only vote Liberal because of Liberals open door policy on immigration, that's why Liberals let in unlimited numbers of immigrants and refugees". I did a quick search and couldn't find anything I considered credible on voting habits of immigrants, but judging by who I see running for various parties, it looks to me as if immigrants tend towards more socially liberal platforms by a slight margin. But I could be wrong about that.
My hunch is that immigrants vote Liberal because they're worried that Conservatives don't want immigration, not because they're socially liberal.
Are homosexuals in Eritrea (50% Christian/50% Islamic), Russia (Catholic official religion) and Uganda (Christian) treated as refugees as well? All three of those countries jail homosexuals, and in Eritrea and Uganda especially, there is not much backlash for attacking and killing them.
I believe Canada's stance is that you're in a country where you're likely to suffer persecution due to your sexual orientation, you've got a valid refugee claim. Uganda certainly qualifies. Not sure what the status is in Eritrea. Not sure about Russia-- it's not just a matter of "people don't like gays here", it's a question of actual persecution. Recent news items indicate that Chechnya would certainly qualify. It's not just Muslim countries.
I agree, the girl from SA wearing a miniskirt isn't coming to Canada, and she is one of the many that gets lumped into the 'Muslims are bad' narrative. And sure, not able to wear a miniskirt is pretty mild compared to other abuses women endure in SA - but the yearning and bravery I saw in this stuck with me.
SA is a dirtbag country and while we could do something about it, we'd rather have oil.
The truly sickening thing about Saudi Arabia is the treatment of foreign workers who go there only to discover they've become virtually slaves, with no real rights and no way to get back home. It's a disgusting place. If the god of Abraham were real, he'd rain down punishment on that place that would make Sodom and Gomorrah look like an amusement park.
-k
Post by: guest4 on September 19, 2017, 12:04:39 am
The disappointing (I did use the word disappointing, not alarming) is that this number is increasing rather than decreasing. I've always assumed that as newcomers come to Canada they'll become more secular, as religious Canadians have over the years. Clearly that isn't happening.
I know Islam is the religion most talked about, but did you realize the Catholics, Hindus and Sikhs are also increasing in number in Canada? And, they follow a similar pattern to Muslims: it is the younger generation who tends to be more devout than their parents.
Quote
The exact opposite is the case for those born outside Canada: almost half of those aged 18 to 34 said they attend a religious service at least once a month. A smaller number, 27 per cent of the foreign-born older than 55, make the same claim.
Christianity has certainly benefited from the arrival of newcomers. Bibby’s prior research, which looked at 2011 Statistics Canada and National Household Survey data, found that about one in every two immigrants to Canada between 2001 and 2011 was either a Catholic or a Protestant. Nearly 500,000 immigrants who arrived in Canada during that span identified as Roman Catholic.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/what-canadians-really-believe/ (http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/what-canadians-really-believe/)
Post by: Omni on September 19, 2017, 12:30:51 am
Your own cite? The one you linked to just a couple of days ago?
That one? Remember that? No? Forgot that already? Alright then.
Apparently you missed the point as to counter argus' attempt to state that the majority of Muslim women in Canada wear the hijab etc. 48% is not a majority just to correct the math. And also it has been shown that women who do wear scarfs do so to celebrate their religion, not unlike Christian's who wear crosses, and not because they might be beaten senseless by their husbands if they don't as your ilk seem to suggest.
Post by: kimmy on September 19, 2017, 12:48:18 am
Apparently you missed the point as to counter argus' attempt to state that the majority of Muslim women in Canada wear the hijab etc. 48% is not a majority just to correct the math. And also it has been shown that women who do wear scarfs do so to celebrate their religion, not unlike Christian's who wear crosses, and not because they might be beaten senseless by their husbands if they don't as your ilk seem to suggest.
So first off, the article said that 48% wear the hijab, plus an additional 6% wear the burqa or chador, for a total of 54%. Which everybody except you seemed to recognize constitutes a majority.
But the main point I was addressing is that that number has increased-- by 10% since the previous survey. And that the religious attendance has also increased by 7% since the previous survey. In short, Canadian Muslims are becoming increasingly religious, not secular.
Sorry if my sites contradict your concepts, and I choose not to succumb to your xenophobia.
Your site supports exactly what I said. The only thing you've succumb to is your unfailing ability to be a failure.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 19, 2017, 01:05:12 am
I know Islam is the religion most talked about, but did you realize the Catholics, Hindus and Sikhs are also increasing in number in Canada? And, they follow a similar pattern to Muslims: it is the younger generation who tends to be more devout than their parents.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/what-canadians-really-believe/ (http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/what-canadians-really-believe/)
I'm certainly aware that there are lots of cultures with ideas I don't agree with... I believe we just agreed to extradite a Hindu couple to India to stand trial for having had their daughter killed for marrying someone from a lower caste. I'm not wild about any of it.
-k
Post by: Omni on September 19, 2017, 01:25:43 am
So first off, the article said that 48% wear the hijab, plus an additional 6% wear the burqa or chador, for a total of 54%. Which everybody except you seemed to recognize constitutes a majority.
But the main point I was addressing is that that number has increased-- by 10% since the previous survey. And that the religious attendance has also increased by 7% since the previous survey. In short, Canadian Muslims are becoming increasingly religious, not secular.
Your site supports exactly what I said. The only thing you've succumb to is your unfailing ability to be a failure.
-k
OK you have mixed up the numbers, but I will agree surveys show that Muslim women have increased their comfort with displaying their religious affiliation. But it's not because their husbands are beating them into it as seems to be the red neck xenophobic assumption, but rather that their compatriots are learning that displays of religious affiliation are no more threatening than that of Christians with their crosses.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 19, 2017, 05:40:08 am
Post by: JMT on September 19, 2017, 08:04:27 am
Post by: kimmy on September 22, 2017, 01:30:27 am
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 22, 2017, 05:55:17 am
So, just to brainstorm this, can anybody suggest reasons why increasing religiosity is a Good Thing in our present day? It seems to me as if many of the problems we're grappling with are in some way or another linked to religious attitudes in our distant or not-so-distant past.
-k
They're really about culture clash. 'Increasing religiosity' is only a side-effect of applying our laws to new immigrant groups. My wife works in a school that took in Syrian kids and they learned English well, albeit with an accent, in their first school year. They're starting to mix with other kids too. If you go to the Eaton Centre, a big mall downtown, you see kids that are evenly mixed between groups. That means you will see a group with black, Asian, Muslim and white kids. I remember seeing that in Cuba in the 1980s. Surely I admit that I have rose-coloured hippie glasses but socialization is a strong societal force and I don't see why it shouldn't happen with these new groups.
Post by: guest4 on September 22, 2017, 08:40:42 am
So, just to brainstorm this, can anybody suggest reasons why increasing religiosity is a Good Thing in our present day? It seems to me as if many of the problems we're grappling with are in some way or another linked to religious attitudes in our distant or not-so-distant past.
-k
I sure don't. I don't have time to find it again, but I ran across a Pew study that said the more religious a culture or society was, the more oppression against gays, women and minorities existed. It didn't matter which religion, it was essentially across the board. And, in Alabama the 10-Commandments Judge, Roy Moore, could become governor(1); he thinks gay people should be in jail(2).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/ten-commandments-judge-roy-moores-star-rising-in-alabama-senate-runoff-race.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/ten-commandments-judge-roy-moores-star-rising-in-alabama-senate-runoff-race.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/kfile-roy-moore-homosexuality-illegal/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/kfile-roy-moore-homosexuality-illegal/index.html)
Lots of people are afraid Muslims are going to impose Sharia on Western society, but I think Christians are in a much better position to impose the Christian equivalent, whatever that is. I don't think that will happen, but it amazes me how many people condemn one group but not the other for what are essentially the same beliefs (aside from apostate penalty; that is one place Islam has it over on Christianity) and miss the increasing power that group has over American politics.
Is there a way to embed links that I haven't figured out yet?
Post by: Goddess on September 22, 2017, 10:16:24 am
I'm certainly aware that there are lots of cultures with ideas I don't agree with... I believe we just agreed to extradite a Hindu couple to India to stand trial for having had their daughter killed for marrying someone from a lower caste. I'm not wild about any of it.
-k
Looks like it's not gonna happen:
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/extradition-of-bc-mother-uncle-for-alleged-honour-killing-halted-by-last-minute-ruling/ar-AAskiW2?li=AAggFp5
What will happen now? Do they just get away with it because they are in Canada?
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 11:41:35 am
Looks like it's not gonna happen:
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/extradition-of-bc-mother-uncle-for-alleged-honour-killing-halted-by-last-minute-ruling/ar-AAskiW2?li=AAggFp5
What will happen now? Do they just get away with it because they are in Canada?
This is Canada. Everyone has their right to ten or twenty years in court.
If this was the UK they'd have been extradited years ago and already be serving their time.
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 11:51:07 am
They're really about culture clash. 'Increasing religiosity' is only a side-effect of applying our laws to new immigrant groups.
No, it's not about culture, except culture inspired by religion. And the increasing religiosity is among Muslims as compared to ten years ago, not related to our laws. We see this increasing religious devotion and conservatism throughout the Muslim world, not just in Canada. The most visible aspects are men growing beards and women enveloping themselves in cloth (the latter being more predictable than the former). Of course, these are merely the visible aspects of a religion which, as Michael Cook states:
“the historical salience of warfare against unbelievers … was thus written into the foundational texts” of Islam.
To bring in a few things which have come up in ... other discussions( thanks Goddess). I would like to cite Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her excellent piece in Foreign Policy Magazine on why Islam is violent, and the difficulty of interpreting it. It's an easy read and I urge anyone interested in the subject to do so.
The fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/ (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/)
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 11:55:06 am
Lots of people are afraid Muslims are going to impose Sharia on Western society, but I think Christians are in a much better position to impose the Christian equivalent, whatever that is.
And yet Christians never have, even when the West was much more religious, and it has grown increasingly less religious and more secular over the centuries. Why even compare it to Islam, then which is going in the opposite direction?
Post by: JMT on September 22, 2017, 11:57:36 am
And yet Christians never have, even when the West was much more religious
I hope you weren't making a serious statement.
Post by: cybercoma on September 22, 2017, 12:58:57 pm
Or maybe he thinks those came from liberal secular values. Who knows.
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 03:53:02 pm
I hope you weren't making a serious statement.
There IS no equivalent of Sharia among Christians. It would have to be invented. Christianity has never sought to do so.
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 03:59:59 pm
He never heard of Fruit Machines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_(homosexuality_test)
Or maybe he thinks those came from liberal secular values. Who knows.
They came from disliking homosexuals, likely from aversion to the thought of men having sex together. You think that's something unique to Christianity? There were laws on homosexual men being castrated in Assyria over a thousand years before Christ was born.
Post by: Omni on September 22, 2017, 04:15:35 pm
There IS no equivalent of Sharia among Christians. It would have to be invented. Christianity has never sought to do so.
Try perusing the Old Testament some time. You'll find a lot of equivalencies to Sharia.
Post by: Goddess on September 22, 2017, 04:42:28 pm
Try perusing the Old Testament some time. You'll find a lot of equivalencies to Sharia.
This kind of **** answer is getting really annoying. You don't see masses of Christians demanding in countries to institute the Old Testament. There may a few here and there, but they are laughingstocks to the rest of the Christian community, not heroes.
Post by: Omni on September 22, 2017, 04:49:38 pm
This kind of **** answer is getting really annoying. You don't see masses of Christians rioting in countries trying to institute the Old Testament. There may a few here and there, but they are laughingstocks to the rest of the Christian community, not heroes.
Speaking of annoying "answers", perhaps try reading the post I was replying to. Specifically the part about the claim Christianity NEVER had anything similar to Sharia.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:03:47 pm
And yet Christians never have [imposed religion], even when the West was much more religious, and it has grown increasingly less religious and more secular over the centuries. Why even compare it to Islam, then which is going in the opposite direction?
You've got to be kidding. The Middles Ages were the epitome of religious laws, heresy, witchcraft, sexual sins, marriage laws, and the only reason things have evolved is not thanks to Christians who fought progress every step of the way, but because of secular liberalism.
Don't kid yourself, the anti-choice, flat-earthers who deny evolution would love to inject a little Christian morality into the legal system again if they could.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:16:15 pm
My hunch is that immigrants vote Liberal because they're worried that Conservatives don't want immigration, not because they're socially liberal.
Harper and Mulroney did little to change immigration, so I think it goes beyond that.
My hunch is immigrants vote Liberal because they are tired of Conservatives not being vocally against the xenophobic sub-groups that support them.
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 06:30:10 pm
You've got to be kidding. The Middles Ages were the epitome of religious laws, heresy, witchcraft, sexual sins, marriage laws, and the only reason things have evolved is not thanks to Christians who fought progress every step of the way, but because of secular liberalism.
Don't kid yourself, the anti-choice, flat-earthers who deny evolution would love to inject a little Christian morality into the legal system again if they could.
The Middle Ages were a time of barbarism and ignorance, but even so I only found a dozen cases of gays being executed over something like a 500 year period. The last time almost two hundred years ago. Yes, the Inquisition. Let's not forget that, but it's impact is also hugely exaggerated, with around 1000 people executed over a period of a couple of centuries. Iran executes more people in a year, and often for moral offenses, including homosexuality.
But yes, I'm not denying the Middle ages were a time of extremely conservative religious beliefs. But there was never a 'religious law' code implemented which bore any resemblance to Sharia law.
By the way, who came up with the concept of secular liberalism but Christian people? Who liberalized the Christian churches but Christians? Who liberalized western society but Christians. When are Muslims going to do the same thing?
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 06:32:07 pm
Harper and Mulroney did little to change immigration, so I think it goes beyond that.
My hunch is immigrants vote Liberal because they are tired of Conservatives not being vocally against the xenophobic sub-groups that support them.
Immigrants vote for the party in power which brings them over. Immigrants (except Muslims) were MORE likely, not less, to vote Conservative in the last several elections. The Conservatives are popular with Asians while the Liberals are, of course, popular with Muslims. During the last election Trudeau's promise to double the number of immigrant seniors coming here was designed to buy the votes of Indo-Canadians and other immigrants from Southeast Asia, which was why he made the promise. It only cost Canada a couple of billion dollars a year, after all.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:39:15 pm
Immigrants vote for the party in power which brings them over. Immigrants (except Muslims) were MORE likely, not less, to vote Conservative in the last several elections. The Conservatives are popular with Asians while the Liberals are, of course, popular with Muslims. During the last election Trudeau's promise to double the number of immigrant seniors coming here was designed to buy the votes of Indo-Canadians and other immigrants from Southeast Asia, which was why he made the promise. It only cost Canada a couple of billion dollars a year, after all.
Simply false.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2291301/immigrants-voted-liberal-by-a-landslide-and-other-things-we-learned-from-the-federal-election-results/
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 06:41:48 pm
Simply false.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2291301/immigrants-voted-liberal-by-a-landslide-and-other-things-we-learned-from-the-federal-election-results/
This is a meaningless statistic. It doesn't say what immigrants voted for. It says that the ridings with the most immigrants voted Liberal. Uhm, but it could easily say the major urban ridings tended to vote Liberal. They always do. Sometimes the suburbs go Tory and sometimes Liberal and that tends to decide elections.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:46:28 pm
But yes, I'm not denying the Middle ages were a time of extremely conservative religious beliefs. But there was never a 'religious law' code implemented which bore any resemblance to Sharia law.
Well, British law was never been coded since we follow common law so therein lies a huge difference.
As for Christian countries who do follow coded laws, yes, I believe Canon law could very well be compared to Sharia law.
PS, for the record, I'm not arguing anything of the sort can be compared in the modern world, but you did make a ridiculous claim when you said:
Quote
And yet Christians never have [imposed religion], even when the West was much more religious,
Post by: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:50:15 pm
This is a meaningless statistic. It doesn't say what immigrants voted for. It says that the ridings with the most immigrants voted Liberal. Uhm, but it could easily say the major urban ridings tended to vote Liberal. They always do. Sometimes the suburbs go Tory and sometimes Liberal and that tends to decide elections.
Well, it's more than you provided for your claim. I believe you provided nothing.
Do you have anything to back this up?
Quote
Immigrants (except Muslims) were MORE likely, not less, to vote Conservative in the last several elections.
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 07:02:15 pm
Well, British law was never been coded since we follow common law so therein lies a huge difference.
As for Christian countries who do follow coded laws, yes, I believe Canon law could very well be compared to Sharia law.
PS, for the record, I'm not arguing anything of the sort can be compared in the modern world, but you did make a ridiculous claim when you said:
I don't think you can compare this to Sharia law. Where's the horrendously bloody punishments?
https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1311-1363.htm (https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1311-1363.htm)
Post by: SirJohn on September 22, 2017, 07:06:32 pm
Well, it's more than you provided for your claim. I believe you provided nothing.
Do you have anything to back this up?
I've looked around but there's very little now on which immigrants voted for which groups. The closest I see without putting too much time in is this, from a very left wing columnist for the Globe.
The first is that the Conservatives became a preferred party of immigrants and of many racial and religious minorities. In the 2011 federal election, the Tories attracted 42 per cent of the vote from foreign-born Canadians, higher than their 37-per-cent share among native-born Canadians. The Tories’ share of the racial-minority vote rose from 9 per cent in 2000 to a substantial 31 per cent in 2011.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/tories-gain-from-anti-immigrant-messaging-among-immigrants-what-gives/article26749675/?arc404=true (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/tories-gain-from-anti-immigrant-messaging-among-immigrants-what-gives/article26749675/?arc404=true)
Post by: kimmy on September 22, 2017, 09:25:59 pm
They came from disliking homosexuals, likely from aversion to the thought of men having sex together. You think that's something unique to Christianity? There were laws on homosexual men being castrated in Assyria over a thousand years before Christ was born.
Certainly hatred of homosexuals is hardly unique to "the big three" Abramaic religions (the Jews were also murdering homosexual men well over a thousand years before Christ was born, for what it's worth).
However: Christians are always eager to point out the Judeo-Christian roots of our laws. Whether Canadian, American, or English, our lawmakers have been, for centuries, practicing Christians, and this has been reflected in our laws. Even disregarding laws specifically related o homosexuality, there have still been a significant body of law devoted to imposing the moral views of Christian lawmakers via the power of the state. One could look at laws regarding pornography, contraception, adultery, or various sex acts.
We know that Christians aren't the only ones who have a problem with homosexuality, but we also know that Governor Rick Perry's anger at Texas anti-sodomy laws being struck down wasn't based on ancient Assyrian beliefs. Catholics might not be the only ones who oppose contraception, but we do know where Rick Santorum's fanatical opposition to the Griswold v Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling is founded. Going back further, we know that the gross indecency law under which Alan Turing was persecuted and chemically castrated was not written because of the beliefs of ancient Assyrians.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on September 23, 2017, 11:56:23 am
However: Christians are always eager to point out the Judeo-Christian roots of our laws. Whether Canadian, American, or English, our lawmakers have been, for centuries, practicing Christians, and this has been reflected in our laws.
Yes, certainly. Just as the law makers in the Muslim world are practicing and devout Muslims and so their laws reflect that.
Quote
Even disregarding laws specifically related o homosexuality, there have still been a significant body of law devoted to imposing the moral views of Christian lawmakers via the power of the state. One could look at laws regarding pornography, contraception, adultery, or various sex acts.
Sure. But let's look at what those laws involved in the West about a century ago. Now compare that to the laws in Muslim countries - not a century ago, but TODAY. Is there any real comparison in terms of the brutality, particularly over public morals laws? I mean, did Christian countries ever execute a woman for adultery? Let me cite from a wiki article I just looked up.
Gospel of John
In the passage, Jesus has sat down in the temple to teach some of the people, after he spent the previous night at the Mount of Olives. A group of scribes and Pharisees confront Jesus, interrupting his teaching session. They bring in a woman, accusing her of committing adultery, claiming she was caught in the very act. They ask Jesus whether the punishment for someone like her should be stoning, as proscribed by Mosaic Law.[2] Jesus first ignores the interruption, and writes on the ground as though he does not hear them. But when the woman's accusers continue their challenge, he states that the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone. The accusers and congregants depart, leaving Jesus alone with the woman. Jesus asks the woman if anyone has condemned her. She answers that no one has condemned her. Jesus says that he, too, does not condemn her, and tells her to go and sin no more.
Now lets' look at Muslim law, also from Wiki
Zināʾ (زِنَاء) or zina (زِنًى or زِنًا) is an Islamic legal term referring to unlawful sexual intercourse.[1] According to traditional jurisprudence, zina can include adultery (of married parties), fornication (of unmarried parties), ****, bestiality, and ****.[1] Classification of homosexual intercourse as zina differs according to legal school.[2] The Quran disapproved of the promiscuity prevailing in Arabia at the time, and several verses refer to unlawful sexual intercourse, including one that prescribes the punishment of 100 lashes for fornicators.[2] Four witnesses are required to prove the offense.[2] Zina thus belongs to the class of hadd (pl. hudud) crimes which have Quranically specified punishments.[2]
Although stoning for zina is not mentioned in the Quran, all schools of traditional jurisprudence agreed on the basis of hadith that it is to be punished by stoning if the offender is muhsan (adult, free, Muslim, and having been married), with some extending this punishment to certain other cases and milder punishment prescribed in other scenarios
So even if Christians sometimes incorporate aspects of their religion into law, it just isn't the same thing as the harshness and cruelty of Islamic law.
Post by: kimmy on September 23, 2017, 12:03:31 pm
So even if Christians sometimes incorporate aspects of their religion into law, it just isn't the same thing as the harshness and cruelty of Islamic law.
Sure, but your premise was that Christian lawmakers don't bring religion into the law, and clearly that's not true.
-k
Post by: BC_cheque on September 23, 2017, 12:58:00 pm
Post by: SirJohn on September 23, 2017, 04:47:47 pm
Sure, but your premise was that Christian lawmakers don't bring religion into the law, and clearly that's not true.
-k
To be more precise, my premise was that Christians would not bring in the 'Christian equivalent' of Sharia law, principally because there IS no equivalent to Sharia. Someone mentioned Canon law, but as I posted, that relates to discipline within the Church and the worst punishment is excommunication. The Church has never developed a set of 'holy laws' for the behavior of the public at large. That doesn't mean uptight Christians haven't, over the years, let the morality they learned from the Church leach into the laws they write. But I never suggested that. I'm sure that even happens today in Texas or Georgia. But you know what, Texas and Georgia aren't Iran or Saudi Arabia. And I don't think they would want to be if they could.
Post by: SirJohn on October 10, 2017, 07:59:08 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQD_oML0nI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQD_oML0nI)
Post by: SirJohn on November 12, 2017, 10:17:30 am
A teacher has been suspended and could face the sack after he ‘accidentally’ called a transgender pupil a ‘girl’ in class when the student identifies as a boy. Joshua Sutcliffe, 27, who teaches maths at a state secondary school in Oxfordshire, said ‘Well done girls’ to the teenager and a friend when he spotted them working hard.
He apologised when corrected by the pupil, but six weeks later he was suspended from teaching after the pupil’s mother lodged a complaint. Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for ‘misgendering’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html)
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 10:34:46 am
A teacher in the UK accidentally called a girl who wants to be a boy a girl and may now be fired for it.
A teacher has been suspended and could face the sack after he ‘accidentally’ called a transgender pupil a ‘girl’ in class when the student identifies as a boy. Joshua Sutcliffe, 27, who teaches maths at a state secondary school in Oxfordshire, said ‘Well done girls’ to the teenager and a friend when he spotted them working hard.
He apologised when corrected by the pupil, but six weeks later he was suspended from teaching after the pupil’s mother lodged a complaint. Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for ‘misgendering’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html)
A pound of flesh to pay for the outrage. To make up for the horror. Funds for the many years of therapy required to assuage the effects of this cruel atrocity must surely be forthcoming from the associated lawsuits.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 10:41:58 am
Therefore... something. PC is madness ? Who knows.
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 10:56:05 am
Something in England happened according to a British tabloid.
Therefore... something. PC is madness ? Who knows.
Is it possible to comment on a single ridiculous outrage? Or are we tarring all transgender students with the same brush? Or their mothers, to be more precise?
Do you think someone should lose their job over that?
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 11:23:38 am
Is it possible to comment on a single ridiculous outrage?
Of course. If I post something about pervasive and systemic abuse of the legal system. Then I post something about a single person who did something bad, then why am I posting ? What are the audiences ?
Posting because you are pissed off at a caricature idiot is fine, but people don't/won't care about it as much as a larger issue.
Quote
Do you think someone should lose their job over that?
Over a slip of the tongue ? Of course not. But it's outrage **** from a tabloid. Maybe a Senator who slept with an underage person is an isolated incident of more importance, in the domain of etiquette.
How about a separate forum for outrage **** ? That might help actually. And to be fair there's liberal stuff in there too, maybe more maybe less.
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 11:30:12 am
Of course. If I post something about pervasive and systemic abuse of the legal system. Then I post something about a single person who did something bad, then why am I posting ? What are the audiences ?
Posting because you are pissed off at a caricature idiot is fine, but people don't/won't care about it as much as a larger issue.
Over a slip of the tongue ? Of course not. But it's outrage **** from a tabloid. Maybe a Senator who slept with an underage person is an isolated incident of more importance, in the domain of etiquette.
How about a separate forum for outrage **** ? That might help actually. And to be fair there's liberal stuff in there too, maybe more maybe less.
Outrage ****? Don't report it then?
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 11:36:50 am
Outrage ****? Don't report it then?
To the mods ? I haven't reported it. It's fair game, I suppose, but it's just a different type of discussion in my books. If I could get some kind of token by admitting to a liberal one to get a conservative one off the board I would love that...
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 11:47:46 am
To the mods ? I haven't reported it. It's fair game, I suppose, but it's just a different type of discussion in my books. If I could get some kind of token by admitting to a liberal one to get a conservative one off the board I would love that...
To the mods? Good one. Who says you don't have a sense of humour?
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 11:50:10 am
To the mods? Good one. Who says you don't have a sense of humour?
I'm totally confused. "Outrage **** ? Don't report it then ?" - dunno what that means, nor this latest one. Ok, I just missed the bus. Moving on.
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 11:52:46 am
I'm totally confused.
No you're not. You're pretending to be.
Just my opinion. No cites.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 11:58:50 am
No you're not. You're pretending to be.
Just my opinion. No cites.
Well you are accusing me of lying. Do you think I lie a lot, or.... ?
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 12:04:10 pm
Well you are accusing me of lying. Do you think I lie a lot, or.... ?
Okay, if you're going to get all serious, I apologise. I don't think you are a liar. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse in order to be annoying.
Sheesh...
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 12:17:33 pm
Okay, if you're going to get all serious, I apologise. I don't think you are a liar. I thought you being deliberately obtuse in order to be annoying.
Sheesh...
Well, I wasn't. And I still don't understand what was being said. But I posted my idea for tagging outrage **** in another thread, so all good.
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 12:30:49 pm
Well, I wasn't. And I still don't understand what was being said. But I posted my idea for tagging outrage **** in another thread, so all good.
But you know what'll happen. The argument will be then become about what was tagged and by whom, instead of the subject itself.
The xenophobic/snowflake tagging of my concerns, dammit!
Notice how I was fair there?
Post by: SirJohn on November 12, 2017, 04:30:11 pm
Of course. If I post something about pervasive and systemic abuse of the legal system. Then I post something about a single person who did something bad, then why am I posting ? What are the audiences ?
Posting because you are pissed off at a caricature idiot is fine, but people don't/won't care about it as much as a larger issue.
But this IS a larger issue. And it's not a single idiot, but an organization. It also falls into line with what professors at universities in Canada and the US have said about all those scurrying human resources discrimination and diversity workers urging students to file formal complaints at anything that annoys them. And it's a warning of what our new government bill might bring to us here.
I remember when the first child **** law was introduced. Back then it was okay to be against it and almost everyone was. Anyway, artists warned that under the broad legislation the police could march into galleries and arrest respected artists. The Tories sneered at that as ridiculous. Once the bill was passed into law the first thing the police did was march into galleries and arrest artists.
People defending Bill C-16 sneered at the idea it could get people in trouble for using the wrong made-up pronouns. I don't think so.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 05:23:27 pm
But this IS a larger issue. And it's not a single idiot, but an organization. It also falls into line with what professors at universities in Canada and the US have said about all those scurrying human resources discrimination and diversity workers urging students to file formal complaints at anything that annoys them. And it's a warning of what our new government bill might bring to us here.
I disagree. I posted on this thread, or the other one, about Kellog's being accused of racism. That's really indicative of nothing. It's easy moralizing and I for one don't see a need to discuss it. If you do, fine. But I'd like to be able to get to larger discussions somehow if people don't mind the tagging.
Quote
I remember when the first child **** law was introduced. Back then it was okay to be against it and almost everyone was. Anyway, artists warned that under the broad legislation the police could march into galleries and arrest respected artists. The Tories sneered at that as ridiculous. Once the bill was passed into law the first thing the police did was march into galleries and arrest artists.
People defending Bill C-16 sneered at the idea it could get people in trouble for using the wrong made-up pronouns. I don't think so.
Your example has nothing to do with what I am calling outrage ****. That's a discussion about policy.
"A librarian in Vermont who is black said a white person couldn't check out a book."
Who. Cares.
Post by: guest7 on November 12, 2017, 06:13:03 pm
I disagree. I posted on this thread, or the other one, about Kellog's being accused of racism. That's really indicative of nothing. It's easy moralizing and I for one don't see a need to discuss it. If you do, fine. But I'd like to be able to get to larger discussions somehow if people don't mind the tagging.
Your example has nothing to do with what I am calling outrage ****. That's a discussion about policy.
"A librarian in Vermont who is black said a white person couldn't check out a book."
Who. Cares.
It's probably because someone would care if a white librarian said a black person couldn't check out a book. Either way someone gets nothing to read, purely based on their skin colour.
This isn't the UN. It's an internet forum. I always assumed that if someone posted, they cared. Likewise if someone responded.
And that Kellog's thing is weird, like it or not. I for one am glad you posted it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2017, 06:17:38 pm
It's probably because someone would care if a white librarian said a black person couldn't check out a book. Either way someone gets nothing to read, purely based on their skin colour.
But we don't HAVE to care about that do we ? Is a grown adult surprised to discover that there are **** in the world ?
Here's something: A guy called somebody the n-word in Alabama yesterday ! National news !
Basically, it's entertainment and that is all. That's why I would like to separate it from the other kind of discussion.
Quote
This isn't the UN. It's an internet forum. I always assumed that if someone posted, they cared. Likewise if someone responded.
I have a thread where I put personal observations about stupid little parts of my life. It's my own thread and I am not going to pollute the forum with a separate thread on that every day.
Maybe this is just housekeeping.
Quote
And that Kellog's thing is weird, like it or not. I for one am glad you posted it.
Well, maybe it works as weird news because it's kind of funny but still...
Post by: SirJohn on November 13, 2017, 12:49:05 pm
I disagree. I posted on this thread, or the other one, about Kellog's being accused of racism. That's really indicative of nothing. It's easy moralizing and I for one don't see a need to discuss it. If you do, fine.
But I DIDN'T find the need to discuss that. And the difference is that didn't involve government mandated behaviour or the possibility of naive, if well-meaning legislation running amok through the human rights industry. Or the way the Left seems to find its beliefs so incredibly obvious and moral and just that they insist everyone else must bow to them - or else.
As an example, the law society of Ontario is attempting to mandate that all lawyers commit to a 'statement of principles' to promote 'equality, diversity and inclusion' which will include a commitment that will be enforced in some way by the law society. Where does the law society get off on forcing private individuals to commit to affirmative action anyway? http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-its-1984-all-over-again-for-ontario-lawyers-arguing-against-compelled-speech
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 13, 2017, 06:01:46 pm
And the difference is that didn't involve government mandated behaviour or the possibility of naive, if well-meaning legislation running amok through the human rights industry. Or the way the Left seems to find its beliefs so incredibly obvious and moral and just that they insist everyone else must bow to them - or else.
I'm sure I could find a reason to make a big deal about the Kellogs thing if I wanted too. The fact is, it's just a couple of idiot students. I just let it go. It's not the leading edge of anything, it's just the outrage du jour.
Quote
As an example, the law society of Ontario is attempting to mandate that all lawyers commit to a 'statement of principles' to promote 'equality, diversity and inclusion' which will include a commitment that will be enforced in some way by the law society. Where does the law society get off on forcing private individuals to commit to affirmative action anyway? http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-its-1984-all-over-again-for-ontario-lawyers-arguing-against-compelled-speech
You are unable to assess scale, that is clear to me.
Post by: SirJohn on November 13, 2017, 06:16:19 pm
I'm sure I could find a reason to make a big deal about the Kellogs thing if I wanted too. The fact is, it's just a couple of idiot students. I just let it go. It's not the leading edge of anything, it's just the outrage du jour.
Nobody gives a **** about your Kellogg's story. Why you keep drawing this up to wave like a flag at anyone who posts anything you disapprove of is really quite beyond me.
I already pointed out the vast difference between the Kellogg's story and this. Since you didn't choose to argue the point why are you still complaining?
Quote
You are unable to assess scale, that is clear to me.
No, I just have a different scale than yours. Yours is based on issues that matter to the Left and mine is based on issues that matter to the Right.
The difference being when you post something stupid I have no interest in talking about I simply don't talk about it. Whereas when I or anyone else posts something you don't want to talk about you insist on giving us your opinion about how beneath you the topic is and how we should instead be discussing something you care about.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 13, 2017, 07:55:01 pm
Nobody gives a **** about your Kellogg's story. Why you keep drawing this up to wave like a flag at anyone who posts anything you disapprove of is really quite beyond me.
It was in the news, so somebody cares.
Quote
No, I just have a different scale than yours. Yours is based on issues that matter to the Left and mine is based on issues that matter to the Right.
You totally missed my point. The Osgoode Hall deal is not at all the same scale.
Post by: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 10:35:48 am
In the past month, the casual consumer of news media might have seen any or all of the following stories in the headlines: a transgender rapist was sent to a women’s prison where she used ‘her ****’ to sexually assault women; Girl Guide leaders were expelled for questioning a policy of allowing transgender girls (with penises) to share tents and showers with girls born female; a Durham university student sacked as editor of a philosophy journal for tweeting an article (by me) which asked if it is a crime to say women don’t have penises; the removal on grounds of transphobia of a billboard which repeated the dictionary definition of ‘woman’ as ‘adult human female’.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 10:58:44 am
1. None of their ideas originate here, after all, and that includes their fixation on 'trans rights'.1. Well... depending on what you mean I might disagree. The idea of "human rights" originated with French Enlightenment philosophy so ok on that... but my gay friends will universally name "Stonewall" as being THE spark to gay rights, and they happened in 1969 in NYC.
2. And as always, the Europeans, being more 'progressive' are more idiotic about what they consider to be social justice issues, and their politicians more cowardly.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_liberation#Origins_and_history_of_movement
2. Well... maybe ? 3 European nations legalized same sex marriage before Canada and Canada was at 51% as I remember reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Does "cowardly" mean agreeing with popular opinion or defying it ? Hmmm.
3. The "in the news" stuff doesn't affect me. The "news" will send us whatever we eat up. I think the Spectator article is serious enough though, so I will look at that in particular.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 11:21:00 am
‘social contagion’
'disproportionate number of girls'
'prominent campaigner for transgender rights'
'Trans rights have gone wrong'
These are all subjective terms and claims, or pejoratives, and the culmination of fears is presented as:
'All raise serious issues of public policy, yet politicians are silent, fearful of questioning the trans-rights advocates and the consequences of their orthodoxy.'
My response is: be brave and state your case. If you have a valid point you will have people behind you. That is, after all, the role of a public figure: to speak out.
As for the concerns, maybe start with a more established group such as:
http://www.pfc.org.uk/index.html
As the article itself states: 'Under reforms advocated by many (but not all) transgender campaigners, '. Yes, that is to say that all LGBT and feminists are not on the same page with regards to gatekeepers or the sometimes-vague situations conveyed in the article.
And please keep in mind as all of this becomes law, conservatives will be stating how Canada's progressive trans rights are a good reason to screen Muslims who want to come to Canada...
Post by: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 11:32:43 am
My response is: be brave and state your case. If you have a valid point you will have people behind you. That is, after all, the role of a public figure: to speak out.
That would be nice but we know that isn't always the case. You can speak out, here or there, on some issue with which many, even most people agree, and still be castigated by your own party, not to mention the media. We saw the same here with Maxime Bernier, as one example. Kellie Lietch might be another example, though I'm not certain how seriously she believed in her issue. And if you're not a politician you can still be easily fired, as the article points out, if accused of 'transphobia'.
I think the main point of the article, though, was that there is no serious agreement from science on this issue, and that society is moving to change laws on the basis of claims made by activists which have no scientific validity and no common sense. I vaguely recall from early on in this topic people suggesting men could shower with women by claiming to be women and that being ridiculed as absurd, as if common sense would not allow it. Well, it's actually happening in the UK.
Quote
And please keep in mind as all of this becomes law, conservatives will be stating how Canada's progressive trans rights are a good reason to screen Muslims who want to come to Canada...
I think conservatives mainly use these sorts of claims to attempt to point out to those, mainly on the Left, who are ardent supporters of Islamic rights and Muslim immigration that the way in which Canada's values will inevitably be influenced by them is in the opposite direction to everything they state they believe in.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 11:50:38 am
That would be nice but we know that isn't always the case. You can speak out, here or there, on some issue with which many, even most people agree, and still be castigated by your own party, not to mention the media. We saw the same here with Maxime Bernier, as one example. Kellie Lietch might be another example, though I'm not certain how seriously she believed in her issue. And if you're not a politician you can still be easily fired, as the article points out, if accused of 'transphobia'.
Fair enough - and you and I will disagree on whether they were given a fair hearing for their ideas. For the time being, let me agree with you that immigration reform was a good idea that needed to be heard, and that the media, the establishment and people weren't ready hear it.
You can't say, as the article did, that they were 'silenced'. They continue to speak out and their ideas are getting some reception.
Quote
I think the main point of the article, though, was that there is no serious agreement from science on this issue, and that society is moving to change laws on the basis of claims made by activists which have no scientific validity and no common sense. I vaguely recall from early on in this topic people suggesting men could shower with women by claiming to be women and that being ridiculed as absurd, as if common sense would not allow it. Well, it's actually happening in the UK.
And in Canada. There's little evidence as far as I can see that science is being told they can't research this and that will be part of the conversation.
Quote
I think conservatives mainly use these sorts of claims to attempt to point out to those, mainly on the Left, who are ardent supporters of Islamic rights and Muslim immigration that the way in which Canada's values will inevitably be influenced by them is in the opposite direction to everything they state they believe in.
Why 'inevitably' ? Why should the influence of a new religion, with no roots, and low amounts of representation be inevitable ?
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2018, 12:44:12 pm
Remember Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who "identifies" as black, worked at the NAACP, darkens her skin, wears her hair in African styles, and so-on? One of the reasons that progressives found her so offensive is that they felt it was impossible for somebody who grew up in a life of white privilege to actually understand the black experience.
Has anybody bothered to apply the same logic to trans women?
Why 'inevitably' ? Why should the influence of a new religion, with no roots, and low amounts of representation be inevitable ?
Didn't Toronto already provide gender-segregated swimming hours at public pools to accommodate Muslims? Never mind 'inevitable,' it seems like this influence is already underway.
Ponder for a moment that on the one hand we're being told that women should accept biologically male persons in their showers and changing rooms without complaint, while simultaneously that religious groups desire for gender-segregated activities should be accepted.
I hope some transgender activist brings her dong to Muslima swim day to fully square this circle.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 01:01:05 pm
The story about the rapist deciding to "transition" and being relocated to a women's prison makes my blood boil. I am speechless at the scale of idiocy involved in that decision. Hopefully people were sacked and sued.
Was it reversed ?
Quote
Didn't Toronto already provide gender-segregated swimming hours at public pools to accommodate Muslims? Never mind 'inevitable,' it seems like this influence is already underway.
Ok - well I will firstly acknowledge that you are all right, and I haven't considered the level of influence, and it's more than I thought. But if accommodation is part of our values, as evidenced from things like Sikh headgarments being allowed in Legion halls (1980s) then certainly accommodation is about an ongoing discussion and some back-and-forth also.
So, although I will say that I didn't consider the pool decision I still think this is an overstatement:
"Canada's values will inevitably be influenced by them is in the opposite direction to everything they state they believe in
Post by: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 02:12:43 pm
Fair enough - and you and I will disagree on whether they were given a fair hearing for their ideas. For the time being, let me agree with you that immigration reform was a good idea that needed to be heard, and that the media, the establishment and people weren't ready hear it.
I continue to harken back to the Lietch thing since the poobahs of the party united against it despite a poll showing 89% of tory supporters agreed with her. And you'll note it's NOT being discussed any more. As for Bernier, even his extremely mild comments caused him to have to leave his party before they could throw him out. The people were certainly ready to hear such things, but the media and political elites most definitely are NOT.
Quote
And in Canada. There's little evidence as far as I can see that science is being told they can't research this and that will be part of the conversation.
Let's get real here. Science does not research much of anything without someone funding it. Usually government. Government is not funding any research. Who else will? And what independent social science/psychology researcher will get into this and dig out information which might get him or her labelled as bigoted by their peers and the university community?
Quote
Why 'inevitably' ? Why should the influence of a new religion, with no roots, and low amounts of representation be inevitable ?
That religion is growing rapidly, and there is no case on record, in all of history, of Islam fading away from anywhere except under military force. And what is Canada and its values and beliefs but the sum of the people who make up it's constituent communities?
Post by: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 02:21:04 pm
Was it reversed ?
Hard to find a lot on this since all the 'respectable' papers are behind pay walls. But this from the Daily Mail suggests it's not limited to him. The problem is the insistence that if a person SAYS they're of the other gender then that must be respected. No other evidence is really required. At the moment, under actual law, their claim can be looked at and a decision made, but as was reported in the Spectator report, there is a move to change that to make respect for their claim absolute, no matter the lack of evidence.
The latest figures showed there were 125 transgender prisoners in England and Wales up to the end of March 2017, an increase from 70 in the previous year.
About 25 of those are thought to be in women's jails — and media reports suggest six of them are sex offenders.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169813/Rapist-Karen-Whites-ex-girlfriend-says-gender-change-sham.html
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 02:51:19 pm
I continue to harken back to the Lietch thing since the poobahs of the party united against it despite a poll showing 89% of tory supporters agreed with her.
Sure, but she was not silenced. Harper pushed some of the ideas and Bernier founded a whole party on renewing immigration policy.
So when you say silenced it sounds hyperbolic and conspiratorial.
Quote
Let's get real here. Science does not research much of anything without someone funding it. Usually government. Government is not funding any research. Who else will? And what independent social science/psychology researcher will get into this and dig out information which might get him or her labelled as bigoted by their peers and the university community?
I don't know who does/is researching it, so I'd like to see a cite.
Quote
That religion is growing rapidly, and there is no case on record, in all of history, of Islam fading away from anywhere except under military force. And what is Canada and its values and beliefs but the sum of the people who make up it's constituent communities?
I am acknowledging the last point.
You can't use history as evidence of the religion as evidence that they're immutable. Christianity was burning people at the same time. Also I have posted studies showing that attitudes in US Muslims are mutable, so we may be seeing the effect of Westernization.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 02:54:31 pm
Hard to find a lot on this since all the 'respectable' papers are behind pay walls.
Six sex offenders seems like enough to start a public conversation.
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2018, 09:52:36 pm
Was it reversed ?
Yes... after four complaints of sexual assault over 3 months, he was returned to a men's prison.
Prison Service: "lol, oops!" (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white)
Gotta break a few eggs, right?
Ok - well I will firstly acknowledge that you are all right, and I haven't considered the level of influence, and it's more than I thought. But if accommodation is part of our values, as evidenced from things like Sikh headgarments being allowed in Legion halls (1980s) then certainly accommodation is about an ongoing discussion and some back-and-forth also.
So, although I will say that I didn't consider the pool decision I still think this is an overstatement:
"Canada's values will inevitably be influenced by them is in the opposite direction to everything they state they believe in
I'm not sure it's an overstatement. Most of our newcomers are from places that are far more socially conservative than we are and bring with them cultural and religious values that are in direct conflict with progressive views. This is a dilemma that has plagued progressives on more than a few occasions. Debates in many countries over oppressive garments for women are an obvious example.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2018, 10:06:16 pm
Yes... after four complaints of sexual assault over 3 months, he was returned to a men's prison.
Ok.
Quote
I'm not sure it's an overstatement.
I'm not either.
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2018, 10:09:05 pm
I continue to harken back to the Lietch thing since the poobahs of the party united against it despite a poll showing 89% of tory supporters agreed with her. And you'll note it's NOT being discussed any more. As for Bernier, even his extremely mild comments caused him to have to leave his party before they could throw him out. The people were certainly ready to hear such things, but the media and political elites most definitely are NOT.
The thing that bothered me about the debate around Kellie Leitch's "Canadian values screening" idea is that while she was frequently compared to Trump, and many people called the idea racist or xenophobic or whatever... I don't recall anybody ever actually explaining what was wrong with it.
When people were challenged for explanations of what was actually so awful about it, I recall hearing responses like "well, they could just lie to get in" or "it would take too many interviewers". Ok, those are reasonable arguments against the proposal. But those shortcomings only get you to "impractical" or "expensive", not "Trumpian" or "racist".
A lot of our newcomers come from places where people like me are publicly flogged or sent to prison. I don't think it would be such a bad thing if people coming from those places were screened.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 09:15:43 am
The thing that bothered me about the debate around Kellie Leitch's "Canadian values screening" idea is that while she was frequently compared to Trump, and many people called the idea racist or xenophobic or whatever... I don't recall anybody ever actually explaining what was wrong with it.
When people were challenged for explanations of what was actually so awful about it, I recall hearing responses like "well, they could just lie to get in" or "it would take too many interviewers". Ok, those are reasonable arguments against the proposal. But those shortcomings only get you to "impractical" or "expensive", not "Trumpian" or "racist".
A lot of our newcomers come from places where people like me are publicly flogged or sent to prison. I don't think it would be such a bad thing if people coming from those places were screened.
-k
I replied here:
https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/canada-discussion-forum/immigration-policy/msg33387/#msg33387
As its more on topic there and I want to post something actually about gender here.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 09:26:21 am
An outstanding essay on 'in-between' gender.
I feel like my entire life has been spent as an intellectual. Per the definition:
1. relating to the intellect.
"children need intellectual stimulation"
synonyms: mental, cerebral, cognitive, psychological; More
It has nothing to do with being intelligent. I have met people who were actually not bright who were fascinating intellectuals, with whom I could share knowledge theories and so on. It's really a body of interest.
But being an intellectual, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, made you suspect as a male. The strong gender typing was nothing like it was in the 1950s but still worse than the 1980s where 'gender bending' came into vogue in pop culture, and the 1990s when taboos around homosexuality broke, and eventually there was a galaxy of recognizable types of masculinity/femininity and sexual preference.
Today's world of incels and TERFs is probably impossible for someone older than me to understand, and most men my age just shut up about it. But to me, the issues around gender are defined around freedoms and unity, ie. how to allow freedoms and also unity. Liberalism seems like the natural place from which to grow unity, but the conflicts come when freedoms come into conflict.
I wonder what the world will be like in 20 years.
Post by: SirJohn on October 08, 2018, 09:28:26 am
Six sex offenders seems like enough to start a public conversation.
The point of both this and the Spectator story is that this has been rushed forward in a very few years because progressives have enthusiastically embraced transgender as the cause du jour. Confusion and uncertainty about sexuality, gender and social roles is perfectly normal among kids, esp as they reach adolescence. It doesn't mean you're bloody trans anything. But ignorant adults are rushing to embrace the notion and change these confused kids lives and imposing a stern orthodoxy on anyone who complains.
Look at those two girl guide councilors questioning having young girls and boys in tents and showers together - fired. Look at the mother whose 13 year old daughter was complaining about the 'girl' with an **** staring at her in the shower. The school said it was her daughter who had a problem. Yet in most of these cases there's damn all science or even psychological counselling involved.
That self-declared woman who **** women in prison had done nothing to transition to anything. But they simply took him at his word - excuse me, her word - and stuck him into a prison with women. It's become politically incorrect to question people's self-assigned gender.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 09:40:44 am
The point of both this and the Spectator story is that this has been rushed forward in a very few years because progressives have enthusiastically embraced transgender as the cause du jour.
It's hard to defend putting a male liar in a women's prison to re-offend, so of course I will not do that. So if you want to define "rushed forward" as THAT policy I of course will degree. The devil is in the details. A dumb policy like that may cause us to consider absolutes and practicalities, which is part of making change happen.
Quote
Confusion and uncertainty about sexuality, gender and social roles is perfectly normal among kids, esp as they reach adolescence. It doesn't mean you're bloody trans anything. But ignorant adults are rushing to embrace the notion and change these confused kids lives and imposing a stern orthodoxy on anyone who complains.
I agree. Again, we're implementing change now, so we have to discuss the details. We are not at the point of considering whether trans rights should exist or not.
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2018, 12:59:00 pm
It's hard to defend putting a male liar in a women's prison to re-offend, so of course I will not do that. So if you want to define "rushed forward" as THAT policy I of course will degree. The devil is in the details. A dumb policy like that may cause us to consider absolutes and practicalities, which is part of making change happen.
I agree. Again, we're implementing change now, so we have to discuss the details. We are not at the point of considering whether trans rights should exist or not.
Here's one from Canada, that I'd never heard of before. I found a number of references to this case, but a Toronto Sun article about the sentencing is the only cite I could find.
Serial sex predator claims to be transgender so that he can gain access to a womens' shelter and commit sex assaults.
(https://torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender/wcm/fc2c70f0-b1a1-41e2-85db-bec9d0012ce5)
A self-declaration of gender-identity is simply not adequate to provide for the safety of women. It invites frivolous abuse, by anybody from frat-boys who think it would be hilarious to stroll into the cheerleaders' locker room as a group, to actual sex predators like Christopher Hambrook or the English prison rapist mentioned above.
The notion of a female-only space is null and void if anyone can get in by spontaneous self-declaration. This is not okay.
And yet, that is what trans activists are demanding. There is currently a conflict in the UK between feminists and trans activists over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would remove any sort of gate-keeping.
Trans activists' take:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/gender-recognition-act
Article regarding the UK GRA debate:
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/a-system-of-gender-self-identification-would-put-women-at-risk
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 01:04:04 pm
A self-declaration of gender-identity is simply not adequate to provide for the safety of women. It invites frivolous abuse, by anybody from frat-boys who think it would be hilarious to stroll into the cheerleaders' locker room as a group, to actual sex predators like Christopher Hambrook or the English prison rapist mentioned above.
The notion of a female-only space is null and void if anyone can get in by spontaneous self-declaration. This is not okay.
And yet, that is what trans activists are demanding. There is currently a conflict in the UK between feminists and trans activists over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would remove any sort of gate-keeping.
Some trans activists, not all, as per the article SJ posted. Is there any case at all for allowing dangerous offenders into safe spaces for women ?
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2018, 01:34:59 pm
Some trans activists, not all, as per the article SJ posted.
Well that seems to be where it is heading in the UK discussion. The major advocacy groups all seem to support unqualified self-declaration, and those who oppose are being targeted with accusations of hate and even threats of violence.
Is there any case at all for allowing dangerous offenders into safe spaces for women ?
Obviously not. Advocates would state that such cases have been (to date) rare, which demonstrates that this does not actually pose a serious threat to womens' safety.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 01:41:22 pm
Well that seems to be where it is heading in the UK discussion. The major advocacy groups all seem to support unqualified self-declaration, and those who oppose are being targeted with accusations of hate and even threats of violence.
Cite ? The article posted talked about a group that seems to be a minor player, at best. That makes the article seem like bait, also.
The main group I found for the UK is in 'restructuring'. What you'll find, even within advocacy groups, is a spectrum of opinions on practical matters.
Quote
Obviously not. Advocates would state that such cases have been (to date) rare, which demonstrates that this does not actually pose a serious threat to womens' safety.
Well, that itself is a response. If that's what they're saying then it's a tacit statement of the attacked women being acceptable losses, which I disagree with.
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2018, 04:13:58 pm
Cite ? The article posted talked about a group that seems to be a minor player, at best. That makes the article seem like bait, also.
The main group I found for the UK is in 'restructuring'. What you'll find, even within advocacy groups, is a spectrum of opinions on practical matters.
I don't actually know that the Stonewall group I linked to are significant or not. They seem to portray themselves that way... should self-identification of significance be accepted, or should there be some sort of gatekeeping here? This is a complicated issue indeed.
Amnesty International's UK branch is onboard with self-declaration:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/have-your-say-gender-recognition-act
The UK firefighters union has endorsed self-declaration for its members:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/20/backlash-fire-brigades-union-votes-favour-gender-self-identification/
I don't know who to look at as representing the mainstream of thought among trans advocates on this issue, but as far as I can see, self-declaration seems to be the preference.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 04:56:20 pm
And... is this surprising in a system that does things like this:
https://www.nsnews.com/ontario-student-leaves-n-s-university-after-alleged-rapist-returns-to-campus-1.23456296
I'm not saying that the system shouldn't take care of every single victim: it should. But this issue may be about offenders gaming the system more than it is about trans issues specifically.
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2018, 06:33:06 pm
In the two instances that have been mentioned, what I find upsetting is that the kind of common-sense gate-keeping that could have prevented these incidents is exactly the kind of thing that some significant portion of the trans activists movement is directly arguing against.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 06:59:36 pm
I'm sure that there are all kinds of situations where predators or some sort or another could find a way to slip through the rules that nobody had anticipated.
Well, yes. I mean we kind of have one in front of us already.
Quote
In the two instances that have been mentioned, what I find upsetting is that the kind of common-sense gate-keeping that could have prevented these incidents is exactly the kind of thing that some significant portion of the trans activists movement is directly arguing against.
What we know is that the system appears to have failed. They owe us an explanation when this happens.
I'm saying I agree that this shouldn't happen, but the broader implications aren't clear to me.
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2018, 07:13:34 pm
Basically, the premise is that cisgender lesbians will let trans lesbians into their social circles and their safe-spaces... but not into their panties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_ceiling
Shockingly, the large majority of cisgender lesbians just aren't interested in having sex with people who have male anatomy. Astounding! Who could have imagined this?
This is apparently very frustrating for some portion of the trans lesbian community, who blame it on ... transphobia! While many people might assume that cis lesbians aren't into penises because they're lesbians, some trans activists have decided that cis lesbians are hiding behind the excuse of their sexual preference because they're actually transphobic. The whole notion basically comes down to the idea that trans women are women because they say they are women, and therefore lesbians should acknowledge them as such by considering them as potential sex partners, **** or not.
To me this comes across as being incredibly invalidating. For a group that constantly complains that their identity is being invalidated, I would expect them to have a little more consideration to others on that front.
I also find it paternalistic and vaguely reminiscent of the ol' "if you think you don't like dick, you probably just haven't tried the right one yet!"
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2018, 07:41:29 pm
https://hazlitt.net/feature/between-space
An outstanding essay on 'in-between' gender.
I read it, and I just couldn't quite get what she was trying to express. I've read similar things before, and as before this one just doesn't connect me with what dysphoria actually feels like. She talks about things that I can relate to-- feeling drawn to 'tomboy' activities, feeling insecure about her body, feeling insecure against conventional beauty standards, feeling insecure about the image she projected to the public-- but those are very widespread female experiences and they don't lead most girls to doubt their gender identity.
I think she is trying to express something that you can't actually understand unless you've felt it. Like, I've had anxiety over my weight before, but I've never felt the body image dysphoria that people who suffer eating disorders do.
-k
Post by: TimG on October 08, 2018, 07:46:27 pm
This is apparently very frustrating for some portion of the trans lesbian community, who blame it on ... transphobia!I saw the same data reported elsewhere which established that trans had the most success dating based on their actual sex. i.e. gay males and trans women, straight males and trans men, etc. It is almost as if their imaginary gender identity was irrelevant to potential mates! Of course, it was all blamed on trans-phobia which made me wonder. Are gay men misogynist because they don't date women?
Post by: TimG on October 08, 2018, 07:54:29 pm
I've never felt the body image dysphoria that people who suffer eating disorders do.Ironically, when they treat eating disorders getting the patient to accept their body the primary objective. If they treated eating disorders like gender dysphoria they would tell patients that they are a thin person trapped in a fat persons body and offer surgery and drugs to make their body better match their self image. Why exactly am I supposed to think that treatment of gender dysphoria is not medical malpractice?
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 08:16:32 pm
Shockingly, the large majority of cisgender lesbians just aren't interested in having sex with people who have male anatomy. Astounding! Who could have imagined this?
I have a friend who is going through the mirror-image of this problem. Luckily, the politics precludes me from actually commenting on it....
Quote
This is apparently very frustrating for some portion of the trans lesbian community, who blame it on ... transphobia! While many people might assume that cis lesbians aren't into penises because they're lesbians, some trans activists have decided that cis lesbians are hiding behind the excuse of their sexual preference because they're actually transphobic. The whole notion basically comes down to the idea that trans women are women because they say they are women, and therefore lesbians should acknowledge them as such by considering them as potential sex partners, **** or not.
To me this comes across as being incredibly invalidating. For a group that constantly complains that their identity is being invalidated, I would expect them to have a little more consideration to others on that front.
I also find it paternalistic and vaguely reminiscent of the ol' "if you think you don't like dick, you probably just haven't tried the right one yet!"
-k
Dunno. Do people find it racist for folks to be attracted to the same race ?
I file this under the "some people are nutty" category...
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2018, 08:18:31 pm
I read it, and I just couldn't quite get what she was trying to express. I've read similar things before, and as before this one just doesn't connect me with what dysphoria actually feels like. She talks about things that I can relate to-- feeling drawn to 'tomboy' activities, feeling insecure about her body, feeling insecure against conventional beauty standards, feeling insecure about the image she projected to the public-- but those are very widespread female experiences and they don't lead most girls to doubt their gender identity.
It seems to me she is talking about masculine and feminine typing taking attention away from the middle ground. I don't know it's dysphoric as much as it is the blocking of a range of visible identities.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 08, 2018, 10:07:53 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 08:47:54 am
Post by: kimmy on October 09, 2018, 10:06:19 am
I am pretty sure that this question isn't settled, ie. What people think of the phenomenon of ... this kind of rejection.
It's settled. The only possible answer is that people are entitled to their preferences. You have to accept it... the only alternative is, I guess, rent a van.
Rejected trans people can protest the unfairness of it, just as fat people, short people, and ugly people have always done... but what else is there? People are rejected every day for the most arbitrary, unfair, and irrational reasons, but that's life. Dating is complicated for anybody, even more complicated for gay people, and even more complicated for trans people. But a painfully unattractive cisgendered heterosexual person will probably experience an an enormous amount of rejection in their life as well, and I'm not sure that they're any less deserving of sympathy and compassion than a trans person who feels they've been "cotton ceiling"-ed.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 11:03:21 am
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 09, 2018, 04:34:38 pm
Why is it settled?
Because people are entitled to their preferences. If i'm not attracted to people with blonde hair or hairy arms or any other criteria possibly imaginable then yeah I guess that's discriminatory, but there's nothing that can or should be done about it and there's nothing ethically wrong with it. That's life.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 04:46:52 pm
Post by: SirJohn on October 09, 2018, 04:50:13 pm
I don't actually know that the Stonewall group I linked to are significant or not. They seem to portray themselves that way... should self-identification of significance be accepted, or should there be some sort of gatekeeping here? This is a complicated issue indeed.
Amnesty International's UK branch is onboard with self-declaration:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/have-your-say-gender-recognition-act
The UK firefighters union has endorsed self-declaration for its members:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/20/backlash-fire-brigades-union-votes-favour-gender-self-identification/
I don't know who to look at as representing the mainstream of thought among trans advocates on this issue, but as far as I can see, self-declaration seems to be the preference.
That is my impression, too. And bringing up firefighters brings to mind the degree of affirmative action programs designed to help women get hired by organizations like the fire department. If self designation must be recognized at all times, without reference to evidence, what's to stop every man who wants to be a firefighter or police officer from declaring they're now 'women'? Wouldn't that require, under existing laws, departments to advance their application above that of males? How about the efforts to put more men on boards of directors? If a few of the men there decide to self identity as women does that take care of the problem? What about sports teams? If a male decides to call himself a woman can he play on womens basketball, baseball, and other sports teams? Can he be on the womens swim team and change in their locker room with them?
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 05:07:11 pm
That is my impression, too. And bringing up firefighters brings to mind the degree of affirmative action programs designed to help women get hired by organizations like the fire department. If self designation must be recognized at all times, without reference to evidence, what's to stop every man who wants to be a firefighter or police officer from declaring they're now 'women'?
Well... let's see.... uh... nothing ?
Quote
Wouldn't that require, under existing laws, departments to advance their application above that of males?
No.
Quote
How about the efforts to put more men on boards of directors? If a few of the men there decide to self identity as women does that take care of the problem? What about sports teams? If a male decides to call himself a woman can he play on womens basketball, baseball, and other sports teams? Can he be on the womens swim team and change in their locker room with them?
Clearly you just started finding out about this stuff.
And it will be 'settled' when somebody can convey that there is wide agreement on that...
Post by: SirJohn on October 09, 2018, 06:06:33 pm
Well... let's see.... uh... nothing ?
No.
No? There isn't a single piece of legislation or policy written that makes ANY distinction between people who are born as women and people who declare themselves to be women. If you make a law that says anyone who declares themselves a woman has to be treated like one then they have to be allowed on those teams and have to be accorded the same privileges.
Post by: kimmy on October 09, 2018, 07:17:44 pm
It's settled. The only possible answer is that people are entitled to their preferences. You have to accept it... the only alternative is, I guess, rent a van.
Why is it settled?
I read and watched several rants from people who believe in this "cotton ceiling" idea. They insist that they're not trying to pressure anybody to have sex with anyone they don't want to, and they agree that everyone is entitled to their own preferences. They contend that they're raising this critique as a means of highlighting transphobia among cis-lesbians, and to challenge cis-lesbians to "re-examine their biases".
There's really nothing there to discuss, other than "how guilty should I feel for having preferences?" I don't think that's a useful topic for discussion. It's really nobody else's business how much or how little guilt I should have for having preferences.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 07:20:51 pm
No? There isn't a single piece of legislation or policy written that makes ANY distinction between people who are born as women and people who declare themselves to be women. If you make a law that says anyone who declares themselves a woman has to be treated like one then they have to be allowed on those teams and have to be accorded the same privileges.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Women are eligible for affirmative action programs, yes.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 07:25:00 pm
I read and watched several rants from people who believe in this "cotton ceiling" idea. They insist that they're not trying to pressure anybody to have sex with anyone they don't want to, and they agree that everyone is entitled to their own preferences. They contend that they're raising this critique as a means of highlighting transphobia among cis-lesbians, and to challenge cis-lesbians to "re-examine their biases".
There's really nothing there to discuss, other than "how guilty should I feel for having preferences?" I don't think that's a useful topic for discussion. It's really nobody else's business how much or how little guilt I should have for having preferences.
-k
There is also a case against me, for not wanting to be with a penised woman. Sounds like it's not settled.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 09, 2018, 08:06:16 pm
I read and watched several rants from people who believe in this "cotton ceiling" idea. They insist that they're not trying to pressure anybody to have sex with anyone they don't want to, and they agree that everyone is entitled to their own preferences. They contend that they're raising this critique as a means of highlighting transphobia among cis-lesbians, and to challenge cis-lesbians to "re-examine their biases".
There's really nothing there to discuss, other than "how guilty should I feel for having preferences?" I don't think that's a useful topic for discussion. It's really nobody else's business how much or how little guilt I should have for having preferences.
I didn't even know this was a known phenomena with its own term "cotton ceiling" until i just googled it after seeing you post it.
It probably comes mainly from a frustration from trans people in the difficulty of finding partners, especially non-trans partners. I feel honest empathy for them. Imagine going through difficult transition procedures and looking amazing but then still being rejected constantly. I can see how it kind of feels like discrimination like in every other aspect of life of being trans.
I don't feel guilty but i feel sympathy, trans people have a damn tough road.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 09, 2018, 08:07:27 pm
There is also a case against me, for not wanting to be with a penised woman. Sounds like it's not settled.
Do you feel guilty for not wanting to be with a penised man? Lay naked with me Michael. Please.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 09, 2018, 08:50:16 pm
Do you feel guilty for not wanting to be with a penised man? Lay naked with me Michael. Please.
I knew that people on here would start begging me for my body.... eventually.
I don't want penises but it's not a rule... I just have never wanted one...
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 09, 2018, 09:28:02 pm
Post by: kimmy on October 09, 2018, 11:12:01 pm
There is also a case against me, for not wanting to be with a penised woman. Sounds like it's not settled.
There's not a case. You're entitled to your preference. Nobody would tell you otherwise-- some would however tell you you should feel guilty for your preferences. That's a personal issue between you and your conscience.
People reject other people all the time, and usually for reasons far more arbitrary and capricious than being incompatible with their physical anatomy. Height, weight, smokes, talks too much, annoying personality, thinks "The Real Housewives of..." is great TV, has weird-ass fake-looking Instagram style eyebrows, they're a Canucks fan, they wish Canada had a guy like Trump running things, they think the moon-landing is fake and chem-trails are real, ... I mean, there's an endless list of things that are potentially huge buzz-kills for one person or another. You can feel what works for you or what doesn't.
These things often work at a subconscious level... they're often not a deliberate decision that someone makes. What attracts you to a potential partner might be as innate as what draws a female peacock to the male with the most appealing plumage. And I feel this is why the people who ask that you rethink what makes you find some partners unattractive are out to lunch-- because there isn't a conscious thought process behind it at all. And if there were a conscious thought process that people could simply revise, I would imagine that most people would simply revise themselves to be cisgendered and heterosexual-- because life would be so much easier in many different ways.
I feel like there's a huge disconnect between the idea that sexual orientation is not a choice-- which I think most people agree with-- and idea that lesbians could simply rewire themselves to find male physiology attractive if it were presented by someone who identifies herself as female. It just doesn't work that way.
And oddly (or perhaps not oddly...) I haven't seen a male-related corollary to the "cotton ceiling". I can't find anybody arguing that straight men ought to be taking trans women as sex partners, for example. This seems to be an idea aimed specifically at women. Perhaps it's based on the idea that women are just inherently flexible and men aren't. Perhaps somebody heard "every woman is just a couple of drinks away from being a lesbian" and extrapolated. I really don't know.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 10, 2018, 12:03:09 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 10, 2018, 06:21:13 am
So...what you're saying is there's still a chance?
Oh most definitely. How could anyone say that they would "never". You live a long time, you know. Of course, my opinion is that there is 0% chance of it happening but there are plenty of stories of guys switching teams in later life so you never know...
I think I posted before that I am in a tiny minority of folks with no same-sex experience whatsoever...
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 10, 2018, 06:29:10 am
There's not a case. You're entitled to your preference. Nobody would tell you otherwise-- some would however tell you you should feel guilty for your preferences. That's a personal issue between you and your conscience.
If you should "feel guilty" then it seems to me they're saying you AREN'T entitled to your preference.
Quote
People reject other people all the time, and usually for reasons far more arbitrary and capricious than being incompatible with their physical anatomy. Height, weight, smokes, talks too much, annoying personality, thinks "The Real Housewives of..." is great TV, has weird-ass fake-looking Instagram style eyebrows, they're a Canucks fan, they wish Canada had a guy like Trump running things, they think the moon-landing is fake and chem-trails are real, ... I mean, there's an endless list of things that are potentially huge buzz-kills for one person or another. You can feel what works for you or what doesn't.
I made my mind on someone once, because she hated Win Wenders' "Wings of Desire".
Quote
These things often work at a subconscious level... they're often not a deliberate decision that someone makes. What attracts you to a potential partner might be as innate as what draws a female peacock to the male with the most appealing plumage. And I feel this is why the people who ask that you rethink what makes you find some partners unattractive are out to lunch-- because there isn't a conscious thought process behind it at all. And if there were a conscious thought process that people could simply revise, I would imagine that most people would simply revise themselves to be cisgendered and heterosexual-- because life would be so much easier in many different ways.
I agree that it's not as simple as a thought process. But I think the flip side of that is that you equally can't say you KNOW the reasons you like or dislike something. It's a cat and mouse game between your brain and your ... I don't know ... maybe your subconscious ?
Quote
I feel like there's a huge disconnect between the idea that sexual orientation is not a choice-- which I think most people agree with-- and idea that lesbians could simply rewire themselves to find male physiology attractive if it were presented by someone who identifies herself as female. It just doesn't work that way.
I think so too, but also wonder if some groups are going to have people talk themselves into trying it to show how liberal they are.
Quote
And oddly (or perhaps not oddly...) I haven't seen a male-related corollary to the "cotton ceiling". I can't find anybody arguing that straight men ought to be taking trans women as sex partners, for example. This seems to be an idea aimed specifically at women. Perhaps it's based on the idea that women are just inherently flexible and men aren't. Perhaps somebody heard "every woman is just a couple of drinks away from being a lesbian" and extrapolated. I really don't know.
I have seen it, I think. It doesn't matter because the prevailing belief is that you pick your partner.
Post by: kimmy on October 17, 2018, 01:10:33 am
Canadian trans woman wins cycling championship. (https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-woman-track-cycling-1.4863381)
The rules apparently allow a trans woman to compete against biologically female women as long as her male hormone levels are below a certain level.
The picture in the article illustrates why that in itself is hardly satisfactory to present a level playing field:
(https://i.imgur.com/6DyDxEh.jpg)
Dr Rachel McKinnon-- she is a professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina-- argues that the question of level playing field is irrelevant because it's a question of human rights:
Quote
"We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sports," McKinnon was quoted as saying. "Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn't be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead."
I strongly disagree. The whole reason women's athletics exist is to provide biologically female girls and women, who make up roughly half the human race, a venue in which they can compete on an equal basis. But apparently fairness to them is a secondary concern even in their own sports.
This is a total joke.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 17, 2018, 05:48:53 am
Post by: kimmy on October 17, 2018, 09:20:39 am
Yes. And SJ even brought this up as a 'what if..' thinking it was ridiculous but this is where women's sports is indeed going.
For how long? I can't imagine there won't be a pushback at some point. Perhaps in a sport that nobody gives a crap about like short-track cycling this will fly under the radar, but I have to imagine that if this comes to tennis or gymnastics it will get shut down in a hurry.
-k
Post by: cybercoma on October 17, 2018, 12:44:11 pm
I strongly disagree. The whole reason women's athletics exist is to provide biologically female girls and women, who make up roughly half the human race, a venue in which they can compete on an equal basis.But they don't compete on an equal basis. The assumption is that biological women lack the hormones to produce the kind of power and endurance that biological men can produce with their hormone levels. The fact of the matter is, women are not tested for their hormone levels to see if they're truly competing on a "level" playing field. A genetically female athlete could naturally produce more hormones that make her naturally more competitive than other females. With a transgender female athlete, they are often on hormone regimens that severely limit their genetically male hormones to such a degree that it is far lower than some cisgender female athletes who produce greater levels of the hormones that transgender athletes are having inhibited.
-k
So here's the question, do we test athletes for their hormone ratios and then divide them into categories that way instead of by biological sex. Because there could be far greater biological differences in hormone levels amongst cisgender athletes than between cisgender athletes and transgender athletes. Look at the African women who were running endurance races in the Olympics and all the controversy there. And what do you do about intersexed athletes?
Personally, I don't know, but I think a hormone level test might be the answer, which makes genetic sex irrelevant and also allows an opportunity for intersex athletes to compete. Nevertheless, the cut-off is going to be arbitrary because those near the bottom of the cut-off for men and those near the top of the cut-off for women may be more closely matched than those at other levels. Perhaps we create competition strata. I really don't know.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 17, 2018, 02:02:02 pm
But they don't compete on an equal basis. The assumption is that biological women lack the hormones to produce the kind of power and endurance that biological men can produce with their hormone levels. The fact of the matter is, women are not tested for their hormone levels to see if they're truly competing on a "level" playing field. A genetically female athlete could naturally produce more hormones that make her naturally more competitive than other females. With a transgender female athlete, they are often on hormone regimens that severely limit their genetically male hormones to such a degree that it is far lower than some cisgender female athletes who produce greater levels of the hormones that transgender athletes are having inhibited.
So here's the question, do we test athletes for their hormone ratios and then divide them into categories that way instead of by biological sex. Because there could be far greater biological differences in hormone levels amongst cisgender athletes than between cisgender athletes and transgender athletes. Look at the African women who were running endurance races in the Olympics and all the controversy there. And what do you do about intersexed athletes?
Personally, I don't know, but I think a hormone level test might be the answer, which makes genetic sex irrelevant and also allows an opportunity for intersex athletes to compete. Nevertheless, the cut-off is going to be arbitrary because those near the bottom of the cut-off for men and those near the top of the cut-off for women may be more closely matched than those at other levels. Perhaps we create competition strata. I really don't know.
What do you think of a 6’5” transgender female competing in hockey? Fair?
Post by: cybercoma on October 17, 2018, 02:09:41 pm
What do you think of a 6’5” transgender female competing in hockey? Fair?What do you think of a 5'4" guy competing in men's hockey? Fair?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 17, 2018, 02:25:44 pm
What do you think of a 5'4" guy competing in men's hockey? Fair?
So he should play in the women’s league? Is that what you’re saying? Or are you just evading the question?
Post by: cybercoma on October 17, 2018, 02:27:24 pm
So he should play in the women’s league? Is that what you’re saying? Or are you just evading the question?You go ahead and read my post that you responded to any time. I feel I've sufficiently addressed your question.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 17, 2018, 02:32:48 pm
You go ahead and read my post that you responded to any time. I feel I've sufficiently addressed your question.
You evaded the question. It’s not that hard of a question. But it must be difficult to put aside all common sense to say that this would be OK.
Post by: SirJohn on October 17, 2018, 02:57:57 pm
What do you think of a 5'4" guy competing in men's hockey? Fair?
It's not equivalent. This is not just about height. Men have more upper body strength, muscle and physical stamina than women. There's a reason there are no unisex sports. Whether it's non-contact like tennis or volleyball or track and field, or contact sports like hockey, men have a physical advantage over women.
This is not rocket science. You know this. Why are you so resistant to admitting that it makes no sense and is blatantly unfair to let men compete against women - regardless of whether they see themselves as female?
Post by: TimG on October 17, 2018, 05:04:12 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 17, 2018, 05:21:42 pm
So here's the question, do we test athletes for their hormone ratios and then divide them into categories that way instead of by biological sex. Because there could be far greater biological differences in hormone levels amongst cisgender athletes than between cisgender athletes and transgender athletes. Look at the African women who were running endurance races in the Olympics and all the controversy there. And what do you do about intersexed athletes?
We need to acknowledge that genetic females are not the same biologically as trans females. They are two separate categories. Sports don't care about your gender identity or sexual preference etc, they care about your biological category "male" or "female" to broadly level the playing field.
I support trans people being and doing whatever they want, but I don't support pretending a trans woman is the same biologically as a genetic woman. Hormones and plastic surgery don't change your genes or the years in puberty where biological males have far more bone, muscle, ligament growth etc. than females. Otherwise if LeBron James or Usain Bolt discover they identify as trans women they can take hormones and still destroy most other women and turn the olympics etc into a joke. How could that trans woman cyclists have any satisfaction in beating a bunch of genetic females? It's ridiculous.
To me the obvious answer is to have completely separate categories for trans men and women to compete against each other, where they can also regulate artificial hormone levels and have a broadly level playing field. Otherwise compete in your genetic category without any artificial hormone advantages.
Post by: cybercoma on October 17, 2018, 07:15:02 pm
But by all means, continue freaking out about dudes playing sports with women because it's "unnatural," as if women are fragile little dolls who can't possibly have strength, size, and endurance that exceeds that of many men.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 17, 2018, 08:24:39 pm
You guys have seen Jessie Graf absolutely crush guys' times in American Ninja Warrior, right? You're trying to boil this down to biological sex, when I'm saying that it's more complicated than that because it's about the benefits that biological sex offers. Size, strength, endurance, can all show more variability within the sexes than between. We're not talking about the factors that affect the disparities in ability, but instead you're focusing solely on the sex someone is assigned at birth.
But by all means, continue freaking out about dudes playing sports with women because it's "unnatural," as if women are fragile little dolls who can't possibly have strength, size, and endurance that exceeds that of many men.
This is the “exception fallacy”. Using an individual case to ascribe attributes to the whole. You know full well that, in general, biological males have increased muscle mass, lung capacity, etc, etc that makes them excel more in sports.
Also, no one said anything about it being “unnatural”. Straw man.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 17, 2018, 08:30:58 pm
You're trying to boil this down to biological sex, when I'm saying that it's more complicated than that because it's about the benefits that biological sex offers...We're not talking about the factors that affect the disparities in ability, but instead you're focusing solely on the sex someone is assigned at birth.
How do you measure how much growth hormones somebody was exposed to at birth, during puberty, their current hormone level, then look at genetic makeup ie: fast-twitch/slow-twitch fibers, tendons, ligaments etc? Then how do you weigh all these factors? And by what categories do you slot people into?
Even if it could be done, from a practical standpoint it seems not very doable to completely reconfigure the sports world to accommodate a very tiny % of the population. Gold medal in moderate pre-natal testosterone, below-median pubescent testosterone 4 x 100 relay?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 17, 2018, 08:36:19 pm
Post by: kimmy on October 17, 2018, 09:37:16 pm
But they don't compete on an equal basis. The assumption is that biological women lack the hormones to produce the kind of power and endurance that biological men can produce with their hormone levels. The fact of the matter is, women are not tested for their hormone levels to see if they're truly competing on a "level" playing field. A genetically female athlete could naturally produce more hormones that make her naturally more competitive than other females. With a transgender female athlete, they are often on hormone regimens that severely limit their genetically male hormones to such a degree that it is far lower than some cisgender female athletes who produce greater levels of the hormones that transgender athletes are having inhibited.
Trying to reduce the argument to strictly a question of testosterone levels (as McKinnon herself does) is simply ridiculous because it ignores the effect of male hormones and growth hormones during the developmental years. The average male grows to a size that only a small percentage of women reach.
Even women like Serena Willians and Maria Sharapova, who are absolute units compared to the typical woman, are barely average size by male standards. Willians is like 5'10 and 180, so she's somewhere around average size for a man. At 6'2 Sharapova is taller than the average man, but she's also only about 150-160 pounds.
And that's just size... then there's bone structure-- bigger, thicker, denser bones, broad chest, broad shoulders... the picture I posted earlier of McKinnon and her competitors illustrates the point.
Body composition-- men have lower body fat percentage. A body fat percentage that's considered very fit for a woman is still average or unhealthy for a man. Even at the same weight women carry far less muscle. This is one point I am willing to concede McKinnon: having her testosterone level cut back to typical female levels might prevent her from maintaining the same amount of lean skeletal muscle that a male athlete carries, but I also doubt her body fat percentage is any higher than a woman who has had typical female hormone levels since the onset of puberty.
Even an average male who transitions to female as an adult has already got a genetic advantage that's available to only a tiny percentage of women. And an above average male would have a physical advantage that would exceed almost all women.
What do you think of a 5'4" guy competing in men's hockey? Fair?
So this is a good point.
Life isn't fair. If you're a 5'4 guy, you can play hockey. You might even be good at it. You might have a great time in your rec league. And if you're really extraordinary, you might even make the pros. (Wasn't Theoren Fleury 5'4 of something like that?) But most likely, your size is going to be too much of a hurdle to overcome in reaching the highest reaches of the sport. Life isn't fair.
I had notions of being a competitive runner-- maybe getting a college scholarship, traveling the world, all that stuff. I was exceptional, especially at distance running. But as I got closer to adulthood I began to lose ground against the top girls who were just built better for running. I was heavier and shorter than them. As hard as I trained, I couldn't make my legs 2" longer. Genetics began to come into play. Having asthma didn't help either. As much as I wanted it, and as hard as I worked at it, it just wasn't going to happen for me. Life's not fair.
And I think maybe Rachel McKinnon and people like her should also accept that life's not fair. If it's a question of excluding some number of trans women or turning the whole of womens' athletics into a joke, I think you have to choose the greater good.
You guys have seen Jessie Graf absolutely crush guys' times in American Ninja Warrior, right? You're trying to boil this down to biological sex, when I'm saying that it's more complicated than that because it's about the benefits that biological sex offers. Size, strength, endurance, can all show more variability within the sexes than between. We're not talking about the factors that affect the disparities in ability, but instead you're focusing solely on the sex someone is assigned at birth.
But by all means, continue freaking out about dudes playing sports with women because it's "unnatural," as if women are fragile little dolls who can't possibly have strength, size, and endurance that exceeds that of many men.
Exceeds that of many men... but not many men who are athletes.
I don't follow the "Ninja Warrior" stuff, but I gather the remarkable thing about Jessie Graff is not that her times are top times (they aren't) but simply that she's been able to finish courses that no other women have completed. Her athletic ability is remarkable by comparison to other women, but not in comparison with the male competitors in her sport.
(Also, I saw a clip of her doing a standing backflip while wearing an evening gown and high heels at a red carpet event. That's pretty remarkable too. Also, she's somewhat attractive.)
(https://i.imgur.com/jYXSfOg.jpg)
(she seems nice.)
-k
Post by: cybercoma on October 19, 2018, 07:29:03 am
This is the “exception fallacy”. Using an individual case to ascribe attributes to the whole. You know full well that, in general, biological males have increased muscle mass, lung capacity, etc, etc that makes them excel more in sports.And you're committing the fallacy of focusing on the example that I gave without addressing the substance of my point. The general person isn't an athlete. A transgender woman is also not the prototypical male athlete either. They don't have the same genetic advantages after undergoing hormone therapy, but you completely refuse to acknowledge that point so I see no point in addressing you any further until you do.
Also, no one said anything about it being “unnatural”. Straw man.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 19, 2018, 07:11:35 pm
Quote
They don't have the same genetic advantages after undergoing hormone therapy,
Cite please.
Post by: SirJohn on November 04, 2018, 03:15:25 pm
Feminists now are routinely beaten up, slandered, fired from their jobs and de-platformed if they offer even the mildest caveat in regard to the demands of transgender extremists. Just this week, in fact, a female lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University was mobbed, with potentially career-ending ramifications, after raising concerns about male-bodied individuals being sent to female prisons.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/31/silencing-women-in-the-name-of-trans-activism/
Post by: guest7 on November 04, 2018, 03:16:37 pm
An interesting story of a radical feminist and gay rights activist relentlessly hounded by transexuals for daring to suggest that women don't have a ****.
Feminists now are routinely beaten up, slandered, fired from their jobs and de-platformed if they offer even the mildest caveat in regard to the demands of transgender extremists. Just this week, in fact, a female lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University was mobbed, with potentially career-ending ramifications, after raising concerns about male-bodied individuals being sent to female prisons.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/31/silencing-women-in-the-name-of-trans-activism/
TERFs. The new Nazis. Go figure.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 04, 2018, 07:13:34 pm
TERFs. The new Nazis. Go figure.
These fights get really viscious. I have a few old feminists in my FB feed, and they get very viscous when describing trans people. Then the younger feminists give it back to them.
Like all of these political fights, there is little entertainment value in someone staking out a reasonable middle ground and trying to build some kind of understanding. For example, even the pro-trans feminists can relate to feeling strange about seeing a **** in a change room so just say that.
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 01:23:45 am
An interesting story of a radical feminist and gay rights activist relentlessly hounded by transexuals for daring to suggest that women don't have a ****.
Feminists now are routinely beaten up, slandered, fired from their jobs and de-platformed if they offer even the mildest caveat in regard to the demands of transgender extremists. Just this week, in fact, a female lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University was mobbed, with potentially career-ending ramifications, after raising concerns about male-bodied individuals being sent to female prisons.
The hatred and is incredibly intense, and the violent ideation being expressed is frightening. The following page has a huge compilation of social media screenshots from trans activists who want to fight, shoot, burn, or sodomize "TERFs". (is it just me, or is there something kind of ... male ... about this ideation? have a look and see if you agree.)
https://terfisaslur.com/
Some images from a San Francisco "art exhibit" created (https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/san-francisco-public-library-hosts-transgender-art-exhibit-featuring-weapons-intended-to-kill-feminists/)by this group. (https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/transdykes-the-anti-lesbian-antifa/) Bloodied shirts with anti-TERF slogans. Baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire, axes, and sledge-hammers for smashing TERFs.
(https://i.imgur.com/kemQ3by.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zfGBGZb.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Qne1fje.jpg)
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/san-francisco-public-library-hosts-transgender-art-exhibit-featuring-weapons-intended-to-kill-feminists/
This is **** insanity. That it's accepted and even encouraged is deeply disturbing.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 01:47:03 am
These fights get really viscious. I have a few old feminists in my FB feed, and they get very viscous when describing trans people. Then the younger feminists give it back to them.
Like all of these political fights, there is little entertainment value in someone staking out a reasonable middle ground and trying to build some kind of understanding. For example, even the pro-trans feminists can relate to feeling strange about seeing a **** in a change room so just say that.
I used to think I was ok with trans rights. Back when it was about pronouns and non-discrimination and simply being able to use the washroom, I was all on board. I am still on board with those things.
But lately, they have completely lost me. The Body Blitz thing was probably the start of it. I know that I would not have been comfortable in that situation. The idea that this made me a "TERF" was pretty upsetting for me. I wasn't sure that wanting personal privacy is "trans exclusionary" and I'm sure it wasn't "radical". But with that I could at least accept that maybe I'm just a prude and others won't see it that way.
But lately... the sheer idiocy of this male-bodied person competing in women's sports.
The "cotton ceiling" idea. This idea that they haven't achieved real equality until lesbians will accept trans-women's "lady-penises". I **** hate it. And I'm sure that nobody who grew up as a female would have picked the "cotton ceiling" metaphor, because the image of some man-hand tearing your underwear is deeply unsettling for people who grew up female.
I read some trans woman writing that she finds feminism's focus on reproductive rights to be alienating, because not all women have a uterus. I read another trans woman explaining that all trans women understand what it's like to be women, but not all women understand what it's like to be trans women, and therefore trans women are the only women who fully understand the needs of all women, and therefore are uniquely positioned to lead feminism going forward.
I'm **** done with it. I'm completely over it. I feel like I'm a pretty fair minded and balanced person, but I can't deal with this idiocy anymore. And I feel like if you've lost me, you've probably lost most people.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2018, 04:33:02 am
This is **** insanity. That it's accepted and even encouraged is deeply disturbing.
The intent of the exhibit is the question I have, and I can't buy the source article's take on this as they appear to be biased.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2018, 04:34:48 am
I used to think I was ok with trans rights. Back when it was about pronouns and non-discrimination and simply being able to use the washroom, I was all on board. I am still on board with those things.
But lately, they have completely lost me. The Body Blitz thing was probably the start of it. I know that I would not have been comfortable in that situation. The idea that this made me a "TERF" was pretty upsetting for me. I wasn't sure that wanting personal privacy is "trans exclusionary" and I'm sure it wasn't "radical". But with that I could at least accept that maybe I'm just a prude and others won't see it that way.
But lately... the sheer idiocy of this male-bodied person competing in women's sports.
The "cotton ceiling" idea. This idea that they haven't achieved real equality until lesbians will accept trans-women's "lady-penises". I **** hate it. And I'm sure that nobody who grew up as a female would have picked the "cotton ceiling" metaphor, because the image of some man-hand tearing your underwear is deeply unsettling for people who grew up female.
I read some trans woman writing that she finds feminism's focus on reproductive rights to be alienating, because not all women have a uterus. I read another trans woman explaining that all trans women understand what it's like to be women, but not all women understand what it's like to be trans women, and therefore trans women are the only women who fully understand the needs of all women, and therefore are uniquely positioned to lead feminism going forward.
I'm **** done with it. I'm completely over it. I feel like I'm a pretty fair minded and balanced person, but I can't deal with this idiocy anymore. And I feel like if you've lost me, you've probably lost most people.
-k
You're not a TERF, but you have issues with some questions of trans rights. The 'cotton ceiling' thing we discussed, and nobody expects you to date people you're not attracted to. I don't know why you include that in the mix at all.
Post by: TimG on November 05, 2018, 04:39:28 am
I used to think I was ok with trans rights. Back when it was about pronouns and non-discrimination and simply being able to use the washroom, I was all on board. I am still on board with those things.What lost it for me are the trans-activists who want to teach kids that the normal "who-am-i" issues many kids experience can/should be solved with hormones and hacking off body parts. On top of this these activists push for legislation/regulation to prevent parents from teaching their kids that they should love the body they have. Child abuse is the only reasonable way to describe what trans-activists are demanding for in schools now.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2018, 05:09:07 am
What lost it for me are the trans-activists who want to teach kids that the normal "who-am-i" issues many kids experience can/should be solved with hormones and hacking off body parts. On top of this these activists push for legislation/regulation to prevent parents from teaching their kids that they should love the body they have. Child abuse is the only reasonable way to describe what trans-activists are demanding for in schools now.
Again, not indicative of anything.
Post by: SirJohn on November 05, 2018, 10:45:27 am
You're not a TERF, but you have issues with some questions of trans rights. The 'cotton ceiling' thing we discussed, and nobody expects you to date people you're not attracted to. I don't know why you include that in the mix at all.
If I'm reading what these freaks are saying, her refusal to have sex with a 'woman' who has a male body does indeed make her a TERF and a bigot.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2018, 12:57:57 pm
If I'm reading what these freaks are saying, her refusal to have sex with a 'woman' who has a male body does indeed make her a TERF and a bigot.
No, she isn't a TERF as she accepts transgender people.
Taking a wide spectrum of opinions and finding a dividing line serves some reasons but also divides people when you use a term like 'TERF'.
Post by: SirJohn on November 05, 2018, 02:33:13 pm
No, she isn't a TERF as she accepts transgender people.
Taking a wide spectrum of opinions and finding a dividing line serves some reasons but also divides people when you use a term like 'TERF'.
She is 'exclusionary' so yes she is. You can't approach these things with a common sense outlook. Either she completely and fully accepts 'trans' women as full and absolutely equal women in every way, shape and form, or she's the enemy.
There is no room in the dialogue of social activists for a middle path. Like those lefty loonies outside the debate between Frum and Bannon calling everyone Nazis. To them, either you're on the Left or you're a Nazi. There's no in between.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2018, 02:55:19 pm
She is 'exclusionary' so yes she is.
I disagree. Let's ask her, though, if she wants to apply this very binary term to her. It implies that you don't accept trans women as anything but men pretending to be women.
Quote
You can't approach these things with a common sense outlook. Either she completely and fully accepts 'trans' women as full and absolutely equal women in every way, shape and form, or she's the enemy.
That's horseshit. Following that logic means you are alt-right. These labels are being used to demonize people.
Quote
There is no room in the dialogue of social activists for a middle path. Like those lefty loonies outside the debate between Frum and Bannon calling everyone Nazis. To them, either you're on the Left or you're a Nazi. There's no in between.
Well... you're doing that too. If you want to call her a TERF because she doesn't want trans women to compete against biological women, then you're making the same mistake.
Post by: guest7 on November 05, 2018, 07:31:47 pm
I disagree. Let's ask her, though, if she wants to apply this very binary term to her. It implies that you don't accept trans women as anything but men pretending to be women.
That's horseshit. Following that logic means you are alt-right. These labels are being used to demonize people.
Well... you're doing that too. If you want to call her a TERF because she doesn't want trans women to compete against biological women, then you're making the same mistake.
Maybe I haven't read enough on the subject, but I think you're wrong. If someone uses the word TERF to demonize someone, how does that make someone who sees that and acknowledges it, alt-right? It doesn't have to be all Trans people or supporters.
Is this one of those instances where the left refuses to see poor behaviour by those it has previously championed just because it doesn't want to?
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 11:18:10 pm
The intent of the exhibit is the question I have, and I can't buy the source article's take on this as they appear to be biased.
It's a blood-stained shirt that says "I punch TERFS". Is it really that ambiguous?
If a public library had hung up a shirt that read "I punch Muslims", would you need to check with the "artist" before you decided how upset you needed to be?
Quote
As someone of Muslim descent, I see both something very different and very familiar in how the marginalized groups of Muslims and women are treated. If SFPL had exhibited a t-shirt that said “I punch Muslims”, I know that Bay Area community organizations and activists would have raised hell and had it shut down. But women? That nagging underclass of humanity? Nobody cares about us, be it on the left or the right.
There is also a chilling similarity. Violence is often justified by presenting the aggressor as the victim. When I see the lies and histrionics about radical feminists who “want all trans people to die” it reminds me of claims like “Muslims want to destroy the West/kill all Christians”. I have never seen any radical feminist advocate for violence against or wish death upon transpeople. Radical feminists simply do not believe that gender is natural or innate, and therefore do not agree with the current dogma that a woman is “anybody who identifies as a woman”. And in the ultra-privileged bubble and navel-gazing culture of American identitarians, disagreeing with someone’s beliefs about themselves is construed as the ultimate violence.
The Degenderettes exhibit is nothing more than misogyny and male entitlement and violence repackaged with the help of some eyeliner. As to the “liberals” who condone this, they have so wrapped their self-worth and social capital around being “woke” and supporting progressive causes, and they are so skittish about being reprimanded for wrongthink, that they allow themselves no room for critical thought.
https://crackinthesystem.org/2018/05/11/degenderettes-exhibit-at-sfpl/
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 11:48:24 pm
I disagree. Let's ask her, though, if she wants to apply this very binary term to her. It implies that you don't accept trans women as anything but men pretending to be women.
That's horseshit. Following that logic means you are alt-right. These labels are being used to demonize people.
Well... you're doing that too. If you want to call her a TERF because she doesn't want trans women to compete against biological women, then you're making the same mistake.
SJ's point is not that I am or am not a TERF. It's that expressing my discomfort with some of these ideas makes me a TERF in the eyes of these activists.
Early in the thread you wrote this, regarding your Facebook friends' reaction to a column by Megan Murphy (https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/women-only-spa-counterpoint-1.4170158).
I doubt that. The trans-protection legislation is through the Senate, I think, so soon to be law. This will have to be tested in court.
I learned a new term yesterday - TERF. It means trans-exclusionary-radical-feminist and is a large schism in the feminist community, apparently between generations of feminists. The CBC ran an opinion piece from a Megan Murphy that is being absolutely roasted on my facebook discussion page as she is dismissing the law outright. It's a rare case of the CBC going to the right of the Liberal party.
I liked the column, I thought it made a lot of sense. I gather your friends didn't. I read about people talking about boycotting Murphy's website and so-on.
Women are being threatened and deplatformed and losing their jobs for expressing concern over things like male-bodied prisoners being put in the women's prison. It's not people interested in having a discussion who are calling for their heads (figuratively or literally.) The Quillette article SJ posted yesterday talks about this.
If your Facebook friends think Megan Murphy is The Enemy, they'd probably think I'm the enemy too. And I can live with that. But don't put the blame on me. I'm not the one who decided that there's no middle ground here. That would be your Facebook friend and these trans rights activists who've decided that nothing less than total agreement is acceptable.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 06, 2018, 12:58:13 am
Maybe I haven't read enough on the subject, but I think you're wrong. If someone uses the word TERF to demonize someone, how does that make someone who sees that and acknowledges it, alt-right? It doesn't have to be all Trans people or supporters.
I didn't do a good job of explaining myself. I'm saying if you follow the principle of labelling people TERFs based on "if you don't agree with the most extreme trans radical you are not accepting of them and you are a TERF" ... means that your group definition is off. That means one person can call you alt-right and therefore you are alt-right.
I didn't mean to associate opinions on trans people to the alt-right.
Quote
Is this one of those instances where the left refuses to see poor behaviour by those it has previously championed just because it doesn't want to?
Who ?
Post by: guest7 on November 06, 2018, 06:39:56 am
I didn't do a good job of explaining myself. I'm saying if you follow the principle of labelling people TERFs based on "if you don't agree with the most extreme trans radical you are not accepting of them and you are a TERF" ... means that your group definition is off. That means one person can call you alt-right and therefore you are alt-right.
I didn't mean to associate opinions on trans people to the alt-right.
Who ?
Well not you, obviously, if I completely misread your point. Sorry about that.
Post by: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 06:43:01 am
She is 'exclusionary'YOU criticizing people for being exclusionary? LMFAO :D
Post by: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 06:45:23 am
It's a blood-stained shirt that says "I punch TERFS". Is it really that ambiguous?The importance of this art is to show the visceral reaction people have to this in comparison to their reaction when trans people are beaten and killed in the streets. Apparently an art exhibit is more newsworthy and gets more contempt than the actual people who've been beaten and murdered for the crime of being transgender.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 06, 2018, 08:51:59 am
Well not you, obviously, if I completely misread your point. Sorry about that.
Not at all. I was unclear. I'm thinking about 'labels' again and how difficult they are to apply.
Especially every time I see a Facebook troll post about 'the left' referring to the Democrats...
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 06, 2018, 08:52:47 am
YOU criticizing people for being exclusionary? LMFAO :D
He's not. He's just saying what he thinks she is. Certainly she is partially exclusionary but a TERF ?
This is not a pipe - this is a conversation about labels.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 06, 2018, 08:53:37 am
The importance of this art is to show the visceral reaction people have to this in comparison to their reaction when trans people are beaten and killed in the streets. Apparently an art exhibit is more newsworthy and gets more contempt than the actual people who've been beaten and murdered for the crime of being transgender.
Makes sense. The article didn't mention that, I don't think. But it was clearly pre-loaded anyway which is why I didn't look at it too closely.
Post by: kimmy on November 06, 2018, 09:52:53 am
He's not. He's just saying what he thinks she is. Certainly she is partially exclusionary but a TERF ?
Again, he's not calling me a TERF, he's pointing out that by the standards set by the trans activists, I'm a TERF.
This is the unease that hit me when you first talked about how furious your Facebook friends are at Megan Murphy-- the surprise of finding out that the position I took was considered radical and hate-filled by some people.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 06, 2018, 10:11:54 am
Again, he's not calling me a TERF, he's pointing out that by the standards set by the trans activists, I'm a TERF.
Which ones ?
If you want to declare trans rights an unreasonable proposition, an easy way to do it is to find the most extreme activist - who says children need surgery or example - and make them the spokespeople for the movement.
This is what the tabloids do.
Quote
This is the unease that hit me when you first talked about how furious your Facebook friends are at Megan Murphy-- the surprise of finding out that the position I took was considered radical and hate-filled by some people.
Right, but my facebook friends are not the centre of the movement either.
Post by: SirJohn on November 06, 2018, 12:28:33 pm
He's not. He's just saying what he thinks she is. Certainly she is partially exclusionary but a TERF ?
Kimmy got it right. I was commenting on the zealotry involved. Which is why I mentioned the loonies screaming and attacking people outside the Munk debate as Nazis. There is no middle ground to these activists. Kimmy is a TERF in their eyes, not mine. Because from what I see and read they don't accept 'partial' acceptance. Either you're 100% in agreement or you're the enemy.
I can't help noticing that they attack women who are feminists. Why not attack social conservatives instead? I mean, feminists are going to be way more accepting of trans people than social conservatives. Is it just easier to attack feminists who are mostly women? Why doesn't the t-shirt say I punch fundamentalists rather than I punch "terfs"?
Post by: SirJohn on November 06, 2018, 12:32:50 pm
The importance of this art
It's not art. It's dreck. And you'd be hyperventilating if it was attacking Muslims or gays or blacks because someone was expressing their 'visceral reaction' to them.
Post by: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 12:45:32 pm
It's not art. It's dreck. And you'd be hyperventilating if it was attacking Muslims or gays or blacks because someone was expressing their 'visceral reaction' to them.Because there's a clear difference between punching up and punching down....at least to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Post by: ?Impact on November 06, 2018, 01:46:13 pm
If someone uses the word TERF to demonize someone...
Is this one of those instances where the left refuses to see
The term "leftist" is thrown around continually to demonize people.
Post by: SirJohn on November 06, 2018, 03:39:04 pm
Because there's a clear difference between punching up and punching down....at least to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
No, there **** well isn't. This assumption that everyone in a particular identity group is ranked according to the degree to which that group has, to your mind, been disadvantaged is a big part of what is turning so many people away from the Left. The idea you can threaten and sneer at and intimidate someone if you're in a 'more disadvantaged' identity group than they are is poisonous bullshit.
You think it's okay for a bunch of muscular six foot tall guys to threaten to punch out women because they claim that being trans means they're more disadvantaged. That's **** nuts.
Post by: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 10:07:51 pm
No, there **** well isn't.Well, I’m sorry, but you’re not just wrong.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 06, 2018, 10:18:14 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 06, 2018, 10:18:38 pm
Post by: Omni on November 06, 2018, 10:28:20 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 06, 2018, 10:35:06 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 06, 2018, 10:35:56 pm
Post by: kimmy on November 07, 2018, 12:54:41 am
Which ones ?
If you want to declare trans rights an unreasonable proposition, an easy way to do it is to find the most extreme activist - who says children need surgery or example - and make them the spokespeople for the movement.
This is what the tabloids do.
Right, but my facebook friends are not the centre of the movement either.
I don't think the activists demanding that people they consider "TERFs" be silenced are extremists within the movement... they seem to be the mainstream of the movement. Judging from the success they've had, they're being treated as if they're the mainstream, at least.
Your friends might not be the brains of the movement, but they're helping provide the muscle. Their social media voices, along with large numbers of others like them, is what gives these activists the clout to demand that professors be fired or that speakers be deplatformed or that Body Blitz change their policy.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 07, 2018, 01:06:27 am
The importance of this art is to show the visceral reaction people have to this in comparison to their reaction when trans people are beaten and killed in the streets. Apparently an art exhibit is more newsworthy and gets more contempt than the actual people who've been beaten and murdered for the crime of being transgender.
This is a feeble excuse for the indefensible. Put up a display advocating violence against some group in Canada, and when the Human Rights Commission comes knocking on your door, tell them that you're just trying to draw attention to the plight of the Rohingas, and let us know how that works out for you.
Because there's a clear difference between punching up and punching down....at least to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Taking on the TERFs is "punching up"? Because feminists are such a powerful group in society?
The fantasy: they're defending themselves against genocidal fascists.
The reality: male-bodied thugs beating up little old ladies. (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/)
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 07, 2018, 07:06:36 am
I don't think the activists demanding that people they consider "TERFs" be silenced are extremists within the movement... they seem to be the mainstream of the movement. Judging from the success they've had, they're being treated as if they're the mainstream, at least.
Your friends might not be the brains of the movement, but they're helping provide the muscle. Their social media voices, along with large numbers of others like them, is what gives these activists the clout to demand that professors be fired or that speakers be deplatformed or that Body Blitz change their policy.
-k
But I'm saying that the definition of TERF is different for fringe dwellers vs the mainstream.
Post by: cybercoma on November 07, 2018, 08:20:10 am
Look, if you're just going to conflate an art exhibit with an actual criminal offence, then you've missed the point entirely. Also, the fact that you point out THIS assault, but not the literal murders of transgender people with the same staunch criticism is an illustration of the hypocrisy that the art exhibit is meant to elicit.
The fantasy: they're defending themselves against genocidal fascists.
The reality: male-bodied thugs beating up little old ladies. (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/)
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 07, 2018, 09:44:19 am
But I'm saying that the definition of TERF is different for fringe dwellers vs the mainstream.
If the fringe-dweller says "hey, this person's a TERF! Get 'em!" and your well-meaning friends grab their social media torches and social media pitchforks... does it matter what the moderates think? If the mob follows the fringe-dweller, then the fringe-dweller is the mainstream, and the moderates are not.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 07, 2018, 09:53:09 am
Look, if you're just going to conflate an art exhibit with an actual criminal offence, then you've missed the point entirely. Also, the fact that you point out THIS assault, but not the literal murders of transgender people with the same staunch criticism is an illustration of the hypocrisy that the art exhibit is meant to elicit.
I'm well aware that there is real-world violence directed against trans people. I'm not sure how anybody could think that fomenting hate and violence towards "TERFs" will help solve that problem. Blood-stained shirts with violent slogans are not going to make women feel safer with the idea of letting trans women into women's shelters.
I mentioned the real-world assault by the trans activist on the alleged TERF to point out that this hatred isn't a hypothetical or imaginary thing, it exists in the real world as well. I posted a link earlier that has a vast number of examples of social media screenshots illustrating the point. I saw more examples just checking out some trans-related areas of reddit last week.
These people have demonized women who are concerned about the impact of trans rights on women's safety. They've campaigned to silence them. They've driven them out of LGBT spaces. They've promoted hate and violence against these women.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on November 07, 2018, 11:36:20 am
I want to know what happens to the penises and **** lips after the surgeon cuts them off? And where do the balls go?
Trans people don't bother to go in for that stuff. Besides, they might be men again tomorrow - or women, depending on how they feel.
Post by: SirJohn on November 07, 2018, 11:39:33 am
Look, if you're just going to conflate an art exhibit with an actual criminal offence, then you've missed the point entirely. Also, the fact that you point out THIS assault, but not the literal murders of transgender people with the same staunch criticism is an illustration of the hypocrisy that the art exhibit is meant to elicit.
Trans people are being murdered by feminists? GTFO.
Post by: cybercoma on November 07, 2018, 11:42:46 am
Trans people are being murdered by feminists? Get the **** out of here.I know. A tranny is a tranny to you, but if anyone dared to lump you in with the worst elements of conservatism, you would claim those people aren't "real" conservatives, etc. So maybe stop conflating separate situations and painting entire groups of people by the worst examples you have.
Post by: SirJohn on November 07, 2018, 11:59:46 am
I know. A tranny is a tranny to you, but if anyone dared to lump you in with the worst elements of conservatism, you would claim those people aren't "real" conservatives, etc. So maybe stop conflating separate situations and painting entire groups of people by the worst examples you have.
Of course, the clear and obvious difference is anyone on the far right who says or does anything extreme is instantly booted from the ranks of conservatives. I don't see that happening here. I don't see any attempt at dissociating this from 'mainstream' trans activism. If these people are running the show then, as Kimmy says, they're the mainstream.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 07, 2018, 12:08:16 pm
1. does it matter what the moderates think?1. of course, it always matters politically
2. If the mob follows the fringe-dweller, then the fringe-dweller is the mainstream, and the moderates are not.
2. maybe we should start by defining the centre then. I don't know where some mob figures into it.
Post by: kimmy on November 08, 2018, 02:49:49 am
1. of course, it always matters politically
How does it matter? If the moderates don't make their views heard, then what good are they? If you're running a spa and you have dozens or hundreds of angry messages from trans supporters telling you your policy is bad, and almost nobody writes to tell you they like the current policy, then you probably conclude that the overwhelming majority thinks your policy needs to be changed. The spa owner will hear from the angry activists immediately, but probably won't find out what mild middle thinks for months, when people start voting with their wallets on whether they like the new policy or not.
I am as guilty as anybody, of course, because I've almost never written to a business or a media outlet to make my views known.
2. maybe we should start by defining the centre then. I don't know where some mob figures into it.
If the mob are the ones who get to decide which books get taken off the shelf at the LGBT book store, or get to decide who gets removed from the Dyke March, or which professors get censured or fired by the university, that's where the mob figures into it. If the mob makes the rules, then the people trying to find a compromise are irrelevant.
I don't know where the center is. I used to think I was the center. But it seems like I'm well to the exclusionary side of center, judging from where real-world policy decisions are landing. If that's the case then all people like me have left is to vote with our feet and our wallets.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 08, 2018, 08:43:49 am
How does it matter? If the moderates don't make their views heard, then what good are they? If you're running a spa and you have dozens or hundreds of angry messages from trans supporters telling you your policy is bad, and almost nobody writes to tell you they like the current policy, then you probably conclude that the overwhelming majority thinks your policy needs to be changed. The spa owner will hear from the angry activists immediately, but probably won't find out what mild middle thinks for months, when people start voting with their wallets on whether they like the new policy or not.
I'm assuming that the moderates are counted... the 'silent majority' and so on.
Quote
I am as guilty as anybody, of course, because I've almost never written to a business or a media outlet to make my views known.
But because you're in the mainstream you have a majority of opinion with you so that must be reflected somehow.
Quote
I don't know where the center is. I used to think I was the center. But it seems like I'm well to the exclusionary side of center, judging from where real-world policy decisions are landing. If that's the case then all people like me have left is to vote with our feet and our wallets.
That 'not knowing' is uneasy and is unfortunately the new 'centre' in a world with changing media. This is why our world is so scary right now: we don't know.
How many incels are there ? How many alt-right ? Why is Trump winning ?
Our mirror to look at ourselves at a society is media and when that changes all bets are off.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 13, 2018, 09:21:09 am
Rachel McKinnon - Canadian transgender athlete - cycling champion faces backlash after winning gold.
The public will soon wake up and start to digest this. Interesting point I got from these articles is that they assert there's no proof that testosterone is correlated with better competition results. Also the assertion that male dominance in sport is sociological. Hmmmm.
I'm not at the table here, though. Do trans women have an advantage in women's sports and should something be done ? Not a question for me, other than as the wider 'public...
Post by: Rue on November 13, 2018, 10:24:58 am
I do know in all life forms is homosexuality and its clearly a built in population control feature and if it was "abnormal" it would not be in all pro-creating life forms as it has been found to be.
We also know now definitively that unlike what was thought in the past they have now proven genetic predisposition to being homosexual.
I really am not that interested in who people phack as long as its not done without consent, with violence or with children or animals. I am not sure if that is gender though or sexual practice.
In regards to Gender, there is an agenda to define sexuality as fluid today. I don't know what that means. People want to leave gender as this wide open, unlimited definition. I am not sure if that is self-indulgence, maladjustment, adjustment, narcissism, confusion, or creativity. For me it comes down to the individual and what they decide with their doctor in private. I don't judge what someone wants to do with their pee pee but I when it comes down to it do resent sometimes people promoting it excessively. I feel your feelings about yourself expressed publically including your feelings about your pee pee or vee vee should be done in a modest manner in public if for no other reason you end up being Kim Kardashian if you go too far with thi and she is annoying and I know her real name is Clyde.
Its it unfair to suggest there are far too many people today who want to have it all and be a little bit pregnant? The fact is you can't be a little bit pregnant when it cones to your pee pee vee vee.
I think some not all of the gender dialogue has become too self indulgent and narcissistic.
There is too much focus on people making demands and demanding entitlements and not enough quiet calm self acceptance..
Nature is what it is. This need to control it by humans is ancient. Humans always want to control nature. In medicine, it is supposed to be benevolent when we do that to keep us alive longer. O.k. so it works of course, but then we live longer with diseases to the point where we are placed in a position of living with diseases that consume and overwhelm us and trap us in non stop pain. When is enough, enough with all this discontent and confusion as to what nature has defined?
I would conclude by saying I would hope some people just don't change their bodies because they can't accept being gay. I am told people who g o for the operation are tested for that and screened, etc., so that their decision is based on positive not negative reasons but sometimes I think its sad some people change themselves gender wise and like anyone who changes their bodies, their inner selves do not change.
Sometimes the emphasis on our piping and sex facilities misses the point that who we are is not just about the testes.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 13, 2018, 12:47:46 pm
More on this from a science organization of some kind. The article is not written in objective voice, though.
Post by: SirJohn on November 13, 2018, 03:08:54 pm
Do trans women have an advantage in women's sports and should something be done ? Not a question for me, other than as the wider 'public...
Your question is "Do men have an advantage over women in sports." The answer is, obviously yes.
I don't care what they feel they are. Physically, they are men, and have the same physical advantage over women that any other man would have.
Post by: TimG on November 21, 2018, 04:31:12 pm
Quote
A Michigan university has decided to cancel a scheduled performance of “The **** Monologues” because, according to the university, “not all women have vaginas.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 21, 2018, 05:48:04 pm
Your question is "Do men have an advantage over women in sports." The answer is, obviously yes.
I don't care what they feel they are. Physically, they are men, and have the same physical advantage over women that any other man would have.
A trans woman on hormone treatment would have a disadvantage over an average man, but the average trans woman on hormones would still have an advantage over most women.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 21, 2018, 05:57:42 pm
A Michigan university has decided to cancel a scheduled performance of “The **** Monologues” because, according to the university, “not all women have vaginas.
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarysue.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FJway-facepalm.jpg&hash=d9467cf32c4ff1ffaced0a98fd3ebb695896387e)
Post by: kimmy on November 22, 2018, 03:40:58 am
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2018/11/21/university-cancels-production-of-the-****-monologues-for-not-being-inclusive-enough-of-trans-people-n2536352
Well that's the stupidest god damned **** thing I've read all week.
I thought "Cleveland Browns considering Condoleezza Rice for coaching position" was going to be the stupidest thing I read this week, but I was wrong. April Fools Day is months away. What the **** is going on?
This is no longer about people being treated with respect and dignity, and living safely without fear. This has turned into a concerted effort to tear down everything women have built in the past 60 years.
It seems like the new goal is to eradicate every shred of the female experience from the word "woman" and replace it with a new definition based on an affinity for traditional gender roles and clothing and some ill-defined "feeling". This is total **** dog ****. These people need to be told to **** off.
Nice going, Tim, you got me all agitated.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 22, 2018, 05:36:07 am
This has turned into a concerted effort to tear down everything women have built in the past 60 years.
It seems like the new goal is to eradicate every shred of the female experience from the word "woman" and replace it with a new definition based on an affinity for traditional gender roles and clothing and some ill-defined "feeling". This is total **** dog ****. These people need to be told to **** off.
'Concerted effort' ? So someone is orchestrating this ? It's not just ONE person at "The Women’s Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?
Never forget the 'War on Christmas' ... Wherein 'Happy Holidays' constituted proof of a concerned effort to destroy Christianity and Santa.
Post by: TimG on November 22, 2018, 06:00:59 am
It's not just ONE person at "The Women’s Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?You are missing the point. This is one example in a US university but it does demonstrate how absurd the notion of "inclusiveness" has become.
Such actions also put people who recognize the unfairness and absurdity of this "inclusiveness" obsession in a difficult situation: do they tell such people to f-off and live with being called a TERF or worse or do they keep silent while they are being denied their rights in the name of "inclusiveness"?
If you are OK with people pushing back and insisting on limits to the "inclusiveness" obsession then you can argue this is just one example.
If you expect people too meekly shut up whenever someone pulls a stunt like the EMU did then this one example is a symptom of a much bigger social problem.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 22, 2018, 06:24:16 am
You are missing the point. This is one example in a US university but it does demonstrate how absurd the notion of "inclusiveness" has become.
So, government should step in to modify peoples' opinions and ideas but only if those ideas err on the side of inclusiveness ? Is that what you are suggesting ? Should we be more concerned about anti-semitism and political violence ? Or play readings ?
Loaded question, I know.
Quote
Such actions also put people who recognize the unfairness and absurdity of this "inclusiveness" obsession in a difficult situation: do they tell such people to f-off and live with being called a TERF or worse or do they keep silent while they are being denied their rights in the name of "inclusiveness"?
So by posting it here, you will convince the already-convinced. If you can pierce the bubble of progressives and make them understand your concern, let me know and I will use your tactics against the mouth-breathing deplorables...
Quote
If you are OK with people pushing back and insisting on limits to the "inclusiveness" obsession then you can argue this is just one example.
If you expect people too meekly shut up whenever someone pulls a stunt like the EMU did then this one example is a symptom of a much bigger social problem.
People shouldn't meekly shut up, that is, if it's in their area of concern. I would argue that Jews getting machine-gunned in Pittsburgh is more in my area of concern than feminist play readings at East Michigan University are in yours.
Being 'concerned' about social problems is supposed to be a leftist thing. I thought Conservatives were about live and let live. Meh.
Post by: cybercoma on November 22, 2018, 07:08:21 am
'Concerted effort' ? So someone is orchestrating this ? It's not just ONE person at "The Women’s Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?It also seems completely lost on people that sometimes individuals do completely outlandish things to draw attention to important issues.
Never forget the 'War on Christmas' ... Wherein 'Happy Holidays' constituted proof of a concerned effort to destroy Christianity and Santa.
Post by: TimG on November 22, 2018, 07:19:34 am
People shouldn't meekly shut up, that is, if it's in their area of concern. I would argue that Jews getting machine-gunned in Pittsburgh is more in my area of concern than feminist play readings at East Michigan University are in yours.Who says people can only be concerned about one problem at a time? People can be concerned about both.
I thought Conservatives were about live and let live.Live and let live means if someone want to stage a play that is not "inclusive" then there is nothing wrong with it. If they don't want to stage a play for whatever reason then that is fine as well. The conflict happens when people want to impose their will on others. i.e. if the someone wanted to stage the play but was a afraid of being attacked by mobs of zealots then that is a big problem. It is not clear why the decision was made at EMU.
Post by: kimmy on November 22, 2018, 09:45:38 am
'Concerted effort' ? So someone is orchestrating this ? It's not just ONE person at "The Women’s Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?
"not all women have vaginas" and the push to redefine womanhood into something "inclusive" is an ideology being pushed by trans activists and academics. If you want to quibble over whether that's 'concerted' or not, you can go it alone.
This is not the first time **** Monologues has been canceled for this reason.
Never forget the 'War on Christmas' ... Wherein 'Happy Holidays' constituted proof of a concerned effort to destroy Christianity and Santa.
"Happy Holidays" originated a long time before the recent "persecuted Christians" meme.
Are you proposing a parallel between the "persecuted Christians" meme and my reaction to this incident?
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 22, 2018, 09:53:27 am
So, government should step in to modify peoples' opinions and ideas but only if those ideas err on the side of inclusiveness ? Is that what you are suggesting ? Should we be more concerned about anti-semitism and political violence ? Or play readings ?
Hey, there's millions of kids starving to death in Africa right now. How can we be talking about a few deaths at a synogogue when there's millions of kids starving to death in Africa?
If you only get to talk about academic issues when there's no pressing real-world problems to solve, one might as well shut down the entire field of liberal arts, because there's always a pressing real-world problem that needs solving. I'd think a guy who spent so much time studying Marshall McLuhan would appreciate this more than most. Hey, Mike, how can you be reading that stuff when there's kids starving in Africa?
So by posting it here, you will convince the already-convinced. If you can pierce the bubble of progressives and make them understand your concern, let me know and I will use your tactics against the mouth-breathing deplorables...
You could post this topic to your facebook feed. You've mentioned that your facebook circle includes those people who are trans and gender-flexible and whatever else people are self-identifying as these days. Post this and see how people react.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 22, 2018, 09:54:54 am
It also seems completely lost on people that sometimes individuals do completely outlandish things to draw attention to important issues.
And in this case the important issue that our attention is being drawn to is that talking about the physical experiences of women hurts the feelings of trans women?
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 22, 2018, 02:49:14 pm
It also seems completely lost on people that sometimes individuals do completely outlandish things to draw attention to important issues.
So you do think the cancellation is outlandish then?
The university is the one that cancelled the play. That’s not an individual, but an institution of (supposed) higher learning.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 22, 2018, 04:09:55 pm
It seems like the new goal is to eradicate every shred of the female experience from the word "woman" and replace it with a new definition based on an affinity for traditional gender roles and clothing and some ill-defined "feeling".
What do you mean by what i bolded? Did you mean a rejection of traditional gender roles and clothing, rather than "affinity"? Please clarify.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 22, 2018, 04:21:19 pm
'Concerted effort' ? So someone is orchestrating this ? It's not just ONE person at "The Women’s Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?
Never forget the 'War on Christmas' ... Wherein 'Happy Holidays' constituted proof of a concerned effort to destroy Christianity and Santa.
It's a concerted effort by certain feminists. The thing is, often when you create one thing, you destroy another in order to do so . This is basic physics. And sometimes, what you create has positives but what you destroy to create it has positives too, that are now lost.
These people are trying to do something genuinely good and have the best of intentions, which is to be inclusive and make trans women feel included because they're often not included, and are so often alienated from society in general, which is terrible.
But at the same time, they are denying non-trans women a space & platform to talk about their unique issues, that being having a **** and all that this comes with. I just don't think its practical or fair to deny a platform for an issue that effects 99% of women in order to make the less than 1% of women who don't have vaginas feel included. If we should only talk about issues that affects all members of a particular group, we'd never talk about anything.
Post by: ?Impact on November 22, 2018, 04:32:38 pm
The university is the one that cancelled the play.
The university - when you say it like that it seems like some monolithic entity controlled by an overlord. I guess if I want to apply to study at Eastern Michigan University then visit the Women's Resource Center there because obviously that is THE UNIVERSITY.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 22, 2018, 04:48:15 pm
If on my dating profile i say i want to date a woman, you better not show up to the date with the jawline of Channing Tatum and get mad me when I end the date early by arguing "but I AM a real woman sir, you're transphobic!". No, if you're a trans woman you better have that fact in your dating profile, because yes there's a difference.
Post by: kimmy on November 23, 2018, 04:11:27 am
If art is expressing a view we don't share or sharing an experience that we haven't experienced ourselves, is that a bad thing?
Did they only make Mississippi Burning for people who lived in the Deep South during the Civil Rights era? Did people who didn't live there at the time feel hurt and excluded? Was Philadelphia only for people suffering from AIDS?
If we remove from art everything except that which makes people feel happy and comfortable and included, doesn't that just leave us with pablum? "Hang in there kitty" posters and shopping-mall artists who paint relaxing lakeside landscapes and stuff like that?
I have never seen or read "The **** Monologues". I understand it's a series of stories that talk about a wide variety of female experiences, from first menstruation to sex to giving birth to **** to sex work and others as well. Trans women might not have vaginas, but the overwhelming majority of women do, and sharing these thoughts and experiences was considered important and empowering for women. But apparently being important and empowering for women is trumped by the hurt feelings of a tiny minority who feel excluded.
People talking about the cancellation of this production at Eastern Michigan University and other venues have paid lip-service to its historical importance. It was important in its time, but we're working with a changing concept of what it means to be a woman, blah blah etc. But its time was just 20 years ago, and what it means to be a woman hasn't changed a whole lot since 1996.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 23, 2018, 04:25:50 am
It seems like the new goal is to eradicate every shred of the female experience from the word "woman" and replace it with a new definition based on an affinity for traditional gender roles and clothing and some ill-defined "feeling".What do you mean by what i bolded? Did you mean a rejection of traditional gender roles and clothing, rather than "affinity"? Please clarify.
Trans people say they identify with being a woman. But they're obviously not talking about physiology. So what are they actually identifying with? A socially-constructed concept of femininity... external presentation, traditional gender roles, "pink jobs" rather than "blue jobs", this sort of thing.
While women have been less constrained to girly clothes and girly toys and girly jobs than they used to be, trans women have jumped in and declared that this stuff-- girly clothes, girly toys, girly jobs-- this stuff is the real meaning of womanhood.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:35:21 am
Who says people can only be concerned about one problem at a time? People can be concerned about both.
Sure, but they should not devote equal time nor volume to non-problems. We have mentally ill people being whipped up into violence against minority groups and politicians. I think that's a clear and growing danger.
Quote
Live and let live means if someone want to stage a play that is not "inclusive" then there is nothing wrong with it. If they don't want to stage a play for whatever reason then that is fine as well. The conflict happens when people want to impose their will on others. i.e. if the someone wanted to stage the play but was a afraid of being attacked by mobs of zealots then that is a big problem. It is not clear why the decision was made at EMU.
It seems that people are upset about this even though it's not clear that there were mobs ready to attack.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:38:22 am
"not all women have vaginas" and the push to redefine womanhood into something "inclusive" is an ideology being pushed by trans activists and academics. If you want to quibble over whether that's 'concerted' or not, you can go it alone.
'Concerted' means 'organized' and has an insidious implication that there is a manipulation at hand. You could, I suppose, argue that opposition and protests against Apartheid were concerted so it's not a bad word. But then why use it ?
Quote
Are you proposing a parallel between the "persecuted Christians" meme and my reaction to this incident?
I'm asking what the difference is. Are you upset that the definition of 'woman' is changing, or are you pushing against it because the extremists are trying to push crazy ideas there ?
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:41:19 am
Hey, there's millions of kids starving to death in Africa right now. How can we be talking about a few deaths at a synogogue when there's millions of kids starving to death in Africa?
More like: there's a PLAY BEING CANCELLED AT EMU ! WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
It outrages you, and others it seems. No wonder it's in the news.
Quote
If you only get to talk about academic issues when there's no pressing real-world problems to solve, one might as well shut down the entire field of liberal arts, because there's always a pressing real-world problem that needs solving. I'd think a guy who spent so much time studying Marshall McLuhan would appreciate this more than most. Hey, Mike, how can you be reading that stuff when there's kids starving in Africa?
You're being played by FOX news, I fear. They seek out these outrage morsels to get buttons pushed.
Unless I'm mistaken, they don't have a regular "East Michigan theatre beat" reporter over there.
Quote
You could post this topic to your facebook feed. You've mentioned that your facebook circle includes those people who are trans and gender-flexible and whatever else people are self-identifying as these days. Post this and see how people react.
Post the EMU cancellation ? No chance. I'm sure I would be vilified for it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:42:38 am
The university is the one that cancelled the play. That’s not an individual, but an institution of (supposed) higher learning.
I don't think that's clear. It could well be an individual, like an artistic director.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:50:33 am
It's a concerted effort by certain feminists. The thing is, often when you create one thing, you destroy another in order to do so . This is basic physics. And sometimes, what you create has positives but what you destroy to create it has positives too, that are now lost.
I first heard "you must destroy in order to create" in an interview with Johnny Rotten on The Great Rock N Roll Swindle. It made sense, but it referred to art not physics. So I guess I agree with it, in terms of philosophy and specifically public philosophy and the moral sphere. That's an art too.
Quote
These people are trying to do something genuinely good and have the best of intentions, which is to be inclusive and make trans women feel included because they're often not included, and are so often alienated from society in general, which is terrible.
I became more vocal/interested when I read a Toronto Police report that said 100% of trans women surveyed had been assaulted. Then I realized my trans friends were likely all victims of assault and abuse.
Quote
But at the same time, they are denying non-trans women a space & platform to talk about their unique issues, that being having a **** and all that this comes with. I just don't think its practical or fair to deny a platform for an issue that effects 99% of women in order to make the less than 1% of women who don't have vaginas feel included. If we should only talk about issues that affects all members of a particular group, we'd never talk about anything.
It probably isn't. But why are we - two Canadian males, far from "East Michigan" - talking about it ? We're not in the stakeholder group and have only been brought in because someone wanted to outrage people.
I'm pretty sure that the women of East Michigan didn't ask for me to come online and help support them.
So to be clear: I think the **** Monologues is great. I have seen it performed. I think women who are not trans have things to talk about and discuss, and can figure out how to engage with trans women in those spheres. I doubt that there's any good reason for cancelling a whole play to spare the feelings of the trans women of East Michigan. I think the real purpose of publicizing these things is to create a narrative of trans conspiracy of sorts.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:58:45 am
Society needs to accept that trans women are female in gender and are women but that they are a particular kind of woman, and that there's distinct biological differences between trans women and genetic women. We need to stop pretending that trans women and biological women are exactly the same in name of inclusivity. If trans women can't accept that, then they aren't being rational but delusional instead. There's a reason why we call a woman a woman & why we call a trans woman a trans woman: they aren't the same.
Sounds reasonable, and I'm pretty sure they will figure this out and I will have no input to that discussion or maybe no use for the outcome either.
Quote
If on my dating profile i say i want to date a woman, you better not show up to the date with the jawline of Channing Tatum and get mad me when I end the date early by arguing "but I AM a real woman sir, you're transphobic!". No, if you're a trans woman you better have that fact in your dating profile, because yes there's a difference.
There's an episode of Louis CK's "Horace and Pete" where he has all-night sex with a hottie and she jokes to him in the morning that he used to be a man. It's a weird idea but an interesting one.
Aaaand... I just checked. I can still tell trans women from non-trans from photos. There's just something extra in the feminine aspect.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 06:00:40 am
Does art exist to make people feel comfortable or included?
If art is expressing a view we don't share or sharing an experience that we haven't experienced ourselves, is that a bad thing?
Did they only make Mississippi Burning for people who lived in the Deep South during the Civil Rights era? Did people who didn't live there at the time feel hurt and excluded? Was Philadelphia only for people suffering from AIDS?
People feeling 'excluded' isn't a problem, of course not. People telling others who they are, that might be a problem.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 06:02:37 am
While women have been less constrained to girly clothes and girly toys and girly jobs than they used to be, trans women have jumped in and declared that this stuff-- girly clothes, girly toys, girly jobs-- this stuff is the real meaning of womanhood.
Sure, but for themselves. It's only possible after 3rd wave feminism, I think, wherein any depiction, dress, uniform, what have you is an expression of the wearer's freedom.
Personally I can't wait until this stuff hits the bank. I will be in my mid-60s and I'm pretty sure they'll be surprised at my reaction when I welcome it with open arms.
Post by: kimmy on November 23, 2018, 09:50:39 am
More like: there's a PLAY BEING CANCELLED AT EMU ! WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
It outrages you, and others it seems. No wonder it's in the news.
Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't feel I should be outraged and that you don't think people need to talk about this.
If something is going on but people aren't supposed to talk about it, isn't that kind of troubling?
You're being played by FOX news, I fear. They seek out these outrage morsels to get buttons pushed.
Unless I'm mistaken, they don't have a regular "East Michigan theatre beat" reporter over there.
Yes, there's some amusing irony that these conservative-leaning news outlets like Townhall have been the ones publicizing this incident.
Conservatives have always thought The **** Monologues was pornographic trash promoting immoral sexual ideas that ought to be banned. Conservatives used to be the ones protesting **** Monologues, and even got it cancelled once upon a time. But now that it gives them a venue to attack "the trans agenda", they love "Monologues" and they love gender-critical feminists like Megan Murphy.
It's kind of like how conservative Christians realized that they actually care very deeply about gay people, once it gave them an excuse to blast the Islams for homophobia.
Still, regardless of why it's in the news, this is a real incident, which really happened. Similar things have happened elsewhere. Your view seems to be that the problem isn't that it's happening, but rather that people are talking about it.
Post the EMU cancellation ? No chance. I'm sure I would be vilified for it.
You're not allowed to question the hive mind?
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 23, 2018, 10:15:09 am
Sure, but for themselves.
No, not just for themselves. This EMU episode illustrates the point. Their quest to remove any biological factors from the definition of "women" means cancelling "The **** Monologues".
Things like menstruation, contraception, reproductive care, these are no longer "women's issues", these are now "bleeder issues". Menstruation isn't a women's experience anymore, it's for "bleeders" and "roasties".
It's only possible after 3rd wave feminism, I think, wherein any depiction, dress, uniform, what have you is an expression of the wearer's freedom.
Personally I can't wait until this stuff hits the bank. I will be in my mid-60s and I'm pretty sure they'll be surprised at my reaction when I welcome it with open arms.
"Middle Age Man Welcomes New Definition Of Womanhood". That's real magnanimous of you, Michael.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on November 23, 2018, 12:06:58 pm
Are you upset that the definition of 'woman' is changing, or are you pushing against it because the extremists are trying to push crazy ideas there ?
The idea the definition of a woman is changing is a crazy idea pushed by extremists.
No one with a **** is a woman. End of story.
I know the progressives will get all bug eyed with outrage over that but almost everyone else would agree.
Post by: Omni on November 23, 2018, 12:12:48 pm
The idea the definition of a woman is changing is a crazy idea pushed by extremists.
No one with a **** is a woman. End of story.
I know the progressives will get all bug eyed with outrage over that but almost everyone else would agree.
I think we all understand who is having the "bug eyed rage".
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:11:35 pm
Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't feel I should be outraged and that you don't think people need to talk about this.
If something is going on but people aren't supposed to talk about it, isn't that kind of troubling?
You can feel it, but you are being played is all.
Quote
Yes, there's some amusing irony that these conservative-leaning news outlets like Townhall have been the ones publicizing this incident.
Conservatives have always thought The **** Monologues was pornographic trash promoting immoral sexual ideas that ought to be banned. Conservatives used to be the ones protesting **** Monologues, and even got it cancelled once upon a time. But now that it gives them a venue to attack "the trans agenda", they love "Monologues" and they love gender-critical feminists like Megan Murphy.
It's kind of like how conservative Christians realized that they actually care very deeply about gay people, once it gave them an excuse to blast the Islams for homophobia.
Yes, that.
Quote
Still, regardless of why it's in the news, this is a real incident, which really happened. Similar things have happened elsewhere. Your view seems to be that the problem isn't that it's happening, but rather that people are talking about it.
You're not allowed to question the hive mind?
Sure, go ahead. It's not a significant event, though. It's playing because of the reaction...
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:13:00 pm
"Middle Age Man Welcomes New Definition Of Womanhood". That's real magnanimous of you, Michael.
-k
They won't be expecting it, that's for sure.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 23, 2018, 05:18:33 pm
The idea the definition of a woman is changing is a crazy idea pushed by extremists.
No one with a **** is a woman. End of story.
...aaand new start of story: many people accept that women have penises.... end of story.
Quote
I know the progressives will get all bug eyed with outrage over that but almost everyone else would agree.
I couldn't find a poll. Let me know if you have one that supports this.
Post by: TimG on November 23, 2018, 05:42:44 pm
...aaand new start of story: many people accept that women have penises.... end of story.Many people think the world was created in 7 days 6000 years ago. What is your point? That everyone has to believe in a falsehood because some people do?
I think the real conflict here is not that some people think that transgender are women. But that people that disagree are threatened with legal reprisals. The freedom to believe your neighbor's religion is a pile a crap is a fundamental right. It makes no difference if the religion is based on a old book or new cult.
Post by: SirJohn on November 23, 2018, 05:59:10 pm
...aaand new start of story: many people accept that women have penises.... end of story.
Define 'many'.
You're talking about something like half a percent of the population who are, to some extent, transgendered. And of those, the majority aren't interested in getting in everyone's faces. Ie., they're not interested in stripping naked in a woman's shower room, for example, and would probably understand how a 'woman with a ****' ought to not be sent to a womens prison. So what we're really talking about is probably an eighth of a percent or less of people. And we're supposed to change society to accommodate them?
I have not found anyone who agrees with that. Not even the guy I almost came to blows with over raising minimum wage and whether Tim Horon's employees "deserve" a decent living wage.
Post by: guest7 on November 23, 2018, 06:12:47 pm
...aaand new start of story: many people accept that women have penises.... end of story.
There'll be quite a few on those nights when drinks are half off.
Post by: kimmy on November 23, 2018, 07:27:10 pm
I think we all understand who is having the "bug eyed rage".
It's me. Let there be no confusion as to that. I am god-damned livid.
You can feel it, but you are being played is all.
Yes, that.
Sure, go ahead. It's not a significant event, though. It's playing because of the reaction...
I don't care why it's in the news, the fact that it happened is rage-inducing.
You say it's not a significant event. You've dismissed it as one decision made by one women's department at one university.
And then you told me you wouldn't dare post this to your Facebook feed because you'd be "vilified" for it. It sounds to me like your Facebook friends have all made up their minds and would be angry at you for questioning this.
If that's the case, then this Eastern Michigan University decision isn't actually an outlier at all. It's an indicator, a sign-post of what you earlier referred to as "an emerging consensus". Somewhere along the way, this debate already decided before I even knew it was happening.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 23, 2018, 07:36:01 pm
It probably isn't. But why are we - two Canadian males, far from "East Michigan" - talking about it ? We're not in the stakeholder group and have only been brought in because someone wanted to outrage people.
I'm pretty sure that the women of East Michigan didn't ask for me to come online and help support them.
Because these things won't stay in east michigan.
Post by: SirJohn on November 24, 2018, 11:35:20 am
If that's the case, then this Eastern Michigan University decision isn't actually an outlier at all. It's an indicator, a sign-post of what you earlier referred to as "an emerging consensus". Somewhere along the way, this debate already decided before I even knew it was happening.
It's only an 'emerging consensus' among the more precious and self-congratulatory members of the progressive Left.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 24, 2018, 03:05:42 pm
Many people think the world was created in 7 days 6000 years ago. What is your point? That everyone has to believe in a falsehood because some people do?
My point is that you can't state your opinion, then 'end of story' and expect that to be a point. And yet you questioned me and not SJ. Ok then.
Quote
I think the real conflict here is not that some people think that transgender are women. But that people that disagree are threatened with legal reprisals. The freedom to believe your neighbor's religion is a pile a crap is a fundamental right. It makes no difference if the religion is based on a old book or new cult.
I think it's ok to have legally mandated morality. There are lots of examples of this, and I'm sure you're in favour of some also.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 24, 2018, 03:09:34 pm
Define 'many'.
More than a few dozen ? I already said (I think) that I can't find any polls but I found polls that accept transgender rights as a large minority or majority.
Quote
So what we're really talking about is probably an eighth of a percent or less of people. And we're supposed to change society to accommodate them?
I'm not saying that.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 03:17:00 pm
Define 'many'.
You're talking about something like half a percent of the population who are, to some extent, transgendered. And of those, the majority aren't interested in getting in everyone's faces. Ie., they're not interested in stripping naked in a woman's shower room, for example, and would probably understand how a 'woman with a ****' ought to not be sent to a womens prison. So what we're really talking about is probably an eighth of a percent or less of people. And we're supposed to change society to accommodate them?
I have not found anyone who agrees with that. Not even the guy I almost came to blows with over raising minimum wage and whether Tim Horon's employees "deserve" a decent living wage.
Apparently you are still confused as to the difference between sex and gender. There are women with penises.
Post by: TimG on November 24, 2018, 07:08:54 pm
I think it's ok to have legally mandated morality. There are lots of examples of this, and I'm sure you're in favour of some also.The legally mandated morally should be the bare minimum. When you get into a questions ideology rather than fact like this 'transgender are the same as biological women' nonsense then a free society must respect the right to disagree.
For example, I doubt you would be so sanguine about 'legally mandated morality' that prohibited abortion which would be a plausible outcome in the southern us. It is incredibly naive to assume that you would agree with any state mandated morality that might appear in the future. Protecting the right to disagree is about protecting your own right to disagree should society evolve in way you don't like.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 07:18:20 pm
The legally mandated morally should be the bare minimum. When you get into a questions ideology rather than fact like this 'transgender are the same as biological women' nonsense then a free society must respect the right to disagree.
Except that actual science shows that what you quote and call nonsense is actually verifiable. Agasin, there can be a difference betweeen sex and gender.
Post by: TimG on November 24, 2018, 07:25:02 pm
Except that actual science shows that what you quote and call nonsense is actually verifiable.There is no science that shows that a biological man is the same as biological woman just because he believes he is a woman. Lots of people have mental health issues and do not expect the rest of society to validate their delusions.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 07:43:22 pm
There is no science that shows that a biological man is the same as biological woman just because he believes he is a woman. Lots of people have mental health issues and do not expect the rest of society to validate their delusions.
Well yes there is actually. Being born with a certain genitalia does not dictate what goes on in your brain. And such things as hormones have been shown to be influenced by what goes on in your brain more than how you pee.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 24, 2018, 07:47:15 pm
XX sports and XY sports.
This would stop the farce of that "women's" bicycle race that was won by someone with different chromosomes to all the other competitors.
Post by: TimG on November 24, 2018, 08:08:38 pm
Well yes there is actually. Being born with a certain genitalia does not dictate what goes on in your brain. And such things as hormones have been shown to be influenced by what goes on in your brain more than how you pee.You seem to think that you get to decide want defines gender. For many people biology is what matters and they could not care less about what people "feel". It is not a big deal if someone wants to wear women's clothing and change their name. Live and let live after all. It only becomes an issue when these people insist on pushing their ideology driven concepts on others by demanding that others pretend they are women too.
Post by: SirJohn on November 24, 2018, 08:10:21 pm
More than a few dozen ? I already said (I think) that I can't find any polls but I found polls that accept transgender rights as a large minority or majority.
Yes? And defined how? I bet it wasn't defined as "trangender women with penises get to go into female shower rooms and get sent to female prisons and can beat up lesbians if they won't sleep with them."
Quote
I'm not saying that.
You're certainly pushing back against anyone who says otherwise.
Post by: SirJohn on November 24, 2018, 08:11:00 pm
Apparently you are still confused as to the difference between sex and gender. There are women with penises.
Nope. If they want to be a woman they can have it cut off. Otherwise they're male.
Post by: TimG on November 24, 2018, 08:12:59 pm
This would stop the farce of that "women's" bicycle race that was won by someone with different chromosomes to all the other competitors.Any discussion of transgender has to has to separate the tiny percentage of people who are biologically ambiguous from those who are biologically unambiguous and just "feel" they are different gender. Simple chromosome tests don't work for the biologically ambiguous. Apparently there are additional mutations such as XXXY or XXYY.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 08:13:15 pm
You seem to think that you get to decide want defines gender. For many people biology is what matters and they could not care less about what people "feel". It is not a big deal if someone wants to where women's clothing and change their name. Live and let live after all. It only becomes an issue when these people insist on pushing their ideology driven concepts on others by demanding that other pretend they are women too.
No I don't get to decide that. Nor do I want to. But biology does, and it has been shown that people's biology can deviate away from the original based on how they evolve.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 08:15:47 pm
Nope. If they want to be a woman they can have it cut off. Otherwise they're male.
Ah that's funny. But what if they don't want to have it cut off?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 24, 2018, 08:17:10 pm
No I don't get to decide that. Nor do I want to. But biology does, and it has been shown that people's biology can deviate away from the original based on how they evolve.
What do you mean by this?
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 08:24:26 pm
What do you mean by this?
I mean that if you were assigned at birth with let's sat a ****, it does not mean that your are therefore assigned forever to be a male. If you choose to reassign yourself your biology has been shown to follow, whether or not you cut your **** off as argus suggests.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 24, 2018, 08:28:11 pm
There's provinces in this country where you can get the sex designation on your birth certificate changed from male to female and vice versa, which is categorically insane. There's provinces in this country where you can get an official sex change certificate after surgery because somehow some people think that by cutting off your **** etc. that then makes your sex female, which is categorically insane.
Let's support people expressing themselves however they want, but let's not enable delusion based on wishful thinking.
Post by: SirJohn on November 24, 2018, 08:36:30 pm
Ah that's funny. But what if they don't want to have it cut off?
Why wouldn't they? Women don't have penises. They want to be a woman then they shouldn't want a ****.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 08:38:35 pm
I believe there's a difference between gender and sex, as most do. I believe gender can be fluid and socially constructed, but that sex isn't and is quite static.
There's provinces in this country where you can get the sex designation on your birth certificate changed from male to female and vice versa, which is categorically insane. There's provinces in this country where you can get an official sex change certificate after surgery because somehow some people think that by cutting off your **** etc. that then makes your sex female, which is categorically insane.
Let's support people expressing themselves however they want, but let's not enable delusion based on wishful thinking.
Well it's not "categorically insane" if you dig into the biology. And it's not delusion but based on preference.
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 08:41:16 pm
Why wouldn't they? Women don't have penises. They want to be a woman then they shouldn't want a ****.
Not a lot of women do, that's true. But those that do maybe don't want pieces cut from their bodies.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 24, 2018, 10:59:04 pm
They want to be a woman then they shouldn't want a ****.
More of that live and let live we all love from conservatives...
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 24, 2018, 10:59:25 pm
Post by: Omni on November 24, 2018, 11:47:20 pm
Why wouldn't they? Women don't have penises. They want to be a woman then they shouldn't want a ****.
I don't imagine you are a participant in a lot of public change rooms any more, but if you were, would you be focused on everybody's genitals so as to make sure they all resembled yours? And if they didn't what would you do?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 25, 2018, 06:42:02 am
Well it's not "categorically insane" if you dig into the biology. And it's not delusion but based on preference.
You can change your gender expression, you can change the outward appearance of your body & some secondary sex characteristics through surgery & other methods, but you can't change your biological sex by choice, your genes & chromosomes aren't subject to preference.. Just like you can't change your race by painting your skin black or bleaching it whiter.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 08:03:48 am
You're certainly pushing back against anyone who says otherwise.
I'm not saying we're "supposed to change", necessarily. I'm pushing back against statements like this:
"No one with a **** is a woman. End of story. "
You can't take a hard line, then accuse me of taking a hard line (ie. we're SUPPOSED to change) when I push back against your hard line. Everybody settle down and this stuff can mostly be worked through pretty straightforward.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 10:01:30 am
More of that live and let live we all love from conservatives...
More like the sanity your side lacks.
And your complaint is irrational given that I'm perfectly willing to 'live and let live'. You can call yourself a girl if you want to. I really don't care. Don't demand I recognize you as one while you're waving your **** about, and showing us your manly physique, though.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 10:03:02 am
I don't imagine you are a participant in a lot of public change rooms any more, but if you were, would you be focused on everybody's genitals so as to make sure they all resembled yours? And if they didn't what would you do?
I'm fairly sure if I was in a public change room and one of the guys had a **** I'd have taken notice.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 10:06:37 am
I'm not saying we're "supposed to change", necessarily. I'm pushing back against statements like this:
"No one with a **** is a woman. End of story. "
You can't take a hard line, then accuse me of taking a hard line (ie. we're SUPPOSED to change) when I push back against your hard line. Everybody settle down and this stuff can mostly be worked through pretty straightforward.
You can call yourself what you like. But demanding I recognize you as something you categorically are not is just not going to fly with me.
There was an incident a couple of years back with Benjamin Shapiro on some talk show or other where he reiterated his belief that men were men and women were women. He was sat next to a transgender "woman" who was a former soldier. The first thing this 'woman' did when Shapiro calmly said he didn't recognize him as a her was to grab him by the neck and threaten to beat him up. The 'woman' being considerably larger and stronger than the diminutive Shapiro this was a pretty blatant example that HE was most definitely not a SHE.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 10:11:43 am
More like the sanity your side lacks.
Ffft... Your side killed 6 million jews, then; if you are allowed to put me with someone at your whim, then so am I.
Quote
And your complaint is irrational given that I'm perfectly willing to 'live and let live'. You can call yourself a girl if you want to. I really don't care.
As long as you get your **** removed.
Anyway, your position is more centrist than your tough words attempt to show.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 10:14:21 am
You can call yourself what you like. But demanding I recognize you as something you categorically are not is just not going to fly with me.
"not going to fly with me" is fine. I can get behind you expressing your perspective, but when you ambiguously declare universal truth then you will invite a response and a push back.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 10:18:04 am
"not going to fly with me" is fine. I can get behind you expressing your perspective, but when you ambiguously declare universal truth then you will invite a response and a push back.
My declaration of universal truth arises from an interesting series of consultations with a varied group of citizenry. Most were willing to 'live and let live' as you say, but all drew a very heavy and thick line at the thought of girls with penises going to womens prisons or taking showers with girls without penises or playing on the sports teams of girls without penises. The universal declaration of such ideas was 'that's insane'.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 10:22:36 am
My declaration of universal truth arises from an interesting series of consultations with a varied group of citizenry. Most were willing to 'live and let live' as you say, but all drew a very heavy and thick line at the thought of girls with penises going to womens prisons or taking showers with girls without penises or playing on the sports teams of girls without penises. The universal declaration of such ideas was 'that's insane'.
Your buddies making an assertion doesn't constitute universal truth.
You seem to be confused as to why I push back on certain things and not others. You just need to be very clear and specific with your assertions. If you disagree then that's your right, but don't try to say people are imposing things on you when that is what you are doing.
I would like to have a dialogue around accommodation then move forward with a practical solution that accommodates rights and social cohesion.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 10:32:50 am
Your buddies making an assertion doesn't constitute universal truth.
Well, mostly they just thought the whole thing idiotic. The people really frosted about it were their wives.
Quote
If you disagree then that's your right, but don't try to say people are imposing things on you when that is what you are doing.
I am not imposing gender on anyone. Nature did that. But demanding I accept that a woman is a man or a man is woman is imposing illogical on me.
Quote
I would like to have a dialogue around accommodation then move forward with a practical solution that accommodates rights and social cohesion.
None of this directly impacts me. So I would suggest you reach accommodation with Kimmy.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 10:35:40 am
Denying the gender choice of a person who calls themselves a woman is now reaching the same levels of blaspheme and anathema as suggesting someone be hired out of merit, so I can't imagine them doing so very easily. On the other hand, if men can simply call themselves women and be accepted into these reserved seats it pretty much makes a mockery of their whole idiotic affirmative action program.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 11:44:25 am
I am not imposing gender on anyone.
Sure sounds like it: "No one with a **** is a woman. End of story. "
Quote
Nature did that. But demanding I accept that a woman is a man or a man is woman is imposing illogical on me.
Well, if I had the same stance as you, I would not be trying to discuss this with you. Rather I would be saying "anyone can be a women, disagree if you want and I will be glad when they send you to jail for doing so".
Quote
None of this directly impacts me. So I would suggest you reach accommodation with Kimmy.
Exactly. And your entitlement and privilege ensures that you will bellow about this topic and assert yourself.
Here's what you don't realize: Liberals are actually your allies in this discussion, as they will defend your right to dissent, as I do. You are so entitled, though, that you can't see the difference and group me with the most extreme radicals.
I am starting to call this "a war footing" and it's not going to end well for either side, but especially yours.
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 11:46:58 am
I'm fairly sure if I was in a public change room and one of the guys had a **** I'd have taken notice.
You failed to finish answering the question: what would you do about those dissimilar genitalia?
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 11:47:45 am
The other day Algonquin college proudly announced they would henceforth reserve 30% of the spaces in various tech courses for women.
Well, I think that's actually ridiculous but I am not goign to bother to speak up against it since you are unwilling to compromise anyway, as evidenced in your constant "my way or the highway approach".
They will eventually increase the quote to 50% and 60%. You will expect a huge uprising but there won't be one because your type will be vilified for their inflexibility, as well as their gender and skin colour.
Post by: guest4 on November 25, 2018, 12:58:35 pm
The 'woman' being considerably larger and stronger than the diminutive Shapiro this was a pretty blatant example that HE was most definitely not a SHE.
Really? The implication here is that no woman can be larger and stronger, and more violently inclined than a diminutive male. Does being larger, stronger and violent = being male, then?
The person in question proved nothing about her gender; she only proved that she is, perhaps, a little too prone to violence.
Post by: guest4 on November 25, 2018, 01:00:50 pm
since you are unwilling to compromise anyway, as evidenced in your constant "my way or the highway approach".
You finally noticed.
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 01:58:09 pm
Well yes there is actually. Being born with a certain genitalia does not dictate what goes on in your brain. And such things as hormones have been shown to be influenced by what goes on in your brain more than how you pee.
That just isn't true. There's a reason why the trans people who do want to physically transition (which is a minority of them, I have heard) use a regimen of hormone injections and hormone inhibitors. Your body's various glands don't just start producing different hormones than the ones they are built to produce. Your testicles aren't going to stop producing testosterone and start producing estrogen just because you wish they would.
-k
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 02:08:59 pm
That just isn't true. There's a reason why the trans people who do want to physically transition (which is a minority of them, I have heard) use a regimen of hormone injections and hormone inhibitors. Your body's various glands don't just start producing different hormones than the ones they are built to produce. Your testicles aren't going to stop producing testosterone and start producing estrogen just because you wish they would.
-k
Women also produce testosterone and evidence shows that the production of it can be influenced simply by her sexual preference. Research has shown that the hard line between genders isn't always as hard as we thought it was.
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 02:15:30 pm
More than a few dozen ? I already said (I think) that I can't find any polls but I found polls that accept transgender rights as a large minority or majority.Yes? And defined how? I bet it wasn't defined as "trangender women with penises get to go into female shower rooms and get sent to female prisons and can beat up lesbians if they won't sleep with them."
Yes, the devil is in the details.
I think all of us support the idea that trans people should be allowed to dress as they wish, and live free from threat of violence, and not be fired from their jobs for being trans, and generally be treated with the same dignity as any other human being. The live and let live thing. I think those ideas would be supported by a majority in a poll.
I think most of us probably support them using the washroom of their chosen gender, and the pronouns, and so on. Probably still broadly supported.
But from there, I think things get a lot less clear. I'm skeptical that a broad portion of the public supports male-bodied individuals competing in women's sports. I'm skeptical that a broad portion of the public supports male-bodied individuals sharing the showers and locker rooms with women.
And I'm very doubtful that that the public supports male inmates deciding that they're women so that they can share cells with female inmates. Or relegating female art and writing to the dustbin of history if it doesn't support this new notion that talking about women's anatomic reality is "exclusive" and "hurtful" to trans people.
There might be some general level of support for trans people being allowed to live as they wish, but I don't think people should assume that this general sort of support means the public supports every radical idea that trans rights activists come up with.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 02:21:50 pm
Women also produce testosterone and evidence shows that the production of it can be influenced simply by her sexual preference. Research has shown that the hard line between genders isn't always as hard as we thought it was.
I'm highly skeptical that if this is true at all, that the hormonal change is anything more than miniscule. I'm highly skeptical of the research methodology. How could they possibly construct a controlled experiment to determine that? Did they measure some woman's testosterone level, tell her to become gay, and recheck it? That's not how any of this works. I think you're peddling a myth here.
I have never heard of someone's biological sex changing in response to their gender identification. As I said, there's a reason they need to use hormone injections and hormone inhibitors when they're transistioning.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 02:34:15 pm
Sure sounds like it: "No one with a **** is a woman. End of story. "
Excuse me for having a basic familiarity with anatomy and biology.
Quote
Well, if I had the same stance as you, I would not be trying to discuss this with you. Rather I would be saying "anyone can be a women, disagree if you want and I will be glad when they send you to jail for doing so".
You think the 2% of fanatics on the far left should be able to impose their brainless fad beliefs on the rest of society by force?
Quote
Exactly. And your entitlement and privilege ensures that you will bellow about this topic and assert yourself.
My entitlement and privilege? I tend to discount the IQ of people who use those terms by about 50%
Quote
Here's what you don't realize: Liberals are actually your allies in this discussion, as they will defend your right to dissent, as I do. You are so entitled, though, that you can't see the difference and group me with the most extreme radicals.
It seems to me you believe people should certainly have their say, and then shut up and do as you tell them to.
Quote
I am starting to call this "a war footing" and it's not going to end well for either side, but especially yours.
Because my side only has 90% of the population on it but yours has brave, fanatical progressives?
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 02:35:10 pm
Well, I think that's actually ridiculous but I am not goign to bother to speak up against it since you are unwilling to compromise anyway, as evidenced in your constant "my way or the highway approach".
They will eventually increase the quote to 50% and 60%. You will expect a huge uprising but there won't be one because your type will be vilified for their inflexibility, as well as their gender and skin colour.
And then we will have more Donald Trumps. Only worse.
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 02:37:12 pm
I'm highly skeptical that if this is true at all, that the hormonal change is anything more than miniscule. I'm highly skeptical of the research methodology. How could they possibly construct a controlled experiment to determine that? Did they measure some woman's testosterone level, tell her to become gay, and recheck it? That's not how any of this works. I think you're peddling a myth here.
I have never heard of someone's biological sex changing in response to their gender identification. As I said, there's a reason they need to use hormone injections and hormone inhibitors when they're transistioning.
-k
Hormone tampering can certainly augment transitioning but it also appears to happen naturally based simply on ones desire.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 05:55:30 pm
You think the 2% of fanatics on the far left should be able to impose their brainless fad beliefs on the rest of society by force?No.
Quote
My entitlement and privilege? I tend to discount the IQ of people who use those terms by about 50%Ok.
Quote
It seems to me you believe people should certainly have their say, and then shut up and do as you tell them to.No. I already said that I support your right to dissent. But 'support' is a verb. What you don't get is that you will need people to speak out for people like you more and more often. Given your self-righteousness, I'm less inclined to help you.
Quote
Because my side only has 90% of the population on it but yours has brave, fanatical progressives?
Your side will be in the minority in a few years, and will need liberals to support you.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 06:08:03 pm
Your side will be in the minority in a few years, and will need liberals to support you.
And what is going to make 'my side' a minority? The hundreds of thousands of extremely religious Muslims your side is bringing into Canada? You think those are the people who are eagerly going to support womens rights, never mind gay rights, never mind absurdist fiction about men in dresses being women? You think the huge number of Asians coming in is any more thrilled by the lunacy of the far left's extremist social views? The mainland Chinese coming in now are extremely conservative, if not very religious. They're not going to endorse any of this ****. The Filipinos are very Catholic. They're not going to endorse it either. Indians tend to be very conservative about sex, too.
Generally speaking 'my side' is mostly concerned about fiscal responsibility and reasonably sane social policy. Your side is obsessed with every little faddish bit of identity politics, elevating it to a breathtaking level of importance which eclipses all other everyday concerns. I think it was Douglas Murray who remarked at one point that western governments will be fixated on the shrill complaints of sanctimonious progressives when the Russians roll across Europe.
Post by: TimG on November 25, 2018, 06:08:54 pm
\ I already said that I support your right to dissent.His right to dissent includes the right to day that transgender are not women without being threatened with human rights actions or any form of mob actions that are completely disproportionate and designed to suppress dissent rather than simply express a counter opinion.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 06:11:20 pm
And what is going to make 'my side' a minority?
Really only a few ticks of the clock.
Quote
Generally speaking 'my side' is mostly concerned about fiscal responsibility and reasonably sane social policy. Your side is obsessed with every little faddish bit of identity politics, elevating it to a breathtaking level of importance which eclipses all other everyday concerns. I think it was Douglas Murray who remarked at one point that western governments will be fixated on the shrill complaints of sanctimonious progressives when the Russians roll across Europe.
You put me on a side that I'm not on. I'm actually a liberal, which crosses over a lot of lines you have written here.
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 06:23:42 pm
And what is going to make 'my side' a minority? The hundreds of thousands of extremely religious Muslims your side is bringing into Canada? You think those are the people who are eagerly going to support womens rights, never mind gay rights, never mind absurdist fiction about men in dresses being women? You think the huge number of Asians coming in is any more thrilled by the lunacy of the far left's extremist social views? The mainland Chinese coming in now are extremely conservative, if not very religious. They're not going to endorse any of this ****. The Filipinos are very Catholic. They're not going to endorse it either. Indians tend to be very conservative about sex, too.
Generally speaking 'my side' is mostly concerned about fiscal responsibility and reasonably sane social policy. Your side is obsessed with every little faddish bit of identity politics, elevating it to a breathtaking level of importance which eclipses all other everyday concerns. I think it was Douglas Murray who remarked at one point that western governments will be fixated on the shrill complaints of sanctimonious progressives when the Russians roll across Europe.
Sounds like your side have the same narrow mindedness, especially on this issue, as all those migrant hordes you are always in a panic about. The fact is trans gender has been around for a long long time and it will exist for a long long time.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 25, 2018, 06:38:39 pm
Hormone tampering can certainly augment transitioning but it also appears to happen naturally based simply on ones desire.
Cite
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 25, 2018, 06:44:50 pm
I do have a solution to the issue of transgender females being allowed to compete against women. Base sports on chromosomes, not "men's sports"and women's sports". Since "men" and "women" seem to now be a social or psychological construct that can mean anything to anyone.
XX sports and XY sports.
This would stop the farce of that "women's" bicycle race that was won by someone with different chromosomes to all the other competitors.
Not a bad idea.
We could also simply base "male" sports and "female" sports on biological sex, as it has always been, rather than anything to do with gender expression, which is completely subjective & fluid. That would also stop the farce of the biological male winning a women's bike race. To bring in your idea, we can define a "man" in sports as XY and a woman as "XX". ie: If you are XY you can't compete in women's categories.
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 06:45:49 pm
Cite
A discussion on the issue with a neuroscientist.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/scientist-refutes-notion-that-gender-identity-is-an-unscientific-liberal-ideology-1.4916508
Post by: TimG on November 25, 2018, 06:54:18 pm
A discussion on the issue with a neuroscientist.CBC letting a scientist/activist make claims without being challenged or questioned about the reliability/credibility of the underlying science does not count as a refutation of anything. At best is was a sermon from the church of SJW. If the CBC actually wanted to do something other than spread propaganda it would interview a multiple scientists with different opinions so listeners could make up their own mind on who has the most credible scientific argument.
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 07:04:11 pm
CBC letting a scientist/activist make claims without being challenged or questioned about the reliability/credibility of the underlying science does not count as a refutation of anything. At best is was a sermon from the church of SJW. If the CBC actually wanted to do something other than spread propaganda it would interview a multiple scientists with different opinions so listeners could make up their own mind on who has the most credible scientific argument.
Do a little research. There is ample science that indicates that things aren't as black and white, (or male/female) as we may have thought.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hormones-and-the-brain/201608/gender-identity-is-in-the-brain-what-does-tell-us
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 07:07:22 pm
This means you.
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 08:24:56 pm
Do a little research. There is ample science that indicates that things aren't as black and white, (or male/female) as we may have thought....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hormones-and-the-brain/201608/gender-identity-is-in-the-brain-what-does-tell-us
A discussion on the issue with a neuroscientist.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/scientist-refutes-notion-that-gender-identity-is-an-unscientific-liberal-ideology-1.4916508
Nothing in either of those articles actually supports the ridiculous notion that deciding you're trans will cause your hormones to change your body to reflect your gender preference.
-k
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 08:35:11 pm
...
Nothing in either of those articles actually supports the ridiculous notion that deciding you're trans will cause your hormones to change your body to reflect your gender preference.
-k
Correct. Nobody suggested the ridiculous notion that your choice to change gender would cause your **** to fall off.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 08:38:12 pm
Really only a few ticks of the clock.
You put me on a side that I'm not on. I'm actually a liberal, which crosses over a lot of lines you have written here.
Liberals are on the same side as Progressives. There is no airpsace between the position of Justin Trudeau and the transactivists and their progressive allies.
Post by: SirJohn on November 25, 2018, 08:41:38 pm
Also - we tried science with the much more impactful issue of climate and people opted out. It's about the "feels" now, so the neo-cons who undermined it are barred from using it in this subject.
This means you.
It seems to me that what some of us denied wasn't so much science as basic arithmetic. Because we can count.
I think an opinion piece I read in the Sun put it best.
We hear the Liberal fable practically every day from Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, in the claim the Liberals’ carbon tax/plan will work and that it would matter if it did.
No credible body — not the federal environmental commissioner, not nine of 10 provincial auditors general, not the United Nations, not the federal government’s own studies — endorses the view Canada is going to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed to in the Paris accord in 2015.
Not for 2020 — which has already been abandoned as unrealistic — and not for 2030.
We’re not going to miss our targets by a little. We’re going to miss them by a country mile, particularly under the latest UN targets, which are far more stringent than the already unattainable ones Trudeau agreed to in 2015, which used to be the Harper government’s targets.
Even if we miraculously hit our unattainable targets, our contribution is insignificant given that we’re responsible for 1.6% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-federal-liberal-and-tory-climate-plans-are-fantasy
So I don't oppose the Liberal plan because I deny climate science, I oppose it because it's incredibly stupid and pointless and won't work.
Same reason I oppose this trans ****, beyond the respect we'd give anyone to live their own life as they choose without harassment. But stupid ass ideas like letting men who claim to be women compete in sports events against women, or letting them force their way into womens or little girls showers or into womens prisons is moronic idiocy.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 09:12:15 pm
Liberals are on the same side as Progressives. There is no airpsace between the position of Justin Trudeau and the transactivists and their progressive allies.
I didn't say Liberal, I said liberal. Your understanding of these things is low. You actually believe the Liberals are 'left'. Too bad.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 09:14:38 pm
No credible body — not the federal environmental commissioner, not nine of 10 provincial auditors general, not the United Nations, not the federal government’s own studies — endorses the view Canada is going to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed to in the Paris accord in 2015.
So the Liberals aren't as "left" as some say then.
Quote
Same reason I oppose this trans ****, beyond the respect we'd give anyone to live their own life as they choose without harassment. But stupid ass ideas like letting men who claim to be women compete in sports events against women, or letting them force their way into womens or little girls showers or into womens prisons is moronic idiocy.
I get that that is your point of view. I myself don't care what happens with rulings on womens' sports, specifically. I really don't.
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 10:02:55 pm
https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/meghan-murphy/
Considering that Twitter continually turns a blind eye to threats of **** and violence and all manner of hate speech, banning someone for writing "Men are not women" is pretty extraordinary.
The "Gendertrender" page has been banned from Wordpress as well. The trans activists are handily winning the censorship battle.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 25, 2018, 10:07:07 pm
The trans activists are handily winning the censorship battle.
Guys - let me know if you need the liberals to help you out, k ?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 25, 2018, 10:14:25 pm
Meghan Murphy now banned from Twitter.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/meghan-murphy/
Considering that Twitter continually turns a blind eye to threats of **** and violence and all manner of hate speech, banning someone for writing "Men are not women" is pretty extraordinary.
The "Gendertrender" page has been banned from Wordpress as well. The trans activists are handily winning the censorship battle.
Things become "truth" much easier when you're censored and socially vilified for daring even questioning the possibility of it being incorrect. Imagine us having this same convo on Facebook, we'd be unfriended by a bunch of our friends or at least labeled transphobic **** or something, even if they simply thought it to themselves. **** the world. This is why I support people having the right to talk about holocaust denial etc., as long as nobody is threatening anyone with violence or harassing them I support free speech & generally think hate speech laws are **** because it can be used by human rights tribunals etc as thought policing. Who determines what is hate vs just controversial? The **** PC Popo Police that's who.
Quote
"Murphy, a native of Vancouver, earned her BA in women’s studies at Simon Fraser University. She earned an MA in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies at the same university."
WHAT THE BLOODY FUUUCK!?!?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 25, 2018, 10:15:48 pm
**** the system, **** the world, **** society. I'm going to go live in the woods.
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 10:19:52 pm
Guys - let me know if you need the liberals to help you out, k ?
Lol! You'll sit quietly and watch, because your woke friends will yell at you if you question it.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 25, 2018, 10:42:49 pm
What lost it for me are the trans-activists who want to teach kids that the normal "who-am-i" issues many kids experience can/should be solved with hormones and hacking off body parts. On top of this these activists push for legislation/regulation to prevent parents from teaching their kids that they should love the body they have. Child abuse is the only reasonable way to describe what trans-activists are demanding for in schools now.
I've been reading a feminist message board at Reddit that has a thread where women talk about the point where they realized the trans movement has "jumped the shark". One woman's story:
Quote
My 7 year old nephew is very adorable and I love him like he is my own son, so I am very protective of what people say to him or about him. My sister is pretty liberal and decided years ago that she would not enforce gender roles on him. She isn't against stereotypical gender roles, she just doesn't want to force them on him and instead wants him to do whatever makes him happy and grow up as a person with as little outside influence as possible.
He is actually a pretty stereotypical boy in most aspects (loves cars, wrestling, video games, legos, getting dirty, etc), but he does have a few traits that are not typical. His favorite color is pink and purple, he loves dolls, and he likes girly shows (like Sailor Moon and My Little Pony).
Over the last year I've had moments of peak trans but not quite fully there yet. Cause every time any of my liberal friends sees him acting "girly" in any way, they always say the same thing: "Oh MY GOD! That is SO cute how he likes girly things! Maybe he's trans?"
No damn it! He's just a kid that does what he likes and doesn't give a **** if it's "girly" or not. What kills me is how my liberal friends say this **** as if they're being oh so progressive, but all they're really doing is forcing my nephew into a gendered box. Every time me or my sister try to (politely) tell these people that he isn't trans, he's just a kid, they almost always shoot back "But he COULD be trans! What if he is?" Okay? There's no indication that he is trans though. Him playing with dolls or watching Sailor Moon says doesn't prove anything other than he likes dolls and Sailor Moon.
What made me hit peak trans last week was a fall out with a lesbian friend, let's call her Tammy. She's dating a "non-binary" woman and ever since she started dating her she has become insufferable. I've mostly ignored her dumb facebook posts (especially the ones about it being transphobic to not date trans women) but last week she commented on a post I made. I had a picture of my nephew playing with a Sailor Moon wand and the response was over all positive, just commenting how cute he was. Then of course 2 people had to comment that he might be either gay or trans. I politely told them that he was just a 7 year old little kid that had no concept of gender identity, and he was just playing with toys.
Tammy steps in and implies that I shouldn't get upset over people saying my nephew might be trans. I tell her (again, politely as can be) that I do have a problem with people suggesting it, because I don't want him to ever feel like he can only like Sailor Moon if he's gay or trans. I tell her I have no problem with trans people and if my nephew ever came out as trans I would still love him and respect him, but I don't want him to feel pressured into being something he isn't. Why do we have to make it such a big deal? Why can't we just let him play with his damn toys and not act like he's doing something weird or unique just because people think they're meant for girls only?
Tammy goes into a rant: "no one chooses to be trans! You can't be pressured into it! Being trans is dangerous and torturous" blah blah blah. I told her, "you believe that kids are pressured into being straight due to the way society tells them to hate gay/lesbian people right?", she agrees that society does have a hand in shaping how people grow up with homophobia. I then tell her "okay, if you believe that, then why is it hard to believe that kids can be pressured into thinking they're trans when they aren't?". Oh boy, that really pissed her off. She again said that it's different and that no one would choose to be trans and that I'm only worrying about my nephew learning about trans people because I don't like trans people. WHAT?!
Keep in mind, my nephew has an out and obvious transgender day care worker, so obviously my sister doesn't give a **** if he knows about trans people. The thing that me and my sister don't like is suggesting that you are trans if you like Sailor Moon. Two of Tammy's trans friends some how saw the conversation and joined in. I eventually blocked all three of them and deleted all their comments.
**** her and **** this ****. I don't hate trans people, but I hate these insane ideas that have been picking up steam and spreading like a virus.
I spent as much time as possible with my dad when I was a kid. Watching sports on TV, fixing stuff around the house, working on the car, whatever. I'm so grateful that this kind of stuff wasn't going on back then, because I can only imagine what kind of damage well-meaning idiots might have done to my psyche and my body.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 26, 2018, 12:07:09 am
A discussion on the issue with a neuroscientist.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/scientist-refutes-notion-that-gender-identity-is-an-unscientific-liberal-ideology-1.4916508
You didn’t provide a cite for your assertion. You’ve cited 2 articles that have nothing to do with your assertion.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 26, 2018, 12:09:01 am
Guys - let me know if you need the liberals to help you out, k ?
You think Kimmy is conservative? ::)
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2018, 12:14:52 am
You didn’t provide a cite for your assertion. You’ve cited 2 articles that have nothing to do with your assertion.
Well it was spoken about quite clearly in the discussion article but here's another one for you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 26, 2018, 12:51:24 am
Hormone tampering can certainly augment transitioning but it also appears to happen naturally based simply on ones desire.
Your latest article says nothing to support this. Try again? ::)
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2018, 01:25:48 am
Here is your assertion.
Your latest article says nothing to support this. Try again? ::)
It's not my assertion, it is one that scientific research is showing that what you are born with between your legs does not in all cases dictate how you must conduct your life. I have never had to deal with such a conundrum, but I am understanding how it can be a valid one to some.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 26, 2018, 01:28:28 am
It's not my assertion, it is one that scientific research is showing that what you are born with between your legs does not in all cases dictate how you must conduct your life. I have never had to deal with such a conundrum, but I am understanding how it can be a valid one to some.
No, now you’re pretending that you didn’t actually say what you said. Provide a cite for your hormones changing based on desire remark.
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2018, 01:53:34 am
No, now you’re pretending that you didn’t actually say what you said. Provide a cite for your hormones changing based on desire remark.
Try listening to the interview again. She distinctly mentions that there is evidence to show gender preference may influence how hormones react. I remind you that I'm not the biological scientist here, so I have to sit up and take notice to what their research has revealed.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 26, 2018, 03:00:37 am
Try listening to the interview again. She distinctly mentions that there is evidence to show gender preference may influence how hormones react. I remind you that I'm not the biological scientist here, so I have to sit up and take notice to what their research has revealed.
Cite the research then. “Someone said something” is not research.
Post by: kimmy on November 26, 2018, 03:42:11 am
Try listening to the interview again. She distinctly mentions that there is evidence to show gender preference may influence how hormones react. I remind you that I'm not the biological scientist here, so I have to sit up and take notice to what their research has revealed.
Here's what the article actually says:
Quote
Van Anders led a recent study looking at the relationship between the "masculine" hormone testosterone and behaviours such as competition and aggression.
She found that the act of engaging in these behaviours was enough to increase testosterone in both men and women — meaning the behaviour was affecting hormones, instead of the other way around.
"So we know that living life as women or men, or as non-binary people, and the gender norms that that involves, can actually influence the ways our hormones act."
She's making one extremely dubious assumption here, and I've bolded it so that even the truly dense can spot it.
If her research indicates that aggressive behavior triggers increased levels of testosterone production, ok. That's plausible.
Where this jumps the shark is the notion that living as a man in our society involves high levels of aggression and competitiveness, while living as a woman is a peaceful tranquil existence free from such mannishness.
Maybe at some points in human history, when a male life meant being a hunter/warrior and a female life meant nurturing children and gathering fruit and seeds, that would be the case. But in our society "the gender norms that involves" don't really differ that much from each other. The idea that a "typical male job" like solving problems at a computer is more aggressive than a "typical female job" like doing invoices at a computer doesn't add up. I'd also suggest that if trans peoples' lives are as stressful and full of confrontation as we're told, it's quite possible that their typical day involves higher-than-average amounts of these "mannish" emotions that apparently cause increases in testosterone production.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2018, 06:22:53 am
Yes? And defined how? I bet it wasn't defined as "trangender women with penises get to go into female shower rooms and get sent to female prisons and can beat up lesbians if they won't sleep with them."
Yes, the devil is in the details.
I think all of us support the idea that trans people should be allowed to dress as they wish, and live free from threat of violence, and not be fired from their jobs for being trans, and generally be treated with the same dignity as any other human being. The live and let live thing. I think those ideas would be supported by a majority in a poll.
I think most of us probably support them using the washroom of their chosen gender, and the pronouns, and so on. Probably still broadly supported.
But from there, I think things get a lot less clear.
You have articulated a general mapping of rights and accommodations which is exactly how a productive discussion starts. To me, these boards are about exploring what is possible and how we can 'get along'.
Those who say "this is how it is, deal with it" effectively burn up my goodwill in accommodating their side of the discussion.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2018, 06:27:23 am
Lol! You'll sit quietly and watch, because your woke friends will yell at you if you question it.
-k
Fair jab, but no.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2018, 06:30:20 am
You think Kimmy is conservative? ::)
Both of us have traits of both, I would say.
Post by: cybercoma on November 26, 2018, 08:38:40 am
Man i'm tired of being politically correct (yes i actually hold myself back a lot GASP), **** everybody.Triggered snowflake.
**** the system, **** the world, **** society. I'm going to go live in the woods.
Post by: kimmy on November 26, 2018, 09:45:44 am
Fair jab, but no.
I assumed that you were poking fun at me for some reason or another. But seriously, though, isn't what I said the truth? How would the mushy middle-ground make their voices heard in this fracas?
-k
Post by: SirJohn on November 26, 2018, 12:12:46 pm
I didn't say Liberal, I said liberal. Your understanding of these things is low. You actually believe the Liberals are 'left'. Too bad.
If you believe the Liberals are right then you are so far left that your claim to being in the middle is laughable.
Post by: SirJohn on November 26, 2018, 12:22:10 pm
I assumed that you were poking fun at me for some reason or another. But seriously, though, isn't what I said the truth? How would the mushy middle-ground make their voices heard in this fracas?
-k
So far it's by smiling and nodding agreement at anything transactivists say or do, and at their progressive idiot allies screaming abuse at anyone who questions the sanctity of transactivist demands, and scowling and chiding anyone who disagrees. Also, if progressives want laws banning anyone questioning gender roles liberals will nod judicially and vote for that. You think Trudeau would have a problem with such laws? You think the people at Twitter who banned Megan Murphy are conservatives?
Post by: waldo on November 26, 2018, 12:53:15 pm
You think the people at Twitter who banned Megan Murphy are conservatives?
Argus, good on ya for whiteknightin' Ms. Murphy... JT's helped to unleash your inner-feminist! Good on ya!
Post by: SirJohn on November 26, 2018, 02:27:29 pm
Argus, good on ya for whiteknightin' Ms. Murphy... JT's helped to unleash your inner-feminist! Good on ya!
Oh God, it's Waldo, waddling in to look for more ways to insult people. ::)
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2018, 02:37:11 pm
Oh God, it's Waldo, waddling in to look for more ways to insult people. ::)
Oh but he does so much more intelligently than you.
Post by: SirJohn on November 26, 2018, 02:43:58 pm
Oh but he does so much more intelligently than you.
Waldo is just your more flatulent counterpart.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2018, 02:56:52 pm
If you believe the Liberals are right then you are so far left that your claim to being in the middle is laughable.
I didn't say that.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2018, 02:57:54 pm
I assumed that you were poking fun at me for some reason or another. But seriously, though, isn't what I said the truth? How would the mushy middle-ground make their voices heard in this fracas?
-k
The mushies have a lot of power.
Post by: kimmy on November 28, 2018, 01:31:31 am
The mushies have a lot of power.
I'm not feeling that powerful right now.
The banning of Meghan Murphy from Twitter and Gendertrender from WordPress both relate to current events in Vancouver.
An anonymous Vancouver trans woman (or, allegedly trans, at least) with the initials JY has filed BC Human Rights complaints against 16 Vancouver area aestheticians who refused to wax her lady-testicles. There are Vancouver businesses that will happily perform a "Bro-Zillian" wax on male customers, but JY specifically sought out independent aestheticians who stated "women only" in their advertisements. One tends to suspect that JY was more interested in filing Human Rights complaints than in actually getting her balls waxed.
Lawyer John Carpay represented one of these women pro-bono. If the name John Carpay rights a bell, it's probably because he was in hot water earlier this month after comparing the gay rights rainbow flag to the banners of the Nazis or the communists. Carpay runs the "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms", which I suspect is a pro-Jesus anti-gay think-tank. Carpay wrote this piece for the "Post-Millennial", (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/carpay-16-vancouver-women-facing-human-rights-complaints-for-refusing-to-wax-transgender-womans-male-genitalia/)which provides some further information about JY and the nature of the complaints against these aestheticians. I have a hunch that the "Post-Millennial" is a right-wing website of some kind. I really don't know.
Quote
The Justice Centre has been connected with only two of the 16 women, and has provided legal representation to both, without charge.
One of them, Shelah Poyer, is a single mom who works out of her home. JY was willing to withdraw his complaint in exchange for $2,500.
If JY is demanding similar sums from the other 14 women, he stands to receive as much as $35,000 for dropping his human rights complaints.
For the women without legal representation, the temptation to settle is very strong.
Fighting JY’s discrimination complaint all the way through to a hearing would cost each esthetician $20,000 or $30,000 or more.
Further, those facing a complaint of “gender identity” discrimination may find it extremely difficult to obtain legal representation.
One of the women represented by the Justice Centre had approached, and had been turned down by 26 different lawyers and law firms. All of which cited lack of expertise in human rights proceedings, or fear of offending the transgender lobby, or both.
So how do Meghan Murphy and Gendertrender fit into this? Gendertrender wrote a column about the situation that mentioned JY by name, and JY filed a complaint. Someone asked Meghan Murphy if the JY in the HRC complaints was so-and-so, and she replied "yes, it's him." And now they're both gone.
JY's identity is no secret. And, as the John Carpay column explains, the tribunal's order of anonymity is bogus anyway. It's not like JY would be harmed by being "outed", because she refers to herself in female pronouns on her website. (even though she also refers to herself by her masculine first name throughout her website... "Matthew started her first business in 1997..." and so on.) JY is "out", although it seems as though she only actually uses her female name and gender when she goes to the ladies gym. Regardless, that she identifies as trans is public information.
Nonetheless, Gendertrender and Meghan Murphy have apparently received permanent bans for maliciously "outing" someone who is already "out".
JY is furiously filing all kinds of other complaints as well, to have damaging information removed from all over the internet. JY has a very large digital footprint, and screenshots of her social network activity paint a very unflattering picture. From complaining that when he goes in the locker room he never sees **** and **** to asking creepy questions about how to approach adolescent girls to talk about tampons, this is a disturbing individual. I've viewed a lot of these screenshots myself, and there is no doubt in my mind that JY is just a creepy incel who has decided to call himself transgender in an effort to force himself into womens' safe spaces, and to get female aestheticians to handle his dick.
edit to add: Statement from the (former) operator of Gendertrender (https://4thwavenow.com/2018/11/17/wordpress-dumps-gendertrender-gallus-mag-responds/).
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2018, 06:33:28 am
I'm not feeling that powerful right now.
...
JY is furiously filing all kinds of other complaints as well, to have damaging information removed from all over the internet. JY has a very large digital footprint, and screenshots of her social network activity paint a very unflattering picture. From complaining that when he goes in the locker room he never sees **** and **** to asking creepy questions about how to approach adolescent girls to talk about tampons, this is a disturbing individual. I've viewed a lot of these screenshots myself, and there is no doubt in my mind that JY is just a creepy incel who has decided to call himself transgender in an effort to force himself into womens' safe spaces, and to get female aestheticians to handle his dick.
Some notes:
The 'system' doesn't guarantee that good people win. It consists of a set of rules that are played for various purposes. Overall, it works but there are lots of things that don't make sense along the way.
As such, the people who outed the person in question broke rules and what happened happened. JY can 'game' the system to get their way, also.
I agree that the system has power over us, but keep in mind that nothing here has been decided yet.
Post by: TimG on November 28, 2018, 07:42:32 am
Overall, it works but there are lots of things that don't make sense along the way.Says who? The HRC is an unaccountable Kangaroo court that only benefits scammers who exploit it. Its basic operating rules need to overhauled and it needs to be written into its mandate that is cannot automatically assume that a complainant are sincere and the real victim may be the accused and that the HRC is only allowed to consider the intent of the accused (i.e. it makes no difference is the complainant "felt" like they were discriminated against. The only thing that matters is if it can be shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused intended to discriminate).
Post by: kimmy on November 28, 2018, 10:01:25 am
Some notes:
The 'system' doesn't guarantee that good people win. It consists of a set of rules that are played for various purposes. Overall, it works but there are lots of things that don't make sense along the way.
As such, the people who outed the person in question broke rules and what happened happened. JY can 'game' the system to get their way, also.
I agree that the system has power over us, but keep in mind that nothing here has been decided yet.
Some notes of my own:
"The mushies" are nowhere in sight. The only people talking about this are radical feminists, some far-right websites, and a lawyer who compared the rainbow flag to the swastika and the hammer and sickle. Not a peep from any mainstream news source or commentator or platform about any of this.
The far right and the Jesus lawyer and so-on aren't in this because they love feminists. They're in this because they hate trans people even more than they hate feminists. I don't like that this situation has put me in the position of cheering for a lawyer who compared the gay rights movement to fascists. I don't like that this situation has me scouring right-wing websites for information. I'm sure that Meghan Murphy hates that she has become the latest darling of the alt-right, just as Lindsay Shepherd did earlier.
The claim that the one woman was turned down by 26 lawyers before "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom" took on her case is troubling. Even murderers and rapists and child molesters deserve a legal defense in court, but apparently accused transphobes don't.
The Human Rights complaint process seems terribly tilted.
This "JY" person has provided a sterling example of why many of us are mistrustful of the "identity on demand" mantra favored by the trans rights movement. It's tailor made to be abused by creeps and predators.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2018, 10:54:59 am
Says who? The HRC is a...
I was talking about THE system, not any particular subsystem.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 28, 2018, 11:15:05 am
I was talking about THE system, not any particular subsystem.
You speak as if the system is flawless. It’s clearly broken if the idiot who wants his balls shaved can use it to their benefit.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2018, 07:44:33 pm
You speak as if the system is flawless.
Let me requote myself:
Quote
Overall, it works but there are lots of things that don't make sense along the way.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2018, 07:47:32 pm
"The mushies" are nowhere in sight. The only people talking about this are radical feminists, some far-right websites, and a lawyer who compared the rainbow flag to the swastika and the hammer and sickle. Not a peep from any mainstream news source or commentator or platform about any of this.
Why should the mushies care though ?
Post by: kimmy on November 29, 2018, 04:36:17 am
Why should the mushies care though ?
You've expressed the view that the moderates, "the silent majority", are counted, and that "the mushies have a lot of power". But if the mushies just don't give a ****, that really doesn't matter. If it was just an ivory tower debate between two opposing groups of extremists then maybe the mushies don't care. But they should, because this isn't staying in the ivory tower. This is entering the real world through laws and policies.
The mushies might not care right now, but they will. Sooner or later these changes will start impacting real people in greater numbers.
People who might not care right now will care a lot when their daughter goes off to college and is assigned to share a dorm room with some dude who decided to check the "female" box on his residency application. Or when their sister gets sued for not wanting to handle someone's "lady ****" at the salon. Or when they go to the gym and Wax My Lady Balls Guy is wandering around the locker room looking for **** and ****.
If the mushies don't care yet, they'll find out they care later. And the pendulum will swing back the other way.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 06:07:10 am
You've expressed the view that the moderates, "the silent majority", are counted, and that "the mushies have a lot of power".
Yes they are and they do.
Quote
But if the mushies just don't give a ****, that really doesn't matter. If it was just an ivory tower debate between two opposing groups of extremists then maybe the mushies don't care. But they should, because this isn't staying in the ivory tower. This is entering the real world through laws and policies.
But on what scale ? An individual pervert gaming the system isn't something the system isn't set up to prevent - at least not every time.
Quote
The mushies might not care right now, but they will. Sooner or later these changes will start impacting real people in greater numbers.
I'm not sure that's true. Why do you think that ?
Quote
People who might not care right now will care a lot when their daughter goes off to college and is assigned to share a dorm room with some dude who decided to check the "female" box on his residency application. Or when their sister gets sued for not wanting to handle someone's "lady ****" at the salon. Or when they go to the gym and Wax My Lady Balls Guy is wandering around the locker room looking for **** and ****.
But, why do you think a problem like that wouldn't be addressed if it grew to a common scale ? Remember that same-sex marriage was simply not allowed, for no legal reason, effectively because less than 50% of Canadians didn't like the idea. How does that get flipped around into your nightmare scenarios ?
Of course, I am assuming that people will say something at some point, and that there will be a pushback.
Quote
If the mushies don't care yet, they'll find out they care later. And the pendulum will swing back the other way.
Yes, exactly. I wouldn't resent your alarm at this one case but I myself am not alarmed yet; just not sure that it's time to get upset.
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 09:15:38 am
Quote
When James is away from his mother, he consistently rejects the idea that he is “Luna girl” or that he wants to be a girl. Because the court prohibits dad from dressing James as a boy or from teaching him that he is a boy by sharing religious or science-based teachings on sexuality, dad presents James with male and female clothing options and James always chooses, even insists on, his boy clothes. Dad told me, “James violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home.” This is not a sign of gender dysphoria.This kind of court ordered child abuse has to end. Diagnosing young kids with "gender dysphoria" is simply wrong.
Post by: guest4 on November 29, 2018, 10:02:58 am
http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/mom-dresses-six-year-old-son-girl-threatens-dad-losing-son-disagreeing/Based on the article, I agree that caution is called for.
This kind of court ordered child abuse has to end. Diagnosing young kids with "gender dysphoria" is simply wrong.
I have concerns, however. There is no information as to why the mother is insisting James is transgender but not his twin brother. Mom may well be nuts, but if the boy can be said to be choosing "girl" to please mom, why could he not be choosing "boy" to please dad, friends of dad and other people he may believe would prefer him to be a boy?
I am also concerned that real names are used and that the court documents the article links to gives the names of both boys, their ages and general location.
I agree with the author that a wrongful diagnoses is extremely harmful and that chemical castration at 8 years old should not be a consideration. But the one-sidedness of this story leaves me skeptical of the author's motivation and just how accurately he is presenting the facts.
Post by: kimmy on November 29, 2018, 10:19:11 am
Yes they are and they do.
But on what scale ? An individual pervert gaming the system isn't something the system isn't set up to prevent - at least not every time.
I think it is important to point out that in the estimation of the trans rights activists, everything "JY" is doing is completely legitimate. He is completely within his rights to declare himself a woman when he wishes to. He's completely within his rights to access women's locker rooms and demand services from aestheticians. The trans rights activist position is that "JY" isn't "gaming the system" at all, he's demanding what's rightfully his.
I'm not sure that's true. Why do you think that ?
How could this do anything but increase? This is just the nascent stage of this "emerging consensus". A few short years ago this would have all seemed nonsensical. A few short years ago we were fighting for trans people to have the right to use public washrooms, not shower with women or get their lady-balls waxed. This has moved forward so rapidly that it's hard to imagine where things will be in a short while. Trans-everything is becoming increasingly accepted and normalized, and dare I say trendy?
Even with it being quite on the fringes, cases of predators abusing a claim of gender identification to gain access to victims were already known to have occurred. As this becomes more and more common, how can it do anything but increase?
In particular I think this idea is very popular among misogynist incel types. It gives them 2 things they crave: validation their sense of victimhood, and access to women's spaces. I think that on this front, "JY" is just the thin edge of the wedge.
But, why do you think a problem like that wouldn't be addressed if it grew to a common scale ? Remember that same-sex marriage was simply not allowed, for no legal reason, effectively because less than 50% of Canadians didn't like the idea. How does that get flipped around into your nightmare scenarios ?
Of course, I am assuming that people will say something at some point, and that there will be a pushback.
Yes, exactly. I wouldn't resent your alarm at this one case but I myself am not alarmed yet; just not sure that it's time to get upset.
I have to point out that these "nightmare scenarios" are real life for some people already. I made up the college dorm one, but I'm sure it's on the way if it isn't already here. Trans people will definitely be demanding to be assigned to the living quarters of their choice. Trans people are already sharing rooms with women in women's shelters so why not colleges.
So how common does it have to be for it to become addressed?
-k
Post by: SirJohn on November 29, 2018, 11:15:10 am
I have to point out that these "nightmare scenarios" are real life for some people already. I made up the college dorm one, but I'm sure it's on the way if it isn't already here. Trans people will definitely be demanding to be assigned to the living quarters of their choice. Trans people are already sharing rooms with women in women's shelters so why not colleges.
So how common does it have to be for it to become addressed?
I posted an article not that long ago here with several such cases, including a mother in the UK who was lectured by the school when she complained that her 13 year old daughter was uncomfortable sharing a shower with a 'girl' who had a **** - which was often erect as 'she' stared at the other girls. Instead of paying any attention to her complaint they wanted her and her daughter to get counselling.
But then, you know how those menstruaters are...
Yes, that was the term the Guardian settled on for describing women who don't have penises, before, apparently, ridicule and abuse got them to change it. The more popular word going around there is womxn.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/in-england-womxn-is-in-as-activists-try-to-replace-word-woman-in-the-name-of-inclusiveness
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 11:39:32 am
I have concerns, however. There is no information as to why the mother is insisting James is transgender but not his twin brother. Mom may well be nuts, but if the boy can be said to be choosing "girl" to please mom, why could he not be choosing "boy" to please dad, friends of dad and other people he may believe would prefer him to be a boy?No matter what is true it does not justify the court getting involved to dictate that a child be treated in a certain way. Parents have arguments all the time about what children really want from joining the hockey team to piano lessons. No where does the court show this level of heavy handedness.
I agree with the author that a wrongful diagnoses is extremely harmful and that chemical castration at 8 years old should not be a consideration.If one side is considering chemical castration of an 8 year old then that side is in the wrong no matter what other facts might exist. If the world had any justice a mother considering such a thing would be declared an unfit parent and the father given full custody.
Post by: cybercoma on November 29, 2018, 11:55:18 am
No matter what is true it does not justify the court getting involved to dictate that a child be treated in a certain way.This is a pretty irrational position if you change the context. Courts do get involved in dictating how children should be treated. All the time in fact. There are legal and illegal ways for handling a child's upbringing. Parents are obligated by law to treat their children in particular ways. So your premise here is false. Granted it's your opinion, but even then it's a dangerous one because you're arguing "no matter what is true" the courts are "not justified in" enforcing parents' proper behaviour towards their children. This means that even if a parent is violently abusive or harmfully negligent or neglectful the courts are not justified in dictating to a parent that they are not to treat a child that way. This is a completely irrational stance.
So what I have to assume you mean is that a court shouldn't get involved when a child identifies as transgender. And of course that's your opinion because you hate transgender people and vehemently oppose anything to do with a person's right to their own identity. Time and again you argue that gender should be imposed on a person and they should be forced to identify in contradiction to their self-consciousness. You're completely incapable of recognizing that this would be like a court imposing upon you that you identify as a woman and equally as futile.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 05:24:42 pm
http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/mom-dresses-six-year-old-son-girl-threatens-dad-losing-son-disagreeing/
This kind of court ordered child abuse has to end. Diagnosing young kids with "gender dysphoria" is simply wrong.
The issue that the paper seems to make is that it's a misdiagnosis. If you think being forced to wear a chiffon dress is wrong, you must also agree that being forced to wear overalls is also.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 05:34:07 pm
I think it is important to point out that in the estimation of the trans rights activists, everything "JY" is doing is completely legitimate. He is completely within his rights to declare himself a woman when he wishes to. He's completely within his rights to access women's locker rooms and demand services from aestheticians. The trans rights activist position is that "JY" isn't "gaming the system" at all, he's demanding what's rightfully his.
Which activists now ? Are all 'activists' bad ? What are the homosexual activists up to these days ? Do activists just quit after equality reaches near-total acceptance.
Quote
How could this do anything but increase? This is just the nascent stage of this "emerging consensus". A few short years ago this would have all seemed nonsensical. A few short years ago we were fighting for trans people to have the right to use public washrooms, not shower with women or get their lady-balls waxed. This has moved forward so rapidly that it's hard to imagine where things will be in a short while. Trans-everything is becoming increasingly accepted and normalized, and dare I say trendy?
People used to say that if we allowed gays to marry people would start marrying dogs next. What is likely to happen ? We don't know but I would guess that at a certain point, the public will wake up and see what's happening and either people will be ok with it or they will push back and something will change.
Quote
Even with it being quite on the fringes, cases of predators abusing a claim of gender identification to gain access to victims were already known to have occurred. As this becomes more and more common, how can it do anything but increase?
So you're saying that as assault becomes more common, there will be more of it. I would think that as something becomes a problem the public becomes aware and there's a reaction.
Quote
So how common does it have to be for it to become addressed?
Your nightmare scenario doesn't seem realistic to me.
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 05:58:31 pm
The issue that the paper seems to make is that it's a misdiagnosis. If you think being forced to wear a chiffon dress is wrong, you must also agree that being forced to wear overalls is also.My issue with transgender labeling of children is:
1) Psychologists who label a child going through a normal phase of growing up as "transgender" and then declare that this label is a immutable aspect of the child's identity are peddling quackery. Children evolve. Their futures are not predetermined. Especially when it comes to something like gender identity.
2) Suggesting to children (who are very suggestible) that there is something wrong with them that may require hormone injections and/or body mutilation is criminal child abuse.
The healthiest message for children is to learn to love the body they have. The state has no business interfering if this is the lesson they want to teach their children. Furthermore, parents have to teach children that doing things they don't like to do, such as wearing particular clothing, is a necessary fact of life. Again the the state has no business getting involved the clothing decisions that parents make for their children.
To re-iterate: the problem here is the state is going too far to micromanage how parents raise their children.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 06:52:37 pm
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 07:04:31 pm
So you're saying that the mother is right to force a dress on the boy?I am saying the state has no business getting involved in the clothing requirements a parent sets out for a child. Question of right or wrong does not enter into the discussion.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 07:48:16 pm
I am saying the state has no business getting involved in the clothing requirements a parent sets out for a child. Question of right or wrong does not enter into the discussion.
At what point should the state get involved in psychologically damaging parenting.
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 08:11:16 pm
At what point should the state get involved in psychologically damaging parenting."Psychologically damaging" is a loaded term because it presumes there is some sort of agreement what is "psychologically damaging" and what is not. For example, these parents would probably be very high on the list of "psychologically damaging" actions for most people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddlers_%26_Tiaras
Yet, no one is seriously talking about government regulation to stop that kind of parenting.
I think the state needs to limit its interventions to parents who are physically abusive or fail to provide the necessities of life.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 08:15:16 pm
I think the state needs to limit its interventions to parents who are physically abusive or fail to provide the necessities of life.
Doesn't seem to me to be enough but ok.
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 08:30:16 pm
Doesn't seem to me to be enough but ok.State power is a blunt instrument. Too many vague rules and the state will cause more harm than it prevents.
Post by: Omni on November 29, 2018, 08:39:58 pm
Doesn't seem to me to be enough but ok.
It certainly is not enough. The state is responsible for the operation of schools across the country and need to be aware of and react to current social environment.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 08:48:19 pm
It certainly is not enough. The state is responsible for the operation of schools across the country and need to be aware of and react to current social environment.
TimG doesn't trust the government enough, although that may not apply to fields beyond education and science, such as policing. I know a lot of people who profess a distrust of government still trust them to execute convicted killers without error, for example.
Post by: Omni on November 29, 2018, 08:59:03 pm
TimG doesn't trust the government enough, although that may not apply to fields beyond education and science, such as policing. I know a lot of people who profess a distrust of government still trust them to execute convicted killers without error, for example.Now that's an interesting juxtaposition for sure. And we know the latter part has gone wrong a number of times. lucky for us we had the good sense to focus more on education and less on execution.
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 09:06:34 pm
TimG doesn't trust the government enough, although that may not apply to fields beyond education and science, such as policing. I know a lot of people who profess a distrust of government still trust them to execute convicted killers without error, for example.Not me. Not against capital punishment but I don't trust that the government won't execute innocent people. The issue is not government but people. There are too many people that will abuse power and the reducing the amount of power bureaucrats have reduces the potential for abuse.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 09:16:30 pm
Not me. Not against capital punishment but I don't trust that the government won't execute innocent people.
Well, at least you apply your principles consistently...
Post by: Omni on November 29, 2018, 09:22:40 pm
Not me. Not against capital punishment but I don't trust that the government won't execute innocent people. The issue is not government but people. There are too many people that will abuse power and the reducing the amount of power bureaucrats have reduces the potential for abuse.
Wait, wait wait. Lets ignore the tail end of you babble and deal with the idea you suggest that you don't really care if the government executes innocent people? WOW!
Post by: kimmy on November 29, 2018, 09:35:45 pm
Which activists now ? Are all 'activists' bad ? What are the homosexual activists up to these days ? Do activists just quit after equality reaches near-total acceptance.
Which activists? Any and all activists who are calling for gender identity recognition on demand, and any and all activists who demand that trans-women be treated identically to cisgendered women. As far as I can tell, those positions seem to be near universal among trans rights activists.
If you agree with those two positions, then you have to agree that "JY" has done nothing wrong and that the villains here are those 16 aestheticians who refused service.
If you accept those two positions staked out by trans rights activists, then you can't argue that "JY" is doing anything wrong, and you can't suggest he is "gaming the system".
People used to say that if we allowed gays to marry people would start marrying dogs next. What is likely to happen ? We don't know but I would guess that at a certain point, the public will wake up and see what's happening and either people will be ok with it or they will push back and something will change.
People marrying dogs as a result of gay marriage was a poorly reasoned attempt at "slippery-sloping". It's a poor analogy to what we're discussing.
People were never really that interested in marrying dogs, so marrying dogs just never took off the way that some people seemed to think it would.
On the other hand, perverts and predators are very interested in gaining access to women's safe spaces.
So you're saying that as assault becomes more common, there will be more of it. I would think that as something becomes a problem the public becomes aware and there's a reaction.
I am saying that as men identifying themselves as women becomes more common and more accepted, more people will do so for malicious reasons. ie, not because they sincerely believe they are women or because they suffer genuine gender dysphoria, but because they want to invade women's privacy, or live out their sexual fetishes, or claim victimhood, or access to things that have been set aside for women-- like scholarships for girls or equal opportunity placements or women's athletics.
They're creating a system that's tailor made to be abused, and it's going to be abused. It already is being abused.
Your nightmare scenario doesn't seem realistic to me.
This stuff is happening in real life. Why do you find it unrealistic when it's already happening?
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 29, 2018, 09:47:25 pm
I say bring your kid to the clothes section at walmart and let them choose whatever clothes they want. I honestly probably wouldn't care, unless it was sexually suggestive. Johnny likes rocking a dress. Who cares.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 29, 2018, 09:53:58 pm
Which activists? Any and all activists who are calling for gender identity recognition on demand, and any and all activists who demand that trans-women be treated identically to cisgendered women. As far as I can tell, those positions seem to be near universal among trans rights activists.
So... which ones specifically ? You seemed to be saying that there were people supporting this person's case.
Quote
People marrying dogs as a result of gay marriage was a poorly reasoned attempt at "slippery-sloping". It's a poor analogy to what we're discussing.
Aren't you saying that Incels in drag will soon be inundating teenage girls in change rooms ? Or ...
Quote
This stuff is happening in real life. Why do you find it unrealistic when it's already happening?
Because there's no scale to it. As I said, if this is one of those things where a single case upsets you then I understand your concern.
Post by: TimG on November 29, 2018, 10:02:16 pm
They're creating a system that's tailor made to be abused, and it's going to be abused. It already is being abused.Alberta man changes gender to get reduced insurance rates:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/change-gender-identification-insurance-alberta-1.4754416
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem with a lot of well meaning people is they never consider the fact that people will abuse whatever system is put in place so you can never change rules without considering the potential for abuse. Simply dismissing the potential for abuse is naive.
Post by: Omni on November 29, 2018, 10:17:32 pm
Alberta man changes gender to get reduced insurance rates:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/change-gender-identification-insurance-alberta-1.4754416
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem with a lot of well meaning people is they never consider the fact that people will abuse whatever system is put in place so you can never change rules without considering the potential for abuse. Simply dismissing the potential for abuse is naive.
"Tip of the iceberg"? good god give us a break! I doubt there is a wave of people faking their identity to save $91 bucks a month. You wanna real project, go after Canadian tax dogers who hide the money off shore and cheat the tax man in the order of $14 Billion/year.
Post by: kimmy on November 30, 2018, 04:18:56 am
So... which ones specifically ? You seemed to be saying that there were people supporting this person's case.
I have yet to see any trans rights activists address this situation in the slightest. But they're demanding an honor-system approach to gender self-identification, and this "JY" situation is an inevitable result to an honor-system approach. So what is there for them to say, other than "well you gotta break a few eggs"?
Has there ever been an honor-system anything that wasn't abused by dishonorable people?
I also have yet to see any mainstream media coverage of the situation. I assume they're afraid of being deemed transphobic.
Aren't you saying that Incels in drag will soon be inundating teenage girls in change rooms ? Or ...
I don't think I said "inundating" or specified teenage girls in particular.
But yes. Create a system that's begging to be abused, and people are going to abuse it, and we already know it's being abused.
Because there's no scale to it. As I said, if this is one of those things where a single case upsets you then I understand your concern.
This isn't a single case, this is just the latest case. We don't yet know to what degree it's going to be abused, but we know that it's already happening.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 30, 2018, 06:42:54 am
The problem with a lot of well meaning people is they never consider the fact that people will abuse whatever system is put in place so you can never change rules without considering the potential for abuse. Simply dismissing the potential for abuse is naive.Exactly right. I am a typical L/liberal in that I am too trusting and I recognize this. As SJ has posted, it's a personality type that may left-of-centres share.
To my mind, our evolving collective view of ourselves happens due to a tough dialogue between my mindset and the opposite one. You will never hear me say conservatives need to be eliminated.
For the case in question, the system can either sustain an honour system or it can't. Part of the reason why the system is sustainable is that morality exists. Both liberals and conservatives have morality.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 30, 2018, 07:01:37 am
I have yet to see any trans rights activists address this situation in the slightest. But they're demanding an honor-system approach to gender self-identification, and this "JY" situation is an inevitable result to an honor-system approach. So what is there for them to say, other than "well you gotta break a few eggs"?
Has there ever been an honor-system anything that wasn't abused by dishonorable people?
Ok. I take your word for it. But we're also saying that the mainstream isn't aware of the system either at the moment right ?
Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end. People cheat EI all the time, cheat on taxes, white collar crime, shoplifting. Acceptable ? Well mostly yes.
Now compare to: Stealing poppy boxes, parking in handicapped parking, or (downtown Toronto) stealing a bike. All of a sudden a crime that is equal in the law is seen as much worse.
I have to say that guys lying about their gender to dress as women, to get into change rooms seems like it would happen infrequently. And isn't the main issue behaviour ? Anybody leering or approaching anybody in a change room would normally register a complaint no ?
If people don't want to see penises in change rooms, isn't it an option to demand no nudity in open spaces ?
Burning Man is a crazy and open party in the desert but having sex in public is pretty much a no-no. It's called public lewdness and not allowed. For that matter, public NUDITY isn't allowed still.
Quote
I also have yet to see any mainstream media coverage of the situation. I assume they're afraid of being deemed transphobic.
Or, this is just outrage-bait and not enough of a story. How much did the CBC cover the war on Christmas ?
Quote
I don't think I said "inundating" or specified teenage girls in particular.
I know. I'm painting your words as extreme, and am doing so insincerely. I realize your concerns are rooted in reality, but I am also trying to show how perspectives and wording can paint things as being ok-vs-extreme.
Quote
This isn't a single case, this is just the latest case. We don't yet know to what degree it's going to be abused, but we know that it's already happening.
Latest case in what jurisdiction ? I believe more than a few cases will be noticed if it happens in the same area.
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=VDQBXOLkIenm_QaptLHQDA&q=toronto+trans++%27body+blitz%27&oq=toronto+trans++%27body+blitz%27&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i8i30.7404.7404..7977...0.0..0.68.68.1......0....1..gws-wiz.bxqQ81SY-Tc
Body Blitz happened over a year ago and nothing since. By 'nothing' I mean nothing on the web. It strikes me that these are not real problems for most people, but more like legal and human rights test cases.
Post by: kimmy on November 30, 2018, 09:25:38 am
I posted an article not that long ago here with several such cases, including a mother in the UK who was lectured by the school when she complained that her 13 year old daughter was uncomfortable sharing a shower with a 'girl' who had a **** - which was often erect as 'she' stared at the other girls. Instead of paying any attention to her complaint they wanted her and her daughter to get counselling.
I was trying to find the Montreal one where the guy said he was trans to get into a women's shelter and assaulted a woman.
But then, you know how those menstruaters are...
Yes, that was the term the Guardian settled on for describing women who don't have penises, before, apparently, ridicule and abuse got them to change it. The more popular word going around there is womxn.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/in-england-womxn-is-in-as-activists-try-to-replace-word-woman-in-the-name-of-inclusiveness
Menstruators... That's ... I guess not quite as bad as the "bleeders" and "roasties" that trans women and incels use. It's still pretty gross and insulting. Perhaps Guardian employees should be referred to as "defecators" and "people with sphincters" henceforth.
-k
Post by: TimG on November 30, 2018, 09:51:57 am
For the case in question, the system can either sustain an honour system or it can't. Part of the reason why the system is sustainable is that morality exists. Both liberals and conservatives have morality.Our society could not function without the fact that most people, no matter what their politics, do the right thing. However, you are confusing the fact that people will follow rules and laws even if not forced to and expecting people to not take advantage of rules. A good analogy is the tax system where people constantly seek ways to reduce their taxes by following the rules which sometimes have loop holes. When the tax dept closes these loop holes the people who used them while they were there did not do anything wrong.
That is why it is necessary to ask whenever a rule change is made is how incentives will be created for people to follow the rules to maximize their personal benefit. For example, changing gender to get lower insurance rates is a perfectly rational use of the rules yet it was not intended. Changing gender to get access to places for sexual gratification is another. At some point the potential for abuse is so large that some limits have to be put in place even if that means creating barriers for people who legitimately needed the rule change.
Post by: kimmy on November 30, 2018, 10:12:59 am
Ok. I take your word for it. But we're also saying that the mainstream isn't aware of the system either at the moment right ?
They're certainly aware of it. Meghan Murphy's ban from Twitter has attracted international attention, and the backstory behind it is easily discoverable. The senator-elect from Missouri even tweeted about Murphy's ban in challenging Twitter's claim that they're not politically biased. I've seen articles from the US, Australia, and England in regard to Meghan Murphy. The website "AfterEllen", which is *the* lesbian website, reported on the Meghan Murphy ban and described the"JY" situation in some detail. Do you really think it's likely that something like this has received international attention, yet reporters in Vancouver are unaware of this situation going on right in their back yard?
I strongly doubt that.
The only Canadian coverage I've seen on the "JY" situation is this one from August, which takes at face value his claim of being a woman:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/not-for-men-sorry-transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-after-being-denied-brazilian-wax?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1534984166
Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end. People cheat EI all the time, cheat on taxes, white collar crime, shoplifting. Acceptable ? Well mostly yes.
Now compare to: Stealing poppy boxes, parking in handicapped parking, or (downtown Toronto) stealing a bike. All of a sudden a crime that is equal in the law is seen as much worse.
Wait, are you suggesting that cheating on your taxes or shoplifting is more or less equivalent to being confronted by a naked pervert while you're showering?
Latest case in what jurisdiction ? I believe more than a few cases will be noticed if it happens in the same area.
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=VDQBXOLkIenm_QaptLHQDA&q=toronto+trans++%27body+blitz%27&oq=toronto+trans++%27body+blitz%27&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i8i30.7404.7404..7977...0.0..0.68.68.1......0....1..gws-wiz.bxqQ81SY-Tc
Body Blitz happened over a year ago and nothing since. By 'nothing' I mean nothing on the web. It strikes me that these are not real problems for most people, but more like legal and human rights test cases.
Body Blitz quietly changed their policy. They're no longer a clothing optional facility.
US case involving a homeless shelter:
https://abc30.com/homeless-women-harassed-in-shower-lawsuit-says/3514544/
I bet those women feel like it was a real problem.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 30, 2018, 10:56:03 am
Quote
Wait, are you suggesting that cheating on your taxes or shoplifting is more or less equivalent to being confronted by a naked pervert while you're showering?
It’s worse than that... it would be the equivalent of the shoplifter being caught, but told by the human rights tribunal that they have a right to shoplift and given a monetary award for being stopped from shoplifting by the shop owner.
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 12:29:12 pm
"Tip of the iceberg"? good god give us a break! I doubt there is a wave of people faking their identity to save $91 bucks a month.
Why WOULDN'T you change your 'gender' when there are no drawbacks or costs? You can get preferential pricing, preferential hiring, preferential seating in university classes without having to compete against men... what's the downside again? You don't even have to dress like a woman.
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 12:36:17 pm
Ok. I take your word for it. But we're also saying that the mainstream isn't aware of the system either at the moment right ?
Given that the Left has adopted transrights as the new holy grail, most of the mainstream media is terrified to go anywhere near any story of trans rights activists being abusive and stupid, much less violent, or of people who claim to be transgendered turning out to be perverts.
I have, for example, pointed out any number of times that almost all the shootings in Ottawa, when names become public, seem to involve Muslims, esp Somalians. Given the amount of press attention we've gotten for the shootings and murders, it would be perfectly normal for someone in the media to at least talk about this. But there hasn't been a peep. Everyone knows it. Whenever this comes up in conversation, or in the comment pages of local media, people allude to it (you can't actually say in the comment sections or your comment will be deleted).
The media, on the whole, are extremely PC, and will not touch stories which might, as they put it 'give ammunition to racists/homophobics/transophobics/islamophobics,etc". That's why, for the most part, we get happy-happy stories about refugees, not sad ones, and why trans rights are always mentioned in a positive light.
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 12:50:39 pm
It’s worse than that... it would be the equivalent of the shoplifter being caught, but told by the human rights tribunal that they have a right to shoplift and given a monetary award for being stopped from shoplifting by the shop owner.
Isn't that basically the same as this, from a cite I posted a short time back?
Your 11-year-old granddaughter comes home from school upset. Changing after gym, another girl stood watching her undress and playing with her ****. (The girl in question is transgender, so yes, she has a ****.) When your family complains to the school, what happens?
...
In the second, it’s not the girl with a **** who has a problem, it’s the girl without one. She and her parents have wrongly assumed the child with the **** is ‘not a real girl’. That error should be ‘challenged through training and awareness raising’ so your granddaughter is comfortable with her classmate.
Post by: Omni on November 30, 2018, 12:55:39 pm
Given that the Left has adopted transrights as the new holy grail, most of the mainstream media is terrified to go anywhere near any story of trans rights activists being abusive and stupid, much less violent, or of people who claim to be transgendered turning out to be perverts.
I have, for example, pointed out any number of times that almost all the shootings in Ottawa, when names become public, seem to involve Muslims, esp Somalians. Given the amount of press attention we've gotten for the shootings and murders, it would be perfectly normal for someone in the media to at least talk about this. But there hasn't been a peep. Everyone knows it. Whenever this comes up in conversation, or in the comment pages of local media, people allude to it (you can't actually say in the comment sections or your comment will be deleted).
The media, on the whole, are extremely PC, and will not touch stories which might, as they put it 'give ammunition to racists/homophobics/transophobics/islamophobics,etc". That's why, for the most part, we get happy-happy stories about refugees, not sad ones, and why trans rights are always mentioned in a positive light.
Are you spreading a little more of your xenophobic fake news again?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canadian-mass-murders-1.3958772
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 01:00:38 pm
Are you spreading a little more of your xenophobic fake news again?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canadian-mass-murders-1.3958772
Why is it that even on the rare times you actually include a cite it usually winds up having absolutely nothing to do with what anyone is talking about? Is it that you're lazy or stupid, or both?
Post by: Omni on November 30, 2018, 01:13:13 pm
Why is it that even on the rare times you actually include a cite it usually winds up having absolutely nothing to do with what anyone is talking about? Is it that you're lazy or stupid, or both?
You try to pull your little fast ones and suggest that a Muslim is "involved" in a murder if they happen to be the one murdered and assume it must somehow be their fault, and not potentially a hate crime. So I think we know who is "stupid and lazy". Both typically accompany bigotry.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-homicides-for-2016-a-list-of-the-24
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2018, 01:54:46 pm
Meghan Murphy's ban from Twitter has attracted international attention, and the backstory behind it is easily discoverable. Do you really think it's likely that something like this has received international attention, yet reporters in Vancouver are unaware of this situation going on right in their back yard?
I strongly doubt that.
international attention? Outside of the 'blogosphere', TheGoogle said there were a couple of mainstream references... both opinion pieces appearing in the NYT and Guardian. But... both of those opinion pieces speak more to the U.S. 1st amendment & what the twitter change to their rules/policy (vis-avis banning for targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals) means in that context. The Murphy mention is little more than an example reference. In regards free-speech the NYT opinion piece speaks of trans persons viewing the twitter ban as a promotion of free-speech... that they'll speak up more if their existence isn't being questioned.
Uhhh, depending on perspective:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi68.tinypic.com%2F25ptoub.jpg&hash=201f39e870ebeb897e6fe14577cd59763c198bd2)
The only Canadian coverage I've seen on the "JY" situation is this one from August, which takes at face value his claim of being a woman:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/not-for-men-sorry-transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-after-being-denied-brazilian-wax?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1534984166
e.g. https://theprovince.com/news/canada/b-c-transgender-woman-who-was-denied-brazilian-wax-job-withdraws-human-rights-complaint/wcm/c9db76c0-9770-4bd9-86fb-da911f3857d8 ----- seems to have appeared in the dozen+ dailies across Canada (those within Postmedia world)
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 03:04:37 pm
You try to pull your little fast ones and suggest that a Muslim is "involved" in a murder if they happen to be the one murdered and assume it must somehow be their fault, and not potentially a hate crime. So I think we know who is "stupid and lazy". Both typically accompany bigotry.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-homicides-for-2016-a-list-of-the-24
All I said was that a huge number of the street shootings involve Muslims, mostly Somalians. And they do. Mostly it's gang members shooting other gang members, so yeah, when the guy shot is a Muslim, it's mostly because he's a gang member.
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 03:07:10 pm
international attention? Outside of the 'blogosphere', TheGoogle said there were a couple of mainstream references... both opinion pieces appearing in the NYT and Guardian. But... both of those opinion pieces speak more to the U.S. 1st amendment & what the twitter change to their rules/policy (vis-avis banning for targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals) means in that context. The Murphy mention is little more than an example reference. In regards free-speech the NYT opinion piece speaks of trans persons viewing the twitter ban as a promotion of free-speech... that they'll speak up more if their existence isn't being questioned.
Uhhh, depending on perspective:
More pretty pictures trying to make up for a lack of argument.
When both sides get to speak there's freedom of speech. Anyone who thinks freedom of speech means they get to talk and others don't get to disagree is the ****.
Post by: Omni on November 30, 2018, 03:33:17 pm
All I said was that a huge number of the street shootings involve Muslims, mostly Somalians. And they do. Mostly it's gang members shooting other gang members, so yeah, when the guy shot is a Muslim, it's mostly because he's a gang member.
If you actually read the facts in the article you will see you are wrong. The majority of the people who were charged with murder in this string of killings were not Muslims.
Post by: waldo on November 30, 2018, 03:40:39 pm
More pretty pictures trying to make up for a lack of argument.
When both sides get to speak there's freedom of speech. Anyone who thinks freedom of speech means they get to talk and others don't get to disagree is the ****.
c'mon... tonight's bingo night - get your mind on the game!
Post by: guest7 on November 30, 2018, 06:29:16 pm
As long as it's okay for people to freely state who they believe to be **** I don't see a problem.
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2018, 08:20:58 pm
As long as it's okay for people to freely state who they believe to be **** I don't see a problem.
The problem is the people who use memes like this are the ones who block doors, and pull fire alarms, and invade lectures and talks to scream abuse and blow horns and whistles, and commit acts of sabotage and call in bomb threats. They actually ARE ****, not the people they're preventing from speaking.
I take it as a given that if you're so furious about someone who is going to talk that you want to stop them from talking, then you probably suspect they are way smarter than you are and your pathetic attempt to challenge them will only be met by public ridicule.
Post by: guest7 on November 30, 2018, 08:33:00 pm
The problem is the people who use memes like this are the ones who block doors, and pull fire alarms, and invade lectures and talks to scream abuse and blow horns and whistles, and commit acts of sabotage and call in bomb threats. They actually ARE ****, not the people they're preventing from speaking.
I take it as a given that if you're so furious about someone who is going to talk that you want to stop them from talking, then you probably suspect they are way smarter than you are and your pathetic attempt to challenge them will only be met by public ridicule.
Oh, I agree. They're complete and utter ****. Mindless poltroons without a brain cell between them with which to formulate an argument, so instead they throw up a safe space, plug their ears and shove a broomstick up their arses in order to reach the proper level of outrage. I would definitely show them the door.
If they hurt anyone, they should be charged, of course.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 08:12:33 am
Our society could not function without the fact that most people, no matter what their politics, do the right thing. However, you are confusing the fact that people will follow rules and laws even if not forced to and expecting people to not take advantage of rules.
No - you are missing my point. Whether or not 'rules' exist, informal moral customs exist and are enforced culturally by all political types. You don't need to pass laws to prevent people from abusing the 'leave a penny/take a penny' jar. Public morality can handle that.
Quote
For example, changing gender to get lower insurance rates is a perfectly rational use of the rules yet it was not intended. Changing gender to get access to places for sexual gratification is another. At some point the potential for abuse is so large that some limits have to be put in place even if that means creating barriers for people who legitimately needed the rule change.
As I said in my previous post: morality exists.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 08:43:26 am
They're certainly aware of it. Meghan Murphy's ban from Twitter has attracted international attention, and the backstory behind it is easily discoverable. The senator-elect from Missouri even tweeted about Murphy's ban in challenging Twitter's claim that they're not politically biased. I've seen articles from the US, Australia, and England in regard to Meghan Murphy. The website "AfterEllen", which is *the* lesbian website, reported on the Meghan Murphy ban and described the"JY" situation in some detail. Do you really think it's likely that something like this has received international attention, yet reporters in Vancouver are unaware of this situation going on right in their back yard?
Not the mainstream media, but the mainstream. John and Mary Q. Public.
*the* Lesbian website ? That would mean millions or at least hundreds of thousands would go there wouldn't it ? As such - what did the lesbians think ?
Quote
Wait, are you suggesting that cheating on your taxes or shoplifting is more or less equivalent to being confronted by a naked pervert while you're showering?
No - I'm making a wider point about morality: "Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end."
People will not accept this... if it's unacceptable.
The only Canadian coverage I've seen on the "JY" situation is this one from August, which takes at face value his claim of being a woman:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/not-for-men-sorry-transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-after-being-denied-brazilian-wax?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1534984166
Wait, are you suggesting that cheating on your taxes or shoplifting is more or less equivalent to being confronted by a naked pervert while you're showering?
Quote
Body Blitz quietly changed their policy. They're no longer a clothing optional facility.
And - what do you think of that ?
Quote
US case involving a homeless shelter:
https://abc30.com/homeless-women-harassed-in-shower-lawsuit-says/3514544/
I bet those women feel like it was a real problem.
It sounds like the mainstream is starting to wake up. That's a local ABC station right ? We're talking about whether 'activists' and such types are going to be able to ensconce rights victories that are unacceptable to the mainstream. I think it's still early days to say this is going to happen. They are still putting bathroom restriction bills on the ballot in the US, and proposing legislation in state assemblies.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 08:46:01 am
Why WOULDN'T you change your 'gender' when there are no drawbacks or costs? You can get preferential pricing, preferential hiring, preferential seating in university classes without having to compete against men... what's the downside again? You don't even have to dress like a woman.
What is the savings here ? $91/year ? If we're assuming they're lying about their status, they have to expose themselves to public ridicule for one thing, and likely have to engage in a prohibitive amount of paperwork.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 08:52:43 am
Given that the Left has adopted transrights as the new holy grail, most of the mainstream media is terrified to go anywhere near any story of trans rights activists being abusive and stupid, much less violent, or of people who claim to be transgendered turning out to be perverts.
Pfft. Stop it with the 'mainstream media is afraid to tell the truth' angle. We actually have new online media that are willing to lie to make things look WORSE. It's the opposite of what you say.
Quote
I have, for example, pointed out any number of times that almost all the shootings in Ottawa, when names become public, seem to involve Muslims, esp Somalians. Given the amount of press attention we've gotten for the shootings and murders, it would be perfectly normal for someone in the media to at least talk about this. But there hasn't been a peep. Everyone knows it. Whenever this comes up in conversation, or in the comment pages of local media, people allude to it (you can't actually say in the comment sections or your comment will be deleted).
And yet you seem to know what their background is. Look, there's plenty of coverage of such things... the whole "right wing people are scared to speak" is a Trumpian trope that is beneath you. We had a damn straight-up racist candidate finish 3rd for mayor in Toronto - it's the golden era of far-right opinionating.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 09:01:21 am
I take it as a given that if you're so furious about someone who is going to talk that you want to stop them from talking, then you probably suspect they are way smarter than you are and your pathetic attempt to challenge them will only be met by public ridicule.
Stopping Faith Goldy from making speeches about protecting the White Race is a good idea, in my books.
Post by: guest4 on December 01, 2018, 09:30:25 am
That is why it is necessary to ask whenever a rule change is made is how incentives will be created for people to follow the rules to maximize their personal benefit. For example, changing gender to get lower insurance rates is a perfectly rational use of the rules yet it was not intended. Changing gender to get access to places for sexual gratification is another. At some point the potential for abuse is so large that some limits have to be put in place even if that means creating barriers for people who legitimately needed the rule change.
Perhaps we should just not allow insurance companies to charge rates based on gender, as they have done in the EU. That way, a 'barrier' is created that will prevent men from changing their gender on paper to gain cheaper insurance rates, and it won't create barriers for those who really do need a rule change. Perhaps in the other situations under discussion there are also changes that can be made to the system to prevent abuse of rules, rather than the people who legitimately need and benefit from those rules. I'm not sure what changes might work, but I am coming to agree that submitting mere paperwork to change one's gender on government-issued ID is a bit lax; perhaps a demonstrated commitment to the 'other gender' identity needs to also be proven, and that this commitment must have been apparent for a significant length of time. Not that someone won't game that, too, at some point.
Of course, those born intersex and 'assigned' a sex at birth shouldn't have to go through the same onerous procedure given that it was the decision of someone else to impose a visual sexual identity. Paperwork demonstrating the sex assignment at birth should be available and acceptable for those people to quickly change the gender on government issued ID. And again, no doubt someone will concoct a way to game that, as well.
Thinking out of the box a bit, perhaps at age 21, all adults should be subjected to a test that determines what arouses them: naked men, naked women, naked children. This information could be included in government issued ID, and that could be used to determine access to public places where nudity may occur.
Or, perhaps we could simply change the morality within our society, so that 'nudity' becomes commonplace and not assumed to be a signal of sexual availability or interest.
Post by: TimG on December 01, 2018, 10:09:06 am
I'm not sure what changes might work, but I am coming to agree that submitting mere paperwork to change one's gender on government-issued ID is a bit lax; perhaps a demonstrated commitment to the 'other gender' identity needs to also be proven, and that this commitment must have been apparent for a significant length of time.Of course we could simply say that government ID has nothing to with with gender and only denotes the biological sex that can be proven with a scientific test. People who are biologically ambiguous would be the only ones allowed to change their biological sex after submitting the appropriate supporting documentation.
We also need to make it clear that when society allows segregation based on biological sex and/or gender that it is up to the organization that provides the segregated services to decide whether the segregation is based on biological sex rather than gender. i.e. if a organization says change rooms are for biological women only then transgender will have to accept they are not welcome.
What annoys me the most about the debate is the rank hypocrisy from transgender activists. On one hand they want everyone to accept that gender and biological sex are different but on the other hand they demand that governments punish people that want to treat biological sex as different from gender if that means transgender can't get access to facilities/programs intended for people of a particular biological sex.
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 10:37:23 am
No - I'm making a wider point about morality: "Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end."
People will not accept this... if it's unacceptable.
How does the public go about not accepting it? It seems to me that the public that are affected by this are being fairly vocal about it.
Should all aspects of societal relationships regarding minorities be left up to the public?
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 10:41:22 am
Perhaps we should just not allow insurance companies to charge rates based on gender, as they have done in the EU. That way, a 'barrier' is created that will prevent men from changing their gender on paper to gain cheaper insurance rates, and it won't create barriers for those who really do need a rule change. Perhaps in the other situations under discussion there are also changes that can be made to the system to prevent abuse of rules, rather than the people who legitimately need and benefit from those rules. I'm not sure what changes might work, but I am coming to agree that submitting mere paperwork to change one's gender on government-issued ID is a bit lax; perhaps a demonstrated commitment to the 'other gender' identity needs to also be proven, and that this commitment must have been apparent for a significant length of time. Not that someone won't game that, too, at some point.
Of course, those born intersex and 'assigned' a sex at birth shouldn't have to go through the same onerous procedure given that it was the decision of someone else to impose a visual sexual identity. Paperwork demonstrating the sex assignment at birth should be available and acceptable for those people to quickly change the gender on government issued ID. And again, no doubt someone will concoct a way to game that, as well.
Thinking out of the box a bit, perhaps at age 21, all adults should be subjected to a test that determines what arouses them: naked men, naked women, naked children. This information could be included in government issued ID, and that could be used to determine access to public places where nudity may occur.
Or, perhaps we could simply change the morality within our society, so that 'nudity' becomes commonplace and not assumed to be a signal of sexual availability or interest.
Absolutely. I think if one is going to stop being a man and become a woman, or vice versa, it's a big enough deal to require a doctor's note.
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:00:31 am
Pfft. Stop it with the 'mainstream media is afraid to tell the truth' angle. We actually have new online media that are willing to lie to make things look WORSE. It's the opposite of what you say.
And how many ordinary people are exposed to such media?
Quote
And yet you seem to know what their background is. Look, there's plenty of coverage of such things... the whole "right wing people are scared to speak" is a Trumpian trope that is beneath you. We had a damn straight-up racist candidate finish 3rd for mayor in Toronto - it's the golden era of far-right opinionating.
First, I'm a news junkie who is semi-retired and has time on my hands. Second, the 'trope' you speak of is incorrect. Its not right wing people who are afraid to speak, it's the mushy middle who clamp their lips tight lest they cause offense, and of course, the left - which includes all the mainstream media (all the mainstream media are Left in their social views), who are terrified of an accusation of racism or islamophobia or transphobia or whatever. Third, that 'candidate' you spoke of got what, 2% of the vote? And she wasn't even allowed to advertise.
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:02:14 am
Stopping Faith Goldy from making speeches about protecting the White Race is a good idea, in my books.
Why? Wouldn't she simply have appeared ridiculous?
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:04:43 am
What is the savings here ? $91/year ? If we're assuming they're lying about their status, they have to expose themselves to public ridicule for one thing, and likely have to engage in a prohibitive amount of paperwork.
Who would dare publicly ridicule a transgendered person these days? And it isn't just this, as I said. I pointed out in another thread how Algonquin college has set aside 30% of the seats in highly desirable tech courses for women - who will not have to compete with the hordes of men who want in. A man could simply say he's a woman and claim one.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 11:06:25 am
1. How does the public go about not accepting it?
2. It seems to me that the public that are affected by this are being fairly vocal about it.
3. Should all aspects of societal relationships regarding minorities be left up to the public?
1. Lots of ways. They complain, they get legislation passed, they boycott, they make noise.
2. I dunno. Maybe? Would you say the 'Body Break' episode went to one side or the other ? Or was there compromise ? Is the Body Break episode proof that public engagement and discussion does not work ?
3. Well, I would say 'no'. But they are aren't they ?
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:06:31 am
On November 15, I woke up to find my Twitter account locked, on account of what the company described as “hateful conduct.” In order to regain access, I was made to delete two tweets from October. Fair enough, you might think. Concern about the tone of discourse on social media has been widespread for years. Certainly, many have argued that Twitter officials should be doing more to discourage the vitriol and violent threats that have become commonplace on their platform.
In this case, however, the notion that my commentary could be construed as “hateful” baffled me. One tweet read, simply, “Men aren’t women,” and the other asked “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” That last question is one I’ve asked countless times, including in public speeches, and I have yet to get a persuasive answer. I ask these questions not to spread hate—because I do not hate trans-identified individuals—but rather to make sense of arguments made by activists within that community. Instead of answering such questions, however, these same activists insist that the act of simply asking them is evidence of hatred.
https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 11:08:26 am
And how many ordinary people are exposed to such media?
How many 'ordinary people' subscribe to The Rebel or Facebook ? Lots of people but your filter of 'ordinary' is hard to discern.
Quote
First, I'm a news junkie who is semi-retired and has time on my hands. Second, the 'trope' you speak of is incorrect. Its not right wing people who are afraid to speak, it's the mushy middle who clamp their lips tight lest they cause offense, and of course, the left - which includes all the mainstream media (all the mainstream media are Left in their social views), who are terrified of an accusation of racism or islamophobia or transphobia or whatever. Third, that 'candidate' you spoke of got what, 2% of the vote? And she wasn't even allowed to advertise.
She was allowed to advertise but couldn't find anyone to take her money. So the mainstream people are actually dying to voice right-wing views but are afraid to ? Still strikes me as paranoid/incorrect sorry.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 11:09:24 am
Why? Wouldn't she simply have appeared ridiculous?
There are lots of people being drawn to this stuff. The idea that public debate will squelch bad ideas has proven incorrect.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 11:11:03 am
1. Who would dare publicly ridicule a transgendered person these days?1. That's a ridiculous idea. People can be criticized, nobody reasonable is saying that's out of bounds.
2. And it isn't just this, as I said. I pointed out in another thread how Algonquin college has set aside 30% of the seats in highly desirable tech courses for women - who will not have to compete with the hordes of men who want in. A man could simply say he's a woman and claim one.
2. Again - it's an edge case and not worthy of consideration at this point.
Post by: kimmy on December 01, 2018, 11:12:18 am
international attention? Outside of the 'blogosphere', TheGoogle said there were a couple of mainstream references... both opinion pieces appearing in the NYT and Guardian. But... both of those opinion pieces speak more to the U.S. 1st amendment & what the twitter change to their rules/policy (vis-avis banning for targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals) means in that context. The Murphy mention is little more than an example reference. In regards free-speech the NYT opinion piece speaks of trans persons viewing the twitter ban as a promotion of free-speech... that they'll speak up more if their existence isn't being questioned.
Uhhh, depending on perspective:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi68.tinypic.com%2F25ptoub.jpg&hash=201f39e870ebeb897e6fe14577cd59763c198bd2)
Everyone understands that it's Twitter's right to ban Murphy if they wish.
However it's also being pointed out that it casts doubt on Twitter's claim of political neutrality. I haven't read the NY Times piece you mention, but your summary seems to indicate they think that Twitter can create more free speech by putting their thumb on one side of the scale. If that's what's happening here, that certainly contradicts what Jack Dorsey told the US Congress a couple of months ago.
It's also being pointed out how little it took for Murphy to get banned from a platform that is absolutely rife with hate speech and threats of violence.
Twitter's official position is that Murphy was banned for "misgendering" "JY"... this is a person who still identifies themselves as Jonathan and presents themselves with a look that looks more or less like Jared from Subway, but Murphy was banned for referring to them as "him".
Trans activists claim that misgendering someone is real violence, so Murphy's ban would be justified in their eyes. Meanwhile trans people talk about literal violence on Twitter with impunity.
-k
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 11:13:54 am
1. Lots of ways. They complain, they get legislation passed, they boycott, they make noise.
2. I dunno. Maybe? Would you say the 'Body Break' episode went to one side or the other ? Or was there compromise ? Is the Body Break episode proof that public engagement and discussion does not work ?
3. Well, I would say 'no'. But they are aren't they ?
1) What if they don't? Should there be no government involvement in societal relationships without a certain level of public outcry?
2) I'd have to read about that.
3) See 1)
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:27:22 am
1. That's a ridiculous idea. People can be criticized, nobody reasonable is saying that's out of bounds.
2. Again - it's an edge case and not worthy of consideration at this point.
You reckon without the fanaticism of progressives.
In many progressive corners of academic and online life, it now is taken as cant that anyone who rejects transgender ideology—which is based on the theory that a mystical “gender identity” exists within us, akin to a soul—may be targeted with the most juvenile and vicious attacks. “Punch TERFs and Nazis” has become a common Twitter tagline, as is the demand that “TERFs” be “sent to the gulag.” (This latter suggestion was earnestly defended in a thread authored by students who run the official Twitter account of the LGBTQ+ Society at a British university. The authors went on to say that the gulag model would, in fact, comprise “a compassionate, non-violent course of action” to deal with “TERFs” and “anti-trans bigots” who must be “re-educat[ed].”)
While it might comfort some to view these threats as performative or theoretical, that isn’t always the case. On May 29, a lesbian named Taelor Furry was beat up outside the Grey Fox Pub, a gay bar in St. Louis, Mo. Her attackers were queer-identified women who had accused Furry of being a “TERF.”
In April, a trans-identified biological male who goes by the name “Tara Wolf” was convicted of assault after beating 60-year-old Maria MacLauchlan, who had gathered with other women at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park to discuss mooted gender-identity legislation. Prior to the gathering, this champion of progressive ideals had posted on Facebook, asking where the event would be taking place, as the assailant wanted to “**** some TERFs up.”
At this year’s Pride March in Montreal, biological males who identify as women led the parade, carrying a banner reading, “Transwomen first/Never again last.” One participant carried a sign with the words, “Begone TERF,” as if he were summoning his mystical powers to cast a hex on we TERFy witches. At Dyke Marches, lesbians who express reservations about making themselves sexually available to suitors who just happen to have penises are now commonly screamed at.
In Vancouver, Canada, where I live, a group of lesbians attended this year’s Dyke March wearing t-shirts with the word “Lesbian” written overtop a drawing of a uterus, and carrying signs featuring their “lesbian heroes.” Before the march began, they were approached by two members of the Vancouver Dyke March board, who told them they could not participate while wearing these t-shirts and carrying these placards, as they were “trans-exclusionary.” They also were told that if any of their signs featured the venus symbol (which represents “woman”) or “XX,” symbolizing the fact that females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome, they would have to remove them. The group declined to follow these instructions, but joined the march anyway. As the women walked on, they were surrounded by trans activists, who shouted “TERF bigots,” “Transwomen are women,” “This is an inclusive march,” and, “There is no room for hate at the Dyke March.” One trans-identified male-bodied individual ran through their group repeatedly, yelling “Get your ‘**** TERF’ pins!” at the women. (Afterwards, the Dyke March board published a statement, labeling the women “TERFs” and “a hate group”: The Vancouver Dyke March, they said, is “upset, angry, and disappointed by the actions of those people who sought to reject and exclude valued members of our communities, including trans folks.”)
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 11:27:40 am
What if they don't? Should there be no government involvement in societal relationships without a certain level of public outcry?
What if - in a democracy - people really don't like something and they do nothing about it ? I think you can answer that. Should there be no government involvement without outcry ? I would say the government can prioritize things and should, even without public interest. Again - you are asking really obvious questions.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 11:30:50 am
You reckon without the fanaticism of progressives.
A lot of this discussion involves you shuffling the deck constantly.
We're talking mostly about the 'public' and media viewed/consumed by the public. Now you are taking us back onto campus...
Let's simplify this: I say that if 'THE' public doesn't like something, they will say so. The idea that the emergence of trans rights, or Islamic terrorism destroys our system public dialogue and necessitates general alarm isn't true, IMO, from the evidence I have seen.
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:41:36 am
A lot of this discussion involves you shuffling the deck constantly.
We're talking mostly about the 'public' and media viewed/consumed by the public. Now you are taking us back onto campus...
Almost nothing I've posted, including in the post you are replying to (and clearly have not bothered to read) has to do with 'campus'. It seems to me that a lot of this discussion involves your determined defense of the idea that anyone who declares themselves to be transgendered must be treated that way and blithely waving away any and all objections.
Quote
Let's simplify this: I say that if 'THE' public doesn't like something, they will say so.
The public has said in polls they don't like the number of immigrants and particularly Muslims coming in. But no one can say so as an individual or they'll be fired from their jobs, banned from their political parties, and hounded by 'anti-hate' activists. Why would you imagine people who object to this transgendered nonsense would dare to speak out? More importantly, if Megan Murphy is booted off Twitter, disinvited to speaking engagements and had her book publishing agreement cancelled all for questioning transgenderism just what platform do you imagine the public will have to express itself?
I'm willing to bet 90% of the public has no idea of all this stuff, and if and when individuals run afoul of it their anger and stress and arguments will largely go unreported and unnoticed.
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 11:55:05 am
What if - in a democracy - people really don't like something and they do nothing about it ? I think you can answer that. Should there be no government involvement without outcry ? I would say the government can prioritize things and should, even without public interest. Again - you are asking really obvious questions.
The questions are obvious but the answers don't seem to be. (Your first sentence there is not something I asked)
Your main statement regarding prioritizing is making my point but seems to be a change from your previous points.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 01, 2018, 12:07:38 pm
Almost nothing I've posted, including in the post you are replying to (and clearly have not bothered to read) has to do with 'campus'.
"In many progressive corners of academic and online life..."
Quote
It seems to me that a lot of this discussion involves your determined defense of the idea that anyone who declares themselves to be transgendered must be treated that way and blithely waving away any and all objections.
Hmm ? "Anyone who declares themselves as X must be treated as X" seems like a general maxim you would follow in polite society. Why not ?
Quote
I'm willing to bet 90% of the public has no idea of all this stuff, and if and when individuals run afoul of it their anger and stress and arguments will largely go unreported and unnoticed.
Alternately, a Muslim who behaves badly at school has their behaviour put on the national stage. A white supremacist is treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to her money. So where are we ?
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 12:13:21 pm
Hmm ? "Anyone who declares themselves as X must be treated as X" seems like a general maxim you would follow in polite society. Why not ?
I would have to say no, not really. Especially if they are not.
Post by: kimmy on December 01, 2018, 12:21:49 pm
Not the mainstream media, but the mainstream. John and Mary Q. Public.
*the* Lesbian website ? That would mean millions or at least hundreds of thousands would go there wouldn't it ? As such - what did the lesbians think ?
I honestly don't know if they have millions or even hundreds of thousands of readers. It's just that it's the only website I know of specifically by and for lesbians.
They aren't big on the "trans lesbian" phenomenon in the first place, so they're predictably not sympathetic to a creepy dude posing as trans when he wants to hang out in the women's locker room. More generally they're annoyed at the redefining of "woman" and "lesbian" in particular-- they describe this as erasure.
Here's their column on Murphy:
https://www.afterellen.com/general-news/567199-twitter-bans-meghan-murphy-founder-of-canadas-leading-feminist-website
Another column by the same writer, talking about erasure:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-didnt-you-say-something-sooneryoure-asking_us_59d560dee4b085c51090ad64
No - I'm making a wider point about morality: "Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end."
People will not accept this... if it's unacceptable.
People will decide what they will accept on an individual basis. There won't be a big public fight. People don't want to fight. Women in general don't want to fight and don't want to make other people feel bad. Most women aren't going to take action, especially if they're afraid of getting shamed on social media or ending up in front of an HRC panel. Most women will just say "I don't feel comfortable here anymore" and go somewhere else next time or stay home.
There won't be hard data. There'll be an accumulation of anecdotes. I've read quite a few anecdotes of lesbians who quit going to places that have become over run with pushy "trans lesbians" who want sex with cis women. This will be hard to quantify. Businesses will eventually see the results in their bottom lines. LGBT social groups might end up becoming GBT social groups if the Ts harass the Ls away. The results won't be obvious.
And - what do you think of that ?
It's a tremendously equitable result! Everybody loses!
It sounds like the mainstream is starting to wake up. That's a local ABC station right ? We're talking about whether 'activists' and such types are going to be able to ensconce rights victories that are unacceptable to the mainstream. I think it's still early days to say this is going to happen. They are still putting bathroom restriction bills on the ballot in the US, and proposing legislation in state assemblies.
Creeps have discovered they can exploit this... the next step is finding out how many creeps will exploit it before the pendulum gets pushed back the other way.
-k
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 12:24:28 pm
Alternately, a Muslim who behaves badly at school has their behaviour put on the national stage. A white supremacist is treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to her money. So where are we ?
I would say a white supremacist who behaves badly at school should have their behaviour put on the national stage, while a Muslim should be treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to their money.
I'm very fair when it comes to that sort of thing.
Post by: Omni on December 01, 2018, 12:35:36 pm
I would say a white supremacist who behaves badly at school should have their behaviour put on the national stage, while a Muslim should be treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to their money.
I'm very fair when it comes to that sort of thing.
It would seem the point you are missing is the difference as to what should perhaps happen and what actually does happen. You may recall, Trump claimed the white supremacists waving nazi flags in Charlottesville were "good people", and then he signs a bill banning trans people from signing up for military duty.
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 12:36:54 pm
It would seem the point you are missing is the difference as to what should perhaps happen and what actually does happen. You may recall, Trump claimed the white supremacists waving nazi flags in Charlottesville were "good people", and then he signs a bill banning trans people from signing up for military duty.
It seems the point you are missing is that Trump is a twat. What he says or does does not really count with normal people.
He'll be gone in a short while, anyway.
Post by: Omni on December 01, 2018, 12:46:11 pm
It seems the point you are missing is that Trump is a twat. What he says or does does not really count with normal people.
He'll be gone in a short while, anyway.
Ah, Trump is the POTUS, what he says or does counts with a LOT of people. And he continues to maintain roughly the same base support he had when elected so, as much as I don't like the idea, he could well get a second term.
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 12:53:05 pm
Ah, Trump is the POTUS, what he says or does counts with a LOT of people. And he continues to maintain roughly the same base support he had when elected so, as much as I don't like the idea, he could well get a second term.
Yes, but there will always be governments doing things you may or may not agree with. Trump is an anomaly, a freak. Thankfully he does what he does in a country with systems in place that can arrest most of his more egregious excesses.
To get back to my original point, what one does matters more than what one says.
Post by: Omni on December 01, 2018, 01:13:57 pm
Yes, but there will always be governments doing things you may or may not agree with. Trump is an anomaly, a freak. Thankfully he does what he does in a country with systems in place that can arrest most of his more egregious excesses.
To get back to my original point, what one does matters more than what one says.
Well your "point" could easily be turned upside down in many cases. Depends on who says or does what. But that's a different discussion.
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 01:18:56 pm
Well your "point" could easily be turned upside down in many cases. Depends on who says or does what. But that's a different discussion.
Well, sure. If I pet a puppy and you say "let's kill all the Jews, right now" I can see you have a point.
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 02:25:03 pm
"In many progressive corners of academic and online life..."
One part of one paragraph of one post. And I know you didn't bother to read the rest nor the cite. Your mind is already made up and not interested in further information.
Quote
Hmm ? "Anyone who declares themselves as X must be treated as X" seems like a general maxim you would follow in polite society. Why not ?
When they're obviously NOT X then it's either an indication of dishonesty or serious mental illness.
Only a tiny number of people are actually transgendered, but now they're coming out of the woodwork as all the progressive idiots sieze on this as the latest fad and all sorts of mentally unbalanced people suddenly 'discover' that they're transgendered. Progressive mothers are probably desperately trying to get their children to wear clothing for the wrong gender so they can brag about how woke they are with their 'transgendered' child.
Quote
Alternately, a Muslim who behaves badly at school has their behaviour put on the national stage.
Yeah, that happens at least once or twice a year.
Quote
A white supremacist is treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to her money. So where are we ?
With you ignoring reality and ignoring the point I made COMPLETELY that people are not going to be able to gather together in their outrage and put a stop to this sort of lunacy because progressives now venerate the idea of transgenders and anyone who complains is subject to abuse and attack. Which you will shrug and ignore because, like, well, there's no stats on that.
Post by: Omni on December 01, 2018, 03:04:57 pm
One part of one paragraph of one post. And I know you didn't bother to read the rest nor the cite. Your mind is already made up and not interested in further information.
When they're obviously NOT X then it's either an indication of dishonesty or serious mental illness.
Only a tiny number of people are actually transgendered, but now they're coming out of the woodwork as all the progressive idiots sieze on this as the latest fad and all sorts of mentally unbalanced people suddenly 'discover' that they're transgendered. Progressive mothers are probably desperately trying to get their children to wear clothing for the wrong gender so they can brag about how woke they are with their 'transgendered' child.
Yeah, that happens at least once or twice a year.
With you ignoring reality and ignoring the point I made COMPLETELY that people are not going to be able to gather together in their outrage and put a stop to this sort of lunacy because progressives now venerate the idea of transgenders and anyone who complains is subject to abuse and attack. Which you will shrug and ignore because, like, well, there's no stats on that.
I think I will take the word of the American Psychiatric Association over yours as to transgender people being "mentally ill". Of course that's your usual type approach to anything you don't understand, or simply not like. As to them being dishonest, why would someone proceed down this path, only to be scorned by your type, if they weren't sincere as to how they feel? And you probably also think it's some sort of new issue when in fact it has been around, in various cultures since antiquity.
"The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, stated that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
Post by: waldo on December 01, 2018, 05:16:22 pm
Everyone understands that it's Twitter's right to ban Murphy if they wish.
It's also being pointed out how little it took for Murphy to get banned from a platform that is absolutely rife with hate speech and threats of violence.
Twitter's official position is that Murphy was banned for "misgendering" "JY"... this is a person who still identifies themselves as Jonathan and presents themselves with a look that looks more or less like Jared from Subway, but Murphy was banned for referring to them as "him".
"how little it took"... as I understand, Ms. Murphy had multiple suspensions prior to the outright ban (at least 2); in order to return from each suspension, she complied with requests from TheTwitter to delete particular tweets in question. Upon return from her final suspension, she appears somewhat "miffed" at TheTwitter... and was banned for the following tweet... not for what you describe as, "Twitter's official position on the Ms. Murphy ban (as she had deleted those particular tweets in order to return from suspension":
“This is f—— bull—, @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane.”
Post by: guest7 on December 01, 2018, 06:48:43 pm
"how little it took"... as I understand, Ms. Murphy had multiple suspensions prior to the outright ban (at least 2); in order to return from each suspension, she complied with requests from TheTwitter to delete particular tweets in question. Upon return from her final suspension, she appears somewhat "miffed" at TheTwitter... and was banned for the following tweet... not for what you describe as, "Twitter's official position on the Ms. Murphy ban (as she had deleted those particular tweets in order to return from suspension":
“This is f—— bull—, @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane.”
It does seem odd that she would be banned for that. Still, I know nothing of tweets and such. Maybe they are especially delicate. Like poodles or something.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 01, 2018, 11:36:43 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 08:16:52 am
When they're obviously NOT X then it's either an indication of dishonesty or serious mental illness.
Only a tiny number of people are actually transgendered, but now they're coming out of the woodwork as all the progressive idiots sieze on this as the latest fad and all sorts of mentally unbalanced people suddenly 'discover' that they're transgendered.
You need to cite if you're trying to say that we have a surge of fake trans women 'coming out of the woodwork'. Seems like another fake crisis to me.
If someone says "I feel like I am a woman" I think the default is to agree with them, especially given the scorn, ridicule and especially physical violence that they are exposing themselves to. It's an unequal price to pay to be able to peer at women in locker rooms.
Quote
Yeah, that happens at least once or twice a year.
How often are fake trans women found out ?
Quote
With you ignoring reality and ignoring the point I made COMPLETELY that people are not going to be able to gather together in their outrage and put a stop to this sort of lunacy because progressives now venerate the idea of transgenders and anyone who complains is subject to abuse and attack. Which you will shrug and ignore because, like, well, there's no stats on that.
The idea that our public system of dialogue is broken is chiefly held by people who want to break our public system of dialogue. Although there are many signs that such systems are readjusting to new media - the most recent presidential election being weighty evidence - there's no evidence I can see that these systems will now stop or be seized by special interests.
Post by: SirJohn on December 02, 2018, 10:04:30 am
You need to cite if you're trying to say that we have a surge of fake trans women 'coming out of the woodwork'. Seems like another fake crisis to me.
Simple arithmetic should suffice. They only constitute less than half a percent of the population. And of those I doubt more than 10% would be willing to put themselves in everyone's face and make outrageous demands. Yet there's been cite after cite posted here (none of which you will read, I know) showing how much they've intruded into the public sphere and into organized harassment of anyone who disagrees with them.
Quote
If someone says "I feel like I am a woman" I think the default is to agree with them,
And if I say I feel like a panda will you agree with me?
You know, the saying "I'm a lesbian on the inside" is an ironic one meant largely for amusement value by men, who basically are just saying they lust after women too. I never thought I'd see idiots actually claiming to BE women lesbians and demanding lesbians sleep with them. And I never thought I'd see anyone taking them seriously.
Sometimes you just have to say 'Bullshit".
Quote
The idea that our public system of dialogue is broken is chiefly held by people who want to break our public system of dialogue. Although there are many signs that such systems are readjusting to new media - the most recent presidential election being weighty evidence - there's no evidence I can see that these systems will now stop or be seized by special interests.
Special interests took over our public systems long ago. Where have you been? You talk about the US? Poll after poll has shown what the great majority of people want, and their government has ignored it all for decades.
As to special 'social interests', political cowardice is the norm, not the exception.
On 21 November, a debate took place in the House of Commons about proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act to make it easier for transgender people to self-identify as men or women. Among the public, this is a widely discussed issue, with most echoing the concerns of feminists about the risks of allowing biological males to enter women’s changing rooms, etc. But until last week the issue hadn’t been debated in the Commons, partly because MPs who have reservations about changing the law are afraid to speak out. Sure enough, nearly all the backbench MPs who contributed to the debate toed the line of the trans-rights activists.
The ex-lobby correspondent James Kirkup, now director of the Social Market Foundation, has become a must-read commentator on this issue and he recently disclosed he’s been keeping a ‘private list’ of people who’ve told him they’re deeply worried about gender self-identification, but haven’t said anything: ‘That list includes: more than a dozen government ministers (including cabinet members); several Labour frontbenchers; numerous backbench MPs (the majority female); lots of BBC journalists (some very famous); charity executives; senior business people; teachers, lawyers, doctors and other professionals; and lots of ‘ordinary’ women who can’t understand why the potential implications of a law change are not being addressed.’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-were-lying-to-ourselves-over-trans-rights/
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 01:02:03 pm
Simple arithmetic should suffice. They only constitute less than half a percent of the population. And of those I doubt more than 10% would be willing to put themselves in everyone's face and make outrageous demands. Yet there's been cite after cite posted here (none of which you will read, I know) showing how much they've intruded into the public sphere and into organized harassment of anyone who disagrees with them.
Arithmetic without a cite isn't useful here. You have quoted .5% and 10% and on the other side "how much they've intruded into the public sphere" again with no numbers.
Quote
And if I say I feel like a panda will you agree with me?
Well, yes. How can anybody tell you how YOU feel ?
Quote
You know, the saying "I'm a lesbian on the inside" is an ironic one meant largely for amusement value by men, who basically are just saying they lust after women too. I never thought I'd see idiots actually claiming to BE women lesbians and demanding lesbians sleep with them. And I never thought I'd see anyone taking them seriously.
Sometimes you just have to say 'Bullshit".
I think telling people they are lying when they express their feelings to you, absent of other information, is arrogant and unhelpful.
Quote
Special interests took over our public systems long ago. Where have you been? You talk about the US? Poll after poll has shown what the great majority of people want, and their government has ignored it all for decades.
I really regret using that term. Yes, the government ignores what people want ... but for a spectrum of reasons. I would say money is a clear corruptor of our democratic systems but there doesn't seem to be enough will to address that one. As such, I don't think trans women are a significant threat in proportion to that.
Quote
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-were-lying-to-ourselves-over-trans-rights/
Well, I think the Spectator is a real paper, as I recall, so I will take your post as reasonable evidence in support of your thesis. But it is an opinion, and inflammatory at that: " Its high priests have mastered the art of creating the impression that their neo-Marxist beliefs are much more widespread than they really are." Neo-Marxism isn't part of this, unless the late Jim Flaherty was a Marxist. (He wasn't.)
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 01:53:22 pm
"how little it took"... as I understand, Ms. Murphy had multiple suspensions prior to the outright ban (at least 2); in order to return from each suspension, she complied with requests from TheTwitter to delete particular tweets in question. Upon return from her final suspension, she appears somewhat "miffed" at TheTwitter... and was banned for the following tweet... not for what you describe as, "Twitter's official position on the Ms. Murphy ban (as she had deleted those particular tweets in order to return from suspension":
“This is f—— bull—, @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane.”
Simply false. That is not the Tweet that got Murphy banned. This is the communication she received from them explaining her ban, referring specifically to her "misgendering" of the dude in question:
(https://i.imgur.com/yfNbvwo.png)
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 02:18:41 pm
Arithmetic without a cite isn't useful here. You have quoted .5% and 10% and on the other side "how much they've intruded into the public sphere" again with no numbers.
I can't vouch for the veracity of this figure from the UK, but an increase of 2500% in 9 years sounds like an epidemic.
Quote
The number of children identifying as transgender is on the rise. Referrals to the NHS’s Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service have increased by an astonishing 2,500 per cent in the past nine years. Psychotherapist Bob Withers is concerned that large numbers of children are being transitioned unnecessarily, and that discussion of this phenomenon is being closed down by trans activists.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/30/we-are-experimenting-on-children/
Dr Withers expresses concern that many people are being transitioned unnecessarily, and that people who desperately want to transition are receiving coaching so that they can give psychologists the answers they want to hear to approve transitioning. He argues that while people may be strongly convinced that transitioning is the only answer to their problems, Dr Withers argues that for some or many, gender dysphoria is a symptom of other psychological issues that won't be addressed by transitioning. And, he is concerned that psychologists may be approving unnecessary transitions out of fear of being labeled transphobic.
Well, yes. How can anybody tell you how YOU feel ?
I think telling people they are lying when they express their feelings to you, absent of other information, is arrogant and unhelpful.
Argus might "feel like a panda", but that doesn't mean the zoo is going to let him into the cage to eat shoots and leaves and waddle around with natal (Assigned Panda At Birth) pandas.
Rachel Dolezal is apparently convinced that she is black, even she has white parents and grew up as a decidedly pale little girl. Nobody accepts her self-identification as a black person, even though she changed her appearance to a degree that she was able to carry out the ruse for years.
Rachel Dolezal: "I just know that on the inside, I'm black."
Progressives: "That is so **** offensive! You grew up with white privilege, you don't have any idea what it is like to grow up as a black person in America. You're laying claim to history and heritage and experiences that you can't possibly understand! This cultural appropriation! You're turning black peoples' lives into a **** cosplay!"
Trans-identified male: "I just know that on the inside, I'm a woman."
Progressives: "Obviously! No problem!"
-k
Post by: waldo on December 02, 2018, 02:45:46 pm
Simply false. That is not the Tweet that got Murphy banned.
no - your post is, as you say, simply false... notwithstanding your source is an "Irish comedian" tweet... your graphic speaks to 'suspension' (of which she had several), without regard to its permanence. Here, try this:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi67.tinypic.com%2F106gexe.jpg&hash=17521ecf664982f4b75fb828afb2a0fb1bbdc56f)
note: as I read/interpret, after that "f----bull---" tweet, there was one event/exchange before the ultimate perm ban pin was pulled; specifically, TheTwitter removed the verification symbol (blue check mark) from her account. Apparently, after Ms. Murphy tweeted that the 'verification symbol was removedl' from her account... she was perm banned.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 02:47:22 pm
I can't vouch for the veracity of this figure from the UK, but an increase of 2500% in 9 years sounds like an epidemic.
For a new program... I would take out the first few years. There are 13.5 million children in Britain. at .1% you would have 13,500 kids asking about the program. As it is there are 2,500... up from 97.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/30/we-are-experimenting-on-children/
Is there a surge ? Looks like maybe yes... but SJ's own numbers say .5% of people fall into this group.
Quote
Dr Withers expresses concern that many people are being transitioned unnecessarily, and that people who desperately want to transition are receiving coaching so that they can give psychologists the answers they want to hear to approve transitioning. He argues that while people may be strongly convinced that transitioning is the only answer to their problems, Dr Withers argues that for some or many, gender dysphoria is a symptom of other psychological issues that won't be addressed by transitioning. And, he is concerned that psychologists may be approving unnecessary transitions out of fear of being labeled transphobic.
Well that's a breach of ethics for the doctors involved, obviously.
Quote
Argus might "feel like a panda", but that doesn't mean the zoo is going to let him into the cage to eat shoots and leaves and waddle around with natal (Assigned Panda At Birth) pandas.
Uh-huh.
Quote
Rachel Dolezal is apparently convinced that she is black, even she has white parents and grew up as a decidedly pale little girl. Nobody accepts her self-identification as a black person, even though she changed her appearance to a degree that she was able to carry out the ruse for years.
Uh-huh.
I don't know what to say about the last two points. I stated my opinion on this a few posts ago and citing some abuses, or the Rachel Dolezal case doesn't seem to me to be relevant to what I posted.
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 03:32:11 pm
no - your post is, as you say, simply false... notwithstanding your source is an "Irish comedian" tweet... your graphic speaks to 'suspension' (of which she had several), without regard to its permanence. Here, try this:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi67.tinypic.com%2F106gexe.jpg&hash=17521ecf664982f4b75fb828afb2a0fb1bbdc56f)
note: as I read/interpret, after that "f----bull---" tweet, there was one event/exchange before the ultimate perm ban pin was pulled; specifically, TheTwitter removed the verification symbol (blue check mark) from her account. Apparently, after Ms. Murphy tweeted that the 'verification symbol was removedl' from her account... she was perm banned.
Murphy's "f----- bull----" tweet was November 15, nine days before the "Yeeeah it's him" tweet for which she received her final suspension notice. Your time line is broken. Concede the point and move on along.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 03:38:54 pm
https://www.straight.com/life/1171981/lgbt-activists-and-organizations-concerned-about-vancouver-public-library-event
Odds that she gets beat up by angry men in dresses?
-k
Post by: wilber on December 02, 2018, 03:41:39 pm
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 03:59:02 pm
You need to cite if you're trying to say that we have a surge of fake trans women 'coming out of the woodwork'. Seems like another fake crisis to me.
If someone says "I feel like I am a woman" I think the default is to agree with them, especially given the scorn, ridicule and especially physical violence that they are exposing themselves to. It's an unequal price to pay to be able to peer at women in locker rooms.
You think somebody who continues to call themselves Jonathan and presents themselves to society like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/JTGi2tl.png)
...is really in danger of danger of violence for being trans?
If this person gets scorn and ridicule when they go out in public, it's probably because they look like a nerd. But I doubt anybody actually guesses that Jonathan is actually a trans woman when he goes out around town.
Ditto the guy who decided he was female to save $91 bucks on his insurance. People seem to be under the impression that he's changed his whole gender identity to save $91. Why do you assume he did anything other than put an X in the "F" box on his application?
Maybe he did it to make a point about discriminatory insurance prices.
Maybe he did it to make a point about self-identification.
Maybe he was just being a smart-ass or a ****-disturber or "sticking it to the man".
I doubt he gets ridiculed for it. I bet his friends think it's hilarious. It's probably a great conversation starter. He's probably quite the wag. But I doubt he's done anything to identify as female beyond putting an X in the F box.
How often are fake trans women found out ?
If trans rights activists are to be believed, there is no such thing as a "fake". "I am because I say I am" is their mantra. JY isn't fake, because he says he's a woman.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 05:02:52 pm
You think somebody who continues to call themselves Jonathan and presents themselves to society like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/JTGi2tl.png)
...is really in danger of danger of violence for being trans?
"scorn, ridicule and especially physical violence "
Quote
If this person gets scorn and ridicule when they go out in public, it's probably because they look like a nerd. But I doubt anybody actually guesses that Jonathan is actually a trans woman when he goes out around town.
Yeah, but YOU know it. So, doesn't everyone now ?
Quote
Ditto the guy who decided he was female to save $91 bucks on his insurance. People seem to be under the impression that he's changed his whole gender identity to save $91. Why do you assume he did anything other than put an X in the "F" box on his application?
I have no idea what he did. I made no assumptions but this makes sense.
Quote
If trans rights activists are to be believed, there is no such thing as a "fake". "I am because I say I am" is their mantra. JY isn't fake, because he says he's a woman.
Yes, they may indeed be naive in that case, I suppose.
-----
I feel like you keep ringing the bell and the bellhop doesn't come. What are we doing here - are you just trying to figure out which scenario would upset me ? I'm not getting it.
Post by: waldo on December 02, 2018, 06:50:16 pm
Murphy's "f----- bull----" tweet was November 15, nine days before the "Yeeeah it's him" tweet for which she received her final suspension notice. Your time line is broken. Concede the point and move on along.
put up the "Yeah it's him" dated tweet ... what you're implying as, 'nine days later'. (protip: just because your 'Irish comedian' tweets on Nov 25... that means diddly about the date of an embedded tweet he includes)
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi67.tinypic.com%2F106gexe.jpg&hash=17521ecf664982f4b75fb828afb2a0fb1bbdc56f)
Post by: guest7 on December 02, 2018, 06:51:42 pm
are you just trying to figure out which scenario would upset me ? I'm not getting it.
Different things upset different people. If there's one thing we know from participation in these sites, it's that.
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 07:07:22 pm
put up the "Yeah it's him" dated tweet ... what you're implying as, 'nine days later'. (protip: just because your 'Irish comedian' tweets on Nov 25... that means diddly about the date of an embedded tweet he includes)
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi67.tinypic.com%2F106gexe.jpg&hash=17521ecf664982f4b75fb828afb2a0fb1bbdc56f)
Murphy was active on Twitter until Nov 24, well after the "f--- bull---" Tweet you mistakenly believe got her banned. The "Yeah it's him" was tweeted on Nov 24.
Your text image, which I notice you haven't even sourced, has either an incomplete or inaccurate timeline. Give it up. You're just making a fool of yourself.
You seem fascinated by the "Irish comedian" angle. Graham Linehan has been embroiled in the UK debate over changes to the Gender Recognition Act, where he has allied himself with women who are concerned about the impact on safety and privacy. This is how he got connected with Meghan Murphy, and he has been tweeting about her situation and has promised to tweet whatever Murphy sends him. Linehan is apparently a UK television figure of some profile, and has 30 times more followers as Murphy did, so he has actually brought more attention to her ban than she had when she was free to tweet on her own.
This tweet illustrates Twitter's bizarre thought process on what deserves a ban:
https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1067102563818983424
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 07:37:45 pm
"scorn, ridicule and especially physical violence "
scorn or ridicule him for what? He doesn't appear to do anything to present as feminine beyond getting a close shave.
How will transphobes even know that they're supposed to hate this guy, when there's no visible evidence that he's trans?
Yeah, but YOU know it. So, doesn't everyone now ?
You think the kind of thugs who are apparently out there curb-stomping trans folks are reading feminist blogs?
"HEY! That's the tranny I was reading about on AfterEllen!! GET 'IM!"
I think the odds that some violent transphobe will recognize him on the street because some tiny portion of the internet has seen his picture are highly remote.
His name is out there now, and I think it's not out of the realm of possibility that somebody might seek him out to cause him harm of some kind, but if that happens I think it's far more likely that they would do so because of his expressed interest in approaching pre-pubescent girls to help them insert tampons. Some people might dislike trans people, but people dislike creepy **** a lot more.
I have no idea what he did. I made no assumptions but this makes sense.
Yes, they may indeed be naive in that case, I suppose.
-----
I feel like you keep ringing the bell and the bellhop doesn't come. What are we doing here - are you just trying to figure out which scenario would upset me ? I'm not getting it.
That's a good mental picture. ding? ding ding?
To me it seems like you're arguing that people wouldn't abuse gender self-identification because being trans is dangerous and scary. I'm pointing out that that someone using self-identification in bad faith doesn't really need to worry about those things. If a guy only presents as trans when he wants to go in the locker room at Spa Lady and spends the rest of his life living as male, what risk is he really taking? If a guy only identifies as female when he's filling out his insurance paperwork, what risk is he actually taking?
You asked why I mentioned Rachel Dolezal's case. Your view seems to be that if people feel they are something, the civil thing to do is to respect that feeling. The example of Rachel Dolezal shows that's not always how self-identification is treated. So why is Rachel Dolezal's self-identification invalid and offensive, while some male person's self-identification as a woman is perfectly acceptable? I'm trying to understand the difference here.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 08:35:41 pm
(Riley also has another video where she apparently gives lesbians advice on how to pleasure all the fabulous lady-dick they're going to be servicing, but I don't think I'm gonna watch.)
I thought Riley was maybe an outlier or a flake, but apparently not.
I stumbled on this essay (https://sisteroutrider.wordpress.com/2017/07/01/the-vanishing-point-a-reflection-upon-lesbian-erasure/) by a woman from Scotland. The whole thing is rather long, but I wanted to quote some of her key points here. The Cole's Notes version is that lesbians are being accused of transphobia and pressured to rebrand as "queer" because "lesbian" is seen as being transphobic and TERFish.
Quote
Love is love, unless you happen to be a lesbian woman – in which case your sexuality will be relentlessly deconstructed under suspicion of being exclusionary.
(...)
Lesbian women are instead encouraged to describe ourselves as queer, a term so broad and nebulous as to be devoid of specific meaning, on the grounds that nobody in possession of a **** is read as being entirely outside of our sexual boundaries.
In a time when acknowledging biological sex is treated as an act of bigotry, homosexuality is automatically problematised – the unforeseen consequences of queer identity politics are wide and far-reaching. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say, lesbian sexuality is made problematic: the idea of women exclusively directing our desires and energies towards one another remains suspect. Somehow, the pattern of men centring men in their lives never receives the same backlash. Lesbians are a threat to the status quo, whether it’s part of heteropatriarchy or queer culture. When lesbians dismiss the idea of taking on a partner with a ****, we are branded “**** fetishists” and “gynephiles” – given that lesbian sexuality is routinely pathologised in queer discourse, just as lesbian sexuality is pathologised by social conservatism, it’s no surprise to me that so many young women succumb to social pressure and drop lesbian in favour of queer. Self-erasure is the price of acceptance.
As queer identity politics would have it, biological women being exclusively interested in being with other women is a sign of bigotry. Let’s not waste paragraphs on equivocation. This world contains more than enough silences around the subject of gender, and it is invariably women who pay the highest price for those silences – in this case, women who love other women. And so I will say it: for lesbians to categorically deny the possibility of taking a partner with a **** is framed as transphobic by queer politics because it does not include transwomen in the sphere of lesbian desire. The inherent lesbophobia of reducing lesbian sexuality to a source of validation is, of course, given a free pass.
(...)
The idea that lesbians are transphobic because our sexual boundaries do not extend to accommodate **** is a phallocentric fallacy. And the pressure on lesbians to redefine those boundaries is frankly terrifying – it rests on an attitude of entitlement towards women’s bodies, an entitlement that is part of patriarchy and now being replicated within queer space. Lesbian women do not exist as sex objects or sources of validation, but self-actualised human beings with desires and boundaries of our own.
Talking about queer politics with gay male friends my age is something of an eye-opener. I am reminded of two things: With men, no is accepted as the closing word. With women, no is treated as the opening of a negotiation. Most gay men in my life are in turns horrified and amused by the notion that the parameters of their sexuality could or should be expected to move in accordance with the dictates of queer politics. Some (the fortunate ones – ignorance here is bliss) are unfamiliar with the rabbit hole of queer theory. Others (the newly initiated) are, unsurprisingly, resistant to the queer problematising of homosexuality. One went so far as to suggest gays, lesbians, and bisexuals break away from the alphabet soup of queer politics and self-organise specifically around the lines of sexuality – given that numerous dykes have been subject to the TERF witch-hunt for making the same case, it was at once uplifting and depressing to hear a man outside of radical feminism voice the same views without fear of censure.
(...)
...when I check my Twitter notifications, it genuinely takes a moment to work out whether my being a lesbian has offended the alt-right or the queer left. Does it particularly matter? The lesbophobia takes the same format. The hatred of women is identical.
Over Pride, a picture of a smiling transwoman clad in a bloodstained t-shirt proclaiming “I punch TERFs” circulated on social media. The image was captioned “this is what gay liberation looks like.” That those of us living at the intersection of gay identity and womanhood – lesbians – are often branded TERFs purely by virtue of our sexuality makes this claim particularly dubious.
"With men, no is accepted as the closing word. With women, no is treated as the opening of a negotiation."
That's why lesbians alone, among the alphabet soup alliance, are being pressured in this way.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 08:46:05 pm
scorn or ridicule him for what? He doesn't appear to do anything to present as feminine beyond getting a close shave.
For pretending to be a woman to save $90 ?
Quote
To me it seems like you're arguing that people wouldn't abuse gender self-identification because being trans is dangerous and scary. I'm pointing out that that someone using self-identification in bad faith doesn't really need to worry about those things.
No. I'm saying there's a disincentive to doing it. There are people who will do anything but do we need to worry about them ?
Post by: SirJohn on December 02, 2018, 08:55:03 pm
Post by: SirJohn on December 02, 2018, 08:56:59 pm
For pretending to be a woman to save $90 ?
You continue to bring that up to brush away the notion anyone would bother for such petty things.
How about pretending to be a woman so you can **** women? Does that sound like better motivation for some?
Post by: TimG on December 02, 2018, 09:09:41 pm
For pretending to be a woman to save $90 ?The guy in Alberta had an at fault accident on his record so the savings were over $1000/year. A significant sum for many.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 09:14:12 pm
It's interesting that gay men can express doubt about how fast and how far this thing has spread without evident fear, just as conservative men can.
I guess you have never heard of Sky Gilbert.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 09:15:22 pm
You continue to bring that up to brush away the notion anyone would bother for such petty things.
How about pretending to be a woman so you can **** women? Does that sound like better motivation for some?
Yes and I have addressed that issue separately; I don't treat both questions the same.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 02, 2018, 09:16:18 pm
The guy in Alberta had an at fault accident on his record so the savings were over $1000/year. A significant sum for many.
???
Well, ok. I find the story odd but not alarming.
Post by: waldo on December 02, 2018, 10:49:03 pm
Murphy was active on Twitter until Nov 24, well after the "f--- bull---" Tweet you mistakenly believe got her banned. The "Yeah it's him" was tweeted on Nov 24.
Your text image, which I notice you haven't even sourced, has either an incomplete or inaccurate timeline. Give it up. You're just making a fool of yourself.
yet you're, apparently, unable to present an image of the tweet with that date... even after pointed requests to do so. Wassup, hey!
(note: I didn't attach a date to that perm ban, but did speak to an incident after the "f---bull---" tweet that sources suggest was the 'straw that broke the...'. Again, as I stated: "note: as I read/interpret, after that "f----bull---" tweet, there was one event/exchange before the ultimate perm ban pin was pulled; specifically, TheTwitter removed the verification symbol (blue check mark) from her account. Apparently, after Ms. Murphy tweeted that the 'verification symbol was removedl' from her account... she was perm banned."
bottom-line: these exchanges have helped reinforce that Ms. Murphy has had a long run of offending (to TheTwitter) tweets... with many exchanges with TheTwitterAdmin and multiple suspensions before the ultimate perm ban. Apparently, transparency suffered in your push for her martyrdom!
Post by: kimmy on December 03, 2018, 09:48:17 am
bottom-line: these exchanges have helped reinforce that Ms. Murphy has had a long run of offending (to TheTwitter) tweets... with many exchanges with TheTwitterAdmin and multiple suspensions before the ultimate perm ban. Apparently, transparency suffered in your push for her martyrdom!
And all Murphy's Twitter suspensions have the same theme: reported by trans activists for "hateful conduct" for "misgendering" someone or for disagreeing that trans-identified men are women.
If that's their policy then so be it, but they've certainly put their thumb on the scale, in contradiction of Jack Dorsey's claim of neutrality.
And as has been pointed out by many people, it's hilarious that "misgendering" and questioning the dogma of trans activists is considered worthy of suspensions and bans on a platform where threats of physical violence and hate speech are routine.
(https://i.imgur.com/vftLRQt.png)
-k
Post by: waldo on December 03, 2018, 10:47:10 am
And all Murphy's Twitter suspensions have the same theme: reported by trans activists for "hateful conduct" for "misgendering" someone or for disagreeing that trans-identified men are women.
If that's their policy then so be it, but they've certainly put their thumb on the scale, in contradiction of Jack Dorsey's claim of neutrality.
and yet - still no dated tweet from you... colour me shocked; shocked I tells ya! Oh... is this, as you say, you, "conceding the point and moving on"?
notwithstanding the clear pattern of repeated suspensions, your own neutrality in judging TheTwitter isn't at all suspect/coloured - at all! ;D Apparently, your interpretation of neutrality must be one where TheTwitter ignores repeat offenders and clear violations of established rules. You perceive an affront to "your team"; apparently... you want TheTwitter to be anything but neutral and side for "your team" - yes?
And as has been pointed out by many people, it's hilarious that "misgendering" and questioning the dogma of trans activists is considered worthy of suspensions and bans on a platform where threats of physical violence and hate speech are routine.
here's an update on your example:
(https://i.imgur.com/8ThIwzg.png)
the profile platforms are now in scramble mode, particularly with their grandiose failures related to Russian bots/election meddling - the focus on the possibility of regulatory oversight should see more improvements in how they manage their members/content... we'll see. Of course, there's always a 'human element' involved in reviewing complaints and decision making - and I would expect that element expands when suspensions and bans are considered.
Post by: guest7 on December 03, 2018, 11:12:07 am
here's an update on your example:
(https://i.imgur.com/8ThIwzg.png)
the profile platforms are now in scramble mode, particularly with their grandiose failures related to Russian bots/election meddling - the focus on the possibility of regulatory oversight should see more improvements in how they manage their members/content... we'll see. Of course, there's always a 'human element' involved in reviewing complaints and decision making - and I would expect that element expands when suspensions and bans are considered.
"Next I coming over to kikinn Ur Jude Ass"!
One wonders what they were carefully reviewing. Spelling, maybe?
Post by: waldo on December 03, 2018, 11:26:11 am
One wonders what they were carefully reviewing. Spelling, maybe?
reads like a process handling a single complaint review versus (an expected) escalated review of subsequent retweets/multiple complaints versus (an expected) escalated review to determine possible suspension/ban... varying degrees of escalation that showcase an initial failure. Of course, the political profile of the person within the initial complaint has significance, vis-a-vis concerns over Russian bots/Russian election meddling. Of course, TheTwitter could be more forthcoming in its review process; obviously, 'canned' responses aren't conducive to specificity.
Post by: guest7 on December 03, 2018, 11:47:55 am
reads like a process handling a single complaint review versus (an expected) escalated review of subsequent retweets/multiple complaints versus (an expected) escalated review to determine possible suspension/ban... varying degrees of escalation that showcase an initial failure. Of course, the political profile of the person within the initial complaint has significance, vis-a-vis concerns over Russian bots/Russian election meddling. Of course, TheTwitter could be more forthcoming in its review process; obviously, 'canned' responses aren't conducive to specificity.
Ah. Of course!
Post by: guest7 on December 03, 2018, 01:18:48 pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46425774
...changing it at will could cause many problems.
...would have "undesirable legal and societal implications".
I wouldn't have thought they would be any worse than random changes in gender.
Double standard at play here, methinks.
Post by: Omni on December 03, 2018, 01:32:33 pm
I guess there's a limit to being what you feel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46425774
...changing it at will could cause many problems.
...would have "undesirable legal and societal implications".
I wouldn't have thought they would be any worse than random changes in gender.
Double standard at play here, methinks.
Ah, methinks not so much. Laws state you must acquire a certain age to do certain things. I'm not too concerned if someone driving an 18 wheeler down the highway is having some doubts about their birth sexual assignment, but I don't want them to be 8 years old.
Post by: guest7 on December 03, 2018, 01:37:42 pm
Ah, methinks not so much. Laws state you must acquire a certain age to do certain things. I'm not too concerned if someone driving an 18 wheeler down the highway is having some doubts about their birth sexual assignment, but I don't want them to be 8 years old.
Don't you oppress me!!!
Post by: guest7 on December 03, 2018, 01:41:19 pm
Ah, methinks not so much. Laws state you must acquire a certain age to do certain things. I'm not too concerned if someone driving an 18 wheeler down the highway is having some doubts about their birth sexual assignment, but I don't want them to be 8 years old.
Thinking on, and based on much that I have read on the subject, they wouldn't be 8 years old. They would be whatever age they felt they were. That seems to be the whole argument.
Of course, I would require a birth certificate, but I'm not on social media of any kind so I don't worry about being banned.
Post by: Omni on December 03, 2018, 02:07:55 pm
Thinking on, and based on much that I have read on the subject, they wouldn't be 8 years old. They would be whatever age they felt they were. That seems to be the whole argument.
Of course, I would require a birth certificate, but I'm not on social media of any kind so I don't worry about being banned.
And as the article points out, the "whole argument" got shot down by the court. That legal thingy again eh.
Post by: guest7 on December 03, 2018, 02:26:30 pm
And as the article points out, the "whole argument" got shot down by the court. That legal thingy again eh.
Yes, I did point that out myself. Thanks for reminding me what I posted.
Post by: Omni on December 03, 2018, 03:19:29 pm
Yes, I did point that out myself. Thanks for reminding me what I posted.
Ah, 'twas your "double standard" comment I referred to.
Post by: ?Impact on December 03, 2018, 04:53:21 pm
Post by: kimmy on December 03, 2018, 11:42:24 pm
and yet - still no dated tweet from you... colour me shocked; shocked I tells ya! Oh... is this, as you say, you, "conceding the point and moving on"?
As Murphy's tweets have all been deleted by Twitter, I could only hope somebody had a screenshot of the tweet with a date. I looked at a number of the websites that have been following this story, and didn't find the requested tweet. I won't spend any more time looking.
Nonetheless, as "the Irish comedian" has been in direct contact with Murphy, I'll take his word over your screen-capture of unattributed and possibly editorialized text. If you don't agree, that's fine. It's really not necessary to your "bottom line" point either way.
I do wonder, though, if you feel that Twitter comes of looking better if they've, as you claim, banned Murphy for calling them "f----- bull----" rather than for misgendering "JY". Like, at least they have a formalized policy against misgendering trans people. I've never heard of any Twitter policy against criticizing Twitter. As BCsapper noted, it seems awfully thin-skinned if that was their reason. I'm sure Twitter has been slammed by people a lot bigger than Meg Murphy.
notwithstanding the clear pattern of repeated suspensions, your own neutrality in judging TheTwitter isn't at all suspect/coloured - at all! ;D Apparently, your interpretation of neutrality must be one where TheTwitter ignores repeat offenders and clear violations of established rules. You perceive an affront to "your team"; apparently... you want TheTwitter to be anything but neutral and side for "your team" - yes?
You propose that Twitter is behaving in a neutral manner because they are simply enforcing established rules. There's a somewhat Monty Pythonesque quality to that argument. First off because they're highly selective (or perhaps incredibly haphazard) about when they do or don't enforce their rules. And more importantly because the rule they've chosen to ban Murphy for breaking is certainly not neutral.
here's an update on your example:
(https://i.imgur.com/8ThIwzg.png)
the profile platforms are now in scramble mode, particularly with their grandiose failures related to Russian bots/election meddling - the focus on the possibility of regulatory oversight should see more improvements in how they manage their members/content... we'll see. Of course, there's always a 'human element' involved in reviewing complaints and decision making - and I would expect that element expands when suspensions and bans are considered.
Yes, Twitter apparently got shamed into fixing their screw-up after enough people laughed at their idiocy. Good for them.
That's not much of an endorsement of their enforcement process. Their platform is rife with threats of violence and hate speech. Feminists, including Murphy, have written about that many times, the threats of violence they receive regularly and Twitter's complete indifference. It's not limited to feminists either. Hateful harassment on Twitter has driven numerous well-known people off the platform altogether, most famously Leslie Jones, Daisy Ridley, and Rosie Tran.
Several media outlets were openly laughing at Twitter's notable failure to enforce their rules in regard to Alex Jones' numerous and very public violations of their rules. Major publications were burning donuts on Jack Dorsey's lawn over Alex Jones, and Twitter didn't have the stones to do anything until Apple and others took the lead and Twitter no choice but to follow. Twitter's commitment to enforcing their rules has been an ongoing joke for a long time.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 03, 2018, 11:59:15 pm
It seems that the right to twit is a big deal.
I've never Tweeted in my life. But some people seem to think that Twitter is an important platform for sharing and debating ideas. The CEO of Twitter was in the US Congress talking about that a couple of months ago.
I'm not sure how much impact Twitter has on the real world. We've seen how much influence fake news spreading through Fakebook has had in the past couple of years. I'm not sure if Twitter is in the same league in terms of influence. I doubt that small fish like Megan Murphy reach enough eyeballs to have much effect on public discourse.
-k
Post by: waldo on December 04, 2018, 01:20:53 am
As Murphy's tweets have all been deleted by Twitter, I could only hope somebody had a screenshot of the tweet with a date. I looked at a number of the websites that have been following this story, and didn't find the requested tweet. I won't spend any more time looking.
Nonetheless, as "the Irish comedian" has been in direct contact with Murphy, I'll take his word over your screen-capture of unattributed and possibly editorialized text. If you don't agree, that's fine. It's really not necessary to your "bottom line" point either way.
I do wonder, though, if you feel that Twitter comes of looking better if they've, as you claim, banned Murphy for calling them "f----- bull----" rather than for misgendering "JY". Like, at least they have a formalized policy against misgendering trans people. I've never heard of any Twitter policy against criticizing Twitter. As BCsapper noted, it seems awfully thin-skinned if that was their reason. I'm sure Twitter has been slammed by people a lot bigger than Meg Murphy.
so... is this you walking it back... as you say, conceding the point and moving on? ;D Geezaz, you were just so confident - kimmyConfident!
you can double-down further with your 'Irish Comic'... as I implied earlier, this was your first (of several) mistakes: no where in that screenshot you provided does the comic speak to a date... and the embedded tweet doesn't include a date. Good on ya for speaking to being a tweetingNeophyte - it does explain why you attached the date of the comic's tweet to that of the embedded tweet... only something a noob would do!
your summary presumes upon your time line... the one you can't substantiate!
You propose that Twitter is behaving in a neutral manner because they are simply enforcing established rules. There's a somewhat Monty Pythonesque quality to that argument. First off because they're highly selective (or perhaps incredibly haphazard) about when they do or don't enforce their rules. And more importantly because the rule they've chosen to ban Murphy for breaking is certainly not neutral.
no - this is just another standard kimmy ploy! I commented on you whining about TheTwitter not being neutral... in the face of a long established cyclic pattern of rules violations, multiple suspensions, deletion of suspending tweets to re-open the account, etc.. I didn't address anything beyond this referenced example; that is, until your ready-reach for unrelated examples of (your presumptive) non-neutrality. But good on ya for once again weaseling around my described bottom-line. Again, your "more importantly" presumes on the time line you can't substantiate!
as an aside, since you seem to want to press the point, you suggest TheTwitter rule against targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals is not neutral - how so? How is taking a rules position against, "deliberately referring to a transgender person with the wrong pronouns or using their pre-transition name", a non-neutral rules position? Are you sure your view/comments on these rules hasn't been influenced by your personal 'dislike' for the actions of the trans person?
Yes, Twitter apparently got shamed into fixing their screw-up after enough people laughed at their idiocy. Good for them.
That's not much of an endorsement of their enforcement process. Their platform is rife with threats of violence and hate speech. Feminists, including Murphy, have written about that many times, the threats of violence they receive regularly and Twitter's complete indifference. It's not limited to feminists either. Hateful harassment on Twitter has driven numerous well-known people off the platform altogether, most famously Leslie Jones, Daisy Ridley, and Rosie Tran.
Several media outlets were openly laughing at Twitter's notable failure to enforce their rules in regard to Alex Jones' numerous and very public violations of their rules. Major publications were burning donuts on Jack Dorsey's lawn over Alex Jones, and Twitter didn't have the stones to do anything until Apple and others took the lead and Twitter no choice but to follow. Twitter's commitment to enforcing their rules has been an ongoing joke for a long time.
I've already spoken to the fact that all the platforms have been wholly negligent in presuming to self-manage... police... their platforms - that the threat of imposed regulatory oversight should help to, in a more timely manner, deal with improper actions of trolls/bots/haters/etc..
hey now, if you don't likee TheTwitter, try gab --- https://gab.com/ it's all about championing free speech! Apparently, some think its content reflects a cesspool of racist, anti-Semitic, white supremacist, etc., commentary. Hey Argus... you a gabber? ;D
Post by: kimmy on December 04, 2018, 09:32:28 am
your summary presumes upon your time line... the one you can't substantiate!
In this column, Murphy herself says she was banned for the "yeah, it's him" tweet: (https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/)
Quote
The tweet I was nominally banned for read only, “Yeah, it’s him,” referring to my having been provided with evidence of the real identity of a man the media had referred to only as “JY”—who had been contacting Vancouver-area aestheticians, seeking a “Brazilian bikini wax” for his apparently female-gendered crotch.
I'll take her word for it over your uncited text screenshot, and I don't intend to waste further time debating it.
I ask again: if you're right that Twitter banned her for calling their decision "**** bullshit", do you really think that casts Twitter in a more flattering light?
no - this is just another standard kimmy ploy! I commented on you whining about TheTwitter not being neutral... in the face of a long established cyclic pattern of rules violations, multiple suspensions, deletion of suspending tweets to re-open the account, etc.. I didn't address anything beyond this referenced example; that is, until your ready-reach for unrelated examples of (your presumptive) non-neutrality. But good on ya for once again weaseling around my described bottom-line. Again, your "more importantly" presumes on the time line you can't substantiate!
My "more importantly" references the fact that Murphy's suspensions have all come from disagreeing with trans ideology.
She got suspended for "misgendering" a person named Jonathan who looks like Jared from Subway and hangs out in the women's locker and tries to "bond" with pre-pubescent girls over tampons.
She got suspended for arguing that a trans sex-worker named Lisa Kreut/"Hailey Heartless" shouldn't be leading the annual Women's March.
She got suspended for commenting on the unfairness of "a white man" trying to silence a woman of color in regard to Kreut's efforts to deplatform Vancouver anti-**** activist Yuly Chan. And again in regard to referring to the injustice of "a man", Kreut, trying to get Vancouver **** Relief defunded.
She got suspended for saying "men aren't women tho" and asking "what is the difference between a man and a trans woman?"
This long-established patter of rules violations you speak of all pertain to disagreement with a non-neutral ideological position Twitter has adopted.
as an aside, since you seem to want to press the point, you suggest TheTwitter rule against targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals is not neutral - how so? How is taking a rules position against, "deliberately referring to a transgender person with the wrong pronouns or using their pre-transition name", a non-neutral rules position? Are you sure your view/comments on these rules hasn't been influenced by your personal 'dislike' for the actions of the trans person?
Trying to have a discussion on the impact of the new trans ideology and push for trans access to women's spaces is hardly possible if one isn't allowed to question trans ideology or that someone like "JY" isn't really a woman.
I've already spoken to the fact that all the platforms have been wholly negligent in presuming to self-manage... police... their platforms - that the threat of imposed regulatory oversight should help to, in a more timely manner, deal with improper actions of trolls/bots/haters/etc..
It goes beyond not being able to respond quickly enough. Figures like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos didn't fly under the radar, they were widely discussed and presented as ongoing examples of Twitter's inability to manage their platform.
-k
Post by: waldo on December 04, 2018, 11:58:33 am
In this column, Murphy herself says she was banned for the "yeah, it's him" tweet:
I'll take her word for it over your uncited text screenshot, and I don't intend to waste further time debating it.
how many times will you keep stating, 'you won't waste/spend any more time on this'? In any case, I take little solace in yet another kimmyOwnGoal... when your heroine states, "nominally banned for"... what does nominally mean? Hard to fathom how other sources would concentrate a causal time line around the non-nominal (aka the REAL). ;D
I ask again: if you're right that Twitter banned her for calling their decision "**** bullshit", do you really think that casts Twitter in a more flattering light?
you mean the tweet that repeated one of the same things related to a previous suspension... that had to be deleted to have the suspension lifted? As I said, a long established pattern of suspensions culminating in repeating something that contributed to a prior suspension. Are you really trying for another ownGoal?
My "more importantly" references the fact that Murphy's suspensions have all come from disagreeing with trans ideology.
This long-established patter of rules violations you speak of all pertain to disagreement with a non-neutral ideological position Twitter has adopted.
differing from your claimed neutrality, others with an actual neutral position might suggest your asserted "disagreement" went against established rules, involved multiple suspensions, etc.. I might have missed it, but I don't think so: what's your personal (claimed neutral) position on, "targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals... deliberately referring to a transgender person with the wrong pronouns or using their pre-transition name"?
Post by: kimmy on December 05, 2018, 03:22:51 am
how many times will you keep stating, 'you won't waste/spend any more time on this'?
I keep saying I'm out and they keep pulling me back in.
In any case, I take little solace in yet another kimmyOwnGoal... when your heroine states, "nominally banned for"... what does nominally mean? Hard to fathom how other sources would concentrate a causal time line around the non-nominal (aka the REAL). ;D
Oh, I see. You were speculating about Twitters "real", ulterior motive for banning Murphy. And here I thought you were claiming some sort of factual evidence to support your claim. It all makes sense now!
This is the Waldo's Galloping Goalposts Game at it's finest.
Also, even the uncited, unattributed text screenshot you've hung your whole case on doesn't claim a causal relationship between that one tweet and her ban, only a sequential relationship.
Also, :D
you mean the tweet that repeated one of the same things related to a previous suspension... that had to be deleted to have the suspension lifted? As I said, a long established pattern of suspensions culminating in repeating something that contributed to a prior suspension. Are you really trying for another ownGoal?
A series of suspensions for violating a policy which is decidedly not neutral. I'm not sure why you find this so complicated. Have you suffered some sort of head trauma or something? Are you feeling ok? How many fingers am I holding up?
differing from your claimed neutrality,
I have never claimed neutrality on this issue. We were discussing Twitter's neutrality, not mine. Stop trying to represent my position. You accuse others of weaselry while you try and pull stuff like this. Anybody else would be embarrassed, but for you this is just par.
others with an actual neutral position might suggest your asserted "disagreement" went against established rules, involved multiple suspensions, etc.. I might have missed it, but I don't think so: what's your personal (claimed neutral) position on,
Reminder, I have not claimed to be neutral. Jack Dorsey is the one who claims neutrality. Remember that thing where he went in front of the US Congress and testified that Twitter strives for political neutrality? That thing? That's the thing we were discussing. Get it together, Waldo!
"targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals... deliberately referring to a transgender person with the wrong pronouns or using their pre-transition name"?
But since you asked nicely, I think that misgendering and deadnaming individuals can be simply malicious, but can also be a pertinent issue in a discussion, so a one-size-fits-all ban doesn't seem appropriate. I see intent as a key element.
One obvious example: Should deadnaming Caitlyn Jenner be against the rules? There was a lot of legitimate discussion on the subject of whether Caitlyn Jenner should have been "Woman of the Year" a couple of years ago. Most of this discussion centered on the fact that this is an individual who ascended to the top of society as pretty much the poster child for male privilege. The fact that this person ascended to the top of society as Bruce Jenner, not as a woman, is very pertinent to that discussion. Deadnaming Caitlyn Jenner, in this context, isn't an effort to hurt her feelings or invalidate her identity.
In the case of "JY", the sincerity of this person's claimed gender identity is highly doubtful, and pertains to the validity of this person's human rights claims against the 16 aestheticians. Twitter's view that this person must be discussed as if they are female puts a thumb on the scale in debating the topic.
In the case of Lisa Kreut/HaileyHeartless and Yuly Chan, Kreut's view is that Chan needed to be deplatformed because she is not "sex-worker positive". Chan is an anti-poverty activist who believes that the sex trade is built primarily around the exploitation of vulnerable women, while Kreut is a sex-worker advocate who thinks that sex-work is "empowering" for women. Someone who grew up as a white male might not be well-positioned to understand what's actually "empowering" for vulnerable women. Kreut's campaign to defund Vancouver **** Relief for not hiring trans-women... maybe Kreut's background is relevant to discussing whether Kreut can actually understand the feelings of the women who go to VRR. I think discussing Kreut's male history could be pertinent to these arguments. Would discussing Kreut's background be possible without violating Twitter's new policy? I don't know, but I think a blanket policy on the issue unreasonably limits discussion.
-k
Post by: waldo on December 05, 2018, 05:25:23 am
Oh, I see. You were speculating about Twitters "real", ulterior motive for banning Murphy. And here I thought you were claiming some sort of factual evidence to support your claim. It all makes sense now!
This is the Waldo's Galloping Goalposts Game at it's finest.
Also, even the uncited, unattributed text screenshot you've hung your whole case on doesn't claim a causal relationship between that one tweet and her ban, only a sequential relationship.
no - not speculating, at all. The time line I presented in that graphic hasn't been conflicted/compromised by your wahoo! It was your goalpost shifting that resulted in your own-goal! Nominal versus Real... c'mon Ms. kimmy, get it together - get Real! Again, what does "nominal" mean... and what does your emphasis on that imply? ;D
A series of suspensions for violating a policy which is decidedly not neutral. I'm not sure why you find this so complicated. Have you suffered some sort of head trauma or something? Are you feeling ok? How many fingers am I holding up?
throughout your blather, you haven't explained why TheTwitter rules against misgendering & deadnaming & hateful conduct... what you call "policy", are biased. Instead you ready-reach for unrelated examples of failed enforcement. Standard Ms. kimmy 'whirling-dervish' ploy.
I have never claimed neutrality on this issue. We were discussing Twitter's neutrality, not mine. Stop trying to represent my position. You accuse others of weaselry while you try and pull stuff like this. Anybody else would be embarrassed, but for you this is just par.
Reminder, I have not claimed to be neutral. Jack Dorsey is the one who claims neutrality. Remember that thing where he went in front of the US Congress and testified that Twitter strives for political neutrality? That thing? That's the thing we were discussing. Get it together, Waldo!
sure you have! Only someone claiming overt bias would presume upon their own neutrality... oh, wait - are you really stating you "think" TheTwitter bias is greater than your own Ms. kimmy bias? Perhaps lead with that next time - hey!
But since you asked nicely, I think that misgendering and deadnaming individuals can be simply malicious, but can also be a pertinent issue in a discussion, so a one-size-fits-all ban doesn't seem appropriate. I see intent as a key element.
One obvious example: Should deadnaming Caitlyn Jenner be against the rules? There was a lot of legitimate discussion on the subject of whether Caitlyn Jenner should have been "Woman of the Year" a couple of years ago. Most of this discussion centered on the fact that this is an individual who ascended to the top of society as pretty much the poster child for male privilege. The fact that this person ascended to the top of society as Bruce Jenner, not as a woman, is very pertinent to that discussion. Deadnaming Caitlyn Jenner, in this context, isn't an effort to hurt her feelings or invalidate her identity.
In the case of "JY", the sincerity of this person's claimed gender identity is highly doubtful, and pertains to the validity of this person's human rights claims against the 16 aestheticians. Twitter's view that this person must be discussed as if they are female puts a thumb on the scale in debating the topic.
In the case of Lisa Kreut/HaileyHeartless and Yuly Chan, Kreut's view is that Chan needed to be deplatformed because she is not "sex-worker positive". Chan is an anti-poverty activist who believes that the sex trade is built primarily around the exploitation of vulnerable women, while Kreut is a sex-worker advocate who thinks that sex-work is "empowering" for women. Someone who grew up as a white male might not be well-positioned to understand what's actually "empowering" for vulnerable women. Kreut's campaign to defund Vancouver **** Relief for not hiring trans-women... maybe Kreut's background is relevant to discussing whether Kreut can actually understand the feelings of the women who go to VRR. I think discussing Kreut's male history could be pertinent to these arguments. Would discussing Kreut's background be possible without violating Twitter's new policy? I don't know, but I think a blanket policy on the issue unreasonably limits discussion.
yet another Ms. kimmy own-goal! You're so invested in your biased position; so invested it wholly distorts your view/perceptions. This is truly the crux of why I've even bothered to engage with yet another example of your Gish-gallop! You see, you want TheTwitter to interpret it's rules, on a case-by-case, basis... to get down in the deep, in the mud - to wade on through events over time lines spanning weeks, months even - events that may have little or nothing to do with what's been conveyed on the platform itself. Why... it's as if you want TheTwitter to resource a veritable army of investigators to prowl on through your favoured blogs to make your presumptive informed decision; one that aligns with and decides for, "your team"! Meanwhile you pity-pout cause, you know... bigBadTheTwitter!
Post by: kimmy on December 05, 2018, 09:39:00 am
(https://i.imgur.com/4RGnHUk.gif)
-k
Post by: waldo on December 05, 2018, 12:39:27 pm
(https://media.giphy.com/media/E9losnocFe2Aw/giphy.gif)
Post by: kimmy on December 09, 2018, 02:58:22 pm
Quote
The homophobic, anti-lesbian idea which had wedged itself into the heart of transgender ideology does, of course, have a name: The Cotton Ceiling. The cotton ceiling is defined by Wikipedia as “…the difficulty trans people experience when seeking lesbian and gay relationships, and in lesbian and gay social spaces more generally.” This needs to be carefully deconstructed, in particular, the basis of the perceived exclusion is extremely important: attempts to reframe exclusion as ‘transphobic hate’ based on the exclusion being ‘because they are trans’ is the most common argument, however the true motivation is revealed starkly by Julia Serano, writing in 2014 in The Daily Beast ‘The Struggle to Find Trans Love in San Francisco,’ which is a masterpiece in the sleight of hand that has made it impossible to talk about our sexual orientation in terms of biological sex without being labelled a bigot or worse: the piece is even subtitled “for one trans woman, finding a date within San Francisco’s lesbian community turned out to be much harder than she anticipated” which, by redefining Serano as a woman, immediately demonized those darn evil lesbians and makes him out to be an innocent victim of unfair negative discrimination. What Serano does is reframe his difficulty in finding a female homosexual to have sex with him as symptomatic of systematic, structural oppression. Here, he, the biological male in search of a sexual relationship with a homosexual, biological female, is bizarrely reframed as the victim:Quote“if it were only a small percentage of cis dykes who were not interested in trans women at all, I would write it off as simply a matter of personal preference. But this not a minor problem—it is systemic; it is a predominant sentiment in queer women’s communities. And when the overwhelming majority of cis dykes date and **** cis women, but are not open to, or are even turned off by, the idea of dating or **** trans women, how is that not transphobic? And to those cis women who claim a dyke identity, yet consider trans men, but not trans women, to be a part of your dating pool, let me ask you this: How are you not a hypocrite?”
Yardley goes on at some length about the idiocy of "progressives" pressuring lesbians to "get over their hang-ups about genitals" and accept "girl-dick". And about the effort to depict "lesbian" as a bigoted, exclusionary term and rebrand as "queer".
Yardley also referenced the story of Lily Cade, a **** actress and **** producer who makes **** for lesbians. Cade writes:
Quote
Chelsea Poe, a pre- or non-op transsexual woman (a human being with a **** and testicles) asked me to cast her in my lesbian ****. I said no, and she accused me of transphobia… (W)hat Chelsea asked me to do was to spend my capital, my energy, the trust of my fanbase that I have built up over six years in ****, to fight for her cause: her cause of proving she is attractive. Chelsea asked me to give her work in my movies… Chelsea demanded that in the name of ‘equality’ I give one of those roles to her and pay for someone to **** her, so that she could wave her dick in the faces of my lesbian **** fans to make some point about how they should stop being bigots and accept that she’s hot.
Cade's full editorial at: (((warning))) this is a **** actress's site, and guess what, there's NSFW images. (https://www.lilycade.com/why-i-went-to-war/)
And Yardley's column references this video posted by Youtuber Arielle Scarcella. After ridiculing this push to get lesbians interested in dick, Scarcella reads a letter from a young lesbian:
"I have a really hard time with my sexuality right now and I don't see any solution to the problem. I have a very strong genital preference for vaginas and my gf has a ****. I've been with her for 2 years and I've tried everything but I just can't get aroused and I can only perform sex acts on her if I think about something else, so I don't get anything sexually out of it at all. Orgasms and sexual pleasure is non existent in my life. Is genital preference "conversion therapy" a thing that works? Because I really need it and my current situation gives me so much anxiety. I just want my gf to be happy and she really doesn't deserve to be with such a sexually broken person as me. :( "
https://youtu.be/9D_lK8cwmgg?t=246
So 60-70 years ago, gay women felt pressured to have sexual relationships with men so that they could conform to social norms and have families and economic security.
Now, gay women feel pressured to have sexual relationships with men so that they can validate their gender self-identification. PROGRESS!
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 10, 2018, 09:54:33 am
It's incredibly rage-inducing, and I don't have any real-world way of expressing it. Posting here is the only way of venting I currently have.
-k
Post by: SirJohn on December 10, 2018, 12:02:43 pm
Sorry to keep going on about that.
It's incredibly rage-inducing, and I don't have any real-world way of expressing it. Posting here is the only way of venting I currently have.
-k
Well, I hate to make you more upset but...
https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/
Post by: kimmy on December 10, 2018, 09:05:44 pm
Well, I hate to make you more upset but...
https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/
Not to worry, SJ, I'm sure that this is a very interesting article. As long as they don't start talking about "the cotton ceiling" and "girl dick" again, it'll be--
Quote
But since no one knows what anyone else feels like—let alone what it feels like to be a member of the opposite sex—this sort of thing does not get you very far. So in many countries, guides and materials intended for schoolchildren and teachers resort to stereotypes. Australian teachers, for instance, are supposed to get children to “explore gender” by listing behaviours typical of boys and girls. For boys, the examples in the lesson plan include building things, liking action films and playing with toy cars. For girls, they include cooking, dancing, shopping, wearing makeup and gossiping.
HOLY ****! These people are **** retards!
-k
Post by: guest7 on December 10, 2018, 09:46:15 pm
HOLY ****! These people are **** retards!
-k
Well, their ancestors were all convicts. What're you gonna do, eh?
Post by: kimmy on December 10, 2018, 11:51:41 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/kTDrBhl.png)
Now it's not offensive. Now it's the basis of our new understanding of Gender Identity!
Our new improved understanding of gender reveals that femaleness isn't a result of biology, or experience, or socialization. Anatomy and reproduction are now irrelevant to the new understanding of femaleness. And that understanding is centered around... superficial stereotypes! YES! "Pink brain, blue brain" stuff! SHOPPING! MAKE-UP! GOSSIP! DOLLS! DISNEY PRINCESSES! THIS is what being female is really about!
We are now going to teach our kids that their gender identities are linked to these moronic outdated gender stereotypes and tell them that if they don't fit with these stereotypes they might have been assigned to the wrong body.
PROGRESSIVE!
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 10, 2018, 11:52:50 pm
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 11, 2018, 06:47:27 am
This stuff is so god damned **** stupid I feel like the whole planet is being pranked.
-k
I don't think the planet is very good at prioritizing problems. But ok.
Post by: kimmy on December 11, 2018, 09:41:43 am
I don't think the planet is very good at prioritizing problems. But ok.
We're back to "why would you be worried about this when there are kids starving in Africa?"
Ok: if this were just a bunch of morons on Tumblr and Twitter promoting a dumb idea, then it would be a pet peeve and not a problem.
But since this idiocy is now finding its way into real classrooms and medical practice and official policy, it's a problem. And one more immediate to me than starving African kids (while I completely understand that for starving African kids, the food issue is of far greater significance than gender issues.)
As I've mentioned before, I was far more interested in "dad stuff" than "mom stuff" when I was a kid. From watching football games with dad to helping in the garage and fixing things around the house, to helping with yardwork and all of these things. It makes me shudder to think how my life might have ended up if one of these idiots had popped into my life and filled my head with doubts. The idea that somebody might have convinced me that I was actually a boy and should change my body to reflect that... that's monstrous and horrifying. If the bullshit that is going on today was going on 30 years ago, I could have ended up in a broken, defective caricature of a male body instead of my wonderful body that I am very happy in.
It makes me nauseous to think that in classrooms in Australia some moron is teaching a future Kimmy that if she likes action movies and building things, she might actually be a boy. What a great way to fill a child's head with doubt. Even if she doesn't ultimately get turned into a Frankensteined version of a male, what good can come of this? Make her shy away from doing "boy stuff" because she doesn't want to be a boy? This is awful and evil and sinister. How can anybody possibly think this is good?
Up until the past year and a bit, I worked in construction. Women who came before me fought tooth and nail for girls like me to have the opportunity to be accepted in non-traditional fields. I feel like telling girls that this is "boy stuff" is really spitting in the face of those women who fought to make it possible.
The great irony of this pink brains, blue brains idiocy is that it is actually a movement based on reinforcing traditional ideas of gender identity. They're not fighting against outdated gender norms, they're trying to enshrine them as the "real" definition of female.
Since when did atypical gender expression mean that somebody was defective?
Would the world have been a better place if somebody had told Freddy Mercury that he was actually a girl? Prince? Would the world be a better place if people like Patrick Chan were told that their enthusiasm for "feminine" activities like dance and figure skating meant that they were actually girls? How would artistic dance and ballet work if we told boys who were interested in dance that they're actually girls? I think the arts world has been greatly enriched by people whose "gender expression" is "atypical". I think we as a culture should be grateful that Freddy Mercury and Prince didn't get shoved into a "pink box" at a young age.
I'm just at a loss, Michael, I just can't understand how redefining "gender identity" around these long-outdated "pink brain/blue brain" ideas is good for anybody. And if this was just a matter of morons on Tumblr it wouldn't be a problem, but if this stuff is finding its way into classrooms then it's a problem. And we need to be able to talk about it without being shut down with accusations of "transphobia".
-k
Post by: SirJohn on December 11, 2018, 12:06:59 pm
https://me.me/i/meet-hannah-mouncey-the-63-230-lb-transgender-handball-player-636e0511181d42088d40756995604724
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 11, 2018, 01:03:18 pm
https://twitter.com/isacsohn/status/1069984881629937664
https://me.me/i/meet-hannah-mouncey-the-63-230-lb-transgender-handball-player-636e0511181d42088d40756995604724
If sport was organized by chromosomes rather than the now fluid gender identities of people, this wouldn't be an issue.
The only way it will change is if women begin to boycott their own sports where this is occuring.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 11, 2018, 07:11:38 pm
We're back to "why would you be worried about this when there are kids starving in Africa?"
No.... YOU are the one who said "this stuff is so stupid..." ergo... the people who are prioritizing this issue are giving it too much attention.
Quote
Ok: if this were just a bunch of morons on Tumblr and Twitter promoting a dumb idea, then it would be a pet peeve and not a problem.
But since this idiocy is now finding its way into real classrooms and medical practice and official policy, it's a problem. And one more immediate to me than starving African kids (while I completely understand that for starving African kids, the food issue is of far greater significance than gender issues.)
Ok. I have never said "shut up about this" but merely that it's not as big a deal to me.
Quote
As I've mentioned before, I was far more interested in "dad stuff" than "mom stuff" when I was a kid. From watching football games with dad...
Yes, you are lucky to have grown up in a time where individualism was respected and you had at least a fair shot to be 'you'. In my age, you would not have had that chance and there are even many areas in the US where you would still be sent for conversion therapy.
Quote
I'm just at a loss, Michael, I just can't understand how redefining "gender identity" around these long-outdated "pink brain/blue brain" ideas is good for anybody. And if this was just a matter of morons on Tumblr it wouldn't be a problem, but if this stuff is finding its way into classrooms then it's a problem. And we need to be able to talk about it without being shut down with accusations of "transphobia".
Yes, you should discuss it. I think part of the problem is the way this is being covered in the media. For scale, though, I think conversion therapy may be a bigger problem - I think you have posted about that too.
Post by: kimmy on December 12, 2018, 10:05:54 am
No.... YOU are the one who said "this stuff is so stupid..." ergo... the people who are prioritizing this issue are giving it too much attention.
This stuff is stupid, and it's being pushed into classrooms, which means it needs to get more attention, not less.
The Flat Earth Society doesn't deserve much attention, but if flat earth ideas were being made part of the school curriculum, that would require our attention. It would demand a whole lot of attention. If this pink brain/blue brain garbage is being pushed into classrooms, I think that's incredibly harmful and deserves a whole lot of attention.
Ok. I have never said "shut up about this" but merely that it's not as big a deal to me.
I don't have a child, and I'll probably never have children. It doesn't directly affect me, but I worry a lot about what young girls are going to be told about being girls if this stuff is allowed to continue.
You're the one with a child who'll be entering the education system in a few years. Don't you kind of want to find out what the Ontario school curriculum is going to be teaching your child about his gender identity?
Yes, you are lucky to have grown up in a time where individualism was respected and you had at least a fair shot to be 'you'. In my age, you would not have had that chance
Yes, I'm well aware that I'm very lucky to have grown up at a time when I didn't get shoehorned into a traditional female role that I wasn't suited to.
And right now I feel that I was lucky to have grown up at a time when well-meaning idiots didn't try to convince me that I was actually a boy in a girl's body.
and there are even many areas in the US where you would still be sent for conversion therapy.
I don't actually have an idea as to how prevalent conversion therapy is anymore. It's widely denounced and even banned in some states. I realize that some religious parents would try to force this on their children.
Yes, you should discuss it. I think part of the problem is the way this is being covered in the media. For scale, though, I think conversion therapy may be a bigger problem - I think you have posted about that too.
I actually think all of this bears a strong resemblance to the idea of conversion therapy. From the effort to get lesbians interested in ****, to promoting the idea that children who express atypical gender identity are trans and will be happier if their bodies get "fixed to match their brains", I think this is very much like conversion therapy. One is conservative and one is allegedly progressive, but both are rooted in the idea that people are broken and need to be fixed.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 13, 2018, 06:24:02 am
This stuff is stupid, and it's being pushed into classrooms, which means it needs to get more attention, not less.
What are you objecting to in the classroom ? Something reported by an ideological site as happening in Australia with no cites ? Sorry but I am skeptical.
As I said, you are free to get upset over whatever you think is important but there are items closer to home that I would be concerned with:
https://www.equaldex.com/region/canada/british-columbia
And you are reading sites that are designed to upset people by hunting out extreme examples, and making them seem worse than they are. Likewise, I don't rely on NOW magazine to tell me what is happening out there... I look at it with one eye, then look at mainstream coverage.
Quote
The Flat Earth Society doesn't deserve much attention, but if flat earth ideas were being made part of the school curriculum, that would require our attention. It would demand a whole lot of attention. If this pink brain/blue brain garbage is being pushed into classrooms, I think that's incredibly harmful and deserves a whole lot of attention.
They are teaching it in classrooms: https://www.news24.com/Archives/Witness/A-flat-Earther-teaching-geography-20150430
Why aren't you up in arms ? I think it's because the hot-button press hasn't served it up on the outrage menu... Believe me there are left- outrage Facebook pages and I use these kinds of articles from them to determine how alarmist they are.
Quote
I don't have a child, and I'll probably never have children. It doesn't directly affect me, but I worry a lot about what young girls are going to be told about being girls if this stuff is allowed to continue.
You're the one with a child who'll be entering the education system in a few years. Don't you kind of want to find out what the Ontario school curriculum is going to be teaching your child about his gender identity?
I live in Toronto. Do I need to say more ? My child will personally know drag queens and trans women on a first name basis by the time he's 12.
Quote
Yes, I'm well aware that I'm very lucky to have grown up at a time when I didn't get shoehorned into a traditional female role that I wasn't suited to.
And right now I feel that I was lucky to have grown up at a time when well-meaning idiots didn't try to convince me that I was actually a boy in a girl's body.
As Muriel Hemmingway said to Woody Allen in Manhattan: "Have a little faith in people" :) Good ideas persist, generally. There are very bad ideas rising up that need to be beaten down, but it's more around Proud Boys and such.
Quote
I don't actually have an idea as to how prevalent conversion therapy is anymore. It's widely denounced and even banned in some states. I realize that some religious parents would try to force this on their children.
Not banned in BC. Did you know that ?
Quote
I actually think all of this bears a strong resemblance to the idea of conversion therapy. From the effort to get lesbians interested in ****, to promoting the idea that children who express atypical gender identity are trans and will be happier if their bodies get "fixed to match their brains", I think this is very much like conversion therapy. One is conservative and one is allegedly progressive, but both are rooted in the idea that people are broken and need to be fixed.
-k
Except you aren't held captive and tortured but yes it's a similar ideology of restricting freedom to impose an identity on someone.
Post by: kimmy on December 29, 2018, 12:14:28 pm
https://streamable.com/p4xjo
???
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 29, 2019, 07:59:53 pm
TERFs are FARTs now.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmrmaX8W0AATbs4.jpg)
Post by: kimmy on January 29, 2019, 10:31:05 pm
Narcissistic man-child in drag.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 29, 2019, 10:46:24 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/vJNRBOp.jpg)
YOU GO, GIRL!!
(https://i.imgur.com/kiRmIbN.jpg)
Only a king-sized mental retard would think this is normal.
Hey, Mike, why don't you post these pictures on your Facebook feed and see how your woke friends react? Think of it as an instant IQ test. If they click the "like" button, that's one sure-fire way to know that your friends are **** imbeciles.
-k
Post by: Omni on January 29, 2019, 10:46:31 pm
She can stick her **** in a light bulb socket as far as I'm concerned.
Narcissistic man-child in drag.
-k
You just reminded me of a time long ago back on the farm when I pissed on an electrified barb wire fence. OUCH!
Post by: kimmy on January 29, 2019, 10:53:20 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/IGDQc2b.png)
Discuss.
-k
Post by: waldo on January 30, 2019, 01:19:55 am
BRAVE AND FABULOUS!!
YOU GO, GIRL!!
Only a king-sized mental retard would think this is normal.
Hey, Mike, why don't you post these pictures on your Facebook feed and see how your woke friends react? Think of it as an instant IQ test. If they click the "like" button, that's one sure-fire way to know that your friends are **** imbeciles.
oh my... such LGB
Ms. kimmy, surely you're not for going back to the initial IOC policy that required trans athletes to undergo 'gender reassignment surgery' in order to compete; surely not, yes?
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/transgenderuniverse/transcentralstation/xRptQXXjL0ip6R0jchQsug/IFcapvrzWUi2PtWk0qRxwA)
in any case, apparently, acceptable competing levels are 'in flux'... it's anticipated that both the IOC/IAAF will (soon) reduce allowable maximum testosterone levels from 10 to five nanomoles per litre. Driven by, also apparently, considerations of "fairness"! Speaking of: The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570685/)
Quote
The controversy over whether or not natural testosterone levels provide a competitive edge is far from over. This note suggests that testosterone should not necessarily be the focal point of attention in designing fairness in sports: human biology is far too complicated to be represented in a single criterion. The socially contested background that brought the testosterone rule to life is likely to continue, and the way it preserves and enforces past ideologies is by creating a concept of fairness that is grounded in differences between males and females rather than other possible categories of biological variation. This note is agnostic to the question of whether or not testosterone levels provide a competitive edge, and leaves it open in order to rethink the concept of fairness in a way that accounts for whatever the answer to this question may be. It ultimately suggests that the construction of fairness is a public practice of rationalization and rule making, which can be re-imagined over and over, with winners and losers for any agreed system.
Post by: kimmy on January 30, 2019, 01:46:25 am
oh my... such LGBTenlightenment! As I understand, 'Hannah Mouncey' has/had met relative benchmark IOC testosterone level requirements (vis-a-vis updated policy guidelines on transgender athletes)... as well as Australian football's recent adoption of same. Damnit Ms. kimmy, it's (preliminary) science!
One look at a picture of Miss Mouncey competing against genetically female people should be all it takes to demonstrate to anybody with an iota of common sense that testosterone level is not an adequate measure of fairness.
Ms. kimmy, surely you're not for going back to the initial IOC policy that required trans athletes to undergo 'gender reassignment surgery' in order to compete; surely not, yes?
If Miss Mouncey gets her "lady-****" amputated, she'll still be a 6'3, 220+ pound behemoth with male bone structure and male musculature. Amputating her "lady ****" won't make this any less of a joke.
in any case, apparently, acceptable competing levels are 'in flux'... it's anticipated that both the IOC/IAAF will (soon) reduce allowable maximum testosterone levels from 10 to five nanomoles per litre. Driven by, also apparently, considerations of "fairness"! Speaking of: The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570685/)
And testosterone level remains an inadequate means of quantifying fairness. Individuals like Miss Mouncey and Miss McKinnon went through their physical development as males and retain significant physical advantages as a result. Miss Mouncey only "transitioned" 2 years ago at age 27. 27 years of male physiological development doesn't just disappear because you start taking testosterone blocking drugs.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 30, 2019, 05:34:47 am
Only a king-sized mental retard would think this is normal.
And yet this person didn't dominate all women in the sport, finished 2nd in their class.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 09:17:49 am
"Boys have a ****, and girls have a ****. If anyone tries to tell you different, they must be a bleeding-heart Liberal." God bless him. He was right
Post by: wilber on January 30, 2019, 09:31:20 am
And yet this person didn't dominate all women in the sport, finished 2nd in their class.
And if the whole team was made up of Mounceys? Shades of East Germany. It will make women’s sport irrelevant.
Post by: kimmy on January 30, 2019, 09:38:30 am
And yet this person didn't dominate all women in the sport, finished 2nd in their class.
Which individual? The pictured athlete, 6'3, 220 pound Hannah Mouncey? Handball is a team sport. She only started playing handball because they made her quit women's Aussie-rules football after she broke a woman's leg.
Rachel McKinnon, whose Twitter feed your little Anime waifu came from? She's a novice in her sport and already a world champion.
This is just the thin edge of the wedge. Trans athletes in women's sports are still the oddity. Two transgender athletes recently dominated the field at the Connecticut women's highschool state championships. If this insanity is allowed to continue, women won't be able to compete at the higher levels of their own sports.
-k
Post by: wilber on January 30, 2019, 10:12:26 am
Post by: waldo on January 30, 2019, 10:13:01 am
If this insanity is allowed to continue, women won't be able to compete at the higher levels of their own sports.
good-spirited waldo says: would you like a wording do-over here?
Post by: waldo on January 30, 2019, 10:18:18 am
It's like my Dad once said when I was a young kid:
"Boys have a ****, and girls have a ****. If anyone tried to tell you different, they must be a bleeding-heart Liberal." God bless him. He was right
is gender dysphoria... nature or nurture?
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 12:06:13 pm
is gender dysphoria... nature or nurture?
Neither.
It's common sense. God made us a certain way. We should learn to accept ourselves rather than change who we are. It's no different than people who elect to. have plastic surgery. We can change our physical appearance, but we can never change what lies within the depths of our soul.
That is why the suicide rate of Transgendered people remains exponentially higher, regardless of what they choose.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 12:12:15 pm
Neither.
It's common sense. God made us a certain way. We should learn to accept ourselves rather than change who we are. It's no different than people who elect to. have plastic surgery. We can change our physical appearance, but we can never change what lies within the depths of our soul.
Do you not accept that for some people, what is within the depths of their soul as they live out their lives is not reflected by the genitalia they received at birth?
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 12:19:05 pm
Do you not accept that for some people, what is within the depths of their soul as they live out their lives is not reflected by the genitalia they received at birth?
Those individuals are Homosexual. There is nothing wrong with that. Once LBGT individuals are fully assimilated into society, the desire to change their gender will disappear, and we will look back and laugh at this absurd, politically correct movement.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 12:33:53 pm
Those individuals are Homosexual. There is nothing wrong with that. Once LBGT individuals are fully assimilated into society, the desire to change their gender will disappear, and we will look back and laugh at this absurd, politically correct movement.
So you're saying it's OK by you to be homosexual but not to be gay? I'm confused.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 12:38:08 pm
So you're saying it's OK by you to be homosexual but not to be gay? I'm confused.
I never said that. I said that being Gay is fine. Changing one's gender is not, IMHO.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 12:45:58 pm
I never said that. I said that being Gay is fine. Changing one's gender is not, IMHO.
so someone altering ones body to reflect what is in the depths of their soul is a sin against god you're saying?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 12:49:10 pm
so someone altering ones body to reflect what is in the depths of their soul is a sin against god you're saying?
God made us this way...
He also told us to stone gays to death...
I don't think God ever mentioned transgender people at all... but maybe Pinus can correct me on that one. Maybe Pinus can also tell us why he doesn't stone gay men as according to God's instructions.
It always fascinates me when people attribute things to God that they also happen to agree with... and ignore the things God said explicitly in their holy books when they disagree with it. It's a state of self-delusion.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 12:52:28 pm
so someone altering ones body to reflect what is in the depths of their soul is a sin against god you're saying?Exactly.
Depression and Anxiety run in my family. However, we do not resort to getting a brain transplant. We just try and do the best we can with the hand we were dealt with. The same should apply to the LBGT community.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:02:39 pm
God made us this way...
He also told us to stone gays to death...
I don't think God ever mentioned transgender people at all... but maybe Pinus can correct me on that one. Maybe Pinus can also tell us why he doesn't stone gay men as according to God's instructions.
It always fascinates me when people attribute things to God that they also happen to agree with... and ignore the things God said explicitly in their holy books when they disagree with it. It's a state of self-delusion.
There is certainly no end of examples throughout our history of the death and destruction some of the folks who jumped onto the god bandwagon have caused. If there is an after life I expect to go there without having to try and alter this one based on this or that human written book.
Post by: wilber on January 30, 2019, 01:07:31 pm
So you're saying it's OK by you to be homosexual but not to be gay? I'm confused.
Gender an sexual orientation are not the same thing. How’s that?
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:07:50 pm
Exactly.
Depression and Anxiety run in my family. However, we do not resort to getting a brain transplant. We just try and do the best we can with the hand we were dealt with. The same should apply to the LBGT community.
So to follow your logic, if one were not born with a faulty brain but did develop a faulty heart, you would deny them a transplant if it became available?
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 01:08:17 pm
PS..Jordan Peterson is right.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:10:15 pm
Regardless of how absurd some forum members view religion, I definitely believe there is a higher power, and pray to Him when I am able to.
PS..Jordan Peterson is right.
And just how have you become informed of this higher power?
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 01:10:33 pm
So to follow your logic, if one were not born with a faulty brain but did develop a faulty heart, you would deny them a transplant if it became available?
The human Heart is necessary for life. Changing one's genitals is not.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 01:13:33 pm
And just how have you become informed of this higher power?
1995 Winnipeg.
I read about the plight of the Jewish people. Then, I walked by a menorah, since it was Chanukah. It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw. I felt this strange feeling of peace and warmth encircle my body. From that moment on, I knew that God not only existed, but was the mightiest force in the Universe. I became a sponge for everything Judaism from then on. I converted in 1997. My dream is to travel to the Old City, and touch the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:21:05 pm
1995 Winnipeg.
I read about the plight of the Jewish people. Then, I walked by a menorah, since it was Chanukah. It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw. I felt this strange feeling of peace and warmth encircle my body. From that moment on, I knew that God not only existed, but was the mightiest force in the Universe. I became a sponge for everything Judaism from then on. I converted in 1997. My dream is to travel to the Old City, and touch the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.
Religion has simply provided a convenient badge or vehicle for discrimination. Whoever wrote the texts.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 01:26:51 pm
Religion has simply provided a convenient badge or vehicle for discrimination. Whoever wrote the texts.
It also improves quality of life, and improves the self esteem of its followers. The benefits of religion are so numerous that it would take days to list them all.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 01:33:38 pm
It also improves quality of life, and improves the self esteem of its followers. The benefits of religion are so numerous that it would take days to list them all.
OK.. I can grant religion makes people feel good. Does that make a god real?
I can think of all sorts of comforting things that are not true.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:34:04 pm
It also improves quality of life, and improves the self esteem of its followers. The benefits of religion are so numerous that it would take days to list them all.
How many days would it take to read the list of people killed in religious wars?
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:36:05 pm
OK.. I can grant religion makes people feel good. Does that make a god real?
I can think of all sorts of comforting things that are not true.
That depends on what god you believe in. My god is real, and if you don't agree, I'll slaughter you.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 01:36:49 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 01:37:53 pm
That depends on what god you believe in. My god is real, and if you don't agree, I'll slaughter you.
That's not the point of my post. I said I would grant that religion makes people feel good. The point is, feeling good doesn't make it any more true.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 01:47:56 pm
Also, Pinus never did say why he ignores God's command to stone gays but is adamant about God's feelings on transgender issues.
I feel sorry for you.
One would think you would be intelligent enough to convince me I am wrong by civil discourse. Instead, you lump all people who happen to be religious into one broad category, and imply that we wish death upon Homosexuals. The irony is not lost upon me.
I hope you can one day enjoy life, and not be so bigoted as to hate those who have a different set of beliefs.
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 01:57:33 pm
I feel sorry for you.
One would think you would be intelligent enough to convince me I am wrong by civil discourse. Instead, you lump all people who happen to be religious into one broad category, and imply that we wish death upon Homosexuals. The irony is not lost upon me.
I hope you can one day enjoy life, and not be so bigoted as to hate those who have a different set of beliefs.
Does your (human written) book tell you that your god accepts homosexuals?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 02:11:14 pm
I feel sorry for you.
One would think you would be intelligent enough to convince me I am wrong by civil discourse. Instead, you lump all people who happen to be religious into one broad category, and imply that we wish death upon Homosexuals. The irony is not lost upon me.
I hope you can one day enjoy life, and not be so bigoted as to hate those who have a different set of beliefs.
You have reading comprehension issues... I said you do NOT wish death upon homosexuals despite the explicit instructions by your holy book (assuming you're a Christian) to kill gays. I was wondering why you ignore your god on that issue...?
I also asked where in your holy book it mentions transgender people?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 02:36:23 pm
Just curious. How would one "ignore" another forum member? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Why are you asking me? I’m not a mod, nor have I looked into it.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 02:41:19 pm
Why are you asking me? I’m not a mod, nor have I looked into it.
If we were face to face, I would give you a great big hug.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 02:48:25 pm
If we were face to face, I would give you a great big hug.
If you tried, I’d punch you in the throat. I don’t accept hugs from strangers.
Why won’t you answer the questions I posed?
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 03:32:27 pm
If you tried, I’d punch you in the throat. I don’t accept hugs from strangers.
Why won’t you answer the questions I posed?
You would never do something like that, if you were to see my actual size. We both know it too. I still would give you a hug.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 30, 2019, 03:51:58 pm
You would never do something like that, if you were to see my actual size. We both know it too. I still would give you a hug.
No answers to my questions, eh? Oh well. Carry on with your silly dodging Big Fella... ::)
Post by: wilber on January 30, 2019, 08:15:25 pm
Post by: kimmy on January 31, 2019, 09:33:38 am
good-spirited waldo says: would you like a wording do-over here?
No, I'm fine with it. If I mean trans-women, I'll say trans-women. If I mean adult human females, I will say women. I'm done with using a qualifier like "cis-women" or "natal women". **** that ****. Women never got to be "the default person", but we're still the default woman. I'm not going to adopt "cis-women" or "natal women" or "AFAB women" or "menstruators" or "uterus-bearers" or "bleeders" or whatever idiocy the inclusivity patrol are recommending this month.
-k
Post by: waldo on January 31, 2019, 10:12:52 am
One look at a picture of Miss Mouncey competing against genetically female people should be all it takes to demonstrate to anybody with an iota of common sense that testosterone level is not an adequate measure of fairness.
If Miss Mouncey gets her "lady-****" amputated, she'll still be a 6'3, 220+ pound behemoth with male bone structure and male musculature. Amputating her "lady ****" won't make this any less of a joke.
And testosterone level remains an inadequate means of quantifying fairness. Individuals like Miss Mouncey and Miss McKinnon went through their physical development as males and retain significant physical advantages as a result. Miss Mouncey only "transitioned" 2 years ago at age 27. 27 years of male physiological development doesn't just disappear because you start taking testosterone blocking drugs.
I emphasized testosterone levels as it is the prevailing standard... the study I referenced spoke to the fairness aspect; I thought the quote I provided from the study would have spoken to the need for... a "different" standard - notwithstanding the study actually speaks to a foundation for alternate thought/considerations in creating those standards. Standards that, ultimately, may be needed on a 'sport-by-sport' basis.
as an aside, cursory image googlies suggest there is no shortage of "plus-size" women in sport (I'll defer to your most exclusionary designation that insists on attaching a 'wannabe' qualifier to the transgender). Accordingly, your apparent favouring of LBM (lean body-mass) as a/the determinant qualifier won't realize the "fairness" you presume upon. Of course, other than throwing down a few images you project as "self-explanatory", you've said nuthin' bout what fairness qualifiers you accept.
by the by: somewhat related was the Bettman circus trotted out during the recent All-Star game... resulting in more than a few idiotic writings about eventualities of women playing in the NHL! Bloody hell - the physical game is watered down enough already!
Post by: wilber on January 31, 2019, 10:45:20 am
Post by: kimmy on February 01, 2019, 04:32:47 am
I emphasized testosterone levels as it is the prevailing standard... the study I referenced spoke to the fairness aspect; I thought the quote I provided from the study would have spoken to the need for... a "different" standard - notwithstanding the study actually speaks to a foundation for alternate thought/considerations in creating those standards. Standards that, ultimately, may be needed on a 'sport-by-sport' basis.
The quote you provided demonstrates that testosterone level doesn't correlate to athletic success. So trying to create fairness by setting a limit on testosterone levels isn't going to work. And yet...
As I understand, 'Hannah Mouncey' has/had met relative benchmark IOC testosterone level requirements (vis-a-vis updated policy guidelines on transgender athletes)... as well as Australian football's recent adoption of same. Damnit Ms. kimmy, it's (preliminary) science!
...that's what sports governing bodies are trying to do. You've already cited the evidence to show that won't work. Yet that's the justification supporters of trans-women in sport are arguing-- if the testosterone level is under 10nmol/L, there's no problem.
And...
in any case, apparently, acceptable competing levels are 'in flux'... it's anticipated that both the IOC/IAAF will (soon) reduce allowable maximum testosterone levels from 10 to five nanomoles per litre. Driven by, also apparently, considerations of "fairness"!
"The testosterone limit of 10 nmol/l makes it fair! But we're going to make it EVEN MORE FAIR by reducing it to 5nmol/l!"
That's an admission that they know that the rule they've got isn't fair, and they are grasping at straws.
I think as a starting point they should at least acknowledge that they've prioritized inclusiveness ahead of fair play, rather than continue this sham.
as an aside, cursory image googlies suggest there is no shortage of "plus-size" women in sport (I'll defer to your most exclusionary designation that insists on attaching a 'wannabe' qualifier to the transgender). Accordingly, your apparent favouring of LBM (lean body-mass) as a/the determinant qualifier won't realize the "fairness" you presume upon.
Arguing that since some girls are bigger than others, there's no harm in letting men play in women's leagues is kind of like arguing that since some 15 year olds are bigger than others, there's no harm in letting men play in Bantam hockey leagues.
Of course nobody would do that in Bantam league hockey. But when money or scholarships or gold medals are at stake, who knows. A few years ago Iran apparently tried to field a women's soccer team with eight (!) pre-transition trans-women on it. Wow! Who knew that Iran was so progressive on transgender issues!
The teams that got beat by Australia at the handball championships will be off searching for their own Hannah Mounceys, and women will lose the opportunity to compete internationally as a result. That's the opposite of what women's sport was created to do.
Of course, other than throwing down a few images you project as "self-explanatory", you've said nuthin' bout what fairness qualifiers you accept.
Well, as you suggest it depends on the sport. Perhaps Mouncey and McKinnon should go compete in sports where their large frames and heavy musculature aren't an absurd advantage, like perhaps badminton or archery.
USA Powerlifting has issued a policy that trans women may not compete in the women's category, end of story. They have prioritized fair play ahead of inclusion.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 01, 2019, 05:21:47 am
And if the whole team was made up of Mounceys? Shades of East Germany. It will make women’s sport irrelevant.
Sure - if anyone had a team of top performers they would win but that's not the point. The implication is that this person comes in and just destroys the competition if you believe the 'argument' :D in the picture.
But it wasn't so. She got beat.
Post by: wilber on February 01, 2019, 10:04:32 am
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 01, 2019, 10:47:16 am
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 11:25:11 am
Have the sport based on chromosomes and be done with this PC stupidity.
waldo factoid: it's science! ... scientific evidence has shown that chromosomal analysis is not effective in distinguishing women & men. You're so 1990s (ok, ok... it was 1999 when the IOC accepted 'the science' and stopped using chromosomal analysis as a determiner).
Post by: wilber on February 01, 2019, 11:43:25 am
waldo factoid: it's science! ... scientific evidence has shown that chromosomal analysis is not effective in distinguishing women & men. You're so 1990s (ok, ok... it was 1999 when the IOC accepted 'the science' and stopped using chromosomal analysis as a determiner).
Wrong, it's about sport.
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 11:44:05 am
Arguing that since some girls are bigger than others, there's no harm in letting men play in women's leagues is kind of like arguing that since some 15 year olds are bigger than others, there's no harm in letting men play in Bantam hockey leagues.
ms. kimmy... you're always "arguing" for arguing sake! Are you miffed cause the waldo actually provided info for reference/consideration? You know, stepped above/beyond your image throw-down - the one you said to be 'self-explanatory'! You see, rather than follow your emotionally laced lead, the waldo chose to inform while speaking to historical and status-quo aspects and offering a paper challenging said status-quo; one that provided considerations towards a more robust screening criteria.
my challenge to your image throwdown was to emphasize your apparent predilection towards a defining criteria of LBM (lean body mass) is easily scrutinized when you consider a growing presence of, as the waldo labeled them, "plus-sized women" in sport.
as is your typical norm, you rise to the bait of your own linked "action" images. By the by, yet another waldo factoid: 2016 data - 6 out of 500,000 registered worldwide women's rugby players were trans. Clearly, trans women are taking over, hey!
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 01, 2019, 12:08:07 pm
waldo factoid: it's science! ... scientific evidence has shown that chromosomal analysis is not effective in distinguishing women & men. You're so 1990s (ok, ok... it was 1999 when the IOC accepted 'the science' and stopped using chromosomal analysis as a determiner).
It's XX sport and XY sport... man/woman is such an old fashioned, archaic term...
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 12:09:07 pm
by the by: somewhat related was the Bettman circus trotted out during the recent All-Star game... resulting in more than a few idiotic writings about eventualities of women playing in the NHL! Bloody hell - the physical game is watered down enough already!
no bites - none?
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 12:10:35 pm
It's XX sport and XY sport... man/woman is such an old fashioned, archaic term...
the waldo already trumped your simplistic attachment to chromosomal analysis - see science!
Post by: wilber on February 01, 2019, 12:15:33 pm
ms. kimmy... you're always "arguing" for arguing sake! Are you miffed cause the waldo actually provided info for reference/consideration? You know, stepped above/beyond your image throw-down - the one you said to be 'self-explanatory'! You see, rather than follow your emotionally laced lead, the waldo chose to inform while speaking to historical and status-quo aspects and offering a paper challenging said status-quo; one that provided considerations towards a more robust screening criteria.
my challenge to your image throwdown was to emphasize your apparent predilection towards a defining criteria of LBM (lean body mass) is easily scrutinized when you consider a growing presence of, as the waldo labeled them, "plus-sized women" in sport.
as is your typical norm, you rise to the bait of your own linked "action" images. By the by, yet another waldo factoid: 2016 data - 6 out of 500,000 registered worldwide women's rugby players were trans. Clearly, trans women are taking over, hey!
Men and women come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and sexual orientation but that has nothing to do with their gender. You are going to destroy something by trying to make it conform to your agenda.
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 12:17:32 pm
Men and women come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and sexual orientation but that has nothing to do with their gender. You are going to destroy something by trying to make it conform to your agenda.
agenda-free waldo says: what's your agenda-driven alternative to determine eligibility?
Post by: wilber on February 01, 2019, 12:19:58 pm
no bites - none?
What's to bite. What is your problem with giving women a chance to demonstrate their skills on such a huge stage. No one is talking about them playing in the NHL or removing body checking from mens hockey. Why do you have a problem with women?
Post by: wilber on February 01, 2019, 12:25:50 pm
agenda-free waldo says: what's your agenda-driven alternative to determine eligibility?
Maybe you can't be eligible for something. Its that simple.
Tell me what the difference is between athletes who use surgical and chemical means to manipulate their gender competing against people who haven't and athletes who use chemical means to enhance their performance competing against those who don't?
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 12:57:37 pm
What's to bite. What is your problem with giving women a chance to demonstrate their skills on such a huge stage. No one is talking about them playing in the NHL or removing body checking from mens hockey. Why do you have a problem with women?
as I said, after yet another Bettman clown-show, "people were saying/musing"... about eventualities of women in the NHL. I mean, c'mon, after the 5'2" behemoth's showing, it's only a matter of time before she replaces that shrub 'Johnny Gaudreau'. Saving grace: we won't have to hear yet another stooopid commentator plying that most grating Johnny-Hockey label! Geezaz, for someone (YOU) so nattering on about the sanctity of your favoured (rugby) sport, I'm most surprised to read you championing the call for women in the NHL!
speaking about (you not) biting, I see you completely ignored this:
waldo factoid: 2016 data - 6 out of 500,000 registered worldwide women's rugby players were trans. Clearly, trans women are taking over, hey!
Post by: waldo on February 01, 2019, 01:00:53 pm
Maybe you can't be eligible for something. Its that simple.
what's simple... is you! My emphasis has been on recognizing the status-quo criteria determining said eligibility needs refinement - your forever problem seems to be you just don't read what people actually say.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 01, 2019, 01:07:42 pm
the waldo already trumped your simplistic attachment to chromosomal analysis - see science!
Chromosomes aren't science? Wow... who knew?
Post by: ?Impact on February 01, 2019, 02:02:35 pm
It's XX sport and XY sport... man/woman is such an old fashioned, archaic term...
So XX males compete on women's teams?
-----------------------------------------------------
Why not weight classes for sports instead of age and gender separations? For some sports weight is important, and for others it is not or at least far less significant. For sports with a lot of interest, there could be multiple leagues based on ability (we already have that with hockey).
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 01, 2019, 02:32:48 pm
So XX males compete on women's teams?
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes. But that likely won’t lead to any unfairness.
Quote
Children with Klinefelter syndrome may have weak muscle tone (hypotonia) and problems with coordination that delay the development of motor skills, such as sitting, standing, and walking. Affected boys often have learning disabilities, problems with reading, and mild delays in speech and language development. Boys and men with Klinefelter syndrome tend to have better receptive language skills (the ability to understand speech) than expressive language skills (vocabulary and the production of speech) and may have difficulty communicating and expressing themselves. They tend to have anxiety, impaired social skills, a short attention span, and limited problem-solving skills (executive functioning)
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/klinefelter-syndrome
Quote
Why not weight classes for sports instead of age and gender separations? For some sports weight is important, and for others it is not or at least far less significant. For sports with a lot of interest, there could be multiple leagues based on ability (we already have that with hockey).
Weight class - won’t work for most sports, plus it would still probably lead to unfairness.
Leagues based on ability- that would probably lead to all transgender league... which would be fine by me. There’s no unfairness there.
Would it be fair, in your opinion, for transgender women to fight in the same weight class as women in combat sports? (I’m guessing you’re going to evade this question with something about how you’re against any combat sport)
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 02, 2019, 06:10:40 am
Her team got beat. A team is not one person.
Someone beat her in individual performance I mean. Points, or goals or whatever.
Post by: kimmy on February 02, 2019, 12:50:17 pm
ms. kimmy... you're always "arguing" for arguing sake! Are you miffed cause the waldo actually provided info for reference/consideration? You know, stepped above/beyond your image throw-down - the one you said to be 'self-explanatory'! You see, rather than follow your emotionally laced lead, the waldo chose to inform while speaking to historical and status-quo aspects and offering a paper challenging said status-quo; one that provided considerations towards a more robust screening criteria.
I'm not miffed at all. I acknowledged your paper, and as I said it blows a gigantic hole in the notion that testosterone-suppression therapy makes for a fair playing field. You've done a great service to the discussion by demonstrating that the rules that let people like Rachel McKinnon and Hannah Mouncey compete in women's sport are misguided and fail to achieve the intended goal.
my challenge to your image throwdown was to emphasize your apparent predilection towards a defining criteria of LBM (lean body mass) is easily scrutinized when you consider a growing presence of, as the waldo labeled them, "plus-sized women" in sport.
And as I already said, this is just a repeat of the slippery slope argument that others have already presented in this thread. "Some girls are bigger than others, so why not let biologically male people in? Their biological advantage is no different from the biological advantage tall girls have over shorter girls. Why not just view trans-women the same way we view tall girls?"
Ms Mouncey is large by male standards, but not extraordinarily large. Lots of men are 6'3 or more, lots of men can attain 220+ pounds with a body-fat percentage that would be considered fit or athletic. Rare women can attain 6'3, but most of them are built like Maria Sharapova. Some women attain weights of 220+ pounds, but most of them are built like Roseanne Barr. The only female athlete I've ever heard of who is comparable in size and musculature to Mouncey is Gabby Garcia, an MMA fighter who uses massive amounts of anabolic steroids and competes in circus contests in a Japanese organization that doesn't require any drug testing. (She is well over 10nmol/L of something, but only her veterinarian knows exactly what.)
That kind of size is attainable by a fair percentage of people who went through their physical development as males, such as Ms Mouncey and Ms McKinnon, but for people who went through puberty as women, that kind of size is so far at the tail end of the bell curve that it's beyond the reach of almost all women. If male-like size becomes normal in the higher levels of women's sports, that will exclude the large majority of women.
We can see this in some men's sports. Basketball and offensive/defensive lineman positions in football require physical stature that is beyond the reach of the vast majority of men. Only a tiny fraction of the human race have the genetics required to be a lineman in football. The vast majority of people are excluded at the moment of conception. Some normal-sized men still manage to play at guard in basketball, but for forwards, once again the vast majority of people are excluded before they're even born.
If male-like size becomes prevalent in competitive women's sports, then for women every sport will be as inaccessible as being a basketball forward or football lineman is for men.
as is your typical norm, you rise to the bait of your own linked "action" images. By the by, yet another waldo factoid: 2016 data - 6 out of 500,000 registered worldwide women's rugby players were trans. Clearly, trans women are taking over, hey!
A similar statistic from 1985 would demonstrate that the Compact Disc posed no threat at all to the continued market share of the vinyl record. This is the very early stages and we won't see the results immediately.
This is still very new and is only starting to become normalized. Many sports organizations are only now starting to figure out policies. USA Hockey just released a transgender policy last week-- only requirement being at least one year of hormone suppression therapy. Great news-- you won't have to complain about Brianna Decker and Kendall Coyne showing up at the NHL all star game for much longer. Look forward to Team Canada women playing against formerly-male college players who've discovered their "authentic selves" in the near future.
-k
Post by: kimmy on February 02, 2019, 12:53:36 pm
Someone beat her in individual performance I mean. Points, or goals or whatever.
Ok, you've determined that since one woman at this international tournament managed to score more points than our novice player Ms Mouncey, Ms Mouncey's 220 pound muscular frame doesn't actually confer an an advantage?
Do you think that being 6'3 and 220 pounds gave Ms Mouncey an advantage over the Australian girl that got bumped off the team to make room for her? Because that's ultimately what this is about.
Also, have you posted the pics to your Facebook feed? I'm dying to hear what your woke friends think.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 02, 2019, 01:52:15 pm
Quote
Would it be fair, in your opinion, for transgender women to fight in the same weight class as women in combat sports?
Anyone?.......
Post by: ?Impact on February 02, 2019, 02:04:29 pm
Anyone?.......
I think I suggested that above. Weight is important in some events, in others speed, dexterity, strength, etc. I think the only argument to be made about gender is strength. Do males have a strength advantage in the same weight class? Anyone have a scientific argument for that?
Post by: kimmy on February 02, 2019, 02:06:53 pm
Anyone?.......
This was a controversy in regard to "Fallon Fox", a transgender fighter. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox)
Joe Rogan:
Quote
UFC color commentator and stand-up comedian Joe Rogan opposed Fallon Fox receiving licensing,[8] stating "First of all, she's not really a she. She's a transgender, post-op person. The operation doesn't shave down your bone density. It doesn't change. You look at a man's hands and you look at a woman's hands and they're built different. They're just thicker, they're stronger, your wrists are thicker, your elbows are thicker, your joints are thicker. Just the mechanical function of punching, a man can do it much harder than a woman can, period."
Ronda Rousey and Dana White:
Quote
In an interview with Out, Rousey said: "I feel like if you go through puberty as a 'man' it's not something you can reverse. ... There's no undo button on that."[15] UFC president Dana White claimed that "bone structure is different, hands are bigger, jaw is bigger, everything is bigger" and said "I don't think someone who used to be a man and became a woman should be able to fight a woman."[16]
Fox's last MMA opponent, Tamikka Brents:
Quote
During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: "I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right," she stated. "Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn't move at all in Fox's clinch..."[17]
Expert-guy Eric Vilain:
Quote
Eric Vilain, the director of the Institute For Society And Genetics at UCLA, worked with the Association of Boxing Commissions when they wrote their policy on transgender athletes. He stated in Time magazine that "Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males"[11] and said that, to be licensed, transgender female fighters must undergo complete "surgical anatomical changes ..., including external genitalia and gonadectomy and subsequently a minimum of two years of hormone replacement therapy, administered by a board certified specialist. In general concurrence with peer-reviewed scientific literature,[18] he states this to be "the current understanding of the minimum amount of time necessary to obviate male hormone gender related advantages in sports competition". Vilain reviewed Fox's medical records and said she has "clearly fulfilled all conditions."[2] When asked if Fox could, nonetheless, be stronger than her competitors, Vilain replied that it was possible, but noted that "sports is made up of competitors who, by definition, have advantages for all kinds of genetics reasons".[11]
-k
Post by: TimG on February 02, 2019, 03:21:42 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 02, 2019, 03:46:18 pm
Anyone?.......
No, i think it would be even dangerous for the genetic women. There's a big difference between gender and sex. You can change your gender expression and modify some of your secondary sex characteristics with surgery and hormones, but you can't change your biological sex IMO, you can't change your genes.
Post by: wilber on February 02, 2019, 04:16:01 pm
Competition in spectator sports is about providing entertainment. If the fans think letting transgender compete undermines the entertainment value because it is unfair they will spend their money elsewhere and no lectures by SJW nannies are going to change this behavior.
There are a lot sports played at the world level that aren't professional or are at the best semi pro, particularly women's sport. It isn't about money.
Post by: TimG on February 02, 2019, 04:31:16 pm
There are a lot sports played at the world level that aren't professional or are at the best semi pro, particularly women's sport. It isn't about money.Somebody has to pay the bills. I doubt they are government funded.
Post by: wilber on February 02, 2019, 04:57:01 pm
Somebody has to pay the bills. I doubt they are government funded.
Seriously?
A lot are government funded and so are the facilities they use. A lot of our Olympic athletes live barely above the poverty line. If you just think in terms of pro sports there is no problem because they can make their own rules.
Post by: TimG on February 03, 2019, 01:16:56 am
A lot are government funded and so are the facilities they use.Sport facilities are almost always government funded whether the sport has a professional league or not. But it costs money to organize events and someone has to pay. In some cases, governments may fund events because they are the Olympic roster but sports only make it on the Olympic roster if they help sell Olympic sponsorships. Something that can't happen without fans.
Lastly, many amateur sports depend on the athlete devoting their life to a calling and effectively paying out of their own pocket because they are also fans. A sports that loses competitors who are disgusted with unfair competition from men pretending to be women will not last long as a viable sport.
Post by: kimmy on February 03, 2019, 03:36:16 am
Competition in spectator sports is about providing entertainment. If the fans think letting transgender compete undermines the entertainment value because it is unfair they will spend their money elsewhere and no lectures by SJW nannies are going to change this behavior.
I completely agree.
There are a lot sports played at the world level that aren't professional or are at the best semi pro, particularly women's sport. It isn't about money.
This is true as well. There are recreational leagues in all kinds of sports. Organized by volunteers and costs-- if there are any-- paid by the participants.
Lastly, many amateur sports depend on the athlete devoting their life to a calling and effectively paying out of their own pocket because they are also fans. A sports that loses competitors who are disgusted with unfair competition from men pretending to be women will not last long as a viable sport.
Last week I read someone saying that she and others had quit their roller-derby league because MTF trans people were taking it over-- it just wasn't fun anymore, and it was becoming dangerous.
-k
Post by: wilber on February 03, 2019, 11:13:15 am
Sport facilities are almost always government funded whether the sport has a professional league or not. But it costs money to organize events and someone has to pay. In some cases, governments may fund events because they are the Olympic roster but sports only make it on the Olympic roster if they help sell Olympic sponsorships. Something that can't happen without fans.
Lastly, many amateur sports depend on the athlete devoting their life to a calling and effectively paying out of their own pocket because they are also fans. A sports that loses competitors who are disgusted with unfair competition from men pretending to be women will not last long as a viable sport.
Based on this, one question. Why should some women's sports be unattainable for real women or just plain killed off in the name of inclusiveness?
Post by: TimG on February 03, 2019, 11:56:23 am
Based on this, one question. Why should some women's sports be unattainable for real women or just plain killed off in the name of inclusiveness?When the big fight was over gay marriage no one seriously expected that private religious organizations should be force to perform or accept gay marriages. Most people have no issue with the fact that a gay Catholic can't get married in a Catholic church because to say otherwise with the violation of the right to freedom of speech/thought which all Catholics have.
Yet when it comes to privately funded sports organizations (which are not unlike churches in this respect) their rights no longer matter. The only rights that matter are those of people pretending to be a different sex. This is grotesquely unfair and why I don't see the transgender issue resolving itself like the gay marriage issue has. People have the unequivocal right to reject the notion that people can change gender and create private clubs that exclude people based on their definition of gender.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 03, 2019, 12:08:34 pm
Yet when it comes to privately funded sports organizations (which are not unlike churches in this respect) their rights no longer matter. The only rights that matter are those of people pretending to be a different sex. This is grotesquely unfair and why I don't see the transgender issue resolving itself like the gay marriage issue has. People have the unequivocal right to reject the notion that people can change gender and create private clubs that exclude people based on their definition of gender.
But they don't, really. There is a distinction between public and private organizations and the former are, with some exceptions, prohibited from discrimination. I don't care what 'your' definition is - there is a legally mandated morality, like it or not.
Post by: TimG on February 03, 2019, 12:23:34 pm
But they don't, really. There is a distinction between public and private organizations and the former are, with some exceptions, prohibited from discrimination.What are you talking about? Churches are free to reject gay marriage. Women and gays can't sue the Catholic church because they can't work as priests. Men can't sue a woman's league because because they can't play. Freedom of association is a protected right and includes the right to choose NOT to associate.
I don't care what 'your' definition is - there is a legally mandated morality, like it or not.People have rights. The right to form clubs that reject your "morality" is constitutionally protected. The government has no business dictating the membership rules for private organizations and the government understood this when we were having the debate over gay marriage. But now people like you are saying that no one has any rights except the ones that you dictate. This is not a path that will result in a stable social consensus.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 03, 2019, 12:55:56 pm
What are you talking about? Churches are free to reject gay marriage. Women and gays can't sue the Catholic church because they can't work as priests. Men can't sue a woman's league because because they can't play. Freedom of association is a protected right and includes the right to choose NOT to associate.
Yes, religions receives special protection as it's something different from a pizza parlor.
Quote
People have rights. The right to form clubs that reject your "morality" is constitutionally protected. The government has no business dictating the membership rules for private organizations and the government understood this when we were having the debate over gay marriage. But now people like you are saying that no one has any rights except the ones that you dictate. This is not a path that will result in a stable social consensus.I'm unsure if you are giving your opinion, or opining on legal cases. If it's the latter I think you're at least somewhat wrong.
Also - leave me out of this.
Post by: Omni on February 03, 2019, 12:59:43 pm
But they don't, really. There is a distinction between public and private organizations and the former are, with some exceptions, prohibited from discrimination. I don't care what 'your' definition is - there is a legally mandated morality, like it or not.
That's true. And if we're talking sports there is very little in the charter on the subject other than one stipulation that gender cannot be discriminatory, as long as there is there is consideration, especially in the situation where females engage with predominately male sports teams, as to their physical safety. The provinces have the much more specific policies, most of which do not allow discrimination on gender.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 03, 2019, 01:07:28 pm
That's true. And if we're talking sports there is very little in the charter on the subject other than one stipulation that gender cannot be discriminatory, as long as there is there is consideration, especially in the situation where females engage with predominately male sports teams, as to their physical safety. The provinces have the much more specific policies, most of which do not allow discrimination on gender.
We can be sure of only one thing. Some people will start out the discussion in a fit of outrage because they are that way.
Post by: TimG on February 03, 2019, 01:22:11 pm
Yes, religions receives special protection as it's something different from a pizza parlor.Private clubs are private clubs. People set up clubs based on ethnicity all of the time. Running a sports league is no different. From the Constitution:
Quote
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
The (d) has no meaning of governments can compel people to associate with those they choose not to associate with.
Of course, the constitution does not matter to SJWs. All they care about is imposing their religion on everyone else (to be clear: the notion that a people can change biological sex *is* a religious idea that is equivalent to believing in a god or that pork should not be eaten - it is not a fact).
Post by: wilber on February 03, 2019, 01:31:02 pm
When the big fight was over gay marriage no one seriously expected that private religious organizations should be force to perform or accept gay marriages. Most people have no issue with the fact that a gay Catholic can't get married in a Catholic church because to say otherwise with the violation of the right to freedom of speech/thought which all Catholics have.
Yet when it comes to privately funded sports organizations (which are not unlike churches in this respect) their rights no longer matter. The only rights that matter are those of people pretending to be a different sex. This is grotesquely unfair and why I don't see the transgender issue resolving itself like the gay marriage issue has. People have the unequivocal right to reject the notion that people can change gender and create private clubs that exclude people based on their definition of gender.
Because sexual orientation is not the same as gender. It would be ludicrous to say that Martina Navratilova or Billie Jean King should have to play men's tennis because they were gay or that Brian Orser should be allowed to participate in women's skating because he is gay.
Post by: Omni on February 03, 2019, 01:38:35 pm
Private clubs are private clubs. People set up clubs based on ethnicity all of the time. Running a sports league is no different. From the Constitution:
The (d) has no meaning of governments can compel people to associate with those they choose not to associate with.
Of course, the constitution does not matter to SJWs. All they care about is imposing their religion on everyone else (to be clear: the notion that a people can change biological sex *is* a religious idea that is equivalent to believing in a god or that pork should not be eaten - it is not a fact).
Your "Quotes" actually defeat your argument. I fI have freedom of association, why shouldn't I be able to associate with someone I disagree with for instance.
Post by: wilber on February 03, 2019, 01:42:41 pm
But they don't, really. There is a distinction between public and private organizations and the former are, with some exceptions, prohibited from discrimination. I don't care what 'your' definition is - there is a legally mandated morality, like it or not.
How about university sports? They are not money makers in Canada. Should women's scholarships go to trans athletes because they have a genetic advantage over women? Its funny how legally mandated moralities more often than not seem to disadvantage women. Probably because they don't disadvantage men.
I wonder Micheal if your next child is a girl and is passionate about sport, what your position will be if she is blocked from advancing in that sport by manufactured women.
A couple of pages ago, I presented this question.
Quote
Tell me what the difference is between athletes who use surgical and chemical means to manipulate their gender competing against people who haven't and athletes who use chemical means to enhance their performance competing against those who don't?
So far, no takers.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 03, 2019, 01:45:19 pm
Post by: wilber on February 03, 2019, 01:52:59 pm
Wilbur - as I said above this has nothing to do with me.
Not yet.
Let's take this one step farther. If the definition is a testosterone limit, shouldn't genetically born women be allowed to increase their testosterone to just below that limit by artificial means and if not why not, and if so, why should they have to in order to compete in a sport that is defined by their gender?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 03, 2019, 02:08:12 pm
Then the question will be: who do trans women compete against? I think they should compete against men. If they choose to use estrogen, that's their prerogative and should disadvantage themselves if they choose. A genetic male feeling they're a woman isn't a choice, but injecting yourself with hormones is.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 03, 2019, 02:36:30 pm
Not yet.
I don't think I have even given much of an opinion on any of this.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 03, 2019, 06:31:29 pm
I think I suggested that above. Weight is important in some events, in others speed, dexterity, strength, etc. I think the only argument to be made about gender is strength. Do males have a strength advantage in the same weight class? Anyone have a scientific argument for that?
Of course males have an advantage at the same weight! Denser bone structure, more muscle mass, etc, etc.
So, should they be allowed to compete against the women, or not?
Post by: kimmy on February 03, 2019, 10:07:04 pm
I don't think I have even given much of an opinion on any of this.
Are you sure? It seems like you've picked a side.
-k
Post by: kimmy on February 04, 2019, 12:51:40 am
Your "Quotes" actually defeat your argument. I fI have freedom of association, why shouldn't I be able to associate with someone I disagree with for instance.
If they don't wish to associate with you, you can't force them. Nobody is *obliged* to endure your company if they don't wish to. Unless you're in jail, I suppose.
-k
Post by: kimmy on February 04, 2019, 01:21:07 am
But they don't, really. There is a distinction between public and private organizations and the former are, with some exceptions, prohibited from discrimination. I don't care what 'your' definition is - there is a legally mandated morality, like it or not.
We covered this early on in the thread, back when we were still talking about Body Blitz. Perhaps somebody could go to court and force a business, or a sports league, or whatever, to eliminate barriers between women and trans-women. But, as I said earlier, whether the business or sports league or whatever remains a viable enterprise afterwards.
Body Blitz, caught between the moral outrage from the social justice crowd and the prospect of losing real customers who aren't comfortable with the notion of dongs running wild, has opted to do away with their clothing-optional environment entirely.
As I spend more time in the TERFosphere, I read more and more accounts of gay women who've just stopped going to gay clubs and gay groups because they're sick of being harrassed by male-bodied individuals who identify as female and feel entitled to sex. As I mentioned earlier I read someone saying that she and others have quit roller-derby because it's no longer fun or safe.
People won't speak out publicly, because they're scared of being labeled and targeted by activists. They'll just vote with their feet. As Tim says, you can't force people to tune in to watch sports events they've decided are a farce. Or keep participating in sports they've decided are no longer fair, or safe. Or attending events where they're subject to abuse.
-k
Post by: Omni on February 04, 2019, 01:28:26 am
If they don't wish to associate with you, you can't force them. Nobody is *obliged* to endure your company if they don't wish to. Unless you're in jail, I suppose.
-k
I was in no way suggesting anyone is "obliged" to associate with anyone else. Just pointing out that our laws won't stop anyone from attempting to associate based solely on their gender.
Post by: kimmy on February 04, 2019, 01:58:53 am
I was in no way suggesting anyone is "obliged" to associate with anyone else. Just pointing out that our laws won't stop anyone from attempting to associate based solely on their gender.
And Tim was pointing out that you can't compel people to associate with transgender people if they don't wish to.
-k
Post by: Omni on February 04, 2019, 03:14:11 am
And Tim was pointing out that you can't compel people to associate with transgender people if they don't wish to.
-k
Thank for confirming what I just pointed out.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 06:40:55 am
Are you sure? It seems like you've picked a side.
-k
My side is for dialogue. On the topic of trans women in sport, I say work it out. I am the most vocal in speaking out against extreme and emotional claims. If you don't believe me, go back and check.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 06:42:27 am
Of course, the constitution does not matter to SJWs. All they care about is imposing their religion on everyone else (to be clear: the notion that a people can change biological sex *is* a religious idea that is equivalent to believing in a god or that pork should not be eaten - it is not a fact).
Wasn't there a case where a Knights of Columbus lodge had to rent out to a Lesbian event in BC ?
I just checked though and apparently there are still men-only golf clubs...
Post by: cybercoma on February 04, 2019, 08:36:53 am
Are you sure? It seems like you've picked a side.How many sides are there? Your comment here is very much one of those "if not x, then y" statements that seeks to reduce people's thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and arguments into something that they are not. It's the very thing you've criticized American politics for doing.
-k
Post by: TimG on February 04, 2019, 10:18:39 am
My side is for dialogue. On the topic of trans women in sport, I say work it out.That is not what you said. What you said is people who object to trans women in sports have to get over it and the government should pass laws to punish people for disagreeing with the "established morality". The exact opposite of dialog.
Post by: TimG on February 04, 2019, 10:29:47 am
Wasn't there a case where a Knights of Columbus lodge had to rent out to a Lesbian event in BC?The church made its hall available to the general public in return for money. This meant they could not discriminate. If the church only allowed members to rent (i.e. maintained its status as a private club) then discrimination is fine.
My argument is sports leagues are private clubs and not public services being offered for money. They can exclude who ever they want based on whatever criteria they want (i.e. performance enhancing drugs).
Of course, my interpretation is a fair an reasonable given the way freedom conscious rights and freedom of assembly rights should work in the free an democratic society. The trouble is way to many people (mostly only the left) prefer the totalitarian approach where there is no room for people to have different opinions and there can be no space for private organizations that fail to fully supported the "morality" demanded by the self appointed enforcers of "morality".
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 10:45:38 am
That is not what you said. What you said is people who object to trans women in sports have to get over it and the government should pass laws to punish people for disagreeing with the "established morality". The exact opposite of dialog.
Hmmmm... doesn't *sound* like me but maybe in a fit of pique I could have said that.
53 pages to search - I'll do it but I don't know where to start - any suggestions ?
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 10:46:46 am
The church made its hall available to the general public in return for money. This meant they could not discriminate. If the church only allowed members to rent (i.e. maintained its status as a private club) then discrimination is fine.
Ok.
Quote
My argument is sports leagues are private clubs and not public services being offered for money. They can exclude who ever they want based on whatever criteria they want (i.e. performance enhancing drugs).
Ok.
Quote
Of course, my interpretation is a fair an reasonable given the way freedom conscious rights and freedom of assembly rights should work in the free an democratic society. The trouble is way to many people (mostly only the left) prefer the totalitarian approach where there is no room for people to have different opinions and there can be no space for private organizations that fail to fully supported the "morality" demanded by the self appointed enforcers of "morality".
Meh. Always with 'the left'. I don't think it's what you say it is.
Post by: TimG on February 04, 2019, 10:58:37 am
But they don't, really. There is a distinction between public and private organizations and the former are, with some exceptions, prohibited from discrimination. I don't care what 'your' definition is - there is a legally mandated morality, like it or not.You might not like how I interpreted but that is meaning I took from your words.
Meh. Always with 'the left'. I don't think it's what you say it is.Whatever. Fill in whatever noun you think describes the "self appointed enforcers of publish morality". These people were conservatives in the 50-60s. Today they are progressives.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 11:29:49 am
You said:You might not like how I interpreted but that is meaning I took from your words.
I'm not sure how you can take that the government 'should' pass laws from that. I'm saying that there's a legal framework and a personal moral framework. And you can state what you think is right but we all follow the law of the land.
Quote
Whatever. Fill in whatever noun you think describes the "self appointed enforcers of publish morality". These people were conservatives in the 50-60s. Today they are progressives.
Go back earlier and you have the people who proclaimed prohibition, or ... anything really. The court of popular opinion is intact and trying to just tell them that something is immoral doesn't work for either side, really.
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 11:37:08 am
Post by: cybercoma on February 04, 2019, 11:42:48 am
You said:You might not like how I interpreted but that is meaning I took from your words.This is laughably stupid. The discrimination against sexual minorities and transgender persons is a morality panic.
Whatever. Fill in whatever noun you think describes the "self appointed enforcers of publish morality". These people were conservatives in the 50-60s. Today they are progressives.
"Bah god! What will happen when MEN use women's bathrooms! They'll be raping children everywhere!"
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 11:44:28 am
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 12:19:25 pm
How many sides are there? Your comment here is very much one of those "if not x, then y" statements that seeks to reduce people's thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and arguments into something that they are not. It's the very thing you've criticized American politics for doing.
It kind of is a yes/no question....
If there's a 135 pound women's MMA category in the sport, should transgender women be allowed to compete?
How many different sides could there be to that question? It's not really an issue with a lot of nuance and what-ifs...
It's very telling to me that the people (sort of) arguing for transgender women to be allowed to compete in women's sports won't answer such a simple question (bolded above). It's as if they know it's an unreasonable stance they're taking, but they have to argue for it anyway... cuz transgender rights and Jordan Petersen is an ****.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 12:27:46 pm
This is laughably stupid. The discrimination against sexual minorities and transgender persons is a morality panic.
Yes, classic case. My transgendered heavy metal neighbour might give LSD to my kid while playing Dungeons and Dragons.
Post by: TimG on February 04, 2019, 12:38:28 pm
The discrimination against sexual minorities and transgender persons is a morality panic.Once again you don't read the arguments I make and instead respond to some irrelevant strawman.
My argument is about the state trying to dictate that people accept falsehoods (i.e. the belief that it is possible to change one's biological sex) as facts. I am saying freedom of conscious means that governments have no right to dictate that people believe these falsehoods or act like they believe these falsehoods. All questions regarding transgender must then be based on the premise that no matter what they may feel they were born with a particular biological sex and that biology is going to limit some of their options and they need to accept that. Reasonable accommodation would be limited to equal treatment in all situations where biological sex is not a relative factor. This would exclude sports and businesses that restrict access to women only. This would include virtually every other aspect of life.
I see this as a reasonable compromise. You obviously do not because because your religious views require you to believe that changing one's biological sex is possible. You are obviously entitled to have whatever religious views you want but you don't have a right to demand that other people agree.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 12:40:42 pm
Yes, classic case. My transgendered heavy metal neighbour might give LSD to my kid while playing Dungeons and Dragons.
What do you think about a transgender MMA fighter being allowed to compete against women?
Post by: Omni on February 04, 2019, 01:00:34 pm
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 01:03:35 pm
What do you think about a transgender MMA fighter being allowed to compete against women?
Your own daughter maybe.
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 01:08:38 pm
Quote
Tell me what the difference is between athletes who use surgical and chemical means to manipulate their gender competing against people who haven't and athletes who use chemical means to enhance their performance competing against those who don't?
Quote
Let's take this one step farther. If the definition is a testosterone limit, shouldn't genetically born women be allowed to increase their testosterone to just below that limit by artificial means and if not why not, and if so, why should they have to in order to compete in a sport that is defined by their gender?
Post by: ?Impact on February 04, 2019, 01:13:53 pm
Of course males have an advantage at the same weight! Denser bone structure, more muscle mass, etc, etc.
So, should they be allowed to compete against the women, or not?
That may be true on average, but how does it compare for competitive athletes. I believe there is only a 3% lean body mass difference in the ranges, which is way less than the ranges overlap. Sports are not competitive on a single attribute alone.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 01:22:53 pm
That may be true on average, but how does it compare for competitive athletes. I believe there is only a 3% lean body mass difference in the ranges, which is way less than the ranges overlap. Sports are not competitive on a single attribute alone.
The science is there... males have (on average, as you say) denser bones, more muscle mass and less body fat. I'm not really sure what you're trying to justify.... you think it doesn't apply to athletes? Well, provide a cite then.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 01:23:10 pm
Your own daughter maybe.
I don't understand...
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 01:24:52 pm
In previous posts I presented two questions about women's sport and transgendered participants. Why is it that no one wants to touch them? As far as I am concerned, they represent the core of the issue.
As I mentioned, it's telling that the transgender rights supporters won't answer some pretty basic questions about biology and fairness. It's as if they know they're being unreasonable, but have to stick to the talking point of transgender inclusiveness....
Post by: cybercoma on February 04, 2019, 01:30:53 pm
Once again you don't read the arguments I make and instead respond to some irrelevant strawman.Complaining about strawman arguments while trying desperately to get people to accept your strawman argument is absurd.
My argument is about the state trying to dictate that people accept falsehoods
Post by: ?Impact on February 04, 2019, 01:32:19 pm
Well, provide a cite then.
Happy reading: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908334/
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 01:34:55 pm
Happy reading: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908334/
So your citation confirms the differences in male/female biology.
Quote
The differences between the sexes in body composition are well established, although sports activity at an elite level seems to reduce them.
So, in light of that, do you think transgender females should be allowed to compete in women's MMA?
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 01:47:06 pm
I don't understand...
Wasn't directed at you, just adding to your reply to MH's quote. I can see why it was confusing. As in if it was your daughter who was up against a trans MMA fighter?
Post by: ?Impact on February 04, 2019, 01:50:09 pm
So your citation confirms the differences in male/female biology.
As I previously pointed out, that difference is small in athletes and the ranges overlap. Much more important are all the other factors that contribute to athletic performance.
So, in light of that, do you think transgender females should be allowed to compete in women's MMA?
I know nothing about MMA, but going back to my earlier point from a few days back, perhaps we shouldn't have leagues based on gender to begin with.
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 01:53:33 pm
Post by: TimG on February 04, 2019, 01:56:28 pm
Complaining about strawman arguments while trying desperately to get people to accept your strawman argument is absurd.I am explaining what I am concerned about and the basis for my arguments. That, by definition, is not a strawman. If you are going to respond then the onus is on you to respond to those arguments. You choose to invent entirely different arguments and attribute them to me then that is a strawman.
I assume you did not like my characterization of your views on biological sex as a religious view points. It is not wrong unless you happen to agree that biological sex can't be changed. If that is the case then I can restate my argument.
Post by: wilber on February 04, 2019, 02:00:17 pm
I know nothing about MMA, but going back to my earlier point from a few days back, perhaps we shouldn't have leagues based on gender to begin with.
Going back to one of my questions that no one wants to address. Should leagues be based on testosterone levels and if so, should all athletes be allowed to manipulate their testosterone level if trans athletes are? Why should a female athlete have to to manipulate their testosterone level in order to compete in their sport and males don't? Right now, a female athlete who manipulates their level would be banned from their sport yet it is OK for a trans athlete. Is anyone going to address this?
Post by: Omni on February 04, 2019, 02:11:41 pm
I am explaining what I am concerned about and the basis for my arguments. That, by definition, is not a strawman. If you are going to respond then the onus is on you to respond to those arguments. You choose to invent entirely different arguments and attribute them to me then that is a strawman.
I assume you did not like my characterization of your views on biological sex as a religious view points. It is not wrong unless you happen to agree that biological sex can't be changed. If that is the case then I can restate my argument.
Your argument seems entirely based on chromosomes (which of course aren't changeable) but then ignores all else, such as gender, as well chromosomes which can be changed. A baby with XY at conception doesn't choose to be a boy until well after they are born. Most of us do align our gender based on the biology but I wouldn't be so quick to deny someone their rights if they choose otherwise. Even nature seems confused at times, not everybody is conceived with XY or XX, and some are born with ambiguous genitalia.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 04, 2019, 04:10:12 pm
I know nothing about MMA, but going back to my earlier point from a few days back, perhaps we shouldn't have leagues based on gender to begin with.
We don't though, aren't they based on biological sex? Who cares what your gender expression is. I thought the point was to create a relatively level playing field, especially for women.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 05:09:47 pm
What do you think about a transgender MMA fighter being allowed to compete against women?
I don't know, and don't care.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 04, 2019, 05:21:36 pm
I don't know, and don't care.
Then you're wasting everyone's time by posting in this topic.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 04, 2019, 06:48:42 pm
I don't know, and don't care.
This offends me as a vegan transgender hipster, Native-American-Indo-Chinese hybrid alien, agnostic-atheist German engineer, who vapes fairtrade organic decaffeinated compressed and hydrated extra-protein soy breast milk on the regular, and does Hindi Kama Sutra naked crossfit yoga 5 times per week. I'm also a nonbinary trigender genderqueer male feminist and identify myself as a pastafarian pansexual genderfluid Apache helicopter dog of mega multi alpha beta gamma delta omega combo god of hyper death, who's in a polygamous polyamorous relationship to the chihuahua which helped me cross the border of Mexico because it hates Donald Trump. My dog also walks me to the park and doggy styles me, if you find that weird you're an ignorant arrogant homophobic gender-assuming globaphobic bloodthirsty gun-loving cisgender pansexual bestial sexist racist incestuous white-previlege misogynistic biased objectified **** privileged Nazi slave owner terrorist lesbian TERF.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 04, 2019, 07:07:18 pm
This offends me as a vegan transgender hipster, Native-American-Indo-Chinese hybrid alien, agnostic-atheist German engineer, who vapes fairtrade organic decaffeinated compressed and hydrated extra-protein soy breast milk on the regular, and does Hindi Kama Sutra naked crossfit yoga 5 times per week.
Hm ? You are none of those things.
Quote
I'm also a nonbinary trigender genderqueer male feminist and identify myself as a pastafarian pansexual genderfluid Apache helicopter dog of mega multi alpha beta gamma delta omega combo god of hyper death, who's in a polygamous polyamorous relationship to the chihuahua which helped me cross the border of Mexico because it hates Donald Trump. My dog also walks me to the park and doggy styles me, if you find that weird you're an ignorant arrogant homophobic gender-assuming globaphobic bloodthirsty gun-loving cisgender pansexual bestial sexist racist incestuous white-previlege misogynistic biased objectified **** privileged Nazi slave owner terrorist lesbian TERF.
Hm ?
I think those things are all elements of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Post by: kimmy on February 05, 2019, 01:53:57 am
My side is for dialogue. On the topic of trans women in sport, I say work it out. I am the most vocal in speaking out against extreme and emotional claims. If you don't believe me, go back and check.
It seems to me like throughout pretty much the whole thread, your stance has been to either dismiss or trivialize concerns about the impact of trans rights advances on women's rights and safety. From describing women's discomfort at sharing changing-rooms with trans-identified males as (if I recall correctly) "the aesthetic concerns of the delicate" to trying to rationalize Hannah Mouncey's physical advantage over women, to dismissing concerns about predators taking advantage of gender self-identification as unlikely, you've been pretty consistent throughout.
And trolling me with a meme you got from Rachel McKinnon's page kind of reinforced the impression that you've picked a side, btw.
-k
Post by: kimmy on February 05, 2019, 02:15:02 am
https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1038896015317901319
TERFs are FARTs now.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmrmaX8W0AATbs4.jpg)
By the way, the trans-activists and their allies are the "feminism-appropriating" party here.
The idea of redefining feminism around "gender" rather than sex is moronic, because the causes of women's oppression have always been linked to sex, not "gender". Women's low status throughout history in many cultures around the world has been a result of biological factors. Women have been disadvantaged because women are smaller and weaker and get pregnant and have babies. Not because of some fictional pink-brain/blue-brain bullshit that the trans-activists and their idiot allies have swallowed.
The trans activists and their allies are the ones who have "appropriated" feminism. Separating feminism from biological sex in favor of "gender identity" divorces it from any basis in reality. The whole pink-brain/blue-brain bullshit around which trans people seek to redefine womanhood is antithetical to what feminism has fought to achieve. Self-styled feminists who have fallen for this idiocy are not feminists, they're saboteurs.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 06:15:00 am
It seems to me like throughout pretty much the whole thread, your stance has been to either dismiss or trivialize concerns about the impact of trans rights advances on women's rights and safety.
I don't think so. The meme of the trans woman isn't an argument, and doesn't articulate a concern.
Quote
From describing women's discomfort at sharing changing-rooms with trans-identified males as (if I recall correctly) "the aesthetic concerns of the delicate" to trying to rationalize Hannah Mouncey's physical advantage over women, to dismissing concerns about predators taking advantage of gender self-identification as unlikely, you've been pretty consistent throughout.
I don't think so. I don't remember describing people who don't want to see a dick as 'delicate' but it's not far off.
Quote
And trolling me with a meme you got from Rachel McKinnon's page kind of reinforced the impression that you've picked a side, btw.
-k
It's not all about you. I posted it to stir the pot and see what people had to say. It's a good discussion, but I am really trying to separate myself at least a little as it has not much to do with my tribe. (Straight, while, male, middle-aged)
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 06:20:42 am
Then you're wasting everyone's time by posting in this topic.
This thread isn't about trans women in MMA.
Post by: wilber on February 05, 2019, 09:38:37 am
This thread isn't about trans women in MMA.
Ya, it is, and other stuff as well.
Post by: kimmy on February 05, 2019, 10:23:01 am
I don't think so. The meme of the trans woman isn't an argument, and doesn't articulate a concern.
Well, memes like this are primarily intended for "trolling" and "shitposting". The real intention is to "pwn the TERFs", not to present an argument. Nonetheless, it does present an argument. It's based on the notion that TERFs aren't actually feminists and have "appropriated" feminism as a shield to justify transphobia. The notion behind is that the trans activists and their allies are the "real" feminists. I doubt that the teenage boy over at Reddit or 4chan who created this meme actually understands what "feminism" means, or "appropriation", for that matter, but he's at least smart enough to have figured out that the trans activists are trying to gain the moral high ground by claiming "feminism" as their own and attacking the TERFs' claim to feminism. Which would obviously require rebranding them as something other than T.E.R.F(eminists), of course.
I don't think so. I don't remember describing people who don't want to see a dick as 'delicate' but it's not far off.
I am pretty sure it was "delicate", although it might have been "fragile". Nonetheless, you were quite cavalier in dismissing women's desire for privacy and feeling of discomfort in being around men while naked.
It's not all about you. I posted it to stir the pot and see what people had to say. It's a good discussion, but I am really trying to separate myself at least a little as it has not much to do with my tribe. (Straight, while, male, middle-aged)
Well, as the only person here who has identified as a "TERF" I assumed it was directed at me. Nonetheless, I've responded to the accusation that the TERFs have "appropriated" feminism-- this is the "dialogue" you wanted, yes?
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 05, 2019, 10:45:50 am
This thread isn't about trans women in MMA.
You’re willing to wade into the debate on handball.... but MMA you avoid and doge the question... I wonder why....? (That’s rhetorical.... we know why)
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 04:48:22 pm
I am pretty sure it was "delicate", although it might have been "fragile". Nonetheless, you were quite cavalier in dismissing women's desire for privacy and feeling of discomfort in being around men while naked.
I guess without searching the 50+ pages neither of us will know. Nonetheless, I maintain that I was likely trying to contrast an exaggerated moral panic. I think people have the right to their modesty, obviously.
Quote
Well, as the only person here who has identified as a "TERF" I assumed it was directed at me. Nonetheless, I've responded to the accusation that the TERFs have "appropriated" feminism-- this is the "dialogue" you wanted, yes?
No, I don't think you are a TERF.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 04:51:08 pm
You’re willing to wade into the debate on handball.... but MMA you avoid and doge the question... I wonder why....? (That’s rhetorical.... we know why)
I was wading into the incorrect argument implied by a single photo. I think it's up to the various stakeholders to get down to defining how to address these questions. As for MMA, it's kind of a thrill-kill thing so I don't count on them to do anything other than try to generate attention.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 05, 2019, 05:17:34 pm
Quote
I guess without searching the 50+ pages neither of us will know.
It's pretty easy to find something in the 50 or so pages of the thread if you can type a phrase into the search box... Do you actually work in IT or the computer tech field MH???
The term MH used was "delicate".
Somehow=religion is protected in the constitution.
The idea of excluding men comes from providing a 'safe space' and trans women are arguably the most beaten-down and abused group that I have heard of. The "I'm not comfortable" argument was used in the CBC argument and would simply not be stated in any other argument about rights which in itself raises questions and highlights that trans people are seen as worthy of being dismissed as aesthetic problems for the delicate.
"I am not comfortable with headscarves, it bothers me."
"I'm not comfortable eating in a restaurant with black people."
This is the argument I have read on that line of logic.
They kept people in the closet and denied reality. I even remember women complaining about lesbians in bathrooms in university as if they could make a request to exclude them somehow. This is how far rights have come, and it's informative to see what happens when certain classes ascend in their power. TERFs are an example, I think.
Definitely and a 'no oggling' rule would address that. Of course that's hard to enforce but it can be done. Men harassing women is similarly difficult, ie. he said/she said. But we are getting there.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 05, 2019, 05:22:18 pm
I was wading into the incorrect argument implied by a single photo. I think it's up to the various stakeholders to get down to defining how to address these questions. As for MMA, it's kind of a thrill-kill thing so I don't count on them to do anything other than try to generate attention.
You can't have an opinion? I think this is more avoidance... You have an opinion on the bike racer... and the handball team... but can't have an opinion on MMA...
Anyone who thinks transgendered women should be allowed to fight women is a nut. That opinion is untenable, and those arguing for "inclusiveness" know it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 05:33:18 pm
It's pretty easy to find something in the 50 or so pages of the thread if you can type a phrase into the search box... Do you actually work in IT or the computer tech field MH???
The term MH used was "delicate".
Well, you'd have to assume that the word WAS 'delicate'. It was:
The full context of my statement is in the qute:
Quote
The "I'm not comfortable" argument was used in the CBC argument and would simply not be stated in any other argument about rights which in itself raises questions and highlights that trans people are seen as worthy of being dismissed as aesthetic problems for the delicate.
"I am not comfortable with headscarves, it bothers me."
"I'm not comfortable eating in a restaurant with black people."
This is the argument I have read on that line of logic.
I'm talking about how "rights" arguments are characterized, and that nobody would be allowed to state, on the public airwaves and as a legitimate point of view, that they weren't "comfortable" seeing black people sit near them on the bus or so on. I'm talking about the general acceptance of people being "comfortable" with trans people or not. You can still claim you're not comfortable with them and that's acceptable to polite society.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 05:33:47 pm
Do you actually work in IT or the computer tech field MH???
They don't teach us how to use search boxes in IT.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 05, 2019, 05:34:56 pm
You can't have an opinion? I think this is more avoidance... You have an opinion on the bike racer... and the handball team... but can't have an opinion on MMA...I don't remember a bike racer. And - no - once again I don't have an opinion on the handball team, I said that the stakeholders need to work it out.
I have zero respect for MMA so it would be silly for me to impose some kind of moral code on them.
Post by: TimG on February 05, 2019, 05:51:14 pm
I'm talking about how "rights" arguments are characterized, and that nobody would be allowed to state, on the public airwaves and as a legitimate point of view, that they weren't "comfortable" seeing black people sit near them on the bus or so on. I'm talking about the general acceptance of people being "comfortable" with trans people or not. You can still claim you're not comfortable with them and that's acceptable to polite society.People have the protected right to gather with who they choose for whatever reason they choose. No one is this thread is arguing that transgender should be shunned or discriminated against because they are transgender. The arguments being presented are about the freedom of association and freedom of conscience rights that everyone else has. If a private sports women's sports league defines women as people who have had female biology their entire life then they have a right to do that. Unfortunately, transgender advocates seem to think that no one other than them has rights. It is appalling arrogance.
Post by: wilber on February 05, 2019, 06:50:20 pm
I was wading into the incorrect argument implied by a single photo. I think it's up to the various stakeholders to get down to defining how to address these questions. As for MMA, it's kind of a thrill-kill thing so I don't count on them to do anything other than try to generate attention.
Our personal opinions of a particular sport aren't relevant.
Post by: wilber on February 05, 2019, 06:52:32 pm
I don't remember a bike racer. And - no - once again I don't have an opinion on the handball team, I said that the stakeholders need to work it out.
I have zero respect for MMA so it would be silly for me to impose some kind of moral code on them.
I'm not a MMA fan either but my personal opinion of a particular sport has nothing to do with anything. Neither does yours.
Post by: kimmy on February 05, 2019, 09:53:54 pm
I guess without searching the 50+ pages neither of us will know. Nonetheless, I maintain that I was likely trying to contrast an exaggerated moral panic. I think people have the right to their modesty, obviously.
We have well-established cultural traditions in regard to nudity in mixed company. Those are based around sex differences, not someone's sense of their own gender. If a man walks into a women's locker room, he's perceived by everyone there as a man regardless of whether he imagines himself to be a man, a woman, or a bipedal talking platypus.
Leaving that aside, I think this thread has enumerated quite a few instances of malicious parties using self-identification in bad faith and demonstrating that women have good reason to be concerned when male individuals enter their private spaces.
And, beyond that there's also women who've had traumatic experiences with male-bodied individuals, which is more women than you might think. I find it baffling that on the one hand some Woke People are so invested in the notion of human fragility that they feel like even hearing certain words or having an idea question could be a traumatic experience, yet on the other hand expect women to soldier through changing clothes and shower in the presence of men without objection.
And beyond that there's also women who have religious objections. I find it baffling that on the one hand some progressives feel that Muslim women should be granted their own separate male-free swimming sessions, yet on the other hand expect the rest of women to not just swim but also shower and dress with male bodied individuals.
But I think we've been through all of that at least once before.
No, I don't think you are a TERF.
Leaving aside the question of my TERFiness for the moment, do you have any thoughts on what I wrote in regard to "feminism appropriation"?
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 05, 2019, 10:33:59 pm
Anytime in my life i've been in a change room it's grossed me out to see a bunch of old man dicks walking around. I usually go in the bathroom and change cuz **** that.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 06, 2019, 06:54:20 am
It is appalling arrogance.
Sorry, but I read arrogance and entitlement on both sides. I would just ask that all sides acknowledge that the basic existence of trans people is not in question, and the application of their basic rights is to be discussed.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 06, 2019, 06:55:30 am
Our personal opinions of a particular sport aren't relevant.
I guess you agree with me, then. I somehow don't think there will be much of a controversy if MMA bans non-biological women from competing.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 06, 2019, 07:04:18 am
Leaving aside the question of my TERFiness for the moment, do you have any thoughts on what I wrote in regard to "feminism appropriation"?
-k
You mean:
Quote
Women's low status throughout history in many cultures around the world has been a result of biological factors. Women have been disadvantaged because women are smaller and weaker and get pregnant and have babies. Not because of some fictional pink-brain/blue-brain bullshit that the trans-activists and their idiot allies have swallowed.
I agree, but can't it be about gender if womenchoose it to be ? Won't trans women experience sexism ?
Post by: TimG on February 06, 2019, 07:21:01 am
I would just ask that all sides acknowledge that the basic existence of trans people is not in questionA red herring. No one in this thread is denying their existence or suggesting they don't have basic rights. What is being stated is other people have rights too and those rights should not be ignored simply because they conflict with what a transgender person would prefer. You refuse to acknowledge this.
Post by: cybercoma on February 06, 2019, 10:27:47 am
A red herring. No one in this thread is denying their existence or suggesting they don't have basic rights. What is being stated is other people have rights too and those rights should not be ignored simply because they conflict with what a transgender person would prefer. You refuse to acknowledge this.Is every argument that you refuse to address a red herring? Recognizing that global warming increases the risk of wildfires: RED HERRING! Recognizing the existence of transgender people: RED HERRING!
You know what, **** it. Don't recognize any of it. It doesn't matter what you think. The tides will rise and fall with or without your recognition. And frankly, I don't know why anyone even humours people who are so completely out of touch. When your arguments are based on such absurd ignorance as yours frequently are, people should just treat your arguments for what they are: uninformed nonsense.
Post by: TimG on February 06, 2019, 11:33:28 am
Is every argument that you refuse to address a red herring? Recognizing that global warming increases the risk of wildfires: RED HERRING! Recognizing the existence of transgender people: RED HERRING!ROTFL. I am making arguments from perspective that you clearly are unable to understand because are such of a zealot that you cannot comprehend that some people do not happen to see the world in the same way you. Get over yourself. Not everyone who does not think like you is wrong.
In this the thread the argument is about whether the rights of men pretending to be women are more important than the rights of actual women. Note that the SCC has already ruled that women only clubs do NOT violate the charter of rights so why the f*** should transgender be entitled to invade women only clubs just because they really really really want to be women?
For that than matter why the f** should anyone required to accept that biological sex does not matter and the only form of permitted divisions in society are along the lines of self defined gender? Why do you think you have the unilateral right to redefine words in ways that you like and that everyone else must accept your redefinition?
When your arguments are based on such absurd ignorance as yours frequently are, people should just treat your arguments for what they are: uninformed nonsense.You wish that was the case except they aren't. They are carefully nuanced arguments that you can't refute because they reject assumptions that you consider to be "fundamental truths" and you lack the tools necessary to deal with such arguments. So you rant and rave and call people names.
And yes the world will move on. Governments will continue to do nothing about CO2 because nothing can be done, alarmists will continue to claim that the end is near, and people will quietly adapt to whatever changes come. Eventually, alarmists will have lost so much credibility preaching doom that never comes that no one will take them seriously anymore.
On transgender, people will find a new equilibrium that allows transgender to be themselves but but people will quietly reject notion that calling yourself women makes you a women. This nuance will eventually get the sanction of the SCC.
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 11:46:32 am
ROTFL. I am making arguments from perspective that you clearly are unable to understand because are such of a zealot that you cannot comprehend that some people do not happen to see the world in the same way you. Get over yourself. Not everyone who does not think like you is wrong.
In this the thread the argument is about whether the rights of men pretending to be women are more important than the rights of actual women. Note that the SCC has already ruled that women only clubs do NOT violate the charter of rights so why the f*** should transgender be entitled to invade women only clubs just because they really really really want to be women?
For that than matter why the f** should anyone required to accept that biological sex does not matter and the only form of permitted divisions in society are along the lines of self defined gender? Why do you think you have the unilateral right to redefine words in ways that you like and that everyone else must accept your redefinition?
You wish that was the case except they aren't. They are carefully nuanced arguments that you can't refute because they reject assumptions that you consider to be "fundamental truths" and you lack the tools necessary to deal with such arguments. So you rant and rave and call people names.
And yes the world will move on. Governments will continue to do nothing about CO2 because nothing can be done, alarmists will continue to claim that the end is near, and people will quietly adapt to whatever changes come. Eventually, alarmists will have lost so much credibility preaching doom that never comes that no one will take them seriously anymore.
On transgender, people will find a new equilibrium that allows transgender to be themselves but but people will quietly reject notion that calling yourself women makes you a women. This nuance will eventually get the sanction of the SCC.
Try reading Bill C-16 perhaps.
Post by: cybercoma on February 06, 2019, 01:09:04 pm
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 01:18:53 pm
Human activities cause climate change! Trangender people exist! Such RADICAL and zealous ideas! ::)
Indeed! Can you imagine, for instance, anyone jumping to the CRAZY conclusion that ~1.2 billion cars driving around our planet every day spewing various types of global warming emissions, could have any effect on the climate?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 06, 2019, 01:30:07 pm
Indeed! Can you imagine, for instance, anyone jumping to the CRAZY conclusion that ~1.2 billion cars driving around our planet every day spewing various types of global warming emissions, could have any effect on the climate?
No one should jump to any conclusion... what does the scientific consensus by the experts who analyzed the data tell us? The science doesn't care about my feelings on the subject.
For instance, what does the science tell us about biological male biology vs. female. From that, we can draw conclusions on whether it would be fair for transgender women to be allowed to compete in women's sport.
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 01:54:49 pm
No one should jump to any conclusion... what does the scientific consensus by the experts who analyzed the data tell us? The science doesn't care about my feelings on the subject.
For instance, what does the science tell us about biological male biology vs. female. From that, we can draw conclusions on whether it would be fair for transgender women to be allowed to compete in women's sport.
The science tells us that we can't change the chromosomes we are blessed with at conception (even though sometimes even they are confused) doesn't necessarily determine who we feel we are after we are born and mature. I guess if one retains an unfair advantage for the type of sport in question due to their original XY makeup, then that has to be considered.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 06, 2019, 02:33:09 pm
1. No one in this thread is denying their existence or suggesting they don't have basic rights.
2. What is being stated is other people have rights too and those rights should not be ignored simply because they conflict with what a transgender person would prefer. You refuse to acknowledge this.
1. I am stating MY position, not others. Other people have claimed that I'm against this or that, on this thread so I am saying what I want.
2. Refuse to acknowledge ? That's pretty extreme. I think by calling for dialogue I am implicitly acknowledging rights.
Post by: wilber on February 06, 2019, 04:54:29 pm
No one should jump to any conclusion... what does the scientific consensus by the experts who analyzed the data tell us? The science doesn't care about my feelings on the subject.
For instance, what does the science tell us about biological male biology vs. female. From that, we can draw conclusions on whether it would be fair for transgender women to be allowed to compete in women's sport.
No I am talking about those who rally to the cause with no qualifications to be judging the issue. As far as transgendered “women” being allowed to compete in women’s sport goes, don’t you think actual women should at least get a say or does the “science” make you more qualified?
Sorry wrong thread but I’ll leave it anyway.
I
Post by: TimG on February 06, 2019, 05:09:01 pm
Human activities cause climate change! Trangender people exist! Such RADICAL and zealous ideas!Red herrings. I have never disputed those points. I am arguing something different. I suspect you know that but you would rather beat up on strawman that address the arguments I actually make.
Post by: TimG on February 06, 2019, 05:14:00 pm
2. Refuse to acknowledge ? That's pretty extreme. I think by calling for dialogue I am implicitly acknowledging rights.So where have you acknowledged that Kimmy might have a point when it comes to women's sports? If you really want dialogue and recognize that there are competing rights that need to be balanced then stating something like that is a good start.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 06, 2019, 05:16:44 pm
No I am talking about those who rally to the cause with no qualifications to be judging the issue. As far as transgendered “women” being allowed to compete in women’s sport goes, don’t you think actual women should at least get a say or does the “science” make you more qualified?
Sorry wrong thread but I’ll leave it anyway.
I
Yes, the science should inform opinions. And women should have the last word on this one, as it is their sports we are talking about. I can have an opinion on it though.
Unfortunately, SJWs are shutting out women's voices in this debate. Just look at the response to the cyclist who came in 2nd against the transgendered woman allowed to compete in cycling... she posted her opinion on twitter about the unfairness of the situation and was immediately shouted down by loud activists and removed her tweet because of it. I think she even tweeted the opposite sentiment after that so people would stop harassing her.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 06, 2019, 06:52:32 pm
So where have you acknowledged that Kimmy might have a point when it comes to women's sports? If you really want dialogue and recognize that there are competing rights that need to be balanced then stating something like that is a good start.
I hearby state that Kimmy has a point and rescind all past refusal of rights acknowledgement.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 06, 2019, 06:59:33 pm
(https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/han2.jpg)
Quote
An alternative solution.
Female sport is a protected category to ensure meaningful competition due to the SEX differences between males and females. For this reason eligibility rules must be based on someone’s SEX, with the inclusion of XX females and exclusion of XY males.
This is what I have been espousing as a solution. XY athletes and XX athletes.
SJWs/trans activists have no legitimate arguments, as far as I can see.
Post by: TimG on February 06, 2019, 07:53:50 pm
XY athletes and XX athletes.It is not that simple because there are many more combinations than just XY and XX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system). Plus you have situations where biological females will have XY (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome). I think the only criteria that can be used is based on which reproductive organs were present at birth with exceptions granted to the small number of people who had both.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 06, 2019, 08:03:49 pm
Post by: wilber on February 06, 2019, 10:30:17 pm
What about little trans women? Can they play?
Maybe not in women's sports, it is after all women's sport, not trans sport.
Post by: kimmy on February 07, 2019, 04:20:52 am
You mean:
I agree, but can't it be about gender if womenchoose it to be ?
Hey, great idea! And then maybe the black civil rights movement could be reimagined to be about basketball and rap-music, to make it more inclusive.
For reasons that should be obvious to anybody with brain-cells, biological issues and especially reproductive issues need to be a major focus in feminism. And when I hear these people whining that it's "bio-essentialist" that reproductive rights be a major focus of feminism, it makes me think they must be idiots. Some women are infertile, and others like myself will probably never have children... but for 99.9% of women around the globe reproductive issues are of critical importance. Trying to build a "new inclusive" feminism that includes trans women by de-centering women's physiology is like building a brand new car that includes a rudder but doesn't have wheels. Whining that "the focus on contraception makes me feel alienated" makes me think that these people just don't get it. Maybe instead of trying to ban "The **** Monologues" because it makes them feel excluded, they should watch it and get a **** clue.
When Wendy Davis was doing her 11 hour filibuster against a restrictive anti-abortion bill in Texas and #StandWithTXwomen was trending on Twitter, trans activists took to their keyboards and jumped in to say... "Not all women have uteruses!" They were protesting the Women's March because of the "**** hats", because "not all women have pussies". These people are the god-damned shittiest **** "allies" ever.
Won't trans women experience sexism ?
I'm sure they experience discrimination, but whether it's sexism per se is debatable.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 07, 2019, 06:39:51 am
Hey, great idea! And then maybe the black civil rights movement could be reimagined to be about basketball and rap-music, to make it more inclusive.
That's a bad analogy.
Quote
For reasons that should be obvious to anybody with brain-cells, biological issues and especially reproductive issues need to be a major focus in feminism. And when I hear these people whining that it's "bio-essentialist" that reproductive rights be a major focus of feminism, it makes me think they must be idiots. Some women are infertile, and others like myself will probably never have children... but for 99.9% of women around the globe reproductive issues are of critical importance. Trying to build a "new inclusive" feminism that includes trans women by de-centering women's physiology is like building a brand new car that includes a rudder but doesn't have wheels. Whining that "the focus on contraception makes me feel alienated" makes me think that these people just don't get it. Maybe instead of trying to ban "The **** Monologues" because it makes them feel excluded, they should watch it and get a **** clue.
Ok, but you're picking an extreme case to try to prove your thesis. That's usually a bad sign.
Isn't it true that discrimination, violence and attitudes are at the centre of sexism ? As such, you could at least use more (soft) hands on deck to help with that ? Just asking.
Quote
When Wendy Davis was doing her 11 hour filibuster against a restrictive anti-abortion bill in Texas and #StandWithTXwomen was trending on Twitter, trans activists took to their keyboards and jumped in to say... "Not all women have uteruses!" They were protesting the Women's March because of the "**** hats", because "not all women have pussies". These people are the god-damned shittiest **** "allies" ever.
So you're protesting the protesters then.
[ quote]I'm sure they experience discrimination, but whether it's sexism per se is debatable.
[/quote]
Your examples tell me that you actually are ok with trans people and do not want to exclude them, but feel that they're different. Every example is about someone with an extreme point of view.
Post by: kimmy on February 07, 2019, 11:36:10 pm
That's a bad analogy.
I'm not sure it is.
This is a group that's unhappy with "woman" being defined on a biological basis and want a new definition based around-- apparently-- presentation and gender-based stereotypes. And they're unhappy with "feminism" being defined around issues that stem from that biological reality and want a new definition based around their own experiences.
Ok, but you're picking an extreme case to try to prove your thesis. That's usually a bad sign.
Which? The **** Monologues being cancelled at several US colleges? This "new understanding of gender", disconnected from biological issues of importance to the vast majority of women, is language that came right out of the mouths of gender studies students and faculty at those schools.
Isn't it true that discrimination, violence and attitudes are at the centre of sexism ? As such, you could at least use more (soft) hands on deck to help with that ? Just asking.
Discrimination and violence are major concerns for many marginalized groups, but it doesn't make them all feminists.
So you're protesting the protesters then.
I'm protesting the protestors that are protesting the protest.
Your examples tell me that you actually are ok with trans people and do not want to exclude them, but feel that they're different. Every example is about someone with an extreme point of view.
"I'm ok with them" and "I don't want to exclude them" are both statements that require a lot of qualification.
I'm ok with them minding their own business and going about their lives. I'm not ok with them being in women's sports or women's showers. I'm not ok with on-demand no-questions-asked gender self-identification. I'm not ok with "the cotton ceiling". I'm not ok with redefining the meaning of the word woman from being based around biology to being based around regressive "pink-brain/blue-brain" stereotypes.
In just a few years we've gone from "we just want to live our lives" and "we just want to be able to use the rest-room when we go out" to a whole bunch of new ideas that I'm definitely not ok with.
-k
Post by: TimG on February 08, 2019, 12:14:16 am
I'm ok with them minding their own business and going about their lives. I'm not ok with them being in women's sports or women's showers. I'm not ok with on-demand no-questions-asked gender self-identification. I'm not ok with "the cotton ceiling". I'm not ok with redefining the meaning of the word woman from being based around biology to being based around regressive "pink-brain/blue-brain" stereotypes.I am also not OK with letting pre-teens pump themselves full of hormones against their parents wishes (the NP had a real example of this kind of crap going on in Canada).
Post by: waldo on February 08, 2019, 12:33:23 am
I'm ok with them minding their own business and going about their lives. I'm not ok with them being in women's sports or women's showers.
and you ok with the trans-man? ... in men's sports or men's showers?
if the trans-woman has 'dangling parts' cut-off... are you ok?
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 08, 2019, 06:36:42 am
This is a group that's unhappy with "woman" being defined on a biological basis and want a new definition based around-- apparently-- presentation and gender-based stereotypes. And they're unhappy with "feminism" being defined around issues that stem from that biological reality and want a new definition based around their own experiences.
It makes more sense than your analogy, though.
Quote
Which? The **** Monologues being cancelled at several US colleges?
Yes.
Quote
Discrimination and violence are major concerns for many marginalized groups, but it doesn't make them all feminists.
Ok, but if they pass as women ... how is it different ? I'm saying there's potential for cross-over there.
Quote
I'm protesting the protestors that are protesting the protest.
:P
Quote
"I'm ok with them" and "I don't want to exclude them" are both statements that require a lot of qualification.
I'm ok with them minding their own business and going about their lives. I'm not ok with them being in women's sports or women's showers. I'm not ok with on-demand no-questions-asked gender self-identification. I'm not ok with "the cotton ceiling". I'm not ok with redefining the meaning of the word woman from being based around biology to being based around regressive "pink-brain/blue-brain" stereotypes.
In just a few years we've gone from "we just want to live our lives" and "we just want to be able to use the rest-room when we go out" to a whole bunch of new ideas that I'm definitely not ok with.
I think you're describing areas where the dialogue is ongoing, which is fine ie. non-exclusionary.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 08, 2019, 10:52:46 am
Post by: ?Impact on February 08, 2019, 01:54:28 pm
What's wrong with excluding someone who's not a biological woman from things women do?
So it is ok for women to be exclusive, but a men's club, etc. is verboten?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 08, 2019, 02:30:23 pm
So it is ok for women to be exclusive, but a men's club, etc. is verboten?
Where did I say that?
Post by: ?Impact on February 08, 2019, 02:36:16 pm
Where did I say that?
Society has been saying that for 40+ years. There seems to be a strong demand for exclusive women's activities, but demanding to get on a men's team, into Boy scouts, men's clubs, etc. I believe that the same standards need to be applied.
Post by: kimmy on February 09, 2019, 12:17:36 pm
Society has been saying that for 40+ years. There seems to be a strong demand for exclusive women's activities, but demanding to get on a men's team, into Boy scouts, men's clubs, etc. I believe that the same standards need to be applied.
Historically the demand for women-only clubs and groups has been prompted by a desire for privacy and safety.
When girls have tried to obtain access to boy's sports teams, it has usually been because girls sports leagues either didn't exist at all, or were of highly inferior quality, such that adequate coaching or adequate competition weren't available for girls who excelled. In reading the USA Hockey thing the other day, I noticed it stated that most boys leagues don't actually specify that players must be male. Men's and boy's leagues don't actually need to fear for competitive imbalace when girls arrive; the reverse isn't true of women's and girl's leagues.
In regard to women wanting access to gentlemen's clubs and golf clubs and other elite men-only establishments, the complaint is that these are in fact elite establishments and that excluding women from them excludes women from the sort of networking and connection-making opportunity that privileged men enjoy. I have a hard time feeling a lot of sympathy on this one... I doubt that many of us are privileged enough to get into these sorts of establishments regardless of gender-- it's like complaining that it's discriminatory that the Royals won't marry Catholics.
I do recall reading about some investment firm being sued for gender discrimination. One of the items mentioned in the lawsuit was that the executives had raucous parties to which only male employees were invited. "When women are there it kills the vibe", I think was the rationale somebody had stated in an email. It might be the hosts' right to invite only who they wish, but you can understand why the female employees were concerned-- there are social and networking connections being made at these events, and when you're excluded somebody is getting opportunities you're being denied. I believe that the lawsuit presented the male-only parties as evidence of a bro-centric corporate culture where women didn't have equal opportunity.
-k
Post by: TimG on February 09, 2019, 12:28:27 pm
Society has been saying that for 40+ years. There seems to be a strong demand for exclusive women's activities, but demanding to get on a men's team, into Boy scouts, men's clubs, etc. I believe that the same standards need to be applied.If you want to take an absolutist position on equal rights then that means the end of employment equity programs and other forms of discrimination which are 'justified' for various reasons. This may be a conversation worth having but I suspect you have not thought through the implications of what you are saying. Note that the SCC has already ruled that businesses that cater only to women qualify for one of these exceptions from the charter rules.
Post by: kimmy on February 09, 2019, 12:31:31 pm
Yes.
But that decision wasn't made by kooks on Twitter or Tumblr. It was made by college gender studies departments. Not at one college, but at several of them.
Obviously it's hard to figure out just where exactly the mainstream of thought even is on these issues, but if this is something the academic world is buying into, doesn't that make it hard to dismiss it as the outer fringes?
Ok, but if they pass as women ... how is it different ? I'm saying there's potential for cross-over there.
Sure, there are lots of issues where different groups have overlapping concerns.
I think you're describing areas where the dialogue is ongoing, which is fine ie. non-exclusionary.
As young Squidward asks... is exclusion necessarily a bad thing? There are circumstances where we've determined that exclusion is justifiable.
-k
Post by: kimmy on February 09, 2019, 12:37:03 pm
What's wrong with excluding someone who's not a biological woman from things women do? I'm sorry there's not enough of them to start their own things where they exclude biological men and women, but that doesn't make their arguments legitimate.
One of the issues involved here is that some trans-women insist that they are absolutely women-- they reject any distinction based on biology or physiology. They insist that they ARE women, and any barrier based on biology is unfair and discriminatory.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 09, 2019, 05:01:41 pm
One of the issues involved here is that some trans-women insist that they are absolutely women-- they reject any distinction based on biology or physiology. They insist that they ARE women, and any barrier based on biology is unfair and discriminatory.
-k
They may feel that’s the case. Biological facts say different. I don’t put feelings above facts.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 10, 2019, 08:48:57 am
But that decision wasn't made by kooks on Twitter or Tumblr. It was made by college gender studies departments. Not at one college, but at several of them.
Obviously it's hard to figure out just where exactly the mainstream of thought even is on these issues, but if this is something the academic world is buying into, doesn't that make it hard to dismiss it as the outer fringes?
Hmmmm. Several colleges ? That changes it for me.
Quote
As young Squidward asks... is exclusion necessarily a bad thing? There are circumstances where we've determined that exclusion is justifiable.
Yeah, exclusion isn't a bad thing per se. I exclude poison from my diet but I don't exclude black people from my house so I guess exclusion, as a thing, is ok.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 10, 2019, 09:37:28 pm
I thought you were in favour of dialogue... nice “dialogue”; if you have no argument, vilify the opposing arguments as racist. ::)
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 10, 2019, 10:09:54 pm
They may feel that’s the case. Biological facts say different. I don’t put feelings above facts.
I might feel i'm a cat. Maybe I was raised by cats and grew up around a lot of cats. Maybe scientifically there's something in my psyche where i'm legit a cat psychologically. I can have as many surgeries as I want, take as many hormones as I want, but I will never be a cat biologically. I can never have babies with a cat.
I'm perfectly happy to accommodate you if you change your name, put on makeup and dress the opposite sex, but to clap as you dominate women in sport is ridiculous. Women and trans women are not the same biologically and everyone needs to accept this. Facts > feelings.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 11, 2019, 05:53:15 am
No MH.... keeping women’s sport fair for biological women is not akin to racism.
That's my point. You can't just talk about is 'exclusion' good or bad ?
Quote
I thought you were in favour of dialogue... nice “dialogue”; if you have no argument, vilify the opposing arguments as racist. ::)
I wasn't saying that.
Post by: cybercoma on February 11, 2019, 09:07:06 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 11, 2019, 09:17:26 am
Post by: cybercoma on February 11, 2019, 09:20:23 am
My new take on such things is that I spend the energy to correct and educate when I have it, and feel like spending it.Sometimes it's worth it. Other times, the misconceptions are so deep and so politically charged that it's really not productive and therefore not worth it.
Post by: TimG on February 11, 2019, 09:43:52 am
There's so many fundamental misunderstandings around sex and gender in this thread that it would take a week to unpack it all.What arrogant, self serving nonsense. Most people here understand that activists would like to redefine terms in ways that suits their ideology but wishing to redefine terms does NOT make those redefinitions facts. Yet instead of actually trying to put forward a rational argument for why others should take ideology-driven opinions seriously you think you can contribute to the discussion by saying "you are all morons but I can't be bothered to explain why".
Bottom line: most people think feelings about gender are irrelevant and what matters is biological sex. While biological sex is not always clear (e.g. biological women with XY chromosomes) it is something that can be measured which should make it the primary factor when society chooses to have social divisions based on biological sex. Do you have any counter argument other than "you are stupid and your momma wears army boots" or are you just going to go back to hiding under a rock?
Post by: cybercoma on February 11, 2019, 11:23:22 am
Bottom line: most people think feelings about gender are irrelevant and what matters is biological sex.And what most people think is wrong. Feelings about gender define everything from social roles to personal interactions to government policies and laws. None of those things are biologically determined and all of them are socially constructed. How you present gender and whether that's successful or not has a tremendous effect on your personal well-being and how others treat you. The meaning of gender structures people's lives in myriad ways, far beyond even that of biological differences. In fact, the socially constructed differences are even wider reaching than the biological ones.
But we can't even get there, when ideologues like you are too intent on ignoring, obfuscating, and just plain refusing to understand that biological sex, gender expression, and gender identity are very different things. Sex and gender are absolutely not the same thing. To quote RuPaul, "we're all born naked and the rest is drag."
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 11, 2019, 11:45:34 am
And what most people think is wrong. Feelings about gender define everything from social roles to personal interactions to government policies and laws. None of those things are biologically determined and all of them are socially constructed. How you present gender and whether that's successful or not has a tremendous effect on your personal well-being and how others treat you. The meaning of gender structures people's lives in myriad ways, far beyond even that of biological differences. In fact, the socially constructed differences are even wider reaching than the biological ones.
No problem with any of that... but when it comes to sport, all that matters is your biological make up. How you feel and what your gender is, doesn't matter.
Biological women are at a disadvantage in most sports compared to biological men, generally speaking.
Post by: TimG on February 11, 2019, 12:01:16 pm
And what most people think is wrong. Feelings about gender define everything from social roles to personal interactions to government policies and laws. None of those things are biologically determined and all of them are socially constructed. How you present gender and whether that's successful or not has a tremendous effect on your personal well-being and how others treat you.Human sexes are biologically different. This is an indisputable fact. There are some people with mutations that mean they have reproductive systems of both biological sexes but these people are very rare. You can go on as much as you like about how gender roles are socially constructed but this does not change the fact that biological sex differences exist and sometimes groups in society will be segregated based on biological sex.
just plain refusing to understand that biological sex, gender expression, and gender identity are very different things. Sex and gender are absolutely not the same thing.Again, I don't see anyone in this thread saying that. What people are saying is the exact opposite: that biological sex and gender are different and that sometimes groups (i.e. women's sports) will be defined based on biological sex. What people are also saying is that changing biological sex is not possible and transgender who expect others to treat them as if they have changed their biological sex are delusional even if their gender expression does not match their biological sex.
You really need to learn to be logically consistent. If you want to lecture people about how biological sex and gender are different then you should have no problems when people self segregate based on biological sex. If you want tell people that self segregation based biological sex means self segregation based on gender then you are arguing that they are the same.
Post by: kimmy on February 11, 2019, 08:44:26 pm
That's my point. You can't just talk about is 'exclusion' good or bad ?
So why do people keep using "exclusion" as if it's inherently evil, then?
I wasn't saying that.
You don't exclude black people from your home, but you do exclude poison from your diet. Ok, great example. ::)
There are lots of other more relevant examples of exclusion that we might consider. Age? We have 55+ condominium buildings. People under 18 can't vote. People under a certain age can't drink, or drive. We have age segregated sports leagues. Most of this stuff isn't remotely controversial.
But when trans people declare that **** Monologues or **** Hats or feminism's focus on reproductive rights makes them feel excluded, people take them seriously. Why?
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 11, 2019, 09:18:47 pm
But when trans people declare that **** Monologues or **** Hats or feminism's focus on reproductive rights makes them feel excluded, people take them seriously. Why?
Because if you don't take them seriously people will label you a transphobe. And most people, especially businesses and organizations, are absolutely terrified of being given that label.
In recent years, people within legitimately victimized groups, like ie: black people, LGBT, women, aboriginals etc, have been able to get away with pressuring organizations and people to bow to their demands even if they're unsubstantiated or ridiculous because of how terrified people are of being deemed racist/sexist/homophobe/white supremicist etc. People/groups in these movements have smartly recognized this and used it well to their advantage, and they've gotten far with it.
It's going to take a lot of balls (pun intended) to be the first organizations to resist trans women competing with women.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 12, 2019, 05:39:35 am
So why do people keep using "exclusion" as if it's inherently evil, then?
I guess you should ask someone who thinks that ?
Quote
You don't exclude black people from your home, but you do exclude poison from your diet. Ok, great example. ::)
I'm trying to show why it's silly to say 'exclusion' - as a concept - is wrong.
Quote
There are lots of other more relevant examples of exclusion that we might consider. Age? We have 55+ condominium buildings. People under 18 can't vote. People under a certain age can't drink, or drive. We have age segregated sports leagues. Most of this stuff isn't remotely controversial.
But when trans people declare that **** Monologues or **** Hats or feminism's focus on reproductive rights makes them feel excluded, people take them seriously. Why?
-k
You should ask somebody who thinks that. You already convinced me that opposition to the **** Monologues is not a 'fringe' idea - what more are you trying to get here ? A victory lap ? I'm not disagreeing with any of this.
Post by: kimmy on February 13, 2019, 02:00:37 am
I'm trying to show why it's silly to say 'exclusion' - as a concept - is wrong.
I guess your choice of example seemed rather flippant, and I assumed you weren't serious.
You should ask somebody who thinks that. You already convinced me that opposition to the **** Monologues is not a 'fringe' idea - what more are you trying to get here ? A victory lap ? I'm not disagreeing with any of this.
I just wanted to make the point that there seems to be some sort of assumption that exclusion is, de-facto, a bad thing. Look at the choice of slur-- "trans-exclusionist". I feel like people who express concern over the changes being pushed for by trans activists are being unfairly painted as hateful bullies.
For example, here's a BBC "fact check" of a feminist group's concerns regarding transgender prisoners on the safety of women in prison.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42221629
Here's a writer from the UK Spectator newspaper fact-checking the BBC fact check, and demonstrating that while purporting to be balanced the BBC fact-check has actually take an advocate's position by attempting to dispute the figures using half-baked arguments and by presenting commentary from a trans activist.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-the-bbc-scared-of-the-transgender-debate/
Here's an article from Media Matters For America regarding a Heritage Foundation event where feminist critics of trans ideology were invited to speak. Sharing the stage with regressive people like Heritage Foundation is a questionable move, obviously, but that's beside the point I want to make here. The main point is how the article describes these women:
Headline: Anti-trans activists “from the Left” joined right-wing Heritage Foundation to rail against trans people
...note the scare-quotes around "from the left." Because nobody really "from the left" could be opposed to trans ideology, right?
Sub-headline: Trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs, use a veneer of progressivism and feminism to advocate against trans equality
...a veneer, implying they're fake feminists.
From the text...
TERFs have cited the thoroughly debunked myth that allowing trans people, in particular trans women, to access restrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity poses a threat to women’s safety.
...but as we've talked about in this thread, that's not a myth at all.
Or this...
TERFs often identify with the left, and even though some identify as queer, they have made it clear that they are willing to take part in conservatives’ “divide and conquer” strategy to attempt to fracture the LGBTQ movement and erode trans equality.
...implying that queer people are a monolithic entity, even though there is now a lot of tension between trans women and lesbian women due to this "cotton ceiling" dog-**** that is going around.
Media Matters makes no claims of being an objective news source, of course. They're a left-leaning watchdog group best known for fact-checking Fox News and other right-wing media sources. So it's disappointing to me that they've decided that feminists who aren't on board with the whole trans agenda are "the enemy" as well.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 13, 2019, 05:23:29 am
1. Because if you don't take them seriously people will label you a transphobe. And most people, especially businesses and organizations, are absolutely terrified of being given that label.
2. It's going to take a lot of balls (pun intended) to be the first organizations to resist trans women competing with women.
1. My friend just got banned from a bisexual chat forum for using the term 'pansexual' which is, apparently, 'bi phobic'. So, this seems to be going in one direction and one direction only, which is 'orthodoxy'. It's not sustainable. On another board, my gay friend is questioning why nobody is ever forgiven for #metoo transgressions. Public discussion only seems to exist to condemn, and I nervously pointed out that if there is no chance of forgiveness, it's not a true discussion. It becomes exactly the kind of moral posturing that those gay fake Christians do.
I really hope that this breaks, and a new openness emerges. Just based on my circle, some people are starting to dissent. One guy posted that we need moral archeologists to explain what was ok and not ok when :D
2. But they may find out that there are a lot of people who are ok with just having that discussion. I'm one.
In the old punk rock days, there used to be this ethic of 'anyone could be a star' and it was beautiful. People would go on stage and just be themselves and it was awful or great and on you went. Pursuit of happiness. This guy named "Mykel Board" used to have a column called "You're Wrong" that was a fantastic exploration of morality and ethics in that scene. It was pure intellectual play and examination. He pointed out that the socialism in the scene eventually turned it from "anyone can be a star" to "no one can be a star" when jealousy and grandstanding caused people to decry glamour queens and vain people. That's where we are now with liberal morality.
But it's a cycle. Orthodoxy could live forever in the Soviet Union because they had secret police and informants. Even then it died. The changes we're seeing now in public dialogue will settle as the new media becomes a proper communication medium for human culture.
I'm glad for this board and to learn about what's going on.
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2019, 07:17:00 am
Media Matters makes no claims of being an objective news source, of course. They're a left-leaning watchdog group best known for fact-checking Fox News and other right-wing media sources. So it's disappointing to me that they've decided that feminists who aren't on board with the whole trans agenda are "the enemy" as well.
some, certainly not the waldo, might construe your concerns with 'fairness' in sports masked the overarching reach of your personal/tribes own agenda - just how broad and all-encompassing is the field terf you presume to play on?
Post by: kimmy on February 13, 2019, 10:11:01 pm
some, certainly not the waldo, might construe your concerns with 'fairness' in sports masked the overarching reach of your personal/tribes own agenda - just how broad and all-encompassing is the field terf you presume to play on?
Yes, my concern for fairness in women's sports is just one of a number of issues where I am concerned for "my tribe". I don't think I've ever "masked" anything about it: I prioritize safety and fairness for women above "inclusiveness" for trans individuals. Is that a bad thing?
-k
Post by: wilber on February 20, 2019, 06:20:04 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/martina-navratilova-criticized-trans-comments-1.5023677
Post by: kimmy on February 21, 2019, 03:29:29 am
Martina gets flack for stating the obvious.
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/martina-navratilova-criticized-trans-comments-1.5023677
Of course. You can't question or argue against this new orthodoxy. You become a heretic, you get deplatformed, and Michael's friends will yell at you on Facebook.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 21, 2019, 09:55:14 am
Michael's friends will yell at you on Facebook.
-k
You use my friends as a bellweather then get the latest from above: "Just based on my circle, some people are starting to dissent."
Post by: kimmy on February 22, 2019, 10:15:53 am
You use my friends as a bellweather
I have just been making fun of this because you told me you couldn't post the **** Monologues thing on Facebook because they'd roast you for it. Which I had only suggested because earlier in the thread you'd talked about all the woke people on your Facebook feed going ballistic over Meghan Murphy's editorial.
I don't know your Facebook friends, of course, but in my head I picture empty-headed virtue-signallers who'd cheer any idiocy that came out of the mouths of trans-allies, no matter how stupid or offensive.
then get the latest from above: "Just based on my circle, some people are starting to dissent."
I had assumed that that was in reference to generally getting tired of "orthodoxy", or in regard to the specific kerfuffle over "pansexual", not in regard to disagreeing with the cult of trans.
BTW, if you or your friends are puzzled why the bisexual people don't like the term "pansexual", it's basically the same reason lesbians are getting sick of being pushed to identify as "queer". It's a push to redefine peoples' sexual orientation for them. (Related: note that trans people and their allies are pushing the phrase "gender preference" instead of "sexual orientation". It's newspeak.)
People are pushing "pansexual" because they want to guilt bisexual people for not being attracted to trans, non-binary, furries, and whatever the **** else is going on out there. "Bisexual implies there's just 2 sexes. But there are actually over 60 genders for you to consider, so bisexual is actually very exclusionary. You should feel guilty for being so exclusionary and excluding people from the other 58 genders as prospective mates." Just as trans people and their allies want lesbians to adopt "queer" because trans people and their allies feel that lesbians should consider everybody except cisgender men as prospective mates.
You and the great mushy middle might not know or care, but people in the targeted communities are getting are tired of it.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 22, 2019, 03:24:02 pm
Quote
over 60 genders
Do they all have specific names? I think I know 4 or so...
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2019, 04:38:01 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 22, 2019, 09:05:07 pm
I have just been making fun of this because you told me you couldn't post the **** Monologues thing on Facebook because they'd roast you for it.
I guess so. Also because I'm not in any of the groups impacted though so there is that.
Quote
I don't know your Facebook friends, of course, but in my head I picture empty-headed virtue-signallers who'd cheer any idiocy that came out of the mouths of trans-allies, no matter how stupid or offensive.
Wow. So you think I like smart people on here but in real life I hang around dumb people. Hmm.
No, they're not empty-headed just angry and very angry. They are angry at being under the thumb of a majority that gives them a raw deal and still complains and sends convoys to Ottawa (driving classic cars of course) because things are so unfair for them. They're angry and sometimes so am I.
Quote
I had assumed that that was in reference to generally getting tired of "orthodoxy", or in regard to the specific kerfuffle over "pansexual", not in regard to disagreeing with the cult of trans.
Ok.
Quote
BTW, if you or your friends are puzzled why the bisexual people don't like the term "pansexual", it's basically the same reason lesbians are getting sick of being pushed to identify as "queer". It's a push to redefine peoples' sexual orientation for them. (Related: note that trans people and their allies are pushing the phrase "gender preference" instead of "sexual orientation". It's newspeak.)
Right but if a lesbian wanted to call herself 'queer' would you kick her out of a lesbian chat group ? 'newspeak' and 'redefining' are two different things. 'newspeak' was, I think, from Orwell's 1984 as words mandated to describe things, designed to limit the effectiveness of language and 'redefining' means changing the definition.
Quote
People are pushing "pansexual" because they want to guilt bisexual people for not being attracted to trans, non-binary, furries, and whatever the **** else is going on out there. "Bisexual implies there's just 2 sexes. But there are actually over 60 genders for you to consider, so bisexual is actually very exclusionary. You should feel guilty for being so exclusionary and excluding people from the other 58 genders as prospective mates." Just as trans people and their allies want lesbians to adopt "queer" because trans people and their allies feel that lesbians should consider everybody except cisgender men as prospective mates.
I think my friend just likes 'pansexual' because 'pan' is in there. He's bi for sure. It was the bisexuals who got all Nazi on him for using the flutey term 'pansexual'
Quote
You and the great mushy middle might not know or care, but people in the targeted communities are getting are tired of it.
-k
Not mushy middle, I was an ally a long time ago when it was difficult to be one.
Post by: kimmy on February 23, 2019, 02:30:17 pm
Wow. So you think I like smart people on here but in real life I hang around dumb people. Hmm.
It seems to me like a lot of otherwise smart people have aligned themselves around some pretty dumb ideas in the name of progressiveness.
No, they're not empty-headed just angry and very angry. They are angry at being under the thumb of a majority that gives them a raw deal and still complains and sends convoys to Ottawa (driving classic cars of course) because things are so unfair for them. They're angry and sometimes so am I.
Who exactly is driving to Ottawa in classic cars? TERFs? Lesbians? Lesbian TERFs in classic cars driving to Ottawa?
Right but if a lesbian wanted to call herself 'queer' would you kick her out of a lesbian chat group ?
I wouldn't, but at the same time that would put up a warning flag for me, a signal that this person had identified themselves with a viewpoint that I strongly disagree with. About the same as if somebody uses "cuck" in their message... it's a big clue that they've immersed themselves in an ideology that I disagree with.
And while I'm not really involved in any lesbian community beyond a slight online participation, one thing I've seen people becoming increasingly concerned with is "lesbian erasure". The push to rebrand as "queer", the push to associate the word "lesbian" with old "uncool" women, the effort to stigmatize women who aren't open to trans-women or just aren't interested in ****-- these things are viewed as an attack on the community-- to erase "lesbians" in favor of new trans-friendly "queer" women who are pliable to the demands of the trans movement. I suspect that bisexuals-- whose identity has always been questioned by not just straight people but gay people as well-- feel similarly under attack.
'newspeak' and 'redefining' are two different things. 'newspeak' was, I think, from Orwell's 1984 as words mandated to describe things, designed to limit the effectiveness of language and 'redefining' means changing the definition.
It's a little of both, don't you think? Redefining the terms reframes the debate. The idea that sexual orientation is not something people consciously choose is something that gay rights advocates have championed for decades. Redefining sexual orientation to be gender preference makes it mutable, wishy-washy, and meaningless. Gender suggests that it's people's self-identification rather their physical reality that people are attracted to-- "You say you're attracted to women, well I say I'm a woman, so you should be attracted to me." Preference connotes degrees of acceptability rather than a boundary-- "I prefer chocolate to strawberry, but I am ok with either."
This kind of redefining is a not-that-subtle effort to steer debate and reframe people's perception of the issue. "We're talking about gender, not sex. We're talking about preferences. Why are you so closed-minded about your preferences?"
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 24, 2019, 07:40:26 am
It seems to me like a lot of otherwise smart people have aligned themselves around some pretty dumb ideas in the name of progressiveness.
It's not about smart it's about fighting.
Quote
Who exactly is driving to Ottawa in classic cars? TERFs? Lesbians? Lesbian TERFs in classic cars driving to Ottawa?
United We Roll.
Quote
I wouldn't, but at the same time that would put up a warning flag for me, a signal that this person had identified themselves with a viewpoint that I strongly disagree with. About the same as if somebody uses "cuck" in their message... it's a big clue that they've immersed themselves in an ideology that I disagree with.
So why is it dumb, then ? You want to fight too.
Quote
And while I'm not really involved in any lesbian community beyond a slight online participation, one thing I've seen people becoming increasingly concerned with is "lesbian erasure". The push to rebrand as "queer", the push to associate the word "lesbian" with old "uncool" women, the effort to stigmatize women who aren't open to trans-women or just aren't interested in ****-- these things are viewed as an attack on the community-- to erase "lesbians" in favor of new trans-friendly "queer" women who are pliable to the demands of the trans movement. I suspect that bisexuals-- whose identity has always been questioned by not just straight people but gay people as well-- feel similarly under attack.
Oh, so it's a generational thing. This happens in Toronto with the so-called 'gay village'. Young gay people say 'why would I live there' ? And old ones say 'they don't appreciate that we made this place for them'. Or something. Not my fight, but that's something I think I heard.
Quote
It's a little of both, don't you think? Redefining the terms reframes the debate.
It's related. "Newspeak" was about channelling the dialogue into acceptable areas by using new words that marginalized some meanings so in that way, yes.
Quote
The idea that sexual orientation is not something people consciously choose is something that gay rights advocates have championed for decades.
Right - but the correct answer to 'nature vs nurture' is "who cares ?". I think it's nature but if somebody thinks it's a choice then ok. And it doesn't connote anything. You don't have to sleep with any 'women' you don't want to.
You can be racist, sexist or trans-exclusionary or differently-abled exclusionary in your head. We don't abide by thought control. If you choose to tell people "I'm not attracted to some people" then no one will object. If you way "I'm not attracted to Black people" then some people may question that, or maybe just why you feel you can say it.
The ideas of why we're attracted to who or what we are - those are in our heads. I had a talk with an old dyke (classic 70s type) the other night and she was talking about being attracted to these young Chinese guys on a Chinese soap opera. She has no idea why, and I don't think any of us do.
I think somebody telling you that you have to like a **** is ridiculous, and I think you should be able to tell them that without an army of online orthodox enforcers coming around to tell you the implications.
Post by: kimmy on March 02, 2019, 12:44:32 pm
Do they all have specific names? I think I know 4 or so...
It's apparently only 51.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-each-of-facebooks-51-new-gender-options-means
Here's a list. Many of them are actually just different wording of the same idea, though.
https://alphabetizer.flap.tv/lists/list-of-facebook-gender-options.php
60 genders. More than two, OK but 60? Ya, sure. Too many and the term becomes meaningless.
Thought experiment: what about 2 sex options and zero gender options? Why do we need gender labels at all?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 03, 2019, 09:20:58 am
Bridge player suspended for spiking testosterone.
Post by: kimmy on March 03, 2019, 12:01:06 pm
-k
Post by: kimmy on March 03, 2019, 12:03:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/ph8b5sg.jpg)
-k
Post by: TimG on March 03, 2019, 12:18:53 pm
Apparently it's always the women's washroom that gets rebranded to become a "gender neutral space".That is very weird. I saw that the same this week at work event but I assumed it was because I am in a field where men outnumber women 10 to 1 and the women's washroom is hardly ever used.
Post by: TimG on March 18, 2019, 08:34:37 pm
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-oldest-****-crisis-centre-stripped-of-city-funding-for-refusing-to-accept-trans-women
Quote
Vancouver **** Relief and Women’s Shelter, Canada’s oldest **** crisis centre, has been stripped of city funding after refusing to rescind its policy of only serving female-born women.
Funny thing is the court is on their side:
Quote
In 1995, the organization was the subject of a discrimination lawsuit led by Kimberly Nixon, a post-operative transgender woman who was denied Vancouver **** Relief programming.
“She was rejected from the training program because she did not share the same life experiences as women born and raised as girls and into womenhood,” writes Vancouver **** Relief on their website.
The B.C. Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favour of Vancouver **** Relief, and a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 18, 2019, 08:46:22 pm
More dispatches from the "war against women":
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-oldest-****-crisis-centre-stripped-of-city-funding-for-refusing-to-accept-trans-women
Funny thing is the court is on their side:
I don't think it would be today. 1995 was a long time ago. Also this is an example where I think compassion should trump gender exclusivity. Trans women experience violence and need safety too. Please don't bring up some kind of false choice to justify them being turned away.
Post by: TimG on March 18, 2019, 08:55:21 pm
I don't think it would be today. 1995 was a long time ago. Also this is an example where I think compassion should trump gender exclusivity. Trans women experience violence and need safety too. Please don't bring up some kind of false choice to justify them being turned away.This story is about trans women wanting to volunteer and being rejected as are all male would be volunteers. This is perfectly reasonable.
More importantly. Their is absolutely no justification for allowing services to discriminate against men and then complaining that they wish to discriminate against trans women too. If trans women want to volunteer at such shelters they can start their own. Why should emotional well being of women in crisis be sacrificed because some trans gender women get their feelings hurt?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 18, 2019, 10:10:46 pm
It would take a bit to get used to but at the end of the day i don't care. For women I think its a different story for some of them, they feel more vulnerable. And they also don't fart apparently.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 18, 2019, 10:19:28 pm
This story is about trans women wanting to volunteer and being rejected as are all male would be volunteers. This is perfectly reasonable.
More importantly. Their is absolutely no justification for allowing services to discriminate against men and then complaining that they wish to discriminate against trans women too. If trans women want to volunteer at such shelters they can start their own. Why should emotional well being of women in crisis be sacrificed because some trans gender women get their feelings hurt?
As the trans woman volunteer, i get why they're offended but you'd have to be an insensitive jerk not to understand where the **** crisis center & the victims are coming from, and that many women may feel unsafe in their moment of crisis after being **** and then being helped by a 6'2" masculine person in a dress.
Post by: kimmy on March 18, 2019, 10:59:54 pm
I don't think it would be today. 1995 was a long time ago. Also this is an example where I think compassion should trump gender exclusivity. Trans women experience violence and need safety too. Please don't bring up some kind of false choice to justify them being turned away.
Trans-activist Morgane Oger, of the BC NDP and one of the leaders of the effort to kill Vancouver **** Relief, says VRR is the only **** crisis center in BC that doesn't provide services to trans people. Which implies that there are other places for trans people to go.
We've discussed two incidents in this thread where individuals posed as trans to gain access to women's shelters and abuse vulnerable women. To me this seems like the last place to be pushing inclusivity and gender identity politics.
On the bright side, the funds from the City of Vancouver are $33k, and VRR's budget is over $1 million, so the city funds are a drop in the proverbial bucket. Hopefully donors who are upset by this development will be motivated to make up the shortfall.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 19, 2019, 01:46:31 am
https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/help/donate/donate
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 19, 2019, 01:48:47 am
Quote
Seeing a member of opposite sex washing her hands while I came was...odd.
No **** that’s odd... Ewww
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 19, 2019, 06:16:24 am
This story is about trans women wanting to volunteer and being rejected as are all male would be volunteers. This is perfectly reasonable.
Sorry, didn't click it.
Quote
More importantly. Their is absolutely no justification for allowing services to discriminate against men and then complaining that they wish to discriminate against trans women too. If trans women want to volunteer at such shelters they can start their own. Why should emotional well being of women in crisis be sacrificed because some trans gender women get their feelings hurt?
I don't know - I guess they will work it out. I understand why men would not be asked for help volunteering but not trans women.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 19, 2019, 06:17:36 am
As the trans woman volunteer, i get why they're offended but you'd have to be an insensitive jerk not to understand where the **** crisis center & the victims are coming from, and that many women may feel unsafe in their moment of crisis after being **** and then being helped by a 6'2" masculine person in a dress.
Yeah, so take it on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure not every woman who volunteers is accepted either.
Post by: TimG on March 19, 2019, 06:53:44 am
I don't know - I guess they will work it out. I understand why men would not be asked for help volunteering but not trans women.As far as many people are concerned trans women are not women. Nothing you say will change that nor will forcing people to pretend that falsehoods are true change anything. This a clear case where the sensitivities of people who receive the service are the only thing that should matter.
Post by: kimmy on March 19, 2019, 08:00:33 pm
Good idea Kimmy. I donated...
https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/help/donate/donate
You are awesome! I am going to do the same.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 19, 2019, 08:34:27 pm
As far as many people are concerned trans women are not women. Nothing you say will change that nor will forcing people to pretend that falsehoods are true change anything. This a clear case where the sensitivities of people who receive the service are the only thing that should matter.
Right, but ... is it really a thing that women refuse counselling from trans women ?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 19, 2019, 08:37:51 pm
Right, but ... is it really a thing that women refuse counselling from trans women ?
When they’ve been assaulted over and over for 20 years by a man, I can see why a woman would feel more comfortable talking to another woman.
You should ask your wife what she thinks about it... let us know what she says.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 19, 2019, 08:39:34 pm
When they’ve been assaulted over and over for 20 years by a man, I can see why a woman would feel more comfortable talking to another woman.
That's the case you came up with though. Let me read the link then...
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 19, 2019, 08:43:27 pm
This story is about trans women wanting to volunteer and being rejected as are all male would be volunteers. This is perfectly reasonable.
Yeah, so that was NOT what the story was about - it was about using services. That said, I think there are limits to accommodation that can be achieved here. The story really tries to stir the pot, using the term 'hijacked' which is not an objective way to describe a protest. Anyway...
Post by: westcoastrunner on March 19, 2019, 09:20:24 pm
The women and children are under extreme stress that most men don't understand or have experienced. While I was volunteering I only met women with children seeking shelter from violent men and full disclosure that I never met a transgender woman. I do have great empathy for transgender women escaping violence and I think they should have a place to escape to from violence including men.
This issue can be a great way to bring to light the violence that women and trans women experience on a daily basis. I don't agree with funding cuts to this great organization. I do however, think that this could provide discussions to perhaps provide a separate residence for this segment of our population (for now).
Post by: westcoastrunner on March 19, 2019, 09:34:48 pm
Right, but ... is it really a thing that women refuse counselling from trans women ?
When they arrive terrified with crying children and cops by their side, the last thing they are looking for is counselling. They are looking for a safe place without men.
Post by: westcoastrunner on March 19, 2019, 09:37:02 pm
As far as many people are concerned trans women are not women. Nothing you say will change that nor will forcing people to pretend that falsehoods are true change anything. This a clear case where the sensitivities of people who receive the service are the only thing that should matter.
This is the first time I agree with Tim.
Post by: TimG on March 19, 2019, 10:00:21 pm
You are awesome! I am going to do the same.I donated as well.
Post by: kimmy on March 19, 2019, 10:09:32 pm
I donated as well.
You guys!
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 20, 2019, 06:03:03 am
When they arrive terrified with crying children and cops by their side, the last thing they are looking for is counselling. They are looking for a safe place without men.
Ok, I still think accommodation is possible. Furthermore - this means that male-presenting women are absolutely banned from the space also ?
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 20, 2019, 06:04:28 am
I do however, think that this could provide discussions to perhaps provide a separate residence for this segment of our population (for now).
The article mentioned a post-op woman who could easily be indescernable from a "born" woman.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 20, 2019, 10:22:24 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 20, 2019, 11:01:37 am
The lack of empathy for victims of abuse in the name of political correctness actually disgusts me.
Can you cite an example of someone doing that here or in the story?
Post by: kimmy on March 31, 2019, 11:30:04 pm
This week they published the results of a survey they conducted that asked lesbians what effects the trans movement has had on them.
http://www.gettheloutuk.com/blog/category/research.html
Quote
The survey aimed to find whether there is a form of social pressure on lesbians to accept trans ideology within the LGBT community, and what form this may take. How does this affect their ability to meet other lesbians? Are lesbian dating sites safe for lesbians? Is this social pressure influencing lesbians’ life and their sexual life? If lesbians are pressured online, could they also be pressured offline? Are lesbians experiencing any form of sexual violence from men who call themselves lesbians? If yes what form does this sexual violence take?
LGBT groups have become silencing and intimidating:
Quote
For questioning the trans doctrine or just stating they were lesbians, respondents reported experiences including: verbal abuse, death and **** threats, pressure to commit suicide, threats of physical or sexual violence, threats to kill family members, receiving “trans-woman ****”, threats of “doxing”, actual online “doxing” (including exposure of their name, picture and home address), threats of exposure to employers.While most of this intimidation happened online, many women also reported offline threats:...lesbians are being pushed out of the LGBT community and going "underground".
• Two respondents were threatened at their place of work and one lost her job.
• A woman’s employer was repeatedly contacted with attempts to have her dismissed,
• Two respondents were subjected to intimidating behaviour from “transwomen” at lesbian events,
• A seventy-year-old woman reported being “physically threatened and forced out” of a group by a physically intimidating “transwoman”.
A respondent observed that “the very presence of transwomen in a woman-only event is enough to silence us for fear of retaliation. There is no need to have a physical threat; their presence serves as a warning.
(...)
Because of these experiences, women who wanted to gather exclusively with other women have had to create underground women-only groups and have to maintain a constant high level of vigilance and scrutiny to ensure the sex-segregated policy is upheld. This is true online as well as offline: women-only gatherings still happen but must be planned in secret and are rarely advertised publicly. Women who are part of women-only groups or attend women-only gatherings reported feeling “safer to speak”, “more comfortable”, and not needing to censor themselves. They “enjoy being with like minded women” and “value the women centeredness of the group”. The lack of women-only spaces is highlighted by many lesbians who report how much more difficult it has be-come for them to meet lesbians, because “trans women” are now included in most “women-only spaces".
Pressure to have sex with trans women:
Quote
56% of the respondents reported being pressured or coerced to accept a transwoman as a sexual partner.
Much of this pressure happens online. Lesbians are routinely harassed for stating that their sexuality excludes males regard-less of their “gender identity”. Most respondents reported being subjected to such rhetoric directly or indirectly, and have expe-rienced it as a form of “psychological coercion” with the general feeling that it is “online everywhere” and “relentless”.
The responses show the wide variety of ways in which women have also been directly sexually pressured, rang-ing from coercion, sexual harassment and sexual assault to **** by deception and **** with physical force.
A respondent was targeted by a woman in an online group:
"I was told that homosexuality doesn’t exist and I owed it to my trans sisters’ to unlearn my ‘genital confusion’ so I can enjoy letting them penetrate me."
Lesbians report being told they are “worse than rapists if they don’t date transwomen”, that not dating “transwomen” is akin to “racism”.
Many lesbians wrote about being questioned endlessly about their sexual preferences and whether they “would or wouldn’t potentially date a transwoman”. A young women reported being directly pressured to go on dates with a “transwoman” by her friends. She explained she cannot say no directly but has to keep making excuses for fear of being “blacklisted from (her) social groups”.
If people could be shamed or guilted into changing their sexual orientation, homosexuality would have been "cured" many centuries ago. If this kind of rhetoric was coming from a social conservative, people would instantly recognize it for what it is: sheer, blatant homophobia. But since it's in the cause of trans inclusivity, it's WOKE!
LGBT groups are now more likely to pressure lesbians to become heterosexual than churches are. PROGRESSIVE!
The effect of pushing this ideology on young women who are just coming to grips with their sexual orientation:
Quote
Queer coercionUs older **** know that this new rhetoric is propaganda. But younger women might not realize that we haven't always been at war with Eastasia.
Queer ideology combined with guilt-tripping were reported to be effective strategies to persuade women to sleep with “transwomen” against their will.
The woman above who had sex with a “post-op transwoman” stated she had “bought into the propaganda that sex doesn’t matter”. Women in the 18-24 years old age group appear particularly vulnerable to these strategies. Young women explained how they were pressurised to accept a “transwoman” as a sexual partner:
“I thought I would be called a transphobe or that it would be wrong of me to turn down a transwoman who wanted to ex-change **** pictures”; young women feel pressured to sleep with transwomen “to prove I am not a TERF”.
“After I came out as a lesbian, I went on many dates/en-tered relationships with transwoman because the cul-ture I was in said if I didn’t do that I was evil and should be banished from everything. I knew I wasn’t attracted to them but internalised the idea that it was because of my “transmisogyny” and that if I dated them for long enough I could start to be attracted to them. It was DIY conversion therapy.”
Quote
Conclusion
The evidence of this research suggests that there is huge pressure in online and offline LGBT, queer and lesbian groups to accept without question the queer ideology and mantra that “transwoman are women”. The act of defining lesbianism as “same-sex attraction at the exclusion of people who have or had penises” is considered a form of hate speech and violently punished.
Dissenting voices are aggressively attacked, followed by an immediate ban from the group that can sometimes have consequences for womenlives and livelihoods. Lesbians are a small community of already marginalised individuals, and this exclusion sometimes means exclusion from the only social group women have. The threats on social media and offline groups act both as sexual pressure and silencing, leading to isolation and social exclusion. There is a direct link between threats in online groups and lesbian participation in real life groups or events. Many lesbians who have been targeted have developed avoidance strategies towards LGBT in general and complain of feeling unsafe and unwelcome in the LGBT community.
Women who dare to say they will not have sex with anyone but a woman, excluding men and men who identify as transwomen, are demonised and name-called. Terms like “terf”, “transphobe”, “bigot”, rapist”, “racist” etc are routinely used against lesbians. Women who remain silent in groups are asked relentlessly to reveal whether or not they would date a “transwoman”. This constant pressure creates a culture of terror, leading to women policing each other in order to not appear to be a “terf” to the rest of the group. This trend is intensifying as anyone not actively embracing the trans ideology is suspected of silent “terfing”.
I remember reading a quote-- I can't recall who it was, but it goes something along the lines of: "the purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn a witch. It's to instill fear and obedience in everybody else, for fear that they might be the next one to get burnt." Swap "burnt" for "beaten", and "witch" for "TERF", and that's basically where we're at right now.
Quote
Many lesbians reveal leading a double life where their lesbianism is toned down. Many have no social life or meet underground and explain how difficult and dangerous it has become to meet other lesbians. Lesbian dating sites are infiltrated by men who pose as lesbians (whether they identify as transwoman or not and whether they “pass” as women or not), leading many lesbians to feel unsafe at the thought of unknowingly going on a date with a man. Both in groups and dating sites, the presence of men who identify as transwomen acts as a threat, leading to self-policing and silencing.
And this is the part that is most familiar to me, because this is more or less how I live my life. Present as feminine, be cautious who you try to connect with, and don't let anybody know until you're sure you can trust them. The difference is that for me it has been about a fear of being ostracized by conservative and religious people I work with, and living in a largely conservative and religious town. Yet even as rednecks and conservatives have gradually come to accept lesbians as they are, the wind has shifted and now it's the woke progressives who you need to worry about.
These are just some of the points I thought were most important. I have read many anecdotes like these, this is the first attempt I've seen to publish them into some sort of organized report. I am sure that trans boosters will find some way to rationalize away all of this. "It's a small sample size!" or "It's not a scientific survey!" or "but not all trans people are like that!" or "but trans people are committing suicide!"
Anyway, I recommend reading the whole document, especially for the trans cheerleaders here. The PDF is at this link:
http://www.gettheloutuk.com/attachments/lesbiansatgroundzero.pdf
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 01, 2019, 06:02:09 am
You should always be vigilant against fringe groups rising up and trying to claim the centre of a social movement. That said, these things need close reading on both sides. I raised quite a few questions on the last page - regarding the last issue we looked at - and the lack of answers tell me that there may have been more to it.
Is there a way to accept trans women as women without falling into the extreme ideas that Lesbians are obliged to be attracted to trans men ? Of course there is. In fact, it's easy to do so. Just like it's easy to discuss immigration without using hate speech.
If we add a little clarity, we can move past fringe arguments and find reasonable accommodation for 99% of everybody. Not for the trans women who demand a Lesbian lover, maybe, but the rest...
Post by: waldo on April 01, 2019, 12:04:08 pm
Is there a way to accept trans women as women without falling into the extreme ideas that Lesbians are obliged to be attracted to trans men?
I'm musing on a peripheral point - one that might provide insight here; a finer point of distinction in understanding how a bi-woman finally decides she's... had enough... and goes full, no-turning-back, lesbian! Cause if there's a segment of 'lesbian by experiment/convenience', where's the beef? ;)
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 01, 2019, 12:10:07 pm
Post by: waldo on April 01, 2019, 12:17:37 pm
I don't think anyone on here is ambiguous enough to help you with that issue.
I'm struggling here... oh wait... is there ambiguity in my "where's the beef" phrasing? ;D
Post by: kimmy on April 01, 2019, 08:11:43 pm
I'm musing on a peripheral point - one that might provide insight here; a finer point of distinction in understanding how a bi-woman finally decides she's... had enough... and goes full, no-turning-back, lesbian! Cause if there's a segment of 'lesbian by experiment/convenience', where's the beef? ;)
What in the blue hell are you even talking about? And what the **** is "lesbian by convenience" supposed to mean?
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 01, 2019, 09:08:10 pm
You should always be vigilant against fringe groups rising up and trying to claim the centre of a social movement.
Not sure who you're referring to here.
"Get The L Out" make no claim of being at the center of a social movement. They feel that "the center" of the LGBT movement has betrayed them, and that most lesbians have gone along with it because they're afraid to speak out against it or because they've been conned or guilted into supporting it.
As for the trans activists... it's hard to say where the mainstream is at on this.
--it's a mainstream sentiment in the LGBT community that TERFs are a hate group comparable to Nazis or the KKK.
--"trans women are women" is a non-negotiable mantra to the LGBT community.
--rebranding "sexual orientation" to "gender preference" seems to be a pretty mainstream effort in the LGBT community too. As discussed earlier in this thread. Rebranding "lesbian" to "queer" seems to be trendy. "Hearts not parts" has become a popular slogan. Lesbians who express a distaste or disinterest in **** are referred to as "**** fetishists". It's hard to quantify this last one, but it seems like it has gained a lot of traction on the Twitterverse, and the "Get the L Out" survey seems to indicate it's making its way to the real world. And you can understand why it would be a popular idea with trans-people who think it's unfair that they're rejected by prospective partners.
That said, these things need close reading on both sides. I raised quite a few questions on the last page - regarding the last issue we looked at - and the lack of answers tell me that there may have been more to it.
Which questions did you have that weren't answered to your satisfaction?
Is there a way to accept trans women as women without falling into the extreme ideas that Lesbians are obliged to be attracted to trans men ? Of course there is. In fact, it's easy to do so. Just like it's easy to discuss immigration without using hate speech.
And yet every attempt to discuss immigration invariably ends up with accusations of racism. "You just hate brown people!" Invariably. You know this.
And it's impossible to attempt to discuss the topics raised by the "Get the L Out" survey without accusations of transphobia. "This is TERF talk!" "It's transphobic!" "If cis women got threatened or beat up by trans women, it's probably because they're TERFs!"
The chairman of the Manchester Pride parade said that "Get the L Out" should have been "dragged off by their saggy ****" when they showed up at a parade with banners protesting lesbian erasure. A group of lesbians with pro-female banners and pro-lesbian slogans were harassed and intimidated at the Vancouver Dyke March; after the event was over the VDM organizers condemned them for bringing ideas deemed TERFish to the march.
You're not ALLOWED to suggest that trans activism is hurting lesbians. People who raise these issues are branded TERFs, decried as transphobes, and silenced, with none of their concerns even mentioned. There is to be no talk about any of this. The LGBTQ2SIQNB+? movement is one big happy family OR ELSE.
If we add a little clarity, we can move past fringe arguments and find reasonable accommodation for 99% of everybody. Not for the trans women who demand a Lesbian lover, maybe, but the rest...
The first argument always seems to be that "the cotton ceiling" stuff isn't really happening or that it's just fringe. So the women reporting experiencing this kind of harassment from trans-women are making it up?
These people believe that"trans women are women", they believe that lesbians who reject them because of their anatomy are TERFs, and they believe that TERFs are a hate-group who deserve retribution. So connect the dots. There isn't reasonable accommodation to be had while these 3 beliefs remain at the forefront of the trans movement.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 02, 2019, 05:59:55 am
Not sure who you're referring to here.
"Get The L Out" make no claim of being at the center of a social movement.
You seem to think I was referring to Get the L Out, but I was explaining what they seem to be reacting against.
Quote
As for the trans activists... it's hard to say where the mainstream is at on this.
And it helps fringe groups when that happens.
Quote
Which questions did you have that weren't answered to your satisfaction?
There are a few on the previous page.
Quote
And yet every attempt to discuss immigration invariably ends up with accusations of racism. "You just hate brown people!" Invariably. You know this.
Horseshit. The arguments I read are like this:
- they are taking our jobs
- they are going to kill us
Which end in general agreement with those points. The 'good' arguments against immigration are few and far between. Argus posted the best ones in a single article+follow-up from the Fraser Institute but business-friendly folks aren't really big on cutting immigration either.
Quote
And it's impossible to attempt to discuss the topics raised by the "Get the L Out" survey without accusations of transphobia. "This is TERF talk!" "It's transphobic!" "If cis women got threatened or beat up by trans women, it's probably because they're TERFs!"
So then... those are bad arguments, according to you right ? There are people arguing much worse things, and quite boldly.
Quote
The chairman of the Manchester Pride parade said that "Get the L Out" should have been "dragged off by their saggy ****" when they showed up at a parade with banners protesting lesbian erasure. A group of lesbians with pro-female banners and pro-lesbian slogans were harassed and intimidated at the Vancouver Dyke March; after the event was over the VDM organizers condemned them for bringing ideas deemed TERFish to the march.
I would bet that saying 'trans women aren't women' is pretty much fringe in the LGBTQ community. Trying to separate the unreasonable arguments from ones that are common sense is a matter of discussion, albeit difficult discussion. If you are energized to do so, then you can help with that discussion.
Quote
The first argument always seems to be that "the cotton ceiling" stuff isn't really happening or that it's just fringe. So the women reporting experiencing this kind of harassment from trans-women are making it up?
"Fringe" doesn't mean non-existent. It means it's exceptional and not a basis for forming the mainstream of opinion. I'm old enough to remember when child molestation was put forward as a reason to not afford gay rights. Trump can find you an example of a Mexican who murdered a blonde woman and hold that up as a reason to build a $20B wall.
Quote
These people believe that"trans women are women", they believe that lesbians who reject them because of their anatomy are TERFs, and they believe that TERFs are a hate-group who deserve retribution. So connect the dots. There isn't reasonable accommodation to be had while these 3 beliefs remain at the forefront of the trans movement.
The alternative is separation and culture war. Take your pick I guess.
Post by: ?Impact on April 02, 2019, 03:31:15 pm
"Fringe" doesn't mean non-existent. It means it's exceptional and not a basis for forming the mainstream of opinion.
Not sure what the dividing line between mainstream/fringe/exceptional is. Total LGBT population seems to vary between 2-5% in western nations depending on the "liberalism" of the area you are in. For example it is around 5% in New York and California, but only half that in Idaho and North Dakota. Is that mainstream, fringe, or exceptional?
Why does it vary by geography? Is it under reported in certain areas, or do people migrate to more liberal areas?
Transsexual population estimates are around 0.5%, which equates to around 10% of LGBT population.
Post by: kimmy on April 03, 2019, 04:30:04 am
Horseshit. The arguments I read are like this:
- they are taking our jobs
- they are going to kill us
Which end in general agreement with those points. The 'good' arguments against immigration are few and far between. Argus posted the best ones in a single article+follow-up from the Fraser Institute but business-friendly folks aren't really big on cutting immigration either.
I think there's much better arguments to be made, but those threads never get very far without degenerating into accusations of racism. But this isn't an immigration thread, and the main point was that these kind of accusations are often used to stifle discussion.
So then... those are bad arguments, according to you right ? There are people arguing much worse things, and quite boldly.
They aren't arguments at all, they're attempts to silence.
If the statement is "trans women are ugly and gross" then "that's transphobic" is an appropriate response.
But "that's transphobic!" isn't a reasonable response to the kinds of issues raised in the survey, and "that's transphobic!" is just an attempt to make people shut up about their concerns.
I would bet that saying 'trans women aren't women' is pretty much fringe in the LGBTQ community. Trying to separate the unreasonable arguments from ones that are common sense is a matter of discussion, albeit difficult discussion. If you are energized to do so, then you can help with that discussion.
"Fringe" doesn't mean non-existent. It means it's exceptional and not a basis for forming the mainstream of opinion. I'm old enough to remember when child molestation was put forward as a reason to not afford gay rights. Trump can find you an example of a Mexican who murdered a blonde woman and hold that up as a reason to build a $20B wall.
So how do you define mainstream? Does something only become mainstream when it gets an article in the Times or when your friends are posting about it on Facebook?
I think that if this is what lesbians are experiencing when they go to LGBT spaces, then that's "mainstream". That's the reality on the ground, whether the Times writes an article about it or not (they won't) or whether your friends are talking about it (they won't.) Your friends and the mainstream media probably haven't even heard of "the cotton ceiling" because they'd rather focus on the sunny side of the trans movement. But the less than sunny side is there whether the movement's brochures talk about it or not.
The alternative is separation and culture war. Take your pick I guess.
The culture war is over, we lost, and many lesbians are now looking at separation. A few loudly-- TERFs and "Get The L Out"... but for most, very quietly. Staying home. Opting out of lesbian groups that have turned into sausagefests. Forming their own "underground" groups. Being less "out". Basically, going back to the 1950s.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 03, 2019, 07:39:42 am
1. Not sure what the dividing line between mainstream/fringe/exceptional is.1. It's pretty tough to define an exact line. I would say 'misgendering trans women' and 'calling Lesbians who don't date trans women bigoted' are fringe though.
2. Is that mainstream, fringe, or exceptional?
3. Why does it vary by geography? Is it under reported in certain areas, or do people migrate to more liberal areas?
2. I don't consider your orientation, or race in the 'fringe' question. You deserve rights if you are 1 in a million of an identified group.
3. They do of course, but it is beside the point of what we're discussing.
Post by: ?Impact on April 03, 2019, 12:43:44 pm
'calling Lesbians who don't date trans women bigoted' are fringe though.
Yes, that one I never understood. I guess however because I don't date men I am bigoted.
Post by: wilber on April 03, 2019, 07:43:23 pm
The culture war is over, we lost, and many lesbians are now looking at separation. A few loudly-- TERFs and "Get The L Out"... but for most, very quietly. Staying home. Opting out of lesbian groups that have turned into sausagefests. Forming their own "underground" groups. Being less "out". Basically, going back to the 1950s.
-k
Wow, lesbians going back into the closet because of militant transgenders and their cheerleaders. It’s a **** up world out there.
Post by: TimG on April 03, 2019, 07:57:42 pm
2. I don't consider your orientation, or race in the 'fringe' question. You deserve rights if you are 1 in a million of an identified group.People have no right to demand that other people think the way you want to them to think. Telling people that they must believe a falsehood (a man can become a woman) to be true is grossly infringing on the freedom of conscious of other people.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 03, 2019, 08:15:21 pm
People have no right to demand that other people think the way you want to them to think. Telling people that they must believe a falsehood (a man can become a woman) to be true is grossly infringing on the freedom of conscious of other people.
Completely beside the point. I said that people have rights - because someone misunderstood a discussion about "fringe beliefs" and now you're pushing it over to presume what I meant by "rights".
A different argument. You're rattling the cage doors to start an argument that isn't here.
Post by: kimmy on April 04, 2019, 01:02:39 am
Yes, that one I never understood. I guess however because I don't date men I am bigoted.
You just need to reexamine your prejudices! Popular trans-lesbian Youtuber Riley J **** explains it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5GYlZKfBmI
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 04, 2019, 01:17:35 am
People have no right to demand that other people think the way you want to them to think. Telling people that they must believe a falsehood (a man can become a woman) to be true is grossly infringing on the freedom of conscious of other people.
Michael and I were discussing whether this "genital preferences" rhetoric emanating from parts of the trans community is fringe or mainstream within that community. Michael suspects it's a fringe idea, while based on the previously posted survey plus a lot of anecdotes I've read online, I think it's more widespread.
There's no Pope for that community that can lay out an official party line, and it's not like there's a census we can look at. And it depends what parts of that community you interact with. If Michael's trans acquaintances are long-time Gay Village trans people, they probably have different views from the new trans community who are active on Twitter and Tumblr and Reddit.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 04, 2019, 07:06:25 am
Michael and I were discussing whether this "genital preferences" rhetoric emanating from parts of the trans community is fringe or mainstream within that community. Michael suspects it's a fringe idea, while based on the previously posted survey plus a lot of anecdotes I've read online, I think it's more widespread.
Good summary. I think it's important that people understand *I* think it's ridiculous.
The phenomenon used by fringe groups to infiltrate, blend in, and change the agenda is happening across politics online. It was arguably the strategy used to elect the president so you can't say it's not successful.
Quote
There's no Pope for that community that can lay out an official party line, and it's not like there's a census we can look at. And it depends what parts of that community you interact with. If Michael's trans acquaintances are long-time Gay Village trans people, they probably have different views from the new trans community who are active on Twitter and Tumblr and Reddit.
My friends are young trans people - probably under 30. Their online posts regarding trans are mostly about asking for tolerance and to not be assaulted.
The idea that trans people should be accepted was once a fringe idea that has survived and thrived in the marketplace of ideas and that's where we are today.
Post by: ?Impact on April 05, 2019, 03:22:11 pm
You just need to reexamine your prejudices! Popular trans-lesbian Youtuber Riley J **** explains it:
Does anyone have a spreadsheet to help me understand that video?
I don't think people with a pronounced Adam's apple face societal marginalization, but I am not sexually attracted to them.
Post by: kimmy on April 07, 2019, 11:48:51 am
Does anyone have a spreadsheet to help me understand that video?
Listening to Riley's voice is a cruel form of torture. I'll make a good-faith attempt to present Riley's ideas, even though I strongly disagree.
Riley contends that characteristics that people find attractive in a partner are shaped by social factors. The prevailing idea of what makes a woman sexually attractive changes with time and place. What's attractive in Vancouver in 2019 might not fit the idea of what's attractive in Tokyo in 2019 or Kinshasa in 2019 or London in 1743 or so on. It's informed by cultural influences.
Most women don't fit the ideal. Many have extra pounds or don't fit the idealized shape. Some might not have the skin tone that's presented as the beauty standard. Someone might be disabled. Someone might have Bell's Palsy or some sort of visible deformity. Someone might have had a mastectomy. So Riley positions having male genitals as being just another example of how a woman might not fit in with conventional beauty standards. Riley asks the viewer to consider that being unwilling to date someone with a **** is really no different from being unwilling to date someone who is fat, or black, or disabled.
You might respond "waiiiittt, somebody who had a mastectomy is still a woman, but somebody with a **** isn't." But remember, the trans community is dogmatic on this point: a trans woman is a woman, end of discussion.
I don't think people with a pronounced Adam's apple face societal marginalization, but I am not sexually attracted to them.
I know. I feel that this notion is terribly disconnected from reality. The idea of pansexuality seems to be a fad right now, something people profess as a way of sounding woke or spiritual. "I'm like, totally beyond the physical plane, you know? I connect on a spiritual level, man." Sophie Turner and Amber Heard and some other female celebrities have said in interviews that they're attracted to souls, not bodies. And yet it seems like the souls they're attracted to invariably inhabit conventionally attractive male bodies.
-k
Post by: TimG on April 09, 2019, 02:27:29 pm
https://quillette.com/2019/04/05/sex-differences-gender-and-competitive-sport/
Quote
These results alone should give a solid rationale for why there should be separate sex categories in sport, to allow for fair competition. Confirming this is the fact that within male competition, the world’s best performances by different individuals often fall within 1 percent of each other, sometimes even within 0.1 percent. The same is true of female competition. These results are also mirrored across other sports, such as within cycling and swimming. This clearly demonstrates that there is not a continuum of performance results between the biological sexes, rather the results are bimodal, and the average female and the average male differ substantially. To be clear, this is not a moral argument, or an attempt to justify any one individual being treated differently to another, it is simply a review of the empirical evidence and a rationale for why the different categories exist.
Post by: ?Impact on April 09, 2019, 02:31:28 pm
Excellent article that looks at the data and shows that the sports achievement is dictated by biology not delusional thinking about what ones gender is:
Male physiology yields larger leg muscles.
Post by: TimG on April 09, 2019, 03:02:50 pm
Male physiology yields larger leg muscles.Not just that. There are times when biology matters but we, as a society, are doing a rotten job of identifying those places when division based on biology is appropriate and when it is not.
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2019, 03:00:35 pm
There are times when biology matters but we, as a society, are doing a rotten job of identifying those places when division based on biology is appropriate and when it is not.
The average adult male brain weighs 1,345 grams, and the average adult female brain weights 1,222 grams. According to that fact, women should be paid on average 91% of what men are paid for cerebral occupations. I am not sure what metric should be used for blue collar jobs.
Post by: TimG on April 20, 2019, 03:15:32 pm
The average adult male brain weighs 1,345 grams, and the average adult female brain weights 1,222 grams. According to that fact, women should be paid on average 91% of what men are paid for cerebral occupations. I am not sure what metric should be used for blue collar jobs.What a moronic response. There is no established correlation between brain size and cognitive ability in humans. They is plenty of science that demonstrates a correlation between muscle mass and athletic performance. But guess I shouldn't be surprised. You scream about science only when it supports your ideology. When it doesn't you willfully ignore it.
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2019, 03:17:16 pm
What a moronic response.
Triggered
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2019, 03:56:04 pm
What a moronic response. There is no established correlation between brain size and cognitive ability in humans. They is plenty of science that demonstrates a correlation between muscle mass and athletic performance. But guess I shouldn't be surprised. You scream about science only when it supports your ideology. When it doesn't you willfully ignore it.
Says he who willfully ignores the scientific evidence of global warming.
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2019, 05:24:17 pm
The average adult male brain weighs 1,345 grams, and the average adult female brain weights 1,222 grams. According to that fact, women should be paid on average 91% of what men are paid for cerebral occupations. I am not sure what metric should be used for blue collar jobs.It’s not how much someone has it’s how much they use.and how they use it.
Post by: wilber on April 20, 2019, 05:42:45 pm
Post by: kimmy on April 21, 2019, 12:36:30 pm
The average adult male brain weighs 1,345 grams, and the average adult female brain weights 1,222 grams. According to that fact, women should be paid on average 91% of what men are paid for cerebral occupations. I am not sure what metric should be used for blue collar jobs.
Not sure what you're trying to illustrate here. I feel like you're trying to make a point, but whatever it is eludes me.
-k
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2019, 01:35:18 pm
Not sure what you're trying to illustrate here. I feel like you're trying to make a point, but whatever it is eludes me.
The point is simple. All gender based division arguments are dumb, dumber, and dumbest.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 23, 2019, 01:50:54 pm
The point is simple. All gender based division arguments are dumb, dumber, and dumbest.
How would your comment relate to combat sports, or other physical sports?
Post by: TimG on April 23, 2019, 02:05:45 pm
The point is simple. All gender based division arguments are dumb, dumber, and dumbest.So from your throne of misogyny you have decided that woman should not be allowed to have separate sports events no matter what the impact on biological women?
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2019, 03:42:18 pm
So from your throne of misogyny you have decided that woman should not be allowed to have separate sports events no matter what the impact on biological women?
Gender should not be the basis for segregation.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 23, 2019, 04:18:34 pm
Gender should not be the basis for segregation.
No answer to my simple question?
Post by: TimG on April 23, 2019, 04:25:46 pm
Gender should not be the basis for segregation.Right. So when given a choice between the well being of a millions of woman and girls that benefit from participation in sport where they have a reasonable chance to excel and the desires of a small number for delusional men who believe they are women you choose to side with the delusional men. Good to know. I can see why some women see this issue as the patriarchy reasserting itself to put women "in their place".
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2019, 04:26:25 pm
No answer to my simple question?
Same answer - gender should not be the basis for segregation.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 23, 2019, 05:40:54 pm
Same answer - gender should not be the basis for segregation.
men should fight women in MMA?
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2019, 05:46:32 pm
men should fight women in MMA?
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Why?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 23, 2019, 06:45:59 pm
Why?
You can't be this stupid. I will chalk it up to playing "devil's advocate" for **** and giggles.
Post by: TimG on April 23, 2019, 08:54:45 pm
You can't be this stupid. I will chalk it up to playing "devil's advocate" for **** and giggles.He may think he is parodying absolutist position on rights from other contexts but it is really apples and oranges because the argument to allow women to form their own sports leagues and set the criteria for participation comes from their fundamental right of freedom of association. When fundamental rights come into conflict an absolutist position is never tenable. In this case, the biological facts are sufficient to support the argument that women's freedom of association right supersedes any other rights that may be in conflict.
Post by: wilber on April 23, 2019, 08:58:59 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 23, 2019, 09:05:16 pm
Men and women compete on even terms in equestrian events but I don't know of other sports.
Auto racing.
Post by: Omni on April 23, 2019, 09:07:48 pm
Auto racing.
Here we go calling auto racing a "sport" again.
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2019, 12:28:33 am
Here we go calling auto racing a "sport" again.
Sure is. F1 cars pull 5g braking 2g accelerating and up to 6g cornering, multiple times a lap for up to two hours at a time. During that whole time their heart rates will be between 170 and 180 bpm. All the time being able to put the a car inches from a wall and other cars at 200 mph in temperatures that will have them losing nearly 4 kilos during a race. Those guys are in unbelievable shape. Jenson Button did triathlons against elite athletes in the off season.
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2019, 12:50:47 am
Sure is. F1 cars pull 5g braking 2g accelerating and up to 6g cornering, multiple times a lap for up to two hours at a time. During that whole time their heart rates will be between 170 and 180 bpm. All the time being able to put the a car inches from a wall and other cars at 200 mph in temperatures that will have them losing nearly 4 kilos during a race. Those guys are in unbelievable shape. Jenson Button did triathlons against elite athletes in the off season.
I guess it's whatever blows your hair back. Sitting in a car shifting gears making lots of noise and stink and going around in circles for 2 hours doesn't do it for me.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 24, 2019, 01:20:44 am
men should fight women in MMA?
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=remsCdsLLJM
It's already happened.
Post by: kimmy on April 24, 2019, 03:14:21 am
...Not just that. There are times when biology matters but we, as a society, are doing a rotten job of identifying those places when division based on biology is appropriate and when it is not.The average adult male brain weighs 1,345 grams, and the average adult female brain weights 1,222 grams. According to that fact, women should be paid on average 91% of what men are paid for cerebral occupations. I am not sure what metric should be used for blue collar jobs.
The point is simple. All gender based division arguments are dumb, dumber, and dumbest.
Tim was talking about biology, but gender in the sense it's being used by transgender activists isn't based on biology.
Are you talking about "gender based division", or do you actually mean "sex based division"?
-k
Post by: wilber on April 24, 2019, 09:47:49 am
I guess it's whatever blows your hair back. Sitting in a car shifting gears making lots of noise and stink and going around in circles for 2 hours doesn't do it for me.
Just because you don’t like a sport doesn’t mean the people doing it aren’t athletes.
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2019, 02:44:03 pm
You can't be this stupid. I will chalk it up to playing "devil's advocate" for **** and giggles.
No, I am getting at the root cause. Gender is not the root cause. What are the specific reasons you want to segregate people in a specific sport?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 24, 2019, 03:17:23 pm
No, I am getting at the root cause. Gender is not the root cause. What are the specific reasons you want to segregate people in a specific sport?
I think fairness is the main issue, and in some sports also safety.
Post by: TimG on April 24, 2019, 03:25:02 pm
What are the specific reasons you want to segregate people in a specific sport?Because the people organizing the sports event want to. No more justification is required because of a right called 'freedom of association'.
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2019, 03:36:43 pm
Because the people organizing the sports event want to. No more justification is required because of a right called 'freedom of association'.
You mean like the white mans baseball league?
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2019, 03:41:04 pm
I think fairness is the main issue, and in some sports also safety.
Safety is achieved through rules and protective equipment
Fairness is a different issue. Is the goal of a competitive sport not to find the "best"? Yes, there may be weight classes, progression ladders, etc. used to ensure that a rank amateur isn't matched with a champion and allow them to develop. Why does gender have any significant role in the competition, why not eye color?
Post by: TimG on April 24, 2019, 03:43:25 pm
You mean like the white mans baseball league?They already have aboriginal only (http://naigcouncil.com/) sports events. Why would a white man only sports league be a problem?
Keep in mind lots of sports leagues have arbitrary rules based on residence or group affiliation. i.e. you can't participate in a BC sports league if you don't live in BC.
The real question is why do you think women are the only people who should be denied their freedom of association right?
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2019, 03:51:45 pm
They already have aboriginal only (http://naigcouncil.com/) sports events. Why would a white man only sports league be a problem?
Keep in mind lots of sports leagues have arbitrary rules based on residence or group affiliation. i.e. you can't participate in a BC sports league if you don't live in BC.
You are confusing funding with association.
Post by: cybercoma on April 24, 2019, 03:57:22 pm
They already have aboriginal only (http://naigcouncil.com/) sports events. Why would a white man only sports league be a problem?Your link doesn't show that it's only indigenous people competing. Do you have a link to one of their policy documents that says they check your indigenous status? Also, what if you're not a Status Indian, but living off reserve? How do they verify your ancestry? All you've shown is that there's an indigenous games of some sort, nothing about the qualifications for entry to them.
Keep in mind lots of sports leagues have arbitrary rules based on residence or group affiliation. i.e. you can't participate in a BC sports league if you don't live in BC.
The real question is why do you think women are the only people who should be denied their freedom of association right?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 24, 2019, 05:34:40 pm
Your link doesn't show that it's only indigenous people competing. Do you have a link to one of their policy documents that says they check your indigenous status? Also, what if you're not a Status Indian, but living off reserve? How do they verify your ancestry? All you've shown is that there's an indigenous games of some sort, nothing about the qualifications for entry to them.
http://naigcouncil.com/docs/2017%20NAIG%20Governing%20Rules.pdf
Quote
3.1. Indigenous Ancestry
All athletes competing in the NAIG must be of Canadian and/or American Indigenous
ancestry. All participants must provide proof of ancestry. The following items will be
accepted as proof of ancestry:
Canada: Status Card, Treaty Card, Inuit and Inuvialuit identification, or Provincial Métis Card
United States:Tribal Identification Card or Certificate of Indian Blood
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 24, 2019, 05:36:48 pm
Quote
Why does gender have any significant role in the competition...
Why does this have to be explained 87 different times? Men have biological physical advantages over women that would make it an unfair competition for a man to pound a woman's face into the mat in an MMA competition... it's really not that difficult to comprehend.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 24, 2019, 05:37:49 pm
Fairness is a different issue. Is the goal of a competitive sport not to find the "best"? Yes, there may be weight classes, progression ladders, etc. used to ensure that a rank amateur isn't matched with a champion and allow them to develop. Why does gender have any significant role in the competition, why not eye color?
Gender has nothing to do with it, men & women are separated in sports by biological sex. Eye colour does not affect performance. Gender expression does not affect performance, but biological sex does, in a very significant way.
I support trans people expressing themselves however they want, but i'm not going to pretend trans women are exactly the same as biological women in all aspects when science is very clear that they aren't. It's just not fair for trans women, who were exposed to far more testosterone in the womb and during puberty etc to be competing in sports against biological women. It's a joke, and any trans woman who would take any pride from beating biological women is either delusional or a fool. Someone like Caitlyn Jenner in her athletic prime would turn women's sports into a joke, she would crush so many women's Olympic records that they would be unreachable for any biological women to ever match.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 24, 2019, 05:40:03 pm
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2019, 05:56:35 pm
Gender has nothing to do with it, men & women are separated in sports by biological sex. Eye colour does not affect performance. Gender expression does not affect performance, but biological sex does, in a very significant way.
Many biological differences affect performance in sport. Why are most successful basketball players above average in height? That doesn't mean there are not exceptions, but there is certainly a strong link. Should there be a short people basketball league? Height is not 100% biological, but there is a very strong component that is.
That is why I think the base characteristic for the individual sport are more relevant than gender, and things like weight class or performance ladders are far better in matching people.
Post by: TimG on April 24, 2019, 06:39:12 pm
You are confusing funding with association.It makes no difference if funding is used to explain the criteria for exclusion. The right to exclude whoever the organizers want comes from the right to freedom of association. The Indigenous Games are a case in point. If you are really arguing from principle to justify the demand that women sports organizations accept delusional men then you also have to demand that the Indigenous Games accept any non-indigenous competitor. I am sure that would go over well with the organizers of the Indigenous Games.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 24, 2019, 07:26:14 pm
That is why I think the base characteristic for the individual sport are more relevant than gender, and things like weight class or performance ladders are far better in matching people.
What is the base physical characteristic for tennis? Baseball? Sprinting? Long-distance running? Skiing events? Figure skating?
The fastest the Williams' sisters could serve a tennis ball is 207 km/h, while the fastest men reach over 250 km/h. We can't find a woman who can throw a baseball 95 mph or hit a ball 440ft.
If performance ladders were used women would be towards the bottom rungs. I can't think of any characteristic that influences athletic performance more than biological sex.
Post by: ?Impact on April 24, 2019, 07:44:10 pm
It makes no difference if funding is used to explain the criteria for exclusion.
Sure, I will join you and your friends on that ice time you rented but I refuse to pay because funding is irrelevant.
I have no idea what the issue behind the indigenous games are. If it is funding it is one thing, if it is racial then I am against it.
Post by: kimmy on April 24, 2019, 08:24:21 pm
What is the base physical characteristic for tennis? Baseball? Sprinting? Long-distance running? Skiing events? Figure skating?
The fastest the Williams' sisters could serve a tennis ball is 207 km/h, while the fastest men reach over 250 km/h. We can't find a woman who can throw a baseball 95 mph or hit a ball 440ft.
If performance ladders were used women would be towards the bottom rungs. I can't think of any characteristic that influences athletic performance more than biological sex.
Exactly so. If sex-based divisions are erased and replaced with a "performance ladder" idea, it will quickly become apparent that the elite rungs on the "performance ladder" are all occupied by men. Women would be relegated to junior-level, unimportant competition. People like Serena Williams who are role models for girls because they're the best women in their sport would become unimportant because they're the 200th or 400th best people in their sport. The overall message to girls will be that the elite levels of sport are for men. We'd be back in the 1950s again. **** that ****.
-k
Post by: TimG on April 24, 2019, 10:36:50 pm
I have no idea what the issue behind the indigenous games are. If it is funding it is one thing, if it is racial then I am against it.Why should funding make any difference? I suspect a big chunk of the funding for indigenous games comes from taxpayers who are not allowed to participate. However, the indigenous games are just one of thousands of sports organizations with restrictive participation criteria that may or may not be connected to funding.
For example, there are woman's sports leagues that are self funded or funded with donations from people who are donating specifically because it gives women a place to compete and excel. Does that funding count as an acceptable basis for exclusion? It is really no different from government for funding sports leagues for its residents.
IOW, the distinction you make is nonsensical. The freedom to associate with who you choose is fundamental:
Quote
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:You have yet to provide any argument for why this fundamental freedom should be taken away from women.
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Post by: cybercoma on April 25, 2019, 03:22:10 pm
http://naigcouncil.com/docs/2017%20NAIG%20Governing%20Rules.pdfWell, I certainly feel bad for the white athletes who have fewer opportunities to compete now. /s
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 25, 2019, 06:09:20 pm
Well, I certainly feel bad for the white athletes who have fewer opportunities to compete now. /s
I don't understand... why did you ask about it?
Post by: TimG on April 25, 2019, 06:19:01 pm
Well, I certainly feel bad for the white athletes who have fewer opportunities to compete now. /sWell it is good to see that you seem to understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with a privately organized sports event using discriminatory criteria to determine who is eligible to participate. The question then becomes: why do you extend that courtesy to aboriginals but not women? Why should women be denied the rights that aboriginals can exercise without a complaint from you?
Post by: kimmy on April 27, 2019, 11:59:03 am
I'm curious which part of my previous message you disagree with, Impact.
Do you disagree with the idea that women would be relegated to the lower echelons of the "performance ladder", or do you disagree with the idea that the lower tiers of the performance ladder would be an afterthought in terms of recognition, funding, opportunity for scholarships and travel, and that sort of thing?
I think both outcomes would be an inevitable result of your idea.
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 27, 2019, 12:56:29 pm
A bunch of people answer that question and wind up looking like a bunch of tools. Spoiler: it's because they don't conform to binary gender stereotypes.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-you-know-you-were-agender
I have never heard a "non-binary" person or an "agender" person (I didn't even know that was a thing before) describe their gender identity except in relation to gender stereotypes.
But gender isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. Everybody is non-binary. Identifying with some "male" interests and other "female" interests is extremely commonplace. Gender non-conforming individuals have been around for a long time, probably for as long as gender roles have existed. There's nothing new about tomboys or effeminate men or women who present themselves in an androgynous way. The only thing that's new here is people deciding to invent pronouns and labels to describe this very commonplace experience.
-k
Post by: ?Impact on April 27, 2019, 03:48:49 pm
I'm curious which part of my previous message you disagree with, Impact.
You use Serena Williams as an example, what about Billy Jean King? More important however is what sport, and what are the rules. Even more important is the idiotic notion of idol worship that infests our society.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 27, 2019, 04:19:56 pm
You use Serena Williams as an example, what about Billy Jean King? More important however is what sport, and what are the rules. Even more important is the idiotic notion of idol worship that infests our society.
You never answered Kimmy’s question.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 27, 2019, 04:24:30 pm
I have never heard a "non-binary" person or an "agender" person (I didn't even know that was a thing before) describe their gender identity except in relation to gender stereotypes.
But isn't that like transgender folks liking to wear makeup or dress like a tomboy ? Isn't agender just not liking any of those things ?
Post by: kimmy on April 27, 2019, 05:01:36 pm
You use Serena Williams as an example, what about Billy Jean King?
You think women could compete with the elite in men's tennis because Billie Jean King beat a 55 year old man in an exhibition match 50 years ago?
More important however is what sport, and what are the rules.
There aren't many sports where women could compete on an equal basis.
Even more important is the idiotic notion of idol worship that infests our society.
Your plan doesn't do anything about idol worship, it just makes sure that the idols will all be male, at least in the world of sports.
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 27, 2019, 05:16:27 pm
But isn't that like transgender folks liking to wear makeup or dress like a tomboy ? Isn't agender just not liking any of those things ?
I think it's stupid that girls who identify with traditionally male stereotypes rather than traditionally female stereotypes are now starting to identify themselves as male because of reasons.
I think it's equally stupid that people who don't identify with traditional gender stereotypes are calling themselves non-binary or agender or whatever, and inventing new pronouns for themselves to announce, essentially "I'm not like other girls".
"I don't like dresses and I ride a motorcycle and play sports, so I'm not a girl, but I'm also not a boy. Please refer to me by pronouns ze/zir." It's moronic. The same people who'd say "there's no right way to be a woman" are also telling us "people who don't identify with this traditional stereotype of womanhood aren't women". Feminists have been fighting against stereotypes about how women should act, what they should do, and so on, for many decades... and now the gender culture crew come along and campaign for a new concept of gender identity based around, basically, the exact thing women have been fighting. It's rage inducing.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 27, 2019, 06:02:25 pm
1. I think it's stupid that girls who identify with traditionally male stereotypes rather than traditionally female stereotypes are now starting to identify themselves as male because of reasons. I think it's equally stupid that people who don't identify with traditional gender stereotypes are calling themselves non-binary or agender or whatever, and inventing new pronouns for themselves to announce, essentially "I'm not like other girls".
2. "I don't like dresses and I ride a motorcycle and play sports, so I'm not a girl, but I'm also not a boy. Please refer to me by pronouns ze/zir." It's moronic. The same people who'd say "there's no right way to be a woman" are also telling us "people who don't identify with this traditional stereotype of womanhood aren't women". Feminists have been fighting against stereotypes about how women should act, what they should do, and so on, for many decades... and now the gender culture crew come along and campaign for a new concept of gender identity based around, basically, the exact thing women have been fighting. It's rage inducing.
1. Well, that's frank. I don't think there's any way to convince you that they're sincere though.
2. Feminists didn't tell people they weren't allowed to wear makeup etc. just that nobody should tell you you had to.
Post by: kimmy on April 28, 2019, 08:55:01 pm
1. Well, that's frank. I don't think there's any way to convince you that they're sincere though.
I don't doubt that they're sincere, I just think that whatever it is that they're sincere about is completely inane.
2. Feminists didn't tell people they weren't allowed to wear makeup etc. just that nobody should tell you you had to.
Feminists: "women don't need to inhabit traditional female roles."
Gender-special non-binary unicorn: "I'm not a woman because I can't identify with traditional female roles."
like... whaaa? It's like they want an antiquated notion of womanhood reinstated so that they can rebel against it.
-k
Post by: wilber on April 28, 2019, 09:28:09 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 29, 2019, 06:32:05 am
1. I don't doubt that they're sincere, I just think that whatever it is that they're sincere about is completely inane.1. Maybe like how I think comic book movies and GoT is inane ? Try being me this week. :D Still, I want to let people do their 'thing'
2. Feminists: "women don't need to inhabit traditional female roles." Gender-special non-binary unicorn: "I'm not a woman because I can't identify with traditional female roles."
like... whaaa? It's like they want an antiquated notion of womanhood reinstated so that they can rebel against it.
2. I don't think non-binary people feel that way because they don't "identify with roles". The ones I have known feel that there is an entirely different gender embedded in their brains. It's not about "I can be a police officer if I want even though I'm a woman" ... more like it's about "I don't like having boobs"
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 07:30:33 am
1. Maybe like how I think comic book movies and GoT is inane ? Try being me this week. :D Still, I want to let people do their 'thing'Except no one will lose their jobs or face criminal prosecution for saying bad things about comic book movies or or GoT. The problem with trans is not them "doing their thing" but their insistence that everyone else must pander to their delusions.
2. I don't think non-binary people feel that way because they don't "identify with roles". The ones I have known feel that there is an entirely different gender embedded in their brains. It's not about "I can be a police officer if I want even though I'm a woman" ... more like it's about "I don't like having boobs"Lots of people have body image issues. Sometimes these issues are pathological and recognized as a mental illness. But only trans activists think that is it OK to tell kids with body image issues that self mutilation and hormone doping are an appropriate way to deal with the body image issues. Doctors and psychologists that enable this nonsense would be charged with child abuse in any other context. But we are supposed to simply shut up while this children are abused because of trans activists. It is disgusting.
Post by: cybercoma on April 29, 2019, 08:40:28 am
Well it is good to see that you seem to understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with a privately organized sports event using discriminatory criteria to determine who is eligible to participate. The question then becomes: why do you extend that courtesy to aboriginals but not women? Why should women be denied the rights that aboriginals can exercise without a complaint from you?What makes you think I'm denying women that at all? That's your assumption. Not something I said.
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 08:45:17 am
What makes you think I'm denying women that at all? That's your assumption. Not something I said.You started by challenging my claim that the indigenous games has discriminatory participation criteria. Squid provided the quote to support that claim. You responded with some sarcastic response that had nothing to do with the prior points. The sarcasm clearly implied you have no problems with the indigenous games has discriminatory participation criteria.You have also stated previously that you thing that women should be forced to accept men pretending to be women into women's sports. Now if you want you reverse your past claims on women's sport please do. If not please explain your hypocrisy.
Post by: cybercoma on April 29, 2019, 08:45:35 am
Gender-special non-binary unicorn: "I'm not a woman because I can't identify with traditional female roles."No, it's like society has an expectation of the "right" or "proper" way for a woman to present themselves and actually sanctions against any deviation from those social norms by stigmatizing and isolating individuals who don't present themselves in that way. You've spoken at length about how retail clerks treat you like a dumb blonde. I'm sure in your group of friends you've seen how "butch" lesbians are treated by the broader public. So I really don't get how you're acting surprised like traditional gender roles don't have any effect on the way people interact with each other (which is the key aspect of forming an individual identity).
like... whaaa? It's like they want an antiquated notion of womanhood reinstated so that they can rebel against it.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 29, 2019, 08:49:44 am
Except no one will lose their jobs or face criminal prosecution for saying bad things about comic book movies or or GoT.
Thanks Tim. Let's hope it stays that way.
Quote
The problem with trans is not them "doing their thing" but their insistence that everyone else must pander to their delusions.
And yet here's a post where you deny them doing their thing.
Of course you will always free to insult others, don't worry.
Post by: cybercoma on April 29, 2019, 08:49:55 am
You started by challenging my claim that the indigenous games has discriminatory participation criteria.I didn't "challenge" anything. I asked for the section in the rules and you provided it. You're the one making an argument that it somehow limits white athletes. The notion that white athletes are limited in any way is laughable.
Meanwhile, you guys are trying to navigate a discussion about how transgender athletes can compete fairly. Amidst all your concern about female athletes, you haven't taken half a second to question how and why transgender athletes face obstacles to fair competition nor have you suggested any way to overcome them.
It's pretty easy to tear down ideas. Bring something constructive to the conversation and offer some way to overcome the boundaries for trans athletes, then I'll think you're sincere. Until then, your comments just come off as additions to your history of bashing trans people with some insincere nonsense about fairness to women athletes.
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 09:04:32 am
And yet here's a post where you deny them doing their thing.Where? I am simply asserting my own freedom of conscious which means no one can force me to believe things which I feel are not true. This freedom of conscious extends to freedom from compelled speech which means the state has no business telling me how to define the meaning of the word "women". Anyone who seeks to take those freedoms away from me is not just "doing their thing". They are trying to take away my rights.
That said, academic arguments are not a reason to be rude or inconsiderate when dealing with individuals one on one. There are places for political debate and places and times where such discussions should be avoided and opinions kept to oneself.
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 09:12:46 am
I didn't "challenge" anything. I asked for the section in the rules and you provided it. You're the one making an argument that it somehow limits white athletes. The notion that white athletes are limited in any way is laughable.Once again you make up BS that nothing to do with the points I made. If you had actually read the thread you would have seen that I was arguing that the right to freedom of association means that anyone has the right to organize a sports league that uses discriminatory criteria to determine who can participate. I used the indigenous games as an example when impact pulled out the 'white man baseball league" boogyman as a counter argument. My original point has not been refuted. If a group wants to organize a sports league that explicitly excludes trans then they are entitled to do so just like indigenous people are entitled to organize a sports event that excludes non-aboriginals.
i.e. women have zero obligation to accommodate trans in their sports leagues.
It's pretty easy to tear down ideas. Bring something constructive to the conversation and offer some way to overcome the boundaries for trans athletes, then I'll think you're sincere.No one is entitled to participate in a sports event. Trans people always have the option of competing in the event that matches their biological sex. If they are not good enough then why should we care?
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 12:35:57 pm
only trans activists think that is it OK to tell kids with body image issues that self mutilation and hormone doping are an appropriate way to deal with the body image issues
Lets lump everyone into the same boat, because that is what we do.
I hope you daughter doesn't get her ears pierced at age 13 and you son a tattoo at age 17, because that is self mutilation for body image issues
Post by: wilber on April 29, 2019, 12:54:58 pm
I hope you daughter doesn't get her ears pierced at age 13 and you son a tattoo at age 17, because that is self mutilation for body image issues
Doing so doesn't entitle them to anything other that what they were entitled to do before.
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 01:15:50 pm
Lets lump everyone into the same boat, because that is what we do.Nothing in what I said implied all trans activists are like that. I simply explained where I feel trans activists are doing harmful things that should not be tolerated by a society that cares about the health and well being of children.
I hope you daughter doesn't get her ears pierced at age 13 and you son a tattoo at age 17, because that is self mutilation for body image issuesYou can't seriously think those are equivalent to breast/**** removal.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 29, 2019, 01:17:45 pm
Where? I am simply asserting my own freedom of conscious which means no one can force me to believe things which I feel are not true.
Firstly it's 'conscience'.
Secondly how can you be a reliable commenter when you say their rights being denied isn't a problem when you do that very thing?
I just want people to PRETEND to be respectful.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 01:35:57 pm
You use Serena Williams as an example, what about Billy Jean King? More important however is what sport, and what are the rules. Even more important is the idiotic notion of idol worship that infests our society.
If the sexes ware not segregated for swimming sports, biological women would never win a single medal.
In the 2016 Olympics, the gold medal winning woman set a new Olympic record in the 100m freestyle. She would have ranked #54 in the men’s event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_–_Men%27s_100_metre_freestyle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_–_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle
I do not understand why some people want to relegate women to non-factors in sports for the sake of political correctness. Allowing a biological male to compete in women’s swimming would relegate biological women to non-factors if the biological male could be in the top 50 of male sports. Getting rid of sex as a segregator would eliminate all biological women from the sport.
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 01:40:25 pm
If the sexes ware not segregated for swimming sports, biological women would never win a single medal.
We have the idol worship culture that is based on meaningless trivia. If you want to promote the best in the sport, then promote those who achieve the greatest growth. That is about 100 times more meaningful than a millisecond.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 01:52:15 pm
We have the idol worship culture that is based on meaningless trivia.
I don’t know what idol worship has to do with the 100m freestyle. Most people could probably only name 1 of the hundreds of swimmers in recent Olympics. Your “idol worship” meme is a red herring.
We’re not talking about milliseconds. We’re talking about no women cracking the top 50 of the sexless 100m freestyle swimming event. That relegates biological women out of the sport completely.
Quote
If you want to promote the best in the sport, then promote those who achieve the greatest growth.
What does this even mean? “Greatest growth”...
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 01:59:15 pm
Secondly how can you be a reliable commenter when you say their rights being denied isn't a problem when you do that very thing?I not denying anyone any rights. I am simply pointing out that things they claim are rights are not actually rights.
They have a right to live life as whatever gender they want.
They have a right to alter their body as they see fit if they are an adult.
They do not have the right to demand that other act as if they believe their sex can actually change.
They do not have the right to join activities when the criteria for joining is based on biological sex.
They do not have a right to prevent parents from teaching their children to accept the body they have.
The first 2 are rights because the only affect the person in question.
The last 3 are not rights because they are violating other people's rights.
An example of the classic 'your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'.
It is worth noting. In all of the debate over gay marriage no one suggested that churches needs to accept gay marriages as real marriages. All I am saying is the same standard should apply to trans people. i.e. no person should be compelled to pretend that sex can actually change.
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 02:02:32 pm
I don’t know what idol worship has to do with the 100m freestyle. Most people could probably only name 1 of the hundreds of swimmers in recent Olympics. Your “idol worship” meme is a red herring.
We’re not talking about milliseconds. We’re talking about no women cracking the top 50 of the sexless 100m freestyle swimming event. That relegates biological women out of the sport completely.
What does this even mean? “Greatest growth”...
The top performers should be those that moved up the performance ladder. We (capitalists) idolize someone who finished 0.001 seconds faster than another - that is stupid, STUPID, STUPID. The person who improved the most in the past year is far, FAR, FAR more deserving of mention. This is just companies trying to find something to sell a can of overpriced deodorant, and you fall for it hook, LINE, and SINKER.
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 02:04:58 pm
We have the idol worship culture that is based on meaningless trivia. If you want to promote the best in the sport, then promote those who achieve the greatest growth. That is about 100 times more meaningful than a millisecond.Translation: you don't care about sport and see no value it. Therefore, you could not care less if women's sport is destroyed by forcing trans onto them.
Why don't you show a little humility and let the people that actually care about women's sport decide what should be done?
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 02:09:59 pm
Translation: you don't care about sport and see no value it. Therefore, you could not care less if women's sport is destroyed by forcing trans onto them.
Horseshyte. I never said anything of the sort. I suggest you spend more time reading and comprehending, and less in trying to put words in others mouths.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 02:11:07 pm
The top performers should be those that moved up the performance ladder.
A totally meaningless metric. I can swim at a snail’s pace and then ramp it up and win a gold star? What you suggest is a totally meaningless metric in sport.
Quote
We (capitalists) idolize someone who finished 0.001 seconds faster than another - that is stupid, STUPID, STUPID.
Competition is a healthy and fun thing. Whether it’s .001 seconds or 1 more goal in an overtime shootout.
Capitalism is another one of your red herrings.
Quote
The person who improved the most in the past year is far, FAR, FAR more deserving of mention. This is just companies trying to find something to sell a can of overpriced deodorant, and you fall for it hook, LINE, and SINKER.
It’s very meaningful... to the individual. I can grant that. As a metric in sports, it’s completely meaningless. I guess one person might tune in to see who was the “most improved” 100m freestyle swimmer of the year. Sounds really boring and completely devoid of all competitiveness.
If you don’t like competitive sports, then by all means, don’t watch or participate. But your notion of what competitive sport should be is so far outside human sport culture for thousands of years, that it is really devoid of any value whatsoever. It’s actually a bizarre viewpoint that I’ve never even heard expressed before. You certainly are on the vanguard of political correctness when it comes to sports.
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 02:15:45 pm
But your notion of what competitive sport should be is so far outside human sport culture for thousands of years, that it is really devoid of any value whatsoever.
Agonizing over the 0.001 second has only been around for the past 80 years of selling deodorant.
Go to your local baseball diamond, buy a $1 hotdog, and cheer on the real athletes. Don't buy a $73 ticket to the stadium, $7.50 hotdog, $27 cap, $178 jacket.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 02:27:21 pm
Agonizing over the 0.001 second has only been around for the past 80 years of selling deodorant.
Not true. Our ability to measure the closeness of a particular timed race, is not relevant to picking a winner. No matter how close 2nd place has been, 1st place has always been declared the winner.
Quote
Go to your local baseball diamond, buy a $1 hotdog, and cheer on the real athletes. Don't buy a $73 ticket to the stadium, $7.50 hotdog, $27 cap, $178 jacket.
Why do you want to tell people what sport to enjoy or how to spend their money? Also, why are you in favour of taking in a competitive ballgame with the exact same rules with the only difference being that it’s cheaper? If your only objection to sports is that you don’t like professional sports because of the money involved, then just say so. Instead, you go and invent some bizarre new way of determining winners with this “most improved” nonsense.
I also noticed you completely avoided the difficulties in your “most improved” concept of sport. This notion of sport is completely unrealistic.
Post by: ?Impact on April 29, 2019, 02:30:56 pm
Our ability to measure the closeness of a particular timed race
Our idol worship has nothing to do with a particular timed race, it is about an expensive event designed around selling deodorant.
Post by: waldo on April 29, 2019, 02:34:38 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 02:39:36 pm
Insert inane video here
What does the video have to do with the topic being discussed?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 02:41:52 pm
Our idol worship has nothing to do with a particular timed race, it is about an expensive event designed around selling deodorant.
You’re repeating your red herring. This isn’t even the topic, nor does it have anything to do with gender and sport. You’ve avoided my questions once again.
If money in sport is your topic, you’re in the wrong thread!
Post by: TimG on April 29, 2019, 02:55:56 pm
Horseshyte. I never said anything of the sort. I suggest you spend more time reading and comprehending, and less in trying to put words in others mouths.Every post you make simply affirms that my statement was correct. Just because you don't say something explicitly that does not mean you are not conveying the same message.
Post by: Omni on April 29, 2019, 02:59:24 pm
Every post you make simply affirms that my statement was correct. Just because you don't say something explicitly that does not mean you are not conveying the same message.
I have to believe you are a fan of Stephen Moore.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 29, 2019, 03:09:46 pm
Every post you make simply affirms that my statement was correct. Just because you don't say something explicitly that does not mean you are not conveying the same message.
I have to believe you are a fan of Stephen Moore.
Except that TimG is correct in this case. Impact seems to be promoting sport not segregated by sex/gender. If this is the case, which it seems to be, his sexless sports will be dominated by men. Women would be relegated right out of the sport (I provided facts on men vs women swimming events where the Olympic record holder for women wouldn’t crack the top 50 for men).
If Impact didn’t directly say this was his goal, that’s irrelevant since his solution would do exactly that.
Post by: kimmy on April 30, 2019, 12:36:57 am
1. Maybe like how I think comic book movies and GoT is inane ? Try being me this week. :D Still, I want to let people do their 'thing'
I have a hunch that your real problem right now isn't comic book movies and GoT, but rather that you've run out of people to tell how much you dislike comic book movies and GoT.
Regardless, to echo Tim's point: at least you're not being booted off Twitter or deplatformed for complaining about comic book movies and GoT. At least people aren't demanding that you make time for comic book movies and GoT in your viewing schedule.
2. I don't think non-binary people feel that way because they don't "identify with roles". The ones I have known feel that there is an entirely different gender embedded in their brains. It's not about "I can be a police officer if I want even though I'm a woman" ... more like it's about "I don't like having boobs"
Body dysphoria might be a real thing, but it's not considered a requirement to be trans or non-binary. In fact, those who consider dysphoria to be an essential part of being trans are considered enemies of the new gender movement-- they're "tru-scum".
http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Truscum
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 30, 2019, 02:45:36 am
No, it's like society has an expectation of the "right" or "proper" way for a woman to present themselves and actually sanctions against any deviation from those social norms by stigmatizing and isolating individuals who don't present themselves in that way.
Do you think society is harder on a gender non-conforming woman than on an androgynous AFAB non-binary entity who identifies zirself as agender?
You've spoken at length about how retail clerks treat you like a dumb blonde.
Sure. And if I went around explaining to people that I don't identify as blonde but rather as non-melanistic, then people wouldn't assume I'm a dumb blonde, they'd assume I was a completely idiotic blonde.
Of course if I really wanted "out" I could just get my hair colored. Which is something I've done a few times in the past. But for somebody who is, say, black or overweight, preconceptions aren't as easy to avoid.
A black person who was fed up with stereotypes about black people can't simply say "I no longer identify as black, I identify as melanin-enriched" and make those stereotypes go away. Ultimately he has limited power to change how people perceive him. He can disassociate himself from some aspects of black stereotypes-- he could avoid looking clothing styles and accessories that people associate with gang members, for example-- but his identity itself isn't something that he can simply change.
A woman who isn't comfortable with being looked at in a sexual way can do things to desexualize her appearance, such as wearing more concealing clothing. A woman who isn't comfortable with traditional femininity can distance herself from it in many ways. None of that is new-- those things have gone on for a very long time. What is new is this notion that you can change your identity by declaration.
In history there have been women who disguised themselves as men, for their own safety or to gain access to the rights and privileges reserved for men. But they weren't "trans" or "non-binary". They were women in disguise.
I'm sure in your group of friends you've seen how "butch" lesbians are treated by the broader public. So I really don't get how you're acting surprised like traditional gender roles don't have any effect on the way people interact with each other (which is the key aspect of forming an individual identity).
Do you think society is harder on a butch lesbian than on an androgynous female-attracted AFAB non-binary entity who identifies zirself as agender?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 30, 2019, 05:35:14 am
I have a hunch that your real problem right now isn't comic book movies and GoT, but rather that you've run out of people to tell how much you dislike comic book movies and GoT.
No, actually I got the right kinds of pushback from you and my IRL friends to realize that dismissing what they clearly LOVE isn't a great way to endear myself. I also hate tattoos - HATE 'em - but obviously we're surrounded by tatted folk.
Quote
Regardless, to echo Tim's point: at least you're not being booted off Twitter or deplatformed for complaining about comic book movies and GoT. At least people aren't demanding that you make time for comic book movies and GoT in your viewing schedule.
There's a line, though, which is a tough one to arbitrate, that you can express your opinion up to the point of denying the humanity or 'basic' rights of trans people.
Post by: TimG on April 30, 2019, 08:58:14 am
There's a line, though, which is a tough one to arbitrate, that you can express your opinion up to the point of denying the humanity or 'basic' rights of trans people.The trouble is there is no agreement on what those "basic" rights are. How can you deal with the situation we have now where trans are claiming to have rights which they simply do not have?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 30, 2019, 11:12:49 am
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code
Post by: TimG on April 30, 2019, 11:37:02 am
We have agreementOne side trying to make it illegal to disagrees does not mean there is an agreement. Whether you like or not a significant number of Canadians (if not a majority) agree with Jordan Peterson's criticisms of the bill. I think that number will only grow as more and more people realize the implications for things like women's sports.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 01, 2019, 08:51:14 pm
1. One side trying to make it illegal to disagrees does not mean there is an agreement.1. I guess a law isn't an 'agreement' but it's a line for companies like Facebook and Twitter to fall behind.
2. Whether you like or not a significant number of Canadians (if not a majority) agree with Jordan Peterson's criticisms of the bill. I think that number will only grow as more and more people realize the implications for things like women's sports.
2. I don't think enough people really understand his objection - which was around 'compelled' speech.
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 06:44:39 pm
Harbinger of the future. Girls get driven out sport by boys pretending to be girls.
Quote
To Selina Soule, a 16-year-old runner from Glastonbury, it was personal.
A junior, Selina missed qualifying for the 55-meter in the New England regionals by two spots. Two spots, she said, that were taken by biological boys.
Had the boys who identify as girls not been allowed to compete, Selina would have placed sixth, qualifying to run the 55 in front of college coaches at the New England regionals.
Instead, she placed eighth, watching the 55 from the sidelines after qualifying in only the long jump, an event in which the transgender athletes didn’t compete.
Post by: kimmy on May 29, 2019, 11:18:23 pm
https://triblive.com/sports/biological-male-wins-ncaa-womens-track-championship/
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 29, 2019, 11:26:44 pm
http://dailybruin.com/2019/05/28/students-voice-concerns-about-bathroom-policy-security-camera-monitoring/
Am I really supposed to feel sorry for these people?
-k
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 30, 2019, 12:00:08 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 05:56:08 am
... let the transgender run by itself.
See kimmy - I would say your questions are reasonable and part of a dialogue. I would say complaining about universal bathrooms seems a bit much given that trans folks will be tazed in N. Carolina for attending the proper bathroom.
But...
You are making bedfellows with a disgusting person who calls humans "it". I'm not saying this is going to happen, but de-humanization is a precursor to atrocities. Civilized people speak up and stop that language in its tracks, or it will piggyback onto reasonable concerns the same way Nazis piggyback on real concerns about immigration and spoil the discussion.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 30, 2019, 07:52:22 am
See kimmy - I would say your questions are reasonable and part of a dialogue. I would say complaining about universal bathrooms seems a bit much given that trans folks will be tazed in N. Carolina for attending the proper bathroom.
But...
You are making bedfellows with a disgusting person who calls humans "it". I'm not saying this is going to happen, but de-humanization is a precursor to atrocities. Civilized people speak up and stop that language in its tracks, or it will piggyback onto reasonable concerns the same way Nazis piggyback on real concerns about immigration and spoil the discussion.
People are terrible, and capable of committing Nazi atrocities for using improper pronouns?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 10:21:58 am
Otherwise explain why you are dehumanizing someone.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 30, 2019, 10:41:55 am
That's a sign, yes.
Otherwise explain why you are dehumanizing someone.
An individual who was born as a male, but competes in female sports is a cheater, IMHO. In fact, judging from numerous polls about the subject, 8 out of 10 people feel the same. They are cheating, period. It is time sports governing bodies grew some balls (no pun intended), and put a stop to this politically correct rubbish.
Post by: TimG on May 30, 2019, 12:41:42 pm
Otherwise explain why you are dehumanizing someone.The only people who actually deserve to be compared to Nazis are those that advocate exterminating people for perceived "defects" because that is the implicit accusation that comes with the comparison. When you use that label on people who would never advocate such a thing you are attempting to dehumanize them by suggesting that their opinions are unspeakably evil. Painting an adversary as unspeakably evil is a common tactic used by demagogues to dehumanize another group in order to rationalize atrocities against that group.
Post by: TimG on May 30, 2019, 01:49:13 pm
You are making bedfellows with a disgusting person who calls humans "it".From dictionary.com:
Quote
2) used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/it?s=t
e.g. It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 30, 2019, 02:20:08 pm
From dictionary.com:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/it?s=t
Their gender wasn’t unknown... it was disregarded and it was anyone who calls another human being “it” is attempting to dehumanize the person and is a **** bigot, or your typical internet troll (or both).
Post by: TimG on May 30, 2019, 02:43:59 pm
Their gender wasn’t unknown... it was disregardedTransgender, by definition, have ambiguous gender and therefore can be perceived to have unknown gender. But this issue is not the clumsy choice of words but the subsequent comparisons to Nazis because any comparison to Nazis is done to dehumanize the target so the person doing the comparing a shameless hypocrite.
Post by: waldo on May 30, 2019, 05:56:03 pm
...and let the transgender run by itself.
An individual who was born as a male, but competes in female sports is a cheater, IMHO. In fact, judging from numerous polls about the subject, 8 out of 10 people feel the same. They are cheating, period. It is time sports governing bodies grew some balls (no pun intended), and put a stop to this politically correct rubbish.
so... do you include all transgender persons in your defamatory dehumanization, or just your stated "its" engaged in your sports focused targeting?
(https://i.imgur.com/Qk2StaB.png)
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 30, 2019, 06:28:01 pm
Transgender, by definition, have ambiguous gender and therefore can be perceived to have unknown gender. But this issue is not the clumsy choice of words but the subsequent comparisons to Nazis because any comparison to Nazis is done to dehumanize the target so the person doing the comparing a shameless hypocrite.
Well we are talking about the_squid here, so that is par for the course.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 30, 2019, 06:30:06 pm
Transgender, by definition, have ambiguous gender and therefore can be perceived to have unknown gender. But this issue is not the clumsy choice of words
it's not clumsy.... it's disgusting. If you use that language, you're a bigoted ****.
Quote
...but the subsequent comparisons to Nazis because any comparison to Nazis is done to dehumanize the target so the person doing the comparing a shameless hypocrite.
I don't disagree that it's hyperbole and makes MH's argument prone to Godwin's fallacy.
But defending the term 'it' to refer to a human being makes you a bigoted **** as well. Maybe you weren't doing that and would like to walk it back a bit.... but it seemed to me you were.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 30, 2019, 06:31:19 pm
Well we are talking about the_squid here, so that is par for the course.
Where did I say anything about Nazis... you're trolling so hard that you can't even keep up with the conversation. ::)
Post by: waldo on May 30, 2019, 06:31:37 pm
Well we are talking about the_squid here, so that is par for the course.
whaaaa! ;D
Maybe we can be more civil to one another.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 07:17:00 pm
An individual who was born as a male, but competes in female sports is a cheater, IMHO. In fact, judging from numerous polls about the subject, 8 out of 10 people feel the same. They are cheating, period. It is time sports governing bodies grew some balls (no pun intended), and put a stop to this politically correct rubbish.
Dodge.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 07:19:14 pm
The only people who actually deserve to be compared to Nazis are those that advocate exterminating people for perceived "defects" because that is the implicit accusation that comes with the comparison. When you use that label on people who would never advocate such a thing you are attempting to dehumanize them by suggesting that their opinions are unspeakably evil. Painting an adversary as unspeakably evil is a common tactic used by demagogues to dehumanize another group in order to rationalize atrocities against that group.
Read it again, I said it was a precursor. Dehumanizing is wrong and I said that Nazis will piggyback on legitimate concerns. Also, if you call me out and not the person who used 'it' to talk about a human you're enabling extremists.
You're misrepresenting my point. I'm merely warning against a slippery slope and calling for civilized language. I don't think I called anyone a Nazi.
Now that I have clarified, do you have an opinion on calling groups of humans 'it' ?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 07:20:36 pm
From dictionary.com:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/it?s=t
I am more than a little dubious about this. I have never heard 'it' as a legitimate term for a human being.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 30, 2019, 08:05:06 pm
Read it again, I said it was a precursor. Dehumanizing is wrong and I said that Nazis will piggyback on legitimate concerns. Also, if you call me out and not the person who used 'it' to talk about a human you're enabling extremists.
Goodwin's Law:
"Sometimes called Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies, Godwin’s law is the facetious proposition that the longer any online conversation (or argument) goes on, the greater the likelihood that something will be compared to Hitler. Godwin’s law is an update of the logical fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum, modern Latin for “reduction to Hitler” and a take on reductio ad absurdum. The reductio ad Hitlerum, or “playing the Nazi card,” was coined by philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951. The principle describes the act of discrediting an opponent’s view by comparing it to something supported by Hitler or Nazism. The move is seen as a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness, as one could “invalidate” food because if Hitler ate food and Hitler was genocidist, then food can’t be good."
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 08:23:05 pm
Goodwin's Law:
Gee, I never heard of it. I got on the internet last week.
Post by: TimG on May 30, 2019, 08:44:29 pm
Read it again, I said it was a precursor. Dehumanizing is wrong and I said that Nazis will piggyback on legitimate concerns. Also, if you call me out and not the person who used 'it' to talk about a human you're enabling extremists.Or I am simply allowing for a slip of a tongue (keyboard/) rather than going in all faux outrage over what could have easily been a unintentional choice of words given the fact that dealing is transgender is always going to create confusion. This kind of BS is why laws mandating speech are so odious. You can't know what was going on in Vid's head when he wrote the words yet you assume the worst.
You're misrepresenting my point. I'm merely warning against a slippery slope and calling for civilized language. I don't think I called anyone a Nazi.Meaningless semantics. You did not need to mention them to make the point you wanted to make.
Now that I have clarified, do you have an opinion on calling groups of humans 'it' ?Depends on the context and the intent of the speaker. If someone repeatedly makes use of the pronoun 'it' is contexts where the intent was clearly to be be derogatory then you have a point. But in this context we have a single use.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2019, 08:50:32 pm
Or I am simply allowing for a slip of a tongue (keyboard/) rather than going in all faux outrage over what could have easily been a unintentional choice of words given the fact that dealing is transgender is always going to create confusion.
Why are you asking ? You did it.
Quote
This kind of BS is why laws mandating speech are so odious. You can't know what was going on in Vid's head when he wrote the words yet you assume the worst.
Actually there is no 'law' invoked here. The whole defense of 'free speech' is that bad speech goes away if you make it free. That freedom allows good ideas to flourish. But you need a moral sphere. I am providing that.
Quote
If someone repeatedly makes use of the pronoun 'it' is contexts where the intent was clearly to be be derogatory then you have a point. But in this context we have a single use.
Ok - I'll accept that. @Vid did you use 'it' accidentally ?
Post by: kimmy on May 31, 2019, 05:03:53 am
See kimmy - I would say your questions are reasonable and part of a dialogue. I would say complaining about universal bathrooms seems a bit much given that trans folks will be tazed in N. Carolina for attending the proper bathroom.
Their complaint wasn't about all-genders washrooms. Their complaint is that the proposal calls for floor-to-ceiling partitions between toilets to provide for greater privacy. Their argument, as far as I can tell, is that designing to provide greater privacy is transphobic. Process that, if you can.
But...
You are making bedfellows with a disgusting person who calls humans "it". I'm not saying this is going to happen, but de-humanization is a precursor to atrocities. Civilized people speak up and stop that language in its tracks, or it will piggyback onto reasonable concerns the same way Nazis piggyback on real concerns about immigration and spoil the discussion.
I object to the premise that I am becoming bedfellows with hate-people by confronting trans rights advocate positions.
If I'm enabling hate-people by trying to challenge trans activists positions, then I'm a party to spreading hate? Is that it? I need to stop posting about this stuff because I'm causing hate-speech? I'm responsible for the actions of people I have no control over? I don't get to post about the ridiculousness of the latest trans nonsense because Vid used a derogatory term to refer to a trans person?
Follow this to its conclusion and it seems like we have to agree with whatever vulnerable minorities want because challenging them just encourages bigots.
This seems like a silencing tactic, or at the very least a derailing tactic. I imagine the trans cheerleaders are probably very grateful for people like Vid, because it lets them talk about how awful people like Vid are and avoid talking about uncomfortable issues.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2019, 06:01:35 am
Their complaint wasn't about all-genders washrooms. Their complaint is that the proposal calls for floor-to-ceiling partitions between toilets to provide for greater privacy. Their argument, as far as I can tell, is that designing to provide greater privacy is transphobic. Process that, if you can.
I read the original article and the student union president was concerned about costs. These other complaints are from individuals, so... are we saying some trans people are unreasonable ? Not surprising.
Quote
I object to the premise that I am becoming bedfellows with hate-people by confronting trans rights advocate positions.
I said the opposite. Again - reasonable concerns are expressed, but unreasonable people jump in a piggyback their language and their agendas onto them.
Quote
If I'm enabling hate-people by trying to challenge trans activists positions, then I'm a party to spreading hate? Is that it? I need to stop posting about this stuff because I'm causing hate-speech? I'm responsible for the actions of people I have no control over? I don't get to post about the ridiculousness of the latest trans nonsense because Vid used a derogatory term to refer to a trans person?
Really not that complicated. It's like people who have legitimate questions about immigration, but then their agenda gets hijacked.
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 31, 2019, 07:37:59 am
My apologies if I offended anyone.
Post by: TimG on May 31, 2019, 07:46:20 am
I said the opposite. Again - reasonable concerns are expressed, but unreasonable people jump in a piggyback their language and their agendas onto them.This is really only a smear tactic used by the left to avoid actually arguing their case.
i.e. left wing advocate when objectionable people hold right wing views: "you can't hold that opinion because you enable other nasty people."
left wing advocate when objectionable people hold left wing views: "you are making others act badly because of your horrible opinions".
It is self serving and hypocritical line of argument that should be ignored.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2019, 10:15:41 am
*themselves*
My apologies if I offended anyone.
You wouldn't offend me if you said you wanted them all dead.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2019, 10:20:25 am
This is really only a smear tactic used by the left to avoid actually arguing their case.
i.e. left wing advocate when objectionable people hold right wing views: "you can't hold that opinion because you enable other nasty people."
left wing advocate when objectionable people hold left wing views: "you are making others act badly because of your horrible opinions".
It is self serving and hypocritical line of argument that should be ignored.
And once again I did the opposite. I acknowledged the validity of kimmys opinions but pointed out how the piggy backing works.
Post by: kimmy on June 20, 2019, 10:07:00 pm
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/06/8th-place-high-school-girls-speak-out-on-getting-beat-by-biological-boys/QuoteTo Selina Soule, a 16-year-old runner from Glastonbury, it was personal...
Harbinger of the future. Girls get driven out sport by boys pretending to be girls.
Selina Soule, along with two other unnamed girls, have now filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut athletics board over this policy, claiming that Title IX guarantees to sex-based protections have been violated.
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/female-athletes-challenge-connecticut-policy-that-abolishes-girls-only-sports
I've read a fair bit of media coverage of this story, and there are a few trends I'm seeing.
First, most of the reports are emphasizing that Soule's lawsuit is being represented by the"Alliance Defending Freedom", a Christian legal action non-profit. Reports tend to point out that ADF is labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, that ADF has been involved in other lawsuits deemed anti-LGBT in the past, or that ADF spends most of its resources fighting against abortion access.
Do ADF's views on abortion make Selina Soule's lawsuit less valid? There seems to be some implication that she hasn't got a case here because of ADF's ideological viewpoint. The Christian right seems like an odd ally for feminists. But we've seen similar situations right here in BC, as Meghan Murphy received help from the "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom" in her battle to keep the Vancouver Library from cancelling her talk. JCCF also provided legal assistance to some of the Vancouver aestheticians who were sued by "JY", the trans person who filed 14 lawsuits against various aestheticians who wouldn't wax her lady-balls. One of the aestheticians JCCF represented said that no other lawyers she talked to would take on her case. And I doubt that Meghan Murphy was thrilled to team up with a right-wing Christian legal group, but necessity makes for strange bedfellows.
The second trend I've noticed is that the mainstream media articles don't have interviews with Selina Soule. I've seen lots of reports that have comments from Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, the two trans athletes that cleaned up in Connecticut. "I'm a girl, and I just want to run." But no mainstream reports I've seen have spoken to Soule, and none of them indicate that they've made any effort to contact her. If you want to hear Selina Soule's side of the story, you have to go to far-right sites like The Daily Caller. Mainstream sites seem more interested in talking about her choice of legal representation than about her side of the story.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 20, 2019, 10:32:38 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html
Post by: TimG on June 20, 2019, 11:09:58 pm
If you want to hear Selina Soule's side of the story, you have to go to far-right sites like The Daily Caller. Mainstream sites seem more interested in talking about her choice of legal representation than about her side of the story.Of course, when you point out the bias in MSM people call you an alt-right extremist. I see to remember there was a time when reporters had enough ethics to always seek out both sides of the story but that might be selective memory on my part.
Post by: cybercoma on June 21, 2019, 08:31:41 am
Of course, when you point out the bias in MSM people call you an alt-right extremist.You are an alt-right extremist. You're even willing to bend over backwards to justify the inhumane and abusive treatment of children in American border concentration camps. You're a mouthpiece for fascists, spreading their disinformation around the internet like some kind of useful idiot who thinks he's being helpful.
Post by: TimG on June 21, 2019, 10:19:34 am
You are an alt-right extremist. You're even willing to bend over backwards to justify the inhumane and abusive treatment of children in American border concentration camps. You're a mouthpiece for fascists, spreading their disinformation around the internet like some kind of useful idiot who thinks he's being helpful.People who don't read the arguments people make and and instead make up BS strawmen and fling nonsensical accusations are morons.
Post by: cybercoma on June 21, 2019, 11:02:22 am
People who don't read the arguments people make and and instead make up BS strawmen and fling nonsensical accusations are morons.Apparently nobody reads your arguments because you trot out this bullshit all the time. If you're being misunderstood so frequently, here's a pro tip....it's not the reader that's the problem.
Post by: TimG on June 21, 2019, 11:05:32 am
Apparently nobody reads your arguments because you trot out this bullshit all the time. If you're being misunderstood so frequently, here's a pro tip....it's not the reader that's the problem.Actually, it is only rapid partisans like you that choose to ignore understand my arguments and trot irrelevant BS replies. People with an open mind have no problems seeing an understanding the nuance of the arguments I make and will actually address those arguments in a reply instead of creating ridiculous strawmen.
Post by: kimmy on June 22, 2019, 01:13:13 pm
I was hoping for at least a "performance ladder!" or a "b-b-but Jessie Graf!"
Anyway...
I've read a fair bit of media coverage of this story, and there are a few trends I'm seeing.
First, most of the reports are emphasizing that Soule's lawsuit is being represented by the"Alliance Defending Freedom", (...)
The second trend I've noticed is that the mainstream media articles don't have interviews with Selina Soule. (...)
A third thing I've noticed in articles on the subject, which is closely related to the second observation, is that nobody actually considers the feelings of the girls that Yearwood and Miller compete against, or (cis)female athletes in general. It's all about the trans. Backlash is blamed on the parents of girls who lost, and on bigots in the broader community. Even Soule, who herself is one of the very few who've spoken out publicly, isn't given agency over her feelings-- the lawsuit is being blamed on her mother or on the ADF, not on Soule herself. Perhaps an overprotective soccer-mom is a much less sympathetic target than a teenage girl who feels she's been cheated, and who many would agree with.
An article about Yearwood and Miller written last year by Cyd Zeigler, from Outsports:
https://www.outsports.com/2018/6/14/17458696/trans-athlete-connecticut-high-school-ban-petition
Quote
In Connecticut, some people are making a different choice. They want their cisgender kid to get the trophy, and they don’t give a crap whose self-esteem they injure along the way. They don’t care that trans youth are at least 10 times more likely to attempt suicide than their kid. They want trans athletes banned from sports so their kid can win another medal.
Here's another article, written by Jonathan Liew in regard to Martina Navritalova's comments earlier this year regarding biologically male people competing in women's sports.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/caster-semenya-news-gender-martina-navratilova-trans-cas-jonathan-liew-column-a8792861.html
Quote
But let’s follow this argument all the way through. Let’s say the floodgates do open. Let’s say transgender athletes pour into women’s sport, and let’s say, despite the flimsy and poorly-understood relationship between testosterone and elite performance, they dominate everything they touch. They sweep up Grand Slam tennis titles and cycling world championships. They monopolise the Olympics. They fill our football and cricket and netball teams. Why would that be bad? Really? Imagine the power of a trans child or teenager seeing a trans athlete on the top step of the Olympic podium. In a way, it would be inspiring.
Inspiring for who? Certainly not for the 50% of the world's population who are biologically female. It illustrates the mentality here: it's all about the trans; the cis-girls don't matter.
It's like those 1980s teen movies. The girls in the story aren't characters in their own right, they're just props-- objects, obstacles, and trophies the hero encounters on his journey. In this track and field story, Yearwood and Miller are the heroes and the other girls in track are just props on their journey.
Zeigler again:
Quote
The people now pushing to ban trans athletes from participating as their gender in high school sports are literally risking the lives of trans youth. 80% of trans people have thought about taking their own lives, and 40% of them have actually tried.
Zeigler apparently doesn't consider it possible that athletics might be equally important to any of the cis-girls. Nor does Liew:
Quote
Sometimes we forget that there are bigger things than sport. (...) giving some of society’s most marginalised groups a chance to express their talent doesn’t harm anyone. Because trans women are women. And sport, I’m afraid, is only sport.
Liew would certainly say that about girls' highschool track and field, but I bet his UK readers would riot in protest if he said it about Premier League footie.
Zeigler again to finish:
Quote
Let trans athletes like Miller and Yearwood compete as their gender. If done well, with the guidance and cooperation of some thoughtful adults and coaches, the life lessons learned by all athletes involved will make this world a better and safer place for all of us.
The life lesson Zeigler would have girls learn is that their aspirations matter less than someone else's. That's an important lesson, because it is something women are told all their lives. Put their own hopes and dreams on hold for the sake of their husband, or their child, or their family. And Zeigler and Liew want young women to know that the most important thing they can do is not pursue their own dreams, but rather support people like Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller as they pursue theirs.
Darn that inconvenient Selina Soule for dreaming she could be the star of her own story rather than a prop in Yearwood and Millers'.
-k
Post by: ?Impact on June 23, 2019, 12:52:27 pm
Media decides the story is not worth covering:
Yet I was able to find coverage on CNN, NBC, CBS, USAToday, Time, and dozens of local papers before I gave up looking.
Post by: Omni on June 23, 2019, 01:09:35 pm
Yet I was able to find coverage on CNN, NBC, CBS, USAToday, Time, and dozens of local papers before I gave up looking.
Let me add the Guardian, Axios, NyTimes, Buzzfeed, USA Today, Global. Yep, hardly covered at all. ::)
Post by: TimG on June 23, 2019, 01:12:30 pm
Yet I was able to find coverage on CNN, NBC, CBS, USAToday, Time, and dozens of local papers before I gave up looking.Simply running the story that get indexed by google is not what I am talking about - it is pile on by pundits which is absent.
Post by: Omni on June 23, 2019, 01:16:41 pm
Simply running the story that get indexed by google is not what I am talking about - it is pile on by pundits which is absent.
Apparently your biased "we get nothing" statement fell pretty flat.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 23, 2019, 03:54:40 pm
Post by: TimG on June 23, 2019, 07:55:50 pm
Like... Why didn't they rightly attribute Columbine to the Goth movement¿?Please ignore. In retrospect it was a dumb post.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 23, 2019, 08:53:28 pm
Please ignore. In retrospect it was a dumb post.
??? Well, ok I guess... happens to the best of us.
Also - the question of root-cause going to the 'group' is a tricky one...
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 03:28:38 pm
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-when-gender-identity-education-and-theory-goes-wrong
Quote
To recap briefly: the Buffones’ daughter N, six years old, and by their account a happy girl (comfortable in her skin, adored school), was abruptly plunged into considerable distress when informed by her teacher (young, three years experience) during a session on gender identity that gender is fluid and untethered to biology, and that “girls are not real” and “boys are not real.”
The lessons continued and so did N’s distress, to the point of asking to see a doctor about her fears. The Buffones say in their claim that “they were concerned about the impact (on) N’s view of herself as a girl. Prior to (the teacher’s) discussions with the Grade One class, N had consistently identified as a girl and had not previously expressed uncertainty or discontent with her gender identity and biological sex.” The Buffones had asked the teacher to affirm N’s identity as a girl — that is, reassure her that her identity as female was “real” in order to relieve her anxiety. Nothing that the Buffones asserted was denied by the school or its officials, but their request was rebuffed out of hand, first by the teacher, who said her lessons reflected “a change within society,” then by the principal, and all the way up the ladder to the superintendent of the school board and the curriculum superintendent. They removed N to another school, where these gender theories are not taught, and where her mother told me she has recovered her wonted buoyancy.
If the world was just, the so called "professionals" that tell young children and young teens that mutilating their body is an acceptable way to deal with their feelings would be facing jail time for child abuse. The only message that schools should be giving to kids is that they should love the body they have.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2019, 03:44:59 pm
2nd similar story I have seen in two days. The other one was fake.
So, this isn't a problem. People are making it one.
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 03:48:49 pm
I disagree with her thesis. One story doesn't amount to something terribly wrong in our schools.Any professional telling a child or teen that mutilating their body is an acceptable way to deal with their feelings is a big problem. It is these professionals that will be facing lawsuits as people realize the harm such advice causes in 10-20 years.
And don't try to claim that this is not a problem. A court in BC ordered a father to stop trying to convince his child that hormone therapy was a bad idea. The state is out of control.
Post by: Omni on June 25, 2019, 03:53:45 pm
I disagree with her thesis. One story doesn't amount to something terribly wrong in our schools.
2nd similar story I have seen in two days. The other one was fake.
So, this isn't a problem. People are making it one.
And consider the source. Can't get much further right wing than Barbara Kay. Remember "Quebecistan"?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 25, 2019, 04:34:11 pm
Quote
A court in BC ordered a father to stop trying to convince his child that hormone therapy was a bad idea.
Cite please.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 25, 2019, 04:50:46 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2019, 05:11:55 pm
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 05:52:18 pm
Cite please.https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/legal-dispute-between-trans-child-and-father-takes-new-turn-over-freedom-of-expression
Quote
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gregory Bowden subsequently granted the request, concluding that there should not be any further delays to treatment, citing the boy’s risk of suicide. Bowden also went on to declare that any attempts to persuade the boy to abandon treatment, addressing the boy by his birth name or referring to the boy as a girl or with female pronouns “shall be considered to be family violence.”This story makes my blood boil.
Post by: ?Impact on June 25, 2019, 05:58:18 pm
This story makes my blood boil.
The part about the father using far right media to attack his child?
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 05:59:28 pm
I think that it should be safe for them and adults should facilitate their growth, same as always.What grates me about the story is the rank hypocrisy from the transgender promoters. i.e. if we accept the notion that there is a a gender spectrum the it follows that some kids will be "hardwired" to be on the extreme ends of that spectrum and will find that their identity is undermined by teaching that their gender is not real. This harm would be at least as damaging as any alleged damage to transgender kids caused by teaching gender as a binary notion. Yet despite this obvious negative consequence of the transgender policies you and others dismiss it as "fake news".
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 06:02:49 pm
The part about the father using far right media to attack his child?You mean the attempts by SJWs zealots to smear and denigrate anyone that dares to contest their religion by talking to the media outlets that will actually carry their story? Yes that make my blood boil too.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2019, 09:25:51 pm
What grates me about the story is the rank hypocrisy from the transgender promoters. i.e. if we accept the notion that there is a a gender spectrum the it follows that some kids will be "hardwired" to be on the extreme ends of that spectrum and will find that their identity is undermined by teaching that their gender is not real. This harm would be at least as damaging as any alleged damage to transgender kids caused by teaching gender as a binary notion. Yet despite this obvious negative consequence of the transgender policies you and others dismiss it as "fake news".
Yes, if you can find somebody with any authority who wants to push telling kids that their feelings are not real, then I will stand with you that they should be removed from their position.
Stop blowing up these little cases. It's like The Rebel finding schoolyard bullies as proof that Muslims are destroying Canada. Meanwhile posters at MLW (Argus for one) downplay racists who shoot six people in a mosque.
It's mania for causes you're in favour of, and absolute silence for a practical discussion if it's started by people whose politics you disagree with.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 25, 2019, 10:03:23 pm
The part about the father using far right media to attack his child?
I don't think he was attacking his child, i think he was feeling desperate and was trying to get media outlets to cover it to put pressure on the case in his favour.
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 11:33:43 pm
The part about the father using far right media to attack his child?The part where you characterize the father speaking to media about his side of the argument as "attacking" his child.
Post by: kimmy on June 25, 2019, 11:36:13 pm
-k
Post by: TimG on June 25, 2019, 11:44:24 pm
Yes, if you can find somebody with any authority who wants to push telling kids that their feelings are not real, then I will stand with you that they should be removed from their position.You did not read the story. Not only did someone in authority abuse their position the school officials refused to acknowledge there was a problem. Now in the case is before the HRC and the school board is arguing that he case should be thrown out because the girl is not a member of a "recognized group" which is equivalent to saying that school board does not care if the curriculum cause harm to normal students because they don't matter.
Stop blowing up these little cases.Why do you keep using that excuse to avoid acknowledging a problem? If the school officials had acted with some basic human decency and professionalism this case would have been resolved before it got into the media but the transgender zealotry meant that school officials simply do not care that their zealotry could harm other students.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 25, 2019, 11:44:56 pm
Forcing a parent to STFU is an overreach by the state.
Post by: Omni on June 25, 2019, 11:48:02 pm
I am so **** glad that this **** was not happening when I was a kid. As a gender-atypical kid, I have no doubt that these zealots and nut-cases would have decided I needed their kind of "help". I dread to think of what these psychopaths might have done to my mind and body.
-k
Oh, I didn't realize you were gender atypical, I thought you were only sexually orientation atypical.
Post by: kimmy on June 25, 2019, 11:55:30 pm
Oh, I didn't realize you were gender atypical, I thought you were only sexually orientation atypical.
I liked "boy stuff" more than "girl stuff". I worked in construction for 10 years. Back in the old days I was "a girl who didn't conform to stereotypes", but now I'd be called "non-binary" or "probably trans".
And on a related note, I've never heard any of the gender-theory ****-heads describe the "gender spectrum" in terms that weren't based in outdated stereotypes anyway. Boys be like GI Joe, girls be like Barbie, etc. Boys be like rough and tumble, girls be like sweet and gentle. Boys be like snails and puppy-dog tails, girls be like sugar and spice and everything nice. Etc. It's all dog ****.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 26, 2019, 12:10:48 am
-k
Post by: Omni on June 26, 2019, 12:17:37 am
I liked "boy stuff" more than "girl stuff". I worked in construction for 10 years. Back in the old days I was "a girl who didn't conform to stereotypes", but now I'd be called "non-binary" or "probably trans".
And on a related note, I've never heard any of the gender-theory ****-heads describe the "gender spectrum" in terms that weren't based in outdated stereotypes anyway. Boys be like GI Joe, girls be like Barbie, etc. Boys be like rough and tumble, girls be like sweet and gentle. Boys be like snails and puppy-dog tails, girls be like sugar and spice and everything nice. Etc. It's all dog ****.
-k
I was lucky to have grown up around girls who didn't conform to stereotypes. My first serious girlfriend after high school was an editor at the local town newspaper, and the first time I climbed into a helicopter for a lesson the instructor was Annabelle Hoyt.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 12:25:19 am
I have read plenty of anecdotes about idiot mothers who have decided their toddler sons are trans because they like to watch My Little Pony or want to try on mommy's nail-polish. This **** is going to put a whole generation of kids in therapy.Hormone therapy causes lifelong damage to the body. There will be lawsuits in 10-20 years as these so called "trans kids" grow up and realize they were abused by the people in authority.
Post by: wilber on June 26, 2019, 12:32:40 am
Hormone therapy causes lifelong damage to the body. There will be lawsuits in 10-20 years as these so called "trans kids" grow up and realize they were abused by the people in authority.
Wouldn't be surprised.
Post by: Omni on June 26, 2019, 12:42:47 am
Wouldn't be surprised.
Well of course. What else are the ambulance chasers going to do? Most litigiousness country on the planet.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 26, 2019, 05:44:34 am
You did not read the story. Not only did someone in authority abuse their position the school officials refused to acknowledge there was a problem. Now in the case is before the HRC and the school board is arguing that he case should be thrown out because the girl is not a member of a "recognized group" which is equivalent to saying that school board does not care if the curriculum cause harm to normal students because they don't matter.
I did read the story. Maybe I should be clear that the teacher overstepped IMO. And what the lawyers say to defend themselves doesn't cover what should have been done.
Quote
Why do you keep using that excuse to avoid acknowledging a problem?
Because this tactic is causing damage. A single example of incorrect behaviour is a problem but may not be a big problem.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 06:49:20 am
I did read the story. Maybe I should be clear that the teacher overstepped IMO. And what the lawyers say to defend themselves doesn't cover what should have been done.Again, you ignore the fact that the *school officials* did nothing and let this go to the HRC. That makes the problem much bigger than just one teacher overstepping their bounds. It is a systematic issue where the school willingly sacrifices the needs of a normal student to push an ideology which a large percentage of society completely rejects.
Because this tactic is causing damage. A single example of incorrect behaviour is a problem but may not be a big problem.We live in a world were the slightest offense against the SJW religion results in immediate firings/apologies/shunning. Attempting to dismiss wrongs committed in the name of the SJW religion is just hypocritical BS that exacerbates the political polarization in society.
Post by: cybercoma on June 26, 2019, 07:57:40 am
I think the kid should be able to express themselves however they like, they can dress however they like, call themselves whatever they want, but I don't feel comfortable having kids getting hormone therapy or surgeryWhy do you think you should have a say at all? It's not your body, your mind, or your life nor is it those of your family.
Post by: cybercoma on June 26, 2019, 07:59:24 am
I liked "boy stuff" more than "girl stuff". I worked in construction for 10 years. Back in the old days I was "a girl who didn't conform to stereotypes", but now I'd be called "non-binary" or "probably trans".You make an awful lot of absurd assumptions. You're heavily implying that tomboys are being told they're trans and should be taking hormones and transition immediately. That's not even remotely true and is awfully dismissive of the trans people's experiences.
-k
Post by: cybercoma on June 26, 2019, 08:01:46 am
Again, you ignore the fact that the *school officials* did nothing and let this go to the HRC.And you keep ignoring MH's point that generalizing from fringe cases is stupid. You're pretending that there's some widespread issue when you haven't even come close to demonstrating it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 26, 2019, 08:12:14 am
I will also point out that an environment where any decision you make can land you in the national spotlight doesn't produce good decisions or deciders.
Would you take such a job?
And now that I have granted there may have been a few errors made, does that throw some water on the outrage bonfire?
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 08:19:41 am
If the officials ignored a valid concern then yes that's an issue.Which was my point from the beginning which you dismissed in a rush to convince yourself that I could not possibly have a valid point.
I will also point out that an environment where any decision you make can land you in the national spotlight doesn't produce good decisions or deciders.The blame for that falls on culture were ideologically driven mob justice has replaced compromise and common sense.
Post by: cybercoma on June 26, 2019, 08:23:26 am
The blame for that falls on culture...::)
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 26, 2019, 11:05:40 am
Why do you think you should have a say at all? It's not your body, your mind, or your life nor is it those of your family.
I have the right to an opinion, as is my Charter right, and that's all it is. Why do you assume it has nothing to do with my family? I also have a say in what is taught and legislated to my children.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 26, 2019, 11:14:41 am
I will also point out that an environment where any decision you make can land you in the national spotlight doesn't produce good decisions or deciders.
Would you take such a job?
You're right, these things are very controversial. That's why I think teachers and principals etc. shoudn't have the curriculum and these kinds of issues simply left up to their own viewpoints on the matter. There needs to be very clear curriculum and protocol decided on from the top, so that a crazy right-wing teacher or crazy left-wing teacher isn't allowed to teach their views to students and potentially mess up some of those kids.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 12:00:53 pm
There needs to be very clear curriculum and protocol decided on from the top, so that a crazy right-wing teacher or crazy left-wing teacher isn't allowed to teach their views to students and potentially mess up some of those kids.Trouble is crazy left wing teachers are extremely common and they insist on teaching their equivalent to 'intelligent design' to kids and calling anyone who questions it names instead of engaging constructively with people who do not share their religious views.
Post by: Omni on June 26, 2019, 12:13:32 pm
Trouble is crazy left wing teachers are extremely common and they insist on teaching their equivalent to 'intelligent design' to kids and calling anyone who questions it names instead of engaging constructively with people who do not share their religious views.
I think you'll find that the actual proponents of ID are mostly your type right wingers.
Post by: wilber on June 26, 2019, 12:29:57 pm
I think you'll find that the actual proponents of ID are mostly your type right wingers.
I took it to mean he was referring to a non science based ideology, not literally IC.
Post by: Omni on June 26, 2019, 12:37:16 pm
I took it to mean he was referring to a non science based ideology, not literally IC.
Well he said it was equivalent to ID which is a non scientific form of creationism who's proponents are typically right wing religious types.
Post by: wilber on June 26, 2019, 12:45:43 pm
Well he said it was equivalent to ID which is a non scientific form of creationism who's proponents are typically right wing religious types.
Ya but I don't think right wing religious types have a monopoly on non scientific ideologies.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 12:48:41 pm
I took it to mean he was referring to a non science based ideology, not literally IC.I was referring to "science" done to rationalize pre-existing beliefs. ID is one example where the pre-existing belief is creationism so they hunt for data that supports the premise to give the belief a "scientific" veneer. Much of the so called research into 'gender identity' is similar.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Post by: ?Impact on June 26, 2019, 01:19:14 pm
Forcing a parent to STFU is an overreach by the state.
The parent had all the rights he wanted to intervene with the courts, etc. He decided to attack his child in public by using the extreme right wing media. He should STFU, he is a POS.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 01:22:51 pm
The parent had all the rights he wanted to intervene with the courts, etc. He decided to attack his child in public by using the extreme right wing media. He should STFU, he is a POS.Where is the evidence that he did anything other than explain his side of the story which was getting ignored by the courts? You continued attempts to smear the man for speaking out is typical of the totalitarian tactics used by left wing commentators to silence opposition to their regressive ideology.
Post by: Omni on June 26, 2019, 01:32:15 pm
Where is the evidence that he did anything other than explain his side of the story which was getting ignored by the courts? You continued attempts to smear the man for speaking out is typical of the totalitarian tactics used by left wing commentators to silence opposition to their regressive ideology.
The regressive ideology tends to emanate in large part from right wingers who support the creationist concept found in your ID philosophy.
Post by: ?Impact on June 26, 2019, 01:37:22 pm
I liked "boy stuff" more than "girl stuff". I worked in construction for 10 years. Back in the old days I was "a girl who didn't conform to stereotypes", but now I'd be called "non-binary" or "probably trans".
Good point in what "gender" really drives. Society has pigeonholed people because of their gender. In what they do, how they dress, how they cut their hair, if they wear makeup or not, how they interact with others, etc. There are way too many overlapping terms, and labels are thrown on people who don't conform to someones ideal. We need to evolve as a society as accepting people for what they are and what they want, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.
I do have reservations about children altering their bodies, but we also need to realize there is a large grey area. I doubt there are many in North America that would oppose a young teenager (or teenage girl for some of the dinosaurs around) from getting their ears pierced, at least with a parents approval. The question is what age, and what level of intervention is appropriate. Different societies have treated this very differently, and too many people who grew up in one society think that they have all the answers. A perfect example is the male genital mutilation that was widespread in North American society, those same people who oppose what others do will defend that abhorrent practice.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 01:49:04 pm
The question is what age, and what level of intervention is appropriate. Different societies have treated this very differently, and too many people who grew up in one society think that they have all the answers.We don't hold children criminally responsible until they are 18 because of an under developed decision making ability. This means there is no justification for allowing children to make decisions on life altering medications or surgeries.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 26, 2019, 01:51:18 pm
The parent had all the rights he wanted to intervene with the courts, etc. He decided to attack his child in public by using the extreme right wing media. He should STFU, he is a POS.
Like Tim said, "where is the evidence that he did anything other than explain his side of the story which was getting ignored by the courts?". The judge didn't say he was attacking his child, the judge said the father gave too much personal info like the child's name while talking about the case in the media.
When I said forcing the father to STFU is an overreach by the state i didn't mean trying to gag him in the media. I meant forcing the father to not be able to voice his disagreements to his child in private. Similarly, if someone has a gay child and is ie: dating people of the same sex, the parents have a right to have an opinion on it and express it to their child, even though you and I might not agree with the parent's views.
Post by: ?Impact on June 26, 2019, 01:52:07 pm
We don't hold children criminally responsible until they are 18 because of an under developed decision making ability. This means there is no justification for allowing children to make decisions on life altering medications or surgeries.
So their parents do that for them? They decide to cut off the foreskin, put a hole in the ear, and start genetic therapy. When there is disagreement between both parents, then the state gets involved (courts).
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 26, 2019, 01:58:08 pm
I do have reservations about children altering their bodies, but we also need to realize there is a large grey area. I doubt there are many in North America that would oppose a young teenager (or teenage girl for some of the dinosaurs around) from getting their ears pierced, at least with a parents approval. The question is what age, and what level of intervention is appropriate.
Well I don't think anyone would disapprove of a parent voicing concerns about their child getting their ears pierced, but then why is it now illegal for a parent to voice concerns when a child wants to cut off & reform their genitals?
I'm not saying for the child to not get surgery or hormones, that's on a case-by-case basis, I'm saying the father not even being able to express his concerns to his kid is pretty nutty.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 02:00:47 pm
So their parents do that for them? They decide to cut off the foreskin, put a hole in the ear, and start genetic therapy. When there is disagreement between both parents, then the state gets involved (courts).Cutting off the foreskin or piercing an ear are in a completely different category from female genital mutilation or transgender treatments because the latter have life altering consequences even when the procedures are done correctly. The courts should not allow parents to impose life altering medical treatments on children unless they are needed to treat a physical illness.
Post by: ?Impact on June 26, 2019, 02:03:35 pm
Well I don't think anyone would disapprove of a parent voicing concerns about their child getting their ears pierced, but then why is it now illegal for a parent to voice concerns when a child wants to cut off & reform their genitals?
I'm not saying for the child to not get surgery or hormones, that's on a case-by-case basis, I'm saying the father not even being able to express his concerns to his kid is pretty nutty.
The parent is free to express their concerns in private, and to the court. When the POS attacks his child in the far right wing media, then he needs to STFU.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 02:13:35 pm
The parent is free to express their concerns in private, and to the court. When the POS attacks his child in the far right wing media, then he needs to STFU.There you go again with your smears. Why is the political slant of the media a relevant qualifier? Perhaps because you absolutely no issue with parents talking about how the courts are harming their children in the media as long as they do it in media that you approve of.
Post by: ?Impact on June 26, 2019, 02:14:31 pm
There you go again with your smears. Why is the political slant of the media a relevant qualifier? Perhaps because you absolutely no issue with parents talking about how the courts are harming their children in the media as long as they do it in media that you approve of.
Show me an example of a parent attacking their child in other media.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 02:26:12 pm
Show me an example of a parent attacking their child in other media.You have not provided any evidence of that the guy "attacked" his child. That is just an attempt at smearing on your part. If you want an example where parents have gone to the media to protest harms caused by the government then the examples are numerous.
e.g: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/a-big-state-versus-a-poor-family-canadian-s-son-forcibly-removed-in-norway-1.3804956
e.g. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mother-says-she-was-investigated-over-children-playing-in-backyard-1.2870845
Post by: ?Impact on June 26, 2019, 05:34:02 pm
You have not provided any evidence of that the guy "attacked" his child. That is just an attempt at smearing on your part.
It is right there in the article you cited: B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the father to stop publicly discussing the case after finding some of his actions, including interviews with conservative media outlets, exposed his child to significant harm and constituted “family violence.”
If you look at earlier articles in the NP (Barbara Kay) on the subject, we find that it was originally brought up in the Post Millennial, although I can't find that original article.
If you want an example where parents have gone to the media to protest harms caused by the government then the examples are numerous.
Those are very different scenarios. They are about going to the media with the child against the government.
Post by: TimG on June 26, 2019, 07:04:23 pm
It is right there in the article you cited: B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the father to stop publicly discussing the case after finding some of his actions, including interviews with conservative media outlets, exposed his child to significant harm and constituted “family violence.”The judge also said:
Quote
Bowden also went on to declare that any attempts to persuade the boy to abandon treatment, addressing the boy by his birth name or referring to the boy as a girl or with female pronouns “shall be considered to be family violence.”This judge seriously described a parent attempting to persuade a child to learn to accept the body they have and forego life altering mutilations as "family violence". This judge has completely lost anything that I would call a moral or ethical compass. It also means his opinion on "conservative media outlets" are evidence of nothing.
Quote
Even though the father kept his child’s identity anonymous in his public comments, his conduct still put the child at high risk of exposure, violence, bullying and harassment, the judge found.IOW, the father did conduct himself in the way one would expect during the interviews. So unless you actually have quotes from these interviews that show these alleged attacks then the only reasonable conclusion is your claim is just unfounded smear tactics.
Those are very different scenarios. They are about going to the media with the child against the government.A judge represents the government. The judge caused harm to his child by allowing the self-mutilation to proceed. He is protesting that . Why do you think that only people with progressive complaints should be allowed to speak to media?
Post by: Omni on June 26, 2019, 08:48:46 pm
A judge represents the government. The judge caused harm to his child by allowing the self-mutilation to proceed. He is protesting that . Why do you think that only people with progressive complaints should be allowed to speak to media?
[/quote]
Just to clear up one issue for you a judge represents the constitution, not the government, thankfully.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 27, 2019, 11:27:52 am
1. Which was my point from the beginning which you dismissed in a rush to convince yourself that I could not possibly have a valid point.1. Absolutely untrue
2. The blame for that falls on culture were ideologically driven mob justice has replaced compromise and common sense.
2. We share a culture, and my submission that cases should be investigated, but also put into context is a salve to the 'mob mentality' independent of politics
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 27, 2019, 11:30:51 am
1. That's why I think teachers and principals etc. shoudn't have the curriculum and these kinds of issues simply left up to their own viewpoints on the matter.1. Well, they don't. There are provincial directives.
2. There needs to be very clear curriculum and protocol decided on from the top, so that a crazy right-wing teacher or crazy left-wing teacher isn't allowed to teach their views to students and potentially mess up some of those kids.
2. Sure but you can't plan for every eventuality. You have to rely on the professionalism and care of individual teachers and understand that mistakes will be made. That's how a system works. No teacher should ever tell a student you are not a boy, you are not a girl, or alternately that immigrants are destroying Canada. If those things happen then discipline processes kick in. But they WILL happen. And for the most part the news won't need to cover them.
Post by: ?Impact on June 27, 2019, 01:59:06 pm
So unless you actually have quotes from these interviews that show these alleged attacks then the only reasonable conclusion is your claim is just unfounded smear tactics.
I suggest that you are the king of unfounded smear tactics. You are basing your attack on the judge based on the same article. Please provide evidence, or back off.
Post by: TimG on June 27, 2019, 02:04:43 pm
I suggest that you are the king of unfounded smear tactics. You are basing your attack on the judge based on the same article. Please provide evidence, or back off.You are the one who made the unfounded claim that he "attacked" his child. The only "evidence" you offered is a dubious claim made by a judge which is at the center the of the dispute. That means the judge is hardly an impartial source of information. If you can't provide actual evidence in terms of specific words he used during his interviews that an impartial observer would likely see as an attack on his child then the only reasonable conclusions is you are just making stuff up.
Post by: ?Impact on June 27, 2019, 02:11:00 pm
You are the one...
... who started this thread by attacking the judge
Post by: TimG on June 27, 2019, 03:02:30 pm
... who started this thread by attacking the judgeSo now you are saying that only people who agree with you are allowed to disagree with rulings made by judges? What breathtaking hypocrisy.
Any even if you don't like my opinion of a judicial ruling that does not let you off the hook for making completely unfounded claims that the father in question "attacked" his child.
Post by: ?Impact on June 27, 2019, 05:37:31 pm
So now you are saying that only people who agree with you are allowed to disagree with rulings made by judges? What breathtaking hypocrisy.
Any even if you don't like my opinion of a judicial ruling that does not let you off the hook for making completely unfounded claims that the father in question "attacked" his child.
Please support your claims about the judges ruling by quoting directly from court transcripts, otherwise they are just as unfounded as mine.
Post by: TimG on June 27, 2019, 05:55:05 pm
Please support your claims about the judges ruling by quoting directly from court transcripts, otherwise they are just as unfounded as mine.I already pointed out how the judge made gratuitous and inappropriate use of the term "family violence" elsewhere in his judgement and that the judge acknowledged that the father kept his child anonymous in the interviews. It is simply wrong to take the judge's use of the words "family violence" as evidence that he "attacked" his child in his interviews because this judge clearly uses a definition of the term that makes the term meaningless.
IOW, I have supported my argument by pointing to the judges words. You, OTOH, have not provided any counter argument or alternate evidence to support your claims.
Post by: ?Impact on June 27, 2019, 06:13:31 pm
You, OTOH, have not provided any counter argument or alternate evidence to support your claims.
My evidence is the same National Post article you are referencing, along with the earlier one from Barbara Kay. I also found the Post Millennial article, it was modified to comply with the court order: https://www.thepostmillennial.com/b-c-judge-rules-14-year-old-transgender-teen-can-receive-hormone-injections-despite-fathers-objections/
As your original article points out, the father was unwilling to meet with the medical professionals. His lawyer provided some "evidence" from US doctors that never even saw the child.
Post by: TimG on June 27, 2019, 06:38:52 pm
My evidence is the same National Post article you are referencingNothing in those articles supports your claim that the father "attacked" his child in his interviews with the media.
What those links do do is illustrate how the medical community is failing troubled teens who claim their troubles were caused by "gender dysphoria" by promoting radical medical interventions for a mental health issue. It is as ethnically dubious as pumping a trouble teen full of anti-psychotics instead of trying to address the underlying mental illness.
I am curious how these doctors would deal with a teen that threaten to take his life unless he got a new car.
Post by: ?Impact on June 27, 2019, 06:42:04 pm
Nothing in those articles supports your claim that the father "attacked" his child in his interviews with the media.
The father on multiple occasions failed to meet with the health care professionals that were actually dealing with his child.
Post by: TimG on June 27, 2019, 06:50:13 pm
The father on multiple occasions failed to meet with the health care professionals that were actually dealing with his child.Don't see anything in the articles that supports this claim.
Post by: ?Impact on June 27, 2019, 07:16:37 pm
Don't see anything in the articles that supports this claim.
Hospital staff were ready to begin injections that same day, Sarah says — but she felt it would only be fair to let Clark, who did not attend the meeting, weigh in on the decision.
...
Clark says a hospital social worker tried to persuade him to come in to talk but he declined
Post by: TimG on June 27, 2019, 08:12:53 pm
Hospital staff were ready to begin injections that same day, Sarah says — but she felt it would only be fair to let Clark, who did not attend the meeting, weigh in on the decisionThat quote is not in the article you linked.
But the complete context was not hard to find and paints a very different picture:
Quote
Hospital staff were ready to begin injections that same day, Sarah says — but she felt it would only be fair to let Clark, who did not attend the meeting, weigh in on the decision.
Clark, whose legal challenge was first reported in the alternative news website The Post Millennial, told the National Post he didn’t want to miss work that day and thought the visit to the gender clinic was exploratory. He says he was shocked to hear how quickly things were moving.
This article provide more context and paints a picture of a caring father who is only concerned about what is best for his child:
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/who-gets-to-decide-when-a-14-year-old-wants-to-change-gender/wcm/439b5d06-160d-4da6-9c3c-894616a3bfaa
After reading that article your characterizations that he "attacked" his child in media border on libel.
Post by: ?Impact on June 28, 2019, 12:41:31 pm
That quote is not in the article you linked.
Both quotes are as I stated: "My evidence is the same National Post article you are referencing". Your Ottawa Citizen article looks like the same article (same author, same graphic) as the original one you cited so I suggest you look through it for the quotes.
Your comments on the judge however border on libel.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 28, 2019, 02:25:36 pm
Post by: TimG on June 28, 2019, 02:35:33 pm
1you cited so I suggest you look through it for the quotes.I did and the quotes don't say what you claim they say when read in context. In fact, they suggest the opposite.
You have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim that he 'attacked' his child in media interviews. Every time you provided a link it does not actually support your assertion
Post by: ?Impact on June 28, 2019, 03:55:12 pm
I did and the quotes don't say what you claim they say when read in context. In fact, they suggest the opposite.
You think a weak excuse for one, and no excuse for the other suggests the opposite?
Neither of your comments are libellous. Stop being hysterical hyperbolic hosers.
Is that a divers joke?
Post by: TimG on June 28, 2019, 04:31:43 pm
You think a weak excuse for one, and no excuse for the other suggests the opposite?You said he "refused" to meet with the medical professionals as if he was deliberately avoiding it. The context says he was willing but did not realize that they were pushing ahead with treatment so quickly. There is no reason to not take him at his word.
In the other context, he said he did not need to meet the person because everything he needed was written down which means there is a lot more going on that was not reported because it does not say what was written down and what he needed and why. You can't infer from that he was deliberately avoiding talking to medical professionals.
More importantly: the core of this issue is the competence of the medical professionals who are pushing for radical interventions to deal with a mental health problem. Why do you assume that they must be right? Medical professional can and do push therapies that seemed good at the time but we later dropped when the negative consequences became apparent. e.g. they exacerbated the drug addiction problem by over prescribing opioids. How can it be wrong for a parent to question the wisdom of medical professionals when comes to a field as new as transgender treatments pushed on teens? In my opinion, the "bad" parents are the ones that do not question the wisdom of medical professionals pushing irreversible damage to a teen as a "solution".
My beef with the judge is not that he made a decision to allow a teen to make their own medical decisions but that he characterized the opposition of the father as "family violence". That is a grotesque perversion of the term.
Post by: ?Impact on June 28, 2019, 04:36:41 pm
the core of this issue is the competence of the medical professionals
So now you are libeling the medical professionals - will it ever end?
Post by: TimG on June 28, 2019, 04:38:46 pm
So now you are libeling the medical professionals - will it ever end?Try reading the argument made. I provided a specific example of why medical professionals are not gods.
Post by: ?Impact on June 28, 2019, 04:49:08 pm
Try reading the argument made.
Yes, without any medical history of the patient you called the attending medical professionals incompetent. That is libel of the worst kind.
Yes, I can point out a lot of failures of medical professionals, but those are informed cases and not unsubstantiated ones.
Post by: wilber on June 29, 2019, 10:05:35 pm
Yes, without any medical history of the patient you called the attending medical professionals incompetent. That is libel of the worst kind.
Yes, I can point out a lot of failures of medical professionals, but those are informed cases and not unsubstantiated ones.
The fact is a lot of people were turned into addicts by the over prescribing of opioids and over prescribing antibiotics has been a major contributor to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Those weren’t the actions of individual physicians but the whole profession. That may not add up to incompetence but it sure as hell doesn’t make their opinions infallible either.
Post by: ?Impact on June 30, 2019, 12:41:03 pm
The fact is a lot of people were turned into addicts by the over prescribing of opioids and over prescribing antibiotics has been a major contributor to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Those weren’t the actions of individual physicians but the whole profession. That may not add up to incompetence but it sure as hell doesn’t make their opinions infallible either.
Yes, but that does not give you the right to defame a specific doctor on a case you know nothing about that was related by a father and his lawyer that refused to meet said doctor.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 30, 2019, 02:31:08 pm
Post by: Omni on June 30, 2019, 02:42:57 pm
I have a ****.
Did you just discover that?
Post by: ?Impact on June 30, 2019, 03:40:22 pm
I have a ****.
Since you were born?
Post by: kimmy on July 18, 2019, 08:48:43 pm
I have a ****.
But how do you identify?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 18, 2019, 08:57:16 pm
A friend of mine added three words' comment: never say never.
Post by: kimmy on July 18, 2019, 10:00:20 pm
Earlier in the thread we talked about the case of JY, the transwoman who filed BC Human Rights Commission complaints against 16 aestheticians who refused to wax her lady-testicles.
This week, as some of those complaints are heard by the BCHRC, the commission has removed the publication ban on JY's real name. Some of us who have been following this tale for some time already know this individual's real name and disturbing history. But now Canadian media is allowed to report on it as well. JY is Jessica Yaniv, who was known as Jonathan Yaniv as late as November of last year.
This article at the "Postmillenial" gives some insight into what kind of person Yaniv is. (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-truth-about-jessica-yaniv-is-beginning-to-emerge/)
Some of the highlights:
-Yaniv is a racist who as recently as yesterday was on Twitter calling for brown-people in Surrey to be "carded" by immigration cops.
-the aestheticians Yaniv has filed complaints against have been primarily small, home-based services operated by women of minority background who are reluctant to handle male genitalia (other than their husband's) for religious or cultural reasons. Yaniv has said that these people should be deported.
-Yaniv has a disturbing social media history that includes numerous attempts at finding our how to interact with adolescent girls in washrooms and locker rooms, a fascination with helping young girls insert tampons, and attempts to make personal contact with teen girls.
-Yaniv recently showed up at a pageant for young girls and began taking photographs; the pageant organizer warned Yaniv that if they appeared again she'd call the RCMP. BC's most prominent trans rights activist, BC NDP vice-president Morgane Oger, joined in and suggested the pageant organizer look into getting a restraining order, all but called Yaniv a predator, and warned Yaniv that she has contacted the RCMP and that Yaniv would do well to steer clear of events with minors.
Oger (who has run for MLA and may soon be the federal NDP candidate for Vancouver Center) had this to say about Yaniv: (https://morganeoger.ca/2019/04/19/preying-on-children-makes-you-a-predator-regardless-of-who-you-are/)
Quote
I learned about Louise in January 2019 and spoke to her that month. I notified the serious crimes division of the RCMP immediately and passed on a recorded conversation with her. With Louise’s help, I tracked down more women who reported they had experience online predatory behaviour from Yaniv. I finally spoke to the most important witness, who was a child at the time of her interactions with Yaniv, in April 2019.
Until I had evidence of misbehaviour towards a minor, it was impossible for me to speak about allegations so steeped in transphobia because every transgender person is familiar with the transgender-woman-as-predator model used by hate groups advocating to marginalize us. Without real evidence, this horrible story is simply indistinguishable from the copious hate propaganda that clogs my social media. I got this evidence mid-April 2019.
Hopefully that paints a clearer picture of this human-rights hero.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 18, 2019, 10:03:56 pm
The 'you are transphobic if you would say that you will never date trans people' has been going around again.
A friend of mine added three words' comment: never say never.
"Never say never because you could get beat up for being a TERF. Say you're in a relationship."
I wonder how many straight men would say "never say never" if asked whether they'd ever have a **** in their mouth? What would you reply, Michael?
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 18, 2019, 10:12:21 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/1gwndE2.jpg)
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 18, 2019, 10:38:27 pm
1. "Never say never because you could get beat up for being a TERF. Say you're in a relationship."1. TERFs probably beat people up too. Is there a fallacy for associating individual crimes to a group you identify ?
2. I wonder how many straight men would say "never say never" if asked whether they'd ever have a **** in their mouth? What would you reply, Michael?
-k
2. I would agree 'never say never'. The idea doesn't appeal to me, no, but life lasts a long time :) I see some logic in framing such statements as exclusionary. For example, I was with a woman once who said she went with women also but 'never' black ones.
Hmmmm...
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 18, 2019, 10:39:01 pm
The target audience for "girl-dick" revealed!
I don't think he wanted anything in a woman.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 18, 2019, 10:41:13 pm
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-twitter-silences-canadian-free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd/
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 18, 2019, 10:48:05 pm
Post by: kimmy on July 19, 2019, 10:53:36 am
1. TERFs probably beat people up too. Is there a fallacy for associating individual crimes to a group you identify ?
Trans individuals talk about committing violence against TERFs all the time on their social media. Google "punch a TERF", it's a thing. I'm sure I've posted the charming person in the blood-soaked "I punch TERFs" t-shirt before. Some portion of the trans community have convinced themselves that TERFs are as bad as (or the same thing as) Nazis, and therefore deserve violence. And some trans people seem to think that turning down a trans person for sex makes you a TERF.
When trans people have developed this level of hatred against TERFs, and then a trans person actually goes out and commits violence against TERFs, are you really dismiss it as a logical fallacy to draw a link?
I'm sure that TERFs have been in fights before. But I've never heard of TERFs going out and beating up trans people for being trans. I've heard of rednecks beating up trans people for being trans, but not TERFs beating up people.
I earlier posted the survey from England's "Get the L Out" group indicating that many lesbian respondents reported experiencing harrassment and intimidation from trans individuals wanting sex. I've read enough anecdotes from lesbians reporting the same thing to know that this is a real concern among lesbians. You can dismiss it if you want, but that would be a mistake.
2. I would agree 'never say never'. The idea doesn't appeal to me, no, but life lasts a long time :)
Sure. Things change. It happens.
But if it was a straight man telling a lesbian "never say never" or "you just haven't met the right one yet" or similar, people would recognize it for what it is: boorish and homophobic.
Women, especially gay women, find our sexual boundaries under attack from all sides, and are **** sick of having people constantly question our sexual boundaries. The last thing we need is people like your friend piling on with this "never say never" bullshit.
Your "never say never" friend may think she was being "woke", but she's actually just being boorish and homophobic.
I see some logic in framing such statements as exclusionary. For example, I was with a woman once who said she went with women also but 'never' black ones.
Hmmmm...
Who cares? Nobody's sex life is an "inclusive space". Everyone's sexual boundaries are exclusionary. Every person has the absolute right to establish their own sexual boundaries without concern for "inclusiveness".
And people who challenge someone's sexual boundaries, whether it's with "well you used to like dick, so why not now?" or "you just haven't met the right one yet" or "never say never" or "God's plan is for you to find a husband" or anything else, are just plain **** ****. Tell your friend she's a **** ****, Mike.
-k
Post by: Goddess on July 19, 2019, 12:14:00 pm
Quote
Women, especially gay women, find our sexual boundaries under attack from all sides, and are **** sick of having people constantly question our sexual boundaries. The last thing we need is people like your friend piling on with this "never say never" bullshit.
My daughter says this same thing.
Post by: ?Impact on July 19, 2019, 12:44:57 pm
-Yaniv is a racist who as recently as yesterday was on Twitter calling for brown-people in Surrey to be "carded" by immigration cops.
-the aestheticians Yaniv has filed complaints against have been primarily small, home-based services operated by women of minority background who are reluctant to handle male genitalia (other than their husband's) for religious or cultural reasons. Yaniv has said that these people should be deported.
-Yaniv has a disturbing social media history that includes numerous attempts at finding our how to interact with adolescent girls in washrooms and locker rooms, a fascination with helping young girls insert tampons, and attempts to make personal contact with teen girls.
-Yaniv recently showed up at a pageant for young girls and began taking photographs; the pageant organizer warned Yaniv that if they appeared again she'd call the RCMP. BC's most prominent trans rights activist, BC NDP vice-president Morgane Oger, joined in and suggested the pageant organizer look into getting a restraining order, all but called Yaniv a predator, and warned Yaniv that she has contacted the RCMP and that Yaniv would do well to steer clear of events with minors.
Presidential material
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 19, 2019, 07:41:40 pm
And people who challenge someone's sexual boundaries, whether it's with "well you used to like dick, so why not now?" or "you just haven't met the right one yet" or "never say never" or "God's plan is for you to find a husband" or anything else, are just plain **** ****. Tell your friend she's a **** ****, Mike.
-k
Well... No.
Firstly, I don't associate TERFs or people who oppose them with violence. That's a high bar and I don't see it.
Secondly, my friend is not a woman talking to lesbians. It's a guy talking to guys about a high philosophical point. If they were talking to a lesbian then I would agree.
Generally, never say never is, to me, like 'take pride in your race'. A bit of philosophical appeal to openness and positivity that can be wrong in the wrong context.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 19, 2019, 08:03:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wcxHiorJ4
Post by: kimmy on July 20, 2019, 02:23:59 pm
Well... No.
Firstly, I don't associate TERFs or people who oppose them with violence. That's a high bar and I don't see it.
You might not see it, but so? I posted the survey a while back about lesbians facing harassment, intimidation, and violence for turning down the advances of "transbians". Respondents reported things like social pressure, accusations of transphobia, doxxing and calls to their employer, and even physical assault. If TERFs deserve to get beat up, and rejecting a "transbian" makes you a TERF, then turning down a transbian can get you beat up. People are scared.
Secondly, my friend is not a woman talking to lesbians. It's a guy talking to guys about a high philosophical point. If they were talking to a lesbian then I would agree.
Generally, never say never is, to me, like 'take pride in your race'. A bit of philosophical appeal to openness and positivity that can be wrong in the wrong context.
If your friend was talking about his own sexual boundaries, then good for him I guess. If he was admonishing others for having sexual boundaries, then not so much. Perhaps as a straight man you're not used to having your sexual boundaries questioned or challenged, and it seems new or novel. For gay women it's not a "positive" experience at all, it's an infuriating experience and a reminder that you're not respected.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 20, 2019, 02:34:12 pm
Anyways, i don't think any female waxer should be forced to get her face up close in someone's **** and balls because they want it waxed. Don't think that's what they signed up for in that business lol.
What's disappointing to me is that the lawyer defending the women seems to be focusing on religious and cultural factors as reasons why these women should have to wax Jessica's lady-balls.
Like I said early on in this thread, everybody is going to have an escape hatch except us filthy atheists. If it gets to the point where you have to have a magic book excuse to avoid girl-dick, I'm going to start my own religion.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 20, 2019, 03:35:44 pm
She didn't seem to have an issue doing it, but i wonder what she thought on a religious basis, and i wonder what kinds of religious conflicts some Muslim doctors in the West have to deal with.
As an aesthetician do you have to wax a man? Does it come with the territory, like a female doctor inspecting men's giblets?
Post by: ?Impact on July 20, 2019, 03:39:02 pm
The doctor who came into the room was a muslim woman with a hijab on.
I don't think a hijab is a good indication of religious dedication.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 20, 2019, 03:51:42 pm
I don't think a hijab is a good indication of religious dedication.
I agree.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 22, 2019, 06:23:12 am
You might not see it, but so? I posted the survey a while back about lesbians facing harassment, intimidation, and violence for turning down the advances of "transbians". Respondents reported things like social pressure, accusations of transphobia, doxxing and calls to their employer, and even physical assault. If TERFs deserve to get beat up, and rejecting a "transbian" makes you a TERF, then turning down a transbian can get you beat up. People are scared.
Ok, but are groups on either side automatically ASSOCIATED with violence as you would antifa or KKK ?
Quote
If your friend was talking about his own sexual boundaries, then good for him I guess. If he was admonishing others for having sexual boundaries, then not so much. Perhaps as a straight man you're not used to having your sexual boundaries questioned or challenged, and it seems new or novel. For gay women it's not a "positive" experience at all, it's an infuriating experience and a reminder that you're not respected.
I think that I explained the context already above.
Post by: ?Impact on July 22, 2019, 12:34:10 pm
ASSOCIATED with violence as you would antifa or KKK ?
Trump is ASSOCIATED with violence
Black bloc is violent and infiltrates antifa
White supremacists are violent and inflate Trump camp
Do infiltrators make a group violent?
Are churches ASSOCIATED with violence because they participate in anti-abortion rallies that have included violence?
Using linkages need to apply universally.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 22, 2019, 12:46:57 pm
Post by: kimmy on July 23, 2019, 03:57:53 am
Ok, but are groups on either side automatically ASSOCIATED with violence as you would antifa or KKK ?
I don't understand the question. What are you even asking here?
First off, I don't think that either trans rights activists or TERFs constitute "a group" in the sense of any organized structure. They're ideological positions, not organizations.
Second, trans-people's social media content on Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit are absolutely rife with talk of violence toward TERFs. Talk of beating, killing, or raping (with "girl dick") are commonplace. This kind of talk is tolerated, condoned, even applauded. They egg each other on.
Violence toward minorities and journalists and political opponents isn't an official Republican party position or universally supported among Trump supporters, but talk of these things is so commonplace among Trumptards that it can't be overlooked. Exact same argument in regard to talk of violence among trans rights activists.
Remember my post that started this, that you objected to? "Never say never because you could get beat up for being a TERF. Say you're in a relationship." That's completely reasonable advice. Lesbians have good reason to be worried about the potential consequences of saying no to a trans person. That's not a claim that every trans person would harass you or dox you or attack you for saying no. It's an acknowledgement that some would.
I think that I explained the context already above.
Yeah you did, but you got me riled up and I'm not done venting.
It seems like the kind of advice that's easy to give for somebody who has no skin in the game. Like Sean Hannity giving advice on how to interact with cops, for example. Easy for Hannity to give advice, but he's a rich and famous white dude who lives in a gated community and is never going to be on the business end of an agitated cop's revolver. Straight people, especially straight men, just aren't being faced with people trying to redefine their sexual orientation for them. Until that changes your open-minded friend is about as authentic as Sean Hannity's police advice.
This is the current state of woke peoples' attitude toward lesbians:
(https://i.imgur.com/QsheZ5k.jpg)
Our sexual orientation is now a "**** fetish" that we're supposed to get over.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2019, 07:57:43 am
Pointing out that violent threats come from some group isn't really germane to anything unless you are saying that the group is associated with violence ie. they are violent whether they are organized or not.
I am sure that some Belgians may threaten me online but unless Belgians as a group are known to do it then it's irrelevant. If a lesbian threatens me, is it because she's a lesbian? Probably not.
But it's a balancing act. I wouldn't say Republicans are violent but maybe that Trump rallies CAN be?
As for the second part, I said that the general advice of never say never could indeed be offensive to a minority, ie. you.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 23, 2019, 08:28:37 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2019, 09:10:34 am
Context is a human thing. If human affairs were mathematics then black pride and white pride would be equal.
Post by: kimmy on July 23, 2019, 10:14:07 am
Pointing out that violent threats come from some group isn't really germane to anything unless you are saying that the group is associated with violence ie. they are violent whether they are organized or not.
I am sure that some Belgians may threaten me online but unless Belgians as a group are known to do it then it's irrelevant. If a lesbian threatens me, is it because she's a lesbian? Probably not.
But it's a balancing act. I wouldn't say Republicans are violent but maybe that Trump rallies CAN be?
I don't think we need to make a blanket statement about Republicans as a group to point out that if you're a reporter or a minority, a Trump rally can be a threatening and dangerous place to be.
I don't think we need to make a blanket statement about transwomen to acknowledge that many women who've turned down transwomen for sex have experienced intimidation, threats, doxxing, harassment, and even violence. The survey from "Get the L Out" that I posted earlier makes that point, as does a plethora of personal stories I've read. It's unknowable what portion of transwomen exhibit this entitled, narcissistic behavior. What is not unknowable is that many women have very negative experiences when transwomen approach them.
If I told you "don't flash your money around when you get to Craptown because a lot of people get robbed there", is your reaction "ok, thanks for the tip" or is it "not all Craptown residents are robbers. I don't think there's any firm linkage between Craptown and robbery..."
...and when you do get to Craptown, are you going to be cautious about flashing your money around?
-k
Post by: cybercoma on July 23, 2019, 11:24:24 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2019, 12:23:59 pm
1. I don't think we need to make a blanket statement about transwomen to acknowledge that many women who've turned down transwomen for sex have experienced intimidation, threats, doxxing, harassment, and even violence. The survey from "Get the L Out" that I posted earlier makes that point, as does a plethora of personal stories I've read. It's unknowable what portion of transwomen exhibit this entitled, narcissistic behavior. What is not unknowable is that many women have very negative experiences when transwomen approach them.1. Then why point out that it's a trans woman? You may not be making a blanket statement but by pointing it out you are saying the detail is significant. 'I got robbed... And wouldn't you know it was a guy with a DIGITAL watch, just saying...' is not something people say.
2. If I told you "don't flash your money around when you get to Craptown because a lot of people get robbed there", is your reaction "ok, thanks for the tip" or is it "not all Craptown residents are robbers. I don't think there's any firm linkage between Craptown and robbery..."
3. ...and when you do get to Craptown, are you going to be cautious about flashing your money around?
-k
2. Hmmm... Craptown eh? I think that you may have undermined your point with that analogy.
3. Is Craptown where the trans women live.
I will give you this: saying ANYTHING controversial on Twitter is a bad idea.
Post by: ?Impact on July 23, 2019, 12:35:15 pm
Marginalized minorities often get away with a lot of BS that the majority can't. Racist, sexist comments etc. It's a BS double-standard
Yes, they can become President.
Post by: kimmy on July 23, 2019, 07:57:49 pm
1. Then why point out that it's a trans woman? You may not be making a blanket statement but by pointing it out you are saying the detail is significant. 'I got robbed... And wouldn't you know it was a guy with a DIGITAL watch, just saying...' is not something people say.
Funny but no. Their being trans isn't incidental information. When these people are going around accusing people of transphobia for rejecting them, their being trans isn't just a pertinent detail, it's a crucial detail. They're not handling rejection badly, they're Fighting Transphobia!
Again, Michael, read this and then tell me with a straight face that there isn't an issue specifically involving trans-women:
http://www.gettheloutuk.com/attachments/LesbiansAtGroundZeroFindings.pdf
2. Hmmm... Craptown eh? I think that you may have undermined your point with that analogy.
3. Is Craptown where the trans women live.
Craptown is the east end of Kim City, which is a high-crime area. If you want to substitute some other high crime location, feel free.
If you want to break down the analogy, it goes like this:
-Michael receiving advice from Kimmy <----> random lesbian receiving sage words of wisdom.
-going to Craptown <----> going to gay bars, gay dating sites, or any other former lesbian social spaces that have turned into sausage-fests in recent years.
-random Craptown robber <----> random "transbian" harassing women for sex (ie, a dangerous stranger who you could well encounter in your travels.)
-flashing your money around in Craptown <----> giving a transbian any excuse to call you transphobic (ie, a behavior that could draw harmful attention from the aforementioned stranger.)
The main difference is that unlike the Craptown robber, the Woke Folx will be cheering the transbian on.
-k
Post by: waldo on July 23, 2019, 08:55:05 pm
But now Canadian media is allowed to report on it as well. JY is Jessica Yaniv, who was known as Jonathan Yaniv as late as November of last year.
(https://i.redd.it/zcko9bj8yw0y.png) Tucker invokes Occam's Razor - says Canada allows Yaniv's bullying because Canada's sick society hates itself! (https://twitter.com/i/videos/1153825864078856193) ;D
Post by: Omni on July 23, 2019, 09:27:11 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 23, 2019, 09:49:27 pm
Funny but no. Their being trans isn't incidental information. When these people are going around accusing people of transphobia for rejecting them, their being trans isn't just a pertinent detail, it's a crucial detail. They're not handling rejection badly, they're Fighting Transphobia!
So trans women are a violent group?
Quote
Michael, read this and then tell me with a straight face that there isn't an issue specifically involving trans-women:
http://www.gettheloutuk.com/attachments/LesbiansAtGroundZeroFindings.pdf
Craptown is the east end of Kim City, which is a high-crime area. If you want to substitute some other high crime location, feel free.
Link doesn't work?
[Q
Quote
If you want to break down the analogy, it goes like this:
-Michael receiving advice from Kimmy <----> random lesbian receiving sage words of wisdom.
-going to Craptown <----> going to gay bars, gay dating sites, or any other former lesbian social spaces that have turned into sausage-fests in recent years.
-random Craptown robber <----> random "transbian" harassing women for sex (ie, a dangerous stranger who you could well encounter in your travels.)
-flashing your money around in Craptown <----> giving a transbian any excuse to call you transphobic (ie, a behavior that could draw harmful attention from the aforementioned stranger.)
The main difference is that unlike the Craptown robber, the Woke Folx will be cheering the transbian on.
-k
Does <---> mean equal or unequal ?
Post by: Goddess on July 24, 2019, 10:11:39 am
Link doesn't work?
Worked for me. :)
Post by: kimmy on July 24, 2019, 10:30:43 am
(https://i.redd.it/zcko9bj8yw0y.png) Tucker invokes Occam's Razor - says Canada allows Yaniv's bullying because Canada's sick society hates itself! (https://twitter.com/i/videos/1153825864078856193) ;D
Yep, well, Tucker is a demagogue, and gogues gonna gogue. I think a more reasonable explanation is that Canada is a well-meaning society that didn't give adequate thought to the potential downside of on-demand self-ID and that naively believed that it wouldn't be abused by unsavory individuals. And in that context I think that makes this a significant news story.
Which makes it disappointing that while this case has attracted international attention, the silence from Canada's media-- other than the Waldo-derided "CONmedia"-- has been deafening.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 24, 2019, 10:33:49 am
Worked for me. :)
I think the link only works for people who want to read the article.
Nonetheless, for the benefit of Michael and others who might not be able to launch the PDF directly from the link, this is the webpage that links to the survey and its companion document.
http://www.gettheloutuk.com/blog/category/research/lesbians-at-ground-zero.html
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 24, 2019, 10:42:04 am
So trans women are a violent group?
No? Yes? Maybe? It seems like you're hanging your hat on a pointless distinction.
Are (cisgender, heterosexual) men a violent group? No? Yes? Maybe? Does it matter? If you're a woman alone with strange men, you better be cautious, regardless of whether you think men as a collective are violent.
Women have developed a collective lore for being safe around men, whether men as "a group" are violent or not. A similar collective lore will need to develop for dealing with trans women.
Link doesn't work?
try this http://www.gettheloutuk.com/blog/category/research/lesbians-at-ground-zero.html
Does <---> mean equal or unequal ?
It means analogous to, but I think you already figured that out on your own.
-k
Post by: cybercoma on July 24, 2019, 11:07:22 am
kimmy feels attacked and so she should. There are trans-rights individuals who have advocated violence and it's reprehensible. They are the transgender version of alt-right incels and it's vile.
We should be intelligent enough to recognize trans rights and the oppression that transgender people face, while also being able to condemn those trangender persons who advocate **** and violence against those who do not want to have sexual relationships with them.
At the same time, trans people are trying to argue that they ought to have a space at the table for women's rights because they are women by socially-constructed gender hierarchies. Especially those who pass, face many of the same forms of discrimination and limitations that biologically assigned women face.
None of that makes it acceptable to call for raping lesbians who won't have sex with trans women or beating and murdering trans-exclusionary feminists. Both views can be held at once.
Post by: waldo on July 24, 2019, 11:43:30 am
Yep, well, Tucker is a demagogue, and gogues gonna gogue. I think a more reasonable explanation is that Canada is a well-meaning society that didn't give adequate thought to the potential downside of on-demand self-ID and that naively believed that it wouldn't be abused by unsavory individuals. And in that context I think that makes this a significant news story.
is your declared 'well-meaning society'... self-correcting the unsavory individual abuse you speak of? If not - why not? If not - what would you like to occur; specifically occur?
Which makes it disappointing that while this case has attracted international attention, the silence from Canada's media-- other than the Waldo-derided "CONmedia"-- has been deafening.
a cursory googly just returned a CBC article that speaks to twitter bans - and goes into some detail concerning the exchanges between Yaniv and Lindsay Shepard. Not every outlet will sink to the depths of a NP Rex Murphy screed (for example)!
not sure what you're expecting... and in what timeframe! You yourself stated: "This week, as some of those complaints are heard by the BCHRC, the commission has removed the publication ban on JY's real name. Some of us who have been following this tale for some time already know this individual's real name and disturbing history. But now Canadian media is allowed to report on it as well."
I appreciate this is most topical for you; however, perhaps wait for than a "few days" before excoriating ALL Media for not following the ConMedia zeal - yes?
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 24, 2019, 12:08:08 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 25, 2019, 09:45:51 pm
No? Yes? Maybe? It seems like you're hanging your hat on a pointless distinction.
It's actually about the only thing here I care about, which is that you have prejudices against trans women. I have no skin in the game but it seems that way to me, sorry.
Quote
Are (cisgender, heterosexual) men a violent group? No? Yes? Maybe? Does it matter?
Well, of course it matters. And it matters if people say that they are also.
Quote
If you're a woman alone with strange men, you better be cautious, regardless of whether you think men as a collective are violent.
Sure. I'm "cautious" all the time too. It's not the same as drawing a line between a group and threatening behaviour.
Quote
Women have developed a collective lore for being safe around men, whether men as "a group" are violent or not. A similar collective lore will need to develop for dealing with trans women.
try this http://www.gettheloutuk.com/blog/category/research/lesbians-at-ground-zero.html
I read it, yes. And I reread this thread back to where you wrote:
"Never say never because you could get beat up for being a TERF. Say you're in a relationship."
As I explained, the 'never say never' quote was not directed at lesbians and likely doesn't apply in your context. I don't see why anyone would actually have to say out loud "I would never date xyz..." nor do I understand why someone things that saying so puts you at risk, without strong reasons to draw that link. But again it's not my group. I'm sure my group (whatever that is) has its own habits and cautions that are borne out of our 'networks'. I sure would love an example though.
Quote
It means analogous to, but I think you already figured that out on your own.
-k
No I didn't.
I am home now and was able to get at the survey. It's not right or wrong but it's problematic because of the methodology: "The survey was sent to women-only and lesbian-only groups on social media, as well as to individual lesbians in my own networks."
I am interested to see how many lesbians believe trans women are women or not. I highly doubt that almost 90% don't think so. And my interest in the topic is so removed from actual experience as to be academic so of course I could be quite wrong.
Post by: kimmy on July 26, 2019, 10:30:17 am
a cursory googly just returned a CBC article that speaks to twitter bans - and goes into some detail concerning the exchanges between Yaniv and Lindsay Shepard.
I read that article, and it makes no reference at all to Yaniv's HRC case. In fact it studiously avoids mentioning it, even though Shepherd's commentary on Yaniv's HRC complaints was what put Shepherd in Yaniv's crosshairs in the first place. It seems like an important piece of contextual information, to me. But not a single word about it in that article, and not a word about
(as an aside, I do think it's telling that Twitter permanently banned Shepherd for misgendering Yaniv, but Yaniv received no sanction at all for his comments about Shepherd's "loose ****" and her uterus. Transmisogyny is forbidden; regular misogyny is A-OK.)
Not every outlet will sink to the depths of a NP Rex Murphy screed (for example)!
The National Post article I read on the subject was pretty measured and talked about the events at last week's hearings. If I recall, they mentioned Yaniv's anti-immigrant posts on Twitter, but avoided mentioning the disturbing content that was reported at ThePostMillennial. Yaniv's anti-immigrant views are relevant to the story because the lawyer defending the aestheticians alleges that Yaniv's pattern has been to target small businesses run by immigrants from socially conservative backgrounds.
(I'd argue that Yaniv's disturbing history is relevant to the story as well because it illustrates his predatory behavior, of which trying to force vulnerable women to wax her lady-testicles is just one more example.)
not sure what you're expecting... and in what timeframe! You yourself stated: "This week, as some of those complaints are heard by the BCHRC, the commission has removed the publication ban on JY's real name. Some of us who have been following this tale for some time already know this individual's real name and disturbing history. But now Canadian media is allowed to report on it as well."
I appreciate this is most topical for you; however, perhaps wait for than a "few days" before excoriating ALL Media for not following the ConMedia zeal - yes?
It was last week when I wrote "this week". It has been over a week, and CBC hasn't said a peep on the issue; it seems to me that if they planned to cover this story they would have written about it by now. I think they even have a dedicated "gender beat" reporter, you'd think this would be right up xir alley; maybe xe is on vacation.
is your declared 'well-meaning society'... self-correcting the unsavory individual abuse you speak of? If not - why not? If not - what would you like to occur; specifically occur?
That's really the million dollar question. What would I like? I'd a do-over on Bill C-16 to make clear what "the right to gender expression" actually means and to ensure safeguards for things like sex-based protections.
I don't see any "self-correcting" going on. There are two aspects to this story that I think people find concerning. First is how the Human Rights Commission is being used. To me and many other observers it seems like it is being used in bad faith as a money-making opportunity. Yaniv has succeeded in obtaining settlements from some of the numerous aestheticians who he filed HRC complaints against; he dropped his complaints against others when they succeeded in finding legal representation (which was no easy task.) I don't think anybody, even the staunchest supporters of the concept of the HRC, would be happy to see the HRC being used in this way. I don't hear any significant dialogue regarding that.
The other issue is, of course, the clash between Yaniv's right to "gender expression" versus other people's rights. One of the earliest things I mentioned in this thread was the likelihood of a clash between religious people and trans people; that is now coming to pass as the lawyer of some of these aestheticians is citing their religious views as a reason they should not be compelled to handle testicles that don't belong to their husband. I don't hear any significant dialogue regarding that either.
And by significant dialogue, I don't mean people like me ranting about it on a message board or far-right websites like thePostMillennial reporting on it. To me a significant dialogue would mean the national broadcaster reporting on it, and politicians discussing it. That's not happening. Politicians are scared to talk about this because no matter what they say somebody is going to be mad.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 27, 2019, 10:33:21 am
(as an aside, I do think it's telling that Twitter permanently banned Shepherd for misgendering Yaniv, but Yaniv received no sanction at all for his comments about Shepherd's "loose ****" and her uterus. Transmisogyny is forbidden; regular misogyny is A-OK.)
Twitter has now reversed its decision and Shepherd is back on Twitter. They banned her, she appealed, they denied her appeal, and now a week later they've changed their mind. I assume their review process involves a dart-board or a magic 8-ball. Or perhaps the amount of attention, mockery, and scorn their handling of the case received from prominent places made them reconsider.
Shepherd's first act after being reinstated was to ask when Meghan Murphy is going to be reinstated.
It was last week when I wrote "this week". It has been over a week, and CBC hasn't said a peep on the issue; it seems to me that if they planned to cover this story they would have written about it by now. I think they even have a dedicated "gender beat" reporter, you'd think this would be right up xir alley; maybe xe is on vacation.
They did finally get to the story.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transgender-woman-human-rights-waxing-1.5227434
-k
Post by: cybercoma on July 27, 2019, 11:07:32 am
Post by: kimmy on July 27, 2019, 11:23:38 am
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-15-year-old-alleged-victim-of-jessica-yaniv-speaks-out/
And this story describes how Yaniv used his status as administrator of the Facebook page of a small-time pop band named Cimorelli to contact and manipulate young fans of the group:
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-jessica-yaniv-accused-of-trying-to-share-child-****-sexual-harassment-of-minors/
Among trans advocates who are talking about this story there seem to be two main themes of response. "This guy doesn't represent all trans people!" and "I don't think he's even trans. I think he's just a cis hetero pervert."
To the first: nobody ever suggested that all trans people act like this. That was never the argument. The argument was that opening women's spaces to all trans people would let predators like this into our midst. Concerns like this have always been shouted down with "that never happens!" or claims that these sorts of concerns have been "debunked" or arguments like "nobody would go through all the trouble of being trans just to get into women's spaces." Well, Yaniv isn't the first example, but he's among the most high profile.
And to the second: I've questioned whether this person is really trans as well. But here's the thing: the trans community itself has been adamantly against any sort of gatekeeping. "If I say I'm a woman, I'm a woman, not up for discussion." That is their mantra. Well, Yaniv says he's a woman, so the trans community's own mantra says he's a woman. They can't suddenly start gatekeeping him out of their ranks just because he's now inconvenient to their reputation. You can't "no true
Critics of on-demand gender recognition have long said it would be exploited by creeps, and were told "that never happens!" and now that this high profile case has come along it would be nice to have some feedback from supporters of on-demand gender recognition about what they think could be done to prevent this sort of thing.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 27, 2019, 11:56:58 am
Shepherd is white nationalist trash...
Evidence?
Quote
...whose 15 mins of fame should have never existed let alone continue this long.
People who won't be bullied into the groupthink moral brainwashing bullshit pisses the bullies off.
Post by: kimmy on July 27, 2019, 11:58:56 am
It's actually about the only thing here I care about, which is that you have prejudices against trans women. I have no skin in the game but it seems that way to me, sorry.
Well, of course it matters. And it matters if people say that they are also.
Sure. I'm "cautious" all the time too. It's not the same as drawing a line between a group and threatening behaviour.
I think that transwomen, as a group, are about as dangerous as men as a group. I'm not sure if that answer will satisfy you, but it's the only one I can give you.
I'm sure that the majority are pretty harmless, but you can't know whether you're dealing with the exception until it's too late.
I suspect that the percentage that will take rejection badly is probably not too different from men. But unlike men, some portion of transwomen might feel justified in retaliating for rejection, because they feel it's transphobic.
I read it, yes. And I reread this thread back to where you wrote:
"Never say never because you could get beat up for being a TERF. Say you're in a relationship."
As I explained, the 'never say never' quote was not directed at lesbians and likely doesn't apply in your context.
I understand that now, but as I said earlier it bears a strong resemblance to the kind of "unlearn your genital preferences!" rhetoric that woke-people are now directing towards lesbians, which is why it set me off. One of Riley J Denis's videos on the subject compares saying "I would never date someone who is trans" to someone saying "I would never date someone who is black". I believe you made a similar suggestion yourself earlier.
I don't see why anyone would actually have to say out loud "I would never date xyz..." nor do I understand why someone things that saying so puts you at risk, without strong reasons to draw that link.
Why would saying so put you at risk? Because some people think that it's transphobic and that transphobes should be harassed, doxxed, beaten up, or worse.
Why would someone say so in the first place? As I said, I think they should avoid saying so. And if pressed on the subject, I don't think people should say never, even if they really mean it.
I read comment from a gay woman recently who said she was approached by a cisgender male and asked if she'd date a trans person. She tried to laugh the question off and suggest it really wasn't his business, but he was quite insistent on getting her answer. She placated him with an "oh, maybe if I met the right person..." type answer and again asked why he wanted to know, and he replied that he was "just looking after my friend" and went on his way.
I think that's chilling.
But again it's not my group. I'm sure my group (whatever that is) has its own habits and cautions that are borne out of our 'networks'. I sure would love an example though.
An example of what? An example of a straight male version of cautious behavior around dating? How about "never put your dick in crazy"?
I am home now and was able to get at the survey. It's not right or wrong but it's problematic because of the methodology: "The survey was sent to women-only and lesbian-only groups on social media, as well as to individual lesbians in my own networks."
I am interested to see how many lesbians believe trans women are women or not. I highly doubt that almost 90% don't think so. And my interest in the topic is so removed from actual experience as to be academic so of course I could be quite wrong.
I wanted you to read the study not because it's a statistically bulletproof study, but because it provides women's experiences in their own words. You suggested that being trans was no more significant than the style of watch they wear in these negative interactions. Reading the study and the stories of the women should give you an idea that trans ideology isn't just incidental to this growing conflict, it's central.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 27, 2019, 12:21:19 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 27, 2019, 12:27:20 pm
Shepherd is white nationalist trash whose 15 mins of fame should have never existed let alone continue this long.
Please provide a cite for this claim.
Post by: cybercoma on July 27, 2019, 01:07:12 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 27, 2019, 02:08:06 pm
I assume you both know how to read. I can’t go understanding things or you. But I have to say I’m pretty disappointed with how easily a lot of you fall for all this goddamned propaganda that looks to dismantle all the progress society has made over the last 50 years
No evidence that she is a white nationalist. Noted.
Pretty serious allegations and you can’t back them up whatsoever. Typical SJW nonsense.
Post by: Omni on July 27, 2019, 02:24:25 pm
No evidence that she is a white nationalist. Noted.
Pretty serious allegations and you can’t back them up whatsoever. Typical SJW nonsense.
She being good buddies with Faith Goldie might be your first clue.
Post by: ?Impact on July 27, 2019, 02:25:01 pm
Twitter has reversed the permanent ban on Lindsay Shephard, Twitter is such a garbage company. A company based entirely on speech doesn't even have a clue on how to regulate it.
How does one regulate speech? It is on my list of problems to solve right after global hunger and world peace.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 27, 2019, 03:37:48 pm
How does one regulate speech? It is on my list of problems to solve right after global hunger and world peace.
Well i'd start with regulating it non-ideologically and consistently, and avoiding double-standards of racism/sexism etc based on group identity.
Tech companies located in the most "progressive" city in the world have a tough time serving people outside of their groupthink bubble, but it shouldn't be that hard.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 27, 2019, 04:23:12 pm
I assume you both know how to read. I can’t go understanding things or you. But I have to say I’m pretty disappointed with how easily a lot of you fall for all this goddamned propaganda that looks to dismantle all the progress society has made over the last 50 years
I have to say I’m pretty disappointed with how easily a lot of you fall for all this goddamned propaganda that looks to dismantle all the progress society has made over the last 800 years. The Voltaire-ish mantra "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is quickly being destroyed.
Inviting a white nationalist to a free speech debate does not mean you're a white nationalist. If they engage in something illegal, like hate-speech, then they should be charged. The irony is that the protestors are the only ones to engage in a criminal act by pulling a fire alarm in order to end the debate.
It's also a common technique to bully people to force them to conform to the progressive groupthink by falsely calling them a racist/sexist/homophobe if they dare behave anywhere outside the norm. As with Shephard, I don't agree with Goldy's views. The groupthink bully tyrants keep trying to censor Shephard and it's not working so let's call her a white nationalist ::)
Post by: cybercoma on July 27, 2019, 04:30:44 pm
No evidence that she is a white nationalist. Noted.There's all kinds of evidence. You are once again being a forum Sea Lion and I'm not wasting my time humouring it. Enough ink has been spilled on the topic already. If you don't get it, you're either purposely ignoring it or too stupid to explain it to (and I don't think you're stupid).
Pretty serious allegations and you can’t back them up whatsoever. Typical SJW nonsense.
Post by: cybercoma on July 27, 2019, 04:32:15 pm
Inviting a white nationalist to a free speech debate does not mean you're a white nationalist. ...Outside the norm being promoting white nationalist beliefs. **** those people and anyone who humours them. If you don't understand why white nationalism shouldn't be given a soap box, then **** you too.
It's also a common technique to bully people to force them to conform to the progressive groupthink by falsely calling them a racist/sexist/homophobe if they dare behave anywhere outside the norm.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 27, 2019, 04:32:42 pm
She being good buddies with Faith Goldie might be your first clue.
This is a lie used to try to mislabel Shephard as a white nationalist/racist with the intent of discrediting Shephard.
If NBC invites Donald Trump to a Presidential debate in 2020, that doesn't make NBC MAGA supporters.
Post by: wilber on July 27, 2019, 05:36:15 pm
Outside the norm being promoting white nationalist beliefs. **** those people and anyone who humours them. If you don't understand why white nationalism shouldn't be given a soap box, then **** you too.I think it is a good thing when it is in an environment where they are forced to defend their views.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 27, 2019, 05:37:58 pm
Outside the norm being promoting white nationalist beliefs. **** those people and anyone who humours them. If you don't understand why white nationalism shouldn't be given a soap box, then **** you too.
This is your new tactic? Call people too stupid to understand and “**** you” to those who ask for evidence to back up your claims and those you disagree with? I thought Argus left the forum.... apparently not.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 27, 2019, 07:02:07 pm
There's all kinds of evidence. You are once again being a forum Sea Lion and I'm not wasting my time humouring it. Enough ink has been spilled on the topic already. If you don't get it, you're either purposely ignoring it or too stupid to explain it to (and I don't think you're stupid).
He's legit asking for evidence as am I. That's not sea lioning, it's debate. Sea lioning is defined as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Quote
Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".
Nobody is trolling or harassing you or pretending to try to waste your time. Crying "sea-lion!" whenever people ask you to back up claims with evidence is ridiculous.
Post by: cybercoma on July 28, 2019, 06:59:20 am
This is your new tactic? Call people too stupid to understand and “**** you” to those who ask for evidence to back up your claims and those you disagree with? I thought Argus left the forum.... apparently not.I explicitly said I didn't think you were stupid. Since you apparently didn't notice that, I might have been wrong.
Post by: cybercoma on July 28, 2019, 07:00:18 am
He's legit asking for evidence as am I. That's not sea lioning, it's debate. Sea lioning is defined as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SealioningYou're not legit asking for evidence. Quit trolling.
Nobody is trolling or harassing you or pretending to try to waste your time. Crying "sea-lion!" whenever people ask you to back up claims with evidence is ridiculous.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 08:24:51 am
I think that transwomen, as a group, are about as dangerous as men as a group. I'm not sure if that answer will satisfy you, but it's the only one I can give you.
I'm sure that the majority are pretty harmless, but you can't know whether you're dealing with the exception until it's too late.
Fair enough. And that aligns with a practice that, unfortunately, women and especially feminist posters follow when posting on Twitter, ie. to be cautious and avoid provoking abusers. It's not right, and I guess I can see now the parallel in what you're saying about Lesbians posting on the topic.
Quote
I suspect that the percentage that will take rejection badly is probably not too different from men. But unlike men, some portion of transwomen might feel justified in retaliating for rejection, because they feel it's transphobic.
I imagine male trolls feel very justified in their responses.
Quote
I understand that now, but as I said earlier it bears a strong resemblance to the kind of "unlearn your genital preferences!" rhetoric that woke-people are now directing towards lesbians, which is why it set me off. One of Riley J Denis's videos on the subject compares saying "I would never date someone who is trans" to someone saying "I would never date someone who is black". I believe you made a similar suggestion yourself earlier.
Yes. I have a couple of responses...
- Are genital preferences a thing ? I'm asking myself also because I have never been in a situation where I found someone hot and found out they were a trans woman. Even if they're NOT a thing, telling someone to unlearn them is just as wrong...
- Why does one need to state out LOUD (or post I suppose) "I would NEVER date an X" except to clearly mark that group as somehow beneath one ?
Your answer is:
Quote
Why would someone say so in the first place? As I said, I think they should avoid saying so. And if pressed on the subject, I don't think people should say never, even if they really mean it.
But is there any reason to say it, in the end ?
Quote
I read comment from a gay woman recently who said she was approached by a cisgender male and asked if she'd date a trans person. She tried to laugh the question off and suggest it really wasn't his business, but he was quite insistent on getting her answer. She placated him with an "oh, maybe if I met the right person..." type answer and again asked why he wanted to know, and he replied that he was "just looking after my friend" and went on his way.
I don't think it's acceptable to ask personal questions like that of people you're not familiar with.
An example of what? An example of a straight male version of cautious behavior around dating? How about "never put your dick in crazy"?
Quote
I wanted you to read the study not because it's a statistically bulletproof study, but because it provides women's experiences in their own words. You suggested that being trans was no more significant than the style of watch they wear in these negative interactions. Reading the study and the stories of the women should give you an idea that trans ideology isn't just incidental to this growing conflict, it's central.
Ok, but as I said it's not a 'study'. I read studies, yes, but always the abstract and methodology. These stories may be resonant and significant but I can't get past the first part.
Of course stories of intimidation and violence evoke a deep response as they should but I want to get a big picture first. The use of 'narrative' in particular has moved us back to the middle ages in terms of how we approach problems. Starting with a narrative makes me suspect that the speaker targeting a mass audience of rubes who will not ask framing questions. It's my current pet peeve in politics.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 08:31:20 am
She being good buddies with Faith Goldie might be your first clue.
I don't see any mention of that. She seems to be a free-speecher, which doesn't mean alt-right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd#Subsequent_activism
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 08:34:14 am
I have to say I’m pretty disappointed with how easily a lot of you fall for all this goddamned propaganda that looks to dismantle all the progress society has made over the last 800 years. The Voltaire-ish mantra "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is quickly being destroyed.
Inviting a white nationalist to a free speech debate does not mean you're a white nationalist. If they engage in something illegal, like hate-speech, then they should be charged. The irony is that the protestors are the only ones to engage in a criminal act by pulling a fire alarm in order to end the debate.
It's also a common technique to bully people to force them to conform to the progressive groupthink by falsely calling them a racist/sexist/homophobe if they dare behave anywhere outside the norm. As with Shephard, I don't agree with Goldy's views. The groupthink bully tyrants keep trying to censor Shephard and it's not working so let's call her a white nationalist ::)
Although I agree with what you posted, I do NOT agree that we need to revisit ideologies of the 1930s or invite mouth-breathers and liars to speak at universities. That said, I think that if someone wants to give racist speeches on the corner - go ahead as long as you're not disturbing the peace.
And I think you're right about the Voltaire thing.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 08:37:12 am
I think it is a good thing when it is in an environment where they are forced to defend their views.
I'm in the middle - again... Theoretically, you are correct here. But these alt-right people are liars and attention-getters and empire-builders. They are not interested in honest debate. So... no platform for them.
The racist idealogues had their chance in the 1930s. They did pretty well with the ideas they had, and even managed to kill 20 million in a world war over it but maybe we can declare that debate done now ?
I don't think people (like you, wilber) who want to give them a platform are racists or friends of Faith Goldy.
I do think that bad speech should be allowed.. in some contexts.
Post by: wilber on July 28, 2019, 08:52:29 am
I'm in the middle - again... Theoretically, you are correct here. But these alt-right people are liars and attention-getters and empire-builders. They are not interested in honest debate. So... no platform for them.
The racist idealogues had their chance in the 1930s. They did pretty well with the ideas they had, and even managed to kill 20 million in a world war over it but maybe we can declare that debate done now ?
I don't think people (like you, wilber) who want to give them a platform are racists or friends of Faith Goldy.
I do think that bad speech should be allowed.. in some contexts.
My point is, Hitler didn’t do his speech making at universities or other places where he would be held accountable for what he said. He did it in safe spaces where he was either in front of his faithful or protected by his private army, the SA, who beat up any opposition. Fear of these people can make us do things that play into their hands.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 09:09:27 am
1. My point is, Hitler didn’t do his speech making at universities or other places where he would be held accountable for what he said.1. True. But the accountability and response to Faith Goldy speaking at WLU would largely be omitted from the YouTube video that her lying minions would share online with thousands, millions who were not there. The video would be titled "Faith Goldy destroys the opposition with facts !"
2. He did it in safe spaces where he was either in front of his faithful or protected by his private army, the SA, who beat up any opposition. Fear of these people can make us do things that play into their hands.
2. Today - that space is your browser.
Post by: wilber on July 28, 2019, 09:16:35 am
1. True. But the accountability and response to Faith Goldy speaking at WLU would largely be omitted from the YouTube video that her lying minions would share online with thousands, millions who were not there. The video would be titled "Faith Goldy destroys the opposition with facts !"There you have it Micheal, the internet with its complete lack of accountability represents a much greater threat to our freedoms than someone like Faith Goldy speaking at a university. But even on the internet, such a YouTube video would just be preaching to the faithful anyway. If you show you are afraid to confront these people in a forum of your own choosing, that is a win for them that can also be exploited.
2. Today - that space is your browser.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 09:19:38 am
1. There you have it Micheal, the internet with its complete lack of accountability represents a much greater threat to our freedoms than someone like Faith Goldy speaking at a university.
2. But even on the internet, such a YouTube video would just be preaching to the faithful anyway. If you show you are afraid to confront these people in a forum of your own choosing, that is a win for them that can also be exploited.
1. I agree with what you're trying to say but would say 'potentially' represents a threat. If we engage with our media rather than just unleashing it, we stand a better chance. Media is always adjusted by the public, although it sometimes takes time. We are only evolving our responses to this new medium now.
2. I suppose so, but since they will exploit the situation whether they are invited to Laurier or not, I prefer to not give them a platform. Invite some other controversial person but not someone who stands with pro-genocide people.
Post by: wilber on July 28, 2019, 09:35:19 am
Well there we disagree. I say, what better place to hold these people accountable for what they say. If their ideas can’t be challenged at a university, where can they?
2. I suppose so, but since they will exploit the situation whether they are invited to Laurier or not, I prefer to not give them a platform. Invite some other controversial person but not someone who stands with pro-genocide people.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 09:38:28 am
Well there we disagree. I say, what better place to hold these people accountable for what they say. If their ideas can’t be challenged at a university, where can they?
I don't have an answer for you. You are, to your credit, trying to come up with a way to frame the discussion so that facts can be addressed.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 28, 2019, 10:42:58 am
You're not legit asking for evidence. Quit trolling.
Please provide evidence i'm trolling.
Post by: ?Impact on July 28, 2019, 11:48:34 am
Tech companies located in the most "progressive" city in the world have a tough time serving people outside of their groupthink bubble, but it shouldn't be that hard.
You are right, they have a hard time identifying with homophobic white supremacists. I guess that is the failing of tech companies.
Post by: wilber on July 28, 2019, 11:56:23 am
You are right, they have a hard time identifying with homophobic white supremacists. I guess that is the failing of tech companies.
The conundrum of our times, the more we are exposed to, the more we retreat into our bubbles.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 28, 2019, 12:50:19 pm
You are right, they have a hard time identifying with homophobic white supremacists. I guess that is the failing of tech companies.
No, not identifying with such types seems pretty healthy.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 01:25:28 pm
Post by: kimmy on July 28, 2019, 01:27:40 pm
Yes. I have a couple of responses...
- Are genital preferences a thing ? I'm asking myself also because I have never been in a situation where I found someone hot and found out they were a trans woman. Even if they're NOT a thing, telling someone to unlearn them is just as wrong...
The gay community has spent decades trying to make society at large understand that sexual orientation isn't just a preference. The current notion of "genital preferences" being peddled by trans people and their allies is just plain homophobic, to be blunt.
If sexual orientation was actually a "genital preference" that people could just "unlearn" by "examining their prejudices", conversion therapy would be a workable medical field, not quackery.
- Why does one need to state out LOUD (or post I suppose) "I would NEVER date an X" except to clearly mark that group as somehow beneath one ?
Your answer is:
But is there any reason to say it, in the end ?
I think there are times when stating one's sexual boundaries as an absolute might be called for. Think of the story that ends with the man (allegedly Winston Churchill) saying "Madam, we've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
Or the scene in "Dumb and Dumber" when Jim Carrey asks Lauren Holly what his chances are and she says about one in a million, and he says "So you're telling me there's a chance!"
It's been said that when a man says "no" it's the end of a discussion but when a woman says "no" it's the start of a negotiation. If a woman is being quizzed, cajoled, pressured, guilted, bullied (or whatever else) on the subject of her sexual boundaries, she should be allowed to state her boundaries in absolutely certain terms.
I think we're not imagining the same sort of scenario. You're perhaps envisioning someone walking into a bar and declaring this apropos of nothing, and I see this being someone responding to questioning she didn't ask for. You see it as being someone setting out to insult trans people. I see it being someone responding to pressure to change their sexual boundaries.
I don't think it's acceptable to ask personal questions like that of people you're not familiar with.
Well of course it's rude to say the least... socially inappropriate.
But more troubling (and for me, frightening) is the idea that some Woke Folx may have decided that being good trans allies means going out and policing other peoples' sexual boundaries to make sure they're inclusive. Intimidating random strangers (even in the name of a woke cause) isn't actually very progressive. But taken at his word, the instigator of that dialogue thought he was doing a good thing-- sticking up for trans people and perhaps sending a message that transphobia isn't cool. He thought he was being "woke". He might have gone home that night and posted on his Tumblr page something like "today I let a TERFy-looking dyke know that transphobia isn't okay!"
Ok, but as I said it's not a 'study'. I read studies, yes, but always the abstract and methodology. These stories may be resonant and significant but I can't get past the first part.
Of course stories of intimidation and violence evoke a deep response as they should but I want to get a big picture first. The use of 'narrative' in particular has moved us back to the middle ages in terms of how we approach problems. Starting with a narrative makes me suspect that the speaker targeting a mass audience of rubes who will not ask framing questions. It's my current pet peeve in politics.
Lesbian social media is full of these kinds of stories, and most people seem intent on ignoring them. I'd hoped that reading these accounts would give you some new perspective about the impact the trans movement has had on gay women. It has gone far beyond "we just want a place to pee!" Myself and countless other women were all very supportive when it was just "we want a place to pee" but have left the bandwagon as this movement has completely gone off the rails.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 02:03:25 pm
The gay community has spent decades trying to make society at large understand that sexual orientation isn't just a preference. The current notion of "genital preferences" being peddled by trans people and their allies is just plain homophobic, to be blunt.
You're missing my point. I am not asking if it's a 'choice' or not. That's an unknowable question, IMO.
I'm asking if people actually prefer genitals or not. Asking for myself also.
Quote
Think of the story that ends with the man (allegedly Winston Churchill) saying "Madam, we've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
Ok. The point of that story was that she put something out there that she couldn't live up to, ie. sleeping with someone is immoral and yet she would do it for enough cash. And...
Quote
Or the scene in "Dumb and Dumber" when Jim Carrey asks Lauren Holly what his chances are and she says about one in a million, and he says "So you're telling me there's a chance!"
I suppose if someone is coming on to you the fallback is to say they have attributes that don't fall into your attraction-set. (?) But ... again do you need to say it ? "Sorry, you are very nice but I would just NEVER EVER DATE A BLACK PERSON".
Quote
It's been said that when a man says "no" it's the end of a discussion but when a woman says "no" it's the start of a negotiation. If a woman is being quizzed, cajoled, pressured, guilted, bullied (or whatever else) on the subject of her sexual boundaries, she should be allowed to state her boundaries in absolutely certain terms.
Sure, you can say whatever you need to, to put off an **** who can't accept no IMO.
Quote
I think we're not imagining the same sort of scenario. You're perhaps envisioning someone walking into a bar and declaring this apropos of nothing, and I see this being someone responding to questioning she didn't ask for. You see it as being someone setting out to insult trans people. I see it being someone responding to pressure to change their sexual boundaries.
I'm actually ok with a woman assaulting a man who won't stop coming on to her, so - yeah - I'm down with your example as valid but generally it seems like we both think it's rude to say 'generally'. When I imagine 'mixed company', I imagine people are at a party sipping drinks and just talking amongst acquaintances and near-strangers.
Quote
But more troubling (and for me, frightening) is the idea that some Woke Folx may have decided that being good trans allies means going out and policing other peoples' sexual boundaries to make sure they're inclusive. Intimidating random strangers (even in the name of a woke cause) isn't actually very progressive. But taken at his word, the instigator of that dialogue thought he was doing a good thing-- sticking up for trans people and perhaps sending a message that transphobia isn't cool. He thought he was being "woke". He might have gone home that night and posted on his Tumblr page something like "today I let a TERFy-looking dyke know that transphobia isn't okay!"
In that scenario I imagine, then you would indeed spark a polite rebuke or even a heated discussion if you stated "I would NEVER date an X". But, nobody should pressure you to reveal anything about your preferences either so ...
Quote
Lesbian social media is full of these kinds of stories, and most people seem intent on ignoring them. I'd hoped that reading these accounts would give you some new perspective about the impact the trans movement has had on gay women. It has gone far beyond "we just want a place to pee!" Myself and countless other women were all very supportive when it was just "we want a place to pee" but have left the bandwagon as this movement has completely gone off the rails.
I am still waiting for something to hang my hat on, some kind of hard proof where I can look and agree that it has 'gone off the rails'.
I don't know where you were when gay rights started to be discussed in earnest, in terms of using the constitution to guarantee their rights. Those against (and where are they now ? oh yes... insisting that Muslims be banned because they don't support gay marriage... but I drift, I drift) so-called 'gay rights' would regularly bring up the fact that a higher proportion of child molesters were gay, and individual examples of child molestation as reasons to NOT afford such rights.
That was a weak case to me, and yet at least they had a statistical probability in their corner - a number. So, I guess I will keep waiting.
Post by: ?Impact on July 28, 2019, 03:41:03 pm
Myself and countless other women were all very supportive when it was just "we want a place to pee" but have left the bandwagon as this movement has completely gone off the rails.
Is that the movement, or just a vocal subset?
Post by: cybercoma on July 28, 2019, 06:21:48 pm
I don't see any mention of that. She seems to be a free-speecher, which doesn't mean alt-right.Ah yes. All these Nazis, white nationalists and alt right fuckheads.... just simple champions of free speexh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd#Subsequent_activism
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 07:02:48 pm
Ah yes. All these Nazis, white nationalists and alt right fuckheads.... just simple champions of free speexh
Well... there ARE champions of free speech who are not themselves Nazis. I think there's one on this thread, even.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 28, 2019, 08:03:32 pm
Well... there ARE champions of free speech who are not themselves Nazis.
Sounds like something a nazi alt-right white nationalist homophobe bigot would say. You should be banned from this forum.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 08:42:11 pm
Sounds like something a nazi alt-right white nationalist homophobe bigot would say. You should be banned from this forum.
I am unbannable.
Post by: Omni on July 28, 2019, 08:49:50 pm
I am unbannable.
Try saying that three times rapidly.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2019, 09:39:42 pm
Post by: Omni on July 28, 2019, 10:01:56 pm
Unbannable Obama bull o bannon bull
I can see how easy slipping into bannon bull is appropos.
Post by: wilber on July 28, 2019, 10:15:08 pm
Is that the movement, or just a vocal subset?I think the need to pee is pretty universal.
Post by: wilber on July 28, 2019, 10:18:27 pm
Ah yes. All these Nazis, white nationalists and alt right fuckheads.... just simple champions of free speexh
You know, the old phrase, I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" occasionally requires one to suck it up and hear some things they don't like.
Post by: cybercoma on July 29, 2019, 07:59:21 am
Sounds like something a nazi alt-right white nationalist homophobe bigot would say. You should be banned from this forum.Don't want to face uncomfortable truths? If you want to participate in a forum where I'm banned, go back to MLW. Then you can have all of the free-speech loving fascist white nationalism you can handle.
Post by: cybercoma on July 29, 2019, 08:03:55 am
You know, the old phrase, I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" occasionally requires one to suck it up and hear some things they don't like.Trite cliches are beneath you. What happens when you extend tolerance toward intolerance? Ponder on that for a few minutes and try to come up with a way that tolerance can continue to exist in that context.
Free speech means having the freedom to criticize your government and its policies with impunity. White nationalism is trying to cloak itself in policy criticism, but it advocates policies of genocide and stark oppression. Those views should rightfully be shut the **** down with harsh criticism whenever anyone expresses them do to their inherently violent and anti-social conclusions.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 29, 2019, 08:37:09 am
Trite cliches are beneath you. What happens when you extend tolerance toward intolerance? Ponder on that for a few minutes and try to come up with a way that tolerance can continue to exist in that context.
We DO, though. It's absolutely legal to stand on the street and spout racist stuff as long as you aren't 'fomenting hate' or what not.
It's a thin line but still.
Quote
Free speech means having the freedom to criticize your government and its policies with impunity. White nationalism is trying to cloak itself in policy criticism, but it advocates policies of genocide and stark oppression. Those views should rightfully be shut the **** down with harsh criticism whenever anyone expresses them do to their inherently violent and anti-social conclusions.
Agreed.
Post by: kimmy on July 29, 2019, 09:36:03 am
Is that the movement, or just a vocal subset?
How can we tell? And does it matter?
"the movement" isn't resulting from the silent majority, it's the result of the activism of the vocal minority.
For example, the silent majority of trans people might not support Yaniv's quest to force aestheticians to handle male genitals. But if Yaniv's HRC complaint is successful, that's the precedent that will be set, regardless of whether the silent majority supports it or not.
The silent majority of trans people might not support transwomen competing in women's sports, but because of the work of a vocal minority, that's the precedent that has been set regardless of what the silent majority thinks.
The silent majority of trans people probably didn't support Morgane Oger's quest to get Vancouver **** Relief defunded.
And so on.
We can't know what the silent majority of trans people really think on these issues, and it really doesn't matter. The vocal minority, the activists who are fighting these causes, are the ones who are driving these changes with or without the support of the silent majority. The silent majority just doesn't matter as long as they're silent.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 29, 2019, 09:47:22 am
I'm actually ok with a woman assaulting a man who won't stop coming on to her, so - yeah - I'm down with your example as valid but generally it seems like we both think it's rude to say 'generally'. When I imagine 'mixed company', I imagine people are at a party sipping drinks and just talking amongst acquaintances and near-strangers.
So you'd chide your gay friend if she stated a "no dongs" policy during polite conversation on the subject?
I am still waiting for something to hang my hat on, some kind of hard proof where I can look and agree that it has 'gone off the rails'.
I listed a number of things I think are off the rails in my previous post. And the trans "cotton ceiling" rhetoric aimed attacking and stigmatizing gay womens' sexual boundaries sets me off more than any of those things.
I don't know where you were when gay rights started to be discussed in earnest, in terms of using the constitution to guarantee their rights. Those against (and where are they now ? oh yes... insisting that Muslims be banned because they don't support gay marriage... but I drift, I drift) so-called 'gay rights' would regularly bring up the fact that a higher proportion of child molesters were gay, and individual examples of child molestation as reasons to NOT afford such rights.
That was a weak case to me, and yet at least they had a statistical probability in their corner - a number. So, I guess I will keep waiting.
A key difference you've overlooked is that the "gay people are child molesters" type arguments were being promoted by enemies of gay people, while this "cotton ceiling" rhetoric is being promoted by trans people themselves.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 29, 2019, 10:16:12 am
So you'd chide your gay friend if she stated a "no dongs" policy during polite conversation on the subject?
How did you jump to THAT from the quoted excerpt ?!? ??? No I wouldn't say ****.
Quote
I listed a number of things I think are off the rails in my previous post. And the trans "cotton ceiling" rhetoric aimed attacking and stigmatizing gay womens' sexual boundaries sets me off more than any of those things.
I find that term to be stupid but still nothing close enough to proof that the movement has gone awry.
Quote
A key difference you've overlooked is that the "gay people are child molesters" type arguments were being promoted by enemies of gay people, while this "cotton ceiling" rhetoric is being promoted by trans people themselves.
No, but the 'Trans people are trying to **** women' arguments abound... not just from lesbians but especially from conservative males who actually don't give a toss, but now have a way to argue against the 'transgender insanity movement'....
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 29, 2019, 12:36:17 pm
Free speech means having the freedom to criticize your government and its policies with impunity.
No, free speech means having the freedom to say anything you want without the government muzzling you, with certain limitations like violent threats, sexual harassment, libel/slander etc.
Quote
White nationalism is trying to cloak itself in policy criticism, but it advocates policies of genocide and stark oppression. Those views should rightfully be shut the **** down with harsh criticism whenever anyone expresses them do to their inherently violent and anti-social conclusions.
Any threats of violence, genocide, and hate speech should be shut down since they're illegal. Freedom of speech and to peaceful protest means we also have the right to criticize ideas we think are bad.
Post by: cybercoma on July 29, 2019, 12:37:57 pm
Post by: wilber on July 29, 2019, 01:52:09 pm
Those “certain limitations” are the crux of it, aren’t they?
The limitations are set out in the law.
Post by: kimmy on July 30, 2019, 10:16:54 am
How did you jump to THAT from the quoted excerpt ?!? ??? No I wouldn't say ****.
You're likening saying "I'd never date a trans person" to saying "I'd never date a black person", and suggesting it's not something anybody ever need say out loud even if that's how they actually feel. You're suggesting this conversation taking place at a party sipping drinks with acquaintances. So in that environment if somebody asked Miriam "Would you ever" and she said "no I'd never", you'd not say anything, even though you feel it's akin to saying she'd never date a black person?
I find that term to be stupid but still nothing close enough to proof that the movement has gone awry.
The phrase "cotton ceiling" is of course not just offensive but also has a rapey connotation, but it's not the term I object to as much as the premise behind it.
Trans women have distanced themselves from the phrase "cotton ceiling" because they've figured out that it's disgusting to (cis) women. But they haven't abandoned the idea, which is to keep pushing the notion that gay women who don't like "girl dick" are transphobes and "**** fetishists" and using persuasion, guilt, and intimidation to pressure them for sex. They've popularized this idea among trans people and their allies. To me that's definitely "gone awry", to say the least.
As for other areas where they've gone awry, I mentioned a number of areas in my previous post to ?Impact yesterday.
No, but the 'Trans people are trying to **** women' arguments abound... not just from lesbians but especially from conservative males who actually don't give a toss, but now have a way to argue against the 'transgender insanity movement'....
Well maybe, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything I've written here.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 30, 2019, 11:37:13 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 30, 2019, 12:45:35 pm
If a guy has sex with trans man is he gay or straight?
Neither response can be conclusively stated. He had sex with a trans man tho.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 30, 2019, 12:53:26 pm
1. You're likening saying "I'd never date a trans person" to saying "I'd never date a black person", and suggesting it's not something anybody ever need say out loud even if that's how they actually feel. You're suggesting this conversation taking place at a party sipping drinks with acquaintances. So in that environment if somebody asked Miriam "Would you ever" and she said "no I'd never", you'd not say anything, even though you feel it's akin to saying she'd never date a black person?1. That is 100% correct. Wow. Now I want to invite you to one of my parties.
2. The phrase "cotton ceiling" is of course not just offensive but also has a rapey connotation, but it's not the term I object to as much as the premise behind it.
3. Trans women have distanced themselves from the phrase "cotton ceiling" because they've figured out that it's disgusting to (cis) women. But they haven't abandoned the idea, which is to keep pushing the notion that gay women who don't like "girl dick" are transphobes ...
4. ... and "**** fetishists" and ...
5. ... using persuasion, guilt, and intimidation to pressure them for sex. They've popularized this idea among trans people and their allies. To me that's definitely "gone awry", to say the least.
Well maybe, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything I've written here.
-k
2. Ok. I have nothing to add to your response here.
3. Well... so trans women have backed off from this term ? This makes me think that there's a path to peace on this topic. And for the record I have never seen anyone seriously state that feeling like you wouldn't date a trans is necessarily transphobic, only that stating so, especially stating so boldly, seems to be saying something more than just what your preferences are.
4. I never heard that term but I think I might be one.
5. Yep. We covered this.
I think we're coasting to the end of this... I changed my mind about the universality of 'never say never' and context of that. I don't feel I outright disagree with you on anything but I still need some concerns to be proven.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 30, 2019, 01:13:03 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 30, 2019, 01:18:22 pm
And for the record I have never seen anyone seriously state that feeling like you wouldn't date a trans is necessarily transphobic, only that stating so, especially stating so boldly, seems to be saying something more than just what your preferences are.
That's not true:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 30, 2019, 01:19:37 pm
People should be able to have whatever sexual/dating preferences they want and nobody ever deserves any explanation for them, including from frustrated trans incels.
Agreed.
Post by: cybercoma on July 31, 2019, 09:24:56 am
If a guy has sex with trans man is he gay or straight?if a cisgender man is sexually attracted to male gender expression (and only male expression) then that would be homosexual attraction even if it’s a transgender man with biologically female genitals. This **** isn’t as confusing as you make it out to be.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 31, 2019, 09:48:41 am
That's not true:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U
They are pretty careful with their words. Closest they come is saying 'pretty discriminatory'. But ok.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 31, 2019, 09:54:23 am
They are pretty careful with their words. Closest they come is saying 'pretty discriminatory'. But ok.
I didn’t say you were racist.., I said you were pretty racist.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 31, 2019, 10:11:33 am
Post by: Granny on July 31, 2019, 03:16:56 pm
If a guy has sex with trans man is he gay or straight?
Does it really matter?
.
Post by: Granny on July 31, 2019, 04:00:20 pm
You know, the old phrase, I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" occasionally requires one to suck it up and hear some things they don't like.
No it does not "require" anyone to hear things they don't want to listen to:
Nobody 'has to' listen to white supremacists.
Their 'free HATE speech' is not something that deserves defending, either.
Attempting to incite or promote hatred against identifiable groups is not free speech:
It is a crime in Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 31, 2019, 04:11:30 pm
No it doesn't.
Nobody 'has to' listen to white supremacists.
Their 'free hate speech' is not something that deserves defending, either. Attempting to incite or promote hatred against identifiable groups is not free speech: It is a crime in Canada.
.
No one is defending hate speech. You're making stuff up again, or you have reading comprehension issues.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 01, 2019, 12:52:54 pm
if a cisgender man is sexually attracted to male gender expression (and only male expression) then that would be homosexual attraction even if it’s a transgender man with biologically female genitals. This **** isn’t as confusing as you make it out to be.
Hey thanks for the completely unnecessary underhanded insult in the last sentence. ::)
You're both a d!ck and a p*ssy, so if a guy is attracted to you would he be gay or straight?
Post by: cybercoma on August 01, 2019, 01:34:02 pm
Hey thanks for the completely unnecessary underhanded insult in the last sentence. ::)My issue is that someone's sexual orientation is 1) not anybody's business but their own, and 2) shouldn't matter to you anyway. However they define it is up to them.
You're both a d!ck and a p*ssy, so if a guy is attracted to you would he be gay or straight?
Post by: wilber on August 01, 2019, 04:01:02 pm
No it does not "require" anyone to hear things they don't want to listen to:
Nobody 'has to' listen to white supremacists.
Their 'free HATE speech' is not something that deserves defending, either.
Attempting to incite or promote hatred against identifiable groups is not free speech:
It is a crime in Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
.
You don’t have to hear them but because you might hear some things you don’t like isn’t a good enough reason to shut someone up. No one is defending hate speech, the law decides what it is, you don’t get to enforce it.
Post by: guest7 on August 01, 2019, 09:09:32 pm
if a cisgender man is sexually attracted to male gender expression (and only male expression) then that would be homosexual attraction even if it’s a transgender man with biologically female genitals.
It would be like a cisgender man being attracted to a what he thought was a cisgender women only to find she actually had male genitals!
The gay guy would be like "oops, gotta go!"
But that's just my opinion. I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know for sure.
Post by: Omni on August 01, 2019, 10:26:08 pm
It would be like a cisgender man being attracted to a what he thought was a cisgender women only to find she actually had male genitals!
The gay guy would be like "oops, gotta go!"
But that's just my opinion. I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know for sure.
What you obviously don't know is the terminology. A cisgender woman doesn't have male genitals.
Post by: guest7 on August 01, 2019, 10:30:15 pm
What you obviously don't know is the terminology. A cisgender woman doesn't have male genitals.
I do know that. I said "he thought was a cisgender woman". Actually I said women but that was typo.
Post by: Omni on August 01, 2019, 10:41:58 pm
It would be like a cisgender man being attracted to a what he thought was a cisgender women only to find she actually had male genitals!
The gay guy would be like "oops, gotta go!"
But that's just my opinion. I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know for sure.
Actually the gay guy would be more likely to not wanna go.
Post by: guest7 on August 01, 2019, 11:05:34 pm
Actually the gay guy would be more likely to not wanna go.
I meant in Cybercoma's example.
Post by: cybercoma on August 02, 2019, 07:38:44 am
I do know that. I said "he thought was a cisgender woman". Actually I said women but that was typo.Why would a gay guy be attracted to someone who presents as a woman? The fact that he's gay means he's attracted to men.
Post by: Granny on August 02, 2019, 07:48:19 am
You don’t have to hear them but because you might hear some things you don’t like isn’t a good enough reason to shut someone up. No one is defending hate speech, the law decides what it is, you don’t get to enforce it.
On the contrary, yes the public can decide what we see as appropriate in public spaces, which are for children and everyone to use, without harassment or exposure to hatred.
We have freedom of expression too. We speak back, drown them out. Nobody promised white supremacists and homophobes an adoring audience. People get booed off the stage all the time.
They can do their hate speech in private places, not public ones.
But I think we're having this discussion in the wrong thread.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2019, 08:45:21 am
But I think we're having this discussion in the wrong thread.
I actually allow thread drift over here.
Post by: wilber on August 02, 2019, 09:05:56 am
On the contrary, yes the public can decide what we see as appropriate in public spaces, which are for children and everyone to use, without harassment or exposure to hatred.
We have freedom of expression too. We speak back, drown them out. Nobody promised white supremacists and homophobes an adoring audience. People get booed off the stage all the time.
They can do their hate speech in private places, not public ones.
But I think we're having this discussion in the wrong thread.
That's not what I am talking about. I'm referring to the attitude that they shouldn't be allowed to speak at all. If a university invites one of these people to speak, people have the option of showing up and challenging them or not showing up at all. Children don't factor into it. Again, someone spouting hate speech is breaking the law, let the law handle it. I'm not a believer in vigilante justice because it can be inflicted on anyone by anyone. I don't know if this is thread drift or not because part of the discussion is groups that are trying to control the narrative by branding others and preventing them from speaking.
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 10:19:05 am
Why would a gay guy be attracted to someone who presents as a woman? The fact that he's gay means he's attracted to men.
The gay guy is the one in your post. The cisgender man is the one attracted to what he thought was the cisgender woman.
Is this that thing i've heard about? I can't remember what it's called but I think it has seafood in it. Shell Fishing?
Post by: kimmy on August 02, 2019, 10:26:49 am
They are pretty careful with their words. Closest they come is saying 'pretty discriminatory'. But ok.
OMG Michael did you just misgender Riley??? This is literally violence! I can't believe you've done this. OMG I literally can't even right now. Check your privilege, Michael.
Yes, the trans activists have become more careful with their language, but the message is still the same.
3. Well... so trans women have backed off from this term ? This makes me think that there's a path to peace on this topic.
Hypothetically, if white supremacists backed of that term and picked a different phrase like say "European heritage aficionados" but still kept the same shitty beliefs, would you say they were on a "path to peace" or would you say they were just becoming better at branding?
And for the record I have never seen anyone seriously state that feeling like you wouldn't date a trans is necessarily transphobic, only that stating so, especially stating so boldly, seems to be saying something more than just what your preferences are.
A few somewhat public figures (like Miss Riley) have softened their language, but the message is still the same. They pay lip service to the idea that you're not obliged to have sex with anyone you don't want to, but it's always followed by "BUT..."
-k
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 11:28:52 am
I actually allow thread drift over here.
Burns got his century.
Post by: wilber on August 02, 2019, 01:48:53 pm
Burns got his century.
The Ashes?
Post by: Granny on August 02, 2019, 01:58:12 pm
That's not what I am talking about. I'm referring to the attitude that they shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.Yes, that's my attitude, and that of many other people who show up to screen hate groups from the public and drown them out in public spaces.
They can get a **** room!
Quote
If a university invites one of these people to speak, people have the option of showing up and challenging them or not showing up at all. Children don't factor into it.Ok, so they got a room. Though whether a university room is a private or public space is questionable. And open areas on campus, are even more questionably public spaces, and children or people being targeted by the hate groups are a factor there. But still, you are right, people can show up and challenge them, inside or outside the venue.
Quote
Again, someone spouting hate speech is breaking the law, let the law handle it.One might hope that "the law" would "handle" hate speech in public spaces, but most often they don't. The police are more likely to act as 'protectors of free speech', getting chummy with the white supremacists and homophobes, and vilifying their victims and members of the public who come to oppose, screen, drown them out.
So we'll just carry on protecting our own public spaces, and police will no doubt carry on protecting their fascist friends from us. 🤯
Quote
I'm not a believer in vigilante justice because it can be inflicted on anyone by anyone.You exaggerate in order to slander and vilify us!
We are simply screening hate groups and drowning them out from spreading their hatred in public spaces ... because police don't.
We are committing no offense in doing so, no "vigilante justice".
We are simply exercising our freedom of expression and assembly.
Nobody 'has to ' listen to what white supremacists and homophobes have to say in shared public spaces. Nobody 'has to' hear them inciting hatred against marginalized groups in shared public spaces.
Public spaces are for all, free from hate.
Quote
I don't know if this is thread drift or not because part of the discussion is groups that are trying to control the narrative by branding others and preventing them from speaking.Hate groups choose their own "branding".
They can speak.
We can speak back.
Free speech does not mean white supremacists and homophobes can demand to be heard ... in shared public spaces. Nobody 'has to' listen to them ... in shared public spaces.
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 05:28:43 pm
The Ashes?
Yeah. I expect England to do fairly well, being world cup winners.
It's not on TV, unfortunately.
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 05:29:46 pm
Yes, that's my attitude, and that of many other people who show up to screen hate groups from the public and drown them out in public spaces.
They can get a **** room!
Ok, so they got a room. Though whether a university room is a private or public space is questionable. And open areas on campus, are even more questionably public spaces, and children or people being targeted by the hate groups are a factor there. But still, you are right, people can show up and challenge them, inside or outside the venue.
One might hope that "the law" would "handle" hate speech in public spaces, but most often they don't. The police are more likely to act as 'protectors of free speech', getting chummy with the white supremacists and homophobes, and vilifying their victims and members of the public who come to oppose, screen, drown them out.
So we'll just carry on protecting our own public spaces, and police will no doubt carry on protecting their fascist friends from us. 🤯
You exaggerate in order to slander and vilify us!
We are simply screening hate groups and drowning them out from spreading their hatred in public spaces ... because police don't.
We are committing no offense in doing so, no "vigilante justice".
We are simply exercising our freedom of expression and assembly.
Nobody 'has to ' listen to what white supremacists and homophobes have to say in shared public spaces. Nobody 'has to' hear them inciting hatred against marginalized groups in shared public spaces.
Public spaces are for all, free from hate.
Hate groups choose their own "branding".
They can speak.
We can speak back.
Free speech does not mean white supremacists and homophobes can demand to be heard ... in shared public spaces. Nobody 'has to' listen to them ... in shared public spaces.
Nobody has to listen to anyone. They can simply go somewhere else.
Post by: guest18 on August 02, 2019, 07:27:07 pm
"Surrey opening batsman Burns, 82 not out at tea, spent 36 balls in the 'nervous 90s' and for more than half an hour could not get beyond 92."
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 07:46:04 pm
I had to google to find out what you were talking about, but after reading the article I'm even more confused.
"Surrey opening batsman Burns, 82 not out at tea, spent 36 balls in the 'nervous 90s' and for more than half an hour could not get beyond 92."
Surrey is his county team. He's currently opening for England against Australia at Edgbaston. It's his first test century.
Post by: wilber on August 02, 2019, 07:53:49 pm
Surrey is his county team. He's currently opening for England against Australia at Edgbaston. It's his first test century.
Cool, I like watching one day cricket, don’t know if I could be in it for a whole test. A guy fro Jamaica once told me you never go for the first couple of days anyway.
Used to stay at a hotel across the street from Lords. Never went to a match but the bar was always full of fans when there was a big match on.
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 08:27:23 pm
Cool, I like watching one day cricket, don’t know if I could be in it for a whole test. A guy fro Jamaica once told me you never go for the first couple of days anyway.
Used to stay at a hotel across the street from Lords. Never went to a match but the bar was always full of fans when there was a big match on.
I have to admit I like them all. They are very different games. T20, one day and five day tests. It's a big problem for many cricketers to switch between them.
I used to get the Indian Premier League on one of my tv channels but no longer. Shame, it was a lot of fun.
Post by: guest18 on August 02, 2019, 09:06:10 pm
Post by: Omni on August 02, 2019, 09:42:41 pm
We've had well used cricket fields in Winnipeg for over 100 years and I sometimes stop to watch when riding by on my bike but I never have a clue what's going on. Cool white uniforms though.
Yeah I find myself scratching my head as well when I go by the lawn bowling club near where I live.
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 10:15:47 pm
We've had well used cricket fields in Winnipeg for over 100 years and I sometimes stop to watch when riding by on my bike but I never have a clue what's going on. Cool white uniforms though.
It is odd how Canada is the only country in the Commonwealth where cricket is not the number one or two sport. That I'm aware of, anyway. Maybe it's just the weather.
Post by: Omni on August 02, 2019, 10:56:23 pm
It is odd how Canada is the only country in the Commonwealth where cricket is not the number one or two sport. That I'm aware of, anyway. Maybe it's just the weather.
Partly to do with weather I suppose, but mostly because we invented hockey and then sports got interesting.
Post by: guest7 on August 02, 2019, 11:09:37 pm
Partly to do with weather I suppose, but mostly because we invented hockey and then sports got interesting.
Oooh, I think we invented hockey as well. We just had so many other, superior sports, it never really took off.
Post by: Omni on August 02, 2019, 11:21:26 pm
Oooh, I think we invented hockey as well. We just had so many other, superior sports, it never really took off.
Yes cricket was just too boring compared to the full flight of hockey.
Post by: Granny on August 03, 2019, 09:14:59 am
Nobody has to listen to anyone. They can simply go somewhere else.
Public spaces are for everybody.
Hate and harassment of marginalized/Constitutionally protected peoples in public spaces is unacceptable.
Homophobic and white supremacist hate groups tried to disturb and disrupt a Pride Fest celebration in a public park. In your scenario, Pride Fest should simply pack up and go elsewhere, and leave the public park to the hate groups?
Not so.
Also the neighbourhood families that normally walk and play and picnic in the park should just go elsewhere to avoid the hate groups with the loudspeaker yelling "Look at the sodomites! the sinners! God will strike you down! You are filthy sinners!" ... Etc etc.
No.
Not acceptable.
We push back, push hate groups away.
No Hate In Public Spaces.
If we don't, how long would it be before all of our public spaces are occupied by half-brain reject disturbed and violent hate groups, nazi's, fascists ... sociopaths?
Not very long.
They can get a ******* room, a church, a meeting hall, etc.
Hate groups can privately organize themselves and their 'survival militia groups' all they want (within the law and police restrictions, of course). Other 'secret' (racist, misogynist, sociopathic) Lodges/Clubs have been doing that forever.
But half-brain disturbed and hate-filled rejects harassing people in public spaces ... because they are Immigrants, Muslim, Gay, Trans, 3 year old children, etc. is not acceptable and it's increasingly clear that it will not be tolerated by the public.
And the sociopaths 'disturbing', manipulating and inciting the half-brain rejects to hateful actions - Faith Goldy, Paul Fromm, and others like them - should be documented, investigated, arrested and charged under Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Post by: guest7 on August 03, 2019, 10:05:56 am
Public spaces are for everybody.
Hate and harassment of marginalized/Constitutionally protected peoples in public spaces is unacceptable.
Homophobic and white supremacist hate groups tried to disturb and disrupt a Pride Fest celebration in a public park. In your scenario, Pride Fest should simply pack up and go elsewhere, and leave the public park to the hate groups?
Not so.
Also the neighbourhood families that normally walk and play and picnic in the park should just go elsewhere to avoid the hate groups with the loudspeaker yelling "Look at the sodomites! the sinners! God will strike you down! You are filthy sinners!" ... Etc etc.
No.
Not acceptable.
We push back, push hate groups away.
No Hate In Public Spaces.
If we don't, how long would it be before all of our public spaces are occupied by half-brain reject disturbed and violent hate groups, nazi's, fascists ... sociopaths?
Not very long.
They can get a ******* room, a church, a meeting hall, etc.
Hate groups can privately organize themselves and their 'survival militia groups' all they want (within the law and police restrictions, of course). Other 'secret' (racist, misogynist, sociopathic) Lodges/Clubs have been doing that forever.
But half-brain disturbed and hate-filled rejects harassing people in public spaces ... because they are Immigrants, Muslim, Gay, Trans, 3 year old children, etc. is not acceptable and it's increasingly clear that it will not be tolerated by the public.
And the sociopaths 'disturbing', manipulating and inciting the half-brain rejects to hateful actions - Faith Goldy, Paul Fromm, and others like them - should be documented, investigated, arrested and charged under Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Public spaces are for everybody. It doesn't matter if you don't like them. Harassment has to be illegal, I'm sure. No-one, regardless of their views, should have to put up with being harassed. I totally agree with you on that.
Hate is okay though. I can see it shining through loud and clear in your post. Nothing wrong with that. You certainly should be allowed to express it in public. As long as you don't harass anyone.
Post by: guest7 on August 03, 2019, 10:08:18 am
Yes cricket was just too boring compared to the full flight of hockey.
I can see watching Hockey if it's second overtime, and the Canucks are in the Stanley Cup final. Otherwise not. But different strokes for different folks and all that. Some people watch Basketball!
Post by: kimmy on August 03, 2019, 01:16:48 pm
https://medium.com/@samrangoon9/i-am-a-trans-woman-and-i-am-not-i-am-transphobic-and-i-am-not-am-i-too-queer-65baba6189bf
He explains that he's not "trapped in the wrong body". He does not have dysphoria. He is completely happy with his bearded, ****-equipped body, and has no interested in changing it. He's simply steadfast in his belief that it's a woman's body. Why is he convinced he's actually a woman? Apparently because he grew up with sisters who he's close to, and because he was bullied in school. His sense of being a woman seems to be supported by nothing other than the idea that he doesn't fit in with other men very well. He had a 10 year relationship with a straight cis-gender woman, but she left him when he unveiled the truth. Now he only wants to be with lesbian women, because he wants to be accepted and loved as a woman, not by a straight woman who thinks he's a man. He himself has no interest in "women with penises", but is apparently surprised that gay women aren't interested in his body even after he explains that he's actually a woman.
In days gone by I think this is someone who'd have been called an effeminate straight male. But in our new gender-fabulous world we're asked to humor his belief.
By his own description he wears "metrosexual" men's clothes, he grooms himself as a male hipster, and he's hurt that people just assume he's a man:
"I am a woman and this is what a woman looks like. However, no –one but me seems to realise this! So, I am called “sir” and “mr”. This is my plea for tolerance and understanding. These are terms and assumptions which should never be made. Some women are 6’ tall, bald with a beard. And we are women. I should not need to dress in dresses and wear make up to be a woman. That would be nonsense for me."
He's apparently disappointed that people can't read minds.
But mostly he seems disappointed that others won't indulge his fantasy. Imagine thinking you can just opt in to a minority group that you don't belong to, claim their identity as your own despite having no connection to it, and then declare yourself the real victim when others won't play along.
This stuff is so incredibly moronic.
-k
Post by: Granny on August 03, 2019, 03:53:24 pm
Here's a column from a bearded, suit-wearing man who says he's actually a gay woman and is heartbroken that gay women aren't "woke" enough to understand that. I can not tell if this is satire or not. It reads like something from The Onion, and yet I can't find anything to suggest that it's intended as humor. Gender idiocy has reached the stage that it's impossible to tell satire from the real thing.
https://medium.com/@samrangoon9/i-am-a-trans-woman-and-i-am-not-i-am-transphobic-and-i-am-not-am-i-too-queer-65baba6189bf
He explains that he's not "trapped in the wrong body". He does not have dysphoria. He is completely happy with his bearded, ****-equipped body, and has no interested in changing it. He's simply steadfast in his belief that it's a woman's body. Why is he convinced he's actually a woman? Apparently because he grew up with sisters who he's close to, and because he was bullied in school. His sense of being a woman seems to be supported by nothing other than the idea that he doesn't fit in with other men very well. He had a 10 year relationship with a straight cis-gender woman, but she left him when he unveiled the truth. Now he only wants to be with lesbian women, because he wants to be accepted and loved as a woman, not by a straight woman who thinks he's a man. He himself has no interest in "women with penises", but is apparently surprised that gay women aren't interested in his body even after he explains that he's actually a woman.
In days gone by I think this is someone who'd have been called an effeminate straight male. But in our new gender-fabulous world we're asked to humor his belief.
By his own description he wears "metrosexual" men's clothes, he grooms himself as a male hipster, and he's hurt that people just assume he's a man:
"I am a woman and this is what a woman looks like. However, no –one but me seems to realise this! So, I am called “sir” and “mr”. This is my plea for tolerance and understanding. These are terms and assumptions which should never be made. Some women are 6’ tall, bald with a beard. And we are women. I should not need to dress in dresses and wear make up to be a woman. That would be nonsense for me."
He's apparently disappointed that people can't read minds.
But mostly he seems disappointed that others won't indulge his fantasy. Imagine thinking you can just opt in to a minority group that you don't belong to, claim their identity as your own despite having no connection to it, and then declare yourself the real victim when others won't play along.
This stuff is so incredibly moronic.
-k
I don't think it's satire ... or fantasy. I think it's just the truth of how he feels.
Difficult life to lead. Lost 2 relationships because of truth.
I doubt a person would choose that..
Post by: guest7 on August 03, 2019, 03:59:18 pm
I don't think it's satire ... or fantasy. I think it's just the truth of how he feels.
Difficult life to lead. Lost 2 relationships because of truth.
I doubt a person would choose that..
Now this would have been a good spot for your "lost contact with biological reality." comment.
Post by: Granny on August 03, 2019, 07:23:11 pm
Now this would have been a good spot for your "lost contact with biological reality." comment.
Lol
Bit different.
It isn't that simple in this context.
Brains and genitals develop differently.
There can be such differences.
But I respect your experiences too.
Nobody 'has to' be attracted to anybody.
It is or it isn't.
Fade away gracefully please. Lol
.
Post by: guest7 on August 03, 2019, 07:28:58 pm
Lol
Bit different.
It isn't that simple in this context.
Brains and genitals develop differently.
There can be such differences.
But I respect your experiences too.
Nobody 'has to' be attracted to anybody.
It is or it isn't.
Fade away gracefully please. Lol
.
Bad poetry doesn't make the guy a gal.
Post by: guest18 on August 03, 2019, 09:38:28 pm
Post by: guest7 on August 03, 2019, 10:09:03 pm
But thinking he's a gal makes him a guy who thinks he's a gal. Why not humour her?
Who, the guy or Granny?
Just kidding. Humouring doesn't take away the biological reality. I'm all for a quiet life, myself. If he wanted me to call him Loretta, I would. I just wouldn't mean it.
Post by: kimmy on August 05, 2019, 01:05:02 pm
I don't think it's satire ... or fantasy. I think it's just the truth of how he feels.
Difficult life to lead. Lost 2 relationships because of truth.
I doubt a person would choose that..
That might be the "truth of how he feels", but that doesn't make it a fact. Lots of people passionately believe in things that are just plain wrong. Flat Earth people, Young Earth creationists, trickle-down economists, 9/11 truthers, and so-on. These people might believe in their delusions with all their hearts, but they're just plain wrong and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
I realize that there is an actual medical condition called body dysphoria. And as the guy himself explains, he absolutely does not have it. What he does have is a definition of "woman" that the vast majority of people simply won't accept. He expects that gay women should be attracted to him because of nothing more than a strange notion he had in his head. And it's ridiculous. If some dude is convinced he's Marilyn Monroe, straight men aren't going to flock to him. Everybody would laugh at the idea.
Is Barack Obama a black man? He has one white parent, one black parent, but everybody seems to agree that he's a black man. Tiger Woods once described his ethnicity as "Cablanasian"-- a mix of caucasian, black, native American, and Asian. Colin Powell, another well-known American of biracial background, said "In this country, if you look like me, you are black." Ditto Barack Obama, and ditto Tiger Woods. These individuals had societal notions of race thrust upon them whether they identified as black or not. And if you are a bearded male in a suit, society is going to view you as a man regardless of what you might imagine yourself to be.
Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who famously tried to "identify in" as a black person. She herself seems completely convinced she is black, and maintains that even now, after she was "outed". Aside from being nutty and delusional, critics pointed out that she was attempting to appropriate an identity that she had never experienced and couldn't understand. Woke people find it incredibly offensive that she was trying to claim black peoples' experiences with racism and socialization as her own. And for the life of me I can't imagine how it's any less offensive for this dude to attempt to appropriate women's experiences. There is a whole life of experience that he's attempting to claim as his own that he's never lived and can't possibly understand. He still isn't experiencing what life as a woman is actually like because he presents as male to everyone who sees him on the street, and to his co-workers, and to everybody else-- except for the couple of women he's revealed his "big secret" to. There's a thing called "stolen valor", where people who never served in the military pretend they're veterans to get respect or special treatment. Rachel Dolezal is doing a civilian version of stolen valor by attempting to claim black peoples' experiences as her own. And this guy is attempting stolen valor by claiming womens' experiences as his own. He never has, and never will, have those experiences.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 06, 2019, 07:38:28 am
OMG Michael did you just misgender Riley???
I think 'they' is ok if they're obv trans and you don't know.
Quote
Yes, the trans activists have become more careful with their language, but the message is still the same.
Ok.
Quote
Hypothetically, if white supremacists backed of that term and picked a different phrase like say "European heritage aficionados" but still kept the same shitty beliefs, would you say they were on a "path to peace" or would you say they were just becoming better at branding?
I might not give them the benefit of doing that, but the fact is that they recognized that the message they had (and it is a different message) failed to resonate.
Quote
A few somewhat public figures (like Miss Riley) have softened their language, but the message is still the same. They pay lip service to the idea that you're not obliged to have sex with anyone you don't want to, but it's always followed by "BUT..."
The 'but' for me is that it's not acceptable now, to some, for me to say "I would NEVER have sex with a guy". Probably I can't say "I would NEVER have sex with a black person" even if I felt that I wouldn't.
But minority groups aren't held to the same standard. Why ? Because they have been on the receiving end of that kind of discrimination.
Post by: Granny on August 06, 2019, 11:49:34 am
That might be the "truth of how he feels", but that doesn't make it a fact. Lots of people passionately believe in things that are just plain wrong. Flat Earth people, Young Earth creationists, trickle-down economists, 9/11 truthers, and so-on. These people might believe in their delusions with all their hearts, but they're just plain wrong and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
I realize that there is an actual medical condition called body dysphoria. And as the guy himself explains, he absolutely does not have it. What he does have is a definition of "woman" that the vast majority of people simply won't accept. He expects that gay women should be attracted to him because of nothing more than a strange notion he had in his head. And it's ridiculous. If some dude is convinced he's Marilyn Monroe, straight men aren't going to flock to him. Everybody would laugh at the idea.
There is a physiological (brain/hormonal gender) as well as a biological (genital gender), and they develop at different times in utero, so they can be different:
However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094885/
That's one issue, and I do believe that transsexual people's 'feeling' of their gender validly reflects their brain gender, though their genitals may be the opposite gender: A physical woman feeling like a man, or a physical man feeling like a woman. All possible, so I don't think we can reject their feeling of gender identity.
However, the other issue you've raised, the problematic one, is behavioural: Trans people feeling 'entitled' to sex with people of the gender of their choice.
NOBODY is 'entitled' to sex with anybody who doesn't want to have sex with them. Period.
Neither gender nor gender identity factor into that.
You can't manufacture sexual attraction 'on demand'.
I've been approached by Lesbians, who generally gracefully fade away when I'm not interested, but not always. Shrieking, whining, crying, begging, pleading emotional devastation ... on no encouragement at all, except a friendly conversation/business contact, etc. ...
The 'demand' or 'entitlement' is there too.
And I've experienced it from men too, and seen women pull that 'entitlement' emotional manipulation on men: In heterosexual contexts too, some women and some men exhibit that entitlement/disproportionate emotional devastation at rejection.
It isn't an attractive feature in anyone.
It's just disrespectful of any person's free choice of sexual partners.
Those are just people you walk away from.
Post by: kimmy on August 07, 2019, 10:17:23 am
I might not give them the benefit of doing that, but the fact is that they recognized that the message they had (and it is a different message) failed to resonate.
Transwomen popularized the term "cotton ceiling" to talk about how unfair it was that cisgender lesbians (ie, lesbians, actual v4gina people) will accept them as friends or allies but draw the line at "girl-dick". "We won't be truly equal until we tear through this cotton ceiling!" declared the person who coined the term (a transwoman pornstar if I recall). This became a really popular idea among transbians and the phrase took off.
They dropped the term because actual v4gina people found it incredibly offensive for transwomen to mock the "glass ceiling" by comparing their quest to get puzsy to actual women fighting against inequality. And because the imagery of tearing through women's underwear has an incredibly rapey subtext. So when they realized that their rallying cry was actually incredibly alienating and offensive to the people they wanted sympathy from, they dropped it. But they haven't dropped the toxic message behind it. They still think that cis-lesbians are transphobic for not being attracted to their gender-identities rather than disinterested in their actual sex. They're still using guilt and shame tactics to try to bully lesbians into having a "gender preference" rather than a "sexual orientation".
But cis-lesbians (ie, actual v4gina lesbians) haven't forgotten "the cotton ceiling". Cis lesbians have kept the term alive as a description of this toxic ideology, because no matter how much the trans women have tried to put a better spin on it, the message is still the same.
The 'but' for me is that
The "but..." when Riley and other trans activists speak on this topic, is that lesbians that don't like "women with penises" are transphobic.
it's not acceptable now, to some, for me to say "I would NEVER have sex with a guy". Probably I can't say "I would NEVER have sex with a black person" even if I felt that I wouldn't.
Please, Michael, tell us more of this strange imaginary world where straight men are shamed and guilted for saying "I would never have sex with a guy." Are there unicorns and elves and dragons there too?
You've courageously offered to accept criticism that you know darn well is never coming. Like Donald Trump talking about how he'd have run into the school to stop the shooter and save the children, you're declaring your bravery from a position of complete safety.
But minority groups aren't held to the same standard. Why ? Because they have been on the receiving end of that kind of discrimination.
If I understand it, you're saying that you're holding lesbians to an easier standard because they're a vulnerable minority too? That's mighty big of you Michael!
Lesbians ARE being held to a different standard than everybody else, but not in the way you suggest. Lesbians are being held to a different standard because we're the only group being guilted and shamed and attacked for defending our sexual boundaries. There's no analog to "the cotton ceiling" being applied to straight women or to men of any sexual orientation. Lesbians are alone in having been targeted with this sort of homophobic abuse. Think about why and get back to me if you come up with an answer.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 07, 2019, 10:33:24 am
Transwomen popularized the term "cotton ceiling" to talk about how unfair it was that cisgender lesbians (ie, lesbians, actual v4gina people) will accept them as friends or allies but draw the line at "girl-dick". "We won't be truly equal until we tear through this cotton ceiling!" declared the person who coined the term (a transwoman pornstar if I recall). This became a really popular idea among transbians and the phrase took off.
They dropped the term because actual v4gina people found it incredibly offensive for transwomen to mock the "glass ceiling" by comparing their quest to get puzsy to actual women fighting against inequality. And because the imagery of tearing through women's underwear has an incredibly rapey subtext. So when they realized that their rallying cry was actually incredibly alienating and offensive to the people they wanted sympathy from, they dropped it. But they haven't dropped the toxic message behind it. They still think that cis-lesbians are transphobic for not being attracted to their gender-identities rather than disinterested in their actual sex. They're still using guilt and shame tactics to try to bully lesbians into having a "gender preference" rather than a "sexual orientation".
Yes, you are just rehashing stuff we have already discussed here. "They" "Transwomen" which ones ? Is this some official position by some group ? If not, is there hard evidence that transwomen as a group feel this way ? If not, it's an observation of an offensive and contentious idea held by some members of that group. Beyond observing and acknowledging that this is so, there's not much to discuss is there ?
Quote
Please, Michael, tell us more of this strange imaginary world where straight men are shamed and guilted for saying "I would never have sex with a guy." Are there unicorns and elves and dragons there too?
This is the world of the straight white cis man in my circles. Believe me I can't say that online or in mixed company.
Quote
If I understand it, you're saying that you're holding lesbians to an easier standard because they're a vulnerable minority too? That's mighty big of you Michael!
You're welcome. Isn't that what you're asking for ?
Quote
Lesbians ARE being held to a different standard than everybody else, but not in the way you suggest. Lesbians are being held to a different standard because we're the only group being guilted and shamed and attacked for defending our sexual boundaries.
Maybe so, but can I use the same approach you use to 'grouping' by saying something like "Lesbians are the only ones asking for exclusion to the norm of not saying "I would never date..." (They're not)
Just asking here.
Quote
There's no analog to "the cotton ceiling" being applied to straight women or to men of any sexual orientation. Lesbians are alone in having been targeted with this sort of homophobic abuse. Think about why and get back to me if you come up with an answer.
I agree that there's no analogue, and I don't think these things are symmetrical or that anyone should tell anybody who they should sleep with. But we're bending this argument back and forth now, you taking my position and my taking yours and back and forth. I am finding it hard to follow what I should be doing.
How about this:
I think, generally, it's impolite to declare that you would never be with members of a group and I don't see the need to say so. Some groups should get an exception to that because ... that's how it is.
Fair ?
Post by: waldo on August 07, 2019, 01:38:44 pm
Among trans advocates who are talking about this story there seem to be two main themes of response. "This guy doesn't represent all trans people!" and "I don't think he's even trans. I think he's just a cis hetero pervert."
To the first: nobody ever suggested that all trans people act like this. That was never the argument. The argument was that opening women's spaces to all trans people would let predators like this into our midst. Concerns like this have always been shouted down with "that never happens!" or claims that these sorts of concerns have been "debunked" or arguments like "nobody would go through all the trouble of being trans just to get into women's spaces." Well, Yaniv isn't the first example, but he's among the most high profile.
And to the second: I've questioned whether this person is really trans as well. But here's the thing: the trans community itself has been adamantly against any sort of gatekeeping. "If I say I'm a woman, I'm a woman, not up for discussion." That is their mantra. Well, Yaniv says he's a woman, so the trans community's own mantra says he's a woman. They can't suddenly start gatekeeping him out of their ranks just because he's now inconvenient to their reputation. You can't "no trueScotsmantranswoman" this guy out of the trans community, because your own ideology forbids that.
Critics of on-demand gender recognition have long said it would be exploited by creeps, and were told "that never happens!" and now that this high profile case has come along it would be nice to have some feedback from supporters of on-demand gender recognition about what they think could be done to prevent this sort of thing.
in a recent days Youtube debate Yaniv claimed she was 'intersex'... and menstruating... going so far as to show a packaged tampon - as in, why would I need this if I wasn't? And then for... some reason... openly displayed a taser during the debate. Imagine RCMP showing up to arrest this moron soon after - go figure!
Jessica Yaniv, a transgender B.C. activist, says she was arrested for brandishing a Taser (https://nationalpost.com/news/jessica-yaniv-a-transgender-b-c-activist-says-she-was-arrested-for-brandishing-a-taser)
(https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/taser.png)
Post by: Goddess on August 07, 2019, 03:06:45 pm
He's a typical man. A mentally ill one, for sure. But definitely a typical man.
Post by: ?Impact on August 07, 2019, 03:15:34 pm
Yaniv is a man. He has the same attitudes that a lot of men have - entitlement to invade and dictate the space of women, bullying and dominating women just because he's a man and therefore superior to women. His wants, needs, desires and preferences come before any woman.
He's a typical man. A mentally ill one, for sure. But definitely a typical man.
Typical female, using stereotypes to attack men. ::)
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 07, 2019, 07:12:23 pm
Typical female, using stereotypes to attack men. ::)
Yeah these stereotypes are not helpful, and are ironically what have led men to mistreat women for millennia.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 07, 2019, 07:52:42 pm
Yaniv is a man. He has the same attitudes that a lot of men have - entitlement to invade and dictate the space of women, bullying and dominating women just because he's a man and therefore superior to women. His wants, needs, desires and preferences come before any woman.
He's a typical man. A mentally ill one, for sure. But definitely a typical man.
“Typical man?? LOL If that’s typical to you, then you’ve definitely been around the wrong kind of people.
And, apparently, it’s not for you to decide who is a man or woman... apparently, that’s up to them.
Post by: kimmy on August 08, 2019, 06:04:59 am
Yes, you are just rehashing stuff we have already discussed here. "They" "Transwomen" which ones ? Is this some official position by some group ? If not, is there hard evidence that transwomen as a group feel this way ? If not, it's an observation of an offensive and contentious idea held by some members of that group. Beyond observing and acknowledging that this is so, there's not much to discuss is there ?
You know the scene in A Few Good Men where Kevin Bacon hands the Private the recruit training manual and asks him to find the chapter about "Code Red"? I feel like that's what you're doing right now.
If somebody challenged you to find where the Republican Party policy book endorses racism or white nationalism, would you say "hmmm, I can't find it, I guess those issues aren't associated with Republicans after all"? I doubt it.
I have the sense that you have decided that this is "a few bad apples" and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. What would change your mind? I pointed you at the survey of actual v4gina lesbians who talked about how this ideology has affected them, and you scoffed at that because it wasn't scientific. I've said that this idea is commonplace on trans social media on Twitter and Tumblr and Reddit-- if you wanted a dozen screenshots, or a hundred, or a thousand, I could provide them. But that's not scientific either, of course.
If I pointed out prominent trans people promoting the idea, or prominent organizations promoting the idea...
(https://i.imgur.com/NbMAH3h.jpg)
...would that help? I have a hunch that it probably wouldn't. I have the feeling you've decided that this is simply a "few bad apples" and won't be dissuaded.
This is the world of the straight white cis man in my circles. Believe me I can't say that online or in mixed company.
I have never, ever in my entire life heard of a straight man being scolded for stating his sexual boundaries, online or in real life. If you could show me an online article or opinion piece on the subject, I'd be more inclined to believe this is a real peril for you.
You're welcome. Isn't that what you're asking for ?
Maybe so, but can I use the same approach you use to 'grouping' by saying something like "Lesbians are the only ones asking for exclusion to the norm of not saying "I would never date..." (They're not)
Just asking here.
You agreed later in your post that there's no analog for "the cotton ceiling" being applied to anybody except lesbians, and yet you're arguing that lesbians are asking for special treatment in wanting to state their sexual boundaries. This is somewhat like arguing that wheelchair people are asking for special treatment in asking for wheelchair ramps.
I agree that there's no analogue, and I don't think these things are symmetrical or that anyone should tell anybody who they should sleep with. But we're bending this argument back and forth now, you taking my position and my taking yours and back and forth. I am finding it hard to follow what I should be doing.
How about this:
I think, generally, it's impolite to declare that you would never be with members of a group and I don't see the need to say so. Some groups should get an exception to that because ... that's how it is.
Fair ?
What I am asking for is that the "cotton ceiling" not be dismissed as "a few bad apples" type thing and be understood as a popular idea among trans people that should be confronted as homophobic and denounced for what it is-- and not just by lesbians but by anybody with a sense of decency.
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 08, 2019, 06:27:17 am
in a recent days Youtube debate Yaniv claimed she was 'intersex'... and menstruating... going so far as to show a packaged tampon - as in, why would I need this if I wasn't? And then for... some reason... openly displayed a taser during the debate. Imagine RCMP showing up to arrest this moron soon after - go figure!
What's with the CONmedia link, waldo? Isn't there a waldo-approved news outlet covering the story?
I gather Yaniv displayed the weapon in the context of an anti-immigrant rant, as in Yaniv feels that the Surrey Asians are so bad that she needs to be armed full-time.
The intersex claim is newish, unveiled just a couple of weeks ago at the HRC hearings. Not a doctor of course, but I gather that someone with both lady-testicles and an actual menstruating uterus would be so rare as to be considered a medical mystery. Why would Yaniv have a tampon? Everybody who has been following the creepy story knows the answer to that one.
Also in recent weeks Yaniv has developed some sort of mysterious new medical condition which is why she's cruising around in an electric scooter thingie.
I wonder if the RCMP had a warrant to search Yaniv's computers while they were there.
-k
Post by: Goddess on August 08, 2019, 09:16:38 am
Yeah these stereotypes are not helpful, and are ironically what have led men to mistreat women for millennia.
Women are the cause of their own mistreatment by men for millennia?
Good to know. ::)
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 08, 2019, 10:51:07 am
Women are the cause of their own mistreatment by men for millennia?
No, sexist stereotypes are.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 08, 2019, 12:10:35 pm
You know the scene in A Few Good Men where Kevin Bacon hands the Private the recruit training manual and asks him to find the chapter about "Code Red"? I feel like that's what you're doing right now.
? You sure didn't pick an iconic scene. Couldn't I be Meg Ryan in the diner scene of When Harry Met Sally ?
Quote
If somebody challenged you to find where the Republican Party policy book endorses racism or white nationalism, would you say "hmmm, I can't find it, I guess those issues aren't associated with Republicans after all"? I doubt it.
I believe I differentiated defined groups with a leadership above.
Look, maybe it seems like I'm being too stubbord, pedantic, etc. but I have strong feelings about group judgements. When made by a 'public' - which we are - against a subgroup, external group or some variant then it matters to me. I feel the quality of publics is largely reflected on such discussions.
Western Democracy was an iteration on governance because they permitted plurality, and incorporated perspective and objectivity into the model of governance. If you want to make a statement about a group, you can go ahead. As a member of your public I will challenge you to explain the principle behind such statements, as they are generally fraught with problems.
Quote
I have the sense that you have decided that this is "a few bad apples" and nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
Yes, that's the typical response from people who get their assertions challenged. Just in the past few days on MLW some people posted that Chick-Fil-A was doing great business after their anti-LGBTQ efforts were publicized. I challenged the assertion based on sparse data and the response from one poster was "Why do you disagree with it ?"
I didn't disagree with it.
If you are demanding loyalty in a discussion where we're examining data then you're not in the same mindspace as others in the discussion. You did post a study on lesbian attitudes towards trans women and I read the abstract but the methodology was faulty. If it had been solid, I would have concurred that the thesis was correct.
And why not ? Do you think I have some stake in this ? If lesbians don't accept trans women then there's no denying that - it's an objective fact.
Quote
What would change your mind? I pointed you at the survey of actual v4gina lesbians who talked about how this ideology has affected them, and you scoffed at that because it wasn't scientific.
Not sure if I 'scoffed' but I rejected it, obviously. Just as you would/should reject a poll I could produce from my network saying that trans women do not expect lesbians to date them.
Quote
I've said that this idea is commonplace on trans social media on Twitter and Tumblr and Reddit-- if you wanted a dozen screenshots, or a hundred, or a thousand, I could provide them. But that's not scientific either, of course.
I take that as your observation, and I will look out for that perspective in the future also.
Quote
I have never, ever in my entire life heard of a straight man being scolded for stating his sexual boundaries, online or in real life. If you could show me an online article or opinion piece on the subject, I'd be more inclined to believe this is a real peril for you.
Isn't that a double standard ? You're asking the same thing from me that I'm asking from you. The difference is I'm not asking you to accept the reality that men are generally scolded for that behaviour - just my social group.
Quote
You agreed later in your post that there's no analog for "the cotton ceiling" being applied to anybody except lesbians, and yet you're arguing that lesbians are asking for special treatment in wanting to state their sexual boundaries. This is somewhat like arguing that wheelchair people are asking for special treatment in asking for wheelchair ramps.
'Special' maybe isn't a good word then. If the word wasn't 'cotton ceiling' would you agree that the treatment is 'special' ? I called it special because of your assertion that lesbians are often told to try being straight etc. I feel like I have witnessed that attitude in general.
Quote
What I am asking for is that the "cotton ceiling" not be dismissed as "a few bad apples" type thing and be understood as a popular idea among trans people that should be confronted as homophobic and denounced for what it is-- and not just by lesbians but by anybody with a sense of decency.
Ok, I can denounce (?) I suppose the idea, or agree with your assessment of it. And it seems like it's been disavowed by some authority of trans people also. I don't think we're disagreeing on very much.
1) I am reluctant to buy into generalizations on groups but will do so if there's evidence. And I understand that not being in any of the groups I only have an abstract relationship to these matters
2) I already stated that I agree with your take on how 'never say never' isn't a universal sentiment
3) I agree that the 'cotton ceiling' is an offensive term
4) I still agree that 'never say never' is a nice-to-have philosophy and that there's no need to tell people "I would NEVER date one of those"
Post by: kimmy on August 09, 2019, 02:10:50 am
1) I am reluctant to buy into generalizations on groups but will do so if there's evidence. And I understand that not being in any of the groups I only have an abstract relationship to these matters
I'm not claiming this ideology is "general" among transbians and their allies. I'm stating that it's widespread enough that it has to be acknowledged and addressed. I feel there's a key difference between those two positions.
2) I already stated that I agree with your take on how 'never say never' isn't a universal sentiment
Yes, I think we have covered that.
3) I agree that the 'cotton ceiling' is an offensive term
What I am not sure you understand is that the term itself is not as offensive to me as the idea behind it. Dropping the phrase "cotton ceiling" from their lexicon doesn't put us on "a path toward peace" as you put it, because they continue to promote the belief that lesbians should be guilted and shamed and bullied for not wanting "girl-dick".
4) I still agree that 'never say never' is a nice-to-have philosophy and that there's no need to tell people "I would NEVER date one of those"
For you this is apparently a matter of etiquette. For me, it's a lot more. It's about pushing back against this effort to redefine our sexual boundaries. It's not very long that I've been comfortable using the word lesbian when I talk about myself. It has been a long journey to get there. And I'm not going to let it be erased without a fight..
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 09, 2019, 06:04:56 am
I'm not claiming this ideology is "general" among transbians and their allies. I'm stating that it's widespread enough that it has to be acknowledged and addressed. I feel there's a key difference between those two positions.
That's a new class of comment, to me. It's kind of subtle but "group x tends to be..." and "there is widespread belief among group x..." are indeed different statements. So, have at it. It still seems like something I would want empirical support for, since it's beyond something I would observe myself.
Quote
What I am not sure you understand is that the term itself is not as offensive to me as the idea behind it. Dropping the phrase "cotton ceiling" from their lexicon doesn't put us on "a path toward peace" as you put it, because they continue to promote the belief that lesbians should be guilted and shamed and bullied for not wanting "girl-dick".
They think genital attraction is a kind of discrimination. Is that offensive ? As a general idea ? Telling people that you are a bigot for not accepting a trans woman as a partner I think is offensive, and the term 'cotton ceiling' is offensive and telling people 'I would never date a XYZ' is offensive to me. They are all telling people what to do. But the idea, in the abstract, is ok with me - not with you.
In the abstract
Quote
For you this is apparently a matter of etiquette. For me, it's a lot more. I'm not going to let it be erased without a fight..
-k
Yes, I fought for you also. I can understand being offended. The humanity of language and intentions is at play here. Saying 'all lives matter' is certainly offensive in some contexts but it wasn't at all ten years ago.
Post by: waldo on August 09, 2019, 10:51:31 am
Which makes it disappointing that while this case has attracted international attention, the silence from Canada's media-- other than the Waldo-derided "CONmedia"-- has been deafening.
a cursory googly just returned a CBC article that speaks to twitter bans - and goes into some detail concerning the exchanges between Yaniv and Lindsay Shepard. Not every outlet will sink to the depths of a NP Rex Murphy screed (for example)!
not sure what you're expecting... and in what timeframe! You yourself stated: "This week, as some of those complaints are heard by the BCHRC, the commission has removed the publication ban on JY's real name. Some of us who have been following this tale for some time already know this individual's real name and disturbing history. But now Canadian media is allowed to report on it as well."
I appreciate this is most topical for you; however, perhaps wait for than a "few days" before excoriating ALL Media for not following the ConMedia zeal - yes?
in a recent days Youtube debate Yaniv claimed she was 'intersex'... and menstruating... going so far as to show a packaged tampon - as in, why would I need this if I wasn't? And then for... some reason... openly displayed a taser during the debate. Imagine RCMP showing up to arrest this moron soon after - go figure!
Jessica Yaniv, a transgender B.C. activist, says she was arrested for brandishing a Taser (https://nationalpost.com/news/jessica-yaniv-a-transgender-b-c-activist-says-she-was-arrested-for-brandishing-a-taser)
(https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/taser.png)
What's with the CONmedia link, waldo? Isn't there a waldo-approved news outlet covering the story?
like I said, only ConMedia outlets follow the daily trials/tribulations of your cause... I took the ConMedia click-bait cause I thought I might throw you a bone!
Post by: Granny on August 09, 2019, 11:44:44 am
I'm not claiming this ideology is "general" among transbians and their allies. I'm stating that it's widespread enough that it has to be acknowledged and addressed. I feel there's a key difference between those two positions.
What I am not sure you understand is that the term itself is not as offensive to me as the idea behind it. Dropping the phrase "cotton ceiling" from their lexicon doesn't put us on "a path toward peace" as you put it, because they continue to promote the belief that lesbians should be guilted and shamed and bullied for not wanting "girl-dick".
For you this is apparently a matter of etiquette. For me, it's a lot more. It's about pushing back against this effort to redefine our sexual boundaries. It's not very long that I've been comfortable using the word lesbian when I talk about myself. It has been a long journey to get there. And I'm not going to let it be erased without a fight..
-k
Nobody 'erases' or defines who you are or how you feel, unless you allow them to.
What someone else thinks you "should" do/feel/be is their mistake, their misperception, their problem.
They may be whistling in the wind, wishing for a reality that doesn't exist.
Not your problem.
It only becomes your problem if you let it - ie, if you believe that they have to erase how they feel in order for you to be you.
You can be you.
They can be them, frustrated and unreasonable perhaps, but that's not your problem.
There will always be people in the world who want you to do/be/feel something different than you are, something you can't/won't be. Only you can define your sexual boundaries, and it's a case-by-case definition, I think: I agree with MH that saying "I would never date a ..." might be too limiting, because attraction and affection may not always follow your 'rules'. And you can't, for example, define what other lesbians might feel or do.
Those who directly demand what you're not interested in giving them can't erase or redefine you ... but you can't expect to change them either.
I can see your concern if you're dealing with a particular personal situation of harassment, kimmy. That requires action.
And a "widespread" misperception of transbians of entitlement to sex with lesbians deserves some widespread debunking of that general misperception of entitlement.
But that doesn't mean they'll stop demanding.
I started working in an era when some men thought that a 'liberated woman' would or should want to have sex with everyone, especially including them.
No, sh!thead! My ass just looks the way it looks, and my ass sure as hell ain't lookin' at YOU!!! I just want your JOB.
Hahahahaha!!
Sh!theads gonna be sh!theads.
Just keep on being/doing what you want. Lol
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 09, 2019, 12:07:09 pm
https://youtu.be/fDSOP_j7HZE
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 09, 2019, 12:56:32 pm
The next feminist fight is gearing up to be against transgender women...
sigh...
why do YOU think that ?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 09, 2019, 02:52:28 pm
sigh...
why do YOU think that ?
Why the sigh MH?
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 09, 2019, 03:36:28 pm
Why the sigh MH?Kimmy and I have effectively been talking about it already.
Post by: kimmy on August 09, 2019, 08:18:38 pm
That's a new class of comment, to me. It's kind of subtle but "group x tends to be..." and "there is widespread belief among group x..." are indeed different statements. So, have at it. It still seems like something I would want empirical support for, since it's beyond something I would observe myself.
It's not new to this thread. I've never suggested that "all trans people think this". Just that some portion do, and that it's popular enough among trans people and their allies to affect actual v4gina lesbians in the real world.
Empirical support? I have read enough accounts from other women in lesbian social media to know that this idea is affecting real people, especially in LGBT spaces. The "Get The L Out" survey said the same. Even if you reject it as being "not scientific" in a statistical sense, you should still take note of the women's accounts of being bullied and pressured and threatened and doxxed by trans people who think it's transphobic for lesbians to reject them. And the accounts of women who have been intimidated away from LGBT spaces and lesbian dating websites and apps. They're going back underground.
I can't tell you what portion of trans people and their allies think this way as a percentage. I can tell you that it's a sufficient number that it's affecting lesbians.
I can certainly provide you with loads of evidence-- like the Riley J Denis video that has been posted here, or social media screenshots, or think-pieces written by trans women and their supporters. Again, that's not statistically meaningful, but it should demonstrate that this idea is being promoted and is out in "the wild".
They think genital attraction is a kind of discrimination. Is that offensive ? As a general idea ? Telling people that you are a bigot for not accepting a trans woman as a partner I think is offensive, and the term 'cotton ceiling' is offensive and telling people 'I would never date a XYZ' is offensive to me. They are all telling people what to do. But the idea, in the abstract, is ok with me - not with you.
Sexual orientation is discriminatory, period. It is what it is.
Yes, I fought for you also. I can understand being offended. The humanity of language and intentions is at play here. Saying 'all lives matter' is certainly offensive in some contexts but it wasn't at all ten years ago.
I feel like the people who used to support lesbians have bailed on us, now that we're "cis-privileged oppressors" instead of a marginalized minority.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 01, 2019, 01:17:03 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/jKwO62Z.png)
One assumes there is some gang of violent TERFs roaming the streets in Houston killing trans women, right?
Well, no. Turns out that Tracy was actually murdered by her boyfriend.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/08/26/tracy-single-williams-arrest-trans-woman-colour-murder/
Being murdered by their male partners means that trans women are finally being treated just like natal women. You've come a long way, baby!
So why are TERFs being blamed for this? TERFs apparently "incite violence" and "encourage transphobia" and so are actually creating an environment that causes violence against trans women. Like, probably Tracy Single's boyfriend wouldn't have murdered her if some TERF had told him "trans women are women", right? Right? If feminists knew magic words that could persuade men to stop killing women of any description, do you think they'd have kept it a secret this long? Or that the men who murder trans women care the slightest what women think?
TERFs are apparently helping stoke this transphobic environment, but if the person who killed Tracy was her boyfriend, then blaming it on transphobia seems inaccurate to me. Sounds like just regular male-pattern violence. But Tracy was just one murder of a trans person. The PinkNews article points out that that it's just the latest in an "epidemic" of violence against trans women of colour.
How many is an epidemic? 16. 16 trans women of colour have been murdered so far in 2019 in the United States. 16? That's an epidemic? Obviously even 1 murder is one too many, but is 16 really an epidemic? Statistically speaking, it seems like being a trans woman of colour is a lot safer than being a cisgender man of colour in the United States.
That figure of 16 murders comes from the Human Rights Campaign, who also estimate the total number of deaths of trans people in 2019 to be ... 16. So being a white trans woman doesn't sound as dangerous as trans advocates make it out to be. "They're literally killing us!" doesn't seem to check out, statistically.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2019
The figure of 16 murdered trans women in the first 2/3 of this year tracks well with HRC's figure of 26 murders of trans women in 2018 or the 27 reported for 2016 in this article:
https://medium.com/@sue.donym1984/the-transgender-movement-and-bad-stats-a-debunking-compilation-31760947b382
The author breaks down what 27 murders means, statistically:
Quote
How many homicides of American transgender people were there in 2016? I am sure you are waiting with bated breath for some kind of titanic, earth shattering number that will have you click ‘exit tab’, and **** about my bullshit article on Twitter. Okay, here it is:
27.
That’s not a typo. It really is 27. The number of total murders in the US in 2016? 17,250, and disproportionately trending black and male. 27 is 0.15% of murders in the US. In terms of figures, the Williams Foundation did a survey and estimated the number of trans people at 0.6% of the US population. The US population is estimated at 325 million at time of writing, which results in a figure of 1.95 million trans people across America.
We’ll take 1.95 million Americans. If we figure how many trans people are victims of murder a year as a percentage, that figure is 0.0013%. Per capita,that’s a ratio of 1.3 trans people murdered per 100,000. The murder rate of women in the US is triple that, and of men, quadruple. Even with an extremely conservative estimate of 0.1% of the US population (or 325,000 trans people), we have a murder rate of 8.3 per 100,000. The murder rate of Chicago is twice that conservative figure at 16.02 people murdered per 100,000. In terms of gross numbers — that’s 11,535 murders of male Americans, and 3,292 murders of female Americans in 2017. 27 is small potatoes. That is not a murder epidemic — in fact it’s a murder rate per capita lower than Canada. It certainly doesn’t mean that there’s an ‘epidemic of transphobic violence’. That’s not something to campaign about — you’ve got it better than literally everyone else. Even if we use the Human Rights Campaign estimate of 750,000 trans people, which is half the 0.6% number, we get a murder rate of 2.7 per 100,000. That’s not a high murder rate. That’s lower than every other demographic in the US.
People who disagree with trans-inclusive policies or report news about people like Yaniv are often accused of stirring up hostility and hate and contributing to violence against trans people. But there's no evidence that this wave of violence against trans people even exists. The statistics seem to show that it is fiction.
Intersectionality is a big thing right now, so let's look at an important intersectional factor in the murder of those 27 trans people in 2016: sex work.
Quote
To add — the majority of those 27 killed? Black prostitutes. No middle-aged white trans women were killed at all (though some did commit murders) yet they are the ones bleating about #StopTransMurders and working in activist organizations. And the sex-work and transgender lobby does not seem to care about those vulnerable prostitutes, beyond using their names and deaths as a political prop.
Trans activists would have us imagine gangs of rednecks in MAGA hats, egged on by fear-mongering TERFs, patrolling the streets looking for trans women to kill. The truth is less dramatic, and less useful for trans activists. Why are the trans women of colour disproportionately (compared to white transwomen, at least) affected by male violence? The same reason that indigenous women in Canada are disproportionately (compared to white women) affected by male violence. They're vulnerable and marginalized. They're disproportionately affected by poverty, disproportinately forced into risky situations (including sex work among other things).
So while trans advocates would love to use the deaths of trans people as a reason for TERFs to shut up, the truth is that there's no epidemic of violence against trans people, and that what violence does exist isn't because TERFs are criticizing the effect of trans-inclusive policies on women's safety.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 01, 2019, 02:37:25 pm
Pointing out that violent threats come from some group isn't really germane to anything unless you are saying that the group is associated with violence ie. they are violent whether they are organized or not.
People who get their news from sources other than CBC probably heard about the "KILL TERFS" graffiti at the Vancouver **** Relief women's shelter last week.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5824446/vancouver-****-relief-womens-shelter-graffiti/
The shelter had a dead rat nailed to their door the week before.
Death threats and dead animals will no doubt go a long way towards fighting the idea that allowing trans-women pose no danger to the women VRR serves!
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 01, 2019, 04:36:05 pm
Is Peter Tatchell anyone of note or just a guy.
Post by: kimmy on September 01, 2019, 06:24:19 pm
Ok. Well, I did tap out of this argument when I didn't respond. We're in a period of listening & watching the news.
Is Peter Tatchell anyone of note or just a guy.
He's apparently a British politician and LGBT activist.
He's not the only guy to blame TERFs for violence against trans people. Far from it. Trans people and allies justify their violent rhetoric towards TERFs ("punch a TERF", "kill TERFs", etc) with the argument that TERFs are literally causing violence against trans people. Like earlier in this thread when I posted the pictures from the "art exhibit" of blood splattered t-shirts, baseball bats wrapped in barbed-wire for "smashing TERFs" and so on, and the reaction from some of the members here was "why would you post about an art exhibit when there is real violence against real trans people???"
The assumption that there's an epidemic of violence against trans people seems to be widespread and widely believed, and always goes unchallenged. And it's always employed as a counter-argument any time somebody tries to challenge trans politics or talk about a potential downside of trans ideology.
This alleged epidemic of violence against trans people is invoked all the time-- not just by Peter Tatchell but by trans people and their allies-- to shut down all kinds of discussions.
But like Hedy Fry crying "they are literally burning crosses in Prince George as we speak!" ... it literally isn't true.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 01, 2019, 06:44:47 pm
When this kind of stuff is celebrated as "activism", why would people be surprised that death threat graffiti has been left at the Vancouver R4pe Relief shelter?
(https://i.imgur.com/NnVFKCT.png)
-k
Post by: guest7 on September 01, 2019, 07:15:47 pm
Sorry, that was a little intemperate. But the worst kind of thugs are those who don't know they are thugs.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 01, 2019, 08:37:35 pm
The assumption that there's an epidemic of violence against trans people seems to be widespread and widely believed, and always goes unchallenged. And it's always employed as a counter-argument any time somebody tries to challenge trans politics or talk about a potential downside of trans ideology.
Well, it helps your argument if he's an affiliated activist.
There is a huge amount of violence against trans people, you should drop that out of your argument.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000202
Post by: kimmy on September 13, 2019, 05:38:40 am
Well, it helps your argument if he's an affiliated activist.
There is a huge amount of violence against trans people, you should drop that out of your argument.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000202
I finally found a way to read that study without paying $20, and I'm underwhelmed to say the least.
--What little actual data is included heavily leverages the experiences of black trans prostitutes, who are at high risk of violence just like other prostitutes are at high risk of violence, as I talked about above. There's a discussion to be had there about how marginalized people end up forced into the sex trade-- but it doesn't support the narrative of an epidemic of transphobic violence sweeping the land. Again, the actual number of incidents is tiny in proportion to the number of murders of black people in the US, or the number of murders of cisgender prostitutes, or so on. The report you linked is from 2009, but the data provided by the Human Rights Campaign (which I mentioned previously) shows the same conclusion for more recent years.
-other data in the study comes from social workers, which is problematic from a statistical point of view: if they're dealing with a social worker, then of course they're in difficult circumstances. The author herself points out that there are serious "methodological problems" in trying to quantify how much actual violence is occurring.
-the study mentions that a large percentage of trans people reported being bullied in school. That's terrible, of course, but just about everybody who doesn't "fit in" in school gets bullied. It's not a problem unique to trans people.
-the study notes that most of the violence experienced by trans people is from people they know. Family members, partners, classmates, and so on. The notion of gangs of transphobes searching the streets for trans people to beat up isn't the reality of the situation.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 13, 2019, 06:19:23 am
I finally found a way to read that study without paying $20, and I'm underwhelmed to say the least.
1. --What little actual data is included heavily leverages the experiences of black trans prostitutes, who are at high risk of violence just like other prostitutes are at high risk of violence, as I talked about above. There's a discussion to be had there about how marginalized people end up forced into the sex trade-- but it doesn't support the narrative of an epidemic of transphobic violence sweeping the land. Again, the actual number of incidents is tiny in proportion to the number of murders of black people in the US, or the number of murders of cisgender prostitutes, or so on. The report you linked is from 2009, but the data provided by the Human Rights Campaign (which I mentioned previously) shows the same conclusion for more recent years.
2. -other data in the study comes from social workers, which is problematic from a statistical point of view: if they're dealing with a social worker, then of course they're in difficult circumstances. The author herself points out that there are serious "methodological problems" in trying to quantify how much actual violence is occurring.
1. I like that we're both looking for studies and that we both know what a bad study looks like. In my defense I only had the abstract which said they used various methods. Can you link me to the full study ?
2. I would like to look for a study that includes random sampling next.
I feel like it's likely true and maybe even obvious that LGBTQ+ and trans people experience more violence than the 'average' person but ok. The bar to me is low in 'proving' that they need specific protections under the law however I feel like your perspective may potentially modify how far I would be willing to see the law change.
:) You are still my friend. And get some sleep !
Post by: kimmy on September 20, 2019, 01:39:14 pm
1. I like that we're both looking for studies and that we both know what a bad study looks like. In my defense I only had the abstract which said they used various methods. Can you link me to the full study ?
2. I would like to look for a study that includes random sampling next.
I had to sign up for a website called "academia.edu" to download the document. I'm apparently a sociology researcher now. It's free to join.
This is a very difficult issue to get concrete data on, for basically the same reasons that the "Get the L Out" survey we talked about earlier wasn't statistically sound. They used a "convenience sample", which is inherently unscientific. Because getting the data through random sampling of the general population would require an enormous sample size to get down to the specific data you're actually looking for.
The actual data we have indicates that murders of trans people are actually very rare, with just 18 so far this year in the United States. Even using conservative estimates of the size of the trans community that gives a number of murders per capita that's actually lower than the general populace. And almost all of these murders are of non-white trans women involved in the sex trade. So I think the obvious conclusion is that it's not violent transphobia but rather dangerous work in the sex trade that's actually causing these murders.
And yet just last week we had trans activists howling in indignation that BET's "Black Girls Rock!" awards show (celebrating black women in entertainment) didn't honor black trans women.
I feel like it's likely true and maybe even obvious that LGBTQ+ and trans people experience more violence than the 'average' person but ok.
I think lumping all "LGBTQ+" people together for these kinds of purposes is misleading because it obscures a lot of context.
For example if an effeminate-presenting gay man gets in a physical altercation with some rednecks, and a gay woman gets her ass grabbed by a guy who thinks she's cute, those might both represent forms of violence against LGBT people but I don't think it would be meaningful to classify them the same way for purposes of analyzing how much violence LGBT people really face.
I don't doubt that non-passing trans people, and gender-non-conforming people, and other "Queer" and "WTF?" presenting people face more harassment and bigoted comments and general non-acceptance, but I'm not really sold that this translates to real actual violence. Most people, even those who are quite repulsed by gender-non-conforming people, aren't looking to actually attack somebody.
The bar to me is low in 'proving' that they need specific protections under the law however I feel like your perspective may potentially modify how far I would be willing to see the law change.
If we were just talking about "protections", then I'm all for protecting people. But discussions about silencing TERFs or Jessica Yaniv getting her lady-balls waxed, or Dr McKinnon being able to win medals competing against girls aren't about protecting people.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 20, 2019, 02:13:16 pm
Now, 10 years after it wrapped up, The L Word is returning this December. "The L Word: Generation Q" will feature some of the original characters, but will be based around a new and diverse cast of characters that reflect the wacky new gender-fabulous world we now live in. The reboot will have trans actors, trans characters, and even cast trans actors in cisgender roles.
The new showrunner views her show as "a response to TERF lesbians", by which I assume she means to guilt and shame those of us who don't love dick. I am fully expecting a storyline in which one of the cis lesbians comes to realize that she actually loves "the female pen1s", which will be a refreshing change from shows where lesbian characters come to realize they actually love "the male pen1s".
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-the-l-word-generation-q-will-address-modern-day-lgbtq-issues.html/
I hope it's a complete disaster that dies a rapid death.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 22, 2019, 06:40:16 pm
Hey HEY !
This got resolved and Yaniv doesn't get waxed. Furthermore her behaviour was castigated by the tribunal...
Post by: ?Impact on October 22, 2019, 06:43:39 pm
This got resolved and Yaniv doesn't get waxed.
... Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 to each of three respondents.
Post by: kimmy on October 23, 2019, 04:12:40 am
-k
Post by: waldo on October 23, 2019, 08:45:23 am
Post by: cybercoma on October 24, 2019, 07:05:14 am
I'm grateful that common sense isn't completely dead in this country.Common sense in this case was not the argument you and others made but rather the fact that waxing male genitals required "special training" that the defendants did not have. The tribunal decided that they could not be forced to do something they weren't trained to do. It's pretty safe to assume if they had the training, they would have been required to do the work and denying Yaniv would have been a human rights violation. The entire decision hinged on their training and not on ideas of gender.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2019, 07:34:02 am
Post by: wilber on October 24, 2019, 09:31:03 am
Not to be diminish the work the tribunal did, but weren't there other factors also?
Yes there were. The tribunal called her a shake down artist.
Post by: cybercoma on October 24, 2019, 09:58:34 am
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 24, 2019, 11:39:59 am
My trans friends hate her so much. They feel like she has set back their fight to be recognized and taken seriously by at least a decade.
Yaniv is clearly a bonkers opportunist. I think most people are smart enough to see that, I don't think it will set back the trans movement much if at all.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2019, 12:08:37 pm
Yaniv is clearly a bonkers opportunist. I think most people are smart enough to see that, I don't think it will set back the trans movement much if at all.
Not for a lack of trying.
These issues getting picked up by mainstream media vault Yaniv and her type to the podium as spokesperson and banner flyer for trans rights.
Agenda hijackers...
Post by: cybercoma on October 24, 2019, 12:41:18 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 24, 2019, 01:21:21 pm
Not for a lack of trying.
These issues getting picked up by mainstream media vault Yaniv and her type to the podium as spokesperson and banner flyer for trans rights.
Agenda hijackers...
The story is a sideshow, it gets clicks. Few people take her seriously, they'd have to be as dumb Yaniv is. She has a podium but nobody gives a rat.
The trans rights stories people really care about is ie: the intersex track and field athlete, and the trans cyclist tearing it up against biological women. These raise interesting issues we can all debate and have to address. Few people want to force asian ladies to wax the dick and balls of a trans nutter extortionist with an ax to grind.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2019, 01:57:12 pm
People care about the story, if only as anger kindling.
Post by: Goddess on October 24, 2019, 02:02:53 pm
I bet this story was one of the most commented on at MLW for example.
People care about the story, if only as anger kindling.
It wasn't. There was a trans thread where this issue was covered, as well as others, such as the sports issue.
Someone gave an update of the HRT ruling in a status update.
I think more women were interested in this story and its outcome than men.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2019, 07:23:43 pm
Have a look at the transgender insanity thread... once the Yaniv story happens, the nuts all come out to comment... t*xme and such...
Post by: kimmy on October 25, 2019, 04:23:37 am
Common sense in this case was not the argument you and others made but rather the fact that waxing male genitals required "special training" that the defendants did not have. The tribunal decided that they could not be forced to do something they weren't trained to do. It's pretty safe to assume if they had the training, they would have been required to do the work and denying Yaniv would have been a human rights violation. The entire decision hinged on their training and not on ideas of gender.
Lack of training was not the only defense offered by the defendants. Religious views and concerns over personal safety were also argued by the pro-bono attorney representing these women.
I haven't been able to read the full text of the ruling yet, but this article quotes tribunal chair Devyn Cousineau as saying:
Quote
“In the genital waxing cases, I find that scrotum waxing was not a service customarily provided by the Respondents,” Cousineau wrote. “As such, they did not deny Ms. Yaniv a service and did not discriminate against her.”
https://www.straight.com/life/1316916/racist-agenda-noted-bc-tribunal-dismissed-scrotum-waxing-complaint-transgender-woman
She doesn't specify lack of training as being the reason. To me that reads more like a more general statement of support for the aesthetician's right to establish boundaries such as "no dongs".
the waldo is grateful that the CBC covered the BC Tribunal outcome - cuz the usual suspect can't complain... again!
the kimmo would point out that the CBC has framed Yaniv as a good-faith human rights activist, and that as a result someone who relied solely on the Ceeb for their news might find themselves perplexed and shocked that Ms Cousineau was so thoroughly unsympathetic to Yaniv in the ruling. the kimmo remains of the view that the Ceeb's reporting of this case didn't give their reader the background to understand why Cousineau excoriated Yaniv in the ruling.
-k
Post by: waldo on October 25, 2019, 11:38:26 am
the waldo is grateful that the CBC covered the BC Tribunal outcome - cuz the usual suspect can't complain... again!
the kimmo would point out that the CBC has framed Yaniv as a good-faith human rights activist, and that as a result someone who relied solely on the Ceeb for their news might find themselves perplexed and shocked that Ms Cousineau was so thoroughly unsympathetic to Yaniv in the ruling. the kimmo remains of the view that the Ceeb's reporting of this case didn't give their reader the background to understand why Cousineau excoriated Yaniv in the ruling.
as stated before: your want to have the CBC's fact based coverage devolve into publishing your favoured blog hosted, agenda-driven messaging is a non-starter!
CBC July 26: Transgender woman testifies at human rights tribunal after being refused Brazilian wax (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transgender-woman-human-rights-waxing-1.5227434)
CBC Oct 22: Estheticians don't have to wax male genitalia against their will, B.C. tribunal rules --- Transgender woman loses complaint against estheticians who refused her service (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transgender-woman-human-rights-waxing-1.5330807)
Quote
The ruling also found that Yaniv engaged in improper conduct by misleading the tribunal, by being untruthful, and by engaging in extortionate behaviour and scurrilous attacks.
It was also noted that she brought most of her 15 complaints against women described as "not white," while expressing racial animosity on social media and in her testimony.
Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 to each of three respondents.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 26, 2019, 09:47:57 pm
My trans friends hate her so much. They feel like she has set back their fight to be recognized and taken seriously by at least a decade.
Hopefully someone more reasonable tries to get their balls shaved by someone who doesn’t want to do it for trans people everywhere.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 27, 2019, 05:35:38 am
Hopefully someone more reasonable tries to get their balls shaved by someone who doesn’t want to do it for trans people everywhere.
There are infinite possibilities for the kinds of cases that can be tried. I'd rather people establish firmly things that are more central to one's ability to live a happy and productive life, ie. establish employment right and rights of association.
Post by: kimmy on October 27, 2019, 02:17:21 pm
as stated before: your want to have the CBC's fact based coverage devolve into publishing your favoured blog hosted, agenda-driven messaging is a non-starter!
the kimmo reiterates that the CBC's coverage of Yaniv failed to convey the extent of Yaniv's toxic behavior towards the people xe filed complaints against, or xer racial animus against the defendants. the Ceeb has certainly failed to convey the hardship imposed by Yaniv and the HRC process on these women and others targeted by Yaniv which includes personal harassment by phone and text from Yaniv, loss of employment and income, and psychological harm including anxiety and depression. the three women who were able to secure legal representation (pro-bono, provided by a far-right Christian organization, sadly) and fight Yaniv through the HRT process; several others were unable to find any lawyer who would take on their cases and advised to settle. Yaniv was able to successfully shake down several other women, who didn't get any justice from this ruling. the Ceeb glosses over or completely ignores the other women harmed by Yaniv. but you gotta break a few eggs, ey, wallay wallay wallay?
the kimmo notes that trans-boosters such as cybercoma and MH have commented on what a detriment to the cause of trans rights Yaniv is; they certainly didn't form that opinion based on what CBC has reported on this case.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 27, 2019, 02:21:26 pm
Hopefully someone more reasonable tries to get their balls shaved by someone who doesn’t want to do it for trans people everywhere.
Someone more reasonable would probably just go to one of the establishments that do have staff who trained and willing to perform aesthetics procedures on a scrotum.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 27, 2019, 02:30:40 pm
There are infinite possibilities for the kinds of cases that can be tried. I'd rather people establish firmly things that are more central to one's ability to live a happy and productive life, ie. establish employment right and rights of association.
If this was what we were actually talking about, you'd get little argument. Most people probably thought this was what they were supporting when they passed Bill C-16.
The notion that the new law might erode or end sex-based protections for women probably didn't occur to most people, even the politicians who advocated for it. The Yaniv case was the first test of how far C-16 might push... next up could be trans people transferring into women's prisons. Some horrible TERF filed some access to information requests and found that of 8 trans-women transferred into women's prisons in Canada, 7 were violent offenders before discovering they're actually women. Did people who supported Bill C-16 anticipate an outcome like that? Probably not, I'm guessing, but that's one of the things that has happened since C-16 was passed. Meghan Murphy has been talking about potential downsides like that, which is why pro-trans activists are so intent on getting her deplatformed.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 27, 2019, 03:58:41 pm
1. If this was what we were actually talking about, you'd get little argument.1. I would rather Yaniv not be talked about.
2. ...next up could be trans people transferring into women's prisons. Some horrible TERF filed some access to information requests and found that of 8 trans-women transferred into women's prisons in Canada, 7 were violent offenders before discovering they're actually women. Did people who supported Bill C-16 anticipate an outcome like that? Probably not, I'm guessing
2. No, probably not.
Post by: waldo on October 28, 2019, 12:44:45 am
as stated before: your want to have the CBC's fact based coverage devolve into publishing your favoured blog hosted, agenda-driven messaging is a non-starter!
CBC July 26: Transgender woman testifies at human rights tribunal after being refused Brazilian wax (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transgender-woman-human-rights-waxing-1.5227434)
CBC Oct 22: Estheticians don't have to wax male genitalia against their will, B.C. tribunal rules --- Transgender woman loses complaint against estheticians who refused her service (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transgender-woman-human-rights-waxing-1.5330807)QuoteThe ruling also found that Yaniv engaged in improper conduct by misleading the tribunal, by being untruthful, and by engaging in extortionate behaviour and scurrilous attacks.
It was also noted that she brought most of her 15 complaints against women described as "not white," while expressing racial animosity on social media and in her testimony.
Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 to each of three respondents.
the kimmo reiterates that the CBC's coverage of Yaniv failed to convey the extent of Yaniv's toxic behavior towards the people xe filed complaints against, or xer racial animus against the defendants. the Ceeb has certainly failed to convey the hardship imposed by Yaniv and the HRC process on these women and others targeted by Yaniv which includes personal harassment by phone and text from Yaniv, loss of employment and income, and psychological harm including anxiety and depression. the three women who were able to secure legal representation (pro-bono, provided by a far-right Christian organization, sadly) and fight Yaniv through the HRT process; several others were unable to find any lawyer who would take on their cases and advised to settle. Yaniv was able to successfully shake down several other women, who didn't get any justice from this ruling. the Ceeb glosses over or completely ignores the other women harmed by Yaniv. but you gotta break a few eggs, ey, wallay wallay wallay?
the kimmo notes that trans-boosters such as cybercoma and MH have commented on what a detriment to the cause of trans rights Yaniv is; they certainly didn't form that opinion based on what CBC has reported on this case.
the waldo remains uncertain why the kimmo expects a fact-based mainstream media outlet to present itself as an arbiter of
Quote
The ruling also found that Yaniv engaged in improper conduct by misleading the tribunal, by being untruthful, and by engaging in extortionate behaviour and scurrilous attacks.
It was also noted that she brought most of her 15 complaints against women described as "not white," while expressing racial animosity on social media and in her testimony.
Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 to each of three respondents.
Post by: kimmy on October 30, 2019, 09:54:04 am
1. I would rather Yaniv not be talked about.
Of course. Yourself and other trans cheerleaders have based your arguments on the notion that it would be far too much effort for some predator to abuse gender self-ID in pursuing their sexual fetishes and fantasies. And now with Yaniv we see that your basic assumption is just plain wrong. Life lesson: never underestimate how far some men are willing to go in pursuing their sexual fantasies.
Yaniv is the most well known, but certainly not the first or last. We know of others, but none of them have made international spectacles of themselves the way Yaniv has. How many more Yanivs are out there that are flying under the radar? We have no way of knowing. Nonetheless, we now have this individual who has gained notoriety to a degree that xe just can't be ignored by the press, and so the goalposts move from "That never happens" to "Not all trans!"
But nobody ever argued that all trans people are perverts or predators. The argument is and always has been that on-demand gender self-id would be exploited by perverts and predators.
2. No, probably not.
Which is why it's so crucial that we silence Murphy and others like her, amirite?
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 30, 2019, 12:22:53 pm
She also said that the "trans-activist movement has made for the erasure of women."
...
hmmm.... so she doesn't think trans people shouldn't have equal rights? She doesn't think they should be beat up.... she just thinks if you're born a male, then your biology dictates that you're a male for life. And this is worth almost inciting riots over? Accusing someone like that of promoting hatred and violence? These activists are a bloody joke. There are actual people who spread actual hate, and they want to try and silence a rather innocuous viewpoint. A viewpoint she has every right to espouse.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/megan-murphy-toronto-library-protest-1.5339909
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 30, 2019, 12:41:08 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 31, 2019, 05:27:30 am
1.Of course. Yourself and other trans cheerleaders have based your arguments on the notion that it would be far too much effort for some predator to abuse gender self-ID in pursuing their sexual fetishes and fantasies.
2. And now with Yaniv we see that your basic assumption is just plain wrong. Life lesson: never underestimate how far some men are willing to go in pursuing their sexual fantasies.
Yaniv is the most well known, but certainly not the first or last. We know of others, but none of them have made international spectacles of themselves the way Yaniv has. How many more Yanivs are out there that are flying under the radar? We have no way of knowing. Nonetheless, we now have this individual who has gained notoriety to a degree that xe just can't be ignored by the press, and so the goalposts move from "That never happens" to "Not all trans!"
But nobody ever argued that all trans people are perverts or predators. The argument is and always has been that on-demand gender self-id would be exploited by perverts and predators.
Which is why it's so crucial that we silence Murphy and others like her, amirite?
-k
1. I resent being called a 'trans cheerleader'. Though we have differed on points, I don't feel we are far apart on what we basically want, and certainly I trust your intellectual honesty that you generally are looking for a solution that makes our communities happier.
It feels like you are losing humour, and starting to lose kim-ness in the face of this controversy, which makes me sad.
I don't remember making any argument like that earlier. I generally agree that designing group rights around the possibility of abusers like this is a bad idea, but I also agree that psychopaths and other bad actors exist.
2. I don't think either of us know what this person's motives were, only that their case failed and they were penalized for using racialized language targeting complaintants, ie. bad faith use of the system.
3. "The argument is and always has been that on-demand gender self-id would be exploited by perverts and predators. " Was that the argument ? Ok so what do we do with that ? Ban penises from women's shelters ? Is that what we want ? And sports should exclude based on the hormone level of the participant ?
4. "Which is why it's so crucial that we silence Murphy and others like her, amirite?" She denies that trans women are women which is a world apart from the suggestions I put forward in #3 above.
Post by: wilber on October 31, 2019, 09:21:17 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 31, 2019, 10:02:11 am
Do you want me to clarify anything?
Post by: wilber on October 31, 2019, 11:04:50 am
Wilbur I don't understand what drove you to comment. Nothing you wrote is objectionable to me, I think.
Do you want me to clarify anything?
Yes, are you transgender?
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 31, 2019, 11:23:09 am
Yes, are you transgender?
What? No... ???
Post by: wilber on October 31, 2019, 11:32:22 am
What? No... ???
Are you a woman?
Post by: wilber on October 31, 2019, 12:14:45 pm
Wilbur I don't understand what drove you to comment. Nothing you wrote is objectionable to me, I think.
Do you want me to clarify anything?
My point was, it is women who are reaping the negative consequences. Guys wanting their gear waxed, to use women's washrooms, compete in women sports etc. I just think guys accusing them of losing their humour and kim-ness is a bit much.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 31, 2019, 12:58:41 pm
My point was, it is women who are reaping the negative consequences. Guys wanting their gear waxed, to use women's washrooms, compete in women sports etc. I just think guys accusing them of losing their humour and kim-ness is a bit much.
I feel she is putting me into a category with people she actively dislikes and I don't belong there IMO. It's really between her and me.
Post by: kimmy on November 03, 2019, 03:58:05 pm
My point was, it is women who are reaping the negative consequences. Guys wanting their gear waxed, to use women's washrooms, compete in women sports etc. I just think guys accusing them of losing their humour and kim-ness is a bit much.
That is something worth noting.
GLAAD does an annual survey in the US about attitudes toward LGBT people. This fall, they found that for the second straight year tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people has decreased, not increased. They put the blame on Trump and the alt-right, and vow to redouble their efforts in promoting positive media portrayals and so-on.
A closer look at their data revealed that the decline was largely driven by a decline in acceptance among young women. That's not a group that's involved in alt-right politics. Maybe instead of blaming Trump and the alt-right, maybe they should ask young women what's changed. Maybe they would hear that young women are less comfortable with LGBT people than they used to be because they're not happy about sharing their showers and changing rooms with creepy dudes who claim to be women.
Just a thought.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 03, 2019, 05:04:12 pm
1. I resent being called a 'trans cheerleader'. Though we have differed on points, I don't feel we are far apart on what we basically want, and certainly I trust your intellectual honesty that you generally are looking for a solution that makes our communities happier.
It feels like you are losing humour, and starting to lose kim-ness in the face of this controversy, which makes me sad.
I don't remember making any argument like that earlier. I generally agree that designing group rights around the possibility of abusers like this is a bad idea, but I also agree that psychopaths and other bad actors exist.
If I seem to be losing my sense of humor around this topic it's because it's exasperating trying to have an honest conversation about this. Your suggestion that instead of talking about Yaniv we ought to talk about employment rights and other stuff that everybody agrees with is par for the course. Nobody ever wants to address the Yanivs of the world or even acknowledge that they exist.
2. I don't think either of us know what this person's motives were, only that their case failed and they were penalized for using racialized language targeting complaintants, ie. bad faith use of the system.
Tribunal chair Devyn Cousineau's ruling indicated that she felt that Yaniv's motive was extortion. I see no reason to second guess her.
Yaniv was not penalized for using "racialized language". Yaniv was penalized for using the system to perform extortion.
One of the things that's annoying about the coverage of the ruling is the focus on the racism aspect. It leaves people with the impression that everything Yaniv did would have been on the level if xe'd just targeted white women. That's not actually what Cousineau's ruling says at all. Cousineau's ruling was that Yaniv has a scrotum, and that Cousineau would not require people who did not perform work on scrotum's to perform work on Yaniv's scrotum regardless of how Yaniv identifies.
Do you think Yaniv's conduct would have been okay if xe'd targeted white women instead of minorities?
3. "The argument is and always has been that on-demand gender self-id would be exploited by perverts and predators. " Was that the argument ? Ok so what do we do with that ? Ban penises from women's shelters ? Is that what we want ? And sports should exclude based on the hormone level of the participant ?
Why are some people so opposed to the existence of sex-based protections? Why is it not enough that every other women's shelter in Vancouver accepts trans women, people are determined to destroy the only one that is exclusively for biological female people?
As for sports, testosterone levels are a red herring. Testosterone-blockers can't undo the advantages of male physiology. Maybe people like Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard should go compete with people their own size instead of trying to turn womens' athletics into a fkkking farce.
4. "Which is why it's so crucial that we silence Murphy and others like her, amirite?" She denies that trans women are women which is a world apart from the suggestions I put forward in #3 above.
Maybe the notion that biologically male people aren't actually women isn't as radical as you seem to think. Murphy's point is this: Women, in almost every culture around the world throughout history, have been oppressed. Not because of gender identity, but because of biological sex. Therefore, a new kind of feminism based around gender identity rather than biological sex is an exercise in stupidity.
The circus surrounding Murphy's appearance in Toronto last week was disgraceful and your whole city should wear a bag over its head in shame.
Here's CBC "As It Happens" host Carol Off berating the head librarian, proposing that the talk puts the safety of trans people at risk, and casually comparing Murphy to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/i-m-not-going-to-reconsider-toronto-s-top-librarian-refuses-to-bar-speaker-critical-of-transgender-rights-1.5324431
(more of that balanced journalism the waldo has a hankerin' for, ayy wallay wallay wallay? ;D)
I challenge you, and Carol Off, and John Tory, and the rest of the Thought Police to watch Murphy's speech at the library and point out which parts, exactly, you think are promoting hatred, or deserve comparison to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, or merit her being censored or banned or threatened with violence. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIzXSLFeAxQ
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 03, 2019, 05:45:28 pm
Quote
...watch Murphy's speech at the library and point out which parts, exactly, you think are promoting hatred, or deserve comparison to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, or merit her being censored or banned or threatened with violence. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
I don’t think the people protesting even believe the person they’re protesting against is espousing anything violent directly. I think this is actually a case of the protestors not wanting someone with a different opinion than them to even have the right to express it. That they’re on the side of the angels and they’ll resort to violence to accomplish they’re goals.
People like MH seem to be their enablers, for whatever reason. It’s turning people off of their support for this community... I would argue that there is as much acceptance as there is of the LGBTQ community as there is because of feminists. Now, that the community has been co-opted, to whatever degree, by violent SJWs, their cause is total bull-****. They’re espousing fascism. Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of the public aren’t on their side.
Post by: waldo on November 03, 2019, 06:52:40 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/whuK2lj.png)
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 03, 2019, 09:44:22 pm
1. If I seem to be losing my sense of humor around this topic it's because it's exasperating trying to have an honest conversation about this. Your suggestion that instead of talking about Yaniv we ought to talk about employment rights and other stuff that everybody agrees with is par for the course. Nobody ever wants to address the Yanivs of the world or even acknowledge that they exist.
Ok but what does it serve to talk chiefly, or maybe even only about someone who is abusing the system as though this person is representative of trans people ? Of course the system can be abused, and fake claims can be filed. The Pride parade in Toronto was persecuted in the early days because of homosexual **** murders in Toronto.
I don't think this is anything like an analogy but many people did use pedophelia as a reason to disallow gay rights.
Quote
Tribunal chair Devyn Cousineau's ruling indicated that she felt that Yaniv's motive was extortion. I see no reason to second guess her.
Yaniv was not penalized for using "racialized language". Yaniv was penalized for using the system to perform extortion.
One of the things that's annoying about the coverage of the ruling is the focus on the racism aspect. It leaves people with the impression that everything Yaniv did would have been on the level if xe'd just targeted white women. That's not actually what Cousineau's ruling says at all. Cousineau's ruling was that Yaniv has a scrotum, and that Cousineau would not require people who did not perform work on scrotum's to perform work on Yaniv's scrotum regardless of how Yaniv identifies.
Ok, well I am glad the system worked. I am basing my knowledge on a radio report I heard so sorry if I got something wrong.
Quote
Do you think Yaniv's conduct would have been okay if xe'd targeted white women instead of minorities?
Extortion ? Of course not.
Quote
Why are some people so opposed to the existence of sex-based protections? Why is it not enough that every other women's shelter in Vancouver accepts trans women, people are determined to destroy the only one that is exclusively for biological female people?
I don't know. I think people are trying to be maximally accommodating maybe. Do you think it's possible that we, as a society, are working through these things now ?
Quote
As for sports, testosterone levels are a red herring. Testosterone-blockers can't undo the advantages of male physiology. Maybe people like Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard should go compete with people their own size instead of trying to turn womens' athletics into a fkkking farce.
Maybe the notion that biologically male people aren't actually women isn't as radical as you seem to think. Murphy's point is this: Women, in almost every culture around the world throughout history, have been oppressed. Not because of gender identity, but because of biological sex. Therefore, a new kind of feminism based around gender identity rather than biological sex is an exercise in stupidity.
The circus surrounding Murphy's appearance in Toronto last week was disgraceful and your whole city should wear a bag over its head in shame.
Here's CBC "As It Happens" host Carol Off berating the head librarian, proposing that the talk puts the safety of trans people at risk, and casually comparing Murphy to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/i-m-not-going-to-reconsider-toronto-s-top-librarian-refuses-to-bar-speaker-critical-of-transgender-rights-1.5324431
(more of that balanced journalism the waldo has a hankerin' for, ayy wallay wallay wallay? ;D)
I challenge you, and Carol Off, and John Tory, and the rest of the Thought Police to watch Murphy's speech at the library and point out which parts, exactly, you think are promoting hatred, or deserve comparison to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, or merit her being censored or banned or threatened with violence. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIzXSLFeAxQ
-k
Jeez... it's 27 damn minutes. Do I really have to ? Look I'm a straight male, don't I get a pass on this ? I mean when I post on these topics I can get told to shut up about it, and I have admitted mistakes and really have tried to stick to basics. The only thing I resent is the media circus, especially when RW media suddenly discovers feminism so they can beat down trans women. I am very tired... if you insist I listen then I will out of respect for you but not now...
My understanding is that Murphy has made discriminatory comments in the past, and the Canadaland discussion panel - someone indicated that that alone should be enough to disqualify you from renting a room given their policy...
Post by: kimmy on November 04, 2019, 12:46:23 am
Mr. Gervais takin' some heat over this tweet... right image is 'shopped'!
BREAKING NEWS: Comedian offends easily offended people!
Good for Ricky; there aren't many people more richly deserving of mockery than our Jessica.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 04, 2019, 02:27:13 am
Ok but what does it serve to talk chiefly, or maybe even only about someone who is abusing the system as though this person is representative of trans people ? Of course the system can be abused, and fake claims can be filed. The Pride parade in Toronto was persecuted in the early days because of homosexual **** murders in Toronto.
I don't think this is anything like an analogy but many people did use pedophelia as a reason to disallow gay rights.
Is that how we design policy? By focusing on what could go right and ignoring what could go wrong? The mainstream thought in gun control debates is now apparently that we need to take handguns away from hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners because a few dozen young men in Toronto won't stop shooting each other.
Our gun laws go to considerable effort to try to ensure that people who might be mentally unstable or criminally inclined can't get a firearms license. You mention ****... organizations that place young people in the care of adults, like Boy Scouts and foster child placement and school boards, try to make sure that the adults are trustworthy. Policies in those two areas, and many others, spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong and trying to figure out
In the case of enshrining gender self-ID into Canadian law, no thought seems to have been given to what could go wrong. Perhaps Jordan Peterson deserves a hearty ****-you for that, for making the public debate around C-16 focus on fake pronouns rather than serious efforts to discuss the potential ramifications of the bill. But regardless of why there was so little serious discussion of C-16, nobody seems to have paid much attention to voices like Murphy, who were trying to point out the ramifications for women and girls.
Ok, well I am glad the system worked. I am basing my knowledge on a radio report I heard so sorry if I got something wrong.
Extortion ? Of course not.
Okay, that's good. Coverage of the ruling seems to be giving people the impression that Yaniv only lost because of the racism aspect of this.
I don't know. I think people are trying to be maximally accommodating maybe. Do you think it's possible that we, as a society, are working through these things now ?
I don't think "we" are "working through these things". I think that women have been told what is expected of them, and that anybody who objects is branded as a heretic of some kind. "Working through these things" would imply that there is some sort of dialogue going on.
Jeez... it's 27 damn minutes. Do I really have to ? Look I'm a straight male, don't I get a pass on this ?
You're willing to listen to 42 minutes of Canadaland podcast explaining why Meghan Murphy is a terrible person, but you can't spend 27 minutes to listen to what Murphy herself says? That says a lot.
I mean when I post on these topics I can get told to shut up about it, and I have admitted mistakes and really have tried to stick to basics.
I won't criticize you for being a man and expressing an opinion. But it doesn't seem to me like you've made much effort to learn about other aspects of this issue, especially ones that challenge your cheerful preconceptions.
The only thing I resent is the media circus, especially when RW media suddenly discovers feminism so they can beat down trans women.
That cuts both ways, though. Okay, the right-wing is willing to listen to feminists when it comes to criticisms of the impact of gender ideology and trans activism on women. But how come progressives are completely deaf when feminists talk about these things?
I am very tired... if you insist I listen then I will out of respect for you but not now...
I am not going to tell you what to do. If you wish to continue getting your information about Murphy from hearsay, I can't stop you. I would bet that 95% of the protesters at TPL have never read or heard a single word from Murphy, and are there protesting because somebody told them that she's transphobic.
I think that for many people (and perhaps you might be among them, you can decide that for yourself) clinging to the belief that Murphy is some kind of villain is easier than listening to her and risking discovering that there might be aspects of this that they haven't considered.
My understanding is that Murphy has made discriminatory comments in the past, and the Canadaland discussion panel - someone indicated that that alone should be enough to disqualify you from renting a room given their policy...
Vickery Bowles, the Toronto Public Library head librarian, responded to that claim during her struggle-session (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session) with Carol Off, which I linked to in my previous post. That claim is false. The library actually has a high bar in determining what whose speech they won't allow, just as they would have a high bar in determining whether to remove a book from their collections. Your podcast expert got it wrong.
Quote
There is a very high bar for establishing what is hate speech in this country. It is established in the Criminal Code of Canada, and that bar is very high to allow free speech to flourish.-Vickery Bowles (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/i-m-not-going-to-reconsider-toronto-s-top-librarian-refuses-to-bar-speaker-critical-of-transgender-rights-1.5324431)
We use the same principles in making decisions about room bookings as we do for our collections, Carol. We have a broad diversity of information and ideas and perspectives that are represented in all the books in our collections, and some of those ideas and perspectives people would find hurtful and painful.
But we're not going to remove those books from our collection. And we are not going to eliminate programs from our branches that are controversial. And we're not going to shut down room bookings because the speaker in the room booking has controversial ideas.
Also, I wasn't able to find that episode of your podcast, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they can't actually cite any specific instance of Murphy actually saying anything discriminatory beyond her opinions regarding the need for sex-specific protections for biologically female human beings. Much like how the "hate speech" she's accused of is just saying that male people aren't women.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 04, 2019, 06:09:45 am
Given that my point was that cis straight white middle aged males are poking their noses into this more than needed...
Anyway....
All right, then, because I love you I will read this ... tome ... later today....
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 04, 2019, 07:19:09 pm
Is that how we design policy? By focusing on what could go right and ignoring what could go wrong? The mainstream thought in gun control debates is now apparently that we need to take handguns away from hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners because a few dozen young men in Toronto won't stop shooting each other.
That's a pretty bad analogy. No we don't ignore what could go wrong, but that's not what this ostensibly public discussion was about. There was no discussion of what transgender rights were about here, it was just an entertainment for people like me.
Quote
Our gun laws go to considerable effort to try to ensure that people who might be mentally unstable or criminally inclined can't get a firearms license. You mention ****... organizations that place young people in the care of adults, like Boy Scouts and foster child placement and school boards, try to make sure that the adults are trustworthy. Policies in those two areas, and many others, spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong and trying to figure out
Since I don't advocating ignoring what could go 'wrong' then I'll skip by that.
Quote
In the case of enshrining gender self-ID into Canadian law, no thought seems to have been given to what could go wrong. Perhaps Jordan Peterson deserves a hearty ****-you for that, for making the public debate around C-16 focus on fake pronouns rather than serious efforts to discuss the potential ramifications of the bill. But regardless of why there was so little serious discussion of C-16, nobody seems to have paid much attention to voices like Murphy, who were trying to point out the ramifications for women and girls.
Well, yes Peterson initially had some serious qualms about the debate but not about that part.
Quote
Okay, that's good. Coverage of the ruling seems to be giving people the impression that Yaniv only lost because of the racism aspect of this.
I'm a good bellweather of the public perception on this, because I only 1/2 pay attention. I remember 3 things: racism, online harassment, and the fact that they weren't trained to remove hair from male genitalia.
Quote
I don't think "we" are "working through these things". I think that women have been told what is expected of them, and that anybody who objects is branded as a heretic of some kind. "Working through these things" would imply that there is some sort of dialogue going on.
Aren't we having a dialogue ? There's a lot of cis white male outrage coming out of this... that's feedback if not outright dialogue. The Murphy talk was dialogue... the Peterson discussion...
Quote
You're willing to listen to 42 minutes of Canadaland podcast explaining why Meghan Murphy is a terrible person, but you can't spend 27 minutes to listen to what Murphy herself says? That says a lot.
I listen to Canadaland anyway. That just happened to be the topic. I am still planning to listen to this, don't worry.
Quote
I won't criticize you for being a man and expressing an opinion. But it doesn't seem to me like you've made much effort to learn about other aspects of this issue, especially ones that challenge your cheerful preconceptions.
Mostly because I'm not a stakeholder in any of this. People actually tell me to stay out of topics like abortion, for example, because it's a woman's issue. I don't fully recall but I was drawn into this because of the media aspect - which makes sense as Canadaland is a media show. There are lots of topics I don't fully immerse myself in, believe it or not.
Quote
That cuts both ways, though. Okay, the right-wing is willing to listen to feminists when it comes to criticisms of the impact of gender ideology and trans activism on women. But how come progressives are completely deaf when feminists talk about these things?
I have been following the debate, so I'm not deaf. I haven't heard your side defended, so much. Again, maybe if I were a woman people would ask me to join the discussion and I would find out.
Quote
Your podcast expert got it wrong.
Also, I wasn't able to find that episode of your podcast, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they can't actually cite any specific instance of Murphy actually saying anything discriminatory beyond her opinions regarding the need for sex-specific protections for biologically female human beings. Much like how the "hate speech" she's accused of is just saying that male people aren't women.
Firstly, the library doesn't outlaw 'hate speech' it outlaws 'discrimination'. I heard the interview and I couldn't figure out why she kept saying hate speech when that's not what the policy is. Saying a trans woman is not a woman seems to me would violate the C-16 provision and therefore would qualify as discrimination. I can say this whether or not I agree with the TPL's policy... The Canadaland episode is here, I think. I'm not sure why it's so hard to find episodes after August - https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/short-cuts-234-the-cbcs-very-dumb-lawsuit/
The host is against the library denying free speech, but the guest supports the library.
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2019, 02:15:56 am
That's a pretty bad analogy. No we don't ignore what could go wrong, but that's not what this ostensibly public discussion was about. There was no discussion of what transgender rights were about here, it was just an entertainment for people like me.
Since I don't advocating ignoring what could go 'wrong' then I'll skip by that.
It's not a bad analogy, it's a very apt analogy. When it comes to gun laws, we're in the process of deciding to what degree the potential of a small handful of dangerous individuals merit restricting the rights of a much larger group. In the case of giving trans women access to single-sex spaces intended to provide safety for female people, no comparable discussion has occurred.
For example, our friend Yaniv, aside from attempting to coerce vulnerable women to handle xer genitals, also has a well-documented and disturbing history of predatory interaction with girls 15 and under. Despite that, current Canadian law gives xer the right to walk into the girls' changing room in any public pool or gym in the country. A convicted sex offender could do the same, as far as I can tell. To me it doesn't seem like any consideration has been given to the possibility that dangerous individuals could (and will) exploit this.
Aren't we having a dialogue ? There's a lot of cis white male outrage coming out of this... that's feedback if not outright dialogue. The Murphy talk was dialogue... the Peterson discussion...
You and I are having a dialogue. We as a country certainly aren't. The few like Murphy who are willing to publicly challenge gender ideology or voice concerns about its impact on the safety of women and girls are demonized and deplatformed. Murphy was likened to a white supremacist or Holocaust denier by our national broadcaster, banned from Twitter, her website is regularly targeted by cyber-attacks, and she was once again deplatformed this weekend because SFU campus security rated the risk of violence from trans-activists as "11 out of 10". People who attended Murphy's talk in Toronto were threatened with violence and needed police protection just to get into the building. People are demanding Vickery Bowles' resignation for just allowing Murphy's event to proceed. Toronto city councilors are now talking about changing TPL's policies to prevent a similar talk from occurring in the future.
This isn't what a dialogue looks like. It's closer to a pogrom than a dialogue.
Firstly, the library doesn't outlaw 'hate speech' it outlaws 'discrimination'. I heard the interview and I couldn't figure out why she kept saying hate speech when that's not what the policy is. Saying a trans woman is not a woman seems to me would violate the C-16 provision and therefore would qualify as discrimination. I can say this whether or not I agree with the TPL's policy...
I highly doubt your interpretation of C-16 is accurate. I don't think that guaranteeing each individual's right to gender expression outlaws discussion of whether trans women are women. The law may say that they are (although I am not sure it actually does) but expressing disagreement with a law isn't illegal. And disagreeing that trans women are women doesn't restrict anyone's right to gender expression.
I also doubt your interpretation of discrimination, in this context, is accurate. If the TPL were refusing members of some group admission to Murphy's talk, or to any other program or service, that would be discrimination. But nobody was refused admission to the event based on gender identity or any other group characteristic.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2019, 05:42:04 am
It's not a bad analogy, it's a very apt analogy. When it comes to gun laws, we're in the process of deciding to what degree the potential of a small handful of dangerous individuals merit restricting the rights of a much larger group. In the case of giving trans women access to single-sex spaces intended to provide safety for female people, no comparable discussion has occurred.
No, we gave broad rights protection to a class of people, much different than amending gun ownership laws to address a perceived threat of increased murders in cities. And the number of gun murders is far more central to the question of gun rights than a single freakshow bad actor is to trans rights. You won't find an equivalent of Yaniv as the key actor in a pro/anti guns rights discussion.
You could flip it around and say "why didn't they consider the implications when they allowed people to own handguns" also.
Nobody tries to or should try to or COULD try to imagine accurately what all the impacts of our laws are. They probably imagined same sex marriage when they enshrined the rights of 'groups' in the charter of rights, but they didn't imagine the impact on cake makers, spas and health clubs either. I'm not trying to be trite, but these are the mechanics of law.
Quote
For example, our friend Yaniv, aside from attempting to coerce vulnerable women to handle xer genitals, also has a well-documented and disturbing history of predatory interaction with girls 15 and under. Despite that, current Canadian law gives xer the right to walk into the girls' changing room in any public pool or gym in the country. A convicted sex offender could do the same, as far as I can tell. To me it doesn't seem like any consideration has been given to the possibility that dangerous individuals could (and will) exploit this.
Can't male sex offenders walk into a locker room with young men also ? Can't female sex offenders walk into a locker room with young women ?
And more importantly - aren't we in the process of figuring all of this out ? We live in a society where nudism is illegal in a public place, so it's hard for me to imagine enforcing a law where young girls have to gaze on an erect **** in a washroom.
And a society where a single **** gay murder set gay rights back for years, so don't underestimate the force of reactionism.
And - again - I'm not a stakeholder in this. I am getting pulled into it because the freakshow bad actor came into my media space...
Quote
You and I are having a dialogue. We as a country certainly aren't. The few like Murphy who are willing to publicly challenge gender ideology or voice concerns about its impact on the safety of women and girls are demonized and deplatformed. Murphy was likened to a white supremacist or Holocaust denier by our national broadcaster, banned from Twitter, her website is regularly targeted by cyber-attacks, and she was once again deplatformed this weekend because SFU campus security rated the risk of violence from trans-activists as "11 out of 10". People who attended Murphy's talk in Toronto were threatened with violence and needed police protection just to get into the building. People are demanding Vickery Bowles' resignation for just allowing Murphy's event to proceed. Toronto city councilors are now talking about changing TPL's policies to prevent a similar talk from occurring in the future.
This isn't what a dialogue looks like. It's closer to a pogrom than a dialogue.
Because she denies that trans women are women, which is the third rail. Get a better spokesperson I guess.
Quote
I highly doubt your interpretation of C-16 is accurate. I don't think that guaranteeing each individual's right to gender expression outlaws discussion of whether trans women are women. The law may say that they are (although I am not sure it actually does) but expressing disagreement with a law isn't illegal. And disagreeing that trans women are women doesn't restrict anyone's right to gender expression.
It does not outlaw such discussion. Only pure 'hate speech' is against the law. If we are looking for a definition of 'discrimination' though, as per what the Toronto Public Library explicitly disallows, we can use that as an example.
Quote
I also doubt your interpretation of discrimination, in this context, is accurate. If the TPL were refusing members of some group admission to Murphy's talk, or to any other program or service, that would be discrimination. But nobody was refused admission to the event based on gender identity or any other group characteristic.
-k
Fine - you tell me how speech can discriminate against LGBT, against black people, against religions then. How about 'Judaism is a fake religion' ? Or LGBT people are actually mentally ill - they aren't really gay they need therapy. Like that ? How can it not be discriminatory to deny that trans women are women ? If it's not then what is C16 even for ?
And, no, refusing admission to a talk on discrimination isn't discrimination.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 05, 2019, 08:10:03 am
I really want to extricate myself from this discussion now, but you'll want to know my thoughts.
Firstly, in terms of me being influenced by all of these discussions - you can count this as a 'win'. She (and you) have some definite good points to consider. I have expressed a desire to let the process unfold, and I can see many problem with the discussion process as it is. That said, we have one famous case before an HRC so far and it seems to have gone the right way from the perspective of Murphyites.
And... Murphy is a much worse spokesperson for her cause than I had suspected. She ranks with Peterson as an academic who is too sloppy with language to navigate through a minefield like this. There is no trust between these stakeholder groups, so if you want to be heard you have to be more careful with your language... and parse it down, watch your tone and leave out characterizations of the ugliness around the arguments.
But she did have some good and even great points. And some terrible ones. And a lot of discussion of the environment around the discussion, which Trans people do equally also... ie. "this person got beat up, and that person over there got called a name - and now therefore here are my arguments"
Post by: wilber on November 05, 2019, 05:22:52 pm
BREAKING NEWS: Comedian offends easily offended people!
Good for Ricky; there aren't many people more richly deserving of mockery than our Jessica.
-k
Ricky offends everyone, that's what makes him great.
Post by: kimmy on November 10, 2019, 01:59:07 pm
Fine - you tell me how speech can discriminate against LGBT, against black people, against religions then. How about 'Judaism is a fake religion' ? Or LGBT people are actually mentally ill - they aren't really gay they need therapy. Like that ? How can it not be discriminatory to deny that trans women are women ? If it's not then what is C16 even for ?
And, no, refusing admission to a talk on discrimination isn't discrimination.
Refusing admission to a talk on discrimination is the only thing you've mentioned that actually is discrimination.
"Judaism is a fake religion"? I can point you to a very interesting discussion about the theory that Judaism began as a polytheistic pantheon of pagan gods just like its contemporaries, and that the monotheist Yahweh-centric version of Judaism that we know only emerged after priests of Yahweh (previously the war god) gained ascendancy and expunged worship of the other gods in the pantheon and removed them from the scriptures. Is Christianity a fake religion? We have academic discussions about the historical existence of Jesus, we have discussions about how much of the scripture was contemporaneous and how much was fan-fiction created 200 years later by the early church. Some of this stuff might upset religious people, but none of it meets the actual definition of discrimination.
What is discrimination? Let's talk more about that.
In a broad sense, of course discrimination just means being choosy. If someone likes music, but only polka music, they have discriminating tastes. If someone only considers movies real art if they're set in office building, they have discriminating tastes. If DeShawn only reads books by black authors, then he's discriminating, but not in a problematic sense.
Discrimination becomes problematic when it it unfairly denies someone opportunities or results in someone being treated unfairly.
If DeShawn walks into Hatori's Japanese book store and says "I want to read books by black authors", and Hatori says "Sorry, I only sell books by Japanese authors", has DeShawn been discriminated against? Well, no. If Hatori says "Sorry, I only sell books to Japanese people", then that would be discriminatory. But if DeShawn has the same opportunity to purchase Hatori's products as any other customer, then no. It's not problematic, in a legal sense, that Hatori doesn't sell books that DeShawn is interested in.
If Hatori puts a Help Wanted sign in the window one day and DeShawn comes in and says "hey, I want to apply for that job", and Hatori says "sorry, I only hire Japanese people", then that's discriminatory. If Hatori says "sorry, all my books are in Japanese, and many of my customers only speak Japanese, so I need an employee who can read and speak Japanese", then he has a justifiable reason for discriminating (a legitimate job requirement). But if DeShawn says "surprise, bud, I am completely fluent in Japanese", then DeShawn meets that requirement and Hatori has no justifiable reason for not considering DeShawn for the position.
If Wolfgang's Super Schnitzel and Pork Sausage Factory is hiring, and a Jewish person applies for the job but he can't handle pork products for religious reasons, is Wolfgang discriminatory for not hiring him? If handling pork is a requirement of the job and an applicant won't handle pork, then Wolfgang has a justifiable reason for not considering their application.
How about 'Judaism is a fake religion' ? Or LGBT people are actually mentally ill - they aren't really gay they need therapy. Like that ?
There might be a hate speech argument to be made, or maybe not. It would depend on the specifics.
How can it not be discriminatory to deny that trans women are women ? If it's not then what is C16 even for ?
I don't think Bill C-16 was intended to suppress ideas that make people uncomfortable. During the Lindsay Shepard debacle at WLU, Professor Rambukkana had told Shepard that she'd violated Bill C-16; among the discussion that followed from that incident was opinion of legal analysts that no, Shepard certainly had not violated C-16. Professor Rambukkana had it wrong.
Bill C-16 is intended, as far as I understand it, to guarantee everyone the right to gender expression, and prohibit discrimination based on gender expression. It also adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of things covered under hate speech and hate crime laws. Does saying "trans women are not women" qualify as hate speech? As discussed earlier, declaring something hate speech in a legal sense is a high bar to reach.
And I'm not aware that Bill C-16 imposes any definition on the word "woman". Someone like Murphy arguing that "trans women are not women" doesn't prevent anybody from expressing their gender identity as they wish.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 10, 2019, 02:43:57 pm
Ok. I listened to that entire lecture. It was worse than church. I listened as a personal favour to you, kimmy. I respect you and appreciate that you want to hear my thoughts on this.
I really want to extricate myself from this discussion now, but you'll want to know my thoughts.
Firstly, in terms of me being influenced by all of these discussions - you can count this as a 'win'. She (and you) have some definite good points to consider. I have expressed a desire to let the process unfold, and I can see many problem with the discussion process as it is. That said, we have one famous case before an HRC so far and it seems to have gone the right way from the perspective of Murphyites.
And... Murphy is a much worse spokesperson for her cause than I had suspected. She ranks with Peterson as an academic who is too sloppy with language to navigate through a minefield like this. There is no trust between these stakeholder groups, so if you want to be heard you have to be more careful with your language... and parse it down, watch your tone and leave out characterizations of the ugliness around the arguments.
But she did have some good and even great points. And some terrible ones.
I appreciate that you made the effort. I think you'll agree that there's a considerable disconnect between what the activists told you'd see vs what she actually talked about. Or at the very least, that there's nothing in her talk that warranted deplatforming, charges of hate speech, or threats of violence.
Yaniv's ball-waxing case has been resolved, but there's a lot more to talk about.
And a lot of discussion of the environment around the discussion, which Trans people do equally also... ie. "this person got beat up, and that person over there got called a name - and now therefore here are my arguments"
The environment around the discussion has become an unavoidable part of the discussion. The effort by trans activists and allies to silence all debate has become one of the major characteristics of this conflict.
-k
Post by: Granny on December 06, 2019, 12:28:44 pm
The environment around the discussion has become an unavoidable part of the discussion. The effort by trans activists and allies to silence all debate has become one of the major characteristics of this conflict.No, I still don't get it.
Some might not like what Murphy says.
Others might not like what trans activists and allies say.
But that's all just free speech.
(Unless someone crosses the line and incites hatred, but the police pretty much ignore that anyway).
People may react to the free speech of others: That reaction is also free speech.
Nobody promised anybody a silent and adoring audience. Free speech has reactions and consequences, that are also free speech.
Post by: Granny on February 02, 2020, 01:06:28 am
http://geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=12697
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 28, 2020, 01:30:44 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUsTqarMiQ
Post by: kimmy on August 21, 2020, 08:02:25 pm
I liked this one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUsTqarMiQ
I watched this, and felt it was as big a load of crap as the Canadaland podcast you told me was the "Greatest Ever Take" on the Jessica Yaniv situation. The highlight of this video was very clearly his cool shirt, but beyond that I don't see much to recommend it.
I completely agree that Jordan Peterson turned the whole debate around C-16 into a farce. Because we ended up talking about Peterson's gripe about pronouns instead of talking about the real and potentially serious implications of the bill. Like beauticians being legally compelled to handle Yaniv's ball-sack. Or women's sports being ruined. Or women having to shower alongside people with raging hard-ons. Or male-bodied rapists being put in women's prisons because they've decided to "transition". We didn't get to talk about any of that stuff. The Trudeau government promised a gender-based analysis of everything from pipeline approvals to tax policy, but somehow we never heard what their gender-based analysis of C-16 revealed.
When it comes to "the TERFs" your Young Turk Hasan is on a strawman stampede of misrepresenting feminist concerns regarding gender theory and the things trans rights advocates are demanding.
When we get to Hasan's assertion that people can just trust their eyes to know which pronouns to use, that's great when we're talking about the examples he gives like Buck Angel or Contrapoints or Valentina Sampaio who are all highly passing. It becomes more challenging when it comes to people like Morgane Oger or Jessica Yaniv or Rachel McKinnon, who are light years from passing. And it gets even more confusing with people who are very obviously male or female but insist on using xe/xer pronouns or nonsense like that. This is Gregor Murray, a Scottish politician:
(https://i.imgur.com/tu5pxAc.png)
If you, as Hasan suggests, simply trust your eyes, how are you supposed to know that Gregor is a "non binary" person who insists on "they/them" pronouns? Maya Forstater, an English woman, was fired from her job because of her gender-cynical views; a squabble in which she referred to Murray using male pronouns was presented as evidence of what a terrible person she is.
It's easy for people like Hasan Piker to take a run at a bonehead like Jordan Peterson. Let me know when he or his ilk want to have a go at JK Rowling.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 21, 2020, 08:07:57 pm
It validated the Canadaland take.
Post by: kimmy on August 21, 2020, 08:17:39 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/V4ht31Q.png)
This really resonated with me because it embodies so much of why I think "non binary" is a complete load of total dogshit. Non-binary people say they're smashing gender stereotypes, and yet they can't explain themselves except in reference to outdated gender stereotypes. "Non binary" only exists in reference to a "binary" that's built around gender stereotypes. They're not smashing gender stereotypes at all, they're building them up.
This isn't just stupid, it's also a slap in the face to everything feminists fought for from the 1960s right up to sometime around 10 years ago when feminism started being necrotized by gender theory.
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 21, 2020, 08:27:30 pm
We kind of moved on after Jessica's case was dismissed.
It validated the Canadaland take.
Mainstream media moved on. Yaniv didn't move on. Yaniv immediately set out to "fix" their complaint, this time instead of requesting their ball-sack be waxed, they requested leg waxing services, once again targeting single-employee businesses from conservative South Asian backgrounds.
Yaniv was informed that they would not be able to pursue a new HRC complaint until they paid the $6000 they owed the defendants in the settlement for the last fiasco, but now that has apparently been paid. And the JCCF people who defended the last beauticians are ready to defend the next ones too, and they're planning to play the religion card.
So despite your-- and Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan's-- wishes, this issue is still out there. Canadaland's take boiled down to "if we ignore this it'll go away" but it's not going away.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 22, 2020, 07:44:15 am
Mainstream media moved on. Yaniv didn't move on. Yaniv immediately set out to "fix" their complaint, this time instead of requesting their ball-sack be waxed, they requested leg waxing services, once again targeting single-employee businesses from conservative South Asian backgrounds.
Yaniv was informed that they would not be able to pursue a new HRC complaint until they paid the $6000 they owed the defendants in the settlement for the last fiasco, but now that has apparently been paid. And the JCCF people who defended the last beauticians are ready to defend the next ones too, and they're planning to play the religion card.
So despite your-- and Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan's-- wishes, this issue is still out there. Canadaland's take boiled down to "if we ignore this it'll go away" but it's not going away.
-k
Your metric for 'moving on' seems to be that Yaniv is still litigating. So what ? She can do that forever.
We *have* moved on, in that nobody is talking about her anymore. I didn't even know she was still litigating. If that's your measure of the issue still being 'out there' then, frankly, it will never go away. Can you see that ?
It feels to me that we have, as a country, adopted an idea of 'trans rights' and that the details of things need to be worked out. As the 'Yaniv' case shows, declaring onesself a woman isn't carte blanche to get any kind of service you want.
Don't take extreme viewpoints as a measure of what will eventually be the 'norm'.
Post by: kimmy on August 27, 2020, 12:37:44 am
Your metric for 'moving on' seems to be that Yaniv is still litigating. So what ? She can do that forever.
We *have* moved on, in that nobody is talking about her anymore.
It's ridiculous for you to suggest that Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan are vindicated by the fact that we're not talking about Yaniv's case 10 to 12 months later. That's laughable.
Other stuff from that time frame that we're not talking about anymore includes the vast wildfires in the Amazon and the Hong Kong protests, numerous political developments, terror incidents, and more. By your logic one would assume the Amazon wildfires and Hong Kong protests didn't deserve any coverage either.
I wrote at considerable length here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/canadaland-podcast/?message=52202) about why Brown and Rogan's podcast was a flaming cartload of dogshit. But I'll reprint some of it here anyway, because I love being repetitive and because I don't feel that you or Cyber or anybody else attempted to respond to any of this last time:
Quote
I've taken the time to listen to this podcast, and I have to disagree with you. This is not a good take at all. I wish I had a transcript so I could rip this apart in detail. Instead I'll just remark on some of the more egregious aspects of it.
In his intro he starts by riffing on Quillette and gives his listeners the false impression that trans issues are an "obsession" of Quillette. (they aren't. Even right now, when trans issues are allegedly "everywhere" I don't see a single article on the Quillette main page on that topic.) To demonstrate his point he reads some headlines from past Quillette articles.
Titles referencing things like women's athletics, silencing feminists, the campaign against "terfs", homophobia in the trans movement, trans-radicalism's effect on kids, and so on. He implies that these are topics without merit and that Quillette is simply scaremongering. But these are real and valid topics; we've discussed most of them in some depth in the "Gender Culture" thread. That people like Jesse Brown are so dismissive of these topics is one of the main reasons that sites like Quillette can brand themselves as "a platform for free thought."
Brown proposes that the transgender movement is just about "basic human rights", but things like male-bodied people demanding to compete in women's sports or demanding that lesbians not exclude your lady-**** from their dating pool, or taking an aesthetician to the Human Rights Commission because she wouldn't wax your lady-testicles certainly stretch far beyond the notion of "basic human rights".
(...)
He goes on to suggest that this allegedly outsized share of attention is because people are bigoted, at which point he introduces the Yaniv issue and argues that Yaniv is in the headlines because she's the perfect trans bogeyman that bigots have been waiting for. But "nobody has ever actually been forced to wax Yaniv's genitals," Brown smugly informs us. Well, there's a disclaimer with that, which Brown neglects to mention for some reason. The disclaimer is that some of the people who refused to wax Yaniv's balls were forced out of business, others who refused to wax his balls had to pay a settlement because they didn't have the resources or ability to defend themselves in the HRC process, and most importantly, if Yaniv does win his HRC cases, a precedent will be set such that yes, aestheticians pretty much will have to wax his testicles. So that's why this HRC issue is actually a pretty big deal. But Brown doesn't mention any of those things, because he's either an ignoramus or a propagandist.
Brown goes on to argue that we shouldn't take Yaniv seriously because there's reason to believe Yaniv is acting in bad faith and isn't a real activist. Well, guess what: Yaniv's case is going to set a precedent whether Yaniv is acting in good faith or not. Yaniv might well be a creep or a predator or a racist or a goon trying to shake down immigrants by filing bogus HRC claims, or all of the above. But the HRC has decided that they have to give these complaints a fair hearing, and rule on the merits of the complaint regardless of how scummy Yaniv's character may be, and when the ruling is delivered it will affect real people in the real world who have to live with the results. Jesse Brown seems oblivious to all of this. He seems to think that since Yaniv is a scumbag the HRC process isn't real, or something. Brown is wrong.
(...)
They mock the "we're protecting the children" angle. They mockingly talk about the hysterical fear that "some trans cabal is trying to get tomboys to transition" or something like that. But there has been a major controversy at the UK's Tavistock clinic over a report that says young people are being fast-tracked for medical transition without adequate evaluation, so maybe it's not so hysterical after all.
And they imply that the "man in a dress preying on young girls in a bathroom" is a preposterous boogeyman scenario, even though Yaniv is literally exactly that, and then immediately move on to "we don't need to talk about Yaniv, because Yaniv is just an outlier, he's the worst case scenario, he's not representative of trans people in general."
(a transgender writer at Canadaland, Niko Stratis, wrote this MUCH BETTER take on Yaniv, explaining why Brown and Rogan are completely wrong in saying "we" don't need to talk about Yaniv. Give it a read here: https://www.canadalandshow.com/we-need-to-talk-about-jessica-yaniv/ )
And then they go back to talking about Peterson, pronouns, "the downfall of western civilization", and so on. They rant about how people won't defend their arguments, while they themselves talk about pronouns and completely ignore any real issues that have been raised.
And then they complain about how Yaniv somehow got to be considered an activist or a representative for trans people. Well, Yaniv is the one before the HRC arguing their case. The HRC has ruled that these cases need to be heard.
The HRC representative, Devyn Cousineau, ruled that she can't throw out these charges based on the possibility that Yaniv may be playing the system. Cousineau also isn't allowed to consider that Yaniv might be a scumbag or a child predator either. She has to consider the merits of the case. They don't get to "no true Scotsman" Yaniv out of the movement just because she's not a very appealing activist.
They also mock the conservatives who suddenly care about the marginalized immigrant women who Yaniv targeted. But that argument cuts both ways. Why are the progressives who'd normally fight tooth and nail for marginalized immigrant women so silent on this? Why do progressives no longer give a **** about standing up for feminists, or for women's sports, or for lesbians? Why are progressives so quiet when it comes to trans issues? And as I've said before, I reject the notion that these women's racial or cultural background changes the case anyway: I think that all of these women, be they marginalized immigrants or white and affluent, have the right to refuse to handle a dong.
And why do Jesse and Mary think that conservative "concern trolling" on the issue is a reasonable response? "Conservatives don't really care that Yaniv targeted marginalized immigrant women, therefore we should not care about the marginalized immigrant women that Yaniv targeted either." Is that the argument? Is that what they're saying? Not really, it's just a deflection. They think they've found a "gotcha"-- that by pointing out conservative hypocrisy, they don't have to address the much tougher question of whether women should be compelled to handle a ****. It's a dodge. It's cowardly.
And your response to all this, at the time, was "but you see, this is a media-criticism podcast." But their criticism of media outlets that covered this story depends on the notion that this story had no merit, which is why they spent most of their podcast on insipid, dishonest, and trivializing portrayal of the issues being discussed.
I didn't even know she was still litigating. If that's your measure of the issue still being 'out there' then, frankly, it will never go away. Can you see that ?
This won't go away until these kinds of issues-- ones that Brown and Rogan and perhaps yourself would prefer to ignore-- have been resolved. Now that we have C-16 we are in a world with all kinds of new questions. There has to be real discussion, not the one-sided parade of propaganda that some favor.
It feels to me that we have, as a country, adopted an idea of 'trans rights' and that the details of things need to be worked out. As the 'Yaniv' case shows, declaring onesself a woman isn't carte blanche to get any kind of service you want.
Don't take extreme viewpoints as a measure of what will eventually be the 'norm'.
If policies are going to be made based on feel-good stories, then we are going to have to have these discussions every time something not-very-feel-good happens. If we're going to make policy based on the notion that people like Yaniv are just fictional boogeymen, then we're going to have these discussions when these fictional boogeymen appear in the real world.
If those of us who disagree with "extreme viewpoints" are going to be muzzled and silenced as transphobes, then those extremists will get their way.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 27, 2020, 11:08:46 am
It's ridiculous for you to suggest that Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan are vindicated by the fact that we're not talking about Yaniv's case 10 to 12 months later. That's laughable.
Other stuff from that time frame that we're not talking about anymore includes the vast wildfires in the Amazon and the Hong Kong protests, numerous political developments, terror incidents, and more. By your logic one would assume the Amazon wildfires and Hong Kong protests didn't deserve any coverage either.
I'm not suggesting that the fact we're NOT talking about it justifies saying it shouldn't have been covered. There are other reasons it shouldn't have been covered.
Here's your quote "the real and potentially serious implications of the bill. Like beauticians being legally compelled to handle Yaniv's ball-sack"
So, the bill didn't lead to that happening... so that wasn't an implication. The hearing was a year ago, and we moved on and maybe it validated Canadaland's take that people (and by people, I mean right-wing media distributed and consumed for angertainment by non-impacted males) were overreacting.
Quote
I don't feel that you or Cyber or anybody else attempted to respond to any of this last time:
You're right - I don't see a response. In retrospect, though, it seems to me that people were going crazy about the Yaniv story and it amounted to nothing. I see your point that they discredit 'the issue' by focusing on Yaniv but I also don't think that Trans rights themselves was the topic.
Quote
And your response to all this, at the time, was "but you see, this is a media-criticism podcast." But their criticism of media outlets that covered this story depends on the notion that this story had no merit, which is why they spent most of their podcast on insipid, dishonest, and trivializing portrayal of the issues being discussed.
Yes, in response to the insipid coverage in the MSM. If there was a serious piece on how to negotiate trans rights in, say, pro women's sports I don't think they would have had that same response.
Quote
This won't go away until these kinds of issues-- ones that Brown and Rogan and perhaps yourself would prefer to ignore-- have been resolved. Now that we have C-16 we are in a world with all kinds of new questions. There has to be real discussion, not the one-sided parade of propaganda that some favor.
This always happens when rights change. There's no free pass for this issue either.
Quote
If policies are going to be made based on feel-good stories, then we are going to have to have these discussions every time something not-very-feel-good happens. If we're going to make policy based on the notion that people like Yaniv are just fictional boogeymen, then we're going to have these discussions when these fictional boogeymen appear in the real world.
Yes we will. That always happens.
Quote
If those of us who disagree with "extreme viewpoints" are going to be muzzled and silenced as transphobes, then those extremists will get their way.
If you remove the quotes, and changed muzzled and silenced to 'shouted down' then I agree with this. But you don't trust the system enough. It's proven by the fact that you thought Yaniv for sure would win her case. Same sex rights also never resulted in kids being instructed to do gay sex...
I think it comes down to you not trusting the system enough, which is understandable.
Post by: kimmy on August 29, 2020, 02:10:01 pm
I'm not suggesting that the fact we're NOT talking about it justifies saying it shouldn't have been covered. There are other reasons it shouldn't have been covered.
Meaning "if we talk about these issues, angry white males will beat up trans people", I gather.
Here's your quote "the real and potentially serious implications of the bill. Like beauticians being legally compelled to handle Yaniv's ball-sack"
So, the bill didn't lead to that happening... so that wasn't an implication.
It was certainly a potential outcome of this tribunal. And that's why it needed to be discussed.
The hearing was a year ago, and we moved on and maybe it validated Canadaland's take that people (and by people, I mean right-wing media distributed and consumed for angertainment by non-impacted males) were overreacting.
I think the mainstream media outlets were very restrained in what they reported about Yaniv. ThePostMillennial in Canada (and others abroad) reported on more lurid aspects of Yaniv's history, including Yaniv's lengthy history of sexual advances towards adolescent girls. And some of that reportage resulted in more victims of Yaniv's attempts at grooming filing complaints with Canada's cyber crimes authority as well as a spotlight being shone on some of Yaniv's more recent activities. Isn't that a good thing?
You're right - I don't see a response. In retrospect, though, it seems to me that people were going crazy about the Yaniv story and it amounted to nothing. I see your point that they discredit 'the issue' by focusing on Yaniv but I also don't think that Trans rights themselves was the topic.
Yes, in response to the insipid coverage in the MSM. If there was a serious piece on how to negotiate trans rights in, say, pro women's sports I don't think they would have had that same response.
As I wrote previously, his intro begins by mocking Quilette for writing articles like:
Quote
Titles referencing things like women's athletics, silencing feminists, the campaign against "terfs", homophobia in the trans movement, trans-radicalism's effect on kids, and so on. He implies that these are topics without merit and that Quillette is simply scaremongering. But these are real and valid topics; we've discussed most of them in some depth in the "Gender Culture" thread. That people like Jesse Brown are so dismissive of these topics is one of the main reasons that sites like Quillette can brand themselves as "a platform for free thought."
Those are serious issues, and Brown laughs them off as fearmongering. It is very obvious that Brown has no interest at all in having a serious discussion about any of this.
Brown is clearly part of the progressive herd that develops a collective blindness towards any topic that might cause people to feel unsympathetic towards trans people.
This always happens when rights change. There's no free pass for this issue either.QuoteIf policies are going to be made based on feel-good stories, then we are going to have to have these discussions every time something not-very-feel-good happens. If we're going to make policy based on the notion that people like Yaniv are just fictional boogeymen, then we're going to have these discussions when these fictional boogeymen appear in the real world.
Yes we will. That always happens.
Why do we insist on forging ahead based on the idea that people like Yaniv are fictional, then act surprised that they're not?
If you remove the quotes, and changed muzzled and silenced to 'shouted down' then I agree with this.
We live in a world where the only way for a woman to speak her mind on this issue is to be as wealthy and famous as JK Rowling.
But you don't trust the system enough. It's proven by the fact that you thought Yaniv for sure would win her case. Same sex rights also never resulted in kids being instructed to do gay sex...
I think it comes down to you not trusting the system enough, which is understandable.
I wasn't sure that Yaniv would win their case. But if you think it was a given that the side of sanity would prevail, you simply haven't been paying attention to things that have been going on.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 01, 2020, 10:38:54 am
Meaning "if we talk about these issues, angry white males will beat up trans people", I gather.
Possibly. But rather than project some negative effect, let's maybe acknowledge the perpetual tinder box that is identity politics and endeavour to have a mature conversation about the topic.
Quote
It was certainly a potential outcome of this tribunal. And that's why it needed to be discussed.
"needed to be discussed" - well, I don't think I can advocate for obliterating all discussion. But what is the audience for a discussion of trans rights, if it's discussed by 'The Rebel' ? Is the discussion in the best public interest in all cases, or can we request that they maybe raise the bar in terms of how it's examined ? If they don't want to raise the bar, then - yes - maybe they shouldn't discuss it.
Quote
I think the mainstream media outlets were very restrained in what they reported about Yaniv. ThePostMillennial in Canada (and others abroad) reported on more lurid aspects of Yaniv's history, including Yaniv's lengthy history of sexual advances towards adolescent girls. And some of that reportage resulted in more victims of Yaniv's attempts at grooming filing complaints with Canada's cyber crimes authority as well as a spotlight being shone on some of Yaniv's more recent activities. Isn't that a good thing?
Possibly, but I doubt you can draw a direct line between things published by The Rebel and Vietnamese salon workers filing complaints.
Quote
As I wrote previously, his intro begins by mocking Quilette for writing articles like:
Those are serious issues, and Brown laughs them off as fearmongering. It is very obvious that Brown has no interest at all in having a serious discussion about any of this.
I don't think that's true that he laughs off all such issues, but I'm open to calling Brown out if that is the case.
Quote
Brown is clearly part of the progressive herd that develops a collective blindness towards any topic that might cause people to feel unsympathetic towards trans people.
You want to divine his motives so you can put a tag on him. He's also been tagged as a 'defund the CBC' type right winger, by the way.
Quote
Why do we insist on forging ahead based on the idea that people like Yaniv are fictional, then act surprised that they're not?
I don't think they're fictional, but I also don't think that a nuisance person is relevant in the large scheme of things.
Quote
We live in a world where the only way for a woman to speak her mind on this issue is to be as wealthy and famous as JK Rowling.
Lots of people speak their minds on this issue and they don't have her kind of money. Furthermore, while I don't agree with the way the general public was brought into the discussion they are clearly being counted on as an asset in the push back.
Quote
I wasn't sure that Yaniv would win their case. But if you think it was a given that the side of sanity would prevail, you simply haven't been paying attention to things that have been going on.
What things ? The fact that she brought a lawsuit at all seems to be a sign of insanity to some people. And I don't think it's a given that sanity will prevail but ... maybe we should complain about such things after the rulings rather than before.
Post by: kimmy on September 02, 2020, 08:29:33 pm
Possibly, but I doubt you can draw a direct line between things published by The Rebel and Vietnamese salon workers filing complaints.
I can't recall any of The Rebel's reporting on this case because I haven't read The Rebel in a very long time. I have, on the other hand, followed The Post Millennial's coverage of the Yaniv story. As The Post Millennial is one of the only media sources in Canada willing to give column space to gender-critical feminists, I'm willing to give them some page views.
It wasn't complaints from salon workers I was referring to. As far as I'm aware no salon workers, Vietnamese or otherwise, have ever filed a complaint against Yaniv. The complaints against Yaniv I'm referring to came from one or more girls who were targeted by Yaniv for sexual exploitation. The one complaint we know of for sure came from a young woman named Jessica Rumpel, who contacted Post Millennial contributor Anna Slatz to share her story, which was corroborated by voluminous evidence in the form of text messages and audio messages from Yaniv. After interacting with Slatz, Rumpel made an official complaint to Cybertip.ca, Canada's online sexual exploitation tip line. There are more young women who have had encounters with Yaniv. Morgane Oger, BC's reputable trans activist, was able to personally connect with some of Yaniv's victims, and after interacting with them Oger contacted the RCMP personally. Yaniv's "activism" was already known and supported by Oger; the unveiling of Yaniv's creepy history caused Oger to withdraw from and denounce Yaniv.
Prior to attempting to shake down immigrant beauticians who wouldn't handle her Lady-Testicles, Yaniv was already internet infamous. One of Yaniv's attempts to manipulate an underaged girl involved recruiting them as a product reviewer for Yaniv's website. Yaniv, using a female alias, contacted a teenager who had posted some reviews on a message board, and offered her a writing job. The first thing Yaniv wanted the 16 year old to review for the website? Vibrators! Yaniv mailed a 16 year old girl a selection of vibrators to use, and write about it afterwards. Another way in which Yaniv attempted to connect with adolescent girls was using his (he was still Jonathan at the time) position as moderator of a fan message board for a pop-music group called Cimorelli, which had a fanbase that skewed young and female. And there is more. The internet never forgets, and there is a lot more of Yaniv's antics archived for posterity, featuring Yaniv's attempts at bonding with tween girls over menstrual products, Yaniv's disappointment that he doesn't see enough tit and vag when he hangs out in the womens' locker room, and so on.
Anyway. Can we draw a line between coverage of Yaniv's shenanigans and positive action? Yes, we can. The first line connects from Post Millennial's coverage to Jessica Rumpel's cybertip.ca complaint. The second connects from negative publicity of Yaniv to Oger's disavowal of Yaniv and Oger's attempts to connect with Yaniv's victims.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 02, 2020, 08:47:25 pm
Possibly. But rather than project some negative effect, let's maybe acknowledge the perpetual tinder box that is identity politics and endeavour to have a mature conversation about the topic.
"needed to be discussed" - well, I don't think I can advocate for obliterating all discussion. But what is the audience for a discussion of trans rights, if it's discussed by 'The Rebel' ? Is the discussion in the best public interest in all cases, or can we request that they maybe raise the bar in terms of how it's examined ? If they don't want to raise the bar, then - yes - maybe they shouldn't discuss it.
How could this topic not be worth discussing? Yaniv's complaints had already cost several beauticians their livelihood. This was a novel case testing a new area of law. The outcome of this case had the potential to impact beauticians all over BC and perhaps everywhere else in Canada. And leaving aside the questions of trans rights vs women's rights and trans rights vs religious freedom, there's also the question of the fairness of the whole HRC process.
I think it's preposterous to propose that this case shouldn't have seen media coverage. I think Brown's claim, and yours, is ridiculous.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 02, 2020, 08:50:46 pm
I don't think that's true that he laughs off all such issues, but I'm open to calling Brown out if that is the case.
At the start of his segment he rattled off a list of titles of Quillette articles referencing those issues, and laughed it all off as fearmongering. Clearly he's saying those issues don't have merit. If he thought those issues had merit he wouldn't be mocking Quillette for posting articles about them. That's blindingly obvious.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 02, 2020, 09:00:23 pm
Lots of people speak their minds on this issue and they don't have her kind of money. Furthermore, while I don't agree with the way the general public was brought into the discussion they are clearly being counted on as an asset in the push back.
Women who aren't JK Rowling find themselves losing their jobs, banned from Twitter, kicked out of their social group, deplatformed, and threatened with violence. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson denounced the woman who made them famous, for woke-people head pats; Evanna Lynch-- the girl who played Luna Lovegood in the movies-- was run off of Twitter for urging empathy for Rowling.
They've been trying to threaten and deplatform Rowling herself as well, of course, only to find that she's simply too big.
In the mainstream media even Rowling herself is not getting a fair shake: media outlets refer to "Rowling's transphobic comments" without any mention of what she actually said. Does "transphobic comments" seem like a fair description for her essay? You can read it yourself and make up your own mind:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
What things ? The fact that she brought a lawsuit at all seems to be a sign of insanity to some people. And I don't think it's a given that sanity will prevail but ... maybe we should complain about such things after the rulings rather than before.
What things? A male rapist being put in a women's prison in the UK after "discovering" that he's actually a woman? That it's now controversial, in 2020, for a lesbian to say that she doesn't like dick? Sanity left town a long time ago on this topic. We have gone a long way past "we just need a place to pee."
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 03, 2020, 04:01:29 pm
It wasn't complaints from salon workers I was referring to. As far as I'm aware no salon workers, Vietnamese or otherwise, have ever filed a complaint against Yaniv. The complaints against Yaniv I'm referring to came from one or more girls who were targeted by Yaniv for sexual exploitation. The one complaint we know of for sure came from a young woman named Jessica Rumpel, who contacted Post Millennial contributor Anna Slatz to share her story, which was corroborated by voluminous evidence in the form of text messages and audio messages from Yaniv. After interacting with Slatz, Rumpel made an official complaint to Cybertip.ca, Canada's online sexual exploitation tip line. There are more young women who have had encounters with Yaniv. Morgane Oger, BC's reputable trans activist, was able to personally connect with some of Yaniv's victims, and after interacting with them Oger contacted the RCMP personally. Yaniv's "activism" was already known and supported by Oger; the unveiling of Yaniv's creepy history caused Oger to withdraw from and denounce Yaniv.
Prior to attempting to shake down immigrant beauticians who wouldn't handle her Lady-Testicles, Yaniv was already internet infamous. One of Yaniv's attempts to manipulate an underaged girl involved recruiting them as a product reviewer for Yaniv's website. Yaniv, using a female alias, contacted a teenager who had posted some reviews on a message board, and offered her a writing job. The first thing Yaniv wanted the 16 year old to review for the website? Vibrators! Yaniv mailed a 16 year old girl a selection of vibrators to use, and write about it afterwards. Another way in which Yaniv attempted to connect with adolescent girls was using his (he was still Jonathan at the time) position as moderator of a fan message board for a pop-music group called Cimorelli, which had a fanbase that skewed young and female. And there is more. The internet never forgets, and there is a lot more of Yaniv's antics archived for posterity, featuring Yaniv's attempts at bonding with tween girls over menstrual products, Yaniv's disappointment that he doesn't see enough tit and vag when he hangs out in the womens' locker room, and so on.
Anyway. Can we draw a line between coverage of Yaniv's shenanigans and positive action? Yes, we can. The first line connects from Post Millennial's coverage to Jessica Rumpel's cybertip.ca complaint. The second connects from negative publicity of Yaniv to Oger's disavowal of Yaniv and Oger's attempts to connect with Yaniv's victims.
I... suppose so. But is that why coverage of this case was necessary ? To expose Yaniv as a predator and bad actor ? I don't think that's what I saw in the coverage. If the coverage was "look at this bad person ! and they are now abusing the HRC system" that's far different than "look what happens when we enshrine transgender rights ! freaks like this surface in our midst !"
My issue (and I believe Brown and Rogan's) was about the circusifying of rights questions by the right-wing mudslingers.
Quote
How could this topic not be worth discussing? Yaniv's complaints had already cost several beauticians their livelihood. This was a novel case testing a new area of law. The outcome of this case had the potential to impact beauticians all over BC and perhaps everywhere else in Canada. And leaving aside the questions of trans rights vs women's rights and trans rights vs religious freedom, there's also the question of the fairness of the whole HRC process.
Are you reading my comments, to which you are responding voluminously ? This:
"I don't think I can advocate for obliterating all discussion."
I will reiterate the point I made just above in this very post.
Quote
I think it's preposterous to propose that this case shouldn't have seen media coverage. I think Brown's claim, and yours, is ridiculous.
I will reiterate the point I made just above in this very post.
Quote
At the start of his segment he rattled off a list of titles of Quillette articles referencing those issues, and laughed it all off as fearmongering. Clearly he's saying those issues don't have merit. If he thought those issues had merit he wouldn't be mocking Quillette for posting articles about them. That's blindingly obvious.
I will reiterate the point I made just above in this very post.
Quote
What things? A male rapist being put in a women's prison in the UK after "discovering" that he's actually a woman? That it's now controversial, in 2020, for a lesbian to say that she doesn't like dick? Sanity left town a long time ago on this topic. We have gone a long way past "we just need a place to pee."
Ok... Well I *did* think the side of sanity would likely prevail. And it did. But it doesn't always. Mentally ill people are let out when they shouldn't. The system fails. Does that mean that you should shut up ? No. Does it mean that the system is terrible ? Also, no.
In terms of coverage, it still means that these things should be covered as normal questions of rights. That's all. Heavy personalization and circusifying isn't helpful.
Quote
Women who aren't JK Rowling find themselves losing their jobs, banned from Twitter, kicked out of their social group, deplatformed, and threatened with violence. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson denounced the woman who made them famous, for woke-people head pats; Evanna Lynch-- the girl who played Luna Lovegood in the movies-- was run off of Twitter for urging empathy for Rowling.
For what though ? For saying trans women are really men ? Did they all say the same things ?Aren't you putting all of these people in the same box now ?
Quote
You can read it yourself and make up your own mind:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
Ok. I'll read it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 03, 2020, 06:34:12 pm
She makes some great points, actually but also she seems to think that the amount of abuse that happens on Twitter is germane to the discussion, which it isn't. Twitter is a **** show.
Post by: wilber on September 03, 2020, 07:06:12 pm
Wow. 3600+ words.. :P
She makes some great points, actually but also she seems to think that the amount of abuse that happens on Twitter is germane to the discussion, which it isn't. Twitter is a **** show.
Twitter is very relevant to any discussion, Trump has used it masterfully.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 04, 2020, 02:47:51 am
Wow. 3600+ words.. :P
She makes some great points, actually but also she seems to think that the amount of abuse that happens on Twitter is germane to the discussion, which it isn't. Twitter is a **** show.
It is though. I liked that post of Rowling where she extended her support for trans community but let known that she sees trans women differently than cis women... but I quickly tried to drown my like by liking a bunch more stuff and I've never voiced my agreement with her on twitter because I don't want to deal with the abuse of being called a transphobe.
I admire her conviction given her platform because I bet there are lot of people who, like me, are too afraid to agree publicly.
If we are really the same, why even bother with the 'trans'-woman qualifier?
Post by: wilber on September 04, 2020, 09:35:50 am
Post by: kimmy on September 04, 2020, 07:13:00 pm
4 posts at a time ? Are you trying to flood me out here ?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to waldo you. I wrote the first post while I was waiting for Linz to get showered. And then the second post because she had to do her hair. Then the third post while I was waiting for her to pick out her outfit. Then another post because she had to do her makeup. Then I went and did other stuff because she had to choose a different outfit and redo her hair and makeup. I didn't intend for it to come off like a stampede, it just kind of turned out that way.
I... suppose so. But is that why coverage of this case was necessary ? To expose Yaniv as a predator and bad actor ?
I think the case needed to be covered regardless of whether the plaintiff was a well-meaning saint or a conniving predator. Most of the international articles surrounding this case didn't refer to Yaniv's predatory history at all; the basics of the case (essentially, "trans-woman wants beauticians to be legally compelled to handle her male genitals") were in their own right sufficient to bring attention to the case. Even if Yaniv had a squeaky-clean history, the essentials of the case were still upsetting to many people.
I don't think that's what I saw in the coverage. If the coverage was "look at this bad person ! and they are now abusing the HRC system" that's far different than "look what happens when we enshrine transgender rights ! freaks like this surface in our midst !"
My issue (and I believe Brown and Rogan's) was about the circusifying of rights questions by the right-wing mudslingers.
So as I mentioned before, I think the mainstream news outlets were pretty restrained in what they reported about Yaniv. And as I said above, I think that the basis of the complaint itself was sufficient to draw attention and raise concern about the outcome of the case. This was unavoidably controversial.
Publicity concerning Yaniv's behavior resulted in more victims coming forward, as already discussed.
I think declining to report on Yaniv's history of predatory behavior gave readers an inaccurate picture of Yaniv's so-called activism.
I think that Yaniv's history of predatory behavior gives insight into possible motivation for why he targeted these women.
The aestheticians claimed in their defense that they were concerned that having Yaniv in their homes was unsafe; his predatory history is certainly relevant to that defense.
Also, whenever women raise safety in regard to trans people in women's spaces, trans people and their allies always claim that concerns are unfounded, that it's a myth, that it never happens. But that isn't true, we can point at Yaniv as an example, and there are others as well. Often crimes committed by trans-women are reported as crimes commited by women. Headline says "Woman arrested in child p0rn bust", and when you look at the mug-shot it's a stubble-faced individual with long hair. "That never happens" is a false narrative, and declining to report on it gives trans allies a pass to keep making that false claim. Nobody is claiming that all transgender individuals are criminal, but pretending that none of them pose a threat to women is dishonest and dangerous.
For what though ? For saying trans women are really men ? Did they all say the same things ?Aren't you putting all of these people in the same box now ?
For any number of thought-crimes. Some big, some small. It's not all the same box, but there's a general theme: if you catch the ire of the trans-allies mob, you're going to face consequences.
Meghan Murphy of course has been banned from Twitter and protested everywhere she attempts to speak. When she spoke at the Toronto Public Library in fall 2019, the CBC Radio's Carol Off had Toronto's head librarian Vickery Bowles on her show for a public struggle-session, during which Off likened Bowles' decision to allow Murphy to speak at the library to allowing Neo Nazis to speak at the library. And if you saw the video of the night of the speech, you saw SJW types yelling at attendees, inviting them to kill themselves or telling them to "bleed out"... some of them even had a little mock-up guillotine for beheading TERFs.
I guilted you into watching a Meghan Murphy talk; while you said you found it terribly boring, I don't think you saw anything during the talk that warrants comparison to Nazis. After Murphy's talk, Toronto's mayor and some of the city councillors vowed to take action to stop Murphy from speaking there again. Late in 2019, Toronto trans-woman and activist Julie Berman was murdered. Toronto's SJW community was quick to blame Murphy. "Thanks Meghan Murphy!" "This is what happens when you let TERFs speak in your city!" Who killed Berman? Was it an angry feminist moved to violence by Murphy's talk? As it turns out, it was a non-binary pen!s-person who was a member of Toronto's LGBT2SQIA+ community. Not a TERF, not somebody who listened to Murphy.
Arielle Scarcella was a popular lesbian Youtube video personality. Now she's "Arielle TERFcella" and persona-non-grata in LGBT circles, for the terrible crime of telling trans activists to stop trying to bully lesbians into dating pen!s-people.
The JK Rowling affair is ongoing, and we can all watch the ongoing witch-hunt. But it's not just about public figures and public speaking events and social media personalities. It's little things that won't make the newspapers.
BC_Cheque being scared to hit the "like" button on the wrong Tweet is one tiny example. Don't let people know you read the wrong thing! You could get in trouble.
One I saw recently was from a yoga forum on Reddit. A woman was quitting her yoga studio and was asking for suggestions for self-study. Asked why she was quitting, she explained that her studio had recently welcomed a new trans woman, and while she had initially been supportive, she found herself showering with that person one day and found them staring at her with a raging erect!on... she didn't feel safe and didn't think she could ever go back there. Someone told her "You should complain! That's not acceptable behavior, trans or not." She said "If I complain people will say I'm transphobic."
I don't follow yoga forums, but that one was spotted by TERFs and noted on the Gender Critical Feminists community on Reddit. Which has now been erased, because Reddit decided that gender-critical feminism is "hateful". Reddit's GC had been a place for women to share similar stories... a teenage lesbian who had been banned from her school's LGBT after she said no to dating a "trans girl" and was deemed a transphobe. A woman who's PCOS group had been ruined by a trans woman who didn't actually have ovaries but joined the group so that they could police everyone's language. A woman whose trans acquaintance grabs her boobs and says "oh, it's just us girls here!" when she objects. Women sharing experiences like this is too "hateful" to be allowed at Reddit. That's gone now.
It's been said (and I've said it here before) that the purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to kill one witch, it's to scare everyone else into compliance.
Wow. 3600+ words.. :P
She makes some great points, actually
I thought that it was a thoughtful essay that deserves more consideration than being dismissed as "Rowling's transphobic comments". And yet, that's how it has been depicted (just as Murphy's talks have been depicted as transphobic hate speech). Last week Rowling Fed-Exed her RFK Foundation "Glimmer of Hope" award back to the RFK Foundation after their director denounced her "transphobic comments" in an open letter that didn't address one iota of what Rowling wrote.
but also she seems to think that the amount of abuse that happens on Twitter is germane to the discussion, which it isn't. Twitter is a **** show.
Twitter is an abomination, but it's also apparently an important medium for expressing views.
There's a long list of well-known women who've been run off of Twitter due to harrassment from idiots, not just trans allies but incels and gamergaters and alt-right goons as well.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 05, 2020, 09:52:56 am
So as I mentioned before, I think the mainstream news outlets were pretty restrained in what they reported about Yaniv. And as I said above, I think that the basis of the complaint itself was sufficient to draw attention and raise concern about the outcome of the case. This was unavoidably controversial.
I don't think I have said much about the 'mainstream' news coverage but I think the Canadaland coverage and my comments are mostly about the kind of story commonly described as 'rabble rousing'.
Quote
Publicity concerning Yaniv's behavior resulted in more victims coming forward, as already discussed.
I think declining to report on Yaniv's history of predatory behavior gave readers an inaccurate picture of Yaniv's so-called activism.
I think that Yaniv's history of predatory behavior gives insight into possible motivation for why he targeted these women.
You're supposed to say 'she'.
But, ok. It still feels like the conversation is drifting from what it was originally about. If this person is a predator, and that's the point of the coverage, then I have to think about it. Maybe I need to listen to the Canadaland piece again - I don't remember this angle to be honest.
Quote
The aestheticians claimed in their defense that they were concerned that having Yaniv in their homes was unsafe; his predatory history is certainly relevant to that defense.
I don't remember this angle.
Quote
Also, whenever women raise safety in regard to trans people in women's spaces, trans people and their allies always claim that concerns are unfounded, that it's a myth, that it never happens. But that isn't true, we can point at Yaniv as an example, and there are others as well. Often crimes committed by trans-women are reported as crimes commited by women. Headline says "Woman arrested in child p0rn bust", and when you look at the mug-shot it's a stubble-faced individual with long hair. "That never happens" is a false narrative, and declining to report on it gives trans allies a pass to keep making that false claim. Nobody is claiming that all transgender individuals are criminal, but pretending that none of them pose a threat to women is dishonest and dangerous.
So there's bad discussion out there. Ok. That's a reflection of a toxic environment and worthy of comment for sure.
I don't know what to do about your many complaints about the twitter mob. Yes, that is terrible but it's terrible on all sides. I don't hold the twitter mob to the same standard as a newspaper or a blog.
The point I made from the beginning is that a mature argument of rights should happen, and that rights discussions shouldn't be staged as a proxy for the money-generating angertainment that the Sun et. al. love. I don't see any alternative to using the same process that liberal institutions have been using for decades.
Post by: kimmy on September 05, 2020, 03:22:24 pm
I don't think I have said much about the 'mainstream' news coverage but I think the Canadaland coverage and my comments are mostly about the kind of story commonly described as 'rabble rousing'.
I get the impression that you, and Brown, and probably many in the mainstream media, would prefer that this case not be discussed at all, or that discussion be framed in a way that is sympathetic to trans rights.
You're supposed to say 'she'.
But, ok. It still feels like the conversation is drifting from what it was originally about. If this person is a predator, and that's the point of the coverage, then I have to think about it.
I have a very hard time convincing myself to care about which pronouns Jessica would prefer. (Jessica's legal name is now Jessica Simpson, btw. Why? Is she a huge country music fan? Is she Bart and Lisa's long-lost sister? Most likely Jess picked the last name Simpson to make her ongoing legal action difficult to Google.)
I think the safety of women is a valid consideration in this debate, and I think Yaniv herself is a good example of why women have valid reason for concern.
Maybe I need to listen to the Canadaland piece again - I don't remember this angle to be honest.
I don't remember this angle.
Of course not. Like everybody else who only followed mainstream coverage of the case, you didn't hear the side of the beauticians who had been targeted by Yaniv. You only got to hear "angles" that addressed the trans rights issue.
So there's bad discussion out there. Ok. That's a reflection of a toxic environment and worthy of comment for sure.
I don't know what to do about your many complaints about the twitter mob. Yes, that is terrible but it's terrible on all sides. I don't hold the twitter mob to the same standard as a newspaper or a blog.
The point I made from the beginning is that a mature argument of rights should happen, and that rights discussions shouldn't be staged as a proxy for the money-generating angertainment that the Sun et. al. love. I don't see any alternative to using the same process that liberal institutions have been using for decades.
A mature discussion absolutely should happen. JK Rowling is trying to have a mature conversation about these issues. How is that working out? Meghan Murphy is trying to have a mature discussion. How is that working out? A bunch of maniacs showing up chanting death threats and carrying around their little fake guillotine in front of attendees doesn't strike me as very conducive to mature discussion.
I guilted you into watching the Meghan Murphy talk, you conceded that she had some good points. You read the JK Rowling essay, you conceded that she had some good points. To me it seems like people who actually listen to what these women are saying find that they actually have reasonable and legitimate concerns to talk about. Perhaps that is why trans allies are so desperate to prevent people from actually hearing them.
Those Quillette articles that Jesse Brown mocked in the preamble to his talk with Mary Rogan? They had good points too. Those are real topics that are real concerns for real people, and they deserve better than Brown's "Homophobia in the trans movement? Ridiculous! Transwomen in women's sport? Fearmongering! Are kids being transitioned unnecessarily? LOLOLOL! TERFs being silenced? Cry me a river! Transwomen in women's prisons? LOLOLOL! Scaremongering!" Brown is part of the problem. Brown and people like him are the ones closing the door on having a mature conversation about any of this. Brown and people like him don't give a crap about having a mature discussion about these issues, all they care about is not drawing the ire of the goons that shout "TRANSPHOBE!" at anybody who raises even the most basic concern or makes the mildest criticism.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 06, 2020, 08:40:31 am
I get the impression that you, and Brown, and probably many in the mainstream media, would prefer that this case not be discussed at all, or that discussion be framed in a way that is sympathetic to trans rights.
If it weren't discussed at all, that would be fine with me as I expect hardly any Human Rights Commission cases are given this kind of coverage. I don't want to suppress discussion of it, though, as I said umpteen times.
Would I want the discussion framed 'sympathetic to trans rights' ? I thought about that, and I think I just want those discussing it to take a 'high road' and use the tone that the judgements themselves usually take. That's what I want.
Quote
I have a very hard time convincing myself to care about which pronouns Jessica would prefer. (Jessica's legal name is now Jessica Simpson, btw. Why? Is she a huge country music fan? Is she Bart and Lisa's long-lost sister? Most likely Jess picked the last name Simpson to make her ongoing legal action difficult to Google.)
I think the safety of women is a valid consideration in this debate, and I think Yaniv herself is a good example of why women have valid reason for concern.
Systems can't be built to be foolproof. Malevolent actors can trick them, circumvent them and even hijack them and use them for their own goals. The legal system is built on rights guaranteed to groups, with the details being worked out through smaller cases like this.
Discussions of systems, rights and rulings work best when they are dispassionate and yet humane. That let's the stakeholders get a wide view of what is being traded off here.
My problem has always been with coverage that makes this case into something personal, and does so for the benefit of the angertainment industry and its audience.
If the story is about Yaniv and her bad personality, then go ahead and misgender her and get angry I guess. But rights cases deserve a different kind of coverage when they are covered.
Quote
Of course not. Like everybody else who only followed mainstream coverage of the case, you didn't hear the side of the beauticians who had been targeted by Yaniv. You only got to hear "angles" that addressed the trans rights issue.
The Canadaland piece was about the media coverage. I didn't read much about the case at all other than that.
Quote
A mature discussion absolutely should happen. JK Rowling is trying to have a mature conversation about these issues. How is that working out? Meghan Murphy is trying to have a mature discussion. How is that working out? A bunch of maniacs showing up chanting death threats and carrying around their little fake guillotine in front of attendees doesn't strike me as very conducive to mature discussion.
Exactly. The way to fix that is for people to focus on the merits of the arguments and not tangential things.
I don't think all of JK Rowling's points are valid, but I also don't think she should be threatened for stating them. I don't think that people who believe LGBTQ+ folks should be jailed should be threatened either, or virulent racists.
Quote
I guilted you into watching the Meghan Murphy talk, you conceded that she had some good points. You read the JK Rowling essay, you conceded that she had some good points. To me it seems like people who actually listen to what these women are saying find that they actually have reasonable and legitimate concerns to talk about. Perhaps that is why trans allies are so desperate to prevent people from actually hearing them.
I think that their opponents are just morally disgusted by them, just as people are disgusted by homophobes and racists. I am not disgusted by any of these groups, so much. I know that they exist, and I think the best approach is to give them no attention whatsoever.
Quote
Those Quillette articles that Jesse Brown mocked in the preamble to his talk with Mary Rogan? They had good points too.
I haven't had time to listen to the piece again. Quilette isn't really accepted as a centrist publication, though. Maybe that is a problem, I don't know.
Post by: kimmy on September 06, 2020, 03:25:30 pm
Would I want the discussion framed 'sympathetic to trans rights' ? I thought about that, and I think I just want those discussing it to take a 'high road' and use the tone that the judgements themselves usually take. That's what I want.
I think that it needs to be emphasised that this is not just a trans rights question but also a women's rights question and in many cases a religious rights question.
Systems can't be built to be foolproof. Malevolent actors can trick them, circumvent them and even hijack them and use them for their own goals. The legal system is built on rights guaranteed to groups, with the details being worked out through smaller cases like this.
It seems to me that in other areas, we consider potentially bad outcomes beforehand when we are designing legislation. When we draw up gun laws, we consider that some number of bad-people will try to obtain guns and shoot people, and consider ways to make that less likely. When we design driving laws, we consider ways to make sure that people who drive cars have some level of competency. To me it seems like in giving trans people access to women's spaces, little if any thought has been given to potential bad outcomes.
Our current government promised that "Gender Based Analysis" would be applied to policies, and I'd be very interested to know if such an analysis was ever done in regard to C-16.
Exactly. The way to fix that is for people to focus on the merits of the arguments and not tangential things.
I don't think all of JK Rowling's points are valid, but I also don't think she should be threatened for stating them. I don't think that people who believe LGBTQ+ folks should be jailed should be threatened either, or virulent racists.
I think that their opponents are just morally disgusted by them, just as people are disgusted by homophobes and racists. I am not disgusted by any of these groups, so much. I know that they exist, and I think the best approach is to give them no attention whatsoever.
If you hear Jesse Brown or Carol Off or some other media figure describe someone or something as transphobic is that sufficient in your mind to decide that they deserve no attention? To me it seems like we are at a point where contrary opinions are dismissed out of hand because some random mob has decided they're wrong-think. Did Jesse Brown read a single one of those Quillette articles he dismissed as transphobic nonsense, or did he just assume that to be the case because "everybody says so"? Did Carol Off watch a Meghan Murphy speech before comparing her to a Neo Nazi, or was she basing that on the opinion of the mob with the fake guillotine shouting death threats outside the library?
I haven't had time to listen to the piece again. Quilette isn't really accepted as a centrist publication, though. Maybe that is a problem, I don't know.
This is somewhat a circular argument, though. If we're only supposed to consider stuff that centrist and mainstream outlets would publish, and mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement, then by by definition we're only listening to stuff that is favorable to the trans movement. Quillette may not be a centrist or mainstream publication, but it is a publication that is willing to post the other side of the argument, including pieces from accomplished writers and commentators.
Bari Weiss didn't quit the New York Times in regard to anything to do with trans coverage, as far as I know. But when she quit, she wrote a letter complaining that Twitter had become the paper's real editor. That they'd become afraid of publishing anything that went against the flow of popular opinion. And to me it seems like coverage of trans issues is a prime example of what she is talking about.
Quote
The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same. (Thread.)
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1268628680797978625
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 06, 2020, 03:37:49 pm
If we are really the same, why even bother with the 'trans'-woman qualifier?
They don't like that qualifier. Their main mantra is "Trans women are women." They see "cisgender" women (ie, actual vag1na people) as simply a subset of women. They don't believe woman is defined by biological factors at all, they believe woman is a notion in peoples' heads.
Disconnected from biological reality, "woman" becomes basically just an expression of affinity towards traditional gender roles, which isn't "progressive" at all, it's actually incredibly regressive.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 07, 2020, 12:36:03 pm
I think that it needs to be emphasised that this is not just a trans rights question but also a women's rights question and in many cases a religious rights question.
Of course - all rights questions impact others and can involve balancing of rights.
Quote
It seems to me that in other areas, we consider potentially bad outcomes beforehand when we are designing legislation. When we draw up gun laws, we consider that some number of bad-people will try to obtain guns and shoot people, and consider ways to make that less likely. When we design driving laws, we consider ways to make sure that people who drive cars have some level of competency. To me it seems like in giving trans people access to women's spaces, little if any thought has been given to potential bad outcomes.
Yes, we do, but we also recognize that no system is foolproof. We have a system called 'parole' which releases offenders before their sentence is complete. There WILL be folks who reoffend coming out of the system. It doesn't mean the people who design the system will ignore this, nor will it mean that they cancel the parole system.
There's a balance that is struck.
Quote
Our current government promised that "Gender Based Analysis" would be applied to policies, and I'd be very interested to know if such an analysis was ever done in regard to C-16.
I don't remember but I agree.
Quote
If you hear Jesse Brown or Carol Off or some other media figure describe someone or something as transphobic is that sufficient in your mind to decide that they deserve no attention?
As journalists, it would surprise me for them to take it upon themselves to do that. And obviously I have read/listened to the people who are labelled as such so I pay them attention.
Quote
To me it seems like we are at a point where contrary opinions are dismissed out of hand because some random mob has decided they're wrong-think.
Why are the people who disagree with you a 'random mob' and the ones whose decisions you support not ? I would say publications that intentionally stir up angertainment are at the head of the mob.
Quote
Did Jesse Brown read a single one of those Quillette articles he dismissed as transphobic nonsense, or did he just assume that to be the case because "everybody says so"?
He quotes a few of them, so I imagine he had a look.
Quote
Did Carol Off watch a Meghan Murphy speech before comparing her to a Neo Nazi, or was she basing that on the opinion of the mob with the fake guillotine shouting death threats outside the library?
You would have to quote that one to me. I am putting enough time into this to re-listen.
Quote
This is somewhat a circular argument, though. If we're only supposed to consider stuff that centrist and mainstream outlets would publish, and mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement, then by by definition we're only listening to stuff that is favorable to the trans movement.
That's a false choice. What was the Globe or the National Posts's coverage ?
Quote
Quillette may not be a centrist or mainstream publication, but it is a publication that is willing to post the other side of the argument, including pieces from accomplished writers and commentators.
The complaint that Rogan and Brown have is the provocative nature of the articles, describing threats and so on.
Rogan talks about 'monetization of provcation' which is what I'm talking about also. "We go from outrage to outrage" is her comment. She says they are "saying things that are explosive to guarantee an emotional response".
----
I listened again. The assertion is that much of the media is taking a sensational and provocative angle on this story, including Alex Jones. Brown and Rogan quote The Post Millennial as saying "Why is mainstream media ignoring Yaniv ?" - which is bullshit - etc. and Barbara Kay imagined Yaniv as a corpse in the PM and asked who would wax her genitals there.
This is about quality of coverage, period. So you can stop saying now that people don't want to hear the other side.
Here's some coverage. It covers the facts and doesn't wade into angertainment, so your assertion that "mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement". doesn't fly.
https://nationalpost.com/news/trans-activist-jessica-yaniv-files-second-lawsuit-against-3-beauticians-after-losing-human-rights-suit-to-them-in-2019
Post by: BC_cheque on September 07, 2020, 10:52:20 pm
They don't like that qualifier. Their main mantra is "Trans women are women." They see "cisgender" women (ie, actual vag1na people) as simply a subset of women. They don't believe woman is defined by biological factors at all, they believe woman is a notion in peoples' heads.
Disconnected from biological reality, "woman" becomes basically just an expression of affinity towards traditional gender roles, which isn't "progressive" at all, it's actually incredibly regressive.
-k
Interesting, I see trans men and women refer to themselves as trans and I wasn't aware there is a movement to erase the qualifier. I thought the argument is whether identifying as woman truly makes someone a woman, which in a way is the same thing, but this is the first time I've heard of dropping trans out of it.
I'm torn on this one tbh. I see your point about regressiveness on gender roles, I've often thought the same thing myself. In a way many are caricatures of what women have strived not to be, well, in the feminist sphere anyway.
On the other hand, I can empathise with transgenderism. In my university days I was taught that gender is a social construct. That we fall into our roles because from a young age we are dressed in gender specific colours and play with gender specific toys. Yet, during the same time we had stories like David Reimer's where in spite of all efforts to the contrary, a boy who was raised as a girl always felt misgendered.
Gender and sex do co-exist independent of each other and if a trans-woman feels she is a woman, I can't argue with that experience. Using the qualifier 'trans' is a way of othering their experiences so I understand why the effort is being made to erase it.
Having said that, I remember a trans woman discussing how different it feels to walk at night as a woman, how much less safe it feels. That's something we women have lived with all our lives. At the end of the day, our experiences as women and as trans-women are quite different.
I am completely on the fence on this one.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 08, 2020, 08:57:56 am
I am completely on the fence on this one.
The thing about it is... the arguments have bleeded from practical ones into theoretical, which is messy.
Trans people are a tiny segment of the population, however they are abused and targeted at a very high rate. The idea of protecting their rights, to allow them to live safety in society is laudable, but there are always limits to rights as well.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 09, 2020, 01:58:55 am
The thing about it is... the arguments have bleeded from practical ones into theoretical, which is messy.
Trans people are a tiny segment of the population, however they are abused and targeted at a very high rate. The idea of protecting their rights, to allow them to live safety in society is laudable, but there are always limits to rights as well.
I'm not sure anyone argues against trans-rights per se, not even kimmy. She's arguing against idiots who abuse trans rights as loopholes.
When there are social changes people get outside their comfort zone. Admittedly pronouns created outside the English language is not a trend I'm fired up about even though intellectually I grasp it.
Give it 30 years and it won't matter just like gays fought 30 years ago and blacks 30 years before that.
Just like both those civil rights movements, it'll never go away entirely but ultimately we'll be pulled out of our ignorance surely on this one too on a collective scale.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 09, 2020, 08:24:47 am
1. I'm not sure anyone argues against trans-rights per se, not even kimmy. She's arguing against idiots who abuse trans rights as loopholes.
2. When there are social changes people get outside their comfort zone. Admittedly pronouns created outside the English language is not a trend I'm fired up about even though intellectually I grasp it.
3. Give it 30 years and it won't matter just like gays fought 30 years ago and blacks 30 years before that. Just like both those civil rights movements, it'll never go away entirely but ultimately we'll be pulled out of our ignorance surely on this one too on a collective scale.
1. Nobody on this board, maybe but lots of people don't think they need protection.
2. I did it again last night, thankfully though not in the presence of the subject. They use "they" and I called them "she" talking to a friend.
3. It will matter in 30 years, but less - I agree.
Post by: waldo on September 13, 2020, 02:04:02 pm
Post by: kimmy on September 13, 2020, 04:19:02 pm
CPC leader O'Tool says: "I'm here to fight for you!" (https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1292823084106473475/pu/vid/576x720/Y0U4nNZRsWzfy1T_.mp4?tag=10) - really; are you sure? ;D
That's a nice video. It illustrates how the mindset around gender is changing.
Yesterday's feminists would look at this video and say "It's nice that we live in a society where that gender-non-conforming young man can express himself freely."
Today's gender theory people would look at this video and say "That young man is a woman."
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 13, 2020, 05:33:54 pm
The complaint that Rogan and Brown have is the provocative nature of the articles, describing threats and so on.
Rogan talks about 'monetization of provcation' which is what I'm talking about also. "We go from outrage to outrage" is her comment. She says they are "saying things that are explosive to guarantee an emotional response".
This was a provocative story. It did get people riled up, and for good reason. I don't think trying to sweep it under the rug would have served anybody well.
I listened again. The assertion is that much of the media is taking a sensational and provocative angle on this story, including Alex Jones. Brown and Rogan quote The Post Millennial as saying "Why is mainstream media ignoring Yaniv ?" - which is bullshit - etc.
I'm not sure Alex Jones qualifies for any discussion of media. While the actual media didn't ignore Yaniv, they were very selective in what they did report, and as I've said before I think this paints an inaccurate picture of Yaniv's so-called activism. Morgane Oger dropped Yaniv like a hot potato; not because of anything Oger learned from mainstream media coverage. cybercoma unloaded on Yaniv earlier in this thread; nothing cybercoma used in coming to his conclusions about Yaniv's character came from mainstream media coverage. I think that sanitized coverage of stories like this is one of the things that drives readers to outlets like The Post-Millennial.
and Barbara Kay imagined Yaniv as a corpse in the PM and asked who would wax her genitals there.
While perhaps Brown and Rogan would have you think Kay is fantasizing about Yaniv being dead, the point she was trying to make is that Yaniv's biological reality is what it is, regardless of how he identifies. If Yaniv were incapacitated and paramedics needed to make medical treatment, they wouldn't be able to ask her preferred pronouns or identity. They'd need to make diagnosis and treatment based on the fact that she's male. If she was conscious and aware, they'd still hopefully make diagnosis and treatment based on the fact that she's male. Kay's thought experiment of "what if Yaniv were a corpse" was poorly thought out, mostly because it invites people like Rogan and Brown to claimi Kay is fantasizing about Yaniv being dead. Kay would have been smarter to just reference Yaniv's attempts to get an appointment with the gynecologist to make the point.
semi-related: I was reading that a trans man almost died because doctors had assumed he was male. They were trying to diagnose his kidney failure, running diagnostic tests intended for male patients, administering treatment intended for a male patient, and only found out that the patient was biologically female when he was at death's door.
This is about quality of coverage, period. So you can stop saying now that people don't want to hear the other side.
Here's some coverage. It covers the facts and doesn't wade into angertainment, so your assertion that "mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement". doesn't fly.
https://nationalpost.com/news/trans-activist-jessica-yaniv-files-second-lawsuit-against-3-beauticians-after-losing-human-rights-suit-to-them-in-2019
It's one news outlet reporting on the ongoing shenanigans of a notorious individual. It doesn't really build a case that media coverage of trans issues in general is of particularly good quality.
Here are two articles covering events yesterday in Vancouver. One pretty balanced, one pretty awful. I offer the CTV article as an example of the kind of slanted, biased coverage that has been pretty typical of coverage of trans issues. Compare and contrast the two:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/i-love-j-k-rowling-sign-makes-brief-controversial-appearance-in-vancouver-1.5722244
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/j-k-rowling-billboard-condemned-as-transphobic-and-removed-as-advocates-speak-out-1.5102493
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 13, 2020, 06:59:30 pm
I don't think trying to sweep it under the rug would have served anybody well.
I don't want to suppress discussion of it, though, as I said umpteen (and one) times.
Quote
I'm not sure Alex Jones qualifies for any discussion of media. While the actual media didn't ignore Yaniv, they were very selective in what they did report, and as I've said before I think this paints an inaccurate picture of Yaniv's so-called activism.
It's one news outlet reporting on the ongoing shenanigans of a notorious individual. It doesn't really build a case that media coverage of trans issues in general is of particularly good quality.
Here are two articles covering events yesterday in Vancouver. One pretty balanced, one pretty awful. I offer the CTV article as an example of the kind of slanted, biased coverage that has been pretty typical of coverage of trans issues. Compare and contrast the two:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/i-love-j-k-rowling-sign-makes-brief-controversial-appearance-in-vancouver-1.5722244
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/j-k-rowling-billboard-condemned-as-transphobic-and-removed-as-advocates-speak-out-1.5102493
Ah, ok. Well all I can say to those posts is "it's difficult". You described one of them as 'balanced' so that means the MSM is, at least, redeemable.
Post by: kimmy on September 14, 2020, 12:42:23 pm
I don't want to suppress discussion of it, though, as I said umpteen (and one) times.
I feel that reasonably balanced coverage of this troubling individual, and the nature of this case, and the way the defendants were treated by the tribunal process, would be inherently provocative. I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story. I understand the concern that if media outlets cover a story like this, people might get angry about it and that trans people might face some degree of backlash as a result.
Jesse Brown's own transgender employee wrote about this as well:
In short, there is reason to believe we’re talking about a bad-faith actor here.
But she still exists, and is a very real person who has managed to force businesses to shut their doors and is currently taking people to the human rights tribunal. And yet, to date, the media outlets covering her story have tended to be far-right-leaning places. It wasn’t until Yaniv had her most recent tribunal hearings that more mainstream media outlets picked up her story at all. By then, the conversation around her was already dominated by sources that are known to be transphobic, or the slightly less-menacing-sounding “gender-critical.” They have warned us enough about people like her, they say, and now she’s been given form. Like Bloody Mary of the transgender set.
If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we don’t care that said allegations exist.
This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.
When those demands for more were met with relative silence, they were shifted to the trans community. Transphobic individuals have come out of the woodwork to hold her up as an example of everything they warned would happen with our right to self-identification, protected thanks to Bill C-16 in Canada. She is the bad apple — according to the many vocal critics of her and of self-ID and of trans people in general — that spoils the bunch.
Many of the allegations against her are, at this stage, unsubstantiated. We don’t know if they’re true or if she’s being used as a weapon against us. The issue is that, whether real or not, it makes us seem like we’re actively obfuscating when we don’t talk about them.
If people don't feel they're getting the whole story from the media, they'll go to The Post Millennial or The Daily Caller or Twitter or someplace else looking for information. Self-censorship of potentially controversial aspects doesn't keep people from finding it out, it just undermines trust. It sends traffic to sources with lower standards. It makes people feel that they are hearing a slanted version of the truth from the mainstream press.
Ah, ok. Well all I can say to those posts is "it's difficult". You described one of them as 'balanced' so that means the MSM is, at least, redeemable.
Honestly, yes. This is really all I'm asking for. The CBC article accurately notes that Rowling's opinions are "controversial", gives a brief summary of what she said and why some people object. It contacts various stakeholders for their side of the story, including the people who put up the billboard, the city councillor who called for its removal, as well as some members of the trans community. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised by it.
The CTV report, by contrast, doesn't contact (or even name) the principals, only contacts the city councillor who complained, only includes a tweet from trans activist Nicola Spurling by way of trans community reaction (Spurling had, months ago, been threatened by legal action by Rowling after Spurling posted a tweet stating that Rowling shouldn't be left alone with minors, which the article fails to mention) and is full of editorialized content:
Quote
A billboard in East Vancouver championing author J.K. Rowling, who has been widely accused of transphobia, was removed Saturday after drawing outrage and condemnation.
The billboard, which was visible from busy Hastings Street, was black with white text that read, "I (heart) JK Rowling."
Vancouver city councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung said she was discouraged to see the billboard put up in her city, given Rowling's controversial statements criticizing the trans rights movement.
Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, has been outspoken about her criticisms of transgender people and even went so far as to write an essay about her views on the topic.
(...)
The people claiming responsibility for the billboard issued a statement on Twitter Saturday insisting they aren't transphobic, while also openly denying the identities of trans women. They described womanhood as "a biological reality, not a feeling," which is a common refrain among opponents of transgender rights.
The difference in tone is quite marked. The CBC article sets out that there's a controversy surrounding JKR, explains the controversy to the uninitiated, and gets opinions from several perspectives. The CTV piece starts with the premise that JKR has committed egregious sins and explains the controversy to the reader from that perspective.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 14, 2020, 01:07:12 pm
I feel that reasonably balanced coverage of this troubling individual, and the nature of this case, and the way the defendants were treated by the tribunal process, would be inherently provocative. I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story.
Ok, there are some new elements you introduced here aren't there ? How the defendants were treated - I don't remember that from before.
"Presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated" ... that's not journalism. You present the facts. Maybe people get agitated maybe they don't. Of course stories are written with a point of view and we're all human. But writing a story to make people get pissed off on purpose is stupid.
Public affairs don't necessarily need an emotional component. That's actually the problem with public affairs today - if there's no entertainment value the issue gets neglected.
Quote
If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we don’t care that said allegations exist.
It's a completely separate issue. If Yaniv is suspected of being a bad actor, then you can still report that in journalistic tones. You don't have to sensationalize it. And as to the relevance of her character - it's about whether the claim is made in good faith. She could be a convicted murderer and still have the right to file a human rights claim.
Quote
This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.
Because it's a separate issue. If she was a convicted murderer would that give the tribunal authority to toss the case ? No. The ruling isn't for *her* it's for everybody.
Quote
If people don't feel they're getting the whole story from the media, they'll go to The Post Millennial or The Daily Caller or Twitter or someplace else looking for information. Self-censorship of potentially controversial aspects doesn't keep people from finding it out, it just undermines trust. It sends traffic to sources with lower standards. It makes people feel that they are hearing a slanted version of the truth from the mainstream press.
"Lower standards", though, are exactly what you are calling for. You're not simply calling for details to be reported, but you are calling for the story to be presented to as to anger people.
Quote
Honestly, yes. This is really all I'm asking for. The CBC article accurately notes that Rowling's opinions are "controversial", gives a brief summary of what she said and why some people object. It contacts various stakeholders for their side of the story, including the people who put up the billboard, the city councillor who called for its removal, as well as some members of the trans community. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised by it.
But it's NOT written to anger people. If people get angered, it's because the facts make them angry ... not tangential details.
There is a wide gap between what the right-media covered and what CBC said. I don't think Canadaland would have accused the CBC article of being written to sensationalize the article.
Post by: kimmy on September 14, 2020, 07:49:55 pm
Ok, there are some new elements you introduced here aren't there ? How the defendants were treated - I don't remember that from before.
I'm sure that we talked about this at some point. How Yaniv was able to use the HRC process to shake down numerous women who couldn't find legal representation because no lawyers would take their case, and how some of them closed their businesses because of Yaniv's harassment. The three women who did ultimately stand up to Yaniv were represented by Justic Center for Constitutional Freedoms, a Bible-thumper type organization who took the case pro-bono. JCCF has had some controversy of their own, after some remarks by their leader John Carpay were considered homophobic. It doesn't thrill me that a Bible-thumper group emerged as the hero in all this, but that's where we're at. JCCF posted this story from the perspective of one of Yaniv's targets.
https://www.jccf.ca/sandeep-benipal/
It's a completely separate issue. If Yaniv is suspected of being a bad actor, then you can still report that in journalistic tones. You don't have to sensationalize it. And as to the relevance of her character - it's about whether the claim is made in good faith. She could be a convicted murderer and still have the right to file a human rights claim.
Because it's a separate issue. If she was a convicted murderer would that give the tribunal authority to toss the case ? No. The ruling isn't for *her* it's for everybody.
"we shouldn't pay attention to this case because Yaniv is a nutjob" is actually Jesse Brown's argument, as I wrote earlier:
Quote
Brown goes on to argue that we shouldn't take Yaniv seriously because there's reason to believe Yaniv is acting in bad faith and isn't a real activist. Well, guess what: Yaniv's case is going to set a precedent whether Yaniv is acting in good faith or not. Yaniv might well be a creep or a predator or a racist or a goon trying to shake down immigrants by filing bogus HRC claims, or all of the above. But the HRC has decided that they have to give these complaints a fair hearing, and rule on the merits of the complaint regardless of how scummy Yaniv's character may be, and when the ruling is delivered it will affect real people in the real world who have to live with the results. Jesse Brown seems oblivious to all of this. He seems to think that since Yaniv is a scumbag the HRC process isn't real, or something. Brown is wrong.
https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/canadaland-podcast/msg52202/#msg52202
"Lower standards", though, are exactly what you are calling for. You're not simply calling for details to be reported, but you are calling for the story to be presented to as to anger people.
That's not true at all. I'm not suggesting that stories should be written so as to make people angry. I'm suggesting that pertinent information was held back to try to avoid making people angry.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 14, 2020, 08:45:59 pm
I'm sure that we talked about this at some point. How Yaniv was able to use the HRC process to shake down numerous women who couldn't find legal representation because no lawyers would take their case, and how some of them closed their businesses because of Yaniv's harassment.
Ok, well that sucks. I am not happy with the HRCs not having a public defender available.
Quote
"we shouldn't pay attention to this case because Yaniv is a nutjob" is actually Jesse Brown's argument, as I wrote earlier:
I don't think so.
Quote
That's not true at all. I'm not suggesting that stories should be written so as to make people angry. I'm suggesting that pertinent information was held back to try to avoid making people angry.
" I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story. "
And yet, the CBC story you lauded wouldn't get ME agitated. The other stories would.
Post by: kimmy on October 04, 2020, 07:23:03 pm
This is the post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/iuof3u/cmv_jk_rowling_isnt_saying_anything_transphobic/g5m3qfi/
and I wanted to respond to some of the content here.
Quote
This is a direct quote from Rowling. She’s recycling a couple common anti-trans talking points that don’t have much of a basis in reality. The primary one being that there is some huge “explosion” of young girls mistakenly transitioning because they’re gay. Not only is this not backed up by data (which suggests only about 2% of former trans children detransition, and a significant portion of those are due to the struggles that come with being trans) but it makes absolutely no practical sense. In most of the modern world, including the UK, being a lesbian is much more widely accepted than being a trans man. There is no way a young girl would choose transitioning over coming out, as it’s both more disruptive to your regular life and carries a greater stigma.
It's beyond dispute that there's been an explosion in the number of girls who are transitioning, and the only question is why. "JimboMan1234" seems very confident in speaking about what young girls feel.
He later talks about " there are still rigorous psychological evals you have to go through, that take months or even years if you’re underage, if you want to be legally trans." But there are a lot of concerns about how rigorous those evaluations actually are:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54374165
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51806962
Doctors expressing concerns were "shut down".
This young woman, Keira Bell, was given hormone treatment starting at age 15 after 3 one-hour appointments, was rendered infertile, and is currently suing Tavistock because she claims they failed to adequately assess her before prescribing this treatment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020
Quote
Here, Rowling indulges the idea that inclusive language is actually hostile to cis women, “dehumanizing” because it focuses on their bodies. But the only difference between trans women and cis women is their reproductive organs, as well as being the only trait universally shared by trans men and cis women. Likewise, the only social issue for women that includes cis women but excludes trans women is reproductive rights. So I’m not sure what Rowling’s game is here. It seems like she is trying to frame trans-inclusive language as violent, which is just completely baseless and only serves to make trans people as a group look hostile and crazy.
And personally I hate that we're now expected to use language like "menstruators" and "people with vulvas", and vow to use "defecators" to describe people who encourage the use of such language. I also feel that people who wish to refer to women by their body parts have no right to complain if I refer to "transbians" as "lesbians with dicks" or similar.
Quote
She equates her own experience of abuse with the theoretical abuse of men entering women’s bathrooms to abuse girls and women. Bathrooms are the Rome of anti-trans arguments, somehow every road leads back to them. Transphobes have this paranoid fantasy of men, disguised as women, being allowed to enter women’s bathrooms where they can...kidnap girls? Pull them into a stall? Just look at them? I really don’t know, the details about exactly what they’re afraid of never come out, but they’re afraid of something.
But it’s asinine, because cis men completely undisguised can already do this. Not legally, but abuse is illegal regardless. If the bathroom is empty, literally anyone can enter regardless of gender. If the bathroom is full, it’s no easier to kidnap or abuse someone than it would be in any other public space.
If the bathroom is full, nothing bad will happen. And if it's empty then it's no different from being in any other empty room. But if there's one person in there, especially a vulnerable person, then who knows what might happen. The phrase "crime of opportunity" exists for a reason. To flip that argument on its head: if nothing could go wrong in a public washroom, why are transwomen afraid of using the men's room?
And I have to point out that implicit in the Reddit poster's thinking is that unless some sort of physical assault occurs, no harm has been done. The University of Toronto experimenting with unisex washrooms at their dorms a few years ago and surprise, found male students trying to record female students showering. BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted! A school in England changed their washrooms to unisex last year, and surprise, male students were trying to listen at the doors, peek through the cracks or over the the barriers, and even install recording devices. All the female students in the school ended up lining up to use the lone single-sex washroom left at the school BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted!
It bothers me that women's feelings at present have no value and are so casually dismissed. Don't feel comfortable showering with an erect **** pointed at you? You'll just have to overcome your discomfort. Your expectations of dignity and privacy no longer have any value.
And on a personal note, I disagree with the claim that "Bathrooms are the Rome of anti-trans arguments". A few short years ago I was all on board the trans rights train, back when I thought it was "we just need a place to pee". I was 100% supportive back when it was about fighting against "bathroom bills". There have been a lot of things that have gotten me off the train since then, but it wasn't bathrooms.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 04, 2020, 11:16:50 pm
And personally I hate that we're now expected to use language like "menstruators" and "people with vulvas", and vow to use "defecators" to describe people who encourage the use of such language. I also feel that people who wish to refer to women by their body parts have no right to complain if I refer to "transbians" as "lesbians with dicks" or similar.
You will comply to forced newspeak terms or suffer the consequences. We'll take your job then your soul. Resistance is futile. Your original thoughts will be assimilated.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 05, 2020, 06:39:36 am
You will comply to forced newspeak terms or suffer the consequences. We'll take your job then your soul. Resistance is futile. Your original thoughts will be assimilated.
Stop being hysterical...
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 06, 2020, 12:07:41 am
Stop being hysterical...
I can't help it if i'm hilarious.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 06, 2020, 07:15:32 am
I can't help it if i'm hilarious.
Are you trying to be ? It only works as a double-reverse irony...
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2020, 10:08:55 am
Stop being hysterical...
Is it hysterical? We saw Lindsey Shepherd's "struggle session" with her professor and WLU's diversity police.
Last month in Australia, something similar happened. An Australian senator named Claire Chandler was summoned for a private meeting with the discrimination commissioner after publicly stating that trans-women should not compete in women's sports. The meeting was cancelled and the complaint dropped after Chandler refused to sign a waiver promising to not disclose anything discussed during the meeting.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 06, 2020, 10:40:19 am
Is it hysterical? We saw Lindsey Shepherd's "struggle session" with her professor and WLU's diversity police.
Yes "You will comply to forced newspeak terms or suffer the consequences." is not true.
Shepherd's supervisors received disciplinary corrections for their improper actions.
Quote
Last month in Australia, something similar happened. An Australian senator named Claire Chandler was summoned for a private meeting with the discrimination commissioner after publicly stating that trans-women should not compete in women's sports. The meeting was cancelled and the complaint dropped after Chandler refused to sign a waiver promising to not disclose anything discussed during the meeting.
-k
Somebody on the other side of the world was summoned for a meeting ?!? And they didn't attend ?!? AND THE MEETING WAS CANCELLED ?!?!?!?
My god, is this 1984 ?????
Yes that was sarcastic and I rest my case that GG is being hysterical. Let's nurture difficult conversations by having them in good faith without going crazy. You may go crazy in response to craziness though.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 06, 2020, 10:54:39 am
Is it hysterical? We saw Lindsey Shepherd's "struggle session" with her professor and WLU's diversity police.
Last month in Australia, something similar happened. An Australian senator named Claire Chandler was summoned for a private meeting with the discrimination commissioner after publicly stating that trans-women should not compete in women's sports. The meeting was cancelled and the complaint dropped after Chandler refused to sign a waiver promising to not disclose anything discussed during the meeting.
-k
So why would these ‘semi-disciplinary’ meetings need to take place in secret and never discussed? I think it’s to ‘create a safe space’ for the accusers, if I have to guess. But making the accusers anonymous, and proceedings secret, leads to outlandish accusations and punishment without anyone being able to scrutinize either.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 06, 2020, 11:13:08 am
But making the accusers anonymous, and proceedings secret, leads to outlandish accusations and punishment without anyone being able to scrutinize either.
That shouldn't be, but it also depends on what the 'punishment' is. If it amounts to removal on some public-facing committee of low import, and no financial impact then it might be fine as long as accusations are corroborated. I have looked into a lot of these claims and the Shepherd case is one of the few that has merit.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 06, 2020, 12:32:01 pm
Yes "You will comply to forced newspeak terms or suffer the consequences." is not true.
There's many example in recent years of people being fired for their un-PC opinions.
Let's try a real-world experiment though. Send out an email right now to your entire workplace that says "All Lives Matter" and that "transwomen aren't real women" and see what happens. If what you say is true nothing will happen so you should have no fear in doing this. Report back!
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 06, 2020, 12:37:35 pm
There's many example in recent years of people being fired for their un-PC opinions.
Some of these are more alarming than others though. Firing people because they are public-facing and make comments against the president is something we can accept, as is someone who is public facing and refuses to shut up about "the Jews".
So there is nothing new or alarming here, once you drill down.
Quote
Let's try a real-world experiment though. Send out an email right now to your entire workplace that says "All Lives Matter" and that "transwomen aren't real women" and see what happens. If what you say is true nothing will happen so you should have no fear in doing this. Report back!
Sending an email in the 1960s saying "Blacks are getting uppity" would have got you fired as well. I didn't get ONE email like that in the 1960s.
Why "being offensive" should be ok in current day is not clear to me.
Post by: Montgomery on October 06, 2020, 12:45:08 pm
Some of these are more alarming than others though. Firing people because they are public-facing and make comments against the president is something we can accept, as is someone who is public facing and refuses to shut up about "the Jews".
So there is nothing new or alarming here, once you drill down.
Sending an email in the 1960s saying "Blacks are getting uppity" would have got you fired as well. I didn't get ONE email like that in the 1960s.
Why "being offensive" should be ok in current day is not clear to me.
Great point about emails in the 60's MH!
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 06, 2020, 12:47:03 pm
There's many example in recent years of people being fired for their un-PC opinions.
Let's try a real-world experiment though. Send out an email right now to your entire workplace that says "All Lives Matter" and that "transwomen aren't real women" and see what happens. If what you say is true nothing will happen so you should have no fear in doing this. Report back!
But that’s absolutely fuckin’ stupid and should get you fired. ‘All lives matter’ is a dog whistle for ‘white folks want their privilege back’. And making transphobic comments should also get you fired.
Why would you think that the workplace is appropriate to show bigotry towards other people?
Post by: kimmy on October 08, 2020, 02:31:32 am
https://www.stylist.co.uk/fashion/gender-identity-fashion-clothing-choices/429403
Tessa Solan might look like a young woman, but they wants you to know that they is actually a non-binary non-woman individual!
"I'm not like other girls! Other girls were wearing feminine clothes and getting boyfriends and I just wanted to wear pants and play basketball. Now that I'm non-binary, I can dress how I want and I feel totally comfortable!"
What is the difference between Tessa's non-binary trousers and coats and t-shirts and the trousers and coats and t-shirts that every other young woman has in her closet? GREAT QUESTION, BOB! What makes Tessa's non-binary trousers so special is that they open up a whole world of possibilities that just aren't available for women. Tessa will be able to work outside the home, play sports, drive a car, and who knows, maybe even vote in elections! They is free to be who they wants to be! Just imagine the possibilities! Shop the new non-binary collection at Sainsbury's UK or order direct from our online shop! Available in they/them, ze/zer and xe/xer, please specify pronouns at time of order.
I have never heard anyone explain non-binary gender-identity without referencing outdated gender stereotypes, and Tessa Solan is no exception. This stuff isn't just galactically stupid, it's also harmful because it's built on reinforcing gender stereotypes... often negative ones. Tessa's claim that they is different from other girls makes the implicit claim that other girls are a monolith, and they aren't.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 16, 2020, 12:47:17 am
I liked this one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUsTqarMiQ
Well if you thought that was smart, you're going to love this new piece of mental diarrhea regarding Tulsi Gabbard's "anti-trans" bill. Here's 15 minutes of the dumbest **** you're going to hear all week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYuSGBJY9S8
She gets off to a great start with "there's a pandemic going on... aren't there more important things to focus on?" Well, Joe Biden has promised that on his very first day in office he will sign an executive order that will put male-bodied people in women's sports and male-bodied criminals in women's prisons. Hasn't Sleepy Joe got more pressing things facing him than putting male athletes in women's sports and male rapists in women's prisons? If that's important enough for Joe to do on his first day in office, I think it's fair that Tulsi Gabbard can use her last few weeks in congress to put forward a piece of legislation intended to protect women's single-sex spaces.
It just gets dumber from there, especially when guest #1 starts mocking "Little Suzie" and even dumber still when Ana Lobotomoid starts talking about chromosomes.
And I notice the commenters aren't having any of it. Most TYT videos seem to have 10000+ "thumbs up" and 300 or less "thumbs down", this one has 2600 "thumbs up" and 4200 "thumbs down", and being shredded by all the commenters.
This is pure drivel.
-k
Post by: BC_cheque on December 16, 2020, 01:37:57 am
Hasn't Sleepy Joe got more pressing things facing him than putting male athletes in women's sports and male rapists in women's prisons?
They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 16, 2020, 06:37:12 am
I wish everyone well.
Not being American, a woman, or LGBTQ+ I am not in any groups directly impacted by policy.
As I have explained in the past, my main interest is in the mechanics of public policy discussion and social cohesion.
As such, please don't line up with corrosive groups, institutions, or means... Please 🙏
Post by: Black Dog on December 16, 2020, 03:36:30 pm
Some TERFs were discussing this article today. It's a perfect example of why I think non-binary is such a gigantic wagon-load of bullshit.
https://www.stylist.co.uk/fashion/gender-identity-fashion-clothing-choices/429403
Tessa Solan might look like a young woman, but they wants you to know that they is actually a non-binary non-woman individual!
"I'm not like other girls! Other girls were wearing feminine clothes and getting boyfriends and I just wanted to wear pants and play basketball. Now that I'm non-binary, I can dress how I want and I feel totally comfortable!"
What is the difference between Tessa's non-binary trousers and coats and t-shirts and the trousers and coats and t-shirts that every other young woman has in her closet? GREAT QUESTION, BOB! What makes Tessa's non-binary trousers so special is that they open up a whole world of possibilities that just aren't available for women. Tessa will be able to work outside the home, play sports, drive a car, and who knows, maybe even vote in elections! They is free to be who they wants to be! Just imagine the possibilities! Shop the new non-binary collection at Sainsbury's UK or order direct from our online shop! Available in they/them, ze/zer and xe/xer, please specify pronouns at time of order.
I have never heard anyone explain non-binary gender-identity without referencing outdated gender stereotypes, and Tessa Solan is no exception. This stuff isn't just galactically stupid, it's also harmful because it's built on reinforcing gender stereotypes... often negative ones. Tessa's claim that they is different from other girls makes the implicit claim that other girls are a monolith, and they aren't.
-k
They don't actually claim that?
Post by: kimmy on December 19, 2020, 02:50:03 pm
They don't actually claim that?
Not in those exact words, but look how they frames their realization that they is non-binary and not a girl at all:
Quote
Ever since I was little though, I found it difficult to relate to the other girls in my class. Then when I got a bit older, I remember the thought of going to my school prom keeping me awake for weeks. The idea of having to walk down the stairs in a dress and just be something that I wasn’t was a nightmare. I was only doing it for my mum, but it also really went against what my parents taught me, which was to be yourself and not hide who you are.
The thing is, when you’re 17, or 18, there’s this fear inside you that being different means you’re going to be outcast or alienated. You worry that people are going to bully you or treat you differently or say things behind your back, and at that age, you just want to be liked.
At that time, all my friends seemed to be growing up and getting boyfriends, so I threw myself into basketball to deflect from not having those same experiences.
Their realization that they is a they/them/their person rather than a girl is just a juxtaposition of their own experiences against a stereotype of what they assumes that girls are supposed to feel and experience as they grow up. Tessa looks at what pop-culture and social media and society at large have to say about young women, and they says "that isn't me. I don't connect with any of that." And who can blame her? As stereotypes about women become increasingly negative-- nobody wants to be Basic **** or Becky or Karen-- of course Tessa feels disconnected from it. She's defining her own gender identity by contrasting herself against a stereotypical girl that doesn't even exist in real life.
Who feels uncomfortable with their relationship to performative femininity? Most of us, to some degree. Who felt anxious about fitting in with their peers as a teenager? Most of us. Who worried that the other kids would make fun of them if they weren't dating or popular or having sex as they approached adulthood? Most of us. That's not about gender identity, that's peer pressure. The stuff Tessa talks about that makes them feel like they was different from other girls is actually stuff that almost every teenager struggles with.
I've mentioned previously in this thread that I have never seen a non-binary person describe their gender identity without referencing gender stereotypes. And Tessa is no different. Which is I think the most upsetting thing about the currently fashionable gender ideas. Gender theory people like to say they're destroying gender norms, but they're actually reinforcing them. Each time somebody like Tessa says "Girls be like that, but I be like this..." they're reinforcing a stereotype about girls.
I also have to point out Tessa's new gender-neutral wardrobe:
(https://i.imgur.com/l1vHhzr.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/08syWEA.png)
Do these clothes actually look gender neutral?
Would any of these look out of place on a woman on the street? No.
Would a straight man wear any of those items? No.
They're clearly not "gender neutral" at all. These are clearly women's clothes, despite the absence of pink bows and glitter and lace. The idea that in 2020 people are calling women's clothing "gender neutral" if it doesn't have overtly girly or sexy feminine accents strikes me as being regressive, not progressive.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on December 20, 2020, 01:58:44 pm
Not in those exact words, but look how they frames their realization that they is non-binary and not a girl at all:
Their realization that they is a they/them/their person rather than a girl is just a juxtaposition of their own experiences against a stereotype of what they assumes that girls are supposed to feel and experience as they grow up. Tessa looks at what pop-culture and social media and society at large have to say about young women, and they says "that isn't me. I don't connect with any of that." And who can blame her? As stereotypes about women become increasingly negative-- nobody wants to be Basic **** or Becky or Karen-- of course Tessa feels disconnected from it. She's defining her own gender identity by contrasting herself against a stereotypical girl that doesn't even exist in real life.
Who feels uncomfortable with their relationship to performative femininity? Most of us, to some degree. Who felt anxious about fitting in with their peers as a teenager? Most of us. Who worried that the other kids would make fun of them if they weren't dating or popular or having sex as they approached adulthood? Most of us. That's not about gender identity, that's peer pressure. The stuff Tessa talks about that makes them feel like they was different from other girls is actually stuff that almost every teenager struggles with.
And if she decided that identifying as NB is what makes her happy and whole, who gives a ****? How does that affect anyone but her?
Quote
I've mentioned previously in this thread that I have never seen a non-binary person describe their gender identity without referencing gender stereotypes. And Tessa is no different. Which is I think the most upsetting thing about the currently fashionable gender ideas. Gender theory people like to say they're destroying gender norms, but they're actually reinforcing them. Each time somebody like Tessa says "Girls be like that, but I be like this..." they're reinforcing a stereotype about girls.
Acknowledging the existence and persistence of gender stereotypes and socially constructed gender roles is not remotely the same thing as reinforcing them. Come on.
Quote
I also have to point out Tessa's new gender-neutral wardrobe:
Do these clothes actually look gender neutral?
Would any of these look out of place on a woman on the street? No.
Would a straight man wear any of those items? No.
Those look mostly like clothes a man could wear if they were tailored to fit a man's body instead of a woman's.
Quote
They're clearly not "gender neutral" at all. These are clearly women's clothes, despite the absence of pink bows and glitter and lace. The idea that in 2020 people are calling women's clothing "gender neutral" if it doesn't have overtly girly or sexy feminine accents strikes me as being regressive, not progressive
So are you saying there's no "women's clothing' that fits that bill? Obviously there is. And if someone doesn't want to wear overtly feminine clothing, who gives a ****?
Here's a personal note since it's been a while: since i last darkened the doors of a web forum like this, I had a kid. A daughter. And let me tell you, it's been **** eye-opening to see how gender identity is coded into clothing almost from the moment of birth. I was shopping for some jammies this week and came away convinced that the two genders are actually Unicorns and Trucks. It would sure be refreshing to see the TERFS devote some energy into fighting that **** instead of shitting on people who choose to wear clothes or identify in a way that doesn't actually affect any other person.
Post by: eyeball on December 20, 2020, 03:32:08 pm
Here's a personal note since it's been a while: since i last darkened the doors of a web forum like this, I had a kid. A daughter. And let me tell you, it's been **** eye-opening to see how gender identity is coded into clothing almost from the moment of birth. I was shopping for some jammies this week and came away convinced that the two genders are actually Unicorns and Trucks. It would sure be refreshing to see the TERFS devote some energy into fighting that **** instead of shitting on people who choose to wear clothes or identify in a way that doesn't actually affect any other person.
As an aside to this I wonder if one's political identity could be encoded in our clothing or maybe no clothing at all? Consider the links between fashion, fabrics and China's one-stop-shop slave labour camps where cotton is grown, processed, spun and woven into our clothes. It would be refreshing to see a human-rights movement based on eschewing 'blood-clothes' - my term for them - that would probably be best demonstrated by people deciding not to wear any clothes at all. I bet that would get the attention of politicians to do something about China.
We've seen politicians sporting rainbow coloured clothes in protest/solidarity but I suspect it will be some time before we see naked Conservatives showing up in Parliament to protest blood clothes. There is a precedent for using nudity to protest clothing though - see the fur trade.
Post by: wilber on December 20, 2020, 03:55:10 pm
We've seen politicians sporting rainbow coloured clothes in protest/solidarity but I suspect it will be some time before we see naked Conservatives showing up in Parliament to protest blood clothes. There is a precedent for using nudity to protest clothing though - see the fur trade.
Only during summer.
Post by: eyeball on December 20, 2020, 04:04:45 pm
Only during summer.There's also the great indoors the rest of the year.
Post by: wilber on December 20, 2020, 04:46:37 pm
There's also the great indoors the rest of the year.But who cares if you don’t wear them indoors.
Post by: eyeball on December 20, 2020, 05:24:50 pm
Post by: wilber on December 20, 2020, 07:43:29 pm
There are all sorts of indoor public places people could protest too but it's more an outdoor activity alright.
Sure but you would have to wear clothes to get there or freeze your butt off.
I guess you could make a bare assed run from your car.
Post by: eyeball on December 20, 2020, 07:48:43 pm
Sure but you would have to wear clothes to get there or freeze your butt off.:D
I guess you could make a bare assed run from your car.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 20, 2020, 08:33:29 pm
As early as I can remember, back to 3 years old, I liked my action figures in order to re-enact my heroic violent power fantasies and nobody told me to like that stuff, my parents didn't care what I played with. I also really liked horror and war movies as a kid, which my parents let me watch.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 20, 2020, 08:50:00 pm
But that’s absolutely fuckin’ stupid and should get you fired. ‘All lives matter’ is a dog whistle for ‘white folks want their privilege back’. And making transphobic comments should also get you fired.
Why would you think that the workplace is appropriate to show bigotry towards other people?
I didn't say they were appropriate, I'm responding to MH's claim that people aren't coerced to comply with PC viewpoints.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 20, 2020, 08:58:16 pm
I didn't say they were appropriate, I'm responding to MH's claim that people aren't coerced to comply with PC viewpoints.
From October ?
This framing of the social forces at play is a little different and ambiguous maybe...
Are people "forced to comply" with the norms in society, or do they do so willing because we are social creatures ? Your framing of a PC authority forcing compliance is hyperbole, I will maintain that. The world is the same as it has been, as far as I can see, in this respect. The rules of what's ok change but they always do. I used to take smoke breaks with a manager at the corporate office where I worked and he talked about "f*ggots" a lot. Those guys don't do that anymore.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 20, 2020, 08:58:21 pm
Some TERFs were discussing this article today. It's a perfect example of why I think non-binary is such a gigantic wagon-load of bullshit.
...
Tessa Solan might look like a young woman, but they wants you to know that they is actually a non-binary non-woman individual!
I think gender identify is a spectrum, where a biological male or female might feel naturally masculine or feminine and any range between. So i think it's totally possible for someone to feel they're not strongly masculine or feminine but something in the middle of those 2.
It's presumptuous for you to assume you know how these people feel, and then to mock them for it.
Post by: wilber on December 21, 2020, 09:09:29 am
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 09:48:43 am
I went into a store the other day and they had only 1 aisle for toys. On one side of the aisle were "boy toys" like action figures and cars, and on the other side it was mostly pink boxes of barbies and other girly stuff, and I know that one day people are going to complain about this "gender stereotyping". But I can be assured that boys and girls don't care, they just want what they want, and toy companies will sell what they want because they want to make money.
As early as I can remember, back to 3 years old, I liked my action figures in order to re-enact my heroic violent power fantasies and nobody told me to like that stuff, my parents didn't care what I played with. I also really liked horror and war movies as a kid, which my parents let me watch.
Toys have always been gendered but it's worse now than ever before.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/toys-are-more-divided-by-gender-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/383556/
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 09:49:13 am
There is no such thing as gender neutral clothes except in a few sports.
What gender identity is a plain white T shirt?
Post by: guest78 on December 21, 2020, 09:53:48 am
I think gender identify is a spectrum, where a biological male or female might feel naturally masculine or feminine and any range between. So i think it's totally possible for someone to feel they're not strongly masculine or feminine but something in the middle of those 2.I don't think anyone is mocking them. Gender dysphoria has always been a serious issue.
It's presumptuous for you to assume you know how these people feel, and then to mock them for it.
Post by: wilber on December 21, 2020, 10:12:49 am
What gender identity is a plain white T shirt?
True. I should have said there are no styled clothes that are really gender neutral. There are some functional clothes that can be gender neutral, Hats, cold weather and rain gear come to mind.
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 10:47:27 am
True. I should have said there are no styled clothes that are really gender neutral. There are some functional clothes that can be gender neutral, Hats, cold weather and rain gear come to mind.
You mean tailored?
Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean: my partner could wear probably 90% of my wardrobe and vice versa. There's nothing inherently gendered about a pair of jeans or a oxford button up.
Post by: wilber on December 21, 2020, 10:59:26 am
You mean tailored?
Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean: my partner could wear probably 90% of my wardrobe and vice versa. There's nothing inherently gendered about a pair of jeans or a oxford button up.
I mean styled. Clothes will always be tailored differently because we are built differently.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 21, 2020, 11:40:42 am
Post by: wilber on December 21, 2020, 12:02:56 pm
Just over fifty years ago, when our current cultural revolution started... androgeny was a focus of ridicule from the conservative foundation.\
Why on earth would we want to be androgynous? Sounds like something out of 1984 or The Borg. Differences are what makes life interesting.
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 02:17:48 pm
I mean styled. Clothes will always be tailored differently because we are built differently.
I don't know what you mean by "styled."
Quote
Why on earth would we want to be androgynous? Sounds like something out of 1984 or The Borg. Differences are what makes life interesting.
No one is pushing for androgyny. Let people wear what they want to wear.
Post by: eyeball on December 21, 2020, 02:34:08 pm
Why on earth would we want to be androgynous? Sounds like something out of 1984 or The Borg. Differences are what makes life interesting.Actually, a human with the Borg-like powers afforded by nano-probes would be able to change them's sex as easily as deciding what to wear that day.
As for me I'd probably transform thyself into a living spaceship and go exploring.
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 03:08:33 pm
They don't like that qualifier. Their main mantra is "Trans women are women." They see "cisgender" women (ie, actual vag1na people) as simply a subset of women. They don't believe woman is defined by biological factors at all, they believe woman is a notion in peoples' heads.
Disconnected from biological reality, "woman" becomes basically just an expression of affinity towards traditional gender roles, which isn't "progressive" at all, it's actually incredibly regressive.
-k
And what does that make biological gender essentialism? The idea that woman are no more than their biological components is a deeply regressive belief and yet one shared by many "gender critical feminists" and hard right social conservatives alike.
(I know this is an ancient post but I'm trying to get caught up on this topic and this seems germane to our exchange re: binary people/clothing.)
Post by: kimmy on December 21, 2020, 04:15:43 pm
And if she decided that identifying as NB is what makes her happy and whole, who gives a ****? How does that affect anyone but her?
I'm not proposing that Tessa, themself, is hurting anybody. Just that they've bought into an idea that feminists fought against for many decades. There are lots of ideas that aren't hurting anyone, but that doesn't mean that they're actually sensible ideas.
And, while Tessa might consider themself to be not a woman, that's how the world will perceive them. Wherever they goes, they will be perceived as a white woman-- a rather attractive one-- with all the privileges and headaches that come with that. When Tessa goes to the pub for a pint, the lads won't ask their pronouns before they decide they want to chat them up. If they goes for a job interview, their prospective employer will view them as a white woman (which might be fortunate or unfortunate depending what the job is) even if Tessa tells them she's non-binary. So overall I view this stuff as pointless and inane.
People like Tessa aren't the ones impacted by this pronouns stuff, even though they might think they is. It's not a female person that looks and dresses like Tessa that is going to be impacted. It's a female person that looks and dresses like Rachel Maddow who is going to be pestered for her pronouns, because unlike Tessa, Rachel Maddow is "doing femininity wrong" and pestering her for her pronouns is how people will remind her of it. Little girls who like unicorns won't be asked their pronouns; little girls that like trucks will... and the message that's going to be drummed into their heads is: "you're being a girl wrong. There is something wrong with what you are doing." Gender-people would have you believe that this stuff is liberating for children, but it will be the opposite. It will terrify them into gender conformity lest they stand out or be thought different or defective.
Acknowledging the existence and persistence of gender stereotypes and socially constructed gender roles is not remotely the same thing as reinforcing them. Come on.
They don't just acknowledge the existence of gender stereotypes, they've built their whole ideology around gender stereotypes. If you propose that sex is irrelevant and everything needs to be redefined around gender, then you can't very well do away with gender.
Next time you see a news story or a documentary clip of a mother who has decided her male child is trans, look at the kid and I bet you'll find that the most ridiculously over-the-top stereotypes of girly girlhood have been visited upon the child.
Non-binary people define themselves in contrast to a gender binary that doesn't even exist in western societies. Nobody is binary, so everybody is non-binary. And if everybody is non-binary, then nobody is.
Those look mostly like clothes a man could wear if they were tailored to fit a man's body instead of a woman's.
I will grant you the white t-shirt, but the rest, I disagree. The green coat might be something a man would wear except that it's made of green fun-fur and has shiny brass buttons on the front. I can't recall the last time I saw a man wearing a coat made of fun-fur, and I can't remember the last time I saw a man wearing a coat with big shiny buttons on the front. I can't remember the last time I saw a man wearing pleather pants with a sash at the waist. Khal Drogo, maybe? I dunno. I see "Karen" types wearing similar pants whenever I go out. The long blue coat is such a classic women's style that you can see women wearing it in old black and white Christmas movies that air this week. I've never seen a man in a similar coat. Long coats for men do exist, but that isn't one of them.
So are you saying there's no "women's clothing' that fits that bill? Obviously there is. And if someone doesn't want to wear overtly feminine clothing, who gives a ****?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Tessa should change their wardrobe. I'm also not suggesting that there aren't genuinely gender-neutral clothing items.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of taking a bunch of women's clothing and dubbing it "non-binary!" because it isn't overtly girly.
I've never been to Ireland, I'm not sure what day to day life is like there. I'm skeptical of the notion that there are gender police going around performing pronoun checks and scolding women for wearing clothes that aren't feminine enough. "You there! Miss! Why are you wearing those pants?" "It's alright, constable, I'm non-binary!" "My apologies, xir! Carry on with your pants-wearing activities." I doubt that this happens in Ireland. There are places where gender conformity is strictly enforced. Parts of the Muslim world, for example. I don't believe Ireland is one of those places. I have a hunch that Tessa is more at risk of being yelled at for stealing a black-people hairstyle than they is for wearing Tu Clothingtm from Sainsbury'stm.
Here's a personal note since it's been a while: since i last darkened the doors of a web forum like this, I had a kid. A daughter. And let me tell you, it's been **** eye-opening to see how gender identity is coded into clothing almost from the moment of birth. I was shopping for some jammies this week and came away convinced that the two genders are actually Unicorns and Trucks. It would sure be refreshing to see the TERFS devote some energy into fighting that **** instead of shitting on people who choose to wear clothes or identify in a way that doesn't actually affect any other person.
Congratulations on your daughter! :)
The TERFs will be the ones telling your daughter that she can like unicorns or trucks or both, and the gender-people will be the ones telling your daughter that if she likes trucks more than unicorns it might be because the magic gender machine put her blue brain in a pink body by mistake.
-k
Post by: eyeball on December 21, 2020, 04:24:46 pm
I get our society's exploration of the topic - it's what people do but for some, perhaps most, it will always seem like a dead-end ally or a cul-de-sac at best. The sexual road that society follows is clearly anything but straight and narrow but it still seems to have a definite biological center line, for the moment at least. Now if that social cul-de-sac was actually a biological roundabout then that centerline would split and give rise to new species.
(I know this is an ancient post but I'm trying to get caught up on this topic and this seems germane to our exchange re: binary people/clothing.)
I'm almost afraid to ask if there's a hard-straight group somewhere insisting thems get to use the term hetero-sapiens to describe theyselves.
Post by: wilber on December 21, 2020, 04:37:53 pm
I don't know what you mean by "styled."
Like kimmy's example of gender neutral clothing. As she said, no straight man would wear them. That's what I mean by styled.
Quote
No one is pushing for androgyny. Let people wear what they want to wear.
I'm all for that but let's also not pretend they are something they aren't.
Post by: kimmy on December 21, 2020, 04:52:08 pm
And what does that make biological gender essentialism? The idea that woman are no more than their biological components is a deeply regressive belief and yet one shared by many "gender critical feminists" and hard right social conservatives alike.
(I know this is an ancient post but I'm trying to get caught up on this topic and this seems germane to our exchange re: binary people/clothing.)
Gender people: "oh, bioessentialism is so degrading to women because it reduces women to just a collection of body parts and bodily functions."
Also gender people: "oh, we need to refer to female people by their body parts and bodily functions because inclusivity."
No, gender critical people do not claim that a woman is just a collection of anatomical parts.
Your experience in this world is shaped by how the world perceives you. That's not a controversial statement, at least when it comes to racial justice issues. Race isn't even a real thing, in a strictly biological sense... but people definitely perceive it to be a real thing, and that has great impact on our society and how people interact with society. Nobody in their right mind would say something like "it's degrading to refer to someone as a black person because it reduces them to their skin pigmentation." Referring to someone as black doesn't just describe their skin pigmentation, it also describes how society perceives and interacts with them. Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Colin Powell are all from mixed race backgrounds, but they're all perceived as black people, and they have all talked about how that perception has impacted their lives and their careers.
So consider that same train of thought applied to biological sex instead of race. Your experience in our society is greatly impacted by how our society perceives you, and that applies whether you are black or observably female or both or other.
You've already talked about the trucks/unicorns thing in regard to your daughter. As she grows, she's going to have a lot more exclusively female experiences, some as a result of biology, and others as a result of our society perceiving her and treating her as a female. I don't think it's demeaning to propose that the biological reality of being female will shape your daughter's experience in our world in a way that some adult male deciding to do performative femininity will never comprehend.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 21, 2020, 04:57:24 pm
We're trying for #2. Can't get enough kid stuff over here.
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 05:10:51 pm
I'm not proposing that Tessa, themself, is hurting anybody. Just that they've bought into an idea that feminists fought against for many decades. There are lots of ideas that aren't hurting anyone, but that doesn't mean that they're actually sensible ideas.
What idea is that, exactly?
Quote
And, while Tessa might consider themself to be not a woman, that's how the world will perceive them. Wherever they goes, they will be perceived as a white woman-- a rather attractive one-- with all the privileges and headaches that come with that. When Tessa goes to the pub for a pint, the lads won't ask their pronouns before they decide they want to chat them up. If they goes for a job interview, their prospective employer will view them as a white woman (which might be fortunate or unfortunate depending what the job is) even if Tessa tells them she's non-binary. So overall I view this stuff as pointless and inane.
So is getting worked up about it TBH. But getting worked up about pointless and inane **** is like 90% of the fights around this issue.
Quote
People like Tessa aren't the ones impacted by this pronouns stuff, even though they might think they is. It's not a female person that looks and dresses like Tessa that is going to be impacted. It's a female person that looks and dresses like Rachel Maddow who is going to be pestered for her pronouns, because unlike Tessa, Rachel Maddow is "doing femininity wrong" and pestering her for her pronouns is how people will remind her of it. Little girls who like unicorns won't be asked their pronouns; little girls that like trucks will... and the message that's going to be drummed into their heads is: "you're being a girl wrong. There is something wrong with what you are doing." Gender-people would have you believe that this stuff is liberating for children, but it will be the opposite. It will terrify them into gender conformity lest they stand out or be thought different or defective.
That's the world in which we live now and it's not the "gender people" who are perpetuating that ****.
I've got a lot of mixed feelings about the gender question, but the alarmist, apocalyptic tone from the radfems on so much of this reminds me so much of the Christian right's arguments against homosexuality that it's hard for me to not see the parallels between two forces bent on maintaining a rigid social order around sex and gender roles.
Quote
They don't just acknowledge the existence of gender stereotypes, they've built their whole ideology around gender stereotypes. If you propose that sex is irrelevant and everything needs to be redefined around gender, then you can't very well do away with gender.
So what i think you're saying here is that since gender activists have dispensed with biology as a way to distinguish between men and women, they have resorted to socially constructed gender stereotypes instead and that's bad too. While I think that's an extremely broad brush you're using, doesn't that simply show how pervasive gender stereotypes are? Now in my admittedly limited dabbling on this, I've never ever ever seen a "gender person" (ugh) say there's a specific way to dress and behave in order to be a woman. for better or worse, they seem to value self-expression above all else, which seems closer to third wave feminism's insistence that all women's choices are valid.
Quote
Next time you see a news story or a documentary clip of a mother who has decided her male child is trans, look at the kid and I bet you'll find that the most ridiculously over-the-top stereotypes of girly girlhood have been visited upon the child.
So let me get this straight: a transwoman dressing in an over the top feminine way is reinforcing gender stereotypes, while an NB person dressing in a not over the top feminine way is to be ridiculed, a transman dressing like a dude is...I'm not sure because those people don't seem to exist in TERFland. So can you just let me know how it is people are supposed to dress?
Quote
Non-binary people define themselves in contrast to a gender binary that doesn't even exist in western societies. Nobody is binary, so everybody is non-binary. And if everybody is non-binary, then nobody is.
wut
Quote
I will grant you the white t-shirt, but the rest, I disagree. The green coat might be something a man would wear except that it's made of green fun-fur and has shiny brass buttons on the front. I can't recall the last time I saw a man wearing a coat made of fun-fur, and I can't remember the last time I saw a man wearing a coat with big shiny buttons on the front. I can't remember the last time I saw a man wearing pleather pants with a sash at the waist. Khal Drogo, maybe? I dunno. I see "Karen" types wearing similar pants whenever I go out. The long blue coat is such a classic women's style that you can see women wearing it in old black and white Christmas movies that air this week. I've never seen a man in a similar coat. Long coats for men do exist, but that isn't one of them.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Tessa should change their wardrobe. I'm also not suggesting that there aren't genuinely gender-neutral clothing items.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of taking a bunch of women's clothing and dubbing it "non-binary!" because it isn't overtly girly.
So how do you define "gender neutral" clothing?
Quote
I've never been to Ireland, I'm not sure what day to day life is like there. I'm skeptical of the notion that there are gender police going around performing pronoun checks and scolding women for wearing clothes that aren't feminine enough. "You there! Miss! Why are you wearing those pants?" "It's alright, constable, I'm non-binary!" "My apologies, xir! Carry on with your pants-wearing activities." I doubt that this happens in Ireland. There are places where gender conformity is strictly enforced. Parts of the Muslim world, for example. I don't believe Ireland is one of those places. I have a hunch that Tessa is more at risk of being yelled at for stealing a black-people hairstyle than they is for wearing Tu Clothingtm from Sainsbury'stm.
Is there a point to this or are you just trying to hit a quota of "lol wokes" for the day?
I mean you couldn't possibly be saying there's no pressure on women to look, dress and act a certain way.
Quote
Congratulations on your daughter! :)
The TERFs will be the ones telling your daughter that she can like unicorns or trucks or both, and the gender-people will be the ones telling your daughter that if she likes trucks more than unicorns it might be because the magic gender machine put her blue brain in a pink body by mistake.
This is such a lousy and obvious strawman. I should steer clear of this subject because it seems to drive everyone who gets deeply invested in it absolutely nuts.
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 05:11:48 pm
Way to go @BlackDog...
We're trying for #2. Can't get enough kid stuff over here.
Thanks!
I got snipped two months ago, we're one and done. I'm too old for more and this one turned out so well I have no desire to push my luck. ;)
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 05:22:10 pm
Gender people: "oh, bioessentialism is so degrading to women because it reduces women to just a collection of body parts and bodily functions."
Also gender people: "oh, we need to refer to female people by their body parts and bodily functions because inclusivity."
No, gender critical people do not claim that a woman is just a collection of anatomical parts.
...
You've already talked about the trucks/unicorns thing in regard to your daughter. As she grows, she's going to have a lot more exclusively female experiences, some as a result of biology, and others as a result of our society perceiving her and treating her as a female. I don't think it's demeaning to propose that the biological reality of being female will shape your daughter's experience in our world in a way that some adult male deciding to do performative femininity will never comprehend.
Yes external forces play a role in shaping one's identity. But that's not the entire story. To hear the gendercrits tell it, being a women is entirely about having female reproductive parts and a lived experience that is one of victimhood and degradation. They present a version of womanhood tin which the individual is completely at the mercy of forces beyond their control, whether biology or society. That sounds extremely grim to me.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 21, 2020, 05:31:19 pm
\
Why on earth would we want to be androgynous? Sounds like something out of 1984 or The Borg. Differences are what makes life interesting.
Isn't being androgynous different, if most other people aren't? Why does somebody have to project a masculine or feminine vibe if they don't feel like it? And what if somebody wants to wear a beard and high heels? Who really cares? I like people who are different and themselves instead of conforming to norms.
Post by: kimmy on December 21, 2020, 06:06:10 pm
What idea is that, exactly?
The idea that if you like basketball and don't like prom dresses or think about boys all the time, you aren't really a girl.
That's the world in which we live now and it's not the "gender people" who are perpetuating that ****.
I've got a lot of mixed feelings about the gender question, but the alarmist, apocalyptic tone from the radfems on so much of this reminds me so much of the Christian right's arguments against homosexuality that it's hard for me to not see the parallels between two forces bent on maintaining a rigid social order around sex and gender roles.
Gender-critical people are 100% supportive of gender non-conformity, and simply reject the notion that your gender expression constitutes an "identity" in and of itself. Before this gender identity stuff came along, feminists fought for decades for women to live outside of gender conformity. Now that gender identity ideology has taken over feminism, gender non-conforming people are being fed the notion that they need to change their gender identity because they don't fit in society's boxes.
So what i think you're saying here is that since gender activists have dispensed with biology as a way to distinguish between men and women, they have resorted to socially constructed gender stereotypes instead and that's bad too. While I think that's an extremely broad brush you're using, doesn't that simply show how pervasive gender stereotypes are? Now in my admittedly limited dabbling on this, I've never ever ever seen a "gender person" (ugh) say there's a specific way to dress and behave in order to be a woman. for better or worse, they seem to value self-expression above all else, which seems closer to third wave feminism's insistence that all women's choices are valid.
Of course, in theory they're all for women's freedom to express themselves as they wish and identify as they wish. In practice, if your gender identity is expressed through gender performativity... then the conclusion that gender non-conforming women are doing it wrong is kind of unavoidable, isn't it? We went from "trucks are for boys and unicorns are for girls" to "it's okay for girls to like trucks too!" to "if you like trucks more than unicorns you might not be a girl", and I think we should go back to the second one.
So let me get this straight: a transwoman dressing in an over the top feminine way is reinforcing gender stereotypes, while an NB person dressing in a not over the top feminine way is to be ridiculed, a transman dressing like a dude is...I'm not sure because those people don't seem to exist in TERFland. So can you just let me know how it is people are supposed to dress?
Again, I'm not ridiculing the non-binary model for dressing the way they wants to. I'm ridiculing the notion that their non-binary style is anything unique or different from stuff that ordinary cisgender women wear every day. I mean, ****, dude, I wear a men's button up shirt most days, a men's necktie some days, men's watches and men's cologne all the time. I'm the most gender non-conforming person I know. I'd never ridicule somebody for wearing gender non-conforming clothing because I do that every day. And maybe that's why I find it so **** hilarious that Tessa here acts like she has broken the code.
wutWhat would an actual gender binary woman be like in our culture? June Cleaver? If gender expression is a spectrum, then who is a 0% or 100% on the spectrum?
So how do you define "gender neutral" clothing?
If I looked at something and could imagine a woman or a man wearing it in public without drawing strange looks, I'd agree that was gender neutral. Of the Tu Collectiontm at Sainsbury'stm the white t-shirt is the only one that fits the bill.
Is there a point to this or are you just trying to hit a quota of "lol wokes" for the day?
I mean you couldn't possibly be saying there's no pressure on women to look, dress and act a certain way.
Of course there is. And do you think deciding that they is non-binary changes anything for Tessa? Has attempting to identify your way out of prejudice ever worked? I think that if identifying your way out of prejudice worked, black people would have discovered that centuries ago.
-k
Post by: wilber on December 21, 2020, 06:09:07 pm
Isn't being androgynous different, if most other people aren't? Why does somebody have to project a masculine or feminine vibe if they don't feel like it? And what if somebody wants to wear a beard and high heels? Who really cares? I like people who are different and themselves instead of conforming to norms.
It's different but the definition of the word is "indiscriminate". It isn't really a thing. I don't really care what people wear.
Post by: kimmy on December 21, 2020, 06:09:46 pm
Yes external forces play a role in shaping one's identity. But that's not the entire story. To hear the gendercrits tell it, being a women is entirely about having female reproductive parts and a lived experience that is one of victimhood and degradation. They present a version of womanhood tin which the individual is completely at the mercy of forces beyond their control, whether biology or society. That sounds extremely grim to me.
I think it's more that biological reality has always been the reason for women's oppression by men. So a feminist movement that doesn't recognize biological reality is nonsense.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 21, 2020, 10:03:26 pm
The idea that if you like basketball and don't like prom dresses or think about boys all the time, you aren't really a girl.Those things are considered "unfeminine", but there's nothing "unfemale" about them. Aren't we mixing sex and gender here with Tessa?
My opinion is that gender expression can be changed, but biological sex cannot. If you don't identify with either "masculine" or feminine" in terms of gender, then you can be androgynous.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 21, 2020, 10:05:12 pm
What gender identity is a plain white T shirt?
Bryan Adams.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 21, 2020, 10:09:30 pm
Post by: Black Dog on December 21, 2020, 11:14:06 pm
The idea that if you like basketball and don't like prom dresses or think about boys all the time, you aren't really a girl.
That's a pretty mainstream view divorced from the issue at hand.
Quote
Gender-critical people are 100% supportive of gender non-conformity,[b/] and simply reject the notion that your gender expression constitutes an "identity" in and of itself. [/b]
What does this mean? Feel free to play with gender but for god's sake don't get too invested into it or let it become more central than your precious biological components? Are butch lesbians not an identity? Is "woman" not an expression of identity?
Quote
Before this gender identity stuff came along, feminists fought for decades for women to live outside of gender conformity. Now that gender identity ideology has taken over feminism, gender non-conforming people are being fed the notion that they need to change their gender identity because they don't fit in society's boxes.
So they're being brainwashed and have no agency and so you reject the idea of gender non conformity?
Quote
Of course, in theory they're all for women's freedom to express themselves as they wish and identify as they wish. In practice, if your gender identity is expressed through gender performativity... then the conclusion that gender non-conforming women are doing it wrong is kind of unavoidable, isn't it?
No. If you start from the place that gender is largely a performance, then there's no right or wrong way to perform gender. You seem to have this notion that all transwomen are mincing around in bonnets and flouncy skirts and that's...not the case.
Quote
We went from "trucks are for boys and unicorns are for girls" to "it's okay for girls to like trucks too!" to "if you like trucks more than unicorns you might not be a girl", and I think we should go back to the second one.
This is the TERF victim stuff rinsed through Quillette to convince yourself the trans people are taking over. It's a crock of ****. And that's the issue with so much of this debate: lots of anecdotes and presumptions, very little evidence.
Quote
Again, I'm not ridiculing the non-binary model for dressing the way they wants to. I'm ridiculing the notion that their non-binary style is anything unique or different from stuff that ordinary cisgender women wear every day. I mean, ****, dude, I wear a men's button up shirt most days, a men's necktie some days, men's watches and men's cologne all the time. I'm the most gender non-conforming person I know. I'd never ridicule somebody for wearing gender non-conforming clothing because I do that every day. And maybe that's why I find it so **** hilarious that Tessa here acts like she has broken the code.
You absolutely are, and it's clear from your continued mangling of the conjugation of the impersonal pronoun thing that you have a lot of contempt for this person. At least be honest enough to admit that much.
Quote
What would an actual gender binary woman be like in our culture? June Cleaver? If gender expression is a spectrum, then who is a 0% or 100% on the spectrum?
again: wut.
Quote
Of course there is. And do you think deciding that they is non-binary changes anything for Tessa? Has attempting to identify your way out of prejudice ever worked? I think that if identifying your way out of prejudice worked, black people would have discovered that centuries ago.
Who are you to say it doesn't? Indeed, is that even the goal here? One obviously can't control how the world reacts to you, but if identifying or dressing a certain way does something for the individual, who are you to say that they're wrong or invalid? As for the fatuous comparison with black people, surely to god you've heard of "passing" no?
Post by: kimmy on December 22, 2020, 09:12:30 pm
That's a pretty mainstream view divorced from the issue at hand.
It isn't. Tessa describes her identity by comparing herself to "other girls" (as has every non-binary female person I have ever read describing themselves). Implicit in this is the notion that there's a theoretical ideal of girlhood and that those who differ are doing it wrong.
Old fashioned people would tell girls what is or isn't appropriate for girls, newfangled people would tell girls that if they're different from some stereotypical girl then they might not really be girls, and to me this doesn't seem like progress. To me it seems like we've stopped beating gender non-conforming girls with one stick, and started beating them with a different stick.
What does this mean? Feel free to play with gender but for god's sake don't get too invested into it or let it become more central than your precious biological components? Are butch lesbians not an identity? Is "woman" not an expression of identity?
Well that's an excellent question. What actually is an identity, then? People tend to think of things like your nationality or your religion or your sexual orientation or your sex. "I'm a Canadian Muslim man!" for example. Things that have some degree of significance, and some degree of permanence and some degree of observability.
Is "butch lesbian" an identity, or is butch just a description? Am I butch because I like men's shirts and accessories? Am I femme because I have long and luxurious hair? Am I butch on days that I don't wear makeup and femme on days that I do? Aren't butch and femme both kind of subjective, dated, and pointless descriptions anyway? I don't know. Lesbian is an identity, I think. Or it used to be. It used to mean something, but maybe it's just slowly becoming just a genre of ****. I don't know.
Remember those Gamergate goons from a few years back? To those guys, Gamer (with a capital G) was their identity. Is it really an identity, or just a hobby, or maybe a lifestyle? Are lifestyles identities? If someone says "I'm retired" or "I'm an office worker" or "I'm a homemaker" are those identities? What about "I'm a parent!" as an identity? I am guessing that being a parent is probably a more significant factor in your life than almost anything anybody would describe as their identity. Probably more than what brand of church you go to or what country your grandparents came from.
What about the Goth kids? Remember them? Was Goth an identity, or just a phase?
There are all kinds of other alleged identities out there, most of which aren't taken seriously. People who say they identify based on their kinship with various kinds of critters. Or some sexual fetish. The tired joke about "I identify as an attack helicopter" was really not that far off from some of the things people have claimed to identify as. I don't know if anybody has claimed their favorite sports team as an identity, but I wouldn't be surprised. "I'm RaidersGendered so I should be allowed to wear my helmet and war-paint to work." Last month I read somebody on Twitter declaring a new gender identity called AmongUsGendered, based on their enthusiasm for the computer game Among Us. They even designed some Pride flags.
Of course nobody takes that stuff seriously, except (maybe) the people who claim to identify as these things. (I have an icky feeling that many of the people who identify as "otherkin" are completely serious.) Sooooo... what's different about nonbinary? What's the element that makes people treat nonbinary as a legitimate thing, the element that "otherkin" or "AmongUsGender" are lacking? I'd like to pinpoint what the difference is.
I'll respond to more of your post later tonight.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on December 23, 2020, 10:34:19 am
It isn't. Tessa describes her identity by comparing herself to "other girls" (as has every non-binary female person I have ever read describing themselves). Implicit in this is the notion that there's a theoretical ideal of girlhood and that those who differ are doing it wrong.
There is obviously a theoretical idea of girl/womanhood that is rigidly enforced. Just not by the people who don't want to be constrained by it. And it makes sense since almost all identities are as much about what you are not as what you are.
Quote
Old fashioned people would tell girls what is or isn't appropriate for girls, newfangled people would tell girls that if they're different from some stereotypical girl then they might not really be girls, and to me this doesn't seem like progress. To me it seems like we've stopped beating gender non-conforming girls with one stick, and started beating them with a different stick.
You keep saying this without any evidence of any kind. It's become a shibboleth for you but I have no idea what it's based on. i have literally never seen anyone say "girls who like trucks are actually boys." Which is weird since you seem to be saying it's the main view of trans rights advocates.
Quote
Well that's an excellent question. What actually is an identity, then? People tend to think of things like your nationality or your religion or your sexual orientation or your sex. "I'm a Canadian Muslim man!" for example. Things that have some degree of significance, and some degree of permanence and some degree of observability.
Is "butch lesbian" an identity, or is butch just a description? Am I butch because I like men's shirts and accessories? Am I femme because I have long and luxurious hair? Am I butch on days that I don't wear makeup and femme on days that I do? Aren't butch and femme both kind of subjective, dated, and pointless descriptions anyway? I don't know. Lesbian is an identity, I think. Or it used to be. It used to mean something, but maybe it's just slowly becoming just a genre of ****. I don't know.
Remember those Gamergate goons from a few years back? To those guys, Gamer (with a capital G) was their identity. Is it really an identity, or just a hobby, or maybe a lifestyle? Are lifestyles identities? If someone says "I'm retired" or "I'm an office worker" or "I'm a homemaker" are those identities? What about "I'm a parent!" as an identity? I am guessing that being a parent is probably a more significant factor in your life than almost anything anybody would describe as their identity. Probably more than what brand of church you go to or what country your grandparents came from.
What about the Goth kids? Remember them? Was Goth an identity, or just a phase?
There are all kinds of other alleged identities out there, most of which aren't taken seriously. People who say they identify based on their kinship with various kinds of critters. Or some sexual fetish. The tired joke about "I identify as an attack helicopter" was really not that far off from some of the things people have claimed to identify as. I don't know if anybody has claimed their favorite sports team as an identity, but I wouldn't be surprised. "I'm RaidersGendered so I should be allowed to wear my helmet and war-paint to work." Last month I read somebody on Twitter declaring a new gender identity called AmongUsGendered, based on their enthusiasm for the computer game Among Us. They even designed some Pride flags.
Of course nobody takes that stuff seriously, except (maybe) the people who claim to identify as these things. (I have an icky feeling that many of the people who identify as "otherkin" are completely serious.) Sooooo... what's different about nonbinary? What's the element that makes people treat nonbinary as a legitimate thing, the element that "otherkin" or "AmongUsGender" are lacking? I'd like to pinpoint what the difference is.
Well, I think we can start by ruling out examples that are obvious bad faith goofs. But the bigger question doesn't have any straightforward answers. I'd suggest identity is a multivalent thing, starting with self-identification and involving a constant and evolving negotiation through social interactions and public policy. How did "homosexual" as an identity go from someone with a criminal mental disorder to one with broad mainstream acceptance? Through a long and painful negotiation with cultural, social and political structures. Which is pretty much what we're seeing through the trans rights debate. If any one of these goofs using The One Joke want to embark on that process, that are welcome to try, but I doubt they have the stomach for it.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on December 23, 2020, 10:46:19 am
There is obviously a theoretical idea of girl/womanhood that is rigidly enforced. Just not by the people who don't want to be constrained by it. And it makes sense since almost all identities are as much about what you are not as what you are.
Agreed. Sociology says that identity is formed by how we compare ourselves to others and also how we think others see us. If there were no other humans or animals in the world and you were the only living being on earth you'd never see yourself as "smart" or "dumb" or "masculine" or "feminine" because there's nobody else to compare yourself to. A male seen as a feminine guy is only such because he acts more feminine compared to most other males.
Post by: kimmy on December 23, 2020, 02:43:35 pm
There is obviously a theoretical idea of girl/womanhood that is rigidly enforced.
I'm not sure that there is a theoretical ideal girl in our society anymore. There's lots of cultural influences that push in certain directions, and lots of them are negative stereotypes and pornification and glamorization of certain kinds of femininity.
And I'm not sure it's rigidly enforced. And perhaps ironically the biggest enforcers aren't conservative parents or woke teachers or other well-meaning adults... it's other girls.
Just not by the people who don't want to be constrained by it. And it makes sense since almost all identities are as much about what you are not as what you are.
I'm not sure that's true either. I think most identities are an affirmative statement. "I'm a Canadian Muslim man!" is three affirmative statements. That statement might imply things that he isn't, as well... one might assume that being Muslim he might have conservative values... but that might well be false and is something that somebody else inferred, not something he explicitly stated. We might sometimes joke that Canadians define their identity as being Not American, but I think most people believe that saying they are Canadian is an affirmative statement, not a denial of being American. And... I don't think "non like other girls" is really an identity, anymore than saying you're not American is an identity.
You keep saying this without any evidence of any kind. It's become a shibboleth for you but I have no idea what it's based on. i have literally never seen anyone say "girls who like trucks are actually boys." Which is weird since you seem to be saying it's the main view of trans rights advocates.
I don't have hard evidence from Canada. I have seen figures from the UK (where GC feminists have not yet been purged from public discourse) showing that referrals of young female people to their Tavistock gender identity clinic have gone from a few dozen per year just a few years ago to a few year to a number in the thousands in 2018 and 2019. I will dig up that information for you.
And I saw something from the US recently suggesting that 22% of teenage girls now identify as LGBTQ. I will try to dig up the source on that as well. 22% is an astounding figure. I'm sure that teens aren't any gayer than they were a few years back, and I'm guessing that most of this explosion of LGBTQ people is in the "Q", and I think most of those identifying as "queer" are probably just "not like other girls" girls. And as I said earlier... who can blame them? It seems like stereotypes about girls are getting more toxic with each passing year, and I can envision a future where the only female people still willing to identify as "girls" are those trying to get subscribers for their "OnlyFans" pages. I find it depressing.
I have not seen actual educational curriculum materials relating to explaining gender to children. I've seen a plethora of children's books intended to explore the concept and most seem to once again boil down to stereotypical boy behaviors and stereotypical girl behaviors. A BBC video offered a machine dropping pink brains into pink stick figures with skirts, and blue brains into blue stick figures without skirts, and once in a while the machine put a pink brain in a blue body or vice versa.
They might mean well, but they're trying to explain complicated ideas to an audience that really only understands gender in trucks-and-unicorns terms. (and that can be said of many of the parents as well as the children themselves.)
Well, I think we can start by ruling out examples that are obvious bad faith goofs. But the bigger question doesn't have any straightforward answers. I'd suggest identity is a multivalent thing, starting with self-identification and involving a constant and evolving negotiation through social interactions and public policy. How did "homosexual" as an identity go from someone with a criminal mental disorder to one with broad mainstream acceptance? Through a long and painful negotiation with cultural, social and political structures. Which is pretty much what we're seeing through the trans rights debate. If any one of these goofs using The One Joke want to embark on that process, that are welcome to try, but I doubt they have the stomach for it.
Non-binary is description that didn't even exist a few years ago. Neither the phrase nor the practice of rigorously enforcing pronouns existed until recently. But people rebelling against gender constructs has actually been around for a long time and we never needed to put a label on it before. Annie Lennox and Prince and David Bowie never needed to explain their gender to their audience or tell people what pronouns they wanted to be described by. They simply were. And the same for legions of less famous gender non-conforming individuals who didn't need to tell people what they were, they simply were. As I do. Don't tell us what you are, go be it. And I just feel that this sudden need for people to tell everyone their identity is largely theatrical... that putting a label on yourself and telling others about it... it's not really about "living your authentic life" so much as it is about validation and seeking acceptance and identifying yourself as part of a culture or movement.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 23, 2020, 03:10:14 pm
You absolutely are,
I'm not making fun of gender nonconformity. I'm making fun of the notion that this is an identity that needs a label.
and it's clear from your continued mangling of the conjugation of the impersonal pronoun thing
I'm pronouning like a pro! Woke-people insist on the mangling of the language by referring to Tessa as a they... I shall not further mangle it by speaking of them as if they was a multitude rather than an individuals. The slogan is "Respect my pronouns!" not "conjugate my verbs!"
But generally yes, I wince each time I attempt to describe a single person as a they and feel a general annoyance about it. I feel weird and awkward about having to refer to Elliot Pages as he and Eddie Izzard as she. And I feel a some amount of disgust at being required to call a creep like Jessica Yaniv as a woman and lesbian.
that you have a lot of contempt for this person. At least be honest enough to admit that much.
I don't feel contempt for Tessa any more than I feel contempt for any other young person going through a phase. I didn't hate the Goths either but I thought their subculture was silly.
Who are you to say it doesn't? Indeed, is that even the goal here? One obviously can't control how the world reacts to you, but if identifying or dressing a certain way does something for the individual, who are you to say that they're wrong or invalid?
Someone might feel that carrying a rabbit's foot in their pocket gives them luck and if that helps them get through their day, but it doesn't require anybody else to put any faith in the power of a rabbit's foot or humor their faith in their rabbit's foot.
They might feel emboldened by calling herself non-binary and if she does then good for them I guess. I still feel very depressed that people apparently need to disavow being a girl or woman to feel empowered.
As for the fatuous comparison with black people, surely to god you've heard of "passing" no?
"Passing" is a challenging area in trans politics. Someone who is "passing" will have much different experiences than someone who doesn't. I recently read an article from a trans man who talked about how great it is to experience male privilege. "People listen when I talk. They stopped taking credit for my work. I got a raise," and so on. A trans woman who passes might be the target of male harassment or sexual violence. A trans woman who doesn't pass might experience male harassment or violence of a different sort.
In relation to Tessa and non-binary people in general, "passing" isn't a relevant notion. Tessa is not trying to "pass" as anything, just distance themself from traditional femininity. But as Tessa and other non-binary people move through life... they will discover that they aren't discriminated on based on their relationship with gender stereotypes, but for their biological sex.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on December 23, 2020, 03:17:26 pm
I'm not sure that there is a theoretical ideal girl in our society anymore. There's lots of cultural influences that push in certain directions, and lots of them are negative stereotypes and pornification and glamorization of certain kinds of femininity.
And I'm not sure it's rigidly enforced. And perhaps ironically the biggest enforcers aren't conservative parents or woke teachers or other well-meaning adults... it's other girls.
Then why is there so much pink princess crap at the toy store? Why do I have to go to the boys' section to buy my daughter dinosaur jammies?
Quote
I'm not sure that's true either. I think most identities are an affirmative statement. "I'm a Canadian Muslim man!" is three affirmative statements. That statement might imply things that he isn't, as well... one might assume that being Muslim he might have conservative values... but that might well be false and is something that somebody else inferred, not something he explicitly stated. We might sometimes joke that Canadians define their identity as being Not American, but I think most people believe that saying they are Canadian is an affirmative statement, not a denial of being American.
the flip side of any affirmative statement is a negative. "I'm a Republican" is also "I'm not a Democrat." And I think if you press a Canadian on what it means to be Canadian, you won't wait long to hear some reference to not being American.
Quote
And... I don't think "non like other girls" is really an identity, anymore than saying you're not American is an identity.
Noone is claiming that as the sum total of their identity are they?
Quote
I don't have hard evidence from Canada. I have seen figures from the UK (where GC feminists have not yet been purged from public discourse) showing that referrals of young female people to their Tavistock gender identity clinic have gone from a few dozen per year just a few years ago to a few year to a number in the thousands in 2018 and 2019. I will dig up that information for you.
But that doesn't have anything to do with your belief that "newfangled people would tell girls that if they're different from some stereotypical girl then they might not really be girls."
I bet there's also a lot more teens seeking treatment for depression and anxiety, but i'm pretty sure no one is out there telling kids to be depressed. More awareness of gender issues and acceptance is probably a big factor. And obviously not all of these will go down the road to transitioning.
Now that being said: one thing you and i would probably agree on is that anyone seeking treatment for body dysmorphia should not be pushed in a specific direction without fully exploring all the factors that might be making them feel the way they are. I think because this is such relatively new territory, we're still figuring out the borders. But i don't think reviving past moral panics is a constructive way to do it.
Quote
And I saw something from the US recently suggesting that 22% of teenage girls now identify as LGBTQ. I will try to dig up the source on that as well. 22% is an astounding figure. I'm sure that teens aren't any gayer than they were a few years back, and I'm guessing that most of this explosion of LGBTQ people is in the "Q", and I think most of those identifying as "queer" are probably just "not like other girls" girls. And as I said earlier... who can blame them? It seems like stereotypes about girls are getting more toxic with each passing year, and I can envision a future where the only female people still willing to identify as "girls" are those trying to get subscribers for their "OnlyFans" pages. I find it depressing.
Or maybe the idea of what a girl is has always been toxic and people are finding other identities to avoid that trap. Self-harm, eating disorders
Quote
I have not seen actual educational curriculum materials relating to explaining gender to children. I've seen a plethora of children's books intended to explore the concept and most seem to once again boil down to stereotypical boy behaviors and stereotypical girl behaviors. A BBC video offered a machine dropping pink brains into pink stick figures with skirts, and blue brains into blue stick figures without skirts, and once in a while the machine put a pink brain in a blue body or vice versa.
They might mean well, but they're trying to explain complicated ideas to an audience that really only understands gender in trucks-and-unicorns terms. (and that can be said of many of the parents as well as the children themselves.)
So what's the alternative in your view? To not expose children to those ideas and present them with a rigid gender binary?
Quote
Non-binary is description that didn't even exist a few years ago. Neither the phrase nor the practice of rigorously enforcing pronouns existed until recently. But people rebelling against gender constructs has actually been around for a long time and we never needed to put a label on it before. Annie Lennox and Prince and David Bowie never needed to explain their gender to their audience or tell people what pronouns they wanted to be described by. They simply were. And the same for legions of less famous gender non-conforming individuals who didn't need to tell people what they were, they simply were. As I do. Don't tell us what you are, go be it. And I just feel that this sudden need for people to tell everyone their identity is largely theatrical... that putting a label on yourself and telling others about it... it's not really about "living your authentic life" so much as it is about validation and seeking acceptance and identifying yourself as part of a culture or movement.
To which I say: so what? It's annoying and performative at times, but does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? There's bigger fish to fry as far as i'm concerned.
Post by: Black Dog on December 23, 2020, 03:22:57 pm
I'm not making fun of gender nonconformity. I'm making fun of the notion that this is an identity that needs a label.
I'm pronouning like a pro! Woke-people insist on the mangling of the language by referring to Tessa as a they... I shall not further mangle it by speaking of them as if they was a multitude rather than an individuals. The slogan is "Respect my pronouns!" not "conjugate my verbs!"
Doing bad grammar to own the libs.
Quote
But generally yes, I wince each time I attempt to describe a single person as a they and feel a general annoyance about it. I feel weird and awkward about having to refer to Elliot Pages as he and Eddie Izzard as she. And I feel a some amount of disgust at being required to call a creep like Jessica Yaniv as a woman and lesbian.
"They" has been a singular impersonal pronoun for a very long time. I bet you unconsciously use it like that a dozen times a day. So what you're really doing here is your own kind of virtue signalling: "look at how un PC and anti-woke I am!"
Post by: kimmy on December 23, 2020, 07:54:19 pm
Then why is there so much pink princess crap at the toy store? Why do I have to go to the boys' section to buy my daughter dinosaur jammies?
I think that if you send your daughter off to school wearing a dinosaur t-shirt and she comes home upset and says she hates dinosaurs wants a princess t-shirt instead, it's probably because other girls made fun of her for wearing something different from what everybody else was wearing. And that's probably why there's so much pink princess crap at the store. I don't remember things being this bad when I was young, but I do remember peer pressure being the most important thing. When I was in high school and a female engineer came to talk to our class about careers in STEM, afterward in the hall I heard the cool girls saying "what a NERD!" and "as IF!" and I didn't say anything because I didn't want to stick out.
But that doesn't have anything to do with your belief that "newfangled people would tell girls that if they're different from some stereotypical girl then they might not really be girls."
I mean, it must be coming from somewhere. I don't think these little
I bet there's also a lot more teens seeking treatment for depression and anxiety, but i'm pretty sure no one is out there telling kids to be depressed. More awareness of gender issues and acceptance is probably a big factor. And obviously not all of these will go down the road to transitioning.
(...)
Now that being said: one thing you and i would probably agree on is that anyone seeking treatment for body dysmorphia should not be pushed in a specific direction without fully exploring all the factors that might be making them feel the way they are. I think because this is such relatively new territory, we're still figuring out the borders. But i don't think reviving past moral panics is a constructive way to do it.
(...)
Or maybe the idea of what a girl is has always been toxic and people are finding other identities to avoid that trap. Self-harm, eating disorders
I'm glad you mentioned this because I have been meaning to talk about the Keira Bell case in the UK for a while now. Transition might not actually cure self harm or body image problems or depression or social problems or stop bullying or any of the other things people think it might do for them. For some kids gender dysphoria might be the root of all their problems, but it is sometimes a symptom of deeper problems. Sometimes it traces back to sexual trauma, for example.
I mentioned her earlier in the thread (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/msg66984/?topicseen#msg66984) and earlier this month she won her case. Bell's claim was that they failed to adequately assess what kind of heathcare she actually needed and led her down a path towards medical transition at a stage of her life when she was too young to provide informed consent to the treatment being proposed. She feels in hindsight that what she needed was therapy, not hormones and a double mastectomy. She feels that a plethora of online information made transition seem like like a panacea for all the things that seemed wrong with her life... and when she discovered that medical transition wasn't a magical cure-all, she had already experienced irreversible changes to her body. The ruling in the case agreed with Bell: they felt that children under 16 aren't likely capable of giving informed consent to a permanent, life-altering course of action. This seems like common sense to me... we don't let kids get married or consent to sex either.
In November, slipping under the radar during the furor surrounding the US election, Canada's parliament agreed in principle to a ban on conversion therapy. Agreement was almost unanimous across all parties, with only a few cranks like Derek Sloan objecting.
But as this works through the committees and the senate, I hope that some thought is given to the Keira Bell story. If a ban on conversion therapy means an affirmation-only approach to young people wanting medical transition, we will create Keira Bell cases of our own. Some doctors have already talked of being leery about being accused of transphobia if they question a patient's desire for transition. A ban on conversion therapy, if implemented poorly, could put a chill on the kind of therapy that Bell should have received when she first went to Tavistock. If we are not careful, we might make it difficult or dangerous for doctors to take a deep dive into a patient's problems before supporting transition. If we aren't careful about how this is done, we might cause doctors to just shrug their shoulders and write a prescription for hormones.
So what's the alternative in your view? To not expose children to those ideas and present them with a rigid gender binary?
I think that's a false dichotomy. If there's one thing you should have figured out by now it's that I don't believe in a gender binary at all.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 23, 2020, 08:48:14 pm
Doing bad grammar to own the libs.
"They" has been a singular impersonal pronoun for a very long time. I bet you unconsciously use it like that a dozen times a day. So what you're really doing here is your own kind of virtue signalling: "look at how un PC and anti-woke I am!"
If it's a choice between doing bad grammar to pwn the libs or doing bad grammar to appease the libs, I'll take the former. I'm so fricken done with the wokies and their attempts to police everything. Remember a little while back when all the Polish Women's Strike was big news and progressives wanted to express their support, but they couldn't use the word women becase #NotAllWomenHaveUteri? So we had all these woke people putting #IStandWithPolishPeople on their Twitter profiles. "I Stand With Polish People"? What the fizzityuck is that supposed to mean? You're into garlic sausage? When you're policing your own language to the extent that you're not even capable of stating what cause you're supporting, I see that as a problem.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on December 24, 2020, 06:28:47 pm
I think that if you send your daughter off to school wearing a dinosaur t-shirt and she comes home upset and says she hates dinosaurs wants a princess t-shirt instead, it's probably because other girls made fun of her for wearing something different from what everybody else was wearing. And that's probably why there's so much pink princess crap at the store. I don't remember things being this bad when I was young, but I do remember peer pressure being the most important thing. When I was in high school and a female engineer came to talk to our class about careers in STEM, afterward in the hall I heard the cool girls saying "what a NERD!" and "as IF!" and I didn't say anything because I didn't want to stick out.Huh I wonder where they get that from.
Quote
I think that's a false dichotomy. If there's one thing you should have figured out by now it's that I don't believe in a gender binary at all.
You didn't answer the question tho.
If it's a choice between doing bad grammar to pwn the libs or doing bad grammar to appease the libs, I'll take the former.
Using they as an impersonal pronoun is not bad grammar. If someone at work asks you "hey have you seen Bob?" And you reply "yeah they went on break." are you doing a wokesm?
Quote
Im so fricken done with the wokies and their attempts to police everything. Remember a little while back when all the Polish Women's Strike was big news and progressives wanted to express their support, but they couldn't use the word women becase #NotAllWomenHaveUteri? So we had all these woke people putting #IStandWithPolishPeople on their Twitter profiles. "I Stand With Polish People"? What the fizzityuck is that supposed to mean? You're into garlic sausage? When you're policing your own language to the extent that you're not even capable of stating what cause you're supporting, I see that as a problem.
Yeah it seems from this example and your strident defense of shitty grammar that spending too much time immersed on either side of this is like sticking your brain into a a gem polisher until it's round and perfectly smooth.
Post by: kimmy on January 03, 2021, 07:05:39 pm
Huh I wonder where they get that from.
I don't know where it has come from. I think things are worse now than when I was younger, but I'm not a parent and I don't have kids so maybe I'm not getting the whole picture.
You didn't answer the question tho.
How about NOT exposing children to debunked, harmful "pink brain/blue brain" bullshit and also NOT presenting a rigid gender binary? How about fighting the idea that careers and sports and activities and fields of knowledge are inherently gendered? That used to be what feminists wanted. When did that go out of style?
Using they as an impersonal pronoun is not bad grammar. If someone at work asks you "hey have you seen Bob?" And you reply "yeah they went on break." are you doing a wokesm?
How many of Bob are there?
Yeah it seems from this example and your strident defense of shitty grammar that spending too much time immersed on either side of this is like sticking your brain into a a gem polisher until it's round and perfectly smooth.
Ah of course. You and the Enlightened Centrists are the ones willing to be reasonable. Except that the Enlightened Centrists are afraid to voice an opinion for fear of being scolded by their woke friends. So the wokies are the ones charting the course on this, and anybody who questions what's going on is portrayed as a TERF or a religious kook or an alt-right hatemonger or some other easily vilified stereotype.
-k
Post by: guest78 on January 03, 2021, 07:11:37 pm
Yep. See J. K. Rowling.
I don't know where it has come from. I think things are worse now than when I was younger, but I'm not a parent and I don't have kids so maybe I'm not getting the whole picture.
How about NOT exposing children to debunked, harmful "pink brain/blue brain" bullshit and also NOT presenting a rigid gender binary? How about fighting the idea that careers and sports and activities and fields of knowledge are inherently gendered? That used to be what feminists wanted. When did that go out of style?
How many of Bob are there?
Ah of course. You and the Enlightened Centrists are the ones willing to be reasonable. Except that the Enlightened Centrists are afraid to voice an opinion for fear of being scolded by their woke friends. So the wokies are the ones charting the course on this, and anybody who questions what's going on is portrayed as a TERF or a religious kook or an alt-right hatemonger or some other easily vilified stereotype.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 03, 2021, 08:24:56 pm
Doing bad grammar to own the libs.
"They" has been a singular impersonal pronoun for a very long time. I bet you unconsciously use it like that a dozen times a day. So what you're really doing here is your own kind of virtue signalling: "look at how un PC and anti-woke I am!"
Isn't all of this basically about virtue signalling? Is there any other reason for a person who lives the entirety of her life as a cisgender heterosexual woman to write an article explaining that she's actually a pansexual they/them person (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/lgbtq-culture/?message=67256)? This isn't a statement about their identity or their life or their reality. It's a statement about their politics. Ditto Tessa, ditto for a host of others who are now identifying as "queer" or "non-binary" or "pansexual" despite not actually being any of those things. They're not expressing their membership in the LGBTQ2SIAAetc community, they're expressing their allegiance to wokism.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 03, 2021, 10:39:00 pm
I don't know where it has come from. I think things are worse now than when I was younger, but I'm not a parent and I don't have kids so maybe I'm not getting the whole picture.
Are you kidding me? How can you be so invested in this topic and so clueless on this piece?
Quote
How about NOT exposing children to debunked, harmful "pink brain/blue brain" bullshit and also NOT presenting a rigid gender binary? How about fighting the idea that careers and sports and activities and fields of knowledge are inherently gendered? That used to be what feminists wanted. When did that go out of style?
"I don't want people to adhere to gender binaries. But if you say you don't you're just pandering to wokeism and I will make fun of you for it."-You, basically.
Quote
How many of Bob are there?
Are you seriously going to sit here and pretend you've never used "they" as a singular pronoun? Because I would have to call bullshit on that.
Quote
Ah of course. You and the Enlightened Centrists are the ones willing to be reasonable. Except that the Enlightened Centrists are afraid to voice an opinion for fear of being scolded by their woke friends. So the wokies are the ones charting the course on this, and anybody who questions what's going on is portrayed as a TERF or a religious kook or an alt-right hatemonger or some other easily vilified stereotype.
Yeah when gendercrits use literally the same moral panic stuff I saw the religious right use on gay people 25 years ago ("they're trying to brainwash kids into their deviant lifestyles!")and literally align with right wing kooks to oppose trans rights then what do you expect?
Isn't all of this basically about virtue signalling? Is there any other reason for a person who lives the entirety of her life as a cisgender heterosexual woman to write an article explaining that she's actually a pansexual they/them person (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/lgbtq-culture/?message=67256)? This isn't a statement about their identity or their life or their reality. It's a statement about their politics. Ditto Tessa, ditto for a host of others who are now identifying as "queer" or "non-binary" or "pansexual" despite not actually being any of those things. They're not expressing their membership in the LGBTQ2SIAAetc community, they're expressing their allegiance to wokism.
So to what what does your butchery of the English language express your allegiance? Because if you think it's logic and common sense and rationality, it's not working.
Post by: kimmy on January 05, 2021, 10:29:07 am
Are you kidding me? How can you be so invested in this topic and so clueless on this piece?
Smart people have been working on this question for a long time, and haven't arrived at any firm answers. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
"I don't want people to adhere to gender binaries. But if you say you don't you're just pandering to wokeism and I will make fun of you for it."-You, basically.
People saying "women be like this, but I be like that, so I'm not a woman" doesn't actually "smash gender binaries" the way people seem to think it does.
The gender-people have gone on "a quest to find a new definition of woman that doesn't reduce women to their body parts"... and arrived at a definition of woman built around gender stereotypes. This is not progress, despite what they would tell you. It's the opposite of what generations of women fought for.
Yeah when gendercrits use literally the same moral panic stuff I saw the religious right use on gay people 25 years ago ("they're trying to brainwash kids into their deviant lifestyles!")and literally align with right wing kooks to oppose trans rights then what do you expect?
That's not true. Most gender-critical feminists are very left-wing, actually. A lot of them are old-school left-wing feminists who are now just trying to figure out how "feminism" turned into a generic feel-good movement devoted to every noble cause except for actually helping women.
When you say "oppose trans rights" please be more specific about what rights you are talking about. A lot of people go around saying "TERFs oppose trans rights" as if they think people don't think trans people should be allowed to vote or go out in public or something. That's not the case at all. The "TERFs" generally support most trans rights, except to the point that they impact on women's rights.
I believe some conservative religious group is funding Selina Soule's lawsuit against Connecticut. Feminists might not agree with that group about much, but keeping men out of women's sports is something they can find common cause, and allies (and money) are hard to come by in this environment.
Ditto p0rn and sex work. Feminists and religious conservatives might not agree on much, but hating the movement to normalize and glamorize sex work and p0rn is something that they do have in common.
So to what what does your butchery of the English language express your allegiance? Because if you think it's logic and common sense and rationality, it's not working.
I would think that it expresses my allegiance to house "This Stuff Is Bullshit".
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 05, 2021, 04:48:40 pm
Smart people have been working on this question for a long time, and haven't arrived at any firm answers. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
I would say it's simply that traditional gender roles are alive and well because, contrary to your assertions, we haven't made sufficient progress as a society in breaking them down in the first place. That should be something feminists should be working on, but a lot of them seem to be more interested in shitting on trans people than anything else these days.
Quote
People saying "women be like this, but I be like that, so I'm not a woman" doesn't actually "smash gender binaries" the way people seem to think it does.
The gender-people have gone on "a quest to find a new definition of woman that doesn't reduce women to their body parts"... and arrived at a definition of woman built around gender stereotypes. This is not progress, despite what they would tell you. It's the opposite of what generations of women fought for.
I'd love to see a definition of a magical gender smashing paradigm "generations of women" fought for that doesn't define itself against existing gender roles and stereotypes.
Quote
That's not true. Most gender-critical feminists are very left-wing, actually. A lot of them are old-school left-wing feminists who are now just trying to figure out how "feminism" turned into a generic feel-good movement devoted to every noble cause except for actually helping women.
Except they're happy to make common cause with reactionaries against trans rights because, as you say, "allies are hard to come by."
Quote
When you say "oppose trans rights" please be more specific about what rights you are talking about. A lot of people go around saying "TERFs oppose trans rights" as if they think people don't think trans people should be allowed to vote or go out in public or something. That's not the case at all. The "TERFs" generally support most trans rights, except to the point that they impact on women's rights.
The reason people think you guys don't support trans people's rights is because you never seem to give a **** about trans people and their safety. Take the bathroom thing: so you want people to use the bathroom's that correspond with their biological sex at birth because men are horrible predators (nevermind that there's nothing stopping any man from entering a woman's bathroom with ill-intent), which is far more likely to result in transwomen's safety being compromised. Same with the prison thing you like to bring up which ignores the fact that trans people are far more likely to be victims of assault in such environments than perpetrators. But I've yet to see anything in Quilette about that.
Quote
I would think that it expresses my allegiance to house "This Stuff Is Bullshit".
Proper grammar is bullshit?
Post by: kimmy on January 06, 2021, 12:56:28 am
I would say it's simply that traditional gender roles are alive and well because, contrary to your assertions, we haven't made sufficient progress as a society in breaking them down in the first place.
So you're saying that the reason that we haven't made progress in breaking down traditional gender roles is that we haven't made progress in breaking down traditional gender roles?
Wow. Mind blown. I'm going to need some time to absorb that.
That should be something feminists should be working on, but a lot of them seem to be more interested in shitting on trans people than anything else these days.
That might be your perception of what gender critical feminists are about, but that's a perception formed from biased hearsay, not first-hand exposure.
I'd love to see a definition of a magical gender smashing paradigm "generations of women" fought for that doesn't define itself against existing gender roles and stereotypes.
Feminism used to fight against gender roles and the notion that things were inherently "for boys/men" or "for women/girls". The goal used to be to do with that kind of thinking, not create new labels and categories of gender. If you want to argue that eliminating gender roles is still defining relative to existing gender roles, you should also be prepared to explain why "off" should be considered a radio station.
Except they're happy to make common cause with reactionaries against trans rights because, as you say, "allies are hard to come by."
This is a guilt-by-association type argument. It's actually pretty low-brow to suggest that people from different political viewpoints shouldn't cooperate to promote causes of mutual interest.
I suspect that being able to only associate with people who agree with all of your views is a luxury that is only available to very mainstream people. Barack Obama recently said something about this notion of an ideological purity test-- "You should get over that quickly."
When Jessica Yaniv was filing HRC complaints against those beauticians who wouldn't shave her nut-sack, one of those reactionary groups was the only legal representation willing to take their case, and they took it pro bono. I don't especially like that it was a Bible-thumper group that was the hero of that story, but I'm very glad that somebody did stand up for those women because it could have been a travesty otherwise.
The reason people think you guys don't support trans people's rights is because you never seem to give a **** about trans people and their safety.
That argument works both ways. We never hear progressive politicians and trans activists address concerns about women's rights and safety when they talk about putting trans-women in women's prisons and women's locker rooms and women's sports. By your argument I guess that means that progressive politicians and trans activists just don't give a **** about women's rights and safety.
There are countless mainstream voices talking about the safety and well-being of trans people, but precious few willing to even acknowledge, let alone address, concerns over women's rights and safety. Why is that?
And, when women propose alternative solutions (ie, separate accommodations for trans people) it turns out that those propositions aren't acceptable to trans advocates because they're not "validating" for trans women.
Take the bathroom thing: so you want people to use the bathroom's that correspond with their biological sex at birth because men are horrible predators (nevermind that there's nothing stopping any man from entering a woman's bathroom with ill-intent), which is far more likely to result in transwomen's safety being compromised.
Not all men are horrible predators, obviously. Nobody is claiming that. And nobody is claiming all trans women are horrible predators either. That's a strawman that trans activists keep trotting out, but that's not an argument that any serious person is actually presenting. On the other hand, we know that there are predators that do exist, and that they will (and already have) taken advantage of on-demand gender self-ID.
I addressed the bathroom thing in a post a few pages back (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=66984), but I'll repeat those thoughts here:
Quote
if the bathroom is full, nothing bad will happen. And if it's empty then it's no different from being in any other empty room. But if there's one person in there, especially a vulnerable person, then who knows what might happen. The phrase "crime of opportunity" exists for a reason. To flip that argument on its head: if nothing could go wrong in a public washroom, why are transwomen afraid of using the men's room?
And I have to point out that implicit in the Reddit poster's thinking is that unless some sort of physical assault occurs, no harm has been done. The University of Toronto experimenting with unisex washrooms at their dorms a few years ago and surprise, found male students trying to record female students showering. BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted! A school in England changed their washrooms to unisex last year, and surprise, male students were trying to listen at the doors, peek through the cracks or over the the barriers, and even install recording devices. All the female students in the school ended up lining up to use the lone single-sex washroom left at the school BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted!
It bothers me that women's feelings at present have no value and are so casually dismissed. Don't feel comfortable showering with an erect **** pointed at you? You'll just have to overcome your discomfort. Your expectations of dignity and privacy no longer have any value.
And on a personal note, I disagree with the claim that "Bathrooms are the Rome of anti-trans arguments". A few short years ago I was all on board the trans rights train, back when I thought it was "we just need a place to pee". I was 100% supportive back when it was about fighting against "bathroom bills". There have been a lot of things that have gotten me off the train since then, but it wasn't bathrooms.
Same with the prison thing you like to bring up which ignores the fact that trans people are far more likely to be victims of assault in such environments than perpetrators. But I've yet to see anything in Quilette about that.
Earlier in the thread we talked about the UK incident where a male rapist discovered that he is actually a woman, and prison officials moved him to a women's prison where, surprise, he proceeded to commit sex attacks on female prisoners. And people here were stunned, like "wow, how could anybody be that catastrophically stupid? How could anybody with a brain in their head have thought that was a good idea?" And it turns out the same thing is happening in Canada and the US too. So stupidity is contagious, apparently.
Proper grammar is bullshit?
They/them is bullshit. Fake pronouns like xe/xir are bullshit. Referring to people as menstruators or uterus-havers or human milk feeders is bullshit. All this stuff is bullshit. If I have to go along with this ****, I am going to be as miserable as possible about it, and hope that it is contagious.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 06, 2021, 10:32:37 am
So you're saying that the reason that we haven't made progress in breaking down traditional gender roles is that we haven't made progress in breaking down traditional gender roles?
Wow. Mind blown. I'm going to need some time to absorb that.
No we failed to make progress because feminists today are either GirlBoss capitalist representational feminists or frothing at the mouth genital inspectors. They quit the field.
Quote
That might be your perception of what gender critical feminists are about, but that's a perception formed from biased hearsay, not first-hand exposure.
God I wish.
Quote
Feminism used to fight against gender roles and the notion that things were inherently "for boys/men" or "for women/girls". The goal used to be to do with that kind of thinking, not create new labels and categories of gender. If you want to argue that eliminating gender roles is still defining relative to existing gender roles, you should also be prepared to explain why "off" should be considered a radio station.
Expanding the category of gender beyond A/B seems like a pretty effective way of disrupting the gender binary.
Also you seem to taking several different and distinct concepts- gender identity, gender roles and gender expression- and mashing them together.
Quote
This is a guilt-by-association type argument. It's actually pretty low-brow to suggest that people from different political viewpoints shouldn't cooperate to promote causes of mutual interest.
I guess the question of why this is an area of mutual interest between genital inspectors and crazed right wing freaks has simply never crossed your mind.
Quote
I suspect that being able to only associate with people who agree with all of your views is a luxury that is only available to very mainstream people.
There's a difference-a big one!-between associating with people who don't agree with all your goals and associating with people whose values are predominately antithetical to those you claim to espouse.
Quote
Barack Obama recently said something about this notion of an ideological purity test-- "You should get over that quickly."
The Barack the Bomber has things to say about purity tests lol.
Quote
That argument works both ways. We never hear progressive politicians and trans activists address concerns about women's rights and safety when they talk about putting trans-women in women's prisons and women's locker rooms and women's sports. By your argument I guess that means that progressive politicians and trans activists just don't give a **** about women's rights and safety.
There are countless mainstream voices talking about the safety and well-being of trans people, but precious few willing to even acknowledge, let alone address, concerns over women's rights and safety. Why is that?
Because the premise that transwomen are a grave threat to the safety and well-being of ciswomen is unproven. Again, take the transwomen in women's prisons thing: the number of sexual assaults committed by transwomen is a small fraction of the assaults that occur, yet your big concern is around that small percentage and not the overall problem of sexual assaults in prisons. Meanwhile, transwomen in men's prisons are assaulted on a regular basis and you say nothing.
Quote
And, when women propose alternative solutions (ie, separate accommodations for trans people) it turns out that those propositions aren't acceptable to trans advocates because they're not "validating" for trans women.
So you want them to be equal, just...separate?
Quote
Not all men are horrible predators, obviously. Nobody is claiming that. And nobody is claiming all trans women are horrible predators either. That's a strawman that trans activists keep trotting out, but that's not an argument that any serious person is actually presenting. On the other hand, we know that there are predators that do exist, and that they will (and already have) taken advantage of on-demand gender self-ID.
So prove that there's an elevated safety risk to women by allowing trans people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. Don't just do the concern troll "just asking questions" bullshit. Put some data out there.
Quote
And I have to point out that implicit in the Reddit poster's thinking is that unless some sort of physical assault occurs, no harm has been done. The University of Toronto experimenting with unisex washrooms at their dorms a few years ago and surprise, found male students trying to record female students showering. BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted! A school in England changed their washrooms to unisex last year, and surprise, male students were trying to listen at the doors, peek through the cracks or over the the barriers, and even install recording devices. All the female students in the school ended up lining up to use the lone single-sex washroom left at the school BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted!
What's odd to me about these anecdotes is they don't actually speak to the issue of trans people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. But you're using it to muddy the waters to say "see, look how those men behave in the bathroom with women! See how putting men in the bathroom with women is a bad idea!"
Quote
Earlier in the thread we talked about the UK incident where a male rapist discovered that he is actually a woman, and prison officials moved him to a women's prison where, surprise, he proceeded to commit sex attacks on female prisoners. And people here were stunned, like "wow, how could anybody be that catastrophically stupid? How could anybody with a brain in their head have thought that was a good idea?" And it turns out the same thing is happening in Canada and the US too. So stupidity is contagious, apparently.
I'm glad the issue of sexual assault in women's prisons is such an important one to you, can you point me to all your posts on the subject that don't involve transpeople?
Quote
They/them is bullshit. Fake pronouns like xe/xir are bullshit. Referring to people as menstruators or uterus-havers or human milk feeders is bullshit. All this stuff is bullshit. If I have to go along with this ****, I am going to be as miserable as possible about it, and hope that it is contagious.
Of course this stuff is stupid, it's also completely niche **** that has no effect on anyone whatsoever and yet its driving you nuts, it's such a bizarre fixation.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 11, 2021, 04:21:03 pm
BD is definitely the discussion partner I could be for kimmy. I'm kinda sad we broke up but he is better for her. :'(
Post by: kimmy on January 12, 2021, 01:14:42 am
No we failed to make progress because feminists today are either GirlBoss capitalist representational feminists or frothing at the mouth genital inspectors. They quit the field.
They quit the field, but not in the way you're suggesting. Feminism today, whether you're talking about academia or culture at large, has been swallowed whole by wokeism. In general culture, nobody is advocating for women anymore unless it's "intersectional feminism" that's focused on racism or trans rights. In academia, the "genital inspectors" you complain about are a fringe minority at this point. The mainstream of feminists are too busy redefining womanhood, shitting their pants with rage over Kathleen Stock receiving the Order of the British Empire, and finding ways for cishetero people to identify as queer, to bother themselves with the mundane and uninteresting issues of female people.
Expanding the category of gender beyond A/B seems like a pretty effective way of disrupting the gender binary.
Is it, really? What exactly is being disrupted here? Tessa here is playing basketball, she's wearing pants, and she's got a modelling gig modelling women's clothes for a big retailer. Not terribly disruptive, to be honest. Some teenager might think she's "disrupting the gender binary" or "smashing the patriarchy" by getting a bowl-cut and wearing a turtleneck and picking some new pronouns, but I don't see it.
"Disrupting the Gender Binary" sounds like the title of some shitty undergrad seminar that humanities students are required to take.
Also you seem to taking several different and distinct concepts- gender identity, gender roles and gender expression- and mashing them together.
Gender-people can't seem to define gender identity except in reference to gender roles and gender expression, so hopefully you can forgive my confusion.
I guess the question of why this is an area of mutual interest between genital inspectors and crazed right wing freaks has simply never crossed your mind.
There's a difference-a big one!-between associating with people who don't agree with all your goals and associating with people whose values are predominately antithetical to those you claim to espouse.
The Barack the Bomber has things to say about purity tests lol.
Yeah. He was talking about the idea that if they cut loose everybody who doesn't agree with this principle and everybody who disagrees with that principle and everybody who disagrees with the other thing, pretty soon the party would be so small as to be completely useless. For those already pushed to the fringes by the woke mob, that's a serious concern.
I don't recall any woke groups coming forward to aid the targets of Jessica Yaniv's predatory HRC complaints. A right-wing Bible thumper group called JCCF came forward to do that. In an environment where other lawyers were too afraid of being branded transphobic if they represented those women, they were the only ones willing to take it. It doesn't matter that JCCF are Biblethumping dickheads, it matters that those defendants be represented at the tribunal.
I might oppose 19 out of 20 things that JCCF will go to court to fight for, but hopefully the courts will arrive at the right decision, and JCCF being on the right side in the Yaniv battle doesn't carry over to the next case. Court cases are decided on their own merits.
Keira Bell's lawsuit was crowdfunded, I believe. It might well be that many of the people who donated to her were angry Bible thumpers, but so what? It was a case worth taking to court regardless. The "Alliance Defending Liberty" is the US equivalent to JCCF, and I'm sure that I would disagree with many of the things they have been to court for, but they are goin
genital inspectors
I gather you think that's clever. When you say "genital inspectors" or "your precious body parts" or "bioessentialism is degrading to women because it reduces women to their body parts", you're aligning yourself with the view that those precious body parts aren't of particular relevance to feminism. Which is the opposite of clever.
Because the premise that transwomen are a grave threat to the safety and well-being of ciswomen is unproven. Again, take the transwomen in women's prisons thing: the number of sexual assaults committed by transwomen is a small fraction of the assaults that occur, yet your big concern is around that small percentage and not the overall problem of sexual assaults in prisons. Meanwhile, transwomen in men's prisons are assaulted on a regular basis and you say nothing.
It's sounds like men's prisons are dangerous places. Why is it up to feminists to solve the problem of violence in men's prisons?
The number of assaults committed against transwomen is also a small fraction of the assaults that occur, yet your big concern is transwomen. You know who is the target of the majority of prison violence? Men. I never hear wokies advocating for safer prisons for men. Why is that?
I highly doubt that the number of assaults committed against female prisoners by transwomen inmates is small for any reason except that this is a new thing and that so far there haven't been very many trans women in the same prisons as female people. We're still at the thin edge of the wedge on this, but we already have sex assaults resulting from the small number of trans women being put in with female people. The question isn't whether it would happen, it's how many will happen.
And if men's prison is such hell for transwomen, how come it is that so many male prisoners "discover they're women" while they're in prison?
So you want them to be equal, just...separate?
And there's the inane comparison to Jim Crow laws. Just a few more and you'll have my bingo card filled out.
Yes, separate. That's kind of the whole concept behind single sex spaces. While trans advocate talking points would compare this to separate accommodations for black people, that's a shitty argument. Because courts have repeatedly dismissed the premise that segregation by race is justifiable, they've repeatedly upheld the premise that there are circumstances when segregation by sex is justifiable. Washrooms and locker rooms have been two of those.
So prove that there's an elevated safety risk to women by allowing trans people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. Don't just do the concern troll "just asking questions" bullshit. Put some data out there.
What's odd to me about these anecdotes is they don't actually speak to the issue of trans people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. But you're using it to muddy the waters to say "see, look how those men behave in the bathroom with women! See how putting men in the bathroom with women is a bad idea!"
Those examples should at least help illustrate why we have single-sex washrooms in the first place.
Hard data is difficult to come by. First off, most incidents probably wouldn't rise to the level of a criminal complaint or criminal charges, so where are the statistics going to come from? For example Jessica Yaniv's social media history includes photos taken inside women's washrooms and posts where he complains about not seeing enough "**** and vag" when he hangs out in the women's locker room, but I'm not aware of any charges against Yaniv for such incidents. Most women aren't going to complain, they're going to just feel less safe and act accordingly. The woman who found herself alone in the showers with the trans woman starring at her was scared to make a complaint to her yoga studio because she was afraid it would seem transphobic. So instead she quit her yoga studio and found herself asking strangers on reddit for resources for doing yoga at home. That's how it's going to go. Not a mass wave of attacks, just women one at a time finding themselves in situations where they feel less safe and leaving situations where they don't feel safe anymore.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 12, 2021, 01:16:36 am
Interesting to check in on this.
BD is definitely the discussion partner I could be for kimmy. I'm kinda sad we broke up but he is better for her. :'(
I had been meaning to respond to your last post, but I've had my hands full chatting with Black Dog, and I kind of had a sense that you wanted out of this thread anyway.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 12, 2021, 05:10:19 am
I had been meaning to respond to your last post, but I've had my hands full chatting with Black Dog, and I kind of had a sense that you wanted out of this thread anyway.
-k
Yeah... I wanted to post a kind of Neil Simon, getting-in-a-cab-on-a-rainy-New-York-niight, sad-jazz-with-piano, breakup post.
We'll always have the Tebow thread :'(
But yes, sometimes there's nothing else to be said and BD will go places that I'm not comfortable going. I never thought I was part of the 'public' for this issue.
From Post 1 102 pages ago, when I started the thread:
"My part in this discussion is mostly to listen to others' thoughts, and to express support for citizen rights as a citizen and ally of LGBT people."
Then from Post 2 in response to you:
I don't have any real stake in this discussion, other than the fact that I am an ally and this involves a human rights question in a country where I am a citizen, but if you are interested, I will offer some observation.
Many of my posts have been defending that position from people who thought I was censoring others and trying to explain what I think the role of a public is in these topics.
Post by: Black Dog on January 12, 2021, 10:14:53 am
They quit the field, but not in the way you're suggesting. Feminism today, whether you're talking about academia or culture at large, has been swallowed whole by wokeism.
*citation required
Quote
In general culture, nobody is advocating for women anymore unless it's "intersectional feminism" that's focused on racism or trans rights.
That's not what intersectional feminism is.
Quote
In academia, the "genital inspectors" you complain about are a fringe minority at this point. The mainstream of feminists are too busy redefining womanhood, shitting their pants with rage over Kathleen Stock receiving the Order of the British Empire, and finding ways for cishetero people to identify as queer, to bother themselves with the mundane and uninteresting issues of female people.
Ah so if i get this right your entire rationale for ignoring feminist issues outside of the trans debate is "uh...I know you are but what am I?"
Quote
Is it, really? What exactly is being disrupted here? Tessa here is playing basketball, she's wearing pants, and she's got a modelling gig modelling women's clothes for a big retailer. Not terribly disruptive, to be honest. Some teenager might think she's "disrupting the gender binary" or "smashing the patriarchy" by getting a bowl-cut and wearing a turtleneck and picking some new pronouns, but I don't see it.
"Disrupting the Gender Binary" sounds like the title of some shitty undergrad seminar that humanities students are required to take.
Oh I'm sorry, she's not doing non-binary right to your exact specifications. Please enlighten us as to the proper way to mess with the gender bianry.
Quote
Gender-people can't seem to define gender identity except in reference to gender roles and gender expression, so hopefully you can forgive my confusion.
Yes, sure, it's always their fault.
Quote
Yeah. He was talking about the idea that if they cut loose everybody who doesn't agree with this principle and everybody who disagrees with that principle and everybody who disagrees with the other thing, pretty soon the party would be so small as to be completely useless. For those already pushed to the fringes by the woke mob, that's a serious concern.
Sorry I'm not going to listen to a multi-millionaire with blood on his hands opine about the state of left culture from Richard Branson's yacht. To be clear, the phenomenon he describes isn't new and isn't exclusive to the left or a product of "the woke mob." And historically speaking, such calls for unity and overlooking huge disagreements on values are really just calls for the pesky minorities to sit down and shut up.
Quote
I don't recall any woke groups coming forward to aid the targets of Jessica Yaniv's predatory HRC complaints. A right-wing Bible thumper group called JCCF came forward to do that. In an environment where other lawyers were too afraid of being branded transphobic if they represented those women, they were the only ones willing to take it. It doesn't matter that JCCF are Biblethumping dickheads, it matters that those defendants be represented at the tribunal.
Why didn't the lefty gendercrit feminists do it then?
Quote
I might oppose 19 out of 20 things that JCCF will go to court to fight for, but hopefully the courts will arrive at the right decision, and JCCF being on the right side in the Yaniv battle doesn't carry over to the next case. Court cases are decided on their own merits.
We're not just talking about court cases? We're talking about giving these groups influence so the next time they go after something you actually care about-say, abortion or gay rights- you'll have a hard time saying anything when you already took their money.
Quote
I gather you think that's clever. When you say "genital inspectors" or "your precious body parts" or "bioessentialism is degrading to women because it reduces women to their body parts", you're aligning yourself with the view that those precious body parts aren't of particular relevance to feminism. Which is the opposite of clever.
It's no more or less clever than your "wokies", "genderpeople" or mangling impersonal pronouns to show your anti-woke credentials. The rest is strawman nonsense.
Quote
It's sounds like men's prisons are dangerous places. Why is it up to feminists to solve the problem of violence in men's prisons?
The number of assaults committed against transwomen is also a small fraction of the assaults that occur, yet your big concern is transwomen. You know who is the target of the majority of prison violence? Men. I never hear wokies advocating for safer prisons for men. Why is that?
[/quote]
Literally the only reason I bring it up is in response to you bringing it up in the first place despite not showing any interest in the subject at any other time. But with that being said I bet wokies have done more on this issue than the right wingers you're happy to line up with or even the TERF community at large.
Quote
I highly doubt that the number of assaults committed against female prisoners by transwomen inmates is small for any reason except that this is a new thing and that so far there haven't been very many trans women in the same prisons as female people. We're still at the thin edge of the wedge on this, but we already have sex assaults resulting from the small number of trans women being put in with female people. The question isn't whether it would happen, it's how many will happen.
So your concern isn't violence against women in women's prisons per se but the genital configuration and gender expression of those committing the acts. Gotcha.
Quote
And if men's prison is such hell for transwomen, how come it is that so many male prisoners "discover they're women" while they're in prison
How many is so many, exactly? Is this a real phenomenon or another one of those urgent problems you have a hard time finding any hard data on?
Quote
And there's the inane comparison to Jim Crow laws. Just a few more and you'll have my bingo card filled out.
Yeah it's almost as if these things keep popping up for a reason and instead of engaging it it's easier for you to be dismissive.
Quote
Yes, separate. That's kind of the whole concept behind single sex spaces. While trans advocate talking points would compare this to separate accommodations for black people, that's a shitty argument. Because courts have repeatedly dismissed the premise that segregation by race is justifiable, they've repeatedly upheld the premise that there are circumstances when segregation by sex is justifiable. Washrooms and locker rooms have been two of those.
Except the issue of transgender use of these spaces is still very much up in the air, legally speaking.
The hilarious thing about the idea that people should pee in the washroom that corresponds with their sex at birth is in practice, that this person can use the women's washroom:
(https://www.metroweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Aydian-Dowling-5-by-Brian-Davies.jpg)
But this person needs to use the mens room:
(https://www.interviewmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IMG_3544-1000x885.jpg)
Quote
Those examples should at least help illustrate why we have single-sex washrooms in the first place.
But it requires accepting the premise that biological sex is the only determinant of human behaviour that matters, which is abject nonsense,
Quote
Hard data is difficult to come by. First off, most incidents probably wouldn't rise to the level of a criminal complaint or criminal charges, so where are the statistics going to come from?
So it's an urgent safety issue but also most of the issues aren't serious enough to warrant a criminal complaint? What sort of incidents are we talking about here?
Quote
For example Jessica Yaniv's social media history includes photos taken inside women's washrooms and posts where he complains about not seeing enough "**** and vag" when he hangs out in the women's locker room, but I'm not aware of any charges against Yaniv for such incidents. Most women aren't going to complain, they're going to just feel less safe and act accordingly. The woman who found herself alone in the showers with the trans woman starring at her was scared to make a complaint to her yoga studio because she was afraid it would seem transphobic. So instead she quit her yoga studio and found herself asking strangers on reddit for resources for doing yoga at home. That's how it's going to go. Not a mass wave of attacks, just women one at a time finding themselves in situations where they feel less safe and leaving situations where they don't feel safe anymore.
Sorry but maybe they should complain and help to weed out creeps instead of discriminating against the entirety of a group based on the actions a few. Here's a shocking bit of news: transwomen have been using women's washrooms for ages. You've probably peed in a stall next to one at some point without incident. Which really raises the practical question of how you're going to keep them out without stationing literal genital inspectors at the doors.
Finally, it's extremely telling to me that there's like a handful of examples you're able to come back with over and over again (Yaniv and the possibly apocryphal yoga hard on) and rather than take that as an indication that maybe these are a few isolated incidents perpetrated by creeps (which come in all shapes sizes and genders) you seem to think it's an indication that transpeople are somehow predisposed to being creeps. It's such an obvious echo of gay panics in the past that it's impossible to take seriously and obscures any actual legitimate concerns you may have.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 12, 2021, 12:35:25 pm
I can't say "never" to my future self but I can't honestly see it ever happening.
Post by: Black Dog on January 12, 2021, 01:41:10 pm
Would anyone here date a trans person ? ???
I can't say "never" to my future self but I can't honestly see it ever happening.
It kinda depends on the person.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 12, 2021, 02:02:01 pm
It kinda depends on the person.
Well I guess I meant 'ever' ? Sounds like a yes from you and a "not no" from me.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 12, 2021, 02:03:11 pm
I don't think I could ever get excited about a ****... ever. So for me the question is loaded with assumptions.
Post by: Black Dog on January 12, 2021, 02:18:06 pm
It's also akin to asking "would you ever date someone you couldn't have sex with ?"
I don't think I could ever get excited about a ****... ever. So for me the question is loaded with assumptions.
That's why it's impossible to answer.
Post by: kimmy on January 14, 2021, 12:18:23 am
Would anyone here date a trans person ? ???
I can't say "never" to my future self but I can't honestly see it ever happening.
I couldn't say I would never, but I think it would have to be somebody really extraordinary. We had this chat a while back, and I think I mentioned that trans people complaining about the "cotton ceiling" was one of the straws that broke the camel's back for me.
1. It's also akin to asking "would you ever date someone you couldn't have sex with ?"
2. I don't think I could ever get excited about a ****... ever. So for me the question is loaded with assumptions.
1. So, I feel like there's probably a punchline here waiting to happen, but apparently I have to be the one to point out that there are lots ways to have sex that don't involve pen!s in vag!na. Some trans people (some of those who actually have gender dysphoria, anyway) say that having their genitals touched during sex actually triggers their dysphoria and makes them uncomfortable.
2. I think this is the real deal-breaker for most people on this subject. Most people have a sexual orientation, not a "genital preference", and being reminded that your partner has gear that you're not expecting at an inopportune moment could be a triggering event. Although, some people do get "bottom surgery". I have never seen the results of that.
For me, I spent years trying to like p-i-v sex. It wasn't awful, didn't make me want to kill myself or anything. It just somehow didn't really work for me. I spent years trying to figure out why I didn't get the same kind of thrill from being with my special guy that I got from frolicking with other girls. I kept thinking that once I got more comfortable with it things would be more natural and better, and just never really did. It wasn't awful, it just didn't have that spark of magic. I went through all that once already and have no need to do it again.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 14, 2021, 12:53:41 am
The hilarious thing about the idea that people should pee in the washroom that corresponds with their sex at birth is in practice, that this person can use the women's washroom:
(https://www.metroweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Aydian-Dowling-5-by-Brian-Davies.jpg)
But this person needs to use the mens room:
(https://www.interviewmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IMG_3544-1000x885.jpg)
Here's a shocking bit of news: transwomen have been using women's washrooms for ages. You've probably peed in a stall next to one at some point without incident. Which really raises the practical question of how you're going to keep them out without stationing literal genital inspectors at the doors.
Yeah yeah, I know. Passing trans people exist, and would cause surprise or worse if they went in the washroom that corresponds with their birth sex.
But somebody who looks like ContraPoints (or Blaire White, or Nicole Maines, or that Brazilian swimsuit model...) could go into the womens' room without anybody taking a second glance. Passing individuals could come and go without anybody noticing. If all trans people passed as well as they do, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The issue isn't passing individuals. The issue is non-passing individuals. It's not whether women have the right to know they're in the presence of a trans individual they can't detect, it's whether they have the right to object when some obviously male person wanders in.
Instead of ContraPoints, let's consider Morgane Oger, BC's well-known trans rights activist:
(https://i.imgur.com/uLKXlL8.png)
Mrs Oger is a legitimate activist who has ran for public office and been a high-ranking official with the provincial NDP. She runs a charitable organization. She's probably a very nice person. And she has as much right to go into the women's washroom as ContraPoints or Blaire White, because Canadian law is based on your self-declared gender ID, not on how well you pass.
But she looks like a man in a dress. And if women don't have the right to be concerned if somebody who looks like Morgane Oger shows up in the women's room, then women don't have the right to be concerned when an actual man in a dress shows up in the women's room either.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 14, 2021, 01:13:27 am
*citation required
Maybe you should provide a citation for your fanciful notion that all the feminists have turned into "genital inspectors", because I can't figure out what the **** you're talking about. It's so far removed from reality that it sounds like you're communicating from us from an alternate reality.
That's not what intersectional feminism is.
I know what intersectional feminism is in theory. And I've seen enough of how these discussions go to know how it works in practice.
Ah so if i get this right your entire rationale for ignoring feminist issues outside of the trans debate is "uh...I know you are but what am I?"
What? That's bullshit. The TERFs are the only ones left who are still talking about feminist issues.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 14, 2021, 10:12:59 am
Yeah yeah, I know. Passing trans people exist, and would cause surprise or worse if they went in the washroom that corresponds with their birth sex.
But somebody who looks like ContraPoints (or Blaire White, or Nicole Maines, or that Brazilian swimsuit model...) could go into the womens' room without anybody taking a second glance. Passing individuals could come and go without anybody noticing. If all trans people passed as well as they do, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The issue isn't passing individuals. The issue is non-passing individuals. It's not whether women have the right to know they're in the presence of a trans individual they can't detect, it's whether they have the right to object when some obviously male person wanders in.
Instead of ContraPoints, let's consider Morgane Oger, BC's well-known trans rights activist:
(https://i.imgur.com/uLKXlL8.png)
Mrs Oger is a legitimate activist who has ran for public office and been a high-ranking official with the provincial NDP. She runs a charitable organization. She's probably a very nice person. And she has as much right to go into the women's washroom as ContraPoints or Blaire White, because Canadian law is based on your self-declared gender ID, not on how well you pass.
But she looks like a man in a dress. And if women don't have the right to be concerned if somebody who looks like Morgane Oger shows up in the women's room, then women don't have the right to be concerned when an actual man in a dress shows up in the women's room either.
Do you lose your **** every time some ugly or insufficiently femme-y woman comes into the bathroom? Are non-passing trans people less dangerous than passing trans people?
Weird that someone who is complaining about trans activists relying on gender stereotypes would use those stereotypes to determine who is and who isn't a "concern". Because i thought the issue was personal safety, not "I'm not comfortable sharing a bathroom with a real uggo".
Post by: Black Dog on January 14, 2021, 10:23:32 am
Maybe you should provide a citation for your fanciful notion that all the feminists have turned into "genital inspectors", because I can't figure out what the **** you're talking about. It's so far removed from reality that it sounds like you're communicating from us from an alternate reality.
-k
As is your claim that the wokies have taken over everything. That's the kind of conclusion you come to when you spend too much time on Twitter huffing Jon Kay's farts. By that I mean if you spend all your time searching for evidence that the world is against you as the Ineffectual Dork Web types do, you will come up with a lot of it.
Quote
What? That's bullshit. The TERFs are the only ones left who are still talking about feminist issues.
The only "feminist issues" TERFS care about are related to trans people. C'est tout. I can't find any evidence of any notable TERFs taking stances on issues like sexual or physical violence against incarcerated women or engaging in any activism to reduce it. Take the aforementioned Kathleen Stock; I've looked to see if she's ever advocated for this cause in any other context and found exactly one mention, a twitter post she made where she dismissed the idea that gendercritical feminists don't care about the issue, begs off by saying "such violence is hard to fix tho" and then went back to talking about the trans problem.
Post by: eyeball on January 14, 2021, 01:49:41 pm
Will I have to make a federal case out of it if I'm arrested? Is it time we had a discussion about the right's of the incontinent? That's what this will eventually come down to, when you gotta go you gotta go and no one has the right to stop you.
Post by: kimmy on January 16, 2021, 01:56:43 pm
Do you lose your **** every time some ugly or insufficiently femme-y woman comes into the bathroom? Are non-passing trans people less dangerous than passing trans people?
Weird that someone who is complaining about trans activists relying on gender stereotypes would use those stereotypes to determine who is and who isn't a "concern". Because i thought the issue was personal safety, not "I'm not comfortable sharing a bathroom with a real uggo".
The issue isn't that Oger is "ugly" or "insufficiently femme-y". The issue is that she is OBVIOUSLY MALE. Regardless how much performative femininity she does (and it's a lot, as you can see in her photos) she will continue to be obviously male. As are many (and possibly most) trans women.
You already said the quiet part out loud when you picked a photo of ContraPoints to illustrate why women shouldn't be alarmed about trans women in female spaces. Do the same exercise again but with Oger or Eddie Izzard or Charlotte Clymer. Unless someone recognizes her as Actual Celebrity Trans Woman Eddie Izzard, how is someone supposed to know if they've just stepped into a washroom with a trans woman or with a crazy male person with lipstick?
-k
Post by: guest18 on January 16, 2021, 02:08:21 pm
Post by: kimmy on January 16, 2021, 02:40:54 pm
As is your claim that the wokies have taken over everything. That's the kind of conclusion you come to when you spend too much time on Twitter huffing Jon Kay's farts. By that I mean if you spend all your time searching for evidence that the world is against you as the Ineffectual Dork Web types do, you will come up with a lot of it.
The only "feminist issues" TERFS care about are related to trans people. C'est tout. I can't find any evidence of any notable TERFs taking stances on issues like sexual or physical violence against incarcerated women or engaging in any activism to reduce it. Take the aforementioned Kathleen Stock; I've looked to see if she's ever advocated for this cause in any other context and found exactly one mention, a twitter post she made where she dismissed the idea that gendercritical feminists don't care about the issue, begs off by saying "such violence is hard to fix tho" and then went back to talking about the trans problem.
You checked her twitter to see if trans people are all she talks about? But what if she posts her serious academic work on Tik-Tok or Facebook??
A lot of people who have found the TERF community are there because they're sick of gender-theory bullshit, of course. But a lot of people there are talking about stuff that doesn't relate to trans stuff. The RF part, rather than the TE part. The TERFs are talking about sex work, p0rn, depictions of women in media and entertainment, and other things that used to be the domain of mainstream feminism before everything went woke. Since encountering the TERFs I have thought a lot about my views on p0rn and sex work in particular.
Also, you seem to have this idea that perhaps I was just minding my business and then read a Quillette article one day and BAM instant transphobia. That's not the case. As I mentioned early in this thread, I was all on board the trans rights train back when it was "we just need a place to pee". I had never even heard of TERFs until Michael informed us in this thread that his woke friends were "CANCELLING!" Meghan Murphy because she's "a TERF". There has been a long series of things that made me break with the crowd on this issue. The very first post in this thread... that women are expected to shower with pen1s-people without complaint. Trans activists like Rachel V McKinnon (now "Veronica Ivy") demanding trans women be allowed into women's sports (Veronica's obnoxious personality has probably turned more people against the trans rights agenda than any number of Quillette articles.) The "cotton ceiling" stuff-- the guilt and shaming and intimidation directed towards lesbians that don't want "girldick" in their sex lives. A few years ago when I was single I went on PlentyOfFish (or Plenty Offish as I now think of it) and was contacted by a few non-passing "transbians" and thought to myself "oh, look, crazy people, how cute." But then later I found out that you're actually a Bad Person if you aren't interested in transbians. I think that was probably what sent me off into the wilderness... I was like "is this for real?" And I think that was probably where I came into first-hand contact with the TERFs. And that's a pretty common theme... most of the people who've found the TERF Dark Web have some story that starts with "I used to be an open-minded liberal person until..."
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 16, 2021, 03:03:13 pm
Sorry but maybe they should complain and help to weed out creeps instead of discriminating against the entirety of a group based on the actions a few.
Easy for you to say. That's a course of action that can get you branded as a TERF, get you doxxed and threatened, even get people contacting your employer to demand you be fired. Given a choice between that vs just not going back there again, most sane people will just not go back.
And if a customer does complain, what's a business supposed to do? Post #1 in this thread talks about a business that tried to respond to concerns from female customers about pen1s-people naked in their spaces, and look at the trouble they got into as a result.
The purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn one witch, it's to scare everyone else into compliance. That goes for both women who'd complain about shlongs in their showers, and businesses considering how to respond to those complaints.
Finally, it's extremely telling to me that there's like a handful of examples you're able to come back with over and over again (Yaniv and the possibly apocryphal yoga hard on) and rather than take that as an indication that maybe these are a few isolated incidents perpetrated by creeps (which come in all shapes sizes and genders) you seem to think it's an indication that transpeople are somehow predisposed to being creeps. It's such an obvious echo of gay panics in the past that it's impossible to take seriously and obscures any actual legitimate concerns you may have.
No serious person is claiming that all trans people are creeps and predators. People are saying that on-demand gender self-ID is an idea tailor-made to be exploited by creeps and predators.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 16, 2021, 03:07:32 pm
Do bathroom rapists typically dress as women? Does this make it easier to **** people?
I'm not really sure. But on-demand gender self-ID does give a would-be predator a pretext to enter a women's space to scout for an opportunity.
-k
Post by: guest18 on January 16, 2021, 04:43:15 pm
It would have to be a bathroom with little traffic for it to be possible to commit a sexual assault. And if that were the case, it would be easy to just go and wait inside one of the stalls. No need to dress up in lady clothes to do that. I can't imagine it's an ongoing problem, with or without trans rights.
Post by: BC_cheque on January 16, 2021, 05:09:53 pm
The issue isn't that Oger is "ugly" or "insufficiently femme-y". The issue is that she is OBVIOUSLY MALE. Regardless how much performative femininity she does (and it's a lot, as you can see in her photos) she will continue to be obviously male. As are many (and possibly most) trans women.
BD asked a good question and you didn't really address it in this response.
Genuinely curious here, are you concerned about the 'safety' or is it merely about being 'uncomfortable' with transwomen in the bathrooms?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 16, 2021, 06:59:32 pm
I'm not really sure. But on-demand gender self-ID does give a would-be predator a pretext to enter a women's space to scout for an opportunity.
-k
Doesn’t have to be a predator.... I think women should be able to feel safe from being ogled by creepy dudes in washrooms.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 16, 2021, 07:00:19 pm
BD asked a good question and you didn't really address it in this response.
Genuinely curious here, are you concerned about the 'safety' or is it merely about being 'uncomfortable' with transwomen in the bathrooms?
Kimmy has already said it’s a safety issue.
Post by: BC_cheque on January 16, 2021, 07:27:47 pm
Kimmy has already said it’s a safety issue.
She's obfuscated, using the two interchangeably, it's difficult to tell.
But thanks for answering for her??
Post by: BC_cheque on January 16, 2021, 07:28:14 pm
Doesn’t have to be a predator.... I think women should be able to feel safe from being ogled by creepy dudes in washrooms.
What about creepy lesbians?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 16, 2021, 07:29:57 pm
What about creepy lesbians?
Historically, women haven’t been an issue with other women’s safety and security like men have. It’s simple statistics to show who women should be concerned with.
Post by: BC_cheque on January 16, 2021, 07:30:55 pm
Historically, women haven’t been an issue with other women’s safety and security like men have. It’s simple statistics to show who women should be concerned with.
Spoken like a man who's never been cornered by a lesbian. Trust me, they can be as bad as men.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 16, 2021, 07:35:38 pm
Spoken like a man who's never been cornered by a lesbian. Trust me, they can be as bad as men.
Spoken like someone who didn’t read my post...
Let’s get real... men are much more dangerous to women, statistically speaking, than other women.
Post by: BC_cheque on January 16, 2021, 07:36:43 pm
Spoken like someone who didn’t read my post...
Let’s get real... men are much more dangerous to women, statistically speaking, than other women.
Now you're using safety and comfort interchangeably. What does 'oggling' have to do with safety?
And clearly I did read your post:
Doesn’t have to be a predator.... I think women should be able to feel safe from being ogled by creepy dudes in washrooms.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 16, 2021, 07:42:29 pm
Now you're using safety and comfort interchangeably. What does 'oggling' have to do with safety?
And clearly I did read your post:
I said “feel safe”. = safety.
And I’m pretty sure that women are also made to feel uncomfortable by men a hell of a lot more than they are by women as well anyway.
Post by: BC_cheque on January 16, 2021, 07:50:00 pm
I said “feel safe”. = safety.
And I’m pretty sure that women are also made to feel uncomfortable by men a hell of a lot more than they are by women as well anyway.
Nobody ever got hurt from being oggled, it's only unsafe if the oggling becomes something else.
This is where you (and Kimmy) are conflating safety with comfort.
Post by: Black Dog on January 17, 2021, 01:43:45 pm
The issue isn't that Oger is "ugly" or "insufficiently femme-y". The issue is that she is OBVIOUSLY MALE. Regardless how much performative femininity she does (and it's a lot, as you can see in her photos) she will continue to be obviously male. As are many (and possibly most) trans women.
You already said the quiet part out loud when you picked a photo of ContraPoints to illustrate why women shouldn't be alarmed about trans women in female spaces. Do the same exercise again but with Oger or Eddie Izzard or Charlotte Clymer. Unless someone recognizes her as Actual Celebrity Trans Woman Eddie Izzard, how is someone supposed to know if they've just stepped into a washroom with a trans woman or with a crazy male person with lipstick?
-k
How someone looks has no bearing on whether they pose a safety risk or not? You're conflating "discomfort with someone who doesn't look feminine enough" with a threat to safety.
When you say " I's not whether women have the right to know they're in the presence of a trans individual they can't detect, it's whether they have the right to object when some obviously male person wanders in" you're acknowledging that the issue is one of perception based on looks and not the probability of harm.
You checked her twitter to see if trans people are all she talks about? But what if she posts her serious academic work on Tik-Tok or Facebook??
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg/220px-Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg)
Quote
A lot of people who have found the TERF community are there because they're sick of gender-theory bullshit, of course. But a lot of people there are talking about stuff that doesn't relate to trans stuff. The RF part, rather than the TE part. The TERFs are talking about sex work, p0rn, depictions of women in media and entertainment, and other things that used to be the domain of mainstream feminism before everything went woke. Since encountering the TERFs I have thought a lot about my views on p0rn and sex work in particular.
Also, you seem to have this idea that perhaps I was just minding my business and then read a Quillette article one day and BAM instant transphobia. That's not the case. As I mentioned early in this thread, I was all on board the trans rights train back when it was "we just need a place to pee". I had never even heard of TERFs until Michael informed us in this thread that his woke friends were "CANCELLING!" Meghan Murphy because she's "a TERF". There has been a long series of things that made me break with the crowd on this issue. The very first post in this thread... that women are expected to shower with pen1s-people without complaint. Trans activists like Rachel V McKinnon (now "Veronica Ivy") demanding trans women be allowed into women's sports (Veronica's obnoxious personality has probably turned more people against the trans rights agenda than any number of Quillette articles.) The "cotton ceiling" stuff-- the guilt and shaming and intimidation directed towards lesbians that don't want "girldick" in their sex lives. A few years ago when I was single I went on PlentyOfFish (or Plenty Offish as I now think of it) and was contacted by a few non-passing "transbians" and thought to myself "oh, look, crazy people, how cute." But then later I found out that you're actually a Bad Person if you aren't interested in transbians. I think that was probably what sent me off into the wilderness... I was like "is this for real?" And I think that was probably where I came into first-hand contact with the TERFs. And that's a pretty common theme... most of the people who've found the TERF Dark Web have some story that starts with "I used to be an open-minded liberal person until..."
When 99.9% of this stuff has no bearing or impact on the world at large, it's impossible to see terfs as anything buts an obsessive subculture with a victim fetish, the kind of people who elevate Tumblr posts into the next great existential threat to civilization. But hey at least they offer community, but then so does QAnon.
Easy for you to say. That's a course of action that can get you branded as a TERF, get you doxxed and threatened, even get people contacting your employer to demand you be fired. Given a choice between that vs just not going back there again, most sane people will just not go back.
If you're more concerned about being called transphobic than you are about your personal safety, you're probablynot all that concerned about your safety.
Quote
And if a customer does complain, what's a business supposed to do? Post #1 in this thread talks about a business that tried to respond to concerns from female customers about pen1s-people naked in their spaces, and look at the trouble they got into as a result.
The purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn one witch, it's to scare everyone else into compliance. That goes for both women who'd complain about shlongs in their showers, and businesses considering how to respond to those complaints.
I didn't see anything indicating they changed their policy on genitals so it doesn't seem like the trans witch hunters are very effective.
Quote
No serious person is claiming that all trans people are creeps and predators. People are saying that on-demand gender self-ID is an idea tailor-made to be exploited by creeps and predators.
And because of that, your solution is to discriminate against all trans people, so you can see the problem
Post by: kimmy on January 19, 2021, 02:10:52 am
BD asked a good question and you didn't really address it in this response.
Genuinely curious here, are you concerned about the 'safety' or is it merely about being 'uncomfortable' with transwomen in the bathrooms?
Both.
I feel that if the bar to entry to women's spaces is set so low that any male can wander in, then the worst kinds of men will exploit that. And I disagree with the notion that unless a physical assault occurs, no harm has been done. Women have the right to privacy and dignity.
As for "uncomfortable", I don't want washrooms and showers and changing rooms to be added to the list of places where women need to be wary of men. That list is too long already. I don't like the advice that "women will just have to get over our discomfort" because there's good reasons for being uncomfortable and because I don't like that the emotional labor for all of these changes always falls on women.
Personally, if I wander into the women's washroom and there's a male there, I'm not going to confront him, but I'm also not going to get in a stall while he's there. I'll wash my hands, fix my hair, look for the eyelash in my eye, check my text messages, until he leaves. If he hasn't left by the time I've done a couple of those things, then I'm leaving because it's starting to look like he's just hanging around. If I wander into the showers or the changing room and there's a male there, I'm walking right past. I'll go home with my wet swimsuit under my clothes if I have to.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 19, 2021, 02:46:03 am
How someone looks has no bearing on whether they pose a safety risk or not? You're conflating "discomfort with someone who doesn't look feminine enough" with a threat to safety.
When you say " I's not whether women have the right to know they're in the presence of a trans individual they can't detect, it's whether they have the right to object when some obviously male person wanders in" you're acknowledging that the issue is one of perception based on looks and not the probability of harm.
If some modest number of trans women can "stealth" their way through women's spaces, that's one thing. Few male people (especially those who aren't highly dedicated) are going to be able to do that. Creepy Joe down the street isn't going to be able to pull off a Blaire White no matter how much lipstick he buys. It's still a women's space even if Blaire White was born male.
But if the bar gets set so low that any male can enter without objection, then there isn't actually any such thing as women's spaces anymore. That's a negative for women.
When 99.9% of this stuff has no bearing or impact on the world at large, it's impossible to see terfs as anything buts an obsessive subculture with a victim fetish, the kind of people who elevate Tumblr posts into the next great existential threat to civilization. But hey at least they offer community, but then so does QAnon.
You said TERFs only care about trans stuff, I told you they don't. Now you say that TERFs only care about unimportant stuff and Tumblr posts, and that isn't true either. At this point it's starting to feel like arguing with an 8 year old.
If you're more concerned about being called transphobic than you are about your personal safety, you're probablynot all that concerned about your safety.
You asked why women don't complain about creeps. Were you suggesting they file these complaints while they're in the shower with creeps? Obviously she gets herself out of that situation as quickly and safely as possible. We were talking about what she does AFTER that.
And once her immediate safety is taken care of, she has to decide what to do next. And yeah: between engaging in a likely futile and potentially dangerous attempt to "help weed out creeps" or taking her business elsewhere, it's an easy choice.
I didn't see anything indicating they changed their policy on genitals so it doesn't seem like the trans witch hunters are very effective.
My recollection is that the Body Blitz spa changed their policy to allow trans women in, and also to change their clothing-optional policy to a bottoms mandatory policy.
The exact same battle was fought this past week in Australia at the McIver Ladies Baths, soon to be the McIver Are Dongs Welcome Baths.
And because of that, your solution is to discriminate against all trans people, so you can see the problem
We discriminate against men too. Most men aren't creeps or predators, but we don't let men into women's spaces either. Most men seem to understand that this discrimination is for women's benefit and don't take it as a personal slight.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 19, 2021, 10:58:28 am
If some modest number of trans women can "stealth" their way through women's spaces, that's one thing. Few male people (especially those who aren't highly dedicated) are going to be able to do that. Creepy Joe down the street isn't going to be able to pull off a Blaire White no matter how much lipstick he buys. It's still a women's space even if Blaire White was born male.
But if the bar gets set so low that any male can enter without objection, then there isn't actually any such thing as women's spaces anymore. That's a negative for women.
And how do you police that? What it comes down to is you think someone who looks insufficiently feminine should be denied access to women's spaces (somehow, since the enforcement mechanism isn't exactly clear). So less an objection to trans people per se as trans people not blessed with the ability to pass (oh and also butch lesbians. Sorry KD Lang, you're SOL.)
Butch lesbian opens up about ‘increasing harassment’ she faces when she uses public toilets
(https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787)
Quote
You said TERFs only care about trans stuff, I told you they don't. Now you say that TERFs only care about unimportant stuff and Tumblr posts, and that isn't true either. At this point it's starting to feel like arguing with an 8 year old.
No I stand by the fact that TERFS in the main care about trans stuff above all else: that's why they're TERFS. The fact they have other socially conservative views doesn't make your point any stronger. Also the fact that most of the stuff you listed is exactly as I described doesn't make TERFs look any less like weird grievance collectors obsessed with their own victimhood.
Quote
You asked why women don't complain about creeps. Were you suggesting they file these complaints while they're in the shower with creeps? Obviously she gets herself out of that situation as quickly and safely as possible. We were talking about what she does AFTER that.
And once her immediate safety is taken care of, she has to decide what to do next. And yeah: between engaging in a likely futile and potentially dangerous attempt to "help weed out creeps" or taking her business elsewhere, it's an easy choice.
What the **** are you even talking about? I never suggested they take immediate action, but if someone is making unwanted sexual advances or engaging in behaviour that makes one feel unsafe, then that person should be reported as soon as possible. But it's weird you think it's better to discriminate against any non creep than just talk to the manager.
Quote
My recollection is that the Body Blitz spa changed their policy to allow trans women in, and also to change their clothing-optional policy to a bottoms mandatory policy.
The exact same battle was fought this past week in Australia at the McIver Ladies Baths, soon to be the McIver Are Dongs Welcome Baths.
That sounds like a solution that works for everyone but i'm sure you have a problem with that too.
Quote
We discriminate against men too. Most men aren't creeps or predators, but we don't let men into women's spaces either. Most men seem to understand that this discrimination is for women's benefit and don't take it as a personal slight.
Yes because most men aren't transwomen? The clear thread running through all of your TERF arguments is that you think cis women are a class deserving of greater protections than transwomen, who are, to you, simply men in dresses not entitled to any particular consideration.
Post by: kimmy on January 26, 2021, 12:50:45 am
And how do you police that? What it comes down to is you think someone who looks insufficiently feminine should be denied access to women's spaces (somehow, since the enforcement mechanism isn't exactly clear). So less an objection to trans people per se as trans people not blessed with the ability to pass (oh and also butch lesbians. Sorry KD Lang, you're SOL.)
Butch lesbian opens up about ‘increasing harassment’ she faces when she uses public toilets (https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787)
You kind of answered your own question there: the only thing keeping Creepy Joe from wandering into the women's restroom any time he feels like is the fear of being confronted by women who don't believe he belongs there. So while that might suck for Eloise, thank goodness that there are still cranky old women who haven't heard that women's washrooms and changing rooms are dongs-welcome spaces. Stories like this one (I've seen similar stories where it's trans women being yelled at, or Eddie Izzard being yelled at) are intended to send the message that it's wrong for women to question the presence of anyone in women's spaces. And if that becomes the norm then they're not women's spaces anymore, they're just spaces.
Men's spaces will continue to be single-sex, of course.
No I stand by the fact that TERFS in the main care about trans stuff above all else: that's why they're TERFS. The fact they have other socially conservative views doesn't make your point any stronger. Also the fact that most of the stuff you listed is exactly as I described doesn't make TERFs look any less like weird grievance collectors obsessed with their own victimhood.
What's wrong with having conservative views about **** and sex work? Why have progressives become so enamored of the idea that **** and sex-work are "empowering" for women?
What the **** are you even talking about? I never suggested they take immediate action, but if someone is making unwanted sexual advances or engaging in behaviour that makes one feel unsafe, then that person should be reported as soon as possible. But it's weird you think it's better to discriminate against any non creep than just talk to the manager.
On the one hand you speak in favor of this notion that cis women are the bad-guys for complaining about the presence of males in "women's" spaces, but on the other hand you're perplexed about why women would be reluctant to complain about an incident? Really? Really?
That sounds like a solution that works for everyone but i'm sure you have a problem with that too.
To me a solution that works for everyone would be that the trans women take their business to establishments where trans women are welcomed, and Body Blitz continue its existing policy. Instead, the clothing-optional space ceased to exist. It's similar to the Vancouver **** Relief women's shelter controversy: it wasn't sufficient for trans activists that several trans-inclusive shelters exist in Vancouver, their goal continues to be that the only women's shelter in Vancouver exclusively for cis women be either opened to trans women or closed for good.
Yes because most men aren't transwomen? The clear thread running through all of your TERF arguments is that you think cis women are a class deserving of greater protections than transwomen,
They are, and it's absurd to me that this is even a controversial thing to say at this point in time.
who are, to you, simply men in dresses not entitled to any particular consideration.
Is it possible that some of them are, in fact, simply men in dresses? One of the things that I find tough to swallow about trans ideology is that it insists we view all trans people as being equally valid. It doesn't matter if the person became trans at age 5 or age 65. It doesn't matter if the person began to identify as a woman 5 years ago or 5 minutes ago. It doesn't matter if the person has undergone medical transition or if they still walk around looking entirely male.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 26, 2021, 10:10:44 am
You kind of answered your own question there: the only thing keeping Creepy Joe from wandering into the women's restroom any time he feels like is the fear of being confronted by women who don't believe he belongs there. So while that might suck for Eloise, thank goodness that there are still cranky old women who haven't heard that women's washrooms and changing rooms are dongs-welcome spaces. Stories like this one (I've seen similar stories where it's trans women being yelled at, or Eddie Izzard being yelled at) are intended to send the message that it's wrong for women to question the presence of anyone in women's spaces. And if that becomes the norm then they're not women's spaces anymore, they're just spaces.
Your policing method is "yelling at any person you deem insufficiently feminine-looking, whether they are trans or not" and if they are actually natal women, oh well, too bad, they should just femme it up. So much for gender stereotypes being bad things that only the brave TERFs are fighting against.
Quote
Men's spaces will continue to be single-sex, of course.
Right because transmen don't currently use men's spaces?
Quote
What's wrong with having conservative views about **** and sex work? Why have progressives become so enamored of the idea that **** and sex-work are "empowering" for women?
Nothing, necessarily, just another example of the diminishing space between the so-called lefty TERF/SWERF and the so-con right.
Quote
On the one hand you speak in favor of this notion that cis women are the bad-guys for complaining about the presence of males in "women's" spaces, but on the other hand you're perplexed about why women would be reluctant to complain about an incident? Really? Really?
Because I thought the issue is behaviour, not simply someone's existence. At least that's what you led me to believe until the sudden shift in tack a few posts back when suddenly it became a problem of insufficiently female-looking people creeping you out by their mere presence.
Quote
To me a solution that works for everyone would be that the trans women take their business to establishments where trans women are welcomed, and Body Blitz continue its existing policy. Instead, the clothing-optional space ceased to exist. It's similar to the Vancouver **** Relief women's shelter controversy: it wasn't sufficient for trans activists that several trans-inclusive shelters exist in Vancouver, their goal continues to be that the only women's shelter in Vancouver exclusively for cis women be either opened to trans women or closed for good.
Ah yes, that famously huge market presence.
Quote
They are, and it's absurd to me that this is even a controversial thing to say at this point in time.
Mask off.
Quote
Is it possible that some of them are, in fact, simply men in dresses? One of the things that I find tough to swallow about trans ideology is that it insists we view all trans people as being equally valid. It doesn't matter if the person became trans at age 5 or age 65. It doesn't matter if the person began to identify as a woman 5 years ago or 5 minutes ago. It doesn't matter if the person has undergone medical transition or if they still walk around looking entirely male.
What's the alternative? Assume everyone is a creep who just wants to perv out in women's bathrooms? Interrogate every transperson about their history of gender dysphoria before you let them pee? oh wait: it's "force them into situations where their own safety could be compromised because who really gives a ****."
Anyway at this point I think I'm just going to walk away from this topic because it's pretty clear this is not going anywhere.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 27, 2021, 11:43:05 am
This person got the boot off the women’s ringette team for identifying as a male. They are biologically female....
I guess the league is more progressive than people want them to be? What happens when a transgender female, who is a biological male, signs up for the league? I guess, based on kicking this person out, they would welcome the biological male, who identifies now as female?
As an aside.... I had no idea ringette on ice was even a sport.... why not just play hockey???
Post by: wilber on January 27, 2021, 12:00:29 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/docproject/the-teens-are-alright-1.5877661/this-teen-was-a-celebrated-ringette-goalie-in-quebec-until-the-league-learned-he-was-transgender-1.5877666
This person got the boot off the women’s ringette team for identifying as a male. They are biologically female....
I guess the league is more progressive than people want them to be? What happens when a transgender female, who is a biological male, signs up for the league? I guess, based on kicking this person out, they would welcome the biological male, who identifies now as female?
As an aside.... I had no idea ringette on ice was even a sport.... why not just play hockey???
Good question, I would think a male identifying as female would be a bigger problem for the league.
Maybe they are just saying they don't recognize the concept of gender identity period when it comes to sport.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on January 27, 2021, 12:27:46 pm
Good question, I would think a male identifying as female would be a bigger problem for the league.
Maybe they are just saying they don't recognize the concept of gender identity period when it comes to sport.
I would think that the issue in any sport should be fairness to the athletes. I can’t see how allowing the person in the article to play on a women’s team could possibly be negative in terms of fairness.
A biological male who is now a woman, on the other hand, would raise fairness concerns.
Post by: kimmy on January 28, 2021, 12:26:20 am
Your policing method is "yelling at any person you deem insufficiently feminine-looking, whether they are trans or not" and if they are actually natal women, oh well, too bad, they should just femme it up. So much for gender stereotypes being bad things that only the brave TERFs are fighting against.
It is what it is. Despite what Eloise would have you believe, I doubt that she would have been more welcome in women's spaces in 2000 or 1990 or 1980 than in 2020, because this push to make observably male people welcome in women's private spaces is a very new thing. The only thing preserving female spaces as females spaces is the social norm, and the only thing upholding that social norm is that people speak out when it is violated. You'd have people not speak out when they perceive that social norm violate, in which case the only thing left preserving women's spaces is an honor system. Honor systems are without value, because the only people who respect an honor system are people with honor. The people an honor system fails to keep out are the exact people who the system is supposed to protect against. So you can see the dilemma.
What you (and trans rights activists and other boosters and supporters) are advocating for is for women to never question the presence of male individuals in sex-segregated spaces. You can feign concern for Eloise and ContraPoints and other sympathetic individuals, but that is what this boils down to. You want women to meekly accept male people individuals in private spaces without question. That's the indisputable outcome of what you're advocating for. And I can't accept that as anything except for a burden being placed upon women.
The point of your Eloise article (or the Eddie Izzard article, or any number of other articles chiding women for being fearful of men in their spaces) is that women need to put aside their own feelings for some alleged greater good. Which is pretty much the entire history of the human race, so perhaps you can understand why I don't see this as being as "progressive" as progressives seem to think it is.
Right because transmen don't currently use men's spaces?
Do they?
I never hear about trans men demanding to be put in men's prisons. I recall a trans man protester from Portland who wanted to be in the women's jails rather than the men's, he didn't think he would be safe in confinement with cis men.
I never hear of trans men demanding access to men's sports. The only trans man I'm aware of who is remotely competitive in men's sports is female-at-birth distance runner Chris Mosier. (Not a coincidence that Mosier is in distance running, one of the few sports where the top athletes are slim and slightly muscular rather than large and powerful.)
I'm sure that you'd point to Buck Angel as a trans man who would walk into a men's restroom without anybody taking a second glance; I'd say that like Blaire White that's an issue of being highly passing rather than an indication of widespread comfort among trans men in male spaces. I suspect that trans men who aren't highly passing are scared shitless of being in single-sex spaces with cis men.
Nothing, necessarily, just another example of the diminishing space between the so-called lefty TERF/SWERF and the so-con right.
It seems to me like the space between the "progressives" who think that sex work and p0rn are "empowering" for women, and the incels and MRAs is likewise pretty slim. It seems to me that the space between progressives who want lesbians to "unlearn their genital preferences" and the conservative Christians who want lesbians to undergo conversion therapy is so narrow you couldn't even slide a piece of paper in there. So... with the birds I share this lonely view, I guess.
So why do progressives have such a hard-on for p0rn and sex-work right now, anyway?
Because I thought the issue is behaviour, not simply someone's existence.
If you're trying to tell me that you think complaining to the management about that encounter would yield any possible positive results for either the woman complaining or for the business, you're either dumb or naive or perhaps just being dishonest with me. Self-identify as you wish, but I know that you're not dumb.
At least that's what you led me to believe until the sudden shift in tack a few posts back when suddenly it became a problem of insufficiently female-looking people creeping you out by their mere presence.
nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh. Hold up. That started when you posted a picture if a highly passing trans woman to illustrate why cis women should feel comfortable sharing women's spaces with trans women. If you want to posit the appearance of ContraPoints as a reason why women should feel comfortable sharing private space with trans women, you should be prepared to explain why women should feel just as comforable sharing their private spaces with somebody who looks like Morgane Oger or Charlotte Clymer. Michelle Winter was in the news last week. Google up Michelle Winter, tell me if you think women should have felt comfortable sharing a changing room with Michelle Winter.
Ah yes, that famously huge market presence.
But I keep hearing that most women love trans inclusion and that only a tiny fringe are opposed. Surely all a spa or health club would have to do is hang out a shingle that says "Trans Inclusive!" and cis women would flock to the door. Surely you aren't suggesting that most cis women don't really want to shower and change with ****-people?
Mask off.
Yes, I am going full mask-off as a heretic who believes that biologically female people have their own special needs and concerns that are separate from those of males who identify as females. So what apparel do you wear to signify your disagreement with that premise? A clown hat and floppy shoes?
What's the alternative? Assume everyone is a creep who just wants to perv out in women's bathrooms? Interrogate every transperson about their history of gender dysphoria before you let them pee? oh wait: it's "force them into situations where their own safety could be compromised because who really gives a ****."
I don't assume that everyone is a creep who wants to perv out in women's washrooms. I just recognize that this is something that will be exploited by creeps and perverts. And we know that's not a hypothetical, we know it's a fact. You earlier complained that I keep mentioning Jessica Yaniv. Well, the reason I keep mentioning Yaniv is that it forces people like you to acknowledge the reality of this. You guys always used to always respond to this type of thing with "that would never happen!" and now you can't do that anymore. Instead of "that would never happen" it's now "you gotta break a few eggs."
You mentioned earlier that you find it upsetting that the TERFs don't seem to care what might happen to trans women in men's prisons. Well, I completely empathize with that, because there are few things that have done more to harden my heart against trans rights activists than their continual insistence on responding to every concern with "that's a myth" or "that would never happen." Responding to every **** thing with "that's a myth" or "that would never happen" shows that trans activists are either completely disconnected from reality, or have zero empathy for cisgender women, or both. Trans women and their boosters keep talking about what great allies they are for cis women in "smashing the patriarchy". That's a bunch of ****. The fact of it is this: if you guys can't understand the anxiety cis women feel when male people enter our spaces, you are not capable of being our allies in any capacity. You said you're taking some time off from this thread, so that's something for you to ruminate on while you're away.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 28, 2021, 11:03:05 am
It is what it is. Despite what Eloise would have you believe, I doubt that she would have been more welcome in women's spaces in 2000 or 1990 or 1980 than in 2020, because this push to make observably male people welcome in women's private spaces is a very new thing. The only thing preserving female spaces as females spaces is the social norm, and the only thing upholding that social norm is that people speak out when it is violated. You'd have people not speak out when they perceive that social norm violate, in which case the only thing left preserving women's spaces is an honor system. Honor systems are without value, because the only people who respect an honor system are people with honor. The people an honor system fails to keep out are the exact people who the system is supposed to protect against. So you can see the dilemma.
What you (and trans rights activists and other boosters and supporters) are advocating for is for women to never question the presence of male individuals in sex-segregated spaces. You can feign concern for Eloise and ContraPoints and other sympathetic individuals, but that is what this boils down to. You want women to meekly accept male people individuals in private spaces without question. That's the indisputable outcome of what you're advocating for. And I can't accept that as anything except for a burden being placed upon women.
I'm talking about behaviour not someone's mere existence. Are you telling me that you'd confront someone just going about their business in a washroom simply on the basis of their looks, regardless of what they're actually doing? Again, the terms seem to have shifted here from "we're legitimately concerned about safety" to "we don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable" which are not interchangeable.
So what is being asked is that you accept transwomen into these spaces without assuming they are perverts by virtue of their biological sex at birth. I take your point on the psychological burden that may impose and sympathize to a degree, but that sympathy is blunted by your indifference to the consequences of your preferred policies to other marginalized individuals (though I doubt you would consider them as such). Why is your comfort more important than someone else's physical safety?
Quote
I'm sure that you'd point to Buck Angel as a trans man who would walk into a men's restroom without anybody taking a second glance; I'd say that like Blaire White that's an issue of being highly passing rather than an indication of widespread comfort among trans men in male spaces. I suspect that trans men who aren't highly passing are scared shitless of being in single-sex spaces with cis men.
And under your rules, they aren't welcome in women's spaces if they look or dress too manly.
Quote
It seems to me like the space between the "progressives" who think that sex work and p0rn are "empowering" for women, and the incels and MRAs is likewise pretty slim. It seems to me that the space between progressives who want lesbians to "unlearn their genital preferences" and the conservative Christians who want lesbians to undergo conversion therapy is so narrow you couldn't even slide a piece of paper in there. So... with the birds I share this lonely view, I guess.
Part of the problem with embedding oneself so deeply in TERFland is one marinates in these anecdotes and end up assuming it's the norm or representative. But Twitter and Tumblr aren't reality and the internet has a way of warping the message (like how the cotton ceiling thing went from a discussion about shame and body image in queer relationships to "transwomen want to coerce lesbians into taking the D.") Stepping back from this stuff for a while is probably healthy.
(Also if you think MRAs and incels are in favour of p0rn, you signalling that don't know anything about those groups, who are actually obsessed with women's sexual purity.)
Quote
If you're trying to tell me that you think complaining to the management about that encounter would yield any possible positive results for either the woman complaining or for the business, you're either dumb or naive or perhaps just being dishonest with me. Self-identify as you wish, but I know that you're not dumb.
I too love to invent scenarios in my head so I can get mad at the outcome I imagined (which seems to be a large percentage of TERF complaints).
Quote
nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh. Hold up. That started when you posted a picture if a highly passing trans woman to illustrate why cis women should feel comfortable sharing women's spaces with trans women. If you want to posit the appearance of ContraPoints as a reason why women should feel comfortable sharing private space with trans women, you should be prepared to explain why women should feel just as comforable sharing their private spaces with somebody who looks like Morgane Oger or Charlotte Clymer. Michelle Winter was in the news last week. Google up Michelle Winter, tell me if you think women should have felt comfortable sharing a changing room with Michelle Winter.
Would you be comfortable sharing the space with someone who looks like KD Lang or Abby McEnany?
Quote
But I keep hearing that most women love trans inclusion and that only a tiny fringe are opposed. Surely all a spa or health club would have to do is hang out a shingle that says "Trans Inclusive!" and cis women would flock to the door. Surely you aren't suggesting that most cis women don't really want to shower and change with ****-people?
Transpeople are a small market share and the push for trans rights is relatively new so the idea that businesses are now throwing their doors open to them is pretty stupid.
Quote
Yes, I am going full mask-off as a heretic who believes that biologically female people have their own special needs and concerns that are separate from those of males who identify as females. So what apparel do you wear to signify your disagreement with that premise? A clown hat and floppy shoes?
No you're going mask off as someone who believes ciswomen deserve greater rights and protections than transwomen. If a transwoman gets beaten to death in a men's room, well that's just the price they pay for ciswomen's comfort. Like you say: gotta break a few eggs.
Quote
I don't assume that everyone is a creep who wants to perv out in women's washrooms. I just recognize that this is something that will be exploited by creeps and perverts. And we know that's not a hypothetical, we know it's a fact. You earlier complained that I keep mentioning Jessica Yaniv. Well, the reason I keep mentioning Yaniv is that it forces people like you to acknowledge the reality of this. You guys always used to always respond to this type of thing with "that would never happen!" and now you can't do that anymore. Instead of "that would never happen" it's now "you gotta break a few eggs."
No one says that wouldn't happen: the argument is prohibiting transpeople from using the facility of their choice won't stop it unless you think Yaniv was the first person ever to think about putting on a dress to do creepy ****. Do you genuinely think somehow preventing all transwomen from using the same bathroom or change room as you is going to make a dent in gender-based violence or make anyone safer? Is that even the issue at this point? It doesn't seem to be.
Quote
You mentioned earlier that you find it upsetting that the TERFs don't seem to care what might happen to trans women in men's prisons. Well, I completely empathize with that, because there are few things that have done more to harden my heart against trans rights activists than their continual insistence on responding to every concern with "that's a myth" or "that would never happen." Responding to every **** thing with "that's a myth" or "that would never happen" shows that trans activists are either completely disconnected from reality, or have zero empathy for cisgender women, or both. Trans women and their boosters keep talking about what great allies they are for cis women in "smashing the patriarchy". That's a bunch of ****.
The "reality" is cherry picked anecdotes of shitty people doing shitty things that you TERFs try and pass off as the norm, whether you can cop to that or not. It's not all that different from the alt-right chuds who delight in bringing up Black crime stats. When asked for data to support the claim that trans acceptance presents a material threat to ciswomen, you say "well, uh, it's not being reported" which is terribly convenient (why so many example scan be found on web forums and Twitter yet evade the gaze of actual scholarship is a real mystery).
Quote
The fact of it is this: if you guys can't understand the anxiety cis women feel when male people enter our spaces, you are not capable of being our allies in any capacity.
Again: I'd probably be more willing to listen if TERFs weren't completely indifferent to the struggles of transpeople and the very real threats to their safety. One thing that strikes me about your arguments and those of other more famous TERFs is the lack of actual viable solutions that address the balancing act between the rights of marginalized communities when they come into conflict; rather it's about throwing up walls around the very idea of what it means to be a woman and screw everyone else. Let's face it: any group that holds up someone like Magdalen Berns as a saint isn't really asking for understanding or looking for allies outside of the narrow boundaries of what you consider to be a real feminist.
Post by: Black Dog on February 25, 2021, 01:01:18 pm
Quote
Mr. Potato Head is no longer a mister. Hasbro, the company that makes the potato-shaped plastic toy, is giving the spud a gender neutral new name: Potato Head. The change will appear on boxes this year.
I assume this means they won't be including a tiny little p3nis with future versions of the toy.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 25, 2021, 01:43:00 pm
I assume this means they won't be including a tiny little p3nis with future versions of the toy.
Why would you assume that? Are you saying if they have a pen!s, then that makes them a “mister”? Not very woke of you.
Just don’t post that to Twitter or you’ll have a horde of woke nutjobs protesting outside your work demanding you be fired.
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2021, 02:09:30 pm
Why would you assume that? Are you saying if they have a pen!s, then that makes them a “mister”? Not very woke of you.
Just don’t post that to Twitter or you’ll have a horde of woke nutjobs protesting outside your work demanding you be fired.
Funny but all too true.
Post by: Black Dog on February 25, 2021, 02:33:04 pm
Why would you assume that? Are you saying if they have a pen!s, then that makes them a “mister”? Not very woke of you.
Just don’t post that to Twitter or you’ll have a horde of woke nutjobs protesting outside your work demanding you be fired.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I encourage you to take a look at some of the responses to the tweet I posted and ask yourself who the real nutjobs here are.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 25, 2021, 02:42:55 pm
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I encourage you to take a look at some of the responses to the tweet I posted and ask yourself who the real nutjobs here are.
The sewer system they call Twitter? No thanks. I avoid that cesspool like the plague.
I already know the right-wing crazies will be lighting their hair on fire about it.
Post by: Black Dog on February 25, 2021, 03:13:10 pm
The sewer system they call Twitter? No thanks. I avoid that cesspool like the plague.
I already know the right-wing crazies will be lighting their hair on fire about it.
And yet.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 25, 2021, 03:37:34 pm
And yet.
I hate all crazies equally... left woketards, right Trumptards... a pox on both their houses.
Post by: Black Dog on February 25, 2021, 03:47:54 pm
Marjorie Taylor Greene posts anti-transgender sign across hall from lawmaker with transgender child (https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-transgender-sign/index.html)
Quote
That evening, Greene retweeted Newman's post and added a video of her hanging a sign that reads "There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE ...Trust The Science!"
Of course, "Male" and "Female" aren't genders, they're sexes.
Post by: Black Dog on February 25, 2021, 03:48:24 pm
I hate all crazies equally... left woketards, right Trumptards... a pox on both their houses.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/025/090/tumblr_inline_p1brmcd9Dk1rr08jv_500.jpg)
Post by: BC_cheque on February 25, 2021, 05:22:04 pm
I hate all crazies equally... left woketards, right Trumptards... a pox on both their houses.
You know the women fighting for the right to vote were considered radical too. So were the ones burning bras, wanting to work. So were people fighting for civil rights.
If you think progressives are 'woketards' and regressives are 'trumptards', you're pretty much saying our generation is the pinnacle of perfection and should stop. If you don't have a problem with progress and just dislike the methods, see my first line.
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2021, 06:16:41 pm
A new hero emerges for anti-trans folks:
Marjorie Taylor Greene posts anti-transgender sign across hall from lawmaker with transgender child (https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-transgender-sign/index.html)
Of course, "Male" and "Female" aren't genders, they're sexes.
what an azzholy piece of scum she is! (https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1364719345511796738/pu/vid/720x1128/nu3yZZI7RC64dP_f.mp4?tag=10)
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 25, 2021, 08:22:44 pm
You know the women fighting for the right to vote were considered radical too. So were the ones burning bras, wanting to work. So were people fighting for civil rights.
If you think progressives are 'woketards' and regressives are 'trumptards', you're pretty much saying our generation is the pinnacle of perfection and should stop. If you don't have a problem with progress and just dislike the methods, see my first line.
No problem with progressives. I am one. Equal rights for everyone!
But when the left (or right) wants to limit free speech, then I no longer have the time for you.
If you want to blow something completely out of proportion and have people lose their livelihoods over the smallest incident, bugger off.
Women were fighting for equal rights using their free expression, not trying to limit someone else’s.
Post by: cybercoma on February 26, 2021, 06:51:02 am
I hate all crazies equally... left woketards, right Trumptards... a pox on both their houses.BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE!
Post by: cybercoma on February 26, 2021, 06:54:08 am
A new hero emerges for anti-trans folks:Understanding the difference between cellular biology and socially constructed roles and norms is beyond Republicans. "Trust the science!" Except when it comes to the environment, fetuses, smoking, etc.
Marjorie Taylor Greene posts anti-transgender sign across hall from lawmaker with transgender child (https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-transgender-sign/index.html)
Of course, "Male" and "Female" aren't genders, they're sexes.
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 09:50:41 am
BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE!
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/994/418/48b.jpg)
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 09:52:38 am
No problem with progressives. I am one. Equal rights for everyone!
But when the left (or right) wants to limit free speech, then I no longer have the time for you.
If you want to blow something completely out of proportion and have people lose their livelihoods over the smallest incident, bugger off.
Women were fighting for equal rights using their free expression, not trying to limit someone else’s.
Hang on I thought you only opposed using force to stop people from speaking?
If someone wants to use their speech to complain about someone else's words or deeds and that person suffers consequences as a result, well, isn't that just free speech in action?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 26, 2021, 10:24:12 am
Hang on I thought you only opposed using force to stop people from speaking?
If someone wants to use their speech to complain about someone else's words or deeds and that person suffers consequences as a result, well, isn't that just free speech in action?
I didn’t say I agree that they should be doing so.... I think they’re a-holes. But they’re allowed to do so. The right wing redneck crackpots who tried to ruin the Dixie Chicks over their opinions are a-holes. The people trying to ruin Rowling’s career are a bunch of dirtbags. Just because I don’t like what they’re doing doesn’t mean I think it should be made illegal.
Did you think because I thought they should be allowed to do so, that meant I agreed with their stance? LOL
I think they’re brain dead morons with nothing to add to the debate. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t defend their right to speak.
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 11:02:20 am
I didn’t say I agree that they should be doing so.... I think they’re a-holes. But they’re allowed to do so. The right wing redneck crackpots who tried to ruin the Dixie Chicks over their opinions are a-holes. The people trying to ruin Rowling’s career are a bunch of dirtbags. Just because I don’t like what they’re doing doesn’t mean I think it should be made illegal.
Did you think because I thought they should be allowed to do so, that meant I agreed with their stance? LOL
I think they’re brain dead morons with nothing to add to the debate. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t defend their right to speak.
So you're not really progressive, you're a free speech absolutists with no actual convictions beyond that.
Because I can't imagine a real progressive person thinking the people criticizing JK Rowling and the people who cancelled the Dixie Chicks are coming from the same place.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 26, 2021, 11:35:22 am
So you're not really progressive, you're a free speech absolutists with no actual convictions beyond that.
I would say you’re wrong on both counts, but if those are the labels you want to tag me with, so be it. Neither of your assertions really define what I think about a subject.
Quote
Because I can't imagine a real progressive person thinking the people criticizing JK Rowling and the people who cancelled the Dixie Chicks are coming from the same place.
Where did I say they’re coming from the same place? I think we’d need to look at specific cases, rather than in a very broad way to determine that.
Could one be a bigger dickhead than the other? Sure. Do I disagree with both? Yup.
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 11:54:51 am
I would say you’re wrong on both counts, but if those are the labels you want to tag me with, so be it. Neither of your assertions really define what I think about a subject.
Where did I say they’re coming from the same place? I think we’d need to look at specific cases, rather than in a very broad way to determine that.
Could one be a bigger dickhead than the other? Sure. Do I disagree with both? Yup.
I'm curious why you think people who think Rowling is a TERF and criticizing her on that basis are ****.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 26, 2021, 12:11:59 pm
I'm curious why you think people who think Rowling is a TERF and criticizing her on that basis are ****.
Do you have a specific example? Because I probably wouldn’t consider all of them ****, despite you seeming to claim that is what I do think.
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 02:06:15 pm
Do you have a specific example? Because I probably wouldn’t consider all of them ****, despite you seeming to claim that is what I do think.
Here's me assuming you had someone in mind when you said "The people trying to ruin Rowling’s career are a bunch of dirtbags."
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 26, 2021, 02:14:16 pm
The people trying to ruin Rowling’s career are a bunch of dirtbags.
I guess the carving knife must define/separate people who criticize vs those who try to ruin her career ?
Not sure how though...
Post by: cybercoma on February 26, 2021, 02:16:30 pm
I guess the carving knife must define/separate people who criticize vs those who try to ruin her career ?She ruined her own career.
Not sure how though...
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 26, 2021, 02:22:51 pm
She ruined her own career.
Tell The Squid, please. I am merely characterizing their argument on here and following the debate.
I said my piece on this and thankfully Black Dog appeared on the board to continue the conversation in an interesting way.
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 02:23:21 pm
I guess the carving knife must define/separate people who criticize vs those who try to ruin her career ?
Not sure how though...
She's a billionaire who's publisher is terrified to even edit her books, what possible harm could come to her or her career at this point from a bunch of online people?
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 26, 2021, 02:24:10 pm
She's a billionaire who's publisher is terrified to even edit her books, what possible harm could come to her or her career at this point from a bunch of online people?
See above...
You are body checking Ron McLean (me) instead of another player on the ice.
Post by: Black Dog on February 26, 2021, 02:24:48 pm
She ruined her own career.
She didn't though.
I wonder how many chuds bought her latest abortion in book form simply because of her TERF views.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 26, 2021, 09:17:27 pm
Post by: eyeball on February 26, 2021, 11:45:27 pm
You can't make this stuff up folks
Potato Head can make themself anything they want.
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 27, 2021, 06:39:03 am
By that I mean that part of me doubts that people cared enough about this to make it happen. Did they ?
Wait - reading the release, really we have a new doll called "Potato Head" which is a new, third, neutral alternative to the two existing products.
The company announced later on Thursday that it will keep a line of Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head dolls in addition to the new, gender-neutral dolls.
Was this misinterpreted by the masses because they wanted to get upset about Mr. Potato head ? Did Hasbro blur the intent of the announcement to get controversial velocity on the announcement and publicity ?
???
Almost all of the gender-netural "controversies" have been more about oily rags laying around than about people starting fires. The propensity for people to fight about culture is astounding.
Post by: Black Dog on February 27, 2021, 01:13:40 pm
I don't know what to make of Potato Head going unisex.
By that I mean that part of me doubts that people cared enough about this to make it happen. Did they ?
Wait - reading the release, really we have a new doll called "Potato Head" which is a new, third, neutral alternative to the two existing products.
The company announced later on Thursday that it will keep a line of Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head dolls in addition to the new, gender-neutral dolls.
Was this misinterpreted by the masses because they wanted to get upset about Mr. Potato head ? Did Hasbro blur the intent of the announcement to get controversial velocity on the announcement and publicity ?
???
Almost all of the gender-netural "controversies" have been more about oily rags laying around than about people starting fires. The propensity for people to fight about culture is astounding.
Conservatives fight the culture war and only the culture war because they don't have any ideas about policy.
And this is why I get miffed at "progressives" who nod along with this anti-woke culture bullshit; it just gives oxygen to bad faith narratives and helps the right.
Post by: Black Dog on February 27, 2021, 01:15:05 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 27, 2021, 01:26:02 pm
Conservatives fight the culture war and only the culture war because they don't have any ideas about policy.
And this is why I get miffed at "progressives" who nod along with this anti-woke culture bullshit; it just gives oxygen to bad faith narratives and helps the right.
I would say the want to make politics about stupid bullshit rather than raising taxes.
Yes to #2.
Post by: BC_cheque on February 27, 2021, 03:31:11 pm
No problem with progressives. I am one. Equal rights for everyone!
But when the left (or right) wants to limit free speech, then I no longer have the time for you.
If you want to blow something completely out of proportion and have people lose their livelihoods over the smallest incident, bugger off.
Women were fighting for equal rights using their free expression, not trying to limit someone else’s.
Wokies hardly came up with the idea of boycotts. Just so happens that the social media age has amplified the power of boycotts.
I'm also not sure you're as equal rights as you think you are. You agree with equal rights for women, same-sex couples and minorities but while you've shown support for trans communities to live their lives without abuse and judgement, you don't appear concerned about their rights. On this thread for example, you've been agreeing with Kimmy over Black Dog in whether trans womens' safety to use the womens' bathrooms trumps cis-women from feeling 'safe' (even for something as simple as being looked at in a washroom).
Generations before me fought for women's rights and civil rights. My generation fought for gay and lesbian rights and the new generation is fighting for trans rights. I see a lot of the fear-mongering against the trans community in the way past generations used fear about homosexuality leading to bestiality and pedophilia. Not to deny there are people who are criminals, but we can't let criminals get in the way of the rights of people who are trans.
My generation didn't hit the pinnacle of perfection after SSM. Progress for equal rights will and should continue.
Post by: wilber on February 27, 2021, 03:48:36 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 27, 2021, 04:25:59 pm
Conservatives fight the culture war and only the culture war because they don't have any ideas about policy.
And this is why I get miffed at "progressives" who nod along with this anti-woke culture bullshit; it just gives oxygen to bad faith narratives and helps the right.
Somewhere between the Trumpites and woke loons there's a lot of normal people. I hope these people gain back the power one day instead of the vocal minorities of culture warriors.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 27, 2021, 04:40:07 pm
I've been in a workplace where we had 2 bathrooms and both were unisex. However, these bathrooms were single occupancy so there were no issues. I've also been in large multi-stall bathroom that everyone could use, men and women and trans, for reasons of trans inclusivity. It was a bit weird but I only used it once so can't comment too much on experiences.
I think the whole thing with trans women is that they need to respect the fact they're female in gender and male in sex and by that scientific fact realize that they aren't exactly the same as women who are female in both gender and sex and therefore shouldn't be treated exactly the same in all circumstances, which applies to issues like sports competition or bikini waxes. But issues like bathrooms is still confusing with no easy answers.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 27, 2021, 04:59:32 pm
Somewhere between the Trumpites and woke loons there's a lot of normal people. I hope these people gain back the power one day instead of the vocal minorities of culture warriors.
I agree... except, your post previous seems to be mocking the idea that Mr. Potato Head is no longer a mister. So, on my scale of right-wing idiots, you come firmly on that side.
They are marketing to a younger generation who doesn’t think in typical gender roles as the ones before. I suspect it may be good marketing... but anyone concerned with “what is the world coming to?” because they are making it gender neutral is, at best, a bit of a dick.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 27, 2021, 06:43:55 pm
I agree... except, your post previous seems to be mocking the idea that Mr. Potato Head is no longer a mister. So, on my scale of right-wing idiots, you come firmly on that side.
They are marketing to a younger generation who doesn’t think in typical gender roles as the ones before. I suspect it may be good marketing... but anyone concerned with “what is the world coming to?” because they are making it gender neutral is, at best, a bit of a dick.
It's Mr. Potato Head.
Post by: Black Dog on February 28, 2021, 11:10:14 am
Somewhere between the Trumpites and woke loons there's a lot of normal people. I hope these people gain back the power one day instead of the vocal minorities of culture warriors.
The culture warriors don't have much real power either, they're a distraction from those who do.
Post by: eyeball on February 28, 2021, 02:18:52 pm
The culture warriors don't have much real power either, they're a distraction from those who do.Personally I think it's when the culture warfare provides a distraction for those in power that far bigger problems arise.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 28, 2021, 04:13:03 pm
The culture warriors don't have much real power either, they're a distraction from those who do.
I disagree. They've had enough influence to change our discourse and the way organizations and governments behave. And some of them are in government, like Trump. I think most people are by default part of the culture war, it's just how far each person is willing to take it.
Post by: Black Dog on March 01, 2021, 09:39:12 am
I disagree. They've had enough influence to change our discourse and the way organizations and governments behave. And some of them are in government, like Trump. I think most people are by default part of the culture war, it's just how far each person is willing to take it.
I think you're confusing symbolic gestures with actual change here.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 01, 2021, 02:38:08 pm
I think you're confusing symbolic gestures with actual change here.
Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau are culture warriors. Trudeau had a 50% female cabinet and Trump banned Muslims from entering the country. That's more than symbolism.
Post by: Black Dog on March 01, 2021, 02:44:22 pm
Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau are culture warriors. Trudeau had a 50% female cabinet and Trump banned Muslims from entering the country. That's more than symbolism.
Your definition of "culture warrior" is like your definition of cancel culture in that it is far too broad to be of any use.
Trudeau's cabinet gender parity is absolutely symbolic since it doesn't do anything to fundamentally alter institutional power dynamics or threaten the status quo in any material way.
Similarly Trump's muslim ban and other border shenanigans were largely responses to non-existent issues and were red meat for the base, even if they did have real-life negative impacts on real people.
Instead of looking at Trump and Trudeau as opposites, it's far more instructive to see them as variations of the same neoliberal politician that makes up roughly 99.9% of the political caste.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 01, 2021, 02:57:18 pm
Your definition of "culture warrior" is like your definition of cancel culture in that it is far too broad to be of any use.
So you don't think Trump and Trudeau strongly embraced identity politics in their policies? I do.
If you strongly embrace identity politics you're a culture warrior. That's an easy definition. Show me 2 government leaders on the left or right that have embraced identity politics more than those 2 guys.
Post by: Black Dog on March 01, 2021, 03:11:07 pm
So you don't think Trump and Trudeau strongly embraced identity politics in their policies? I do.
If you strongly embrace identity politics you're a culture warrior. That's an easy definition. Show me 2 government leaders on the left or right that have embraced identity politics more than those 2 guys.
Except "embracing identity politics' in the way they and other establishment figures do is largely performative/symbolic.
I.E.
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages7.memedroid.com%2Fimages%2FUPLOADED802%2F5faa5b742d562.jpeg&hash=2609105c165032bda79150ffaa6c1adfcddd781d)
Post by: kimmy on March 03, 2021, 11:42:01 pm
Oh no the gender people have come for Mr Potatohead! (https://twitter.com/AP/status/1364991338840743941?s=20)
I assume this means they won't be including a tiny little p3nis with future versions of the toy.
Mr Potato Head isn't going anywhere. While the line of toys is being rebranded from "Mr Potato Head" to "Potato Head", Mr and Mrs Potato Head are not turning non-binary. It's part of the effort to expand from Mr Potato Head into a Potato Head Universe. It's like, it's not just "Iron Man" or "The Avengers", it's the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Just so with Mr Potato Head: there's a whole universe full of Potato Head characters waiting to be explored. Mr Potato Head, Mrs Potato Head, Jimmy Potato Head, Suzy Potato Head, Baby Potato Head, Spud the Wonder Pup, plus their Worldbeat friends like Yam Yamamoto, Cassie Cassava, Taro Tuber, and more. It is time for Mr Potato Head to share the spotlight with the rest of the family.
(https://i.imgur.com/kYx4jtC.png)
-k
Post by: kimmy on March 03, 2021, 11:44:19 pm
So you're not really progressive, you're a free speech absolutists with no actual convictions beyond that.
Because I can't imagine a real progressive person thinking the people criticizing JK Rowling and the people who cancelled the Dixie Chicks are coming from the same place.
I think it's just a recognition that if a mob can "cancel" people for saying stuff you disagree with, a mob can also "cancel" people for saying stuff you agree with.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 04, 2021, 12:17:30 am
I think it's just a recognition that if a mob can "cancel" people for saying stuff you disagree with, a mob can also "cancel" people for saying stuff you agree with.
-k
They haven't come for me yet Kimmy, or for squiggy, or black dog. But in the future they might, based on...whatever twitter decides.
Post by: kimmy on March 04, 2021, 01:55:41 am
Conservatives fight the culture war and only the culture war because they don't have any ideas about policy.
And this is why I get miffed at "progressives" who nod along with this anti-woke culture bullshit; it just gives oxygen to bad faith narratives and helps the right.
If the left is going to continue to embrace unpopular policies, of course conservatives will try to capitalize on it. They hand a bully a stick and say "please hit me with this stick" and are shocked when the bully hits them with the stick. And they do it over and over. Male people competing in women's sports is a very unpopular idea, but it's one of the first things Biden implemented when he took office. Medical gender intervention on prepubescent kids is an unpopular idea, but they picked a cabinet nominee who is an outspoken advocate for that, and are surprised that Republicans questioned her about it at her confirmation hearings. Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? It's free candy. Of course they'd take it. Stop giving them free candy. Stop handing them a stick and being surprised when they hit you with it.
Reminder: "If Crackerjacks were made of popcorn and dogshit, and half the people throw out the popcorn, popcorn ought to want to know why."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 04, 2021, 05:55:49 am
If the left is going to continue to embrace unpopular policies, of course conservatives will try to capitalize on it.
I agree with the "embrace" part... they can still ascribe to these policies (with an eye to the future voter who will favour them) and take a moral high ground without branding the party this way.
They need to brand the party as the party of the working person in hard times. That worked in the past.
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 09:49:50 am
If the left is going to continue to embrace unpopular policies, of course conservatives will try to capitalize on it. They hand a bully a stick and say "please hit me with this stick" and are shocked when the bully hits them with the stick. And they do it over and over. Male people competing in women's sports is a very unpopular idea, but it's one of the first things Biden implemented when he took office. Medical gender intervention on prepubescent kids is an unpopular idea, but they picked a cabinet nominee who is an outspoken advocate for that, and are surprised that Republicans questioned her about it at her confirmation hearings. Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? It's free candy. Of course they'd take it. Stop giving them free candy. Stop handing them a stick and being surprised when they hit you with it.
Ah yes, just give the bully the lunch money and he won't hit you. I know you're not stupid, but this is very, very stupid. The right is gonna respond in bad faith regardless of how popular the policies being pushed by the left. Universal healthcare, green energy and student debt forgiveness enjoy widespread popular support, but Republicans will attack anyone who advocates for them as a communist. They will never, ever, ever respond in good faith and will always find a way to twist things into a culture war issue so the idea of appeasing them is for suckers like racist Bill Maher.
Now with all that being said, I also think the Democrats (who are not the left) use niche social issues as a way to district from their utter unwillingness and inability to do anything to improve the lives of the people they represent, including marginalized communities. I guarantee that transpeople in men's or women's sports is not even a top of mind issue in the trans community.They'd much rather have free healthcare.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 04, 2021, 12:36:33 pm
Quote
racist Bill Maher.
Ummm... what?
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 12:44:54 pm
Ummm... what?
I mean he's a massive Islamophobe who said the N word on TV?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 04, 2021, 01:00:55 pm
I mean he's a massive Islamophobe who said the N word on TV?
He called someone the ‘N’-word?
What does he say that’s Islamaphobic? As far as I can see he’s not a fan of Christianity either. He did an entire documentary mocking Christianity called Religulous.
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 02:09:18 pm
He called someone the ‘N’-word?
What does he say that’s Islamaphobic? As far as I can see he’s not a fan of Christianity either. He did an entire documentary mocking Christianity called Religulous.
No he used the N word, which is pretty stupid.
I'm not gonna waste time here when a simple google search will show you all the times he's said dumb stuff about Muslims/Islam.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 04, 2021, 02:12:09 pm
No he used the N word, which is pretty stupid.
Yeah...not so smart.
Quote
I'm not gonna waste time here when a simple google search will show you all the times he's said dumb stuff about Muslims/Islam.
Sure, sure... I get it. Criticizing Muslims bad.
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 02:30:10 pm
Yeah...not so smart.
Sure, sure... I get it. Criticizing Muslims bad.
Yes that's racism. It's the same thing as people who equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Post by: eyeball on March 04, 2021, 04:15:38 pm
The right is gonna respond in bad faith regardless of how popular the policies being pushed by the left.The problem is the effect of the left's more pigheaded policies on the left. The left develops more of a limp from shooting itself in the foot where the right is capable of shooting itself in the head and carrying on like it was a paper cut.
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 04:19:38 pm
The problem is the effect of the left's more pigheaded policies on the left. The left develops more of a limp from shooting itself in the foot where the right is capable of shooting itself in the head and carrying on like it was a paper cut.
How so?
From what I can see the dynamic is this:
1. the left does something
2. the right wing presents a bad faith interpretation of 1.
3. The centre accepts the framing presented in 2.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 04, 2021, 04:25:05 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 04:37:17 pm
If I think i'm attractive and I want to have sex with myself does that make me gay?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/034/193/Breaking_Bad_S04E01__Box_Cutter__-_Denny's_Scene_0-25_screenshot.png)
Post by: eyeball on March 04, 2021, 04:48:40 pm
How so?1. I did say pigheaded policies.
From what I can see the dynamic is this:
1. the left does something
2. the right wing presents a bad faith interpretation of 1.
3. The centre accepts the framing presented in 2.
2. That's what the right-wing does. I mentioned the effect of the left's pigheaded policies on the left.
3. And just like some on the left some people in the center also refuse to take the Jessica Yaniv's of the world seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I love freakin' at a freaker's ball as much as any other freak but I don't like it when kids are dragged into it. Apparently I'm some sort of knuckle-dragging conservative for doubting that amputation surgery is a good effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
That doesn't make me want to vote conservative but being regarded as being conservative makes me want to stay home.
Post by: Black Dog on March 04, 2021, 05:02:02 pm
1. I did say pigheaded policies.
2. That's what the right-wing does. I mentioned the effect of the left's pigheaded policies on the left.
Give me an example.
Quote
3. And just like some on the left some people in the center also refuse to take the Jessica Yaniv's of the world seriously.
Again: who didn't take the Yaniv case seriously? What I saw was people from the left was pushback on the obvious and hamfisted attempts by the right to use the case to push transphobia.
Quote
Don't get me wrong, I love freakin' at a freaker's ball as much as any other freak but I don't like it when kids are dragged into it. Apparently I'm some sort of knuckle-dragging conservative for doubting that amputation surgery is a good effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
This is a great example of the dynamic at play. No one is advocating kids undergo surgical procedures for gender dysphoria, yet here you are (as with kimmy's scary-sounding euphemism of "medical gender intervention on prepubescent kids") making it sound like that's the case.
Quote
That doesn't make me want to vote conservative but being regarded as being conservative makes me want to stay home
Well, maybe if you stopped buying imto conservative framing of these issue?
Post by: eyeball on March 04, 2021, 05:21:06 pm
Give me an example.Policies that fuel adolescent gender bending.
Quote
Again: who didn't take the Yaniv case seriously? What I saw was people from the left was pushback on the obvious and hamfisted attempts by the right to use the case to push transphobia.Sometimes there really are slippery slopes that should be forcefully backed away from.
Quote
This is a great example of the dynamic at play. No one is advocating kids undergo surgical procedures for gender dysphoria, yet here you are (as with kimmy's scary-sounding euphemism of "medical gender intervention on prepubescent kids") making it sound like that's the case.
Quote
B.C. father’s attempt to stop child’s gender transition tossed out by appeal court
https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender-change-court/
Quote
Well, maybe if you stopped buying imto conservative framing of these issue?I'm not, I'm not buying into it thru my own framing as a parent. If kids can make decision of this importance they should probably be allowed to vote.
For what it's worth, I know adults including a few seniors who probably aren't mature enough to vote.
Post by: BC_cheque on March 04, 2021, 06:20:52 pm
Quote
If kids can make decision of this importance they should probably be allowed to vote.
B.C. father’s attempt to stop child’s gender transition tossed out by appeal court
https://globalnews.ca/news/6399468/bc-gender-change-court/
Surgery isn't performed until age of majority without parent's permission. Transitioning, however, can start years before.
Dad sounds like a jerk in denial, refusing to use the preferred pronouns and new name. I'm not sure this is a good example to choose.
BTW, fun fact - when bodies goes through puberty with the hormones of the gender assigned at birth it makes transitioning more difficult in the future. If people are offended by trans people looking more 'manly' in women's washroom, they really should be embracing adolescent transitioning.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 04, 2021, 06:52:01 pm
1. I did say pigheaded policies.
2. That's what the right-wing does. I mentioned the effect of the left's pigheaded policies on the left.
3. And just like some on the left some people in the center also refuse to take the Jessica Yaniv's of the world seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I love freakin' at a freaker's ball as much as any other freak but I don't like it when kids are dragged into it. Apparently I'm some sort of knuckle-dragging conservative for doubting that amputation surgery is a good effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
That doesn't make me want to vote conservative but being regarded as being conservative makes me want to stay home.
It's a tough issue when kids are involved and with serious issues that involve changing their body at a young age that will have lifelong impacts. Are they too young and impressionable to make these decisions that will affect the rest of their lives? Or should we support our kids to be who they want to be? Should parents have consent or not? These are all interesting questions that parents, kids, and medical professionals need to grapple with, and for all of us to try and understand.
When you're a teenager it's a time when your identity is formed. I remember as a teen I wondered in my head "hmm am I gay"? I mean it's a confusing time. Turns out I wasn't gay, but I was scared that maybe I was. I didn't even know what "being gay" felt like at that age. My brother is gay and he dated women throughout high school...it's confusing.
If I had a child who felt like they were transgender I'd support them 110%. I'd be a bit weary of things like surgery and hormones, simply because these are things that can be regretted later on, like getting a tattoo at 14 years old that you have for life. If you're biologically a male and inside you feel you're female in gender, it doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with your body. You can have a **** and feel feminine. But social norms mean females need to look like females I guess, and so a transwoman may want "breasts" and other things to feel like they belong, or to feel more attractive. Not any different than a woman wanting a boob job or a man wanting a nose job. But you don't need plastic surgery or hormones to feel whole and complete, we're all ok just the way we are and shouldn't be made to feel any less regardless of social pressures to look a certain way.
I have no issues with any adult doing anything they want to their body, none of my business.
Post by: eyeball on March 04, 2021, 09:20:54 pm
I have no issues with any adult doing anything they want to their body, none of my business.Ditto. I see the larger issues beyond kids as more of a politicized fad than social revolution and I think too much of the seriousness adults have afforded it has found it's way into kid's heads and only added to their naturally confused thinking. I suppose an analogy to peanut allergies is as misplaced as any in this business but I don't recall an epidemic of gender dysphoria when I was a kid either.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 04, 2021, 10:43:48 pm
Ditto. I see the larger issues beyond kids as more of a politicized fad than social revolution and I think too much of the seriousness adults have afforded it has found it's way into kid's heads and only added to their naturally confused thinking. I suppose an analogy to peanut allergies is as misplaced as any in this business but I don't recall an epidemic of gender dysphoria when I was a kid either.
Fun fact: When you're exposed as a young kid to nuts you're less likely to develop allergies. So helicopter parents are afraid to give babies/toddlers peanuts so more are developing allergies.
Does not relate at all to trans kids LOL but fun fact. I think letting kids being who they want is fine, but surgery and hormones is a lot. Wearing a dress is much different than physically altering their body. I'd teach my kid to love they body they're born in first no matter what gender they wish to express, and if they want to alter their bodies when they're adults they can do whatever they want. Injecting your kids with hormones is a bit effed.
You don't need boobs to be feminine, lots of attractive women without large bosoms. I think boob jobs and nose jobs in general are nuts. Just accept yourself.
Post by: BC_cheque on March 05, 2021, 01:07:00 am
I'd teach my kid to love they body they're born in first no matter what gender they wish to express, and if they want to alter their bodies when they're adults they can do whatever they want.
I can just hear your imaginary trans daughter's answer...
This is nothing like a straight man questioning his sexuality for a little while in high school. I will need to see a counsellor for years before even getting a proper diagnosis to proceed with the hormones. Even then, the law doesn't allow surgery until I'm of age.
Aren't you a poster on that board where people feel I shouldn't go to women's bathrooms if I don't pass? I don't want to live in a world where I may get assaulted or murdered because people think I'm just a man in women's clothing.
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 06:55:42 am
I think it's just a recognition that if a mob can "cancel" people for saying stuff you disagree with, a mob can also "cancel" people for saying stuff you agree with.I love all this whining about cancel culture. Any time someone is criticized in a way that they don't like, they complain about the big spooky "cancel culture!" This is all a cheap ploy to silence criticism about racism, sexism, bigotry, xenophobia and misogyny. Don't think so? Republicans and conservatives LOVE cancel culture. Was it cancel culture with Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks, Kathy Griffin, Taylor Swift, etc? All this complaining about cancel culture plays into the strategy of creating a victim complex amongst white Christian Americans. It plays into the new alt-right white nationalist agenda. Don't fall for this stupidity and don't feed into the hype. Free speech means being able to publicly speak your mind, which means criticism of that speech is also free. You can only be free to be critical if others are free to respond with criticism. These complaints about cancel culture are literally attacks on free speech and complaints about free and open criticism of ideas. It's been twisted to serve the alt-right and it's sad that intelligent people fall for this garbage.
-k
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 06:57:55 am
I can just hear your imaginary trans daughter's answer...Not to mention that his point completely ignores the fact that it's not about just "not loving your body." That's the equivalent of telling depressed people they should just try to be happy. Gender dysphoria isn't just some vague dissatisfaction.
This is nothing like a straight man questioning his sexuality for a little while in high school. I will need to see a counsellor for years before even getting a proper diagnosis to proceed with the hormones. Even then, the law doesn't allow surgery until I'm of age.
Aren't you a poster on that board where people feel I shouldn't go to women's bathrooms if I don't pass? I don't want to live in a world where I may get assaulted or murdered because people think I'm just a man in women's clothing.
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 10:03:04 am
Policies that fuel adolescent gender bending.
Sometimes there really are slippery slopes that should be forcefully backed away from.
I'm not, I'm not buying into it thru my own framing as a parent. If kids can make decision of this importance they should probably be allowed to vote.
Weird there's nothing in there that article that supports your claim that "amputation surgery" is being used on underaged kids.
Also, the claim that policies to advance transgender rights "fuel adolescent gender bending" also requires some clarification/evidence.
Post by: eyeball on March 05, 2021, 02:12:08 pm
Weird there's nothing in there that article that supports your claim that "amputation surgery" is being used on underaged kids.I didn't say it was but the transition towards surgery can certainly start before adulthood. What an underage kid is seems to be contingent on the issue. Voting, driving, going to war, changing your sex...it's like an alphabet soup.
Quote
Also, the claim that policies to advance transgender rights "fuel adolescent gender bending" also requires some clarification/evidence.The court ruling in the article I linked to certainly supports a trend towards rights that allow kids to begin the process of become transgendered. I don't see a need for rights for transgendered adults beyond that which human beings already enjoy.
As for sports, bathrooms and body waxing, these are simply politicized adult fads that are best left to sports organizations, municipal governments and body waxers to figure out. People are free to open their own wax shops wear diapers and organize competitive sports as they see fit without turning these into constitutional matters. As I said making these non-issues into BIG issues spill over into kid's domains and only contributes to their natural confusion.
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 02:25:55 pm
I didn't say it was but the transition towards surgery can certainly start before adulthood. What an underage kid is seems to be contingent on the issue. Voting, driving, going to war, changing your sex...it's like an alphabet soup.
Yes gender dysphoria can hit before puberty. What's wrong with addressing that?
Quote
The court ruling in the article I linked to certainly supports a trend towards rights that allow kids to begin the process of become transgendered. I don't see a need for rights for transgendered adults beyond that which human beings already enjoy.
So what? The teen in the article you linked to had been experiencing gender dysphoria from a young age and had engaged in self-harm and suicidal behaviours. Lots do: if you don't let them pursue treatment (which could include puberty blockers or in some cases hormone treatments conducted under the guidance of medial professionals) you'll see a lot of dead kids..
Quote
As I said making these non-issues into BIG issues spill over into kid's domains and only contributes to their natural confusion.
Or awareness of trans issues and the ability to seek treatment for dysphoria helps kids make sense of their natural confusion.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 05, 2021, 02:33:52 pm
Yes gender dysphoria can hit before puberty. What's wrong with addressing that?
I don;t think there's anything wrong with addressing it. I think the controversy is around the use of hormones and surgery. Let's face it, it is controversial to inject a child with hormones to change their biology (grow breasts or facial hair etc). I think it's good to have a healthy debate on that, without denying that children can have gender dysphoria and be harmed by the social and psychological repercussions.
I've known many people in the LGBT community, and the ones who are trans seem to have a lot of mental health issues in general, which is backed by the suicide stats for trans people. It's really sad and we should, above all else, feel great compassion and empathy towards these people. I couldn't imagine dealing with these confusing identity issues. I had a hard enough time as a teen and i don't have any of these issues to deal with.
Post by: cybercoma on March 05, 2021, 02:38:12 pm
I don;t think there's anything wrong with addressing it. I think the controversy is around the use of hormones and surgery.What does it matter to you though? Let people navigate their personal health issues with their medical professionals who are highly educated on the subject. When, why, and how someone transitions really has no effect on your life whatsoever.
Post by: Black Dog on March 05, 2021, 05:00:32 pm
I don;t think there's anything wrong with addressing it. I think the controversy is around the use of hormones and surgery. Let's face it, it is controversial to inject a child with hormones to change their biology (grow breasts or facial hair etc). I think it's good to have a healthy debate on that, without denying that children can have gender dysphoria and be harmed by the social and psychological repercussions.
Sure and we're seeing that debate play out now. I have zero doubt that there are cases where hormones or puberty blockers are appropriate interventions for prepubescent kids experiencing gender dysphoria. I also have zero doubt there are cases where they are not and these all should be determined by medical professionals. Banning such interventions outright (as the UK recently did with puberty blockers, which are a temporary and reversible) means condemning members of the former category to a miserable existence at the worst possible time in their lives.
Post by: eyeball on March 06, 2021, 12:46:11 am
Yes gender dysphoria can hit before puberty. What's wrong with addressing that?Nothing, if its a life or death necessity, by all means address that more aggressively. What's wrong with continuing to also address it as the fairly simple growing pain it is?
Quote
So what? The teen in the article you linked to had been experiencing gender dysphoria from a young age and had engaged in self-harm and suicidal behaviours. Lots do: if you don't let them pursue treatment (which could include puberty blockers or in some cases hormone treatments conducted under the guidance of medial professionals) you'll see a lot of dead kids..You don't know that we'll see lots of dead kids. That's fear mongering. As for suicidal intervention psychiatric help seems more focused and likely to prevent suicides than hormone therapy, changes to one's physique or making it a constitutional issue.
Quote
Or awareness of trans issues and the ability to seek treatment for dysphoria helps kids make sense of their natural confusion.Again, trans issues are issues an in the domain of adults who have made the transition to a different gender. It seems like you're trying to address the issue of confused kids by conflating their growing pains with the social and political consequences that transitioned grown adults have to deal with like bathrooms, sports and waxing. These have **** all to do with growing pains of kids, they're the politics of adults.
I think the adult desire/push whatever you want to call it to drag gender dysphoria of confused kids into it is perhaps explained by a need to acquire allies in a admittedly hostile and all to often deliberately insensitive world. Weaponizing kids is not the answer.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 06, 2021, 02:19:17 am
What does it matter to you though? Let people navigate their personal health issues with their medical professionals who are highly educated on the subject. When, why, and how someone transitions really has no effect on your life whatsoever.
i've framed my discussion using the example of if this was child what would I do? I'll never really know unless it happened, I don't know how these people feel.
On the other hand, people are injecting children with hormones. If people were injecting kids with hormones that made gay children turn straight, suddenly we would all care and I'm sure you would too. Nobody says gay conversion therapy is between the parent, child, and psychologist. So there's no harm in discussing the implications of what procedures doctors are allowed to perform on children. I don't care at all what an adult wants to do with themselves, but children are a vulnerable group so society and our laws need to decide what is allowable and healthy, or what is abuse etc.
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2021, 01:17:07 pm
Nothing, if its a life or death necessity, by all means address that more aggressively. What's wrong with continuing to also address it as the fairly simple growing pain it is?
How do you know that's all it is if there aren't reseources abvailable?
Quote
You don't know that we'll see lots of dead kids. That's fear mongering.
Nope. (https://www.hrc.org/news/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen)
Quote
As for suicidal intervention psychiatric help seems more focused and likely to prevent suicides than hormone therapy,
Evidence?
Quote
Changes to one's physique or making it a constitutional issue.
lol what
Quote
Again, trans issues are issues an in the domain of adults who have made the transition to a different gender. It seems like you're trying to address the issue of confused kids by conflating their growing pains with the social and political consequences that transitioned grown adults have to deal with like bathrooms, sports and waxing. These have **** all to do with growing pains of kids, they're the politics of adults.
Almost every trans adult was a trans kid at some point.
And let's be real: you don't have to make a surgical transition to alter your gender identity and be impacted by the issues you claim only effect transitioned adults.
Quote
I think the adult desire/push whatever you want to call it to drag gender dysphoria of confused kids into it is perhaps explained by a need to acquire allies in a admittedly hostile and all to often deliberately insensitive world. Weaponizing kids is not the answer.
You obviously don't think gender dysphoria is a real issue for youth and that it's juts a phase, so I'm not sure there's any point having a conversation with you on this.
Post by: eyeball on March 07, 2021, 11:06:34 am
You obviously don't think gender dysphoria is a real issue for youth and that it's juts a phase, so I'm not sure there's any point having a conversation with you on this.I think its real enough but I also have to wonder how much of it is more like a phase and a fad. The world we live in appears to be going thru a period of growing social diversity and sexual experimentation and as is also typical these days there are people filled with solutions eagerly looking for problems and to guide people.
Just wait until genetic modification and cybernetics take off and every modified or enhanced human or group thereof develop suites of right's peculiar to them. We haven't seen anything yet. There'll probably even be a point at which unenhanced un-transitioned people will need special rights. Just don't call them normal.
As for increasing suicide rates, I'm really not surprised given how tightly wound up human societies are becoming. Self-destructive behaviour has certainly been noted in experiments on what can happen when the stress of overpopulation occurs.
Post by: Black Dog on March 07, 2021, 01:16:15 pm
I think its real enough but I also have to wonder how much of it is more like a phase and a fad. The world we live in appears to be going thru a period of growing social diversity and sexual experimentation and as is also typical these days there are people filled with solutions eagerly looking for problems and to guide people.
Or the slightly greater social acceptance and awareness means more people understand what they're going through and are willing to identify as such. And even if it is a phase, that's why we should have mental health services so kids can work through it.
Quote
As for increasing suicide rates, I'm really not surprised given how tightly wound up human societies are becoming. Self-destructive behaviour has certainly been noted in experiments on what can happen when the stress of overpopulation occurs.[/quoute]
huh?
Post by: kimmy on March 09, 2021, 10:53:43 pm
Almost every trans adult was a trans kid at some point.
You don't know that. Maybe you could make such a claim back in a time when transition was a last resort for people with gender dysphoria, but that isn't the case anymore. As gender experimentation becomes a matter of self-exploration rather than clinical dysphoria, those who view clinical dysphoria as a necessary characteristic of transgender people have become a hated minority called "truscum" by other trans people. The truscum are viewed as gatekeepers who are "invalidating the existence of other trans people". Transition and gender experimentation isn't just for kids with clinically diagnosed dysphoria anymore. Gender experimentation is for everybody! In recent years we have been inundated with adults "becoming their authentic selves".
And yet we have this motte-and-bailey type situation where protecting children with gender dysphoria is always the castle to which the gender-people retreat when faced with pushback.
Sure and we're seeing that debate play out now. I have zero doubt that there are cases where hormones or puberty blockers are appropriate interventions for prepubescent kids experiencing gender dysphoria. I also have zero doubt there are cases where they are not and these all should be determined by medical professionals. Banning such interventions outright (as the UK recently did with puberty blockers, which are a temporary and reversible) means condemning members of the former category to a miserable existence at the worst possible time in their lives.
How temporary and reversible puberty blockers actually are is a matter of some debate. The degree to which they impact development into adulthood isn't fully known, and there are concerns regarding the impact of this treatment on brain development and bone development. Puberty blockers are FDA Approved... as treatment for prostate cancer. Using them as a treatment for gender dysphoria is an "off-label" use, and the effects of doing this haven't been studied well enough to support the claim that they're safe, temporary, or reversible. Proponents claim they're like a magic pause button for puberty and that once the treatment is ended your body will pick up where it left off without missing a beat-- that's not proven.
Also not proven is that medical intervention is more effective than psychiatric therapy in helping young people with gender dysphoria.
Regarding the UK ruling, the Keira Bell case, a key component of that is that adolescents aren't capable of providing what is considered informed consent.
The court case also cast a light on the UK's Tavistock Gender Clinic and the quality of guidance provided by the professionals there. And the Bell case wasn't the first time Tavistock has been found wanting. They've seen whistleblowers, massive turnover of doctors due to conflicts and ethical concerns over "fast tracking" adolescents into medical transition, and one point the whole board of directors was sacked. It's been called a national scandal.
Canada and the US don't even have a Tavistock. Here it's a Wild West.
-k
Post by: eyeball on March 09, 2021, 11:23:21 pm
huh?I think I meant the stress that contributes to suicide could be due to an individual feeling like they're boxed in and trapped. I've lived in the boonies most of my life but the world has never felt more crowded. Maybe that's just me.
Post by: Black Dog on March 10, 2021, 10:35:37 am
You don't know that. Maybe you could make such a claim back in a time when transition was a last resort for people with gender dysphoria, but that isn't the case anymore. As gender experimentation becomes a matter of self-exploration rather than clinical dysphoria, those who view clinical dysphoria as a necessary characteristic of transgender people have become a hated minority called "truscum" by other trans people. The truscum are viewed as gatekeepers who are "invalidating the existence of other trans people". Transition and gender experimentation isn't just for kids with clinically diagnosed dysphoria anymore. Gender experimentation is for everybody! In recent years we have been inundated with adults "becoming their authentic selves".
And yet we have this motte-and-bailey type situation where protecting children with gender dysphoria is always the castle to which the gender-people retreat when faced with pushback.
Once again you're doing that thing where you read some niche weirdos on social media and project that on the entire community in the real world without evidence that its actually, like, a thing.
Quote
How temporary and reversible puberty blockers actually are is a matter of some debate. The degree to which they impact development into adulthood isn't fully known, and there are concerns regarding the impact of this treatment on brain development and bone development. Puberty blockers are FDA Approved... as treatment for prostate cancer. Using them as a treatment for gender dysphoria is an "off-label" use, and the effects of doing this haven't been studied well enough to support the claim that they're safe, temporary, or reversible. Proponents claim they're like a magic pause button for puberty and that once the treatment is ended your body will pick up where it left off without missing a beat-- that's not proven.
Also not proven is that medical intervention is more effective than psychiatric therapy in helping young people with gender dysphoria.
Regarding the UK ruling, the Keira Bell case, a key component of that is that adolescents aren't capable of providing what is considered informed consent.
The court case also cast a light on the UK's Tavistock Gender Clinic and the quality of guidance provided by the professionals there. And the Bell case wasn't the first time Tavistock has been found wanting. They've seen whistleblowers, massive turnover of doctors due to conflicts and ethical concerns over "fast tracking" adolescents into medical transition, and one point the whole board of directors was sacked. It's been called a national scandal.
Canada and the US don't even have a Tavistock. Here it's a Wild West.
I'm really not sure what you're arguing here. If you are simply saying there should be more oversight, more options and more information on offer, then that's a no-brainer. If you're saying that access to medical transition should be barred to anyone under the age of 18, I can't agree with that at all.
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2021, 10:14:05 am
This is where moral panics lead.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2021, 10:29:01 am
Florida House passes anti-transgender bill that would allow for genital examinations of high school athletes (https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2021/04/15/florida-house-passes-anti-transgender-bill-that-would-allow-for-genital-examinations-of-high-school-athletes)
This is where moral panics lead.
The thing I don't get, though, is do we want rules or no ? If we don't want rules then we leave things up to local culture, discretion etc.
If we do then there can't be exceptions.
It's lose-lose isn't it ?
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2021, 10:40:59 am
The thing I don't get, though, is do we want rules or no ? If we don't want rules then we leave things up to local culture, discretion etc.
If we do then there can't be exceptions.
It's lose-lose isn't it ?
No idea how this relates to the story, care to elaborate?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2021, 11:30:43 am
Florida House passes anti-transgender bill that would allow for genital examinations of high school athletes (https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2021/04/15/florida-house-passes-anti-transgender-bill-that-would-allow-for-genital-examinations-of-high-school-athletes)
This is where moral panics lead.
That's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. Just check the birth certificate LOL.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2021, 11:33:25 am
The thing I don't get, though, is do we want rules or no ? If we don't want rules then we leave things up to local culture, discretion etc.
If we do then there can't be exceptions.
It's lose-lose isn't it ?
There needs to be rules, and there's also good and bad ways to enforce those rules. Examining genitals is not the best way. Someone could cut off their **** and shove their balls up inside their taint, what does an exam show? Who is going to do the exam?
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2021, 12:13:13 pm
That's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. Just check the birth certificate LOL.
The humiliation is part of the point.
Post by: cybercoma on April 16, 2021, 12:30:34 pm
The humiliation is part of the point.100% this.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2021, 12:44:35 pm
No idea how this relates to the story, care to elaborate?
Well, they want "rules" with regards to who competes in a sport based on sex, I'm guessing. But the "freedom loving" set used to HATE legislation and rules, partly because it was government intruding on peoples' lives. So now every high school student in the state will need to get their c***s and c***s graded by Ms. Millithwipple the state Pen-gina judge ?
Don't they hate that stuff ?
Like the bathroom rules, which effectively state that a large bulky man-looking dude with a **** down there will be washing his hands beside your little girl in the ladies' room.
Principles are difficult to apply to humans. I feel like it's best to leave it alone. If there is a student with some kind of biological advantage... deal with it I guess.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2021, 12:45:49 pm
There needs to be rules, and there's also good and bad ways to enforce those rules.
There don't, though. Self-organizing used to be a principle espoused by conservatives and now when it comes to trans stuff they want a new branch of the police to deal with it or something.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2021, 02:07:20 pm
The humiliation is part of the point.
Possibly, but what evidence do you have to assume this? They're pretty dumb and ignorant in Florida too aside from being just arses.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2021, 02:27:26 pm
There don't, though. Self-organizing used to be a principle espoused by conservatives and now when it comes to trans stuff they want a new branch of the police to deal with it or something.
If there's no rules then that means all genders and sexes and hormones can compete with each other. There's either rules, or no rules. And if there's rules you have to enforce them. You just need to decide what the rules are, and how to enforce them. Biological men competing against women in women's events is a legit issue. Inspecting genitals is a pretty extreme solution, especially for high schoolers.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2021, 03:01:34 pm
1. If there's no rules then that means all genders and sexes and hormones can compete with each other.1. Is there a rule, a law that says "boy's soccer" includes just boys ? Or is it a gaggle of administrators who just decide that ? And is it a rule or rule of law ? I'm exploring here.
2. There's either rules, or no rules.
3. Biological men competing against women in women's events is a legit issue.
2. Yes and for lots of things there are "no rules". There aren't laws about using rest rooms in a lot of jurisdictions, for example.
3. A lot of people don't care, and even more are willing to let the sport itself decide. I suppose that IS a "rule" but it's not a law.
Again, I have no dog in this fight although I do find it odd that the social conservatives want to bring government into peoples' lives all of a sudden.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2021, 03:36:18 pm
1. Is there a rule, a law that says "boy's soccer" includes just boys ? Or is it a gaggle of administrators who just decide that ? And is it a rule or rule of law ? I'm exploring here.
2. Yes and for lots of things there are "no rules". There aren't laws about using rest rooms in a lot of jurisdictions, for example.
3. A lot of people don't care, and even more are willing to let the sport itself decide. I suppose that IS a "rule" but it's not a law.
Again, I have no dog in this fight although I do find it odd that the social conservatives want to bring government into peoples' lives all of a sudden.
Well now you're talking laws instead of rules. I guess if the state is in charge of public schools they make the rules? But why make a law?
Yes conservatives are not the small government people they say they are, only when convenient for them. Only the libertarians seem to be small gov.
Post by: Black Dog on April 18, 2021, 11:35:05 am
Possibly, but what evidence do you have to assume this? They're pretty dumb and ignorant in Florida too aside from being just arses.
Being dumb and ignorant doesn't preclude someone from being cruel.
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2021, 04:10:03 pm
1. Is there a rule, a law that says "boy's soccer" includes just boys ? Or is it a gaggle of administrators who just decide that ? And is it a rule or rule of law ? I'm exploring here.
2. Yes and for lots of things there are "no rules". There aren't laws about using rest rooms in a lot of jurisdictions, for example.
3. A lot of people don't care, and even more are willing to let the sport itself decide. I suppose that IS a "rule" but it's not a law.
Why do we have sports separated by sex in the first place? Why do we have weight classes in some sports? Why do we have age categories? Why don't we just let everybody compete together in one big group, it would be more inclusive.
Again, I have no dog in this fight although I do find it odd that the social conservatives want to bring government into peoples' lives all of a sudden.
"conservative" doesn't mean "small government" or "libertarian" or "anarchist", it means "conservative." There are areas where conservatives want more government (typically law and order type issues), and areas where areas where liberals want less government (typically personal morality type issues). Creating single-sex spaces for females used to be a progressive cause, but now preserving single-sex spaces is a traditionalist cause, which is why feminists are working with conservatives who want to preserve them rather than with progressives who want to destroy them.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on April 22, 2021, 04:19:11 pm
Creating single-sex spaces for females used to be a progressive cause, but now preserving single-sex spaces is a traditionalist cause, which is why feminists are working with conservatives who want to preserve them rather than with progressives who want to destroy them.
-k
And if that means letting adults look at the privates of underage kids, that's just the way it goes.
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2021, 05:11:50 pm
Florida House passes anti-transgender bill that would allow for genital examinations of high school athletes (https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2021/04/15/florida-house-passes-anti-transgender-bill-that-would-allow-for-genital-examinations-of-high-school-athletes)
This is where moral panics lead.
The humiliation is part of the point.
100% this.
And if that means letting adults look at the privates of underage kids, that's just the way it goes.
I assume that you and cybercoma are up in arms over the Florida bill (rather than the similar bills in other states) because it lets you attack the grossness of "genital examinations" rather than defending the obvious stupidity of letting male athletes compete in female sports in the first place.
You'd like to conjure up this image of highschool girls having to pull down their shorts before they're allowed to race, in hope that people who haven't read the article will take your word for it. Of course, that's not actually what's going to happen, as your own article explains. In cases of ambiguity a cheek swab or a medical examination might be used, but in the vast majority of cases there isn't any ambiguity. Caster Semanya type situations are actually incredibly rare; in the overwhelming majority of cases it's as Poonlight says: a simple glance at the student's birth certificate or medical records is all that's required. And even in the incredibly unlikely event that a medical examination is needed, it would be performed in private by the student's own doctor. So I view what you're selling here as absurd hyperbole (pretty much like when you were comparing the ICE border detainment camps to Nazi concentration camps.)
Also, why are you guys suddenly pretending you give a crap about girls' privacy?
When it comes to telling a girl that she has to change or shower in front of any male who identifies as female that day, it's "she will have to get over her discomfort." And yet at the remote chance of someone being asked to get a medical examination in the privacy of your own doctor's office is "OMG state-sanctioned sexual violation!" Or replacing women's washrooms with all-gender washrooms. It's a privacy nightmare for women and a wet dream for voyeurs, but progressives love them. "it's so inclusive." If progressives actually cared about women's privacy, they wouldn't be lobbying for universities and government offices to get rid of women's washrooms and replace them with all-gender washrooms.
You guys pretending like you give even the teensiest tiniest little **** about women's privacy would be more convincing if it didn't come from the "women will have to get over their discomfort" crowd.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 22, 2021, 05:38:43 pm
Why do we have sports separated by sex in the first place? Why do we have weight classes in some sports? Why do we have age categories? Why don't we just let everybody compete together in one big group, it would be more inclusive.
Well at least we should think about it.
Quote
"conservative" doesn't mean "small government" or "libertarian" or "anarchist", it means "conservative." There are areas where conservatives want more government (typically law and order type issues), and areas where areas where liberals want less government (typically personal morality type issues). Creating single-sex spaces for females used to be a progressive cause, but now preserving single-sex spaces is a traditionalist cause, which is why feminists are working with conservatives who want to preserve them rather than with progressives who want to destroy them.
-k
Circular definitions are to be discarded. Traditional conservatism goes for less government, respects institutions and old timey values.
But we're in wacky doo doo land these days, which is why I am redefining myself as a progressive conservative. It's easier just to have everybody hate me.
Post by: Black Dog on April 22, 2021, 09:48:50 pm
I assume that you and cybercoma are up in arms over the Florida bill (rather than the similar bills in other states) because it lets you attack the grossness of "genital examinations" rather than defending the obvious stupidity of letting male athletes compete in female sports in the first place.
So we'll put you down as a pro-genital inspector then? Cool.
but since we're talking about letting "male" athletes compete in female sports, should we level the playing field further by, I don't know, setting height limits for women's basketball players or otherwise preventing those who have a natural advantage in sports from showing up their inferiors?
Serena Williams has dominated the sport of women's tennis, but look at her (https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/jjE0vVyi1AO0jSF5jPjIx21G574/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2018/08/28/659/n/1922729/e0d2c50ee6733c4b_GettyImages-1026902234/i/Let-Take-Moment-Admire-Her-Arm-Muscles.jpg); can we be sure she's really what she says she is without looking up her tutu to be sure?
Quote
You'd like to conjure up this image of highschool girls having to pull down their shorts before they're allowed to race, in hope that people who haven't read the article will take your word for it. Of course, that's not actually what's going to happen, as your own article explains. In cases of ambiguity a cheek swab or a medical examination might be used, but in the vast majority of cases there isn't any ambiguity. Caster Semanya type situations are actually incredibly rare; in the overwhelming majority of cases it's as Poonlight says: a simple glance at the student's birth certificate or medical records is all that's required. And even in the incredibly unlikely event that a medical examination is needed, it would be performed in private by the student's own doctor. So I view what you're selling here as absurd hyperbole (pretty much like when you were comparing the ICE border detainment camps to Nazi concentration camps.)
For someone who sees a potential pervert lurking in every bathroom stall you're remarkably upbeat about a field (youth sports) which is more rife with sickos as any archdiocese. And leaving aside the sex freaks, I'm sure this wouldn't be weaponized at all by parents looking to give their Becky a leg up over that other girl who looks just so...manly.
Quote
Also, why are you guys suddenly pretending you give a crap about girls' privacy?
When it comes to telling a girl that she has to change or shower in front of any male who identifies as female that day, it's "she will have to get over her discomfort." And yet at the remote chance of someone being asked to get a medical examination in the privacy of your own doctor's office is "OMG state-sanctioned sexual violation!" Or replacing women's washrooms with all-gender washrooms. It's a privacy nightmare for women and a wet dream for voyeurs, but progressives love them. "it's so inclusive." If progressives actually cared about women's privacy, they wouldn't be lobbying for universities and government offices to get rid of women's washrooms and replace them with all-gender washrooms.
You guys pretending like you give even the teensiest tiniest little **** about women's privacy would be more convincing if it didn't come from the "women will have to get over their discomfort" crowd.
There's a pretty big difference between forcing minors to have genital exams performed by god knows what quack and adult women being asked to not stare at someone's privates in a shared shower space and the fact you can't even bring yourself to even feign outrage about the former while whinging about the latter speaks volumes about how far you've fallen.
Post by: cybercoma on April 23, 2021, 07:15:31 am
https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2021/01/22/testosterone-and-transgender-athletic-performance-finding-a-path-for-inclusion-for-transgender-athletes/
"In youth and recreational sports there is such a broad range of ability, training, and development that differences from prior testosterone after 12 months of suppression may not have a meaningful competitive impact and the benefits of inclusion of all athletes should take priority."
I'll note that they also said, "In elite level or collegiate athletic competition, where a 1-2% advantage in speed or strength is often the difference between victory and defeat, governing bodies need to re-examine guidelines for inclusion of transgender and other women with elevated testosterone levels and determine what evidence-based changes are required to ensure a level playing field." However, I reject their take on the grounds that other biological differences can provide 1-2% differences in advantages or more. Michael Phelps is a genetic freak when it comes to swimming: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good1/
So these transgender athlete bans in high school sports and punishing trans students by forcing them to undergo embarrassing and invasive examinations is far more detrimental to the students. Children need to be nurtured and included as part of their development into adults. Treating them this way is inhumane. If only some of you were more concerned about the inhumane treatment of children and youth than you were about high school track and field medals, you could see why these laws are a huge problem.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 23, 2021, 10:50:42 am
I think that the dialogue should continue, but that genital inspection is ... low.
Post by: Black Dog on April 23, 2021, 11:00:23 am
Cyber, they are saying that a 1% difference is a lot. Phelps' advantage may have come from such a 1% difference, but biological sex could also.
A 1 per cent difference could also come from having rich parents with time and resources to dedicate to their kids' athletic development. In the interests of fairness should we bar those kids from competition against less fortunate peers?
Post by: cybercoma on April 23, 2021, 11:07:55 am
A 1 per cent difference could also come from having rich parents with time and resources to dedicate to their kids' athletic development. In the interests of fairness should we bar those kids from competition against less fortunate peers?Yup. Specialization is far more likely amongst wealthy families with the resources to put their kids into these year-round leagues.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466853X17306077
The downside is that they're more likely to suffer injuries.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29851549/
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 23, 2021, 12:01:19 pm
A 1 per cent difference could also come from having rich parents with time and resources to dedicate to their kids' athletic development. In the interests of fairness should we bar those kids from competition against less fortunate peers?
Your analogy is stretched.
And nobody has put 1% as THE number that signifies the advantage.
Post by: Black Dog on April 23, 2021, 12:06:42 pm
Your analogy is stretched.
And nobody has put 1% as THE number that signifies the advantage.
It's not an analogy.
The point is the notion of fairness in sport, where success largely depends on certain biological or economic advantages, is absurd. Sports, like life, are intrinsically unfair!
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 23, 2021, 12:39:37 pm
1. It's not an analogy.1. OK, a comparison then.
2. The point is the notion of fairness in sport, where success largely depends on certain biological or economic advantages, is absurd. Sports, like life, are intrinsically unfair!
2. Fairness is a cultural construct in the end. How fair is "fairness" is a fair question ! :) But there's only so much you water you can get a camel to drink even if he's thirsty. People were far more upset about 9/11 than automobile crashes, and somehow less upset about Trump's Covid failings.
Oh well. We are humans, not robots and our ideas are played on the harp of our foibles, I guess.
If wealth is significant, in terms of positive factors, that's not unexpected. But at the top levels, it's probably negligible. I think you would see more wealthy people at the top of, say, NFL football, if that were the case. The only sport where you see that is Formula 1 where the car is effectively the athlete.
So where are we ? Suspicious and likely some ignorant people are making some conclusions that people endowed with born-male bodies are at an advantage. How much the advantage is, or whether it's significant or whether it should be ignored is of course a relevant question but the fact is that the question needs to be entertained and a public engaged.
It seems to me that there would be some advantages inherent in someone's birth sex but who knows ? I'm open to a discussion on it.
Post by: Black Dog on April 30, 2021, 03:28:33 pm
Quote
You’ll often see gender-confused people among the ranks of Antifa or at Black Lives Matter rallies. Having turned against their families of origin, they are easy prey for those who recruit revolutionaries.
Put another way: the chaos is the point. Just as the point of Critical Race Theory is to turn the American people against one another, so the point of Gender Ideology is to stop the formation of stable families, the building blocks of American life. Let me say again: this is not the goal of transgender adults. But it is the goal of the Gender Ideology and the transgender movement – namely, the creation of a new victim class, eager to join the revolution.
What we're dealing with here is a variant of the white supremacist "great replacement theory" with trans people instead of immigrants. Note the invocation of BLM and earlier references to Critical Race Theory. Oh but I'm sure once they finish stripping away rights and protections from transgender people, they won't go after anyone else, juts like how that poem goes "First they came for the socialists and then they stopped there."
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 30, 2021, 06:46:58 pm
I'll just leave this here in regards to youth athletes:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2021/01/22/testosterone-and-transgender-athletic-performance-finding-a-path-for-inclusion-for-transgender-athletes/
"In youth and recreational sports there is such a broad range of ability, training, and development that differences from prior testosterone after 12 months of suppression may not have a meaningful competitive impact and the benefits of inclusion of all athletes should take priority."
What ages do they define as youth? High school? Pre-puberty?
Quote
I'll note that they also said, "In elite level or collegiate athletic competition, where a 1-2% advantage in speed or strength is often the difference between victory and defeat, governing bodies need to re-examine guidelines for inclusion of transgender and other women with elevated testosterone levels and determine what evidence-based changes are required to ensure a level playing field." However, I reject their take on the grounds that other biological differences can provide 1-2% differences in advantages or more. Michael Phelps is a genetic freak when it comes to swimming: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good1/
Pretty much every dominant athlete is an genetic freak. How do we categorize athletes then in competition?
Quote
So these transgender athlete bans in high school sports and punishing trans students by forcing them to undergo embarrassing and invasive examinations is far more detrimental to the students. Children need to be nurtured and included as part of their development into adults. Treating them this way is inhumane. If only some of you were more concerned about the inhumane treatment of children and youth than you were about high school track and field medals, you could see why these laws are a huge problem.
There's is a conflict between inclusion and athletic fairness at work here. Trans people need to be treated fairly and so do cis athletes. Should cis women be at a competitive disadvantage to spare the feelings of trans women when allowed to compete against them? What if a trans woman isn't on hormone therapy? Who should she compete against? What are the limits to reasonable accommodation?
Also, sports aren't categorized based on gender, they're based on sex, due to biological differences. Nobody can change their own sex, it's impossible. If you want to change your gender expression that's fine nobody should care. Taking hormones is a personal choice, and they should regulate performance enhancing hormones in sport. You don't need to take hormones to express your gender.
Society should be ok with a transwoman in pig-tails and lipstick competing against a cis man, and so should transwomen and cis women. Nobody should be under the delusion that a transwoman is the same as a cis woman biologically, including transwomen. It's irrational. Feelings don't trump science. A transwoman might "feel" that they're a woman no different than a cis woman, but they aren't the same because a transwoman will always be a biological male and should be treated as such when biology comes into play, like in sport.
Here's an idea: how about trans people embrace who they are, and society embrace and accept it too. A trans woman is biologically male and female in gender. Embrace those facts. Why try to deny it, or suppress it? You were born with a d!ck and you enjoy expressing yourself in a feminine way, you aren't in "the wrong body", you're fine just the way you are. Is it not beautiful?
Post by: eyeball on April 30, 2021, 08:30:36 pm
Pretty much every dominant athlete is an genetic freak. How do we categorize athletes then in competition?Everyone wins and gets a trophy!
I mean I grew up playing in hockey and baseball leagues where teams would routinely be crushed 30 to 0 and I didn't really get it at first either but 20 odd years on now it doesn't seem to have hurt my kids. If anything sometimes late at night the ghosts of losers I helped crush come back to haunt me. I just hope none of them went postal and took it out on some other hapless souls.
Post by: kimmy on May 01, 2021, 01:53:21 pm
So we'll put you down as a pro-genital inspector then? Cool.
And I'll mark you down under "trying to misrepresent the facts to create hysteria."
In any event, Florida passed an updated version of their bill last week that will make the sex marked on the birth certificate sufficient.
So you can stop with your fake, imaginary, pretend, make-believe concern the privacy of women and girls. Your concern blinked into existence the moment it became a useful talking point, and will evaporate into thin air now that it's of no further use. The most pure specimen of concern trolling ever observed in our solar system.
but since we're talking about letting "male" athletes compete in female sports,
Do you not agree that we're talking about male athletes?
should we level the playing field further by, I don't know, setting height limits for women's basketball players or otherwise preventing those who have a natural advantage in sports from showing up their inferiors?
"Some 13 year olds are bigger and stronger than other 13 year olds, so why don't we just make them all compete against 16 year olds?"
"Life isn't fair, so let's try and make things even more unfair!"
Serena Williams has dominated the sport of women's tennis, but look at her (https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/jjE0vVyi1AO0jSF5jPjIx21G574/fit-in/1024x1024/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2018/08/28/659/n/1922729/e0d2c50ee6733c4b_GettyImages-1026902234/i/Let-Take-Moment-Admire-Her-Arm-Muscles.jpg); can we be sure she's really what she says she is without looking up her tutu to be sure?
Yet again you seem baffled by the difference between feminine and female. This seems to be a common problem among wokies. Flexing her muscles and making an angry-face as she does her thing might look unfeminine to some, but we are talking about sex, not gender expression.
For someone who sees a potential pervert lurking in every bathroom stall you're remarkably upbeat about a field (youth sports) which is more rife with sickos as any archdiocese. And leaving aside the sex freaks, I'm sure this wouldn't be weaponized at all by parents looking to give their Becky a leg up over that other girl who looks just so...manly.
There's a pretty big difference between forcing minors to have genital exams performed by god knows what quack and adult women being asked to not stare at someone's privates in a shared shower space and the fact you can't even bring yourself to even feign outrage about the former while whinging about the latter speaks volumes about how far you've fallen.
Your own article stated that what would be required, in some cases, would be a signed statement from the student's personal healthcare provider. How you got from there to "sex freaks" and "god knows what quack" is a mystery to me. Did you even read the article you linked? Or are you just trying to be as sensationalist as possible? Most of us have had intimate examinations from our personal healthcare provider and it's far from "state sanctioned ****" or any of the other alarmist drivel that you kooks have been spewing over this.
And, there IS a pretty big difference between the two scenarios I presented. If you thought about a girl getting a private examination from her own doctor, or a ****-haver walking in while she is showering, and decided that the doctor exam was the one that might be traumatic for her, you're either completely disconnected from reality, or you're a psychopath incapable of empathy. That is freaking insane. Have you gone so deep into the Kool-Aid that you actually believe that?
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 01, 2021, 02:26:47 pm
I'll note that they also said, "In elite level or collegiate athletic competition, where a 1-2% advantage in speed or strength is often the difference between victory and defeat, governing bodies need to re-examine guidelines for inclusion of transgender and other women with elevated testosterone levels and determine what evidence-based changes are required to ensure a level playing field." However, I reject their take on the grounds that other biological differences can provide 1-2% differences in advantages or more. Michael Phelps is a genetic freak when it comes to swimming: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good1/
Cyber, they are saying that a 1% difference is a lot. Phelps' advantage may have come from such a 1% difference, but biological sex could also.
People seem to not understand how big the difference between male athletes and female athletes is. The fastest times ever run by a woman-- by Florence Joyner-Griffith over 30 years ago-- wouldn't even meet the qualifying standard to get to an NCAA championships. FloJo's times are beaten by thousands of men, some of them still in high school. The US women's soccer team, among the best in the world, practices against US high school boys teams, and frequently loses to them.
Serena Williams?
Quote
1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters)
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]
Maybe seeing Scarlett Johanssen toss around guys twice her size in a movie has made people unclear of how much physical disparity there is between men and women.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2021, 04:02:56 pm
And I'll mark you down under "trying to misrepresent the facts to create hysteria."
In any event, Florida passed an updated version of their bill last week that will make the sex marked on the birth certificate sufficient.
Florida isn't the only state pondering such laws. Idaho, for example, has such a law on the books.
Quote
So you can stop with your fake, imaginary, pretend, make-believe concern the privacy of women and girls. Your concern blinked into existence the moment it became a useful talking point, and will evaporate into thin air now that it's of no further use. The most pure specimen of concern trolling ever observed in our solar system.
*dismissive wanking gesture*
Quote
Do you not agree that we're talking about male athletes?
No we're talking about transwomen and transmen (like the Texas wrestler who kept winning titles against other women while taking testosterone and steroid treatments because the state's birth certificate rule forbade them from competing against boys).
Quote
"Some 13 year olds are bigger and stronger than other 13 year olds, so why don't we just make them all compete against 16 year olds?"
"Life isn't fair, so let's try and make things even more unfair!"
No, we're still talking about competition between age groups in which vast gulfs of ability and development already exist.
Quote
Yet again you seem baffled by the difference between feminine and female. This seems to be a common problem among wokies. Flexing her muscles and making an angry-face as she does her thing might look unfeminine to some, but we are talking about sex, not gender expression.
See dumb dumb the problem with laws like the ones you support mean anyone can challenge someone's sex purely on the basis of their gender expression. So an athlete who, like Serena, looks like an extremely masculine woman would mean someone could ask to check to see if she has a c**k.
Quote
Your own article stated that what would be required, in some cases, would be a signed statement from the student's personal healthcare provider. How you got from there to "sex freaks" and "god knows what quack" is a mystery to me. Did you even read the article you linked? Or are you just trying to be as sensationalist as possible? Most of us have had intimate examinations from our personal healthcare provider and it's far from "state sanctioned ****" or any of the other alarmist drivel that you kooks have been spewing over this.
That's weird every woman I know kinda hates going to the gynecologist even for necessary healthcare, but I guess sending teenagers to have their junk looked at, even by a "personal healthcare provider" because some Karen thinks she looks too manly to compete against her lil' Becky is totally cool.
Quote
People seem to not understand how big the difference between male athletes and female athletes is. The fastest times ever run by a woman-- by Florence Joyner-Griffith over 30 years ago-- wouldn't even meet the qualifying standard to get to an NCAA championships. FloJo's times are beaten by thousands of men, some of them still in high school. The US women's soccer team, among the best in the world, practices against US high school boys teams, and frequently loses to them.
Didn't that happen once in a scrimmage. Not a game, just a friendly kickabout.
Quote
Serena Williams?
Braasch was thirty years old at the time, while Venus and Serena were seventeen and sixteen, respectively.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 01, 2021, 05:00:28 pm
Quote
No we're talking about transwomen and transmen
These folks have no biological sex?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 01, 2021, 05:47:41 pm
I fully support anyone dressing or expressing themselves however they wish. Calling people by their preferred pronouns (he/she/they) is a reasonable accommodation for a trans person that I support. I don't support society pretending biological males are biological females because a trans person wishes they were such. That's not a reasonable accommodation. You are what you are. Sex is an unchangeable category.
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2021, 10:02:15 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/bring-it-in-caitlyn-jenner-promo-1.6013913
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2021, 10:13:36 am
Jenner gets it.
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/bring-it-in-caitlyn-jenner-promo-1.6013913
Quote
By banning trans girls from female sports, Jenner would theoretically prevent men from claiming they identify as women in order to achieve greater success.
This always kills me: dudes are gonna go through hormone therapy, change their gender expression and possibly get their genitals altered just so they can compete in the fabulously popular and lucrative world of women's amateur sports? Nah.
Post by: eyeball on May 06, 2021, 11:33:54 am
This always kills me: dudes are gonna go through hormone therapy, change their gender expression and possibly get their genitals altered just so they can compete in the fabulously popular and lucrative world of women's amateur sports? Nah.Perhaps some simply want to politicize their issue and thereby become fabulously popular in the trans world.
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2021, 11:34:30 am
This always kills me: dudes are gonna go through hormone therapy, change their gender expression and possibly get their genitals altered just so they can compete in the fabulously popular and lucrative world of women's amateur sports? Nah.
Transgender is about gender identity, not biology. People who identify as transgender may or may not resort to surgery or other treatments. Why should biological women have to compete with biological men for things like university athletic scholarships in women's sports or places on women's national teams? Picture a 27 year old Kaitlin Jenner showing up for the Pentathlon at the 76 Olympics. Biological women might as well have stayed home.
Jenner understands that and good for her.
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2021, 12:30:20 pm
Transgender is about gender identity, not biology. People who identify as transgender may or may not resort to surgery or other treatments.
Are there any examples of trans athletes who haven't undergone some level of medical intervention to transition but just show up claiming to be male or female?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 06, 2021, 02:04:11 pm
Are there any examples of trans athletes who haven't undergone some level of medical intervention to transition but just show up claiming to be male or female?
What difference does that make? Red herring.
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2021, 02:13:57 pm
What difference does that make? Red herring.
If that's the thing you're worried about and need legislation to protect against, then determining if its an actual problem is extremely relevant.
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2021, 02:41:51 pm
Are there any examples of trans athletes who haven't undergone some level of medical intervention to transition but just show up claiming to be male or female?
No because right now they can't.
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2021, 03:18:06 pm
If that's the thing you're worried about and need legislation to protect against, then determining if its an actual problem is extremely relevant.
So far it has been left up to sports federations and they have been dealing with it. If legislation is passed that enables it, you know there will be some people who will push it to the limit.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 06, 2021, 03:38:53 pm
If that's the thing you're worried about and need legislation to protect against, then determining if its an actual problem is extremely relevant.
I think non-trans men pretending to be trans and taking advantage of it isn't out of the question in terms of possibility of it happening, there are lots of weird people out there who might like the prestige/fame of winning an Olympic medal etc, however I don't think it's the crux of the issue because that would probably not be the norm. The crux is doing what is both fair for trans people and fair for cis women in general.
For example, should trans women who are indeed legit transgendered but who don't go on hormone therapy be able to compete in sports against cis women? It might seem compassionate toward the trans woman to allow it, which is a noble gesture, but it certainly isn't fair for the cis woman. The issue goes beyond compassion, it's an issue of how do we make things the most fair for everyone involved. It's a tough issue because there's no easy answers, any solution that's chosen means somebody gets screwed.
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2021, 04:00:47 pm
So far it has been left up to sports federations and they have been dealing with it. If legislation is passed that enables it, you know there will be some people who will push it to the limit.
The only legislation being pushed is to ban them. What's wrong with letting the individual sports' governing bodies decide?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 06, 2021, 04:06:09 pm
The only legislation being pushed is to ban them. What's wrong with letting the individual sports' governing bodies decide?
Now THAT I like... local decision making for the win.
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2021, 04:11:49 pm
I think non-trans men pretending to be trans and taking advantage of it isn't out of the question in terms of possibility of it happening, there are lots of weird people out there who might like the prestige/fame of winning an Olympic medal etc, however I don't think it's the crux of the issue because that would probably not be the norm. The crux is doing what is both fair for trans people and fair for cis women in general.
For example, should trans women who are indeed legit transgendered but who don't go on hormone therapy be able to compete in sports against cis women? It might seem compassionate toward the trans woman to allow it, which is a noble gesture, but it certainly isn't fair for the cis woman. The issue goes beyond compassion, it's an issue of how do we make things the most fair for everyone involved. It's a tough issue because there's no easy answers, any solution that's chosen means somebody gets screwed.
That's the assumption, but I'm not sure the evidence bears it out. For example the NCAA has allowed trans athletes to compete in the category that matches their gender identity since 2011 and yet trans athletes don't dominate college sports. The idea that trans people need to be barred by the state from competing seems to be a solution looking for a problem, like 99% of the culture war bullshit coming from the right.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 06, 2021, 04:20:41 pm
99% of the culture war bullshit coming from the right.
:o What is the 1% that's not ?
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2021, 04:52:58 pm
:o What is the 1% that's not ?
Fair point.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 06, 2021, 05:28:09 pm
That's the assumption, but I'm not sure the evidence bears it out. For example the NCAA has allowed trans athletes to compete in the category that matches their gender identity since 2011 and yet trans athletes don't dominate college sports. The idea that trans people need to be barred by the state from competing seems to be a solution looking for a problem, like 99% of the culture war bullshit coming from the right.
Well evidence is what should drive the policies on these things. I think it becomes complicated once you start dealing with the hormone therapies.
I think for now I'd support the school boards and individual sports groups themselves setting their own policy, because they'll come up with different solutions, which will give society a chance to figure out what solutions work and what doesn't. Hopefully in a decade or 2 we'll have this mostly figured out, but I assume not everyone will ever be satisfied no matter what happens.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 06, 2021, 05:56:45 pm
Fair point.
Believe me I would bend over backwards to find some value in it, and I will allow for the fact that social change is often overwhelming to people who can't conceive of anything different. For the actual culture war is a load of bunk served up by s*** merchants to get people angry so they'll watch my pillow ads
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2021, 07:32:15 pm
The only legislation being pushed is to ban them. What's wrong with letting the individual sports' governing bodies decide?
As long as there is no legislation to enable them. If you want to kill women's sports, you couldn't pick a better way.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 06, 2021, 09:19:27 pm
For the actual culture war is a load of bunk served up by s*** merchants to get people angry so they'll watch my pillow ads
We're all culture warriors, unless we're all ok letting everyone else decide what goes and what doesn't in society, and then we're just limp noodles with no opinions on anything. The culture war has flared to the level it has because we haven't seen this much cultural and demographic change in a long time. I think cultural change might be zero sum, so it threatens a lot of people. Culture is very important to most people's identity.
I think there's always old ways worth preserving, and always new changes that can improve on society. I think the dangerous people are those who are too closed-minded OR too open-minded and aren't really putting much critical thought into their positions.
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2021, 09:54:10 pm
1. “A trans male (female-to-male) student-athlete who has received a medical exception for treatment with testosterone for diagnosed Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for purposes of NCAA competition may compete on a men’s team, but is no longer eligible to compete on a women’s team without changing that team status to a mixed team.”
2. “A trans female (male-to-female) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.”
I'm certainly not qualified to say whether this is fair but it is clear that as far as the NCAA is concerned, identifying as a particular gender is not enough.
Post by: cybercoma on May 07, 2021, 09:31:28 am
Solution: change the name of "men's" and "women's sports" to "XY" and "XX".Most people have never had their genetics tested and some may be intersex and not even know it. I mean, you do know there's other combinations than XX and XY, right? Oh and in that regard, someone who's on hormone therapy, regardless of whether they're transitioning, how do you place them?
Post by: Black Dog on May 07, 2021, 10:33:21 am
We're all culture warriors, unless we're all ok letting everyone else decide what goes and what doesn't in society, and then we're just limp noodles with no opinions on anything. The culture war has flared to the level it has because we haven't seen this much cultural and demographic change in a long time. I think cultural change might be zero sum, so it threatens a lot of people. Culture is very important to most people's identity.
I think there's always old ways worth preserving, and always new changes that can improve on society. I think the dangerous people are those who are too closed-minded OR too open-minded and aren't really putting much critical thought into their positions.
The culture war is not a natural or inevitable consequence of social evolution. It's a man-made thing, crafted and pushed by the right to distract from the fact their preferred policies are grossly unpopular and hugely destructive.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 07, 2021, 10:43:30 am
1. We're all culture warriors, unless we're all ok letting everyone else decide what goes and what doesn't in society, and then we're just limp noodles with no opinions on anything.1. No, the term culture war means something specific and I'm going to be pedantic on this. Like "The War on Christmas" it refers to FOX-generated distraction from important issues for the purpose of infotainment.
2. The culture war has flared to the level it has because we haven't seen this much cultural and demographic change in a long time. I think cultural change might be zero sum, so it threatens a lot of people. Culture is very important to most people's identity.
3. I think there's always old ways worth preserving, and always new changes that can improve on society. I think the dangerous people are those who are too closed-minded OR too open-minded and aren't really putting much critical thought into their positions.
And even then, if I disagree with your cultural drapings there are mechanisms to resolve them that don't include war and alt-right pillow punching...
2. I'm surprised that you are so sure of this. While I myself will tag FOX as the folks who light the match on these bullshit bombs, I am in fact unsure of whether things really have changed so much. It's hard because we're all looking through tinted spectacles, and the double entendre is intentional.
3. I can't think of anybody who is too open minded. It's actually misinformed and entitled people who hold the balance of power and they should have their opinions negated in some way, IMO.
Post by: Black Dog on May 07, 2021, 11:36:40 am
As long as there is no legislation to enable them. If you want to kill women's sports, you couldn't pick a better way.
Again, the only legislation on the table are the outright bans. Shouldn't i be u to the sports to decide, not legislators?
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2021, 12:52:07 pm
Again, the only legislation on the table are the outright bans. Shouldn't i be u to the sports to decide, not legislators?
I'm not in favour of outright bans and I don't think it should it should be a political issue.
I didn't see anything in that article which said Jenner was proposing legislation. I also don't know whether the statements were instigated by her or in response to a question. I do think she is uniquely qualified to have an opinion on the issue.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 07, 2021, 04:01:58 pm
Again, the only legislation on the table are the outright bans. Shouldn't i be u to the sports to decide, not legislators?
Would you feel the same if the only legislation on the table were those protecting trans rights to compete and most individual sports associations were banning trans athletes?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 07, 2021, 04:38:35 pm
1. No, the term culture war means something specific and I'm going to be pedantic on this. Like "The War on Christmas" it refers to FOX-generated distraction from important issues for the purpose of infotainment.
What is your evidence for this? You alone don't get to define terms in order to prop up your biases, I'm sorry. "It's all the FOX conservative's fault" is a terrible analysis of the issue.
Quote
And even then, if I disagree with your cultural drapings there are mechanisms to resolve them that don't include war and alt-right pillow punching...
So there's only right-wing pillow punching, but no left-wing pillow punching? Have you been paying attention the last 5-10 years? Again, your biases are showing. Are you this biased that you think the people who you mainly disagree with are the only source of the friction? What you're saying is that if some people on the left want to change women's sports to allow trans men to compete, and some people on the right don't want to allow that, then the conflict is caused by the rightwingers. Do you see how illogical that position is? The conflict is caused by both of them.
Quote
2. I'm surprised that you are so sure of this. While I myself will tag FOX as the folks who light the match on these bullshit bombs, I am in fact unsure of whether things really have changed so much. It's hard because we're all looking through tinted spectacles, and the double entendre is intentional.
How much has your city changed culturally from 40 years ago? I suspect by orders of magnitude.
The US recently elected a black POTUS and a black female VP, we have a Sikh leader of a federal party and a Sikh Minister of Defense, and decorated male US Olympic athlete now walks around as a woman while gays can marry. How can you say things haven't changed that much? None of this was possible 40 years ago. Note: I'm fine with all of these things BTW.
Quote
3. I can't think of anybody who is too open minded.An example would be if some Christian sect moved to Canada and their religion said that every man could **** their daughters on the 3rd Tuesday of every month. Would you allow that kind of change in our society Michael?
Quote
It's actually misinformed and entitled people who hold the balance of power and they should have their opinions negated in some way, IMO.
I agree with that 100%, but that can come from the right or the left. I'm not saying I agree most of the time with the blowhards on FOX or these GOP wingdings, but sometimes I can understand WHY they feel how they do. Sometimes the right goes too far, sometimes the left. There's usually some good sense somewhere in the middle.
Post by: Black Dog on May 07, 2021, 10:31:52 pm
Would you feel the same if the only legislation on the table were those protecting trans rights to compete and most individual sports associations were banning trans athletes?
Would I feel the same in an alternate universe? How the f*ck would I know?
Post by: Black Dog on May 07, 2021, 10:32:46 pm
I'm not in favour of outright bans and I don't think it should it should be a political issue.
But it is so here we are.
Post by: Black Dog on May 07, 2021, 10:33:47 pm
What is your evidence for this? You alone don't get to define terms in order to prop up your biases, I'm sorry. "It's all the FOX conservative's fault" is a terrible analysis of the issue.
Are you really this dim? Do you not, you know, read?
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2021, 10:54:42 pm
But it is so here we are.
It isn't in California. Jenner made her comments in a TMZ interview. She was asked the question when she was corralled while out walking, it wasn't part of a campaign speech.
"I didn't expect to get asked this on my Saturday morning coffee run, but I'm clear about where I stand,"
Post by: kimmy on May 08, 2021, 12:03:23 pm
Most people have never had their genetics tested and some may be intersex and not even know it. I mean, you do know there's other combinations than XX and XY, right? Oh and in that regard, someone who's on hormone therapy, regardless of whether they're transitioning, how do you place them?
Gender-people play this game of trivializing biological sex by pretending it's an incredibly complicated subject with so many variations that definitions are virtually meaningless. The truth is, it isn't complicated and biological sex isn't meaningless.
Gender-people say that biological sex is a combination of 6 variables (external genitals, internal genitals, chromosomes, hormones, gender identity, and sexual orientation) which results in a six-dimensional matrix of infinite probabilities. But of those 6 variables, the first four aren't independent at all, they're closely linked. And the latter two have don't have any impact on physiology so are meaningless for this topic.
While few people have their chromosomes actually tested, the chromosomal variations that are observed in humans do result in predictable symptoms. They also don't result in unknown or indeterminate sex. People with Klinefelter syndrome are still men, people with Turner syndrome are still women.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 08, 2021, 12:26:31 pm
QuoteBy banning trans girls from female sports, Jenner would theoretically prevent men from claiming they identify as women in order to achieve greater success.This always kills me: dudes are gonna go through hormone therapy, change their gender expression and possibly get their genitals altered just so they can compete in the fabulously popular and lucrative world of women's amateur sports? Nah.
Who is actually saying that? That's just a straw-man that these panelists set up.
Typical quality CBC coverage. They have these think-alike panelists promote one point of view, and for "balance" they present this strawman of the opposing view to knock down.
I gather the CBC also had trans athlete, failed academic, and Trumpian-level narcissist Dr Veronica Ivy on The Current recently to spread her propaganda. That they'd put a clown like that on the air is in itself a statement about the integrity of their journalism on this topic.
Are there any examples of trans athletes who haven't undergone some level of medical intervention to transition but just show up claiming to be male or female?
Two trans high school athletes in Connecticut, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, dominated sprinting events in the state. Neither of them had any sort of medical transition; aside from their hair they're physically no different from any other male. There isn't any suggestion that they aren't sincere in their belief that they're women, but whether they're sincere or not has no effect on the big physiological advantage they have.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 08, 2021, 12:38:50 pm
As long as there is no legislation to enable them. If you want to kill women's sports, you couldn't pick a better way.
The Equality Act that Joe Biden signed on his first day in office mandates (among other things) that schools let trans girls compete in female sports; they'll lose federal funds if they don't comply.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 08, 2021, 12:52:43 pm
The culture war is not a natural or inevitable consequence of social evolution. It's a man-made thing, crafted and pushed by the right to distract from the fact their preferred policies are grossly unpopular and hugely destructive.
Which again begs the question of why liberals want to fight them on such unpopular policies in the first place. A political fight to get testicle-people into women's sports is the stupidest possible use of their political capital. Choosing this as the issue to fight the right over political insanity. They're handing their opponents buckets of bullets and saying "please shoot me with these!" This is such a stupid issue to fight on, because it's unpopular even among mainstream liberals. Anybody who sees a video of CeCe Tefler obliterating female athletes in a race, or Hannah Mouncey steamrollering women half her size in rugby, knows its ridiculous.
The Republicans are going to fight you regardless, so pick issues where the public will be on your side. There's broad bipartisan support for things like tax fairness and addressing wwealth inequality. Fight on those issues. Pick your fights better.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 08, 2021, 01:37:05 pm
Florida isn't the only state pondering such laws. Idaho, for example, has such a law on the books.
Lots of states have such laws or are coming out with them. But unless one of them still has a clause requiring a physical examination, you'll have to abandon this pretense that you're fighting for girls' privacy.
No we're talking about transwomen and transmen (like the Texas wrestler who kept winning titles against other women while taking testosterone and steroid treatments because the state's birth certificate rule forbade them from competing against boys).
Mack Beggs might have had some advantage due to male hormones (I don't know how the hormones used during transition compare to the performance enhancing drug regimens employed by professional-level cheats.) People like CeCe Tefler and Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller have the advantage of being, you know, actually male. Supposing the Beggs situation is an example of such a legislation backfiring, that still doesn't make the alternative preferable.
(apparently, Beggs vanished without a trace once he went to college to compete with male athletes.)
No, we're still talking about competition between age groups in which vast gulfs of ability and development already exist.
You understand that there's a big difference between different age groups but you're apparently too dense to understand that there's a big difference between the sexes once puberty sets in.
See dumb dumb the problem with laws like the ones you support mean anyone can challenge someone's sex purely on the basis of their gender expression. So an athlete who, like Serena, looks like an extremely masculine woman would mean someone could ask to check to see if she has a c**k.
Again you're here with this boogeyman that women will have to drop their pants on demand, which isn't what's being proposed. It seems like you guys can't make your argument without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole, which should tell you something.
That's weird every woman I know kinda hates going to the gynecologist even for necessary healthcare, but I guess sending teenagers to have their junk looked at, even by a "personal healthcare provider"
I don't think anybody likes going to the gynecologist. But in the space of a few posts you've gone from ranting about girls being molested by "sex freaks" and "quacks" to "well, women don't like going to the gynecologist" so you can see my point.
because some Karen thinks she looks too manly to compete against her lil' Becky is totally cool.
As an aside, I find it interesting how often progressives bring out these "Karen" and "Becky" stereotypes.
Didn't that happen once in a scrimmage. Not a game, just a friendly kickabout.
Braasch was thirty years old at the time, while Venus and Serena were seventeen and sixteen, respectively.
The Williams sisters were already nearing the top of women's tennis (Venus was #5 and Serena was #17) and Braasch was apparently best known as "the guy who smokes cigarettes during the change-over".
This website compares track and field results of the women's finalists at the 2016 Olympics to the boys finalists at the 2016 New Balance National Open track meet for highschool athletes.
https://boysvswomen.com/
In most of these events, the 8th place boy finishes ahead of the women's gold medalist. The 5000m run is the only event where the women come out ahead. And if you look at the physique of top distance runners vs top sprinters, you can understand why distance running is one of the few areas in sports where the gap between the sexes isn't as significant. It's not a coincidence that the only trans man athlete of any significance is Chris Moser, a long-distance race walker.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 08, 2021, 01:39:28 pm
Again, the only legislation on the table are the outright bans. Shouldn't i be u to the sports to decide, not legislators?
But it's okay for Biden to implement mandatory inclusion with an executive order?
-k
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2021, 01:42:52 pm
Quote
Two trans high school athletes in Connecticut, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, dominated sprinting events in the state. Neither of them had any sort of medical transition; aside from their hair they're physically no different from any other male. There isn't any suggestion that they aren't sincere in their belief that they're women, but whether they're sincere or not has no effect on the big physiological advantage they have.
It will be the death of women's sports if it is allowed to progress beyond high school. CIS women serious about competing will give up and very few will be interested in watching a bunch of biological guys in drag competing against each other.
Post by: Black Dog on May 08, 2021, 02:12:53 pm
Which again begs the question of why liberals want to fight them on such unpopular policies in the first place. A political fight to get testicle-people into women's sports is the stupidest possible use of their political capital. Choosing this as the issue to fight the right over political insanity. They're handing their opponents buckets of bullets and saying "please shoot me with these!" This is such a stupid issue to fight on, because it's unpopular even among mainstream liberals. Anybody who sees a video of CeCe Tefler obliterating female athletes in a race, or Hannah Mouncey steamrollering women half her size in rugby, knows its ridiculous.
The Republicans are going to fight you regardless, so pick issues where the public will be on your side. There's broad bipartisan support for things like tax fairness and addressing wwealth inequality. Fight on those issues. Pick your fights better.
-k
Yes i'm sure if we just ignore the culture war it will go away. Give the terrorists what they want and they on't bother us anymore. Because that's totally how bad-faith chuds operate.
Also I'd love to see the polls that show trans inclusion is unpopular among liberals.
Post by: Black Dog on May 08, 2021, 02:21:57 pm
Lots of states have such laws or are coming out with them. But unless one of them still has a clause requiring a physical examination, you'll have to abandon this pretense that you're fighting for girls' privacy.
The Idaho example I mentioned does. No doubt there are others.
Quote
Mack Beggs might have had some advantage due to male hormones (I don't know how the hormones used during transition compare to the performance enhancing drug regimens employed by professional-level cheats.) People like CeCe Tefler and Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller have the advantage of being, you know, actually male. Supposing the Beggs situation is an example of such a legislation backfiring, that still doesn't make the alternative preferable.
(apparently, Beggs vanished without a trace once he went to college to compete with male athletes.)
You understand that there's a big difference between different age groups but you're apparently too dense to understand that there's a big difference between the sexes once puberty sets in.
It's wild how a couple of wins by a few of those atheletes mentioned means they are dominating the sports. No mention of how often they finish second or sixth or whatever.
here's (https://www.athleticbusiness.com/high-school/after-lawsuit-filed-girl-tops-transgender-sprinter.html) an example of a cis girl beating one of the trans sprinters you mentioned (twice!)
Quote
As an aside, I find it interesting how often progressives bring out these "Karen" and "Becky" stereotypes.
From now on I'll just call them "kimmys" if that's better for you.
Quote
The Williams sisters were already nearing the top of women's tennis (Venus was #5 and Serena was #17) and Braasch was apparently best known as "the guy who smokes cigarettes during the change-over".
And most athletes don't hit their physical primes until their early-mid 20s.
Quote
Again you're here with this boogeyman that women will have to drop their pants on demand, which isn't what's being proposed. It seems like you guys can't make your argument without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole, which should tell you something.
This from the person who thinks there are sex perverts lurking in every bathroom. lol.
Quote
I don't think anybody likes going to the gynecologist. But in the space of a few posts you've gone from ranting about girls being molested by "sex freaks" and "quacks" to "well, women don't like going to the gynecologist" so you can see my point.
Weird how you focus on that and not the larger point about how such laws could be abused to marginalize people who simply don't fit gender norms, which you claim to be fighting against.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 08, 2021, 06:16:23 pm
Are you really this dim? Do you not, you know, read?
If you have evidence I'll read it yes. If you want to keep calling me dumb i'll just keep ignoring it because that's not an argument, and shows more about your intelligence than mine.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 08, 2021, 06:23:40 pm
Most people have never had their genetics tested and some may be intersex and not even know it. I mean, you do know there's other combinations than XX and XY, right? Oh and in that regard, someone who's on hormone therapy, regardless of whether they're transitioning, how do you place them?
Well then how do we categorize athletes? Allow them to to compete in whatever category they want based on their feelings because an extremely minuscule % of the population doesn't fall under XX or XY?
Feelings shouldn't be a part of any categorization in sports, it should be based on data, evidence, fact. ie: Biology and science. So it's a matter of figuring out what is a fair categorization.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 08, 2021, 06:38:26 pm
It will be the death of women's sports if it is allowed to progress beyond high school. CIS women serious about competing will give up and very few will be interested in watching a bunch of biological guys in drag competing against each other.
I don't think trans people are mentally ill, just like I don't think homosexuals are mentally ill. People are who they are. But any trans woman who would sit a top a podium feeling pride having defeated a field of cis women athletes is mentally ill. It's a joke.
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2021, 07:35:53 pm
I don't think trans people are mentally ill, just like I don't think homosexuals are mentally ill. People are who they are. But any trans woman who would sit a top a podium feeling pride having defeated a field of cis women athletes is mentally ill. It's a joke.
Say there is a guy who isn't quite good enough to qualify for an athletic scholarship, just identify as a woman and play with the girls if that is all it takes. If it gets them into school and pays for their education, why not? There has to be other qualifiers because someone will try it.
Post by: Black Dog on May 11, 2021, 09:47:21 am
The Equality Act that Joe Biden signed on his first day in office mandates (among other things) that schools let trans girls compete in female sports; they'll lose federal funds if they don't comply.
But it's okay for Biden to implement mandatory inclusion with an executive order?
Please point to the specific part of the order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/) that references mandatory inclusion and threatens federal funds. Thanks.
You can't, of course, because it doesn't.
Post by: Black Dog on May 11, 2021, 11:06:16 am
If you have evidence I'll read it yes. If you want to keep calling me dumb i'll just keep ignoring it because that's not an argument, and shows more about your intelligence than mine.
Evidence that the culture war is a moral panic ginned up by conservative dark money groups and disseminated through the right wing media? I'm not sure how you could avoid coming to that conclusion with even a cursory look at the current state of things.
Start here (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J0XIDyYR9F0J:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/14/why-is-gop-waging-culture-war-follow-money/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca), read one nation under God by Kevin M. Kruse and Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Use Google for Christ's sake.
Post by: kimmy on May 14, 2021, 12:45:34 am
Please point to the specific part of the order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/) that references mandatory inclusion and threatens federal funds. Thanks.This is interesting to me. Is this "original research" on your part, or did you read this on a blog or something? You're wrong, of course, but I'm curious as to how you got to this point.
You can't, of course, because it doesn't.
The first paragraph of Section 1 is crystal clear as to their intent:
"Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes. People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination. All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation."
Explicitly referencing locker-rooms and school sports.
In paragraph 2, they state that as far as they're concerned, Title IX (which requires schools and colleges that receive federal funds to provide equal opportunities for both sexes to participate in sports) to include gender identity as well as sex.
"In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Under Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Fair Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1522), along with their respective implementing regulations — prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary."
So they certainly intend to hold that schools that don't let trans women play in women's sports are in violation of Title IX.
The last paragraph of Section 1 states the intent to take action to "fully enforce" Title VII and other laws (like Title IX):
"It is the policy of my Administration to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. It is also the policy of my Administration to address overlapping forms of discrimination."
And Section 2 is instructions to the Cabinet on what they're expected to do to carry out this order. Which for the Secretary of Education will include enforcing a definition of Title IX that includes trans women in women's sports at schools and colleges.
So what about the withholding funds part? Where did that come from? Withholding funds is the tool that the federal government uses to enforce Title IX compliance. So that's directly inferred form paragraph 2.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on May 14, 2021, 01:37:11 pm
This is interesting to me. Is this "original research" on your part, or did you read this on a blog or something? You're wrong, of course, but I'm curious as to how you got to this point.
So what about the withholding funds part? Where did that come from? Withholding funds is the tool that the federal government uses to enforce Title IX compliance. So that's directly inferred form paragraph 2.
Inferred huh? What's that word mean, again?
What the EO actually does is require educational institutions to review existing programs and policies to ensure they comply with Bostock. There's no indication whether this means an open door policy or if it will enable schools and governing bodies like the NCAA to develop their own policies. There's certainly no threat to pull federal funds, rather an acknowledgement that legally, those funds are contingent upon compliance with Title IX (and other laws). Which, duh.
So, to sum up: the EO is a broad reminder of the responsibility of the administration to enforce the Supreme Court decision in question, but it does not mandate specific actions, remedies or punishments.
Post by: kimmy on May 20, 2021, 01:43:49 am
Inferred huh? What's that word mean, again?
An inference isn't a wild guess, if that's what you're suggesting. An inference is a conclusion supported by evidence and logic. The executive order spells out Biden's expectations for trans inclusion, spells out that they intend to use Title IX to enforce it, and the tools by which Title IX is enforced are not a mystery.
What the EO actually does is require educational institutions to review existing programs and policies to ensure they comply with Bostock. There's no indication whether this means an open door policy or if it will enable schools and governing bodies like the NCAA to develop their own policies. There's certainly no threat to pull federal funds, rather an acknowledgement that legally, those funds are contingent upon compliance with Title IX (and other laws). Which, duh.
So, to sum up: the EO is a broad reminder of the responsibility of the administration to enforce the Supreme Court decision in question, but it does not mandate specific actions, remedies or punishments.
It's clear from the executive order how the Biden Administration views Title IX compliance in light of Bostock. The specifics are up to the Education secretary, but it's clear what Uncle Joe wants. And Chase Strangio and the ACLU have been running around telling states that they're going to lose their funding over these women's sports bills, so they're pretty confident as well.
While many legal rights for gay and transgender people can be inferred from Bostock, it does not explicitly put gender identity on the same sort of legal footing as race and sex (though some seem to have interpreted it that way). The majority ruling written by Judge Gorsuch views freedom of gender expression as being a necessary result of the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex. It doesn't explicitly posit gender identity as a new source of protections, doesn't explicitly replace sex with gender identity, and doesn't explicitly make single-sex spaces or services (like changing rooms, showers, or women's sports) illegitimate. It does not replace "sex" with "gender identity" in the law books. The ACLU and the Biden Administration have taken a very activist and expansive view of the implications of the Bostock decision, but when this makes it back to court (and I'm sure it will) we'll find out if they're right.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 22, 2021, 07:13:02 am
That seems to be a moving of the line of acceptability back to where it was before trans rights started being confirmed by policy and by law.
In any case, I leave this for the discussion. I have no set opinion as of now, but the question in my mind is...
Is saying "Trans women aren't women" hate speech or just offensive?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ee5c6558-ba45-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=02df6ed6740655538e4fc6c54b67502d
Post by: guest7 on May 22, 2021, 10:20:27 am
A UK university apologizes to someone who says that trans women aren't women.
That seems to be a moving of the line of acceptability back to where it was before trans rights started being confirmed by policy and by law.
In any case, I leave this for the discussion. I have no set opinion as of now, but the question in my mind is...
Is saying "Trans women aren't women" hate speech or just offensive?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ee5c6558-ba45-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=02df6ed6740655538e4fc6c54b67502d
Mildly offensive.
If you want an example of hate speech in there, see "Shut the F*** Up TERF", accompanied by an image of a gun. Now that's getting it right!
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 22, 2021, 10:35:03 am
Post by: guest7 on May 22, 2021, 10:37:40 am
Fair enough, but I like discussing tough questions with smart people and easy questions with dumb people
Is that hate speech, or just offensive?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 22, 2021, 11:18:08 am
Post by: kimmy on May 22, 2021, 12:33:42 pm
A UK university apologizes to someone who says that trans women aren't women.
That seems to be a moving of the line of acceptability back to where it was before trans rights started being confirmed by policy and by law.
In any case, I leave this for the discussion. I have no set opinion as of now, but the question in my mind is...
Is saying "Trans women aren't women" hate speech or just offensive?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ee5c6558-ba45-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=02df6ed6740655538e4fc6c54b67502d
"Hate speech" has a legal definition that sets a threshold well above "hurts someone's feelings." The University of Essex was told as much after the independent review. This article (https://www.cloisters.com/reindorf-review-on-no-platforming/) on the reviewer's findings says:
Quote
In Professor Phoenix’s case, a seminar which she was due to give in December 2019 was cancelled at the last minute because of threats of disruption. A flyer was circulated in the University bearing an image of a cartoon character pointing a gun and the words “SHUT THE F*** UP, TERF”. The report concluded that proper use of the University’s external speaker notification procedure would have averted the last minute panic which resulted in the cancellation. Thereafter, a decision was taken to not invite Professor Phoenix to give another seminar because of concerns that she would engage in “hate speech” against trans people. The report concluded that this amounted to blacklisting and was unlawful, and that there was no reasonable basis for thinking that Professor Phoenix might use unlawful speech of any kind.
This sounds much like the controversy regarding Meghan Murphy's talk at the Toronto Public Library, where the head librarian refused calls to deplatform the event because there was no basis to suggest anything illegal would be said. I guilted you into watching one of Ms Murphy's talks (perhaps it was the one at the Toronto Library, I don't recall.) You conceded that while you found it painfully boring you didn't see anything you considered hate speech.
The University of Essex uninviting Prof Freedman from its roundtable due to her views on gender ideology is even more ridiculous, considering the roundtable was on antisemitism.
Is "Trans women are women" supposed to be viewed as an assertion of fact, or as a statement of belief or faith?
If it's supposed to be an assertion of fact, the truth of that fact can be debated. We could probably start by defining "trans woman" and "woman".
If it's supposed to be a statement of faith, then I could see how somebody might find it hurtful, much like if somebody questions the truth of their religious beliefs. If someone said "Jesus wasn't actually divine, he was just a wise philosopher and activist" then perhaps some Christians might find that hurtful or offensive. Some might even argue it to be anti-Christian hate speech to suggest that their faith is built on a false claim. But we allow people to debate that question. There is much scholarly research on the historical accuracy of the Bible, how much was posthumous fan-fiction created by the early church decades later, and trying to reconcile contemporaneous data with the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life. And none of that stuff gets prosecuted as hate speech.
Hate speech, by law, has a formal definition that sets a high bar that goes well beyond hurt feelings.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 22, 2021, 01:19:23 pm
You present a false dilemma, in that the statement is neither a fact or belief, as I see it. It's a value.
Post by: kimmy on May 22, 2021, 01:41:34 pm
The Idaho example I mentioned does. No doubt there are others.
And if they change their law to make a simple check of the birth certificate suffice, will that address your concerns or will you find some other excuse to keep whining about these bills?
It's wild how a couple of wins by a few of those atheletes mentioned means they are dominating the sports. No mention of how often they finish second or sixth or whatever.
here's (https://www.athleticbusiness.com/high-school/after-lawsuit-filed-girl-tops-transgender-sprinter.html) an example of a cis girl beating one of the trans sprinters you mentioned (twice!)
So interesting about that...
Quote
As reported by The Washington Times, Chelsea Mitchell of Canton High School ran the race in 7.18 seconds, edging Terry Miller of Bloomfield High School. Miller, a transgender athlete, finished at 7.20 seconds.I looked it up. Chelsea Mitchell's career best in the 55m is 7.14s, so she was not far off. Terry Miller's career best was 6.91s, so he was over 1/4 second slower in that race.
We don't know what happened to Miller that day. Perhaps she stumbled coming out of the starting blocks. Perhaps she was not feeling well, perhaps she was nursing an injury, perhaps she was distracted and didn't hear the starting gun. Given the timing-- coming just a few days after the lawsuit was filed-- one can't help wondering if Miller thought that letting the cis-girls win one might take some of the heat off. Whatever the case, Terry Miller flubbed the race, and arguing that the cis-girls still have a chance if the trans-girls flub the race doesn't show that it's fair.
Only stupid-people or dishonest-people would argue that female people can compete on an equal basis against male people in athletics. But in regard to trans women there was this idea that capping hormone levels could eliminate male advantages, but now we have several studies that show it doesn't. So now the arguments have moved on to "well, trans women have been in women's sports for a while, and it hasn't ruined women's sports yet".
This from the person who thinks there are sex perverts lurking in every bathroom. lol.
Now that many places are getting rid of single-sex washrooms and replacing them with all-gender washrooms, there probably is a sex pervert in every bathroom. If you're in the all-genders washroom and there's a single cisgender man in there with you, what are the odds you're in there with a sex pervert? Like about 80% or so?
Weird how you focus on that and not the larger point about how such laws could be abused to marginalize people who simply don't fit gender norms, which you claim to be fighting against.
I'm all for people defying gender norms if then want to. I think they could defy gender norms by competing against people of their own biological sex. I remember reading about a trans woman in some country who plays rugby in a men's league. That's pretty cool, don't you think? Way cooler than Hannah Mouncey breaking the leg of a girl 100 pounds lighter in an Aussie Rules football game, for sure.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 22, 2021, 01:51:33 pm
I don't remember watching the video.
You must. You complained for days afterward. "More boring than church," you said.
You present a false dilemma, in that the statement is neither a fact or belief, as I see it. It's a value.
Okay, so for purposes of what we're talking about can you elaborate how a value is different from a statement of belief (or fact)?
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 22, 2021, 02:37:41 pm
You must. You complained for days afterward. "More boring than church," you said.
Okay, so for purposes of what we're talking about can you elaborate how a value is different from a statement of belief (or fact)?
-k
I am constantly complaining, and I don't remember boring things.
A value is a moral dependency that is seen as important to an individual, or in this case a society. I want to understand how civil communities deal with questions of morality as they are being discussed, codified into law, and after.
Can someone express a belief that contradicts such values at any time in the process of their adoption without expectation of public rejection, censure and suppression?
Post by: eyeball on May 22, 2021, 07:00:12 pm
Is saying "Trans women aren't women" hate speech or just offensive?It just is what it is.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 22, 2021, 07:24:08 pm
It just is what it is.
I'm interested in finding out if smart people can agree what it is, and what it isn't.
They were able to resolve different religions living in one country, they should be able to do this.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 22, 2021, 11:35:45 pm
Is saying "Trans women aren't women" hate speech or just offensive?
That's a good question. I'm not really sure.
Some people don't even understand the difference in gender and sex. I've had to explain it recently to older relatives. Some people are just dumb, or ignorant, or just old and not up to speed on these things. So should we be making it illegal, at least this early in the mainstreaming of trans issues, for dumb/ignorant people to say dumb stuff? Or for the time being should we just be offended and point that out when we think they're wrong so they learn?
I think with "cancel culture" and "outrage culture" and whatnot there's already punishment for saying ignorant things.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 23, 2021, 06:13:39 am
Kimmy used the term 'faith', and I said 'values'. A university harbours values, though, but not faith. So it's ok for them to exclude certain values.
Post by: Black Dog on May 23, 2021, 02:27:22 pm
And if they change their law to make a simple check of the birth certificate suffice, will that address your concerns or will you find some other excuse to keep whining about these bills?
Do you think it's fair that any gender non-conforming person or masculine woman could get subjected to interrogation over their gender or is that just another indignity you're happy for someone else to bear?
Quote
So interesting about that...I looked it up. Chelsea Mitchell's career best in the 55m is 7.14s, so she was not far off. Terry Miller's career best was 6.91s, so he was over 1/4 second slower in that race.
We don't know what happened to Miller that day. Perhaps she stumbled coming out of the starting blocks. Perhaps she was not feeling well, perhaps she was nursing an injury, perhaps she was distracted and didn't hear the starting gun. Given the timing-- coming just a few days after the lawsuit was filed-- one can't help wondering if Miller thought that letting the cis-girls win one might take some of the heat off. Whatever the case, Terry Miller flubbed the race, and arguing that the cis-girls still have a chance if the trans-girls flub the race doesn't show that it's fair.
I think this proves that there's plenty of things that go into athletic success beyond body composition.
Quote
Only stupid-people or dishonest-people would argue that female people can compete on an equal basis against male people in athletics. But in regard to trans women there was this idea that capping hormone levels could eliminate male advantages, but now we have several studies that show it doesn't. So now the arguments have moved on to "well, trans women have been in women's sports for a while, and it hasn't ruined women's sports yet".
Several studies? I think there was one recent one that didn't even address trained athletes that showed some advantage post transition, but to pretend the science on this is settled is completely wrong.
Quote
Now that many places are getting rid of single-sex washrooms and replacing them with all-gender washrooms, there probably is a sex pervert in every bathroom. If you're in the all-genders washroom and there's a single cisgender man in there with you, what are the odds you're in there with a sex pervert? Like about 80% or so?
Holy ****, I can't imagine how you even bring yourself to leave the house.
Quote
I'm all for people defying gender norms if then want to. I think they could defy gender norms by competing against people of their own biological sex. I remember reading about a trans woman in some country who plays rugby in a men's league. That's pretty cool, don't you think? Way cooler than Hannah Mouncey breaking the leg of a girl 100 pounds lighter in an Aussie Rules football game, for sure.
I'm surprised you didn't go with that trans UFC fighter breaking her opponent's orbital bone, that's on first page of the handbook. You're getting sloppy.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 23, 2021, 06:27:52 pm
The controversy is about how we handle such dissenting views.
Kimmy used the term 'faith', and I said 'values'. A university harbours values, though, but not faith. So it's ok for them to exclude certain values.
I don't really understand. Faith and values?
Your question seemed aimed at: are offensive words just offensive, to be punished socially between private individuals/groups, or should they be punished by the law through the government? A law and a social norm are 2 very different things with very different consequences. One uses violent coercion of the state, the other doesn't.
I suppose it's up the university to define its own values? Most universities are public in Canada, and take public money, but i'm not sure what that means for these things. Universities and academics are given academic independence from government, which is important. I would think there's well established protocols for these sorts of issues that occur at public universities. Board of directors and committees and whatnot.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 23, 2021, 07:41:27 pm
1. Your question seemed aimed at: are offensive words just offensive, to be punished socially between private individuals/groups, or should they be punished by the law through the government? A law and a social norm are 2 very different things with very different consequences. One uses violent coercion of the state, the other doesn't.
There are already punishments in place for such things. What is saying "Trans women aren't women" ? Is this an offensive statement ? Is it blind ignorance that should be censured by any institution, people getting fired, boycotted, cancelled etc. ?
Quote
I suppose it's up the university to define its own values? Most universities are public in Canada, and take public money, but i'm not sure what that means for these things.
That's why I am asking. I'm not sure either.
Quote
Universities and academics are given academic independence from government, which is important. I would think there's well established protocols for these sorts of issues that occur at public universities. Board of directors and committees and whatnot.
No.
Post by: kimmy on May 26, 2021, 02:16:25 am
There are already punishments in place for such things. What is saying "Trans women aren't women" ? Is this an offensive statement ?
lol no
Is it blind ignorance that should be censured by any institution, people getting fired, boycotted, cancelled etc. ?
lol not that either
A value is a moral dependency that is seen as important to an individual, or in this case a society. I want to understand how civil communities deal with questions of morality as they are being discussed, codified into law, and after.
Can someone express a belief that contradicts such values at any time in the process of their adoption without expectation of public rejection, censure and suppression?
"Trans women are women" might be the law in this country, but we're allowed to express our disagreement with laws. In the UK where the deplatforming of these two academics occured, and the subsequent apology, it's slightly more complicated as their Gender Recognition Act sets out some steps beyond self-identification required to legally change your gender identity.
In any case:
If "trans women are women" is a claim, I'm entitled to ask for evidence. Alternately, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence ("Hitchens' Razor") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor).
If "trans women are women" is a belief, I'm entitled to not believe the same things you believe.
If "trans women are women" is a "value", I'm not required to hold the same values as you.
You earlier tried to leverage the notion of hate speech. I again point out that there's a high bar to clear for any statement to be considered hate speech.
If I said you "snartbizzle are bloksteen", you'd probably want to know what snartbizzle and bloksteen are before you committed yourself to either agree or disagree. Regarding "women", trans women aren't women according to any definition of women that I agree with. Regarding "trans women", I would like some clarity as to who actually gets to call themselves "trans women." Is that unreasonable?
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 26, 2021, 02:43:39 am
Do you think it's fair that any gender non-conforming person or masculine woman could get subjected to interrogation over their gender or is that just another indignity you're happy for someone else to bear?
Gender non-conforming doesn't make your biological sex ambiguous. ****. You seem to think the minute somebody gets a short haircut or some body piercings or whatever, their biological sex becomes some kind of **** mystery. It's not a mystery. ****. Regardless how "manly" some dipshit might have thought Serena Williams is, a glance at her hips-to-shoulders ratio would be enough to let any non-retarded person know what her biological sex is.
And showing somebody your birth certificate is hardly the trauma you seem to think it is.
For somebody who has reached the upper echelons of sport, their blood and urine have been analyzed thoroughly. You don't think they know exactly what Serena's body is made of? They have studied her blood samples to the point that they can tell you which hilltop her ancestors were sitting on 10,000 years ago.
I think this proves that there's plenty of things that go into athletic success beyond body composition.
Several studies? I think there was one recent one that didn't even address trained athletes that showed some advantage post transition, but to pretend the science on this is settled is completely wrong.
There's the one Cybercoma linked to earlier. There's Hilton/Lundberg. There's another one from Karolinska Insitutet in Sweden. All showing that male athletes retain a significant physical advantage after transitioning hormones. And honestly I am surprised anybody needs research to convinced them. You're not a dope. You know it's true.
Holy ****, I can't imagine how you even bring yourself to leave the house.
Funny, a couple of months ago in this thread you were telling me that if trans women had to share washroom facilities with cisgender men, they might be sexually harrassed, beaten up, sexually assaulted, maybe even murdered... now you think it's irrational for women to be scared to share their washrooms and showers with cisgender men?
We've been waiting centuries for cisgender men to Be Bettertm... have men changed that much in the past 2 months?
I'm surprised you didn't go with that trans UFC fighter breaking her opponent's orbital bone, that's on first page of the handbook. You're getting sloppy.
At least in MMA they have weight classes. Fallon Fox was at least in the same weight class as her opponents, something that 6'3, 240lb Hannah Mouncey never has been. Various rugby associations have been grappling with the trans issue recently, whereas I'm not aware of anybody who sincerely believes trans women should be fighting biological women.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 07:59:37 am
lol no
Actually, I offered two choices "is it offensive" or "is it more than offensive" ?
It's one of them, or the mainstream world wouldn't be adopting the maxim that trans women are women.
Quote
but we're allowed to express our disagreement with laws.
Of course. You can say anything you like but it's still offensive.
Quote
In the UK where the deplatforming of these two academics occured, and the subsequent apology, it's slightly more complicated as their Gender Recognition Act sets out some steps beyond self-identification required to legally change your gender identity.
Academics get more leeway as their role in society is closer to "bringing truth to light" than journalists, politicians and salesmen.
Quote
If "trans women are women" is a claim, I'm entitled to ask for evidence. Alternately, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence ("Hitchens' Razor") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor).
You can ask for evidence, but nobody has to provide evidence for a value.
Quote
If "trans women are women" is a belief, I'm entitled to not believe the same things you believe.
I'm wading through this post and not finding anything that addresses my question.
Quote
If "trans women are women" is a "value", I'm not required to hold the same values as you.
Ok... still doesn't say anything about public morality and how it is processed.
Quote
You earlier tried to leverage the notion of hate speech. I again point out that there's a high bar to clear for any statement to be considered hate speech.
Stop it. I didn't try to leverage anything. You are jumping ahead and assuming that I am using our differences of opinion to plant a flag of some kind. I am sincerely asking how public divergence of morality can be processed by civil society.
Quote
If I said you "snartbizzle are bloksteen", you'd probably want to know what snartbizzle and bloksteen are before you committed yourself to either agree or disagree.
Maybe... or maybe it's meaningless, ultimately, and it doesn't matter to most of us as much as getting along with our neighbours. If you are asking me to be complicit in something I am steadfastly against then it leads to a range of unpleasant choices:
1) Shut up and play along
2) Register my objection with close friends and allies only and play along
3) Register my objection in academic forums that assume positive motives in any discussion, and allow for safe discussion of unpopular opinions.
4) Speak out whenever/wherever I can and anyone who wants to object/persecute me go ahead.
Now, whatever option you pick isn't a great one but note that they are guaranteed freedom of speech, ie. the government won't act against you, jail you, fine you for saying such things in public.
If you want to say "trans women aren't women" you probably won't get the same pushback as if you say "Jews control the media" or "Black people are not equal". Maybe you would get the amount of pushback you would have received in 1965, but still.
But you will still face the same choices. If you disagree, explain to me why the first statement is structurally different, in terms of objectionable speech.
Quote
If Regarding "women", trans women aren't women according to any definition of women that I agree with. Regarding "trans women", I would like some clarity as to who actually gets to call themselves "trans women." Is that unreasonable?
What seems to be happening is that people are considered the gender that they declare, upon declaring it.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 11:16:28 am
Actually, I offered two choices "is it offensive" or "is it more than offensive" ?
It's one of them, or the mainstream world wouldn't be adopting the maxim that trans women are women.
If someone is offended, I don’t honestly care.
The ‘mainstream world’ isn’t doing that at all. The mainstream world doesn’t give two hoots. It may seem that way to someone living in a bubble of PC culture. But, in the regular world, no one really cares. Literally no one I know would consider a trans-woman to be a “real woman”. But I don’t look at that and say “the real world thinks this...”
Quote
You can ask for evidence, but nobody has to provide evidence for a value.
Then why should anyone hold your value? Not providing evidence simply makes it arbitrary.
Quote
Ok... still doesn't say anything about public morality and how it is processed.
What is “public morality”?
Quote
Stop it. I didn't try to leverage anything. You are jumping ahead and assuming that I am using our differences of opinion to plant a flag of some kind. I am sincerely asking how public divergence of morality can be processed by civil society.
When you call it a hate crime, I thinkthat’s a red flag of some kind.
Quote
If you want to say "trans women aren't women" you probably won't get the same pushback as if you say "Jews control the media" or "Black people are not equal". Maybe you would get the amount of pushback you would have received in 1965, but still.
“Trans-women are women” is an arbitrary statement that ignores biological sex. And you didn’t give any evidence to back up this opinion.
The other two opinions can clearly be shown to be false and exposed as racist nonsense.
Quote
But you will still face the same choices. If you disagree, explain to me why the first statement is structurally different, in terms of objectionable speech.
Seems that “objectionable speech” is anything you might disagree with. Well, too fkn bad.
Quote
What seems to be happening is that people are considered the gender that they declare, upon declaring it.
That’s fine... be what you want to be. But that simply becomes an arbitrary label you give yourself and then you demand the rest of society to go along.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 11:43:27 am
I don't really understand. Faith and values?
Your question seemed aimed at: are offensive words just offensive, to be punished socially between private individuals/groups, or should they be punished by the law through the government? A law and a social norm are 2 very different things with very different consequences. One uses violent coercion of the state, the other doesn't.
Agreed. This is a good summary.
Quote
I suppose it's up the university to define its own values? Most universities are public in Canada, and take public money, but i'm not sure what that means for these things. Universities and academics are given academic independence from government, which is important. I would think there's well established protocols for these sorts of issues that occur at public universities. Board of directors and committees and whatnot.
Personally, I think it means that universities should not stifle speech. Whether this is legally the case or not, I suspect it’s probably not the case. But, given that they are public institutions, I don’t think this “safe space” culture should be allowed to exist like it does.
Of course students should be safe from harm. There should never be hate speech allowed, no threats of violence and never any actual violence.
But saving students’ feelings? No. No one has a right to never be offended.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 02:17:04 pm
If someone is offended, I don’t honestly care.
It's outside the point of the discussion, ie. I don't care that you don't care.
Quote
The ‘mainstream world’ isn’t doing that at all. The mainstream world doesn’t give two hoots. It may seem that way to someone living in a bubble of PC culture. But, in the regular world, no one really cares. Literally no one I know would consider a trans-woman to be a “real woman”. But I don’t look at that and say “the real world thinks this...”
I suppose it's arguable, but you must agree that a significant part of society is moving this way...
And if you don't think "Trans women are women" is going to persist as a social value then you probably can't help me in my question either.
Quote
Then why should anyone hold your value? Not providing evidence simply makes it arbitrary.
Morals and etiquette are arbitrary, you know that right ?
Quote
What is “public morality”?
The moral sphere that is roughly aligned with what is considered 'acceptable' in a community, perhaps.
Quote
When you call it a hate crime, I thinkthat’s a red flag of some kind.
“Trans-women are women” is an arbitrary statement that ignores biological sex. And you didn’t give any evidence to back up this opinion.
I am not talking about my opinion on this.
Quote
The other two opinions can clearly be shown to be false and exposed as racist nonsense.
Lots of people use reason to validate racist values, and at a certain point you can't argue either way for/against values.
But, again, it's outside the point of this discussion. Suffice it to say that people will not agree on this or other values, and I'm trying to find out how people use reflexivity to frame their values vs those of others.
Quote
Seems that “objectionable speech” is anything you might disagree with. Well, too fkn bad.
Again, it's not about my opinion.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 02:41:49 pm
Quote
Morals and etiquette are arbitrary, you know that right ?
Morals and etiquette are completely different.
My morals aren’t arbitrary. They are a set of actions based on how likely it is to meet a goal. The goal itself may be arbitrary (I like Sam Harris’ “well being” as the goal). But you can measure the outcomes of an action in relation to that “ultimate goal”, which means that the moral actions are not arbitrary at all.
But, I think you are confusing morality with etiquette. You want people to have a certain etiquette to not disagree with the statement “trans-women are women”. You conflate that with morality and hate speech for some reason, maybe to make your argument seem to carry more weight than it actually does.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 02:50:04 pm
Morals and etiquette are completely different.
Yes, but they are both fairly arbitrary.
Quote
My morals aren’t arbitrary. They are a set of actions based on how likely it is to meet a goal. The goal itself may be arbitrary (I like Sam Harris’ “well being” as the goal). But you can measure the outcomes of an action in relation to that “ultimate goal”, which means that the moral actions are not arbitrary at all.
You think rather a lot of your rationality. That's a good thing for you.
Many people also don't even think about their own morality.
Quote
But, I think you are confusing morality with etiquette. You want people to have a certain etiquette to not disagree with the statement “trans-women are women”. You conflate that with morality and hate speech for some reason, maybe to make your argument seem to carry more weight than it actually does.
Speaking of confusing... you said "my want". I already said twice or so that this isn't about how I feel about the trans issue.
If you don't get that, then we don't have anything to discuss.
The point is that people disagree. You can't discuss that by continuously bringing my personal opinion into it.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 03:00:45 pm
Yes, but they are both fairly arbitrary.
I just explained that they aren’t actually.
Quote
You think rather a lot of your rationality. That's a good thing for you.
Many people also don't even think about their own morality.
Perhaps they should.
Quote
Speaking of confusing... you said "my want". I already said twice or so that this isn't about how I feel about the trans issue.
If you don't get that, then we don't have anything to discuss.
The point is that people disagree. You can't discuss that by continuously bringing my personal opinion into it.
All we are doing is discussing opinions. LOL
You don’t understand that this is all about opinions?
You are representing an opinion in this discussion, whether you say you are, or not. Otherwise, there wouldn’t need to be a discussion, now would there?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 03:15:28 pm
I just explained that they aren’t actually.
Let me explain:
What is 'rude', for example, varies widely from culture to culture even within the same language, community or country.
Why was keeping your hat on regarded as such an affront that ango Canadians demanded Sikhs remove turbans
Quote
Perhaps they should.
I agree.
Quote
All we are doing is discussing opinions. LOL
You don’t understand that this is all about opinions?
You are representing an opinion in this discussion, whether you say you are, or not. Otherwise, there wouldn’t need to be a discussion, now would there?
Yes it's about opinions, but I don't care about your or my opinion on the morality of saying "trans women are/aren't women".
I'm asking how reasonable people abide with opinions that they or others find offensive, and how to frame changes in the collective moral sphere in a way that reduces the amount of crazy-making.
It could also maybe help people who think reflexively to see things more abstractly.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 03:40:41 pm
Personally, I think it means that universities should not stifle speech. Whether this is legally the case or not, I suspect it’s probably not the case. But, given that they are public institutions, I don’t think this “safe space” culture should be allowed to exist like it does.
Of course students should be safe from harm. There should never be hate speech allowed, no threats of violence and never any actual violence.
But saving students’ feelings? No. No one has a right to never be offended.
I agree that no one has the right to never be offended. I think the whole crux of the issue is where the line is drawn where academic freedom crosses into something the university, or possibly the law in more extreme cases, needs to get involved to try and stop. What is a professor not allowed to say or teach?
Obviously threatening violence against a group/person is over the line. I guess hate speech generally, though the law sets a high bar on what they consider hate speech. Is anything within the confines of the law fair game for profs? You don't want a prof bashing entire races of people or otherwise teaching discrimination/prejudice. But then, are they allowed to bash "white people" or "whiteness" or "white culture"?
What if a prof taught holocaust denial? What if they didn't deny it happened but challenged some of the facts most agree on?
My problem is that I don't know how a university traditionally deals with these issues. There's always been the odd cases of a racist or holocaust denying prof or other problem cases a university has to deal with. Usually they filter those types out before they get tenure, they just don't renew their contract, but there has to be some kinds of broad rules profs need to abide by and a punishment mechanism that already exists.
It's difficult because sometimes simply stating facts that go against a certain accepted narrative will be accused as being racist or sexist or whatnot.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 03:41:59 pm
I'm asking how reasonable people abide with opinions that they or others find offensive...
Not sure what the big mystery is here... ignore their opinions. Go do your own thing. But don’t expect other people with a different option to bend to your will.
Quote
, and how to frame changes in the collective moral sphere in a way that reduces the amount of crazy-making.
It could also maybe help people who think reflexively to see things more abstractly.
This isn’t a moral question. Sometimes disagreement doesn’t mean that one opinion is morally good, while the other isn’t.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 03:44:56 pm
I agree that no one has the right to never be offended. I think the whole crux of the issue is where the line is drawn where academic freedom crosses into something the university, or possibly the law in more extreme cases, needs to get involved to try and stop. What is a professor not allowed to say or teach?
Obviously threatening violence against a group/person is over the line. I guess hate speech generally, though the law sets a high bar on what they consider hate speech. Is anything within the confines of the law fair game for profs? You don't want a prof bashing entire races of people or otherwise teaching discrimination/prejudice. But then, are they allowed to bash "white people" or "whiteness" or "white culture"?
What if a prof taught holocaust denial? What if they didn't deny it happened but challenged some of the facts most agree on?
My problem is that I don't know how a university traditionally deals with these issues. There's always been the odd cases of a racist or holocaust denying prof or other problem cases a university has to deal with. Usually they filter those types out before they get tenure, they just don't renew their contract, but there has to be some kinds of broad rules profs need to abide by and a punishment mechanism that already exists.
It's difficult because sometimes simply stating facts that go against a certain accepted narrative will be accused as being racist or sexist or whatnot.
I don’t think the professional lines of what you can or can’t say as a prof are as blurry as you claim.
Teaching that the Holocaust didn’t happen is demonstrably a lie. An possibly hate speech. Terminated and possible criminal charges would ensue.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 04:02:30 pm
There are already punishments in place for such things. What is saying "Trans women aren't women" ? Is this an offensive statement ? Is it blind ignorance that should be censured by any institution, people getting fired, boycotted, cancelled etc. ?
We have to understand that a major part of the conflicts around trans issues is that sex and gender are 2 different things, and society has long categorized things as being for "men" or "women" by assuming everyone's sex and gender are either both male or both female (cis gendered). ie: bathrooms, sports etc.
So we have to figure out: are women's bathrooms for people who are female in biological sex, or for people who are female in gender expression? Same with women's/men's sports, pronouns, birth certificates, and many other issues.
When someone says "trans women aren't women", it's an incomplete statement IMO. Do they mean a trans woman isn't a woman biologically? Or not a woman in gender? Or both? If they mean biology well scientifically they're correct. If they mean gender, and refuse to call a trans woman by their preferred "she/her" pronouns well I don't agree and many would deem that offensive.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 04:12:51 pm
:(
I don’t think the professional lines of what you can or can’t say as a prof are as blurry as you claim.
Teaching that the Holocaust didn’t happen is demonstrably a lie. An possibly hate speech. Terminated and possible criminal charges would ensue.
Well there's a difference between making/teaching claims that aren't true (happens all the time, lots of profs put forward poor arguments that are rebutted) versus teaching something that isn't true that's rooted in hatred, racism, sexism etc. Most would agree the latter shouldn't be allowed.
WHat about making controversial moral claims that by their nature can't be proven true or false? ie: abortion is wrong, because of evidence x, y, and z
Or something like "most women should remain primarily as homemakers and avoid working outside the home because of evidence x, y, and z"?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 04:21:39 pm
Well there's a difference between making/teaching claims that aren't true (happens all the time, lots of profs put forward poor arguments that are rebutted) versus teaching something that isn't true that's rooted in hatred, racism, sexism etc. Most would agree the latter shouldn't be allowed.
WHat about making controversial moral claims that by their nature can't be proven true or false? ie: abortion is wrong, because of evidence x, y, and z
Or something like "most women should remain primarily as homemakers and avoid working outside the home because of evidence x, y, and z"?
Without any context? I’d say in both cases the teacher should be fired. But there may be some context where it could be allowed.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 04:30:19 pm
Actually, I offered two choices "is it offensive" or "is it more than offensive" ?
It's one of them, or the mainstream world wouldn't be adopting the maxim that trans women are women.
"Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry and should avoid having sex" is a controversial opinion that's offensive to many and likely most, but it's still legal to hold and express that opinion as far as I know. It's a homophobic statement most would think.
If someone says "trans women aren't women" I think they should be legally allowed to have that opinion. If they say that opinion at work then their workplace has the right to fire them. Why not leave the punishment to the private realm? Enforcing beliefs/opinions/speech through law is a big and dangerous step.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 04:32:30 pm
Without any context? I’d say in both cases the teacher should be fired. But there may be some context where it could be allowed.
If it's a high school teacher i'd agree, it gets more tricky if it's a tenured professor.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 05:05:27 pm
"Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry and should avoid having sex" is a controversial opinion that's offensive to many and likely most, but it's still legal to hold and express that opinion as far as I know. It's a homophobic statement most would think.
If someone says "trans women aren't women" I think they should be legally allowed to have that opinion. If they say that opinion at work then their workplace has the right to fire them. Why not leave the punishment to the private realm? Enforcing beliefs/opinions/speech through law is a big and dangerous step.
So people should be fired from work for having an opinion that differs from others?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 08:07:43 pm
So people should be fired from work for having an opinion that differs from others?
If their opinions don't represent the company's values and hurt the company's PR, people are fired all the time for that.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 08:21:07 pm
If their opinions don't represent the company's values and hurt the company's PR, people are fired all the time for that.
No one should be fired for merely having a different opinion. There has to be other circumstances involved.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 08:51:48 pm
Not sure what the big mystery is here... ignore their opinions. Go do your own thing. But don’t expect other people with a different option to bend to your will.
So, you don't care apparently.
Quote
This isn’t a moral question. Sometimes disagreement doesn’t mean that one opinion is morally good, while the other isn’t.
A lot of people disagree with this and want to cancel those who disagree with them, or pass laws restricting people who disagree with them. I see this as symptomatic of a major human rights question emerging at a time when public dialogue has ceased to function. I have intelligent friends on both sides of this issue.
But you don't think it's that interesting. Fair enough.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 08:53:03 pm
So people should be fired from work for having an opinion that differs from others?
It's actually been upheld by the courts in some places, and as you said the courts won't bend to your will...
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 09:03:19 pm
It's actually been upheld by the courts in some places, and as you said the courts won't bend to your will...
Not fired with cause... but they can always let them go for nearly any reason, unless it violates human rights legislation (gender, race, etc).
They have to pay them severance and whatever else they would normally be entitled to.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 09:04:32 pm
So, you don't care apparently.
A lot of people disagree with this and want to cancel those who disagree with them, or pass laws restricting people who disagree with them. I see this as symptomatic of a major human rights question emerging at a time when public dialogue has ceased to function. I have intelligent friends on both sides of this issue.
**** those people who want to make hurting someone’s feelings illegal.
Quote
But you don't think it's that interesting. Fair enough.
Ummm... what? Where did I say that it’s not an interesting topic?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 09:14:32 pm
Ummm... what? Where did I say that it’s not an interesting topic?
Talking about my topic, which is the meta-topic ie. how do we deal with strongly divergent opinions.
Your response:
"Not sure what the big mystery is here... ignore their opinions. "
Not fired with cause... but they can always let them go for nearly any reason, unless it violates human rights legislation (gender, race, etc).
They have to pay them severance and whatever else they would normally be entitled to.
No... I don't think she got compensation, she just lost her job. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50858919
As I said, or as you said, don't expect the court to bend to your will.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 09:24:29 pm
Not sure what the big mystery is here... ignore their opinions. Go do your own thing. But don’t expect other people with a different option to bend to your will.
I'm with you on this.
Using the violent coercive power of the government to force people to adopt the mainstream opinions of society, or at least not question them, is typically frightening in my view. Hurting someone's feelings shouldn't be illegal.
It can be taken too far, like harassment, or threats of violence, but we shouldn't be threatened by just controversial opinions that aren't PC. Some christian redneck yammering on about the evils of gay people...who cares. If a viewpoint is truly worth its weight most people will buy in anyways, you won't need the government to enforce compliance of belief. This is especially true in Canada where most people are generally reasonable.
As they say, our Charter rights on thought, belief, opinion, and expression aren't there to protect our right to say opinions most agree with, it's to protect people's rights to express opinions most don't agree with, specifically against governments seeking to ban these opinions.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 26, 2021, 09:31:03 pm
Talking about my topic, which is the meta-topic ie. how do we deal with strongly divergent opinions.
Your response:
"Not sure what the big mystery is here... ignore their opinions. "
Yes ignore them, or engage in discussion to try to convince them otherwise. If that fails, ignore them. We're all entitled to our opinions.
Having debates and trying to convince people with words seems a lot more reasonable than forcing compliance through state violence.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 09:38:03 pm
Common opinions have no need of protections.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 09:39:28 pm
I would to hear a better argument than 'ignore it' because that won't work if the government is against you.
And saying it's frightening doesn't help either.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 09:40:23 pm
It’s the objectionable opinions that need the most protections.
Common opinions have no need of protections.
But nobody objects when a Nazi loses his job much...
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 09:44:40 pm
But nobody objects when a Nazi loses his job much...
Holy fuk. No one said they should be able to keep their job.
The protections aren’t from consequences by private entities.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 09:46:17 pm
Well, your opponents see it differently, more as a human rights and safety issue.
I would to hear a better argument than 'ignore it' because that won't work if the government is against you.
And saying it's frightening doesn't help either.
They’re wrong. In fact, they’re so wrong that they’re fukkin idiots. Hurt feelings are not a reason for government to censure anyone.
You really sound like the woke version of Jordan Petersen... You’ll have to give a real-world example of the government being against someone. You’re being very vague.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 09:56:32 pm
Holy fuk. No one said they should be able to keep their job.
The protections aren’t from consequences by private entities.
Well what does protection mean to you?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 26, 2021, 09:59:02 pm
They’re wrong. In fact, they’re so wrong that they’re fukkin idiots. Hurt feelings are not a reason for government to censure anyone.
You really sound like the woke version of Jordan Petersen... You’ll have to give a real-world example of the government being against someone. You’re being very vague.
How many times do I have to tell you that this isn't about me? I'm trying to find a way to frame this, so that the boundaries are understood accepted by reasonable people.
You just want to attack me. It's tedious.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 26, 2021, 10:00:25 pm
Well what does protection mean to you?
Free speech means protection from consequences from government.
Seriously? You don’t know this???
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2021, 12:45:55 am
Well, your opponents see it differently, more as a human rights and safety issue.
Human right not to be offended by words, or a human right to freedom of opinion, belief, though, expression? Safety from words?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2021, 12:48:28 am
They’re wrong. In fact, they’re so wrong that they’re fukkin idiots. Hurt feelings are not a reason for government to censure anyone.
The only exception I can think of is sexual harassment. Targeted sexual cat-calls hurting someone's feelings.
Post by: kimmy on May 27, 2021, 01:05:21 am
Actually, I offered two choices "is it offensive" or "is it more than offensive" ?I think your options are a false dichotomy, and I disagree with the premise that the mainstream world has agreed that "trans women are women". It's a popular slogan or catch-phrase in some quarters. Left-wing politicians will say that because they believe it's a vote-getter (or at least, appeals to the kinds of voters who might consider voting for them.) I think your notion that it constitutes a widely held societal value is perhaps influenced by the social circle you inhabit or the media diet you prefer.
It's one of them, or the mainstream world wouldn't be adopting the maxim that trans women are women.
We all tend to spend our time with people we have a lot in common with. Educated urban middle-class centrists from work, for example. Or conservative people from your megachurch. Or so on. We see this kind of thing pop up on social media sometimes. "I refuse to believe that 81 million people voted for Joe Biden, because here in Crawdad County Georgia I don't know a single person who voted Biden!"
Of course. You can say anything you like but it's still offensive.
Academics get more leeway as their role in society is closer to "bringing truth to light" than journalists, politicians and salesmen.
I think academics are subject to the same hate speech laws as the rest of us. The barrister hired to carry out the independent review by the University of Essex stated that there was no reasonable expectation that these academics might say anything approaching the legal threshold for hate speech. It's not a question of whether they get more leeway, it's a question of whether they're more (or less) protected from the "consequences" of openly speaking wrongthink.
You can ask for evidence, but nobody has to provide evidence for a value.
I'm still not exactly sure of how a "value" differs from a "belief" in your phrasing. However, I think that if a "value" is expressed as a statement of fact that many people would disagree with, you'll have a hard time convincing people that it's a widely held belief. If someone's "value" was stated as "cats are divine beings", there would probably be a large number of people who disagree but some number would probably at least humor them. Unless respecting that value required demonstrable action like giving money and gifts to cats, in which case probably nobody would play along.
Ok... still doesn't say anything about public morality and how it is processed.
Stop it. I didn't try to leverage anything. You are jumping ahead and assuming that I am using our differences of opinion to plant a flag of some kind. I am sincerely asking how public divergence of morality can be processed by civil society.
I think that our public morality is based around some cornerstone principles, and evolves over time as we apply those cornerstone principles to new and changing situations. For example, respecting peoples' religious freedoms was originally envisioned as providing legal protection to different branches of Christianity, but the fundamental principle easily extends to non-Christian faiths as well. Our cornerstone principles include things like freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief, and that all humans have equal rights under the law to name a few. I think just about everything we hold to be central to our public morality ultimately extends from those cornerstone principles.
Maybe... or maybe it's meaningless, ultimately, and it doesn't matter to most of us as much as getting along with our neighbours. If you are asking me to be complicit in something I am steadfastly against then it leads to a range of unpleasant choices:
1) Shut up and play along
2) Register my objection with close friends and allies only and play along
3) Register my objection in academic forums that assume positive motives in any discussion, and allow for safe discussion of unpopular opinions.
4) Speak out whenever/wherever I can and anyone who wants to object/persecute me go ahead.
Now, whatever option you pick isn't a great one but note that they are guaranteed freedom of speech, ie. the government won't act against you, jail you, fine you for saying such things in public.
I think a big portion of this effort to create a new "public morality" around trans issues consists of activists trying to find ways to publicly promote their views, while trying to find ways to inflict harm on dissenters. Carrot and stick. I think they have to some degree succeeded into getting liberals to promote their slogans and even getting big businesses to jump on the train. I think they have also to some degree succeeded in making people fearful of expressing disagreement. Knowing that some people have been kicked off their social media platform, or doxxed, or faced disciplinary action at work, or perhaps be ostracized from their social circle, puts a chill on people expressing disagreement.
If you want to say "trans women aren't women" you probably won't get the same pushback as if you say "Jews control the media" or "Black people are not equal". Maybe you would get the amount of pushback you would have received in 1965, but still.
But you will still face the same choices. If you disagree, explain to me why the first statement is structurally different, in terms of objectionable speech.
"Jews control the media" feeds into long-standing conspiracy theories about Jews that have (and continue to be) used to inflame hatred against an identifiable group.
"Black people aren't equal" feeds into long-standing notions of racial superiority that have been used to inflict violence, slavery, and poverty upon black people.
Saying "Trans women aren't women" doesn't posit trans women as being inferior, any more than saying "trans women aren't disabled." Stating that you don't belong to a specific category of human doesn't deny your humanity. That's why it's structurally different.
What seems to be happening is that people are considered the gender that they declare, upon declaring it.
That's the law... but is it a good law? Last week in the UK there were four different self-declared women on trial-- two for child sexual abuse, one for child p0rn, and one for building bombs. Doesn't that seem a little suspicious? Doesn't that make you think that maybe at least some of these self-declared women are just cisgender male creeps hoping to obtain leniency or be placed in womens' prisons? I know that you guys are committed to the idea that "that never happens", but... what if it actually does?
If the definition of a woman is someone who says they are a woman, that's as circular as you can get, and you're the guy who said "circular definitions are to be avoided" a couple of pages back. It reduces the word "woman" to being completely meaningless.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 04:51:56 am
Free speech means protection from consequences from government.
Seriously? You don’t know this???
I do.
Again, the sauciness is tiresome. I get that you don't think I'm smart enough to discuss the topic with you. So let's not, then.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 04:55:41 am
Safety from words?
Yes. They would say that such words support an attitude that permits trans people to be abused. Therefore, boycott, employment termination and loss of platform are legitimate.
And you can't change their minds.
Do you think their methods are legitimate, given their values?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 05:34:20 am
I think your options are a false dichotomy, and I disagree with the premise that the mainstream world has agreed that "trans women are women". It's a popular slogan or catch-phrase in some quarters. Left-wing politicians will say that because they believe it's a vote-getter (or at least, appeals to the kinds of voters who might consider voting for them.) I think your notion that it constitutes a widely held societal value is perhaps influenced by the social circle you inhabit or the media diet you prefer.
Ok. Since some on this thread seem to think I'm arguing for acceptance of trans people, or supporting how this issue is being examined by "the" public let me reiterate clearly: I am not. I don't expect you to change your position, but as I said I know smart people on both sides and I'm exploring to see if there's a way to frame the moral questions reasonably.
So my options are an assumption. I'm assuming that there's a great deal of offense out there. You may not be offended, but by your own examination of the issues you must agree that there is some core element of the public that is offended and is achieving big changes in our public process as a result.
Is it widely held ? I'm assuming so only because corporations are responding to pressure, as are politicians and the courts. Maybe it's a small group of people who are making these changes happen then, but the changes are happening.
Quote
We all tend to spend our time with people we have a lot in common with. Educated urban middle-class centrists from work, for example. Or conservative people from your megachurch. Or so on. We see this kind of thing pop up on social media sometimes. "I refuse to believe that 81 million people voted for Joe Biden, because here in Crawdad County Georgia I don't know a single person who voted Biden!"
I think academics are subject to the same hate speech laws as the rest of us. The barrister hired to carry out the independent review by the University of Essex stated that there was no reasonable expectation that these academics might say anything approaching the legal threshold for hate speech. It's not a question of whether they get more leeway, it's a question of whether they're more (or less) protected from the "consequences" of openly speaking wrongthink.
Yes, I think that the University finding is an important building block in working out the questions I am asking here.
Quote
I'm still not exactly sure of how a "value" differs from a "belief" in your phrasing. However, I think that if a "value" is expressed as a statement of fact that many people would disagree with, you'll have a hard time convincing people that it's a widely held belief. If someone's "value" was stated as "cats are divine beings", there would probably be a large number of people who disagree but some number would probably at least humor them. Unless respecting that value required demonstrable action like giving money and gifts to cats, in which case probably nobody would play along.
Faith in a deity is a belief, but the idea that such beliefs and the attendant practices need to be protected by law is a value. People think that religiosity should be protected no matter how ridiculous the practices are. Lots of people disagree with it, and lots are impacted and offended but accepting the value means that the disagreements are strongly framed in our legal system.
I'm putting this out as an example of how humans work around illogical elements of life and how reasonable people can accept them even if they disagree. If this analogy is flawed, please just say so I'm not married to it.
Quote
I think that our public morality is based around some cornerstone principles, and evolves over time as we apply those cornerstone principles to new and changing situations. For example, respecting peoples' religious freedoms was originally envisioned as providing legal protection to different branches of Christianity, but the fundamental principle easily extends to non-Christian faiths as well. Our cornerstone principles include things like freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief, and that all humans have equal rights under the law to name a few. I think just about everything we hold to be central to our public morality ultimately extends from those cornerstone principles.
Aha, you got there on your own...
Quote
I think a big portion of this effort to create a new "public morality" around trans issues consists of activists trying to find ways to publicly promote their views, while trying to find ways to inflict harm on dissenters. Carrot and stick. I think they have to some degree succeeded into getting liberals to promote their slogans and even getting big businesses to jump on the train. I think they have also to some degree succeeded in making people fearful of expressing disagreement. Knowing that some people have been kicked off their social media platform, or doxxed, or faced disciplinary action at work, or perhaps be ostracized from their social circle, puts a chill on people expressing disagreement.
So it was with religious, racial and LGBT tolerance also. You don't hear too many opposing gay marriage as opposed to 20 years ago. It could be the influence of activists, or it could be the natural progress of good ideas being sold and bought in the public forum.
Quote
"Jews control the media" feeds into long-standing conspiracy theories about Jews that have (and continue to be) used to inflame hatred against an identifiable group.
"Black people aren't equal" feeds into long-standing notions of racial superiority that have been used to inflict violence, slavery, and poverty upon black people.
Saying "Trans women aren't women" doesn't posit trans women as being inferior, any more than saying "trans women aren't disabled." Stating that you don't belong to a specific category of human doesn't deny your humanity. That's why it's structurally different.
I don't think they would agree with you, but in any case the point isn't how true these things are. I'm pretty sure someone could make a case that there are a lot of Jews in media, banking etc. If you read "Our Crowd", about the Jewish experience in America, it's examined pretty closely. The point is that these things are offensive to some/many.
Quote
That's the law... but is it a good law? Last week in the UK there were four different self-declared women on trial-- two for child sexual abuse, one for child p0rn, and one for building bombs. Doesn't that seem a little suspicious?
Well... you haven't shown me that these numbers are out of proportion. If I present you statistics about Jewish presence in media, then I'm doing what you're doing here.
Quote
Doesn't that make you think that maybe at least some of these self-declared women are just cisgender male creeps hoping to obtain leniency or be placed in womens' prisons? I know that you guys are committed to the idea that "that never happens", but... what if it actually does?
Anyway this is immaterial to what I'm saying. Are there fake trans women ? Maybe. But you can use that argument with people who are arguing that trans women deserve recognition. I believe that they do, but I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to figure out if reasonable people can frame this dispute reasonably.
Quote
If the definition of a woman is someone who says they are a woman, that's as circular as you can get, and you're the guy who said "circular definitions are to be avoided" a couple of pages back. It reduces the word "woman" to being completely meaningless.
So I should therefore deny that trans women exist ? Someone's admission of identity is not a 'definition', it's a personal declaration of their feeling, their identity, and their belonging. But again, you're drawing me into a discussion I don't want to have.
------------------------------
I think that you and Graham are capable of grasping what I'm trying to figure out here, but I feel that if you really engage in the discussion I want to have then it will erode your position that the other side of the debate isn't being legitimate. Your position seems to be that the other side's beliefs are not widespread, are not being accepted, and that the answer is that people who disagree should fight it and roll back the laws and institutional edicts that have been adopted.
And that's fine.
As such, this debate is destined to become unsolvable. It will end up like the abortion debate: one side with the value that a woman has control over her body and the other side believing that life starts at conception.
And there really is no discussing abortion, either.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 27, 2021, 11:44:34 am
Yes. They would say that such words support an attitude that permits trans people to be abused. Therefore, boycott, employment termination and loss of platform are legitimate.
But they can try and do this already.... However, it’s not a criminal offence to have a different opinion. I don’t see the law changing on that. Thought police just aren’t a thing, as much as the woke crowd would like them to be.
Quote
And you can't change their minds.
Then they are irrational.
Quote
Do you think their methods are legitimate, given their values?
Which methods are those? Be specific.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2021, 12:54:36 pm
I do.
Again, the sauciness is tiresome. I get that you don't think I'm smart enough to discuss the topic with you. So let's not, then.
The squid has a vile dislike for anyone who disagrees with them and becomes aggressively insulting to them. Yes it's tiresome.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 01:17:09 pm
The squid has a vile dislike for anyone who disagrees with them and becomes aggressively insulting to them. Yes it's tiresome.
I am starting to see it.
Anyway, I think I have arrived at the terminal point here... people on either side are largely polarized into camps of moral altitude ( NOT attitude )
Being in the middle means that people with hard attitudes want to mostly fight with you.
I'll try to throw my two cents in, devil's advocate style...
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2021, 01:19:01 pm
Yes. They would say that such words support an attitude that permits trans people to be abused.
That seems like a slippery slope argument. We should make illegal the physical abuse and harassment of individuals and threats to do so, not simply opinions that could "support an attitude" that could lead to such actions. A lot of things could lead to something bad. Gangster rap could inspire others to commit illegal gang activity, therefore make laws to ban gangster rap?
Quote
Therefore, boycott, employment termination and loss of platform are legitimate.
These are all actions by private individuals or private companies/groups within the private sphere. So they're acting on values and norms, there's no laws/government enforcing views here.
Quote
And you can't change their minds.
Do you think their methods are legitimate, given their values?
Everyone is free to boycott, and a company is free to ban someone from their platform if they don't abide by their terms of use. Even companies are known all the time to fire people who speak against their values because it hurts the company, ie: Don Cherry. Profs in a university are a bit different because of academic freedom, I don't know the answer to that question, I don't know how universities deal with these issues and what the rules are.
What i'm against is someone being fined or jailed for speaking against the current mainstream paradigm of beliefs.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 02:14:48 pm
That seems like a slippery slope argument. We should make illegal the physical abuse and harassment of individuals and threats to do so, not simply opinions that could "support an attitude" that could lead to such actions. A lot of things could lead to something bad. Gangster rap could inspire others to commit illegal gang activity, therefore make laws to ban gangster rap?
It's the downslope of "hate speech" legislation attempts to do. Basically 'hate speech' legislation says you can't try to whip up hate. "Racism" itself isn't illegal, however it's morally repugnant in general.
Those who are repelled by people who don't accept trans women as women see this speech as, at least, equivalent to racist speech. I don't know or care if it is. I'm thinking that in 1955 there were things you could and couldn't say and every 10 years that line moved. Is that progress ? I don't know or care if it is but people buy into it.
You probably couldn't/wouldn't fire somebody in 1955 for using the n-word but in 2021 people are blacklisted for saying things that are far less offensive.
Again, I don't know or care. I personally prefer to not offend people, and I don't feel like I should have to defend folks who make a point of being offensive.
Quote
These are all actions by private individuals or private companies/groups within the private sphere. So they're acting on values and norms, there's no laws/government enforcing views here.
Employment law is public sphere, though. You can't fire someone for being gay... wait, unless you are the head of a Catholic school...
Quote
Everyone is free to boycott, and a company is free to ban someone from their platform if they don't abide by their terms of use. Even companies are known all the time to fire people who speak against their values because it hurts the company, ie: Don Cherry. Profs in a university are a bit different because of academic freedom, I don't know the answer to that question, I don't know how universities deal with these issues and what the rules are.
Well, at least you are saying you don't know. I don't know either, but there are definitely some
Quote
What i'm against is someone being fined or jailed for speaking against the current mainstream paradigm of beliefs.
I agree with you. Based on this conversation and the previous ones, I'm thinking there's not much room for live-and-let-live attitudes. Activists will try to get people fired, and there is a razor-thin margin of allowable vs unallowable speech in this area. People on one side are going to try to influence the dialogue and it will be nasty.
----
And I take these situations on a case-by-case basis.
Post by: waldo on May 27, 2021, 05:23:02 pm
Again, the sauciness is tiresome. I get that you don't think I'm smart enough to discuss the topic with you. So let's not, then.
The squid has a vile dislike for anyone who disagrees with them and becomes aggressively insulting to them. Yes it's tiresome.
I am starting to see it.
reserved waldo chooses not to pile on member squiggy - but notes your astute assessments!
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 27, 2021, 05:28:29 pm
reserved waldo chooses not to pile on member squiggy - but notes your astute assessments!
Walduh found some friends!!
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 27, 2021, 05:36:56 pm
It's the downslope of "hate speech" legislation attempts to do. Basically 'hate speech' legislation says you can't try to whip up hate. "Racism" itself isn't illegal, however it's morally repugnant in general.
I think hate speech is stupid. Who determines what is allowable and not? In many Canadian provinces it's quasi-judicial non-courts made up of government employees instead of judges and lawyers. Calling people names, whatever who cares. Like calling someone stupid or fat and that isn't illegal. Hate crosses the line to illegal (IMO) when you start denying people jobs or otherwise banning people for who they are (discrimination), or threatening or committing violence etc. I may not agree with Mein Kampf but i'm weary of banning it or offensive books in general.
Quote
Those who are repelled by people who don't accept trans women as women see this speech as, at least, equivalent to racist speech. I don't know or care if it is. I'm thinking that in 1955 there were things you could and couldn't say and every 10 years that line moved. Is that progress ? I don't know or care if it is but people buy into it.
You probably couldn't/wouldn't fire somebody in 1955 for using the n-word but in 2021 people are blacklisted for saying things that are far less offensive.
But that happens in the private sphere, which I don't have a problem with generally. Hockey Night in Canada shouldn't have to employ Don Cherry if he's spouting racist stuff if they don't want to, or think it's bad for business. And if they want to? Ok fine, I can turn the channel if I don't like it.
Quote
Again, I don't know or care. I personally prefer to not offend people, and I don't feel like I should have to defend folks who make a point of being offensive.
Then ignore them. We can defend someone's right to say something even if we disagree with it. Nobody has a right not to be offended. If we're worried about people clutching their pearls then the government would have banned Elvis's hips from the airwaves, and Alice Cooper, Madonna, Marylin Manson, NWA, Eminem etc.
I don't like offending people either but if my opinion happens to offend you I'm not going to just shut up. I think the Catholic church is a craphole institution and that will offend many Catholics but why would I care if that's what I believe to be true? The government shouldn't be policing opinions.
Quote
Employment law is public sphere, though. You can't fire someone for being gay... wait, unless you are the head of a Catholic school...
Firing someone for their sexual orientation is different than firing someone for their opinion on sexual orientation. Maybe people shouldn't even be fired for their opinions. Maybe we'd be more resilient and put up with dissent a lot better.
Quote
I agree with you. Based on this conversation and the previous ones, I'm thinking there's not much room for live-and-let-live attitudes. Activists will try to get people fired, and there is a razor-thin margin of allowable vs unallowable speech in this area. People on one side are going to try to influence the dialogue and it will be nasty.
I agree, but it's been this way for a long time, it's just more intense now. I think most people like to control narratives and will do what they can to achieve it. People are basically just duking it out in the private sphere to control narratives and social norms. I don't even know if there's anything wrong with it.
Post by: waldo on May 27, 2021, 05:38:48 pm
Walduh found some friends!!
The squid has a vile dislike for anyone who disagrees with them and becomes aggressively insulting to them. Yes it's tiresome.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 06:10:46 pm
Walduh found some friends!!
Waldo is consistently adding to the forum. You just have to navigate, or wonder about, his odd biases which are more evident than others'
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 27, 2021, 06:46:07 pm
I think hate speech is stupid. Who determines what is allowable and not? In many Canadian provinces it's quasi-judicial non-courts made up of government employees instead of judges and lawyers. Calling people names, whatever who cares. Like calling someone stupid or fat and that isn't illegal. Hate crosses the line to illegal (IMO) when you start denying people jobs or otherwise banning people for who they are (discrimination), or threatening or committing violence etc. I may not agree with Mein Kampf but i'm weary of banning it or offensive books in general.
You're talking about the HRCs, I think. I agree that the quasi-judicial HRCs are
Quote
I agree, but it's been this way for a long time, it's just more intense now. I think most people like to control narratives and will do what they can to achieve it. People are basically just duking it out in the private sphere to control narratives and social norms. I don't even know if there's anything wrong with it.
Yes, controlling the narrative. I don't know if there's anything wrong with it either.
I don't like the idea of people being fired for their opinions, but I do think there are lots of cases where it's valid also. And if someone is making a point of being outspoken well....
I would say to them YOU brought the wood slats, and the nails... and handed them to the Romans... what did you think was going to happen ?
Post by: kimmy on May 28, 2021, 12:02:44 am
Faith in a deity is a belief, but the idea that such beliefs and the attendant practices need to be protected by law is a value. People think that religiosity should be protected no matter how ridiculous the practices are. Lots of people disagree with it, and lots are impacted and offended but accepting the value means that the disagreements are strongly framed in our legal system.
I'm putting this out as an example of how humans work around illogical elements of life and how reasonable people can accept them even if they disagree. If this analogy is flawed, please just say so I'm not married to it.
There are limits to the freedom of religious practice. We've seen courts overrule parents whose religious beliefs prevented their children from getting life-saving medical care, for example. We give religious belief a pretty wide berth, up until the point when it comes into conflict with others' rights.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 28, 2021, 04:56:13 am
There are limits to the freedom of religious practice. We've seen courts overrule parents whose religious beliefs prevented their children from getting life-saving medical care, for example. We give religious belief a pretty wide berth, up until the point when it comes into conflict with others' rights.
-k
Yes, and I expect that some analogous modification to the views on trans women may be adopted.
But I really just wanted to illustrate how humans work around beliefs and values that they don't ascribe to.
And I'm still of the mind that this question will divide people in the same way that the abortion debate has, ie. irrevocably and bitterly.
I have older feminists in my feed who are unashamedly anti-trans now, and they're in some bad online fights with their younger feminist friends.
It's not my fight, but I still think about it... Mostly to find a space for peace and tolerance.
Post by: cybercoma on May 28, 2021, 07:33:19 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 28, 2021, 07:41:04 am
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here actually have any trans or non-binary friends or relatives?
Many, I would say. By "many", the context is that this is a small minority of the population but I would *guess* that I personally know declared trans/nonbinary people in the double digits.
Being in the Burning Man culture (and this may not be obvious) there's a huge aspect of fractious online politics. When LGBT emerged as a force for social change, online culture was in its infancy and there wasn't much controversy on that. Now, with trans and nonbinary I would say there's a bigger segment of older/"conservative" people who are trying to learn or even resistant.
The best part of this is that as a cis white male, I'm not a stakeholder in the rights questions and I have tried to stay out of those discussions, and have said so on here. I am, however, a member of a "public" and try to do my part as an ally to trans people to help with their acceptance, as well as helping the "public", in general, with trying to frame the discussion in a 'live and let live' square.
But it won't go there, as we have seen. My finding is that people who are morally invested in an exclusive mindset (right or wrong, mind you) can't accept that the other side has legitimacy.
I think that's the clearest thinking that I have had on this topic.
Post by: cybercoma on May 28, 2021, 07:47:15 am
I just want to make a point that when you say you don't have a stake that trans rights are no more an issue for trans people to solve than black rights are an issue for black people to solve. Communities that face discrimination and oppression cannot solve "their" problems because it is not a problem with them--it is a problem with the oppressors. You don't blame **** on what the victim is wearing or doing; **** is caused by rapists. It's the rapists behaviour that's the problem and it's they whom need to be addressed. So it goes with black rights and trans rights. It's not their problem to solve; it's a matter of all people standing up to address the oppression that's going on and for those who perpetuate the oppression to stop. It's not for trans people to solve but for those doing the oppressing to stop.
Edit: apparently r4pe is a censored word.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 28, 2021, 08:12:06 am
I just want to make a point that when you say you don't have a stake that trans rights are no more an issue for trans people to solve than black rights are an issue for black people to solve. Communities that face discrimination and oppression cannot solve "their" problems because it is not a problem with them--it is a problem with the oppressors. You don't blame **** on what the victim is wearing or doing; **** is caused by rapists.
Right, except that I mitigated that later on in two ways:
-assist by being an ally
-try to help build a public space for productive discussion
My take on this is informed by hearing/reading MANY times, Cyber, that in such conversations I should primarily listen to what is happening. The epitome of the wrong kind of behaviour, to my mind, is for non-stakeholders to weigh in on topics because they want to assert their moral frame on others.
Think of those photos of well-suited Republican males smiling as they sign an anti-abortion bill, or (for me) male Toronto Sun columnists and followers getting angry about Jessica Yaniv.
And anybody who wants to flop onto this thread and say "THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT IT".... yes, I know. I also have the right to not stick my nose into every issue.
Post by: cybercoma on May 28, 2021, 09:09:25 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 28, 2021, 09:34:23 am
I think it's a difference of they and us. There's a difference between sticking your nose in to tell THEM how to do things and sticking your nose in to address the problems that are created and perpetuated by US. Silence only benefits the oppressor.
I stick my ears in. Again - this came from them so with due respect I'm going to keep following that.
Post by: cybercoma on May 28, 2021, 10:10:20 am
I stick my ears in. Again - this came from them so with due respect I'm going to keep following that.I'm not exactly arguing with you here. I'm saying where action needs to come from and this is coming from "them" as well. We need to reflect on ourselves, our friends, our family, and we need to confront those who dehumanize, intimidate, harass, and invalidate trans people. The point being the problem is not for them to solve. They're saying, "treat us like human beings," and it's our job to make sure we do and confront those who don't. We've got to put in the work, not them.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 28, 2021, 10:25:32 am
1. I'm not exactly arguing with you here.1. Ok good, I thought you were somehow
2. I'm saying where action needs to come from and this is coming from "them" as well. We need to reflect on ourselves, our friends, our family, and we need to confront those who dehumanize, intimidate, harass, and invalidate trans people.
3. The point being the problem is not for them to solve. They're saying, "treat us like human beings," and it's our job to make sure we do and confront those who don't. We've got to put in the work, not them.
2. If you consider yourself an ally you should be doing this already, but sometimes the "how" comes from them, or maybe the "where". There are only a few black folks in the Burning Man community and if you listen to them you learn that the things that bother them about being POC in this community are things you would normally miss.
3. Yes, but also: some refuse to do this and part of job #2 (setting the table for a public discussion, processing these things etc.) is realizing that those people exist and have to be recognized in the survey of the social landscape.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 28, 2021, 10:36:50 am
And this is a private forum with few restrictions on discussion and a good level of trust, so I definitely feel like I can get my discussion "laps" in on here, versus on my Facebook feed for example.
Post by: cybercoma on May 28, 2021, 04:52:49 pm
1. Ok good, I thought you were somehowwe agree
2. If you consider yourself an ally you should be doing this already, but sometimes the "how" comes from them, or maybe the "where". There are only a few black folks in the Burning Man community and if you listen to them you learn that the things that bother them about being POC in this community are things you would normally miss.
3. Yes, but also: some refuse to do this and part of job #2 (setting the table for a public discussion, processing these things etc.) is realizing that those people exist and have to be recognized in the survey of the social landscape.
Post by: kimmy on May 29, 2021, 01:21:48 pm
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here actually have any trans or non-binary friends or relatives?
The only trans person I've interacted with much is Molly, who lives (lived?) at the assisted living center near me. Molly is a large male person probably around 60 years old, with a big blond wig. She has a sweet, child-like nature and wanders up to strangers to give them flowers (that she probably picked from the garden at her building.) She also likes to talk about the weather, birds, and wish you a nice day. She's a few cards short of a deck, but probably completely harmless. I haven't seen Molly since the start of the pandemic, and I'm not sure what happened to her.
I think when people say "you need to go meet some trans people" what they really mean is "you need to go meet the right trans people." You probably have trans friends in mind that you are thinking of when you say that. Somebody who'd make me think "wow, trans people are actually fun and friendly!" The thing is, I don't need to be convinced that there are nice trans people out there. I'm sure that there are lots of them.
I know there are nice trans people out there, I don't need to meet your trans friend to know that. Molly is nice, but probably not what you're hoping for when you say I should meet trans people. The creepy middle-aged "transbians" who messaged me on Plenty Of Fish are probably not what you have in mind either. Nor the anime-obsessed "tucutes" from Reddit or the deranged trans misogynists from Twitter. I've said this before... it wasn't the "TERFs" that changed my view of trans people as a group, it was visiting trans peoples' online spaces and reading their own words.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 29, 2021, 01:36:29 pm
I'm not exactly arguing with you here. I'm saying where action needs to come from and this is coming from "them" as well. We need to reflect on ourselves, our friends, our family, and we need to confront those who dehumanize, intimidate, harass, and invalidate trans people. The point being the problem is not for them to solve. They're saying, "treat us like human beings," and it's our job to make sure we do and confront those who don't. We've got to put in the work, not them.
If it was simply a question of treating trans people like human beings, there would be little controversy. I don't know of anybody claiming that trans people don't deserve protection from violence, discrimination in employment and housing, the right to express themselves as they wish, and so on.
Conflict between feminists and trans activists has come about because trans activists are demanding access to things that have been set aside for female people.
I have older feminists in my feed who are unashamedly anti-trans now, and they're in some bad online fights with their younger feminist friends.
I doubt that any of them are really "anti trans".
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 29, 2021, 02:51:00 pm
I doubt that any of them are really "anti trans".
Ok, well they deny trans women their identity as women. That's abusive, and there is some protection from that in the legislation I think. Just as there would be for you if someone denied Lesbianism existed and tried to fire you for lying, or denigrated you in some way.
I know they're not symmetric things but the point is that they are denying the identity. Is that offensive ? To some, for sure. Is this a 'protected opinion' that you can't be fired for ? I doubt it. I also think you could be fired for supporting trans rights in some quarters.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 29, 2021, 05:28:25 pm
If it was simply a question of treating trans people like human beings, there would be little controversy. I don't know of anybody claiming that trans people don't deserve protection from violence, discrimination in employment and housing, the right to express themselves as they wish, and so on.
Conflict between feminists and trans activists has come about because trans activists are demanding access to things that have been set aside for female people.
Agreed, a bunch of these controversies are a matter of rights between 2 groups coming into conflict with each other. which means there's no easy answers.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 29, 2021, 10:50:56 pm
Quote
Ok, well they deny trans women their identity as women.
How do they do that?
Post by: kimmy on May 30, 2021, 02:37:40 pm
Ok, well they deny trans women their identity as women.
I'll echo Squidward's question here: how are they being denied their identity?
I think that we are constitutionally guaranteed freedom from compelled speech in this country. If "affirming their identity" requires compelled speech on my part, I'm not required to give it.
Religious groups in this country don't need me to affirm their particular prophets to exercise their religion. And our law gives us pretty broad leeway to question their religion in fact. We don't have anti-blasphemy laws. You're proposing that "transwomen aren't women" be put on a pedestal of unquestionable statements that we don't even hold for peoples' religious views.
That's abusive, and there is some protection from that in the legislation I think. Just as there would be for you if someone denied Lesbianism existed and tried to fire you for lying, or denigrated you in some way.
Those are three different things. People deny Lesbianism exists? That happens all the time. Used to be religious conservatives, now it's the wokies, either way I can't do anything about it. Tried to fire me for lying about it? That's something where I could actually contact the HRT and file a complaint. Denigrated me in some way? Happens all the time, I can't do anything about it.
Progressives are promoting a new definition of "woman" based around some nonsensical concept of a feeling. Progressives are promoting a new definition of "lesbian" being "a non-man who is attracted to other non-men". They've replaced "sexual orientation" with "genital preferences". I wasn't consulted about any of this. I'm offended. And I'll never forgive progressives for signing on to this bullshit. But... at the same time, it doesn't affect how I live. Have they "denied my identity"? My identity doesn't need validation from wokies.
I know they're not symmetric things but the point is that they are denying the identity. Is that offensive ? To some, for sure. Is this a 'protected opinion' that you can't be fired for ? I doubt it. I also think you could be fired for supporting trans rights in some quarters.
If there's an actual workplace conflict, then there are remedies available to protect someone if they feel harrassed or threatened or bullied at work. Firing a workplace bully is certainly among them.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2021, 02:55:10 pm
I'll echo Squidward's question here: how are they being denied their identity?
Better: "They deny that trans women are women"
Quote
I think that we are constitutionally guaranteed freedom from compelled speech in this country. If "affirming their identity" requires compelled speech on my part, I'm not required to give it.
I agree.
Quote
Religious groups in this country don't need me to affirm their particular prophets to exercise their religion. And our law gives us pretty broad leeway to question their religion in fact. We don't have anti-blasphemy laws. You're proposing that "transwomen aren't women" be put on a pedestal of unquestionable statements that we don't even hold for peoples' religious views.
No I'm not arguing that. I was talking about the feminists in my Facebook feed and saying that they go out of their way to make statements that insult trans women. Nothing about compelled speech. You are not required to affirm other religions, but if you denigrate them then you are being insulting.
None of this makes any progress in what I want to discuss, either. You called me out in my description of the arguments in my news feed and are now trying to get an argument out of that but I don't think there is one.
Quote
Those are three different things. People deny Lesbianism exists? That happens all the time. Used to be religious conservatives, now it's the wokies, either way I can't do anything about it. Tried to fire me for lying about it? That's something where I could actually contact the HRT and file a complaint. Denigrated me in some way? Happens all the time, I can't do anything about it.
You can file a complaint with HRT. Maybe they would get fired. That lady in England got her contract terminated for denying that trans women are women... she could have been fired for saying Jews are going to hell too...
Quote
Progressives are promoting a new definition of "woman" based around some nonsensical concept of a feeling. Progressives are promoting a new definition of "lesbian" being "a non-man who is attracted to other non-men". They've replaced "sexual orientation" with "genital preferences". I wasn't consulted about any of this. I'm offended.
Well they don't consult everyone when these things happen. They didn't consult me either.
Quote
And I'll never forgive progressives for signing on to this bullshit. But... at the same time, it doesn't affect how I live. Have they "denied my identity"? My identity doesn't need validation from wokies.
If there's an actual workplace conflict, then there are remedies available to protect someone if they feel harrassed or threatened or bullied at work. Firing a workplace bully is certainly among them.
Well, yeah.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 30, 2021, 04:13:41 pm
Better: "They deny that trans women are women"
They’re allowed. It’s called disagreeing.
Wokies want prison sentences for disagreeing with them. **** that.
Post by: wilber on May 30, 2021, 04:19:36 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 30, 2021, 04:51:14 pm
You can file a complaint with HRT. Maybe they would get fired. That lady in England got her contract terminated for denying that trans women are women... she could have been fired for saying Jews are going to hell too...
HRT or the government can't get you fired for anti-trans speech, unless you work for the government I guess. That's the employer making a private decision unrelated to any government decisions.
I find since this bill there's a whole lot of people coming out with claims that "x statement is illegal per the anti-trans legislation" but they have no idea what they're talking about.
A summary of trans federal legislation is here: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
Trans people are protected from discrimination and hate speech/hate crimes. Misusing a pronoun doesn't qualify as lawyers in the article argue, and I doubt saying "trans women aren't women" is defined as hatred.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2021, 05:56:48 pm
You can identify as anything you want but that doesn’t automatically mean you can do whatever you want just because you identify as something.
Nobody is suggesting that either.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 30, 2021, 06:04:06 pm
HRT or the government can't get you fired for anti-trans speech, unless you work for the government I guess. That's the employer making a private decision unrelated to any government decisions.
I agree.
Quote
I find since this bill there's a whole lot of people coming out with claims that "x statement is illegal per the anti-trans legislation" but they have no idea what they're talking about.I agree that you can't force someone to get fired, but you also can't protect against their firing.
People who don't understand the law ... not something new.
People keep stating things I agree with for some reason. It's weird.
The situation is that some people are anti trans comments as bigoted. And corporations and big companies are starting to listen. And people can be fired for saying bigoted things.
If we don't like it, of course we can say something about that.
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 09:50:59 am
Nobody is suggesting that either.
Some are.
Post by: Black Dog on May 31, 2021, 10:36:44 am
They’re allowed. It’s called disagreeing.
Wokies want prison sentences for disagreeing with them. **** that.
Liar.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 10:39:26 am
Some are.
Who ?
Random maniacs are nobodies. Even if they make the news...
There really isn't any point in having a public discussion where an irrational action on the other side is some kind of evidence from the question at hand. I have had friends doxxed, get death threats for defending trans people too. It's got nothing to do with the debate if some bad actors are trying to take part in it.
Post by: Black Dog on May 31, 2021, 10:44:23 am
Progressives are promoting a new definition of "woman" based around some nonsensical concept of a feeling. Progressives are promoting a new definition of "lesbian" being "a non-man who is attracted to other non-men". They've replaced "sexual orientation" with "genital preferences". I wasn't consulted about any of this. I'm offended. And I'll never forgive progressives for signing on to this bullshit. But... at the same time, it doesn't affect how I live. Have they "denied my identity"? My identity doesn't need validation from wokies.
It doesn't affect how you live because most of this stuff simply doesn't exist in the real world. It's the most inside inside baseball imaginable that lives mainly on social media and within activist circles with absolutely no power and TERFs act like it's taking over the world. It would be almost funny, like those '80s housewives getting worked up about D&D and heavy metal music, except there's a huge right-wing dark money machine behind this with actual power and if you think those people are your friends or will stop at trans rights, good luck.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 12:10:49 pm
Liar.
Clearly, you didn’t read MH’s contention that denying someone’s preferred gender should be a hate crime, according to some people. (Maybe MH? Not sure.... he doesn’t give an opinion... just what others think)
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 12:14:43 pm
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 12:17:29 pm
Who ?
Random maniacs are nobodies. Even if they make the news...
There really isn't any point in having a public discussion where an irrational action on the other side is some kind of evidence from the question at hand. I have had friends doxxed, get death threats for defending trans people too. It's got nothing to do with the debate if some bad actors are trying to take part in it.
Those who think people with balls should be able to play in women's sports. Aside from that I have no issues with trans people.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 12:21:09 pm
Those who think people with balls should be able to play in women's sports. Aside from that I have no issues with trans people.
Ok, well I apologize. I didn't read this quote of yours to be about sports:
Quote
You can identify as anything you want but that doesn’t automatically mean you can do whatever you want just because you identify as something.
I took it to mean someone was saying they could do whatever they wanted. For the sports question, I agree that these things have to go through a process. Thanks for being specific, though.
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 12:32:02 pm
Ok, well I apologize. I didn't read this quote of yours to be about sports:
I took it to mean someone was saying they could do whatever they wanted. For the sports question, I agree that these things have to go through a process. Thanks for being specific, though.
No apology necessary. Sports is one example, there could be others. I don't really care what people do as long they don't step on others to do it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 12:38:20 pm
No apology necessary. Sports is one example, there could be others. I don't really care what people do as long they don't step on others to do it.
It will be a challenge, and people will have to accept it in some form, which is to say they won't be able to make this new perspective on identity disappear.
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 12:42:04 pm
It will be a challenge, and people will have to accept it in some form, which is to say they won't be able to make this new perspective on identity disappear.
Sports aren't about identity, they are about biology. That's the first thing people need to get straight.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 12:46:06 pm
Sports aren't about identity, they are about biology. That's the first thing people need to get straight.
Sports is about culture... and culture can do whatever it wants ;)
Post by: waldo on May 31, 2021, 12:48:08 pm
Clearly, you didn’t read MH’s contention that denying someone’s preferred gender should be a hate crime, according to some people. (Maybe MH? Not sure.... he doesn’t give an opinion... just what others think)
Please don't misrepresent my arguments, thanks.
oh my! Misrepresentation by member squiggy... say it ain't so!
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 12:49:48 pm
Sports is about culture... and culture can do whatever it wants ;)
No it can't. All cultures have limitations.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 12:51:16 pm
No it can't.
You don't think they could de-segregate sports by gender ? They did it for race. You don't think they could kill single-sex sports and replace them all with frisbee golf ?
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 12:56:38 pm
You don't think they could de-segregate sports by gender ? They did it for race. You don't think they could kill single-sex sports and replace them all with frisbee golf ?
I think if you made all sports single sex you would effectively eliminate biological women from serious sport. Is that what you want to do? Does that fit your definition of progressive?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 01:00:02 pm
I think if you made all sports single sex you would effectively eliminate biological women from serious sport. Is that what you want to do? Does that fit your definition of progressive?
We may be on the 10th iteration of me saying that this isn't about what I want. I'm just exploring here.
Do I want it ? Hell no...
And Ultimate (Frisbee Golf) is mixed sex and no contact... I could see Football dying out for sure...
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 01:18:37 pm
We may be on the 10th iteration of me saying that this isn't about what I want. I'm just exploring here.
Do I want it ? Hell no...
And Ultimate (Frisbee Golf) is mixed sex and no contact... I could see Football dying out for sure...
Any women's sport where speed and strength are a determining factor would die out. The only World and Olympic sport where men and women compete on equal terms are equestrian events.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 01:22:37 pm
Any women's sport where speed and strength are a determining factor would die out. The only World and Olympic sport where men and women compete on equal terms are equestrian events.
Do I need to cite Frisbee Golf a 3rd time ? Video games ?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 01:28:02 pm
Do I need to cite Frisbee Golf a 3rd time ? Video games ?
Professional Disc Golf has a women’s division.
Try again.
https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/47516
https://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/tour-documents/divisions-ratings-and-points-factors
Everyone in the “Pro Open” division is a biological male, as far as I can tell.
Quote
Disc golf needs women’s tees, on every hole. If we want to test the women in the same way that we test the men, then women should play shorter holes than men.https://www.dgpt.com/news/where-are-the-womens-tees/
450 vs 350Touring men, on average, can throw about 450′.
Some can throw farther, some shorter, but in general, this is about right. Now, let’s think about the distances on a disc golf course.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 01:28:39 pm
Any women's sport where speed and strength are a determining factor would die out. The only World and Olympic sport where men and women compete on equal terms are equestrian events.
Auto racing too.
However, neither disc golf, nor auto racing, are Olympic sports.
I enjoy watching women’s sports at the Olympics. I wouldn’t bother with many sports if it was just men, and the occasional transgender woman, competing in the sport since biological women couldn’t attain the same heights due to their biology.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 01:40:17 pm
Professional Disc Golf has a women’s division.
Did not know this.
It's played co-ed in the city though...
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 01:40:53 pm
Gendered sports could still die though...
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 01:46:18 pm
Gendered sports could still die though...
True. Then they’d be men’s sports, for the most part.
So this is very unlikely to happen in the near future as women would like to actually compete professionally.
What might happen is gendered sports will die off in a progressive Canada and women from here will have to compete elsewhere in less progressive nations like USA, Japan and Norway.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 01:49:36 pm
Did not know this.
It's played co-ed in the city though...
I play golf with women too. That doesn’t mean professionals are mixed sexes!
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 02:44:23 pm
Do I need to cite Frisbee Golf a 3rd time ? Video games ?
So any sport that doesn't require a woman to be an actual athlete then. How generous.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 02:45:41 pm
So any sport that doesn't require a woman to be an actual athlete then. How generous.
Don't get sexist. The men don't have to be athletes either....
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 02:48:00 pm
Back to the topic... it seems odd that moral struggles are fought on the battlefield of economics ... boycotts and market forces etc.
But maybe that makes sense. Work and money are the issue in which we have power, all of us a little.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 02:53:06 pm
So any sport that doesn't require a woman to be an actual athlete then. How generous.
Curling might be a good one for mixing the sexes. Not sure if there is a biological advantage for men in that sport. But calling curlers “athletes” is also a stretch, despite being an Olympic sport.
Curling
Horse riding
Anything else that can be in the Progressive Olympics? Darts?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 31, 2021, 02:53:37 pm
Those who think people with balls should be able to play in women's sports. Aside from that I have no issues with trans people.
Same here. A biological man wants to proclaim their gender as female and express their gender as such? Totally fine with that and support it. But a biological man that wants me to pretend they are a biological female when science and facts don't match these wishes is, unfortunate to say, delusional and I shouldn't partake in that, and no amount of plastic surgery or hormones can change that. There should be no shame in your sex not matching your gender. A transgendered man is part male (biology) and part female (gender), and that's ok.
And I do have a lot of compassionate for these people because of what they go through, but we also need to deal in realities and not simply what some people want just because we do feel sorry for them if it interferes with the rights of others. I think there's room for accommodation but it needs to be reasonable accommodation.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 02:59:11 pm
Back to the topic... it seems odd that moral struggles are fought on the battlefield of economics ... boycotts and market forces etc.
But maybe that makes sense. Work and money are the issue in which we have power, all of us a little.
Your couching it as a moral issue is disingenuous, in my opinion. It’s a way for you to smuggle in that anyone who disagrees with the phrase “transgendered women are real women” is somehow immoral.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 31, 2021, 03:05:01 pm
You don't think they could de-segregate sports by gender ? They did it for race. You don't think they could kill single-sex sports and replace them all with frisbee golf ?
Do you really think this is reasonable accommodation?
If you're a biological man whose gender identifies as a woman then they should play sports with other biological men. Sports has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity, it is entirely irrelevant, just like your sexual orientation. This means some transwomen in skirts playing with men, no big deal.
Being biologically male but identifying as female in gender doesn't mean you have to go chop your balls off or do other plastic surgery or take hormones, these are all personal choices. For transwomen that choose to take hormones then we should have a special category for them to compete against each other, and their hormones levels should be tested/regulated just like men and women's sports.
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 03:09:27 pm
Don't get sexist. The men don't have to be athletes either....
FFS what does that have to do with anything.
I can’t wait for you to tell that to your new daughter if she decides to take up a sport. Sorry dear, you will just have to play for fun because you will have no chance at a scholarship or playing pro or for your country no matter how hard you work or how good you are.
Why? Because you are a woman.
Post by: Black Dog on May 31, 2021, 03:20:15 pm
Clearly, you didn’t read MH’s contention that denying someone’s preferred gender should be a hate crime, according to some people. (Maybe MH? Not sure.... he doesn’t give an opinion... just what others think)
That's your evidence? Jesus that's weak.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 04:01:04 pm
That's your evidence? Jesus that's weak.
Evidence? I was responding to MH suggesting that it be a hate crime. Maybe it’s just MH saying it and no one wants that... I wasn’t making any claims. I was disagreeing with what MH said.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 04:02:14 pm
FFS what does that have to do with anything.
I can’t wait for you to tell that to your new daughter if she decides to take up a sport. Sorry dear, you will just have to play for fun because you will have no chance at a scholarship or playing pro or for your country no matter how hard you work or how good you are.
Why? Because you are a woman.
“No dear... women don’t have their own sports, silly. Women play video games as their sport”.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 04:14:44 pm
Your couching it as a moral issue is disingenuous, in my opinion. It’s a way for you to smuggle in that anyone who disagrees with the phrase “transgendered women are real women” is somehow immoral.
I think we already agreed on Thursday that I'm too stupid to discuss this with you
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 04:16:22 pm
Do you really think this is reasonable accommodation?
If you're a biological man whose gender identifies as a woman then they should play sports with other biological men. Sports has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity, it is entirely irrelevant, just like your sexual orientation. This means some transwomen in skirts playing with men, no big deal.
Being biologically male but identifying as female in gender doesn't mean you have to go chop your balls off or do other plastic surgery or take hormones, these are all personal choices. For transwomen that choose to take hormones then we should have a special category for them to compete against each other, and their hormones levels should be tested/regulated just like men and women's sports.
I'm not saying it's reasonable or unreasonable, just that it could happen. And it might not have anything to do with.. well anything other than demand.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 04:19:20 pm
FFS what does that have to do with anything.
I can’t wait for you to tell that to your new daughter if she decides to take up a sport. Sorry dear, you will just have to play for fun because you will have no chance at a scholarship or playing pro or for your country no matter how hard you work or how good you are.
Why? Because you are a woman.
How about FFS I barely have an opinion on this, I was asked and I said I'm not in favor of desegregation based on gender.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 04:24:00 pm
I think we already agreed on Thursday that I'm too stupid to discuss this with you
Stupid? Your words, not mine. I never agreed to stop replying to your posts.
But, if you don’t want me to utter your name in my responses, just delete them. It’s your thread, I believe...?
Post by: Black Dog on May 31, 2021, 04:44:13 pm
Evidence? I was responding to MH suggesting that it be a hate crime. Maybe it’s just MH saying it and no one wants that... I wasn’t making any claims. I was disagreeing with what MH said.
This isn't making a claim?
Quote
Wokies want prison sentences for disagreeing with them. **** that.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 04:46:54 pm
This isn't making a claim?
Meh. It was a rhetorical statement in reply to MH’s post about hate crimes.
Should I have put ‘some’ at the beginning? Ok. Some. A few? A tiny amount? Most? I dunno.
What do you and MH think? Should it be considered hate speech?
Post by: Black Dog on May 31, 2021, 04:59:16 pm
Meh. It was a rhetorical statement in reply to MH’s post about hate crimes.
Should I have put ‘some’ at the beginning? Ok. Some. A few? A tiny amount? Most? I dunno.
What do you and MH think? Should it be considered hate speech?
Yeah you make these kinds of broad claims a lot (remember this (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/cancel-culture-culture/?message=75823)?).
As for the question, this thread is a mess, I have no idea what the question even is.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 05:22:02 pm
Yeah you make these kinds of broad claims a lot (remember this (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/cancel-culture-culture/?message=75823)?).
As for the question, this thread is a mess, I have no idea what the question even is.
The question I gave that answer to was:
Should saying “transgender women are not really women” be considered hate speech?
Post by: wilber on May 31, 2021, 05:25:14 pm
How about FFS I barely have an opinion on this, I was asked and I said I'm not in favor of desegregation based on gender.
Not that you are going to have a daughter, maybe you should start thinking about how this will affect her and form some opinions.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 31, 2021, 05:40:09 pm
Not that you are going to have a daughter, maybe you should start thinking about how this will affect her and form some opinions.
Seems like I have to answer everything three times on this thread.
Also I never said that any statement should be a hate crime... I ASKED if it was, or whatever you all consider it to be.
So far people don't seem to like people getting fired for their opinions, but don't think that legislative intervention is in order
Post by: guest7 on May 31, 2021, 06:16:07 pm
The question I gave that answer to was:
Should saying “transgender women are not really women” be considered hate speech?
It depends on what is going to be done about it. If nothing, then people can call it whatever they want.
If there are charges possible, then no, of course not.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 06:22:48 pm
It depends on what is going to be done about it. If nothing, then people can call it whatever they want.
If there are charges possible, then no, of course not.
Hate speech is illegal. It carries a criminal record, fines and/or jail time.
Post by: guest7 on May 31, 2021, 06:52:53 pm
Hate speech is illegal. It carries a criminal record, fines and/or jail time.
That's what I meant. Is it hate speech, or Hate Speech? It sure as hell ain't Hate Speech.
To me, I mean.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 07:19:08 pm
That's what I meant. Is it hate speech, or Hate Speech? It sure as hell ain't Hate Speech.
To me, I mean.
It’s meaningless what it is “to you”. I am asking about what it means in the context of the law.
Post by: Black Dog on May 31, 2021, 08:44:01 pm
The question I gave that answer to was:
Should saying “transgender women are not really women” be considered hate speech?
No.
Mind you you don't have to look hard to find actual instances of hate speech directed at trans people.
Post by: guest7 on May 31, 2021, 10:27:59 pm
It’s meaningless what it is “to you”. I am asking about what it means in the context of the law.
No, you said "should", so you were asking for an opinion. I don't know whose to give other than my own.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 31, 2021, 10:30:34 pm
No, you said "should", so you were asking for an opinion. I don't know whose to give other than my own.
Yes. Opinions on whether it should be hate speech, as defined in Canadian law. Not sure why you are having an issue comprehending the question.
Post by: guest7 on May 31, 2021, 10:36:12 pm
Yes. Opinions on whether it should be hate speech, as defined in Canadian law. Not sure why you are having an issue comprehending the question.
Well, I said, "It sure as hell ain't Hate Speech"
I'm sorry, I capitalized it to give it official status.
Post by: kimmy on June 01, 2021, 08:34:58 pm
You don't think they could de-segregate sports by gender ? They did it for race. You don't think they could kill single-sex sports and replace them all with frisbee golf ?
The NHL isn't segregated by gender. They don't have a rule against women playing. Manon Rheaume even played goal in an exhibition game once upon a time. No woman has ever earned a spot on an NHL team, but it's not because they have a rule against women playing either. The NHL doesn't have a rule against blind people playing or against paraplegic people playing. The NHL is an inclusive league, anybody who is good enough can play in the NHL.
The NFL isn't segregated by gender. They don't have a rule against women playing. No woman has ever earned a spot on an NFL team, but it's not because they have a rule against women playing. The NFL doesn't have a rule against blind people playing or against paraplegic people playing either. The NFL is an inclusive league, anybody who is good enough can play in the NFL.
No woman has ever played in the NBA either. It's not a gender segregated league. If they tried to "de-segregate" the NBA and WNBA, you'd be left with a league that looks exactly like the NBA, and a bunch of tall women without jobs. If you de-segregated men's soccer and women's soccer, you wouldn't have a mixed sex soccer league, you'd in effect just have a men's soccer league. Same if you tried to "de-segregate" tennis, or track and field, or just about every other sport.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 01, 2021, 09:10:40 pm
The NHL isn't segregated by gender. They don't have a rule against women playing. Manon Rheaume even played goal in an exhibition game once upon a time. No woman has ever earned a spot on an NHL team, but it's not because they have a rule against women playing either. The NHL doesn't have a rule against blind people playing or against paraplegic people playing. The NHL is an inclusive league, anybody who is good enough can play in the NHL.
The NFL isn't segregated by gender. They don't have a rule against women playing. No woman has ever earned a spot on an NFL team, but it's not because they have a rule against women playing. The NFL doesn't have a rule against blind people playing or against paraplegic people playing either. The NFL is an inclusive league, anybody who is good enough can play in the NFL.
No woman has ever played in the NBA either. It's not a gender segregated league. If they tried to "de-segregate" the NBA and WNBA, you'd be left with a league that looks exactly like the NBA, and a bunch of tall women without jobs. If you de-segregated men's soccer and women's soccer, you wouldn't have a mixed sex soccer league, you'd in effect just have a men's soccer league. Same if you tried to "de-segregate" tennis, or track and field, or just about every other sport.
-k
Don’t worry…. Women (the biological ones) will have darts and video games as their sports, according to MH’s utopian progressive future. Oh…. Just ignore the misogyny from the video game nerds.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 01, 2021, 11:50:18 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmHrZr4U9Vg
Post by: cybercoma on June 04, 2021, 07:45:42 am
The only trans person I've interacted with much is Molly, who lives (lived?) at the assisted living center near me. Molly is a large male person probably around 60 years old, with a big blond wig. She has a sweet, child-like nature and wanders up to strangers to give them flowers (that she probably picked from the garden at her building.) She also likes to talk about the weather, birds, and wish you a nice day. She's a few cards short of a deck, but probably completely harmless. I haven't seen Molly since the start of the pandemic, and I'm not sure what happened to her.If you're suggesting that a trans person needs to "pass" to be a proper exposure, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. Passing is a whole other argument that I'm not really interested in getting into at the moment.
I think when people say "you need to go meet some trans people" what they really mean is "you need to go meet the right trans people." You probably have trans friends in mind that you are thinking of when you say that. Somebody who'd make me think "wow, trans people are actually fun and friendly!" The thing is, I don't need to be convinced that there are nice trans people out there. I'm sure that there are lots of them.
I know there are nice trans people out there, I don't need to meet your trans friend to know that. Molly is nice, but probably not what you're hoping for when you say I should meet trans people. The creepy middle-aged "transbians" who messaged me on Plenty Of Fish are probably not what you have in mind either. Nor the anime-obsessed "tucutes" from Reddit or the deranged trans misogynists from Twitter. I've said this before... it wasn't the "TERFs" that changed my view of trans people as a group, it was visiting trans peoples' online spaces and reading their own words.
-k
All I can say is that there are online spaces for all kinds of radicals. You need to be as careful about trans rads as you would be about radicals like Westboro back in the day. Don't be fooled into thinking that most or even a significant proportion of trans people are out here ready to murder "TERF"s. Online discourse is a cesspool of exaggeration, showboating, and one-upsmanship. Also, I'm sure there are folks who would take it seriously, just as seriously as someone who crosses state lines with an assault rifle to "assist the police." Just don't make the mistake of defining trans people by that.
If I defined lesbians by the extreme radicals on reddit, I would think you yourself would be hell bent on cutting off my balls and throwing me in the ocean. Or the one I heard the other day, is that all men are homosexuals because they all secretly want anal sex from women and like to slap each others' asses in sports. So there are radical feminist lesbians who are even disgusting to others in the LGBTQ2SIA+ community.
I just think at the end of the day, if you want to make a point about radicals, great. Personally, I think radicals are getting far too much of the limelight in all kinds of public discourse when they would be otherwise ostracized and ignored. Let's not make their soapbox bigger than it needs to be.
Post by: cybercoma on June 04, 2021, 07:47:23 am
They’re allowed. It’s called disagreeing.Can I disagree that you identify as a man? I think you're kind of feminine, so I'm going to start referring to you as she. Would that be okay?
Post by: cybercoma on June 04, 2021, 07:55:04 am
Hell, 30 years ago, nobody even talked about trans people in sports, other than to make jokes about Russia fielding men in women's competitions. It seems a lot of people just want to complain rather than thinking about solutions and progress.
Post by: Black Dog on June 04, 2021, 01:44:11 pm
I know there are nice trans people out there, I don't need to meet your trans friend to know that. Molly is nice, but probably not what you're hoping for when you say I should meet trans people. The creepy middle-aged "transbians" who messaged me on Plenty Of Fish are probably not what you have in mind either. Nor the anime-obsessed "tucutes" from Reddit or the deranged trans misogynists from Twitter. I've said this before... it wasn't the "TERFs" that changed my view of trans people as a group, it was visiting trans peoples' online spaces and reading their own words.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/640/962/d91.gif)
Post by: Dia on June 04, 2021, 02:06:37 pm
Since apparently there was a question about sports, there's already been a determination at the international levels that there would be a measurement of testosterone with certain benchmarks, combined with length of time on HRT. It's a pretty clear and fair delineation. So at least some of the organizing agencies have taken the idea of trans people in sports seriously and are adapting to it.
Hell, 30 years ago, nobody even talked about trans people in sports, other than to make jokes about Russia fielding men in women's competitions. It seems a lot of people just want to complain rather than thinking about solutions and progress.
That's pretty interesting. I was thinking along those lines, as I've read through all the posts here but hadn't gotten around to doing any research to see if it was feasible. Hormones dictate a lot about our ultimate gender and sexual expression and those hormones differ between individuals. Not to mention our muscle vs. fat development and how competitive we are as individuals. Or how likely we are to engage in risk-taking behavior or get into physical altercations, how much body hair we have, when puberty starts and when menopause/andropause starts. How much do these hormones drive professional athletes and contribute to their success? If testosterone increases muscle mass and competitiveness, is that an indication that weight lifters (whether male or female) have more testosterone than a individual who pursues music professionally? I don't know the answer, but it seems that determining a hormonal baseline for professional sports categories, rather than strictly 'male/female' categories could be a good strategy.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 04, 2021, 02:15:45 pm
Can I disagree that you identify as a man? I think you're kind of feminine, so I'm going to start referring to you as she. Would that be okay?
He would be offended, but legally you could do it i guess, up to the point of harassment.
I think this is a good standard actually. Let's figure out at what point referring to a cis man as a woman against their wishes would be considered harassment, and then apply the same standard for misgendering trans people.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 02:26:25 pm
Can I disagree that you identify as a man? I think you're kind of feminine, so I'm going to start referring to you as she. Would that be okay?
Free speech !
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 02:29:36 pm
Since apparently there was a question about sports, there's already been a determination at the international levels that there would be a measurement of testosterone with certain benchmarks, combined with length of time on HRT. It's a pretty clear and fair delineation. So at least some of the organizing agencies have taken the idea of trans people in sports seriously and are adapting to it.
And not acceptable at all to the trans people in my news feed either, btw.
Just to be clear: I have discovered the end of the road on this discussion so I will be advocating for lucifer moving forward.
Quote
Hell, 30 years ago, nobody even talked about trans people in sports, other than to make jokes about Russia fielding men in women's competitions. It seems a lot of people just want to complain rather than thinking about solutions and progress.
Unfortunately we don't have separate media for yahoos, complaining and bullshit... yet.
Post by: Dia on June 04, 2021, 02:34:31 pm
And not acceptable at all to the trans people in my news feed either, btw.
Also interesting; can you say why they object? Is it because they want their chosen gender to be accepted at face value?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 02:39:50 pm
Also interesting; can you say why they object? Is it because they want their chosen gender to be accepted at face value?
I can go look but from memory... it's segregation, it's blown out of proportion, it's a witch hunt...
People are using it as an excuse to go after trans people, and otherwise wouldn't give a whit about women's sports or women's issues in general.
etc.
They used to segregate based on race, too, and the physical advantage was a given reason.
But in the end, it's about values not science. People are willing to make women firefighters mandatory by quota, even though they aren't physically up to the smallest/weakest man who would qualify right ? So now, who is in favour of quotas ? Based on what ?
It SEEMS like this about science but it's about values.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 04, 2021, 03:01:58 pm
But in the end, it's about values not science. People are willing to make women firefighters mandatory by quota, even though they aren't physically up to the smallest/weakest man who would qualify right ? So now, who is in favour of quotas ? Based on what ?
It SEEMS like this about science but it's about values.
Agreed it's about values.
And it's about PR too. Everything is about people's emotions, and every org being afraid of being called anti-whatever.
If things are about emotions and PR over logic then we're effed. If a fire department or military is more ok with people possibly dying than being called sexist our society is effed.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 03:11:16 pm
Agreed it's about values.
And it's about PR too. Everything is about people's emotions, and every org being afraid of being called anti-whatever.
If things are about emotions and PR over logic then we're effed. If a fire department or military is more ok with people possibly dying than being called sexist our society is effed.
I agree except that it's always been about those things. How much people are able to absorb and accept facts that clash with their core values and beliefs is pretty hard to measure. I will say that a French writer named Alex De Tocqueville visited America in the early 18th century and was astonished with how pragmatic the 'common folks' were.
Was it true ? Don't we (the super-intelligent and superior bloggers of Canadian Political Events, I mean) pine for a time when hard handed men (and lesbians, sorry kimmy) smoked pipes and looked at charts when planning policy ?
Except... was it ever thus ?
The fire department does care about people dying, but that's actually PR. And - guess what - firemen work easy hours and there are too many of them. The unions and the culture see to it to that. They're heroes, so they make tons of money to sit and play cards, and even have 2nd jobs.
Values.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 04, 2021, 03:14:48 pm
So, like the disc golf association, you’re talking out your ass again.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 04, 2021, 03:24:30 pm
There’s something called a CPAT test for physical ability that must be passed to be able to be a firefighter, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.
So, like the disc golf association, you’re talking out your ass again.
Ya stop poisoning this discussion with your ass-talk Hardner.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 04, 2021, 03:28:10 pm
Can I disagree that you identify as a man? I think you're kind of feminine, so I'm going to start referring to you as she. Would that be okay?
Do you think referring to me as ‘she’ should be considered Hate Speech? Should it be illegal for you to do that?
He would be offended, but legally you could do it i guess, up to the point of harassment.
I think this is a good standard actually. Let's figure out at what point referring to a cis man as a woman against their wishes would be considered harassment, and then apply the same standard for misgendering trans people.
Cybercoma is ignoring the part about agreeing on the meaning of terms…. And the common usage of words…. And also Cyber smuggled the pronoun debate into this for some reason. I will happily refer to a transgendered person as a ‘she’ if that’s what she wants. But, let’s put that aside for the sake of argument.
Is it offensive? Possibly.
I agree with you about the standards. Is it Hate Speech? Harassment? Slander? Libel? If it is none of those, then I’m going to have to put up with the offensive language as the cost of living in a society where we don’t fine or jail people for giving offence. No one has the right to be free from something that offends their sensibilities.
Free speech !
Wow…. You just nailed the issue with 2 words!!
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 03:57:40 pm
There’s something called a CPAT test for physical ability that must be passed to be able to be a firefighter, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.I'm not talking about minimum requirements, I'm talking about the age old argument that they are not picking the strongest. And they are not. The point is not about whether women can do the job or not, it's about the fact that we are using our values to institute a selection system. You cannot argue that, or at least you haven't argued it yet
So, like the disc golf association, you’re talking out your ass again.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 03:58:33 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 04, 2021, 04:31:12 pm
Fast talk is still talk... And by the way another word for values is.. long pause... Dramatic pause... Cat paws.. culture
I have no idea what this is referring to.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 04:48:31 pm
I have no idea what this is referring to.
Sorry I use voice to text.. it should say ass talk
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 04, 2021, 04:54:21 pm
I'm not talking about minimum requirements, I'm talking about the age old argument that they are not picking the strongest. And they are not. The point is not about whether women can do the job or not, it's about the fact that we are using our values to institute a selection system. You cannot argue that, or at least you haven't argued it yet
Are you trying to compare this to sports and saying it’s the same thing?
Sorry, it’s absolutely not. Firefighters aren’t punching each other in the face. Fighting sports do.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 05:15:34 pm
Are you trying to compare this to sports and saying it’s the same thing?What you're doing, philosophically speaking, is trying to build a tower of babylon. You're trying to imply that values are logical. I once knew a woman who was a feminist who said that men should give up their seats on the subway because women have worse shoes or some such. There's no reason for these things, it's just our culture
Sorry, it’s absolutely not. Firefighters aren’t punching each other in the face. Fighting sports do.
And if you want to just play the game where we try and show that analogy doesn't map to real life, or to other analogies... Sure. I can also say that people's lives don't depend on pro sports or sports at all
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 04, 2021, 05:29:26 pm
What you're doing, philosophically speaking, is trying to build a tower of babylon. You're trying to imply that values are logical. I once knew a woman who was a feminist who said that men should give up their seats on the subway because women have worse shoes or some such. There's no reason for these things, it's just our culture
And if you want to just play the game where we try and show that analogy doesn't map to real life, or to other analogies... Sure. I can also say that people's lives don't depend on pro sports or sports at all
Not sure why you’re beating around the bush on this….
So, that’s a yes to my question? You were comparing the selection of firefighters to the rules of sport around male/female segregation?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 06:10:02 pm
Our culture isn't based on precise logic, and that's fine.
Values clashes are harsh, and so will this one be. Watch yourself or that tweet will get you fired.
And ridiculed afterwards.
Post by: wilber on June 04, 2021, 07:54:17 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 08:22:30 pm
This reminds me a lot of the abortion debate, a bunch of men trying to enforce rules for women.
Jee, where have I seen that posted ?
Post by: guest7 on June 04, 2021, 08:27:20 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets
Post by: wilber on June 04, 2021, 08:47:59 pm
I can also say that people's lives don't depend on pro sports or sports at all
You can say it but it wouldn't be true.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 09:55:52 pm
You can say it but it wouldn't be true.
Explain?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2021, 09:56:19 pm
Sometimes I despair for my country.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets
Key information missing...
Post by: wilber on June 04, 2021, 10:18:35 pm
Explain?d
I think you need to explain your comment.
Post by: guest7 on June 04, 2021, 10:26:03 pm
Key information missing...
Explain?
No, just kidding, I know what you mean. But unless she tried to round up a mob with pitchforks and torches to hunt some people down and kill them, I really do despair for my country.
Post by: wilber on June 04, 2021, 11:24:54 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 05, 2021, 05:10:47 am
d
I think you need to explain your comment.
The argument has been made that accepting fire fighters above a minimum line, versus the strongest and best means that the overall provision of human strength is less.
I can agree with this.
Fire services assist in life and death situations.
Sports are entertainments.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 05, 2021, 05:13:34 am
Freedom of speech is on shakey ground these days.
Is it?
What actually happened? That article fails to reveal why precisely she was charged, or enough about what she said.
I'm absolutely in agreement that something looks amiss, but I will wait until details come out before making a conclusion.
Post by: wilber on June 05, 2021, 09:17:41 am
The argument has been made that accepting fire fighters above a minimum line, versus the strongest and best means that the overall provision of human strength is less.
I can agree with this.
Fire services assist in life and death situations.
Sports are entertainments.
Sports provide incomes for 100,000’s of thousands if not millions of people. Who are you to decide what is important to others and what they can or can’t do, particularly what women can or can’t do.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 05, 2021, 09:45:32 am
Sports provide incomes for 100,000’s of thousands if not millions of people. Who are you to decide what is important to others and what they can or can’t do, particularly what women can or can’t do.
My point isn't what is important or not to others. Quotas were controversial and this was important, that much is sure.
And I am supporting my point that culture drives such discussions. Are you disputing that?
Post by: wilber on June 05, 2021, 01:16:44 pm
My point isn't what is important or not to others. Quotas were controversial and this was important, that much is sure.
And I am supporting my point that culture drives such discussions. Are you disputing that?
Culture may drive discussions but it doesn't change biology.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 05, 2021, 01:24:57 pm
1. Culture may drive discussions
2. but it doesn't change biology.
1. I'm glad you concur
2. I concur
Post by: kimmy on June 05, 2021, 02:28:14 pm
Sometimes I despair for my country.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets
Key information missing...
Marion Millar was arrested for this tweet, which a man named David Paisley reported to the police under the claim that it was a threat.
(https://i.imgur.com/Jv5cmTs.png)
Does that really look like a noose? It's not even big enough to hang a chihuahua, and it's made of ribbon, not rope. Perhaps Paisley was afraid Millar intended to hang his chihuahua? Is that why he felt threatened? Regardless, it's not a noose, it's a suffragette ribbon.
In the UK, the one on the right is a hate crime, and the one on the left is brave and stunning activism:
(https://i.imgur.com/hbxXcpb.png)
Since the arrest women in Scotland have been tying suffragette ribbons to practically everything. I anticipate that this case is going to trigger a huge backlash. In March at more or less the same time police were pulling Sarah Everard's body out of the woods in Kent, the Scottish National Party was passing a new hate crime bill (https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/humza-yousaf-accused-of-ignoring-concerns-over-protections-for-free-speech-in-hate-crime-bill-3151019) that they promised wouldn't be used to silence controversial speech. Now we can see how that's going.
(also, for reference, the Scottish National Party logo, which totally does not at all look like a noose!)
(https://i.imgur.com/MX8GMOb.png)
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 05, 2021, 02:45:26 pm
So it really doesn't have much to do with Transgender Politics, more with police incompetence then ?
I'm still where I stood on this: irreconcilable values question is at the core of this politics and many people will refuse to see the other side as reasonable.
Post by: guest7 on June 05, 2021, 02:50:22 pm
I'm still where I stood on this: irreconcilable values question is at the core of this politics and many people will refuse to see the other side as reasonable.
Well, that's their mistake, then. A misunderstanding.
Post by: kimmy on June 06, 2021, 11:27:24 am
Ok... so it was a mistake then ? It was perceived by the police as a death threat, but a misunderstanding ?
So it really doesn't have much to do with Transgender Politics, more with police incompetence then ?
From what I understand, an individual complained to the police and they acted upon the complaint.
Was it all just a misunderstanding? If the authorities involved were willing to accept the explanation that it's a suffragette ribbon and not a noose, I don't think they would have had to interrogate her for hours, or laid charges afterward.
Is it a mistake? There's a difference between an error and a mistake. If this was an error, the whole think could have been resolved within a few minutes. "oh my gosh, lol, we thought it was a noose. sorry for the inconvenience!" I don't believe this was an error.
Is it a mistake? That depends. To me it seems like regardless of the outcome the people behind this have already gotten what they wanted. The bad woman had her kids taken by social services while she was taken to the police station for the day to be grilled. She had her fingerprints and DNA taken. She has been charged. She is trying to raise money for legal expenses (her GoFundMe was taken down yesterday because the transes complained about it). The bad woman has been sent a message. The bad woman has been made an example of. Other bad women will think twice about talking. Millar's slogan is "Women won't wheesht." When other women see what happened to Millar, they might well "wheesht". ("Wheesht is apparently Scottish for "shush"; I had to look that up.) The purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn one witch, it's to scare others into compliance. If the intent of this exercise was to make an example of Millar, they've already achieved what they intended, even if the charges against her are dropped tomorrow.
Whether it turns out to be a mistake in the larger picture depends on the degree of backlash that results from this.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 06, 2021, 02:29:09 pm
1. The bad woman had her kids taken by social services while she was taken to the police station for the day to be grilled. She had her fingerprints and DNA taken. She has been charged. She is trying to raise money for legal expenses (her GoFundMe was taken down yesterday because the transes complained about it). The bad woman has been sent a message.
2. Whether it turns out to be a mistake in the larger picture depends on the degree of backlash that results from this.
1. Ok the woman was charged because she was perceived to have made a death threat. If that was an honest error then we have nothing to say about it. If it was someone taking advantage of the situation to punish someone they disagree with, ie. they made a bad-faith accusation then shame on them. It seems like someone on one side could be a bad person.
2. But it doesn't mean anything for or against the argument that society should let individuals declare their gender. It does, however, support my argument that entrenched interests who see the opposing opinion as "invalid" will never be resolved.
I think when such things are being adopted, there's a period of transition during which pro/con arguments can be entertained in polite company. After they're adopted, those who saw their arguments fall have to absorb the fact that their views are destined to be marginalized moving forward.
You could have argued publicly against interracial marriage in the 1950s and kept your job. Not so sure you can do that today.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 07, 2021, 01:30:33 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 07, 2021, 03:20:56 pm
Where did one argue “publicly” in the1950s?
Short answer: media, the press, dedicated organizations for public engagement
Long answer:
Michael Warner has done writing about the place of 'publics' in our society, German philosopher Jürger Habermas etc. Warner is a contemporary writer and Habermas is actually still alive (aged 91) and has argued against Postmodernism and the philosophies that have given momentum to the politics of liberation.
The idea is that 'publics' are distinct audiences ... bubbles with shared interests, who have some amount influence on power, even if that is small. I'm only an amateur who comes to this topic through my interest in McLuhan and Philosophy so I can't do it justice, so please pursue these writers yourself.
The general idea is that " the growth in newspapers, journals, reading clubs, Masonic lodges, and coffeehouses in 18th-century Europe" created the first body of public criticism to question power, and officially sanctioned or tolerated. So when the American experiment was designed, freedoms of association, expression and the press were enshrined in their foundational document. Publics are the foundation for democracy.
Eventually mass media arrived, and was added to the list of platforms considered as 'public' dialogue - but eventually restrictions were added to counteract their special attributes for propaganda. We are essentially still in this period, with the computer and internet media now being as 'public' forums. We're in a post McLuhan period, which hopefully means people are more aware that our media are colouring at least, or actually being the message.
So what does it mean to the topic of identity politics and rights ?
We have a democratic system that was designed at a time when the designers did not consider non-white, non-Christian, non-male landowners to be full citizens... which written even before the mechanical age had started or the age of modern newspapers... They did know that their Constitution had to include a renewal formula, which meant that who was to be considered to be a "full" person would change. Most enlightened framer of the constitution would be considered to be a regressive thinker, by today's moral standard. And yet they created an enduring system that would come to recognize equality of millions.
Now as equality progresses, there are periods of debate wherein we discuss, say, rights for minorities. At such times, such as today, an opinion which is widely held can decline in popularity as a rights debate plays out. So some opinions can thereby become unfashionable, or even repugnant to many . In recent years, there was widespread opposition to gay marriage which somehow evaporated quickly. Barack Obama opposed gay marriage during part of his term as president.
So 'trans women are women' 'trans men are men' have made a foothold in law now. I support the idea, but I also expect that this is a difficult concept for many to adopt so my work as an ally includes helping work through the debate.
The main finding I have from my talks on here is that the entrenched positions won't be resolved, and that one sign of being entrenched seems to be that you can't accept the opposite view being reasonable at all. Like abortion, this is a values debate, and there is actually no correct answer.
Post by: guest7 on June 10, 2021, 08:10:44 am
Sometimes I despair for my country.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets
Maybe there's hope:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 10, 2021, 09:31:01 am
"The panel said only views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought."
“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”
I would say it would be a lot easier to isolate rights surrounding 'offensive' views in the workplace as being actionable than to allow 'philosophical opinions' not akin to "Nazism or totalitarianism" (?) to be protected. From my POV people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store.
It's not hard to project how the government would now be protecting outrageous points of view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, if "the" public can work this ruling into our social fabric then I applaud it.
Post by: Black Dog on June 10, 2021, 12:45:11 pm
Sometimes I despair for my country.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets
So not the rampant racism, runaway austerity, crumbling healthcare, rising nationalism?
Post by: Black Dog on June 10, 2021, 12:47:51 pm
Maybe there's hope:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater
lol:
Quote
Forstater said of the judgment: “It doesn’t mean the freedom to harass others. That was never what my case was about.
Quote
Later that month, in a long series of tweets, [Forstater] repeatedly misgendered Credit Suisse senior director Pips Bunce, who identifies as gender fluid, referring to her as "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress,” "a part-time cross dresser" and "a white man who likes to dress in women’s clothes.”
Post by: guest7 on June 10, 2021, 08:06:20 pm
So not the rampant racism, runaway austerity, crumbling healthcare, rising nationalism?
No, that's been around for a while. Same as most places, I guess.
Post by: guest7 on June 10, 2021, 08:08:20 pm
lol:
Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to harass anyone. I don't mind them offending people, though.
Post by: guest7 on June 10, 2021, 08:13:30 pm
Well....
"The panel said only views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought."
“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”
I would say it would be a lot easier to isolate rights surrounding 'offensive' views in the workplace as being actionable than to allow 'philosophical opinions' not akin to "Nazism or totalitarianism" (?) to be protected. From my POV people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store.
It's not hard to project how the government would now be protecting outrageous points of view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, if "the" public can work this ruling into our social fabric then I applaud it.
As long as they don't make views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism illegal. I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with those views. But then, I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with all kinds of views. I don't know if they should be able to though.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 10, 2021, 08:59:02 pm
Can I, as an employer, fire some for pro-transgender views if I want to keep women in my workplace safe from being called TERFS? If not, why not?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 10, 2021, 09:11:30 pm
As long as they don't make views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism illegal. I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with those views. But then, I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with all kinds of views. I don't know if they should be able to though.It sounds like you haven't been following the case.
Post by: guest7 on June 10, 2021, 09:15:56 pm
It sounds like you haven't been following the case.
Just what I read in the Guardian. And it was before breakfast, so if I missed something, I was probably just thinking about my eggs.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 11, 2021, 08:21:46 am
Just what I read in the Guardian. And it was before breakfast, so if I missed something, I was probably just thinking about my eggs.
The deal is....
The woman made anti-trans comments online (in person too maybe ?) and her contract was not renewed. She sent it for judicial review and the decision was initially affirmed, and now was turned over with the comment that her speech is protected unless it's akin to "Naziism and totalitarianism".
So "free speech" as such was never in question, it was the consequences of her stating her opinion.
What it means now is that apparently you can state "Women should speak only when spoken to" in the workplace and not get fired, but if you say "I think that China's government has been effective against Climate Change" you can be fired.
....
I should have been a lawyer. Really really should have.
Post by: guest7 on June 11, 2021, 08:47:16 am
The deal is....
The woman made anti-trans comments online (in person too maybe ?) and her contract was not renewed. She sent it for judicial review and the decision was initially affirmed, and now was turned over with the comment that her speech is protected unless it's akin to "Naziism and totalitarianism".
So "free speech" as such was never in question, it was the consequences of her stating her opinion.
What it means now is that apparently you can state "Women should speak only when spoken to" in the workplace and not get fired, but if you say "I think that China's government has been effective against Climate Change" you can be fired.
....
I should have been a lawyer. Really really should have.
Yeah, restrictions on free speech, as we've discussed in the past, are the prerogative of governments. Did she make the comments in the workplace as well? What if someone says "Women should speak only when spoken to" online? Fire them?
Was the appeal panel wrong to reinstate her?
Why would you get fired for saying that about China? I should imagine one could say a lot worse about China without risking any kind of sanction at all.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 11, 2021, 09:01:00 am
Yeah, restrictions on free speech, as we've discussed in the past, are the prerogative of governments. Did she make the comments in the workplace as well? What if someone says "Women should speak only when spoken to" online? Fire them?
Was the appeal panel wrong to reinstate her?
Why would you get fired for saying that about China? I should imagine one could say a lot worse about China without risking any kind of sanction at all.
I believe she made them online but also in context of her team mates and possibly in the workplace.
If you support totalitarianism than you can be fired.
Post by: Black Dog on June 11, 2021, 10:49:57 am
Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to harass anyone. I don't mind them offending people, though.
I think an employer should have the right to fire someone who goes around "offending" people if it makes them look bad.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 11, 2021, 10:51:29 am
I think an employer should have the right to fire someone who goes around "offending" people if it makes them look bad.
I'm on your side, but it's a hard line to draw. How do you justify degree of offense and ensure that this isn't abused ?
Anyway, the new line isn't much better ... especially if you are partial to totalitarian Nazi views.
Post by: Black Dog on June 11, 2021, 12:32:00 pm
No, that's been around for a while. Same as most places, I guess.
And "TERF doesn't get her contract re-upped for making her employer look bad" is the straw that broker the camel's back for you?
Post by: Black Dog on June 11, 2021, 12:33:01 pm
I'm on your side, but it's a hard line to draw. How do you justify degree of offense and ensure that this isn't abused ?
Anyway, the new line isn't much better ... especially if you are partial to totalitarian Nazi views.
If right wing people don't want people getting fired for absurd or arbitrary reasons, they should support unions.
Post by: wilber on June 11, 2021, 12:34:27 pm
https://www.abbynews.com/news/suspect-charged-in-relation-to-thwarted-armed-robbery-at-abbotsford-bank/
What I don't get was after he was caught after escaping custody with the help of armed accomplices, he was given a conditional sentence and probation. What was the logic behind that, if we put you in jail you will just try and escape again so we might as well turn you loose?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 11, 2021, 01:33:31 pm
If right wing people don't want people getting fired for absurd or arbitrary reasons, they should support unions.
That's totalitarianism though..... aaaaaaand you just got fired ;)
Post by: guest7 on June 11, 2021, 07:46:04 pm
And "TERF doesn't get her contract re-upped for making her employer look bad" is the straw that broker the camel's back for you?
Different issues. It's a lot easier to not go all foamy about someone's opinion than it is to fix a broken health care system. Cheaper too.
Post by: guest7 on June 11, 2021, 07:47:10 pm
I think an employer should have the right to fire someone who goes around "offending" people if it makes them look bad.
They do. That's what appeals and tribunals and such are for. To look at the case and see if it was justified.
Post by: guest7 on June 11, 2021, 07:49:27 pm
I believe she made them online but also in context of her team mates and possibly in the workplace.
If you support totalitarianism than you can be fired.
I think you would probably be reinstated on appeal given your level of support.
Now, if you were to deny the existence of the concentration camps I would still support you, but the appeals tribunal might not.
Post by: guest7 on June 11, 2021, 07:51:52 pm
If right wing people don't want people getting fired for absurd or arbitrary reasons, they should support unions.
I don't know about right wing people, but in my experience, unions get people fired for at least one pretty dumb reason. Seniority, or lack thereof.
I've tried both. I prefer a non union employer if they are a good employer.
Post by: kimmy on June 12, 2021, 02:43:50 pm
lol:QuoteForstater said of the judgment: “It doesn’t mean the freedom to harass others. That was never what my case was about.QuoteLater that month, in a long series of tweets, [Forstater] repeatedly misgendered Credit Suisse senior director Pips Bunce, who identifies as gender fluid, referring to her as "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress,” "a part-time cross dresser" and "a white man who likes to dress in women’s clothes.”
Forstater doesn't work with Bunce. She wasn't interacting with Bunce. She's never met Bunce. She was responding to a Financial Times article that listed Bunce among their "Top 100 Female Executives" in 2018.
Some of the tweets in question:
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1044495561481703424
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1044839436054351872
Quote
I've got a Q for my male twitter friends who have pledged not to appear on all male panels - if u were invited on a panel w Pip Bunce - one of FT's top 100 female champions of women in biz & another guy would u say yes or call the organisers & say sorry i don't do #manels?
Quote
Bunce does not 'masquerade as female' he is a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress. I have no problem with men wearing dresses, but we don't need to confuse acting in a stereotypically feminine manner with being a woman!
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/mistranslated-i-split-my-time-as-pippa-and-philip-20171002
If discussing this absurd situation amounts to harassing Bunce, then everybody on this message board is guilty of harassing somebody, and we should all just turn ourselves in to the thought police right now.
The situation is about as ridiculous as the "Top Movies Directed By Women" lists that always rank The Matrix highly even though the Wachowskis made The Matrix about 20 years before they "discovered they were women".
And yeah, if your gender identity changes with your mood, it's not a gender identity, it's just a mood. If being a woman for you means wearing a woman costume to work a couple of times a week, you're not a woman. Life as a woman, in any society at any time in history, is not something that you can choose as a part-time experience. I doubt that Pips has ever experienced what it's really like to actually be treated as a woman, I think he's probably only had the experience of being treated as a weirdo by subordinates who feel obligated to humor him.
Frankly Phillip/Pippa Bunce is nonsense that would be right at home in a Monty Python skit. It's at a point where reality is too ridiculous for Titania McGrath to parody; we've more or less reached Poe's Law saturation on gender identity nonsense. Pips Bunce is the Emperor's New Clothes story for our time, except that at the punchline of the story is that the little boy who told the truth gets marched in front of a Human Rights Tribunal.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 12, 2021, 03:14:44 pm
The deal is....
The woman made anti-trans comments online (in person too maybe ?) and her contract was not renewed. She sent it for judicial review and the decision was initially affirmed, and now was turned over with the comment that her speech is protected unless it's akin to "Naziism and totalitarianism".
So "free speech" as such was never in question, it was the consequences of her stating her opinion.
What it means now is that apparently you can state "Women should speak only when spoken to" in the workplace and not get fired, but if you say "I think that China's government has been effective against Climate Change" you can be fired.
....
I should have been a lawyer. Really really should have.
I think you should really really keep your day job.
There has never been any claim that Forstater harassed a co-worker or anyone in person. The evidence presented against her at the original employment hearing consisted of stuff she said on Twitter. As well, there was no suggestion that her employer had suffered reputational damage from being associated with her. She's not in a public-facing job, she is an accountant, probably nobody knew who her employer was until she took them to court.
The ruling doesn't prevent employers from protecting workers from harassment (the ruling states this explicitly). If Forstater had indeed been harassing a co-worker, nothing in this ruling would have protected her.
Quote
I would say it would be a lot easier to isolate rights surrounding 'offensive' views in the workplace as being actionable than to allow 'philosophical opinions' not akin to "Nazism or totalitarianism" (?) to be protected. From my POV people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store.
Always could. Are you so privileged that you can't imagine having to work alongside someone whose values differ from your own? I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that I have worked alongside people who thought that women belonged in the home, and gay people will be punished by god, and western women are harlots, and blondes have low intelligence, and women can't do technology, and probably many other things that I haven't even thought of.
But unless those ideas actually manifest themselves in the workplace, there's nothing I can do about it, and no reason for me to try.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2021, 04:06:31 pm
But unless those ideas actually manifest themselves in the workplace, there's nothing I can do about it, and no reason for me to try.
-k
I suppose you're right.
Please stop making this about my personal take on this. [Edited: I mean my values around trans rights. I don't think either of us are likely to change much. I'm looking for a way for divergent values to coexist in the public moral space]
I keep asking.
Post by: Black Dog on June 13, 2021, 10:16:18 am
Always could. Are you so privileged that you can't imagine having to work alongside someone whose values differ from your own? I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that I have worked alongside people who thought that women belonged in the home, and gay people will be punished by god, and western women are harlots, and blondes have low intelligence, and women can't do technology, and probably many other things that I haven't even thought of.
But unless those ideas actually manifest themselves in the workplace, there's nothing I can do about it, and no reason for me to try.
I'm sure if you discovered a colleagues social media posts expressing any of those views, you'd be perfectly happy continuing to work side by side with them, right?
Then again maybe you could bond with them over your mutual loathing for trans people.
Post by: kimmy on June 16, 2021, 01:34:27 am
I'm sure if you discovered a colleagues social media posts expressing any of those views, you'd be perfectly happy continuing to work side by side with them, right?
I suppose I could stalk my co-workers on social media. Why would I? I used to work at a Microsoft tech support call center in Edmonton's Millwoods district where at least half of my coworkers were Muslim. I imagine that if I had cared enough I could have found which mosques they went to and found out if those mosques said misogynist or homophobic things. Why would I?
One of my current coworkers is an older lady. She goes to a far-right fringe church. She used to tell homophobic jokes around the office sometimes. I didn't say anything. I took my girlfriend to the office Christmas party a couple of years ago. After that she stopped telling homophobic jokes at the office. She asks how Lindsey is. She tried to make a funny one time-- I came to work with a bandage under my eye because of a skin issue, and she said "well, so she finally hit you." I was kind of surprised, but shrugged it off. Later on she came up to me and said "I'm sorry for what I said earlier. I was trying to make a joke but it was in bad taste." I thanked her.
I can't make her agree with my life choices. I wouldn't try.
But, next time she is with her loony friends from the loony church and they start complaining about "the queers", she might say "you know, we have a gay girl at the office, and by gosh she is just as nice as you could imagine and she is just like everybody else." She might say that. She might not. But if I searched her out on Facebook and found out she was posting homophobic jokes, and complained to my boss about it, she certainly wouldn't. And I wouldn't win anything from doing that. Wouldn't change her attitude. Wouldn't inspire her to speak up to her friends. Would probably just reinforce negative preconceptions she has. So why would I? What would I gain from trying to police what a coworker might be saying on Facebook?
Then again maybe you could bond with them over your mutual loathing for trans people.
This is SAD and LOW ENERGY and I wouldn't normally waste the effort respond to something like this. But I do have to address a couple of things.
The first is that accusing people of transphobia just isn't the zinger you guys think it is. Not any more. At this point pretty much any opinion held by normal sane people is transphobic to you guys, so who gives a crap anymore. At this point it's allegedly transphobic to say that males shouldn't be in women's sports, that males shouldn't be in women's prisons, that you don't think girls should have to shower or change with testicle-people, that you don't want "girldick" if you're a lesbian (or that you do want dick if you're a gay man) or that you think being a woman isn't a matter of clothes or makeup or "a feeling". If that's transphobic, then guilty as charged and I couldn't care less.
And second: I don't loathe trans people. Not in general. Certainly some of them I do loathe. Deranged activists like Chase Strangio and Dr Veronica Ivy, for example. Or the disgusting anime-obsessed Lolita-p0rn worshiping "transbian" incel creeps at 4chan and Reddit. Those people are just revolting.
But in general I don't hate trans people. Take "Pips" Bunce, for example. I don't hate Pips. Pips is just a gender non-conforming individual trying to find an outlet for his gender expression. I can't hate that. I'm gender non-conforming myself. I can't hate somebody for living outside the box. I completely empathize with a man who wants to be effeminate sometimes.
I don't hate Pips Bunce. What I do hate is that wokies expect us to believe that a guy who wears a dress to work twice a week is "a woman".
Pips Bunce isn't the nutcase. You guys are the nutcases.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 16, 2021, 01:59:23 am
I suppose you're right.
Please stop making this about my personal take on this. [Edited: I mean my values around trans rights. I don't think either of us are likely to change much. I'm looking for a way for divergent values to coexist in the public moral space]
I keep asking.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't trying to change your view in regard to trans rights. I was pointing out that:
1) you made up facts in regard to the Maya Forstater case. You posited an imaginary trans coworker who was subjected to imaginary harassment by Forstater. False. Erroneous. Fake news. You can't just make **** up to make your side sound more plausible.
2) your analysis of the result of Forstater's win was superfuckenwrong. Doesn't give anyone the right to harass a coworker (the judge explicitly said this in his ruling.) Your claim that this ruling means someone could tell his female coworkers that women should speak only when spoken to, for example, is a load of crap. The ruling also doesn't even mean that Forstater's former employer is obliged to hire her back, or even that they were wrong in not renewing her contract. What the ruling establishes is that the first judge erred in declaring that Forstater's views were "not worthy of respect" and therefore not a protected philosophical belief.
3) your complaint that the ruling means that "people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store" is wildly off the mark because the lipstick store (or any other work environment) doesn't actually have any power to evaluate what you believe... only how you act.
And again... the notion that having a coworker who might have contrary beliefs is some kind of hardship is ... ridiculous. The idea of working in an environment where everybody approves of each others' values is a luxury that most of us will never have, and I'm pretty much gobsmacked that you thought this was a serious criticism of the ruling. I'm just stunned that you could be that out of touch.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 16, 2021, 08:06:54 am
Quote
1. I have no idea what you're talking about.
2. you made up facts in regard to the Maya Forstater case. You posited an imaginary trans coworker who was subjected to imaginary harassment by Forstater. False. Erroneous. Fake news. You can't just make **** up to make your side sound more plausible.
3. Your claim that this ruling means someone could tell his female coworkers that women should speak only when spoken to, for example, is a load of crap.
4. What the ruling establishes is that the first judge erred in declaring that Forstater's views were "not worthy of respect" and therefore not a protected philosophical belief.
5. your complaint that the ruling means that "people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store" is wildly off the mark because the lipstick store (or any other work environment) doesn't actually have any power to evaluate what you believe... only how you act.
6. And again... the notion that having a coworker who might have contrary beliefs is some kind of hardship is ... ridiculous.
7. The idea of working in an environment where everybody approves of each others' values is a luxury that most of us will never have, and I'm pretty much gobsmacked that you thought this was a serious criticism of the ruling. I'm just stunned that you could be that out of touch.
-k
1. "Are you so privileged that you can't imagine having to work alongside someone whose values differ from your own?" My personal point of view should be discussed on its merits, not on my personal attributes thank you.
2. You're accusing me of lying ? That's a new one. Of course I didn't lie. If I misunderstood something then I apologize. I thought Black Dog stated something about this a few pages back.
3. I don't agree. If it's one's "personal philosophy" and you state it in a non-harrassing way then it's ok apparently.
4. What is a 'protected philosophical belief' if it doesn't protect you from being fired ? What are you protected from ? Speech is already allowed, and can't be stopped by the government.
5. Not any more, no.
6. Having offensive beliefs was never the question, but expressing them public was.
7. You are making this personal for some reason. Again let me state that I don't care either way, I really don't. I just want clarity...
Post by: Black Dog on June 16, 2021, 10:59:22 am
I suppose I could stalk my co-workers on social media. Why would I? I used to work at a Microsoft tech support call center in Edmonton's Millwoods district where at least half of my coworkers were Muslim. I imagine that if I had cared enough I could have found which mosques they went to and found out if those mosques said misogynist or homophobic things. Why would I?
One of my current coworkers is an older lady. She goes to a far-right fringe church. She used to tell homophobic jokes around the office sometimes. I didn't say anything. I took my girlfriend to the office Christmas party a couple of years ago. After that she stopped telling homophobic jokes at the office. She asks how Lindsey is. She tried to make a funny one time-- I came to work with a bandage under my eye because of a skin issue, and she said "well, so she finally hit you." I was kind of surprised, but shrugged it off. Later on she came up to me and said "I'm sorry for what I said earlier. I was trying to make a joke but it was in bad taste." I thanked her.
I can't make her agree with my life choices. I wouldn't try.
But, next time she is with her loony friends from the loony church and they start complaining about "the queers", she might say "you know, we have a gay girl at the office, and by gosh she is just as nice as you could imagine and she is just like everybody else." She might say that. She might not. But if I searched her out on Facebook and found out she was posting homophobic jokes, and complained to my boss about it, she certainly wouldn't. And I wouldn't win anything from doing that. Wouldn't change her attitude. Wouldn't inspire her to speak up to her friends. Would probably just reinforce negative preconceptions she has. So why would I? What would I gain from trying to police what a coworker might be saying on Facebook?
That's all real interesting like, but you didn't actually answer the question which wasn't about "stalking" people's social media or changing minds about gay people or whatever the hell else you're on about here,
Quote
This is SAD and LOW ENERGY and I wouldn't normally waste the effort respond to something like this. But I do have to address a couple of things.
The first is that accusing people of transphobia just isn't the zinger you guys think it is. Not any more. At this point pretty much any opinion held by normal sane people is transphobic to you guys, so who gives a crap anymore. At this point it's allegedly transphobic to say that males shouldn't be in women's sports, that males shouldn't be in women's prisons, that you don't think girls should have to shower or change with testicle-people, that you don't want "girldick" if you're a lesbian (or that you do want dick if you're a gay man) or that you think being a woman isn't a matter of clothes or makeup or "a feeling". If that's transphobic, then guilty as charged and I couldn't care less.
And second: I don't loathe trans people. Not in general. Certainly some of them I do loathe. Deranged activists like Chase Strangio and Dr Veronica Ivy, for example. Or the disgusting anime-obsessed Lolita-p0rn worshiping "transbian" incel creeps at 4chan and Reddit. Those people are just revolting.
But in general I don't hate trans people. Take "Pips" Bunce, for example. I don't hate Pips. Pips is just a gender non-conforming individual trying to find an outlet for his gender expression. I can't hate that. I'm gender non-conforming myself. I can't hate somebody for living outside the box. I completely empathize with a man who wants to be effeminate sometimes.
I don't hate Pips Bunce. What I do hate is that wokies expect us to believe that a guy who wears a dress to work twice a week is "a woman".
Pips Bunce isn't the nutcase. You guys are the nutcases.
Well, we've established already you're perfectly comfortable with the idea of working with social conservatives who hate you for the mutual cause of battling trans people so it's not surprising your response to the idea that you might have a lot in common with people who hate your guts for what you are is "so what and also it's very good."
And we've already established you have a terrible case of Internet Brain Poisoning and can no longer distinguish between what's real and what's Extremely Online and who has real power and who does not so anything you have to say on this entire subject area needs to be viewed in that lens.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 16, 2021, 11:07:43 am
Quote
Later that month, in a long series of tweets, [Forstater] repeatedly misgendered Credit Suisse senior director Pips Bunce, who identifies as gender fluid, referring to her as "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress,” "a part-time cross dresser" and "a white man who likes to dress in women’s clothes.”
Maybe I was talking about this post from Black Dog which sounds to me like harassment
Quote
You posited an imaginary trans coworker who was subjected to imaginary harassment by Forstater. False. Erroneous. Fake news.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 21, 2021, 09:35:05 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/transgender-weightlifter-hubbard-selected-for-tokyo-1.6073313
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2021, 01:25:00 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/jun/22/by-conflating-gender-and-sex-we-undermine-sporting-competition
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/21/olympics-tokyo-laurel-hubbard-trans-weightlifter-new-zealand
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 22, 2021, 02:27:09 pm
On that note:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/jun/22/by-conflating-gender-and-sex-we-undermine-sporting-competition
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/21/olympics-tokyo-laurel-hubbard-trans-weightlifter-new-zealand
If women athletes in that sport think this is an issue, they should protest en masse.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 22, 2021, 02:38:15 pm
I worked with 'em. I camp with 'em. Joan blew a trombone in a gal's face so loud she stormed off and became a man (true story)
So I don't doubt that I am an ally, but this makes me go .... hmmmm
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2021, 02:47:13 pm
If women athletes in that sport think this is an issue, they should protest en masse.
It's becoming pretty obvious the opinions of biological women don't count for much when it comes to women's sport.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 22, 2021, 03:01:22 pm
It's becoming pretty obvious the opinions of biological women don't count for much when it comes to women's sport.
They would if there was no more sport when they all walk out. Take a stand….
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 22, 2021, 03:32:25 pm
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2021, 03:48:31 pm
They would if there was no more sport when they all walk out. Take a stand….
I think it could eventually come to that.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 22, 2021, 04:53:01 pm
It's becoming pretty obvious the opinions of biological women don't count for much when it comes to women's sport.
Trans people are higher on the victim hierarchy than cis women.
Post by: wilber on June 23, 2021, 09:24:06 am
Trans people are higher on the victim hierarchy than cis women.
That’s how so called inclusiveness ends up excluding people. Let’s not forget a biological woman lost a spot on a women’s Olympic team for this to happen..
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 23, 2021, 01:55:26 pm
That’s how so called inclusiveness ends up excluding people. Let’s not forget a biological woman lost a spot on a women’s Olympic team for this to happen..
The woke say they're breaking down hierarchies, but they're just building new hierarchies where everyone is treated differently based on whatever ethnicity, gender, disability, or LGBT status they have. How is this any different? It's literally the mirror image.
Imagine the prejudicial or racist assumptions involved in listening to a speaker with extra respect just because they might be trans or black. How about we just treat everyone like equal human beings? Soon they'll have to cancel the Olympics because it's discriminatory to fat people and others who aren't good athletes because it hurts their feelings.
Post by: kimmy on June 24, 2021, 12:43:21 am
@kimmy - Black Dog posted this
Maybe I was talking about this post from Black Dog which sounds to me like harassment
Yeah, Black Dog posted some deliberately misleading ****, because he's a fraud.
I posted this helpful explanation of the situation, (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=78108) because I didn't want people to get conned.
But you got conned anyway, so you have only yourself to blame.
Quick recap: Forstater doesn't work with Bunce. She wasn't interacting with Bunce. She's never met Bunce. She was responding to a Financial Times article that listed Bunce among their "Top 100 Female Executives" in 2018.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 24, 2021, 01:13:46 am
1. "Are you so privileged that you can't imagine having to work alongside someone whose values differ from your own?" My personal point of view should be discussed on its merits, not on my personal attributes thank you.
2. You're accusing me of lying ? That's a new one. Of course I didn't lie. If I misunderstood something then I apologize. I thought Black Dog stated something about this a few pages back.
3. I don't agree. If it's one's "personal philosophy" and you state it in a non-harrassing way then it's ok apparently.
4. What is a 'protected philosophical belief' if it doesn't protect you from being fired ? What are you protected from ? Speech is already allowed, and can't be stopped by the government.
5. Not any more, no.
6. Having offensive beliefs was never the question, but expressing them public was.
7. You are making this personal for some reason. Again let me state that I don't care either way, I really don't. I just want clarity...
2) see previous post.
3),4) The ruling made comparison to people having a right to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. People have a protected right to believe that only traditional marriage is real, or that homosexuality is immoral; gay employees are still entitled to a work environment free from harassment and discrimination. You seem baffled by the idea that a trans employee could somehow coexist with a coworker who believes biological sex is real, but gay people have been coexisting with religious coworkers for a long time.
In its written judgement, the Appeal Panel noted:
Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.
The summary also went on to say:
This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA.
5) never did.
6) If Forstater had a public-facing job where she represented her organization to the world, I could buy that argument. I can understand Nike dropping woman-choking sex-addict Tiger Woods as their spokesman, or HNIC dropping senile racist Don Cherry from their broadcast. I can understand McDonald's firing a cashier for calling the customers fat while he's on the job, but not for something he says during his own time. Forstater was a tax accountant with a think tank, not a public representative. It's not like think-tank customers are thinking "oh my gosh, is that the think-tank with the TERF accountant? Let's go to some other think-tank instead."
1), 7) I remain baffled by your inability to grasp that working with people who might not approve of you is a fact of life for many many people.
-k
Post by: BC_cheque on June 24, 2021, 02:16:57 am
6) If Forstater had a public-facing job where she represented her organization to the world, I could buy that argument. I can understand Nike dropping woman-choking sex-addict Tiger Woods as their spokesman, or HNIC dropping senile racist Don Cherry from their broadcast. I can understand McDonald's firing a cashier for calling the customers fat while he's on the job, but not for something he says during his own time. Forstater was a tax accountant with a think tank, not a public representative. It's not like think-tank customers are thinking "oh my gosh, is that the think-tank with the TERF accountant? Let's go to some other think-tank instead."
The only reason I don't show my face on political forums and on twitter is for professional reasons. Same reason I don't use Facebook for politics where I do use my real identity. When it comes to any forum where I discuss politics, I remain anonymous.
On Facebook I draw the line at making a reference to a political party or the environment but I steer clear of anything controversial using my real name.
I thought all smart people knew that. Maybe Forstater is not that smart.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 24, 2021, 04:45:46 am
Yeah, Black Dog posted some deliberately misleading ****, because he's a fraud.
I posted this helpful explanation of the situation, (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=78108) because I didn't want people to get conned.
But you got conned anyway, so you have only yourself to blame.
Quick recap: Forstater doesn't work with Bunce. She wasn't interacting with Bunce. She's never met Bunce. She was responding to a Financial Times article that listed Bunce among their "Top 100 Female Executives" in 2018.
-k
I will take 'you got conned' instead of 'you made up facts related to the Forstater case'.
Being too trusting is better than lying.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 24, 2021, 05:39:43 am
1) see previous post.
2) You seem baffled by the idea that a trans employee could somehow coexist with a coworker who believes biological sex is real, but gay people have been coexisting with religious coworkers for a long time.
3) never did.
4) If Forstater had a public-facing job ...
5) I remain baffled by your inability to grasp that working with people who might not approve of you is a fact of life for many many people.
-k
1) Yes, I accept that I accepted a trusted poster's facts without checking them and that it's possible I was duped. Much better than "making up facts", ie. lying which you surprisingly accused me of. I would have thought you trust my intellectual honesty more than that.
2) Not baffled at all. I don't know why you think that. I can see why you would agree with that argument, absolutely. See 5) below
3) Employers could very much fire you for your opinions in the past, yes. http://uniter.ca/view/the-crowe-affair
4) Yes this is a strong point.
5) Again - why do you think I'm "baffled" ? Just because I see why people agree with that argument, has nothing to do with me. I still think you believe I'm emotionally invested in this. My statement: "Again let me state that I don't care either way, I really don't. I just want clarity..."
Post by: kimmy on July 11, 2021, 02:59:47 am
1) Yes, I accept that I accepted a trusted poster's facts without checking them and that it's possible I was duped. Much better than "making up facts", ie. lying which you surprisingly accused me of. I would have thought you trust my intellectual honesty more than that.
2) Not baffled at all. I don't know why you think that. I can see why you would agree with that argument, absolutely. See 5) below
3) Employers could very much fire you for your opinions in the past, yes. http://uniter.ca/view/the-crowe-affair
4) Yes this is a strong point.
5) Again - why do you think I'm "baffled" ? Just because I see why people agree with that argument, has nothing to do with me. I still think you believe I'm emotionally invested in this. My statement: "Again let me state that I don't care either way, I really don't. I just want clarity..."
1) After I'd gone to the trouble of explaining that the guy wasn't her co-worker and that she wasn't even interacting with him, I was quite irked that you continued on with that narrative.
3) Your article says that Crowe's union investigated and found the firing was unjust.
2, 5) It seems like you are baffled because all your posts regarding the Forstater ruling seem to indicate that you feel that some unresolvable, untenable situation has been created. But it just isn't very complicated.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 11, 2021, 03:16:09 am
https://www.jccf.ca/nurse-being-investigated-by-college-of-nurses-for-her-gender-critical-views/
The JK Rowling billboard is among the "issues" the College of Nurses is investigating. They are apparently also "concerned" about stuff she wrote on Twitter and in articles. None of the complaints came from any patients Hamm has interacted with, and none involve her on the job performance. The complaints are from anonymous activists and involve her expressing her views in her spare time.
I would expect that Hamm will be completely vindicated. However, even if she is vindicated, this is yet another instance where the process is the punishment.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 11, 2021, 07:40:12 pm
We might soon have our own Forstater type situation here in Canada, as the BC College of Nurses is investigating Vancouver nurse Amy Eileen Hamm for thought-crimes. Hamm was mentioned earlier in this thread after she was one of the sponsors of the "I (heart) JK Rowling" billboard that briefly appeared in Vancouver last year. Hamm also has a podcast and is one of the founders of a gender-critical organization. Hamm has obtained representation from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the same religious-conservative law group that defended the aestheticians who refused to wax Jessica Yaniv's nut-sack.
https://www.jccf.ca/nurse-being-investigated-by-college-of-nurses-for-her-gender-critical-views/
The JK Rowling billboard is among the "issues" the College of Nurses is investigating. They are apparently also "concerned" about stuff she wrote on Twitter and in articles. None of the complaints came from any patients Hamm has interacted with, and none involve her on the job performance. The complaints are from anonymous activists and involve her expressing her views in her spare time.
I would expect that Hamm will be completely vindicated. However, even if she is vindicated, this is yet another instance where the process is the punishment.
-k
WTF does any of that have to do with her qualifications as a nurse? Is there some policy at the College of Nurses saying all nurses are required to believe that sex and gender are not separate categories? Any academic or feminist/LGBT literature i've ever read says they are separate. But maybe the goalposts have shifted and activists are again trying to redefine established terms to fit their worldview. The courts are the only thing that can protect science and rationality from some of these bullying activists.
The article you quoted seems surprisingly rational, even though I only read half of it:
"VANCOUVER: The Justice Centre is defending Amy Hamm, a Vancouver-area nurse, in an investigation by the BC College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM), after complaints were filed against her because of her “gender critical” views and her sponsorship of an advertising billboard expressing support for famed children’s author, J.K. Rowling. Ms. Hamm, a single mother of young children, is facing calls for her to be permanently removed from her career in nursing for expressing her opinion on an important issue currently being debated in the public square.
Gender critical feminists typically profess that transgender people have the right to live their lives with dignity and without harassment, but that identification as trans does not equate to literally changing sex. Conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights, particularly in settings where natal women have an expectation of same-sex privacy and protection, such as women’s prisons, changerooms, and **** shelters. Women’s sports are another area where the implications of the biology-versus-gender debate have real impact, gender critics note."
Post by: wilber on July 19, 2021, 11:15:43 am
Post by: Black Dog on July 19, 2021, 11:23:18 am
WTF does any of that have to do with her qualifications as a nurse? Is there some policy at the College of Nurses saying all nurses are required to believe that sex and gender are not separate categories? Any academic or feminist/LGBT literature i've ever read says they are separate. But maybe the goalposts have shifted and activists are again trying to redefine established terms to fit their worldview. The courts are the only thing that can protect science and rationality from some of these bullying activists.
The article you quoted seems surprisingly rational, even though I only read half of it:
"VANCOUVER: The Justice Centre is defending Amy Hamm, a Vancouver-area nurse, in an investigation by the BC College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM), after complaints were filed against her because of her “gender critical” views and her sponsorship of an advertising billboard expressing support for famed children’s author, J.K. Rowling. Ms. Hamm, a single mother of young children, is facing calls for her to be permanently removed from her career in nursing for expressing her opinion on an important issue currently being debated in the public square.
Gender critical feminists typically profess that transgender people have the right to live their lives with dignity and without harassment, but that identification as trans does not equate to literally changing sex. Conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights, particularly in settings where natal women have an expectation of same-sex privacy and protection, such as women’s prisons, changerooms, and **** shelters. Women’s sports are another area where the implications of the biology-versus-gender debate have real impact, gender critics note."
FYI the Justice Centre is a loony far right group whose founder recently had to step down after it came out that he hired a P.I to tail the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice (https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/sending-a-private-investigator-to-follow-a-judge-is-not-about-defending-constitutional-freedom/358195).
Post by: Black Dog on July 19, 2021, 11:29:16 am
I wonder how many of the other incidents we've heard of it this thread were hoaxes.
Meanwhile, over on TERF island, a popular gender critical columnist has put out a new book in which she launders anti-semitic conspiracy theories (https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1416599964214448130).
But hey, the enemy of my enemy etc...
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 19, 2021, 04:47:26 pm
Meanwhile, over on TERF island, a popular gender critical columnist has put out a new book in which she launders anti-semitic conspiracy theories (https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1416599964214448130).
But hey, the enemy of my enemy etc...
This is the first time this person has been mentioned in this thread…. So who here do you think supports this person?
Post by: kimmy on July 19, 2021, 07:48:04 pm
This is the first time this person has been mentioned in this thread…. So who here do you think supports this person?
I do. Helen Joyce is one of the people I read regularly. She's one of the most levelheaded people on gender stuff. I might buy her book when it's available here.
Meanwhile, over on TERF island, a popular gender critical columnist has put out a new book in which she launders anti-semitic conspiracy theories (https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1416599964214448130).
The claim that George Soros is part of a secret cabal of child-eating **** is an antisemitic conspiracy.
The claim that George Soros funds transgender advocacy through his Open Society Foundation is an easily verifiable fact.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/essential-legal-right-trans-people
Trans activists and their cheerleaders are attempting to slander Joyce as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist because she correctly listed Soros alongside other billionaire supporters of trans activism. That speaks volumes about how intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt these people are.
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 19, 2021, 09:58:25 pm
Trans people are such a threat that gender critical folks have to actually make up incidents of trans people exposing themselves in changerooms. (https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/wi-spa-la-transphobic-protest.html) That hoax led to a bunch of Proud Boys staging a protest to harrass the spa.
Slate "Outward" citing speculation from LA Blade and anonymous users at www.transsafety.net is the journalistic equivalent of Uwe Boll directing an Adam Sandler script starring Rob Schneider.
In the first week or so after the video went viral, the trans cheerleader narrative wasn't "it was a hoax", it was "trans women are women and belong in women's facilities and cis women and girls will have to get used to it," "if your daughter saw a dick in the hot tub it's your fault for raising a rude child", "what's wrong with young girls seeing dicks? we should get young girls used to seeing dicks," and so on. That stuff went over like a turd in a punch-bowl, which is when the hoax claim started picking up steam.
This has turned into a woke version of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox where either there was never a dick in the hot-tub or else there was a dick in the hot-tub and women and girls will have to learn to love the feminine wang, and you can't tell which is the case until you look in the hot tub and observe a dick.
One of the videos uploaded by "CubanAngel" shows a Wi Spa employee explaining that "he identifies as a woman", which would be an odd thing to say if there wasn't a trans woman there. And, this wouldn't be the first such incident.
Example one: the first opening post in this thread was about a trans woman wanting to unveil the feminine wang at a womens' only **** spa. Regarding which, wokies declared that women would have to accept the feminine wang in female spaces.
Example two: https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/wi-spa-video/
Quote
As it happens, Wi Spa isn’t the only similar space that’s had to balance accommodating both cis customers and trans customers in various stages of their transitions. A rep for Century Day and Night Spa on Olympic Boulevard recalls a similar situation just before the pandemic shut them down in spring 2020 in which a trans woman (“with everything reflected female on her driver’s license”) caused an uproar among cis gender female clients by exposing male genitals in the female pools and lockers. “[She] wouldn’t really use the spas, [she] just sat at the corner of the pool with [her] feet in the water and [her] legs spread or took front-facing showers,” the rep recalls. “People began to feel uncomfortable. It became very disruptive.” When the spa finally confronted her, she was adamant that the spa should attempt to normalize young girls and women viewing male genitalia.
“Typically,” says the rep, “transgender people are very mindful of not only their own comfort levels but the comfort levels of people around them. This person was not respectful.”
Third person, citing an incident from January 2020.
-her story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAkUwLqzp-M
-receipts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSfvY2adLo0
The idea that "trans women are women and trans women belong in women's spaces" is part and parcel of trans ideology and trans activism, and yet you're declaring it a hoax. Why? Why would it you assume it's a hoax that a trans person goes and does something that trans activists and their allies and the civil authorities say that they're completely entitled to do?
That hoax led to a bunch of Proud Boys staging a protest to harrass the spa.
The protest was organized by women, not by "Proud Boys". Something that the crack journalists at Slate neglected to mention is that the SoCal Antifa organized a counter-protest as soon as they heard about the women's protest. Slate somehow missed the part about Antifa goons showing up to harrass, intimidate, and assault women.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/07/03/la-spa-transgender-rally-lgbtq/
Thought for the day: if your "anti-fascist direct action" is bullying women who are protesting about their rights, you're the fascist.
I wonder how many of the other incidents we've heard of it this thread were hoaxes.
I stopped holding links under Michael's nose to prove that stuff happens (https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/woman-charged-after-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-6-year-old-boy-in-toronto-park-1.5507627) because everybody here seemed to have given up on "tHaT nEvEr HaPpEnS!"
But on a similar note, I wonder how much crime attributed to women is committed by "self-identified" women.
(https://i.imgur.com/bHkugNy.png)
-k
Post by: kimmy on July 19, 2021, 10:20:53 pm
FYI the Justice Centre is a loony far right group whose founder recently had to step down after it came out that he hired a P.I to tail the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice (https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/sending-a-private-investigator-to-follow-a-judge-is-not-about-defending-constitutional-freedom/358195).
Perhaps if some progressive organizations were willing to defend women, people like Hamm and the aestheticians taken to HRT by Yaniv would have more options than just JCCF when it comes to legal representation.
Maybe trans activists and their woke allies should stop handing JCCF opportunities to look like the good-guys.
On a related note, the Scottish woman being prosecuted for wrongthink, Marion Millar, has obtained legal representation in the form of lawyer and Scottish MP Joanna Cherry. Which is probably better than being represented by a right-wing religious freedom outfit. Millar was supposed to make her first court appearance tomorrow, but the prosecution have announced that they are postponing the hearing until August 17. No reason was given.
I can only assume that the prosecutor must have had a nervous breakdown or mental health crisis at the prospect of appearing in court to argue that a picture of a suffragette ribbon constitutes a hate crime.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 19, 2021, 10:29:49 pm
I do. Helen Joyce is one of the people I read regularly. She's one of the most levelheaded people on gender stuff. I might buy her book when it's available here.
The claim that George Soros is part of a secret cabal of child-eating **** is an antisemitic conspiracy.
The claim that George Soros funds transgender advocacy through his Open Society Foundation is an easily verifiable fact.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/essential-legal-right-trans-people
Trans activists and their cheerleaders are attempting to slander Joyce as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist because she correctly listed Soros alongside other billionaire supporters of trans activism. That speaks volumes about how intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt these people are.
-k
I assumed BlackDog wasn’t full of **** when he said she was antisemitic.
Have to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt about these things.
Post by: Black Dog on July 20, 2021, 11:21:32 am
I do. Helen Joyce is one of the people I read regularly. She's one of the most levelheaded people on gender stuff. I might buy her book when it's available here.
The claim that George Soros is part of a secret cabal of child-eating **** is an antisemitic conspiracy.
The claim that George Soros funds transgender advocacy through his Open Society Foundation is an easily verifiable fact.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/essential-legal-right-trans-people
Trans activists and their cheerleaders are attempting to slander Joyce as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist because she correctly listed Soros alongside other billionaire supporters of trans activism. That speaks volumes about how intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt these people are.
-k
Lol "correctly (https://twitter.com/transscribe/status/1416757764043513859?s=20)"
How stupid do you have to be to not see the connection between naming three Jewish billionaires and the antisemitic conspiracy theories about them?
The thread I posted clearly shows the chain between Helen Joyce, Jennifer Bilek and actual neoNazis. but i'm sure your response will be "oh well if trans people weren't so uppity we wouldn't have to get into bed with Nazis!"
Post by: Black Dog on July 20, 2021, 11:28:43 am
Slate "Outward" citing speculation from LA Blade and anonymous users at www.transsafety.net is the journalistic equivalent of Uwe Boll directing an Adam Sandler script starring Rob Schneider.
In the first week or so after the video went viral, the trans cheerleader narrative wasn't "it was a hoax", it was "trans women are women and belong in women's facilities and cis women and girls will have to get used to it," "if your daughter saw a dick in the hot tub it's your fault for raising a rude child", "what's wrong with young girls seeing dicks? we should get young girls used to seeing dicks," and so on. That stuff went over like a turd in a punch-bowl, which is when the hoax claim started picking up steam.
This has turned into a woke version of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox where either there was never a dick in the hot-tub or else there was a dick in the hot-tub and women and girls will have to learn to love the feminine wang, and you can't tell which is the case until you look in the hot tub and observe a dick.
One of the videos uploaded by "CubanAngel" shows a Wi Spa employee explaining that "he identifies as a woman", which would be an odd thing to say if there wasn't a trans woman there. And, this wouldn't be the first such incident.
So no comment on the fact it was an obvious hoax?
Quote
Example one: the first opening post in this thread was about a trans woman wanting to unveil the feminine wang at a womens' only **** spa. Regarding which, wokies declared that women would have to accept the feminine wang in female spaces.
...
The idea that "trans women are women and trans women belong in women's spaces" is part and parcel of trans ideology and trans activism, and yet you're declaring it a hoax. Why? Why would it you assume it's a hoax that a trans person goes and does something that trans activists and their allies and the civil authorities say that they're completely entitled to do?
This is the saddest attempt at a gotcha I've ever seen.
Nobody is suggesting people have the right to act like creeps in these spaces, that's a shithead strawman.
Quote
The protest was organized by women, not by "Proud Boys". Something that the crack journalists at Slate neglected to mention is that the SoCal Antifa organized a counter-protest as soon as they heard about the women's protest. Slate somehow missed the part about Antifa goons showing up to harrass, intimidate, and assault women.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/07/03/la-spa-transgender-rally-lgbtq/
Thought for the day: if your "anti-fascist direct action" is bullying women who are protesting about their rights, you're the fascist.
TIL those guys in black tactical gear waving knives were just women protesting about their rights.
Quote
But on a similar note, I wonder how much crime attributed to women is committed by "self-identified" women.
All natal women are perfect angels.
Post by: Black Dog on July 20, 2021, 11:30:29 am
Perhaps if some progressive organizations were willing to defend women, people like Hamm and the aestheticians taken to HRT by Yaniv would have more options than just JCCF when it comes to legal representation.
Maybe trans activists and their woke allies should stop handing JCCF opportunities to look like the good-guys.
No one is forcing you TERFs to cozy up to the far right kimmy, that's entirely your choice.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 20, 2021, 12:02:21 pm
Are you folks able to discuss this without getting nasty ?
I hope so.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 20, 2021, 05:45:42 pm
If people like kimmy didn't stand up for their rights nobody else would, except for the right-wing bigots I guess, but most reasonable people ignore them anyways.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 20, 2021, 05:49:29 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 20, 2021, 05:53:24 pm
So those who support trans rights are cowards then ?
That's not what I said.
I'm saying when an issue comes up with trans rights where there is a conflict between the rights of trans people and another group, most progressives will side with the trans rights. They don't seem to care much about the rights of women when implementing trans rights, now do they? It's a victim game. Whoever is highest on the victim hierarchy wins. I would think the priority should be what is reasonably just and fair rather than who we feel most badly for, or how we will look to our peers or the public.
Post by: Black Dog on July 20, 2021, 06:14:17 pm
Many progressives these days are cowards. They aren't willing to stand up for what's right when it's politically incorrect to do so, so they kowtow to whatever demands any marginalized group is asking for, even if it tramples on the rights of others who aren't as high on the victim hierarchy because these progressives don't want to be seen as a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever.
Trans rights and the rights of natal women aren't incompatible no matter how many trans panic stories kimmy dredges up or how hard she works to make trans people into an existential threat to women.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 20, 2021, 06:26:07 pm
Trans rights and the rights of natal women aren't incompatible no matter how many trans panic stories kimmy dredges up or how hard she works to make trans people into an existential threat to women.
If a trans woman wants to play competitive sports against a cis woman and isn't on hormones does the trans woman have a right to compete against the cis woman?
Does a trans woman have a right to take off her clothes in a women's change room and expose her **** and testicles in front of cis women, including cis female children?
I think there's certainly some cases where the rights conflict.
Post by: Black Dog on July 21, 2021, 03:32:44 pm
If a trans woman wants to play competitive sports against a cis woman and isn't on hormones does the trans woman have a right to compete against the cis woman?
Does a trans woman have a right to take off her clothes in a women's change room and expose her **** and testicles in front of cis women, including cis female children?
I think there's certainly some cases where the rights conflict.
There's certain codes of conduct in change rooms: one is don't make a big display of your junk. Another is don't stare at other people's junk. If a trans person is changing and not doing anything untoward in the process and someone decides to ogle their parts, who's fault is that?
Post by: wilber on July 21, 2021, 04:03:24 pm
Post by: BC_cheque on July 21, 2021, 08:23:46 pm
I agree that it's bad etiquette to be looking at anyone who is naked in a change room and we all should mind our own business. Seeing a **** should be no different than seeing anything else that makes us uncomfortable.
I think the flip-side argument inevitably gets back to creeps misusing the rules, and given the perversion of many men to be peeping toms, flashers and voyeurs (something very much associated with the y chromosome, just like serial killing and ****), it's kinda warranted.
It really comes down to the alternative. It is ethical to ask trans women, the actual 99% who are not creeps in disguise, to go into the men's room?
If it really just is being traumatized by seeing a ****, I think it's high time we get over it and accept it.
If we automatically think everything with a **** has an ulterior motive, then maybe we need to stop hating men and only criminalize actual criminals.
Post by: kimmy on July 22, 2021, 12:02:35 am
I really see both sides of the issue here.
I agree that it's bad etiquette to be looking at anyone who is naked in a change room and we all should mind our own business. Seeing a **** should be no different than seeing anything else that makes us uncomfortable.
I think the flip-side argument inevitably gets back to creeps misusing the rules, and given the perversion of many men to be peeping toms, flashers and voyeurs (something very much associated with the y chromosome, just like serial killing and ****), it's kinda warranted.
It really comes down to the alternative. It is ethical to ask trans women, the actual 99% who are not creeps in disguise, to go into the men's room?
How can you tell who is actually transgender and who is a creep in disguise?
There is no answer to that question. We can't even agree on an answer to the question of who is actually transgender. Some people believe that someone with actual diagnosed gender dysphoria is trans; other people believe that anybody who says "I am transgender" is transgender. In the view of trans activists, the statement "I am a woman" is the only requirement to get into a womens' changing room or shower.
That's one of the things that I find very frustrating about trans activism as it currently stands. It demands that I view Jazz Jennings (who apparently knew she was a girl in a boy's body as a young child) as being the same as Caitlyn Jenner (who didn't realize she was a woman in a man's body until age 65). It demands that I view Contrapoints or Blaire White (the super-feminine trans celebrities) as being the same as Ruby Eby (the stubble-faced goon from last page). It demands that I view a male who has lived as a woman for many years as being the same as a male who declared that he is a woman 10 seconds ago.
I am undecided on the issue of whether I could consider some trans-women to be women. But I completely reject the notion that I need to view any and every male who says "I am a woman" to be a woman.
If it really just is being traumatized by seeing a ****, I think it's high time we get over it and accept it.
If we automatically think everything with a **** has an ulterior motive,
I don't think anybody is seriously arguing that everything with a dick has an ulterior motive. However, we know that there's no shortage of scrotum-havers who do.
And, I would also like to mention again, as I have before, that women deserve the right to privacy even if there's no imminent threat of harm. I wouldn't pee while my dad or my brother were watching, even though I know they would never harm me. I wouldn't shower in a glass booth in Times Square, even though I'm sure nobody would harm me if I did. I shouldn't need to demonstrate a threat of harm to justify my need for privacy from males.
then maybe we need to stop hating men and only criminalize actual criminals.
You know, and I know, and probably most of the men here know, that placing your faith in the basic goodness and harmlessness of male people will get you hurt. Asking women to just trust males until after they've proved they're abusers is asking people to politely close the gate after the horses have left. We have been trying to "educate" males to "be better" for millennia and we have been disappointed for millennia. Most are better, some non-zero and significant portion aren't. Men say #NotAllMen, but there has always, always, always been #EnoughMen to ensure that #AllWomen need to be always wary.
The creation of female-only spaces is an advancement that has allowed women to participate fully in society in western countries. The absence of female-only spaces in many 3rd-world countries is a serious hindrance on women's ability to participate in society in those countries. We in the west should be very reluctant to let women's spaces be turned into "gender-neutral" spaces.
-k
Post by: eyeball on July 22, 2021, 12:45:05 am
I really see both sides of the issue here.
It really comes down to the alternative. It is ethical to ask trans women, the actual 99% who are not creeps in disguise, to go into the men's room?
The original two-sidedness to this issue, whether it's real or not, appears to have been settled and having chosen a path that says it is, the diversity of gendertypes seem to requires a diversity of alternatives. I've suggested that a greater diversity of public washroom and change rooms types be made available to the public.
Quote
If it really just is being traumatized by seeing a ****, I think it's high time we get over it and accept it.I think this hope and wish collides with the reality that our society is currently far to crippled with the critical mass of religious piety and moral entrepreneurship of the sort that's guaranteed to motivate millions of voters to stay traumatized for decades. That said, the voters most likely to be boiled mad by this also get boiling mad at public spending so perhaps the cost of installing who knows how many more types of bathrooms around the country will cool them down enough to realize how pricey it is to accommodate them.
If we automatically think everything with a **** has an ulterior motive, then maybe we need to stop hating men and only criminalize actual criminals.
I acknowledge this smacks a little of wishful thinking too but it is what it is.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on July 22, 2021, 11:52:56 am
There's certain codes of conduct in change rooms: one is don't make a big display of your junk. Another is don't stare at other people's junk. If a trans person is changing and not doing anything untoward in the process and someone decides to ogle their parts, who's fault is that?
This doesn't really answer my questions though. Obviously if trans women are granted the right to be allowed into women's changerooms, the right of women to be exposed to naked male genitalia is not upheld, and if trans women aren't allowed then their rights are infringed. So we have a clear conflict of rights, which is what makes these kinds of issues so divisive. Either way, someone is going to lose some rights.
I don't think someone like kimmy is automatically transphobic for simply standing up for her rights any more than a person is considered misogynist for standing up for trans women's rights.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 11, 2021, 05:14:26 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/junia-joplin-trans-pastor-law-suit-baptist-church-1.6137180
Quote
A Mississauga, Ont., pastor who was fired from a Baptist church after coming out as transgender has filed a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal, alleging her termination was spurred by discrimination.
Rev. Junia Joplin presented as male when she first took on the job of lead pastor at Lorne Park Baptist Church in 2014, and continued to do so until she came out to the congregation in a livestreamed sermon in June of last year.
Lorne Park Baptist Church said Wednesday that it went through a "process of attempting to discern God's will" after Joplin's announcement and did so in a "careful and thoughtful manner."
"In the end, the congregation voted to terminate her employment as lead pastor of the church, with the majority of the votes to terminate made for theological reasons," David Huctwith, chair of the church's executive council, said in a statement. "We offered her what we think was a fair severance."
The lawsuit, which seeks nearly $200,000 in damages, alleges the church breached the Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, sex and other grounds."
It argues that while the code allows religious organizations to give preference to those of a similar creed, that exemption only applies when creed is an occupational qualification, and it does not allow discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.
According to the church, they discerned “God’s will” about what should be done…. So maybe God’s will is on trial too? I wonder if the will of God will be allowed to be entered into evidence…?
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 12, 2021, 05:40:56 am
Freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate, against whomever the sect has decided falls lower on the holy hierarchy: women, gay folk, etc.
If you hate religion, look at it this way: this is going to make them highly unpopular. It will hasten the inevitable removal of religion from protected groups.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 12, 2021, 10:54:10 am
Freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate, against whomever the sect has decided falls lower on the holy hierarchy: women, gay folk, etc.
Why would that be a good thing? What would happen if they weren’t allowed to do so?
Quote
If you hate religion, look at it this way: this is going to make them highly unpopular. It will hasten the inevitable removal of religion from protected groups.
Will it hasten their demise? Or will it keep perpetuating hatred of the groups they don’t happen to like by enforcing their beliefs that it is god’s will to hate transgender folks?
Maybe the bigotry will stop sooner if the courts actually tell people they can’t discriminate. I think we need to get rid of the last bastion for legalized bigotry. No other group would be allowed to do this. There’s no good reason for religion to do so.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 12, 2021, 11:58:06 am
Why would that be a good thing? What would happen if they weren’t allowed to do so?
I don't know if it's good or bad. If they weren't allowed to do so then they would presumably have to hire people who are outside the religion, for example.
Quote
Will it hasten their demise? Or will it keep perpetuating hatred of the groups they don’t happen to like by enforcing their beliefs that it is god’s will to hate transgender folks?
Hmmm....seems like a loaded question eh ?
Quote
Maybe the bigotry will stop sooner if the courts actually tell people they can’t discriminate. I think we need to get rid of the last bastion for legalized bigotry. No other group would be allowed to do this. There’s no good reason for religion to do so.
You should just advocate for a constitutional change, which is the way to go.
They would still be able to preach what they want though.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 12, 2021, 12:58:54 pm
I don't know if it's good or bad. If they weren't allowed to do so then they would presumably have to hire people who are outside the religion, for example.
Nope. Clearly, there can still be requirements for a job.
Quote
Hmmm....seems like a loaded question eh ?
Is it? I thought it was an honest question. I guess if you can’t think of any tenable reasons for your position, then you might view it as “loaded”.
Quote
You should just advocate for a constitutional change, which is the way to go.
Except, we may not need a Constitutional change. It may be that they can’t discriminate like this despite what they have gotten away with in the past. We’ll see how the judge rules.
Quote
They would still be able to preach what they want though.
OK. You needed to throw a red herring in there? LOL
I think they should be allowed to preach whatever they want. Their free speech rights don’t go away.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 12, 2021, 02:37:57 pm
Nope. Clearly, there can still be requirements for a job.
Requirements ? Like "Be Catholic" ? Why is that a requirement and "Don't be gay" isn't ?
Is it? I thought it was an honest question. I guess if you can’t think of any tenable reasons for your position, then you might view it as “loaded”.
Quote
Except, we may not need a Constitutional change. It may be that they can’t discriminate like this despite what they have gotten away with in the past. We’ll see how the judge rules.
Yes I think you are right.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 12, 2021, 03:37:12 pm
Requirements ? Like "Be Catholic" ? Why is that a requirement and "Don't be gay" isn't ?
Because being gay wouldn’t hinder your ability to do the job. You can be gay and be Catholic.
Post by: Black Dog on August 12, 2021, 04:33:34 pm
First transgender person (a trans woman) will compete in Olympics, part of New Zealand team. Will compete in weightlifting. Hahaha what a joke.
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/transgender-weightlifter-hubbard-selected-for-tokyo-1.6073313
Quote
Transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard finally got to compete at the Tokyo Olympics.
It didn't last long, but it was significant. Hubbard couldn't complete any of her first three lifts on Monday night, ruling her out of medal contention in the women's over-87-kilogram division that ultimately was won by China's Li Wenwen.
link (https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/weightlifting/laurel-hubbard-1st-openly-transgender-weightlifiting-olympian-1.6126764)
link
Post by: kimmy on August 13, 2021, 01:10:58 am
Laurel Hubbard, the transgender woman weightlifter, bombed out spectacularly and didn't register a single successful lift. Stupid-people will say that Hubbard's failure proves that transwomen don't have an advantage. Stupid-people will say that because they're stupid.
Hey, just call me Kreskin! Who could have anticipated this coming?
Hey remember this person who was supposed to smash the field at the Olympics?
link (https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/weightlifting/laurel-hubbard-1st-openly-transgender-weightlifiting-olympian-1.6126764)
"the cheater didn't win, so cheating is okay" is a patently stupid argument. There's only two kinds of people who would say that. Stupid people would say that, and people who assume that their audience is stupid would say that. Self identify as you wish, but I don't believe you're stupid, dawg. Do you really believe anybody at this message board would be persuaded by such a stupid argument?
Hubbard's lifts in previous competitions indicate xee should have been a medal contender. That xee bombed out in such dismal fashion doesn't change the argument.
Ultimately, 11 of the world's strongest women plus a mediocre middle-aged male gathered in Tokyo to compete. There could have been 12 of the world's strongest women. Two women who could have been there instead of Old Brother Hubbard:
Tracey Lambrechs of New Zealand could have represented her country at the Olympics. When Hubbard decided xee wanted to compete in the women's 87+ kilo category, Lambrechs was told that her options were either to lose weight and compete at a lighter weight class, or retire.
Roviel Detenamo of the tiny South Pacific nation of Nauru could have been among just a handful of people to ever represent her country in the Olympics if the spot hadn't been allocated to a mediocre middle-aged man.
Imagine for a moment an athlete, perhaps a hockey player. He has some modest amount of success as a young man, makes it to the AHL, and scores some goals there. But he never makes it to the NHL, and at age 24 he hangs up the skates to move on with his life. Then, at age 39, he decides to give hockey another chance. And not only does he make the NHL, he becomes a star player, one of the league's best, an all-star player. And at age 43, an age when even the all time greats are retiring from the sport, he's still going strong and even gets chosen to play on the Olympic team! Everybody would recognize that this is a completely ridiculous story, right? A Hollywood fantasy. This is basically the plot of "Damn Yankees" (the middle-aged guy in that story had to make a deal with the devil to become a baseball star). People would ask, how is this former minor-leaguer becoming a hockey superstar at age 39, when other players are in rapid decline? Was this guy bitten by a radioactive spider? Is he wearing Kryptonite shorts? It would be completely unbelievable. And yet, that's the Laurel Hubbard story. A weightlifter who was successful in New Zealand but never qualified for an international event, left the sport at 24, came out of retirement at age 39 and achieved international success overnight. It would be unbelievable, if you don't mention that he's competing against women now.
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 13, 2021, 01:16:57 am
This should be interesting…. Religious bigotry, and whether it is allowed in cases of employment, is being put to the test before the courts.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/junia-joplin-trans-pastor-law-suit-baptist-church-1.6137180
According to the church, they discerned “God’s will” about what should be done…. So maybe God’s will is on trial too? I wonder if the will of God will be allowed to be entered into evidence…?
"We have accepted for millennia that religions may discriminate against women, because **** women amirite? But discriminating against the transes is completely unacceptable! The courts must intervene at once!"
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 13, 2021, 10:02:46 am
"We have accepted for millennia that religions may discriminate against women, because **** women amirite? But discriminating against the transes is completely unacceptable! The courts must intervene at once!"
-k
Yeah. It may take a trans person to set court precedent.
That doesn’t mean that I think the discrimination against women all this time was ok. Has there been a woman who has taken up a case like this to court? I’m not aware of any, but please point to any cases I don’t know about.
Post by: Black Dog on August 13, 2021, 11:32:59 am
Hey, just call me Kreskin! Who could have anticipated this coming?
"the cheater didn't win, so cheating is okay" is a patently stupid argument. There's only two kinds of people who would say that. Stupid people would say that, and people who assume that their audience is stupid would say that. Self identify as you wish, but I don't believe you're stupid, dawg. Do you really believe anybody at this message board would be persuaded by such a stupid argument?
There's a third kind of person: bad faith idiots who invent arguments that no one has made. That's you. You're the idiot.
Quote
Hubbard's lifts in previous competitions indicate xee should have been a medal contender. That xee bombed out in such dismal fashion doesn't change the argument.
The argument is trans women have such a huge advantage over natal born women that they cannot be allowed to compete, if they lose (which they do, often) that's an argument against the size of such advantages, dummy!
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 13, 2021, 02:33:10 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 13, 2021, 03:06:41 pm
Why is the temperature up in the forum now?
Because there are Nazis like Kimmy who have a different opinion than the fascists like Black Dog.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 13, 2021, 07:45:05 pm
There's a third kind of person: bad faith idiots who invent arguments that no one has made. That's you. You're the idiot.
The argument is trans women have such a huge advantage over natal born women that they cannot be allowed to compete, if they lose (which they do, often) that's an argument against the size of such advantages, dummy!
Literally every single post you make is filled with hatred and negative energy.
Post by: waldo on August 13, 2021, 08:47:04 pm
Literally every single post you make is filled with hatred and negative energy.
so hyperbolic, so wrong!
Post by: Black Dog on August 14, 2021, 02:38:54 pm
Literally every single post you make is filled with hatred and negative energy.
Cry more
Post by: BC_cheque on August 14, 2021, 03:07:34 pm
Literally every single post you make is filled with hatred and negative energy.
Did you even read Kimmy's post to which he was responding? She used the word stupid a dozen times.
I don't think black dog's response was over the top. He's obviously more pitbull than poodle. If you're gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it as well.
Post by: BC_cheque on August 14, 2021, 03:18:01 pm
People seem to not understand how big the difference between male athletes and female athletes is. The fastest times ever run by a woman-- by Florence Joyner-Griffith over 30 years ago-- wouldn't even meet the qualifying standard to get to an NCAA championships. FloJo's times are beaten by thousands of men, some of them still in high school. The US women's soccer team, among the best in the world, practices against US high school boys teams, and frequently loses to them.
Serena Williams?
Quote
1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sistersQuoteAnother event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]
Maybe seeing Scarlett Johanssen toss around guys twice her size in a movie has made people unclear of how much physical disparity there is between men and women.
-k
Remember when Kimmy was claiming this? Admittedly, she even convinced me for a minute that the best of the best woman doesn't stand a chance against a mediocre man.
Hubbard's loss is indeed pertinent to this discussion.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 14, 2021, 09:04:52 pm
Post by: guest7 on August 14, 2021, 10:29:48 pm
Hubbard's loss is indeed pertinent to this discussion.
It's no more pertinent to the discussion than would be the performance of any other individual, winning or losing.
You either believe a person who grew up as a man, with all the benefits to performance, size and strength that male hormones provide, should be allowed to compete as a woman because he self identifies as such, or you don't.
There will always be examples that will "prove you right" or "prove you wrong". You either think it's fair, or you don't.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on August 14, 2021, 11:16:10 pm
Maybe seeing Scarlett Johanssen toss around guys twice her size in a movie has made people unclear of how much physical disparity there is between men and women.
-k
Remember when Kimmy was claiming this? Admittedly, she even convinced me for a minute that the best of the best woman doesn't stand a chance against a mediocre man.
Hubbard's loss is indeed pertinent to this discussion.
Hubbard came out of retirement to compete as a woman…. He was a washed up male, but had a legit chance against females.
Kimmy explained this very well in a previous post that you apparently didn’t bother reading.
Post by: waldo on August 15, 2021, 12:16:06 am
Hubbard came out of retirement to compete as a woman…. He was a washed up male, but had a legit chance against females.
Kimmy explained this very well in a previous post that you apparently didn’t bother reading.
member squiggy revisionism101: c'mon man, I've read multiple references that state Hubbard quit weightlifting in 2001... and in 2017, a full 16 years after last competing, Hubbard made a comeback after beginning to transition in 2015:
Quote from: Laurel Hubbard
"What people don't realize is I actually stopped lifting in 2001 when I was 23 because it just became too much to bear ... just the pressure of trying to fit into a world that perhaps wasn't really set up for people like myself".
After living as a man for 35 years, Hubbard began transitioning to female through hormonal treatment around 2012
=> under current 2015 IOC guidelines, athletes who identify as female can compete in the women’s category provided their total testosterone level in serum is kept below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months, and cannot change to compete.
Post by: BC_cheque on August 15, 2021, 04:02:21 pm
Hubbard came out of retirement to compete as a woman…. He was a washed up male, but had a legit chance against females.
Kimmy explained this very well in a previous post that you apparently didn’t bother reading.
We are on page 136 of this thread, Kimmy has said a lot of things. The post I was addressing was that particular one wherein she lays the basis of why biological men should be excluded from women's sports.
I'm not sure you read her example from the post which I was quoting, but here it is again:
Quote
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]
IOW, long before she discussed Hubbard specifically, she implied that a mediocre man has a good chance against a GOAT woman as the reason why transwomen should not be competing with biological women. When BD brought up the mediocre man's loss, she called his argument stupid as though it has no relevance when just a few pages back she'd implied it herself.
Then everyone pounced on BD for his tone when truthfully it was Kimmy's post (which I quoted) that had been proven incorrect.
Hopefully it's clearer now why I revived that old post of hers.
Post by: BC_cheque on August 15, 2021, 04:15:54 pm
It's no more pertinent to the discussion than would be the performance of any other individual, winning or losing.
You either believe a person who grew up as a man, with all the benefits to performance, size and strength that male hormones provide, should be allowed to compete as a woman because he self identifies as such, or you don't.
There will always be examples that will "prove you right" or "prove you wrong". You either think it's fair, or you don't.
TBH, my knee jerk reaction is to agree that trans women should be excluded because of the unfair advantages. I'm pretty staunch of the bathroom issue but I waffle on the sports issue because I'm more inclined to see the naysayers' POV. When I read that post of Kimmy's earlier about the Williams sisters losing to a #203 "whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager" I was persuaded by the argument that there is an unfair advantage.
However, I am open to the other side of the argument that takes into account the person's current hormone levels. When I see examples like Hubbard, I see the other side's POV has merit.
Just because someone was born a man doesn't mean that they are naturally better than the best of the best woman. I'm still in the grey camp, but I do see examples like Hubbard as serving a purpose in the trans rights argument.
I don't think BD was wrong in bringing it up. I also think Kimmy's name-calling and everyone jumping to attack BD afterward was unjustified.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 15, 2021, 08:52:25 pm
Post by: kimmy on August 15, 2021, 09:55:23 pm
I'm talking about everybody's tone.BD has insulted me continuously for months on end and I don't feel any obligation to be civil to someone who refuses to show me the same courtesy.
Most of you have e-known me for 15 years or more and you know I don't need any white knights to protect me. Most of you have e-known BD for just as long and you know he is no shrinking violet.
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 15, 2021, 11:06:37 pm
We are on page 136 of this thread, Kimmy has said a lot of things. The post I was addressing was that particular one wherein she lays the basis of why biological men should be excluded from women's sports.
I'm not sure you read her example from the post which I was quoting, but here it is again:
IOW, long before she discussed Hubbard specifically, she implied that a mediocre man has a good chance against a GOAT woman as the reason why transwomen should not be competing with biological women. When BD brou ght up the mediocre man's loss, she called his argument stupid as though it has no relevance when just a few pages back she'd implied it herself.
Point of order. This nasty message you mention, I had posted on August 2 (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/olympics-culture/?message=79478), in anticipation that wokies would use Hubbard's big fail to "prove" that AMAB "women" don't have an advantage over cisgender women.
I could not have anticipated that 10 days later Black Dog would return to the forum to make the stupid argument I had prognosticated (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=79672). When he did, I simply quoted my earlier post.
For the record Black Dog is not the first or the only wokie to advance that stupid argument, just the only one here at the forum.
Then everyone pounced on BD for his tone when truthfully it was Kimmy's post (which I quoted) that had been proven incorrect.
The argument hasn't been proven incorrect at all. If you guys genuinely wanted to look at Hubbard's results, you'd see numerous gold and silver medals in elite international competition. You'd notice that in an earlier competition Hubbard recorded a 285kg total lift which would have won a silver medal at these Olympics. But you guys aren't actually interested in looking at Hubbard's results, you're only interested in a single data-point that supports your ideological view.
IOW, long before she discussed Hubbard specifically, she implied that a mediocre man has a good chance against a GOAT woman as the reason why transwomen should not be competing with biological women. When BD brou ght up the mediocre man's loss, she called his argument stupid as though it has no relevance when just a few pages back she'd implied it herself.
There's a ton of evidence that mediocre men can best GOAT female athletes. That a middle-aged has-been/never-was failed to win a medal at this Olympics doesn't change that.
I've posted this stuff before, but here's a refresher. This website contains lots of examples comparing the results of female Olympic champions to US high-school boys. https://boysvswomen.com/#/
Florence Joyner-Griffith's women's world record in 100m sprint has stood for over 30 years; it's beaten by hundreds of male athletes every year. This year's 100m women's sprint medalists, the "Jamaican Rockets", wouldn't have even qualified for a spot in the US college sprint competitions. The gold medalist in the women's over-87kg weightlifting Olympic event that Hubbard bombed out in is Li Wenwen, the Michael Phelps of her sport. She finished with a total of 320kg, which beat her closest competitor by nearly 40kg. She is 150kg. If she had been competing in men's competition in the 109kg+ weight class, she would have finished dead last, trailing the last place man by 58kg. A man of comparable size, Man Asaad of Syria, 147kg, won the bronze medal with a total of 424kg, 104kg over Li Wenwen's Olympic record and 92kg above Li Wenwen's women's world record.
You can go on and on and on in just about any sport you like. There are a few sports where male and female athletes can compete as equals. Shooting, equestrian, motorsports, things where skill is at a premium and physical capability is not a high priority. And not coincidentally, there are sports where age isn't as big a factor because skill is more important than physical capability. You can find me a 43 year old hockey player but not a 43 year old sprinter. In the NFL you can find me a 43 year old quarterback but not a 43 year old running back.
Hubbard's big fail at the Olympics changed your mind that a mediocre male athlete can't compete with elite female athletes... really? That really just depends how far we're willing to stretch the definition of "mediocre". Hubbard's own multiple gold medals in international competition should be enough to demonstrate that a mediocre male certainly can compete with elite females.
-k
Post by: waldo on August 16, 2021, 12:27:21 am
=> under current 2015 IOC guidelines, athletes who identify as female can compete in the women’s category provided their total testosterone level in serum is kept below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months, and cannot change to compete.
World Athletics (formerly IAAF) stipulates the following:
Quote
=> she must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Expert Panel (on the balance of probabilities), in accordance with clause 4, that the concentration of testosterone in her serum has been less than 5 nmol/L3 continuously for a period of at least 12 months; and she must keep her serum testosterone concentration below 5 nmol/L for so long as she wishes to maintain her eligibility to compete in the female category of competition.
as the waldo reads, there aren't many transgender athletes coming forward to participate in international competitions. That limited number of 'policy driving' transgender athletes may direct the need for individual sports to offer specific qualifications at the respective sport level. Perhaps it may come to a point where review is done on a case-by-case basis that factors existing guidelines but also accounts for such things as more personalized non-physical related transitioning influences.
as the waldo interprets, existing related studies are limited. One study that gets repeated reference appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine; specifically: Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577)
Quote
Results: Participants were 26.2 years old (SD 5.5). Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster.
Summary: The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.
Post by: Black Dog on August 16, 2021, 10:12:16 am
The argument hasn't been proven incorrect at all. If you guys genuinely wanted to look at Hubbard's results, you'd see numerous gold and silver medals in elite international competition. You'd notice that in an earlier competition Hubbard recorded a 285kg total lift which would have won a silver medal at these Olympics. But you guys aren't actually interested in looking at Hubbard's results, you're only interested in a single data-point that supports your ideological view.
There's a ton of evidence that mediocre men can best GOAT female athletes. That a middle-aged has-been/never-was failed to win a medal at this Olympics doesn't change that.
It's not a single data point. Trans athletes lose quite often because there's a host of factors that contribute to winning or losing a competition beyond simple biology.
Quote
I've posted this stuff before, but here's a refresher. This website contains lots of examples comparing the results of female Olympic champions to US high-school boys. https://boysvswomen.com/#/
Florence Joyner-Griffith's women's world record in 100m sprint has stood for over 30 years; it's beaten by hundreds of male athletes every year. This year's 100m women's sprint medalists, the "Jamaican Rockets", wouldn't have even qualified for a spot in the US college sprint competitions. The gold medalist in the women's over-87kg weightlifting Olympic event that Hubbard bombed out in is Li Wenwen, the Michael Phelps of her sport. She finished with a total of 320kg, which beat her closest competitor by nearly 40kg. She is 150kg. If she had been competing in men's competition in the 109kg+ weight class, she would have finished dead last, trailing the last place man by 58kg. A man of comparable size, Man Asaad of Syria, 147kg, won the bronze medal with a total of 424kg, 104kg over Li Wenwen's Olympic record and 92kg above Li Wenwen's women's world record.
Hubbard's big fail at the Olympics changed your mind that a mediocre male athlete can't compete with elite female athletes... really? That really just depends how far we're willing to stretch the definition of "mediocre". Hubbard's own multiple gold medals in international competition should be enough to demonstrate that a mediocre male certainly can compete with elite females.
Anyone can see the problem with mapping these results onto fully transitioned M to F competitors.
The question is: is the disparity between trans athletes and natal born female athletes significantly greater than the disparity between female competitors? I'm not sure there's enough evidence one way or another.
Post by: cybercoma on August 20, 2021, 06:56:33 am
Post by: guest7 on August 20, 2021, 10:50:18 pm
Ever notice how trans women are a threat to women but nobody ever talks about trans men or non-binary trans folks as a threat to anything?
Women have been using men's washrooms forever. There's never enough facilities for women.
I never felt threatened. Embarrassed occasionally.
And if a trans man or a non binary unit wants to try out for the England national rugby union team, I think they should be given a shot.
Post by: kimmy on August 20, 2021, 11:00:18 pm
Ever notice how trans women are a threat to women but nobody ever talks about trans men or non-binary trans folks as a threat to anything?
I honestly can't tell if you've hit the nail on the head on purpose or if you've swung the hammer at a point you thought you were making and hit the nail on the head by accident. I love you and I know you're a smart person so I choose to believe the former.
Ever notice how trans women are a threat to women but nobody ever talks about trans men or non-binary trans folks as a threat to anything?
People going FtM have outnumbered people going MtF by a significant margin in recent years. All these FtM people should be entering their prime athletic years, and yet none of them have accompished anything of any significance in male sports. I wonder why that is. How confusing. The only AFAB trans athlete of any international significance is Canada's Quinn, who competes in women's sports. An AFAB person competing in women's sports... how revolutionary.
Ever notice how trans women are a threat to women but nobody ever talks about trans men or non-binary trans folks as a threat to anything?
I hear a lot about trans women wanting to be housed in women's prisons, yet I never hear about trans men wanting to be housed with male prisoners. I wonder why that is. I recall one trans man, a Portland Antifa protester, who'd been housed with the women. His lawyers believed he would be unsafe if he were housed among male prisoners. Perhaps they should educate the male prisoners to understand that Trans Men Are Men. Surely they could just educate the male prisoners to understand that the 5'4 vag1na-havers are fearsome, intimidating manly-men. Once they're educated in pronouns and gender theory, the biker-gang members and rapists and murderers will be shaking in their orange jumpsuits at the arrival of the trans men!
Ever notice how trans women are a threat to women but nobody ever talks about trans men or non-binary trans folks as a threat to anything?
Crazy, huh? It's almost as if it was biological sex all along, not gender identity.
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 20, 2021, 11:47:34 pm
Ever notice how trans women are a threat to women but nobody ever talks about trans men or non-binary trans folks as a threat to anything?
While I'm not exactly sure this meets your definition of threatening, I have lately heard gay men complaining that Grindr has been overrun with 18 year old girls with bowl-cuts.
I think this is a fantastic development. When it was just lesbians being bullied and harrassed, nobody gave a **** because women's sexual boundaries are always assumed to be up for negotiation and also **** lesbians anyway. But now that gay men are under attack as well, more people will begin recognizing the new homophobia for what it is.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 21, 2021, 05:51:21 am
Also, I feel like lately FtoM is catching up to MtoF.
The last 3 or 4 non-binary identified Friends I have went that way. This includes an awkward shy dad I have been casual pals with at the play park, who I now believe was a woman once.
You wouldn't have guessed either.
Post by: kimmy on August 23, 2021, 09:28:10 pm
My most vocal FtoM friend has been super vocal about gay men's prejudices in this regard.
I really hate this framing of it.
Gay men aren't prejudiced against trans men. Gay men are same sex attracted.
Just when it seemed like the days of shaming people for same-sex attraction were over.
Does anybody ever confront your friend for their homophobia, or do you all just nod along?
Also, I feel like lately FtoM is catching up to MtoF.
I'm not sure if other sources will confirm this, but figures from the Tavistock gender identity clinic in the UK show that the ratio of FtM to MtF has absolutely exploded in recent years.
(https://i.imgur.com/4xRsYXn.png)
But referrals of children and teens to Tavistock don't reflect everybody who is considering transition, of course. Adults wanting to transition wouldn't go to Tavistock. Teens wouldn't necessarily, either. But the trend there is obvious, and seems to correlate with the anecdotal observations anyway.
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 04, 2021, 02:04:20 pm
So no comment on the fact it was an obvious hoax?
(https://i.imgur.com/Zjwo4.gif)
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 04, 2021, 02:06:41 pm
So no comment on the fact it was an obvious hoax?(https://i.imgur.com/nvPd8nx.png)
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 04, 2021, 02:15:08 pm
So no comment on the fact it was an obvious hoax?
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/indecent-exposure-charges-transgender-woman-wi-spa-koreatown-protests-viral-video/2685854/
The LAPD have charged Darren Agee Merager, age 52, with multiple charges in relation to the incident at Wi Spa in June.
Merager is a registered sex offender, with prior convictions for indecent exposure in 2002 and 2003. Merager is also currently on trial for other indecent exposure incidents in 2018.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on September 08, 2021, 12:46:13 pm
Meanwhile, are you still going to pretend the violent protests around this weren't put on by your friends in the far right?
Post by: kimmy on September 12, 2021, 09:47:34 pm
We'll see if any of it sticks.
"You ain't got nuthin' on me, copper! I'll be back
This repeat sex offender is going to tell the judge that he is entitled to wave his dick around in the women's area because he says he's a woman. If the judge agrees, it's going to become a stick that progressives get beat over the head with for years to come. What's really disgusting is that some of you wokies will actually consider it a victory if Darren Merager gets acquitted.
Meanwhile, are you still going to pretend the violent protests around this weren't put on by your friends in the far right?
I fully acknowledge that the Proud Boys and other far-right groups were there (why can't you acknowledge that "antifa" and other left-wing extremists were also there?)
The claim that the protests were "put on" by them is false, however. The protest was initially organized by the woman in the video, "Cubana Angel", and people from her evangelical church. Lots of others, both for and against, heard about the protest and tried to rally others to support/oppose the protest.
Are the protesters violent far right because some violent far right groups attended? Are pro-Palestian protesters actually violent anti-Semites because some anti-Semite groups attend? Are anti-globalization protesters actually violent anarchists because some violent anarchist groups attend? Are BLM protesters actually violent anarchists because some violent anarchist groups attend? That's the same argument you're putting forth. It's not a good-faith argument.
Meanwhile, I have a question for you and all the other wokies here: why shouldn't women protest against laws that allow a repeat sex offender to self-identify into women's spaces on demand?
-k
Post by: kimmy on September 21, 2021, 10:23:29 pm
Meanwhile, I have a question for you and all the other wokies here: why shouldn't women protest against laws that allow a repeat sex offender to self-identify into women's spaces on demand?
(crickets)
(tumbleweeds)
(a lone coyote howls in the distance)
-k
Post by: Dia on September 25, 2021, 01:16:37 pm
Meanwhile, I have a question for you and all the other wokies here: why shouldn't women protest against laws that allow a repeat sex offender to self-identify into women's spaces on demand?
-k
I'm not laying claim to being a "wokie", especially as I'm not even sure what it means - maybe a shaved Wookie?
Of course, I agree that that people shouldn't be permitted anywhere, if it is obvious they are there for nefarious purposes - **** hanging around playgrounds/schools, KKK people with guns hanging around in black neighborhoods, an abuser hanging around his ex's house etc.
But I still get the impression, too often, that a transgendered person is assumed to have ill-intent in entering female spaces, just because they are transgendered. Do you see that too? Or does holding that opinion make me a 'wokie'?
Post by: kimmy on October 02, 2021, 01:03:11 pm
I'm not laying claim to being a "wokie", especially as I'm not even sure what it means - maybe a shaved Wookie?
Once upon a time, "woke" was black community vernacular meaning awareness of racial justice issues. Someone who was "woke" was someone who was "awake" to issues of institutionalized racism and racial discrimination in society. At some point in recent years, the term was appropriated by white liberals and applied to every social justice cause under the sun. And, like everything that white liberals appropriate for themselves, it became a joke and is now mostly used with contempt by people who sneer at white liberals, more or less in the same way as "politically correct" and "social justice warrior".
Here's an Al Jazeera article on the phenomenon:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/24/what-is-woke-culture-and-why-has-it-become-so-toxic
Of course, I agree that that people shouldn't be permitted anywhere, if it is obvious they are there for nefarious purposes - **** hanging around playgrounds/schools, KKK people with guns hanging around in black neighborhoods, an abuser hanging around his ex's house etc.
But I still get the impression, too often, that a transgendered person is assumed to have ill-intent in entering female spaces, just because they are transgendered. Do you see that too? Or does holding that opinion make me a 'wokie'?
I have to point out that you didn't even attempt to answer the question. You glanced briefly at the question before going off in a completely different direction.
First off: even if you support the notion that trans-women should be allowed to use women's single sex facilities, you have to acknowledge that self-ID on demand is a problem, and this incident illustrates why. It's an idea begging to be abused. When this incident hit the news, the Wi Spa people said "we're just following the law". And they're right. The law in California says that they're required to treat patrons according to their gender identity. If Darren the sex offender shows up and says he's a woman, they're required to treat him as such. It doesn't require the individual to even be transgender. He can claim to be female the moment he arrives at the spa or pool, hang out in the women's changing room and showers, and resume leading a normal male life as soon as he leaves, and that's all completely within the law in California. It's clearly a terrible idea, and women are not villains for protesting against such a stupid law.
Second: "too often, that a transgendered person is assumed to have ill-intent in entering female spaces, just because they are transgendered" ...how do we even know if someone's transgender? How can you tell the difference between someone who wants to enter women's spaces with ill-intent, and someone who isn't?
And also: "I agree that that people shouldn't be permitted anywhere, if it is obvious they are there for nefarious purposes" ...what actually qualifies as nefarious purposes in your book? To me it seems that for wokies that line starts at bodily assault. Wokies are content to say that since Darren Merager didn't actually physically assault anybody in the spa, no harm no foul. I reject that. The women in the spa didn't consent to be fodder for someone's exhibitionism fetish. They didn't consent to be objects of a voyeur's gaze. I hate that in 2021 women's privacy and dignity are considered so worthless that they are expected to submit to this kind of treatment without question.
-k
Post by: eyeball on October 02, 2021, 03:59:08 pm
I'm not laying claim to being a "wokie", especially as I'm not even sure what it means...Hey, I just noticed I tagged your post as being dumb. That was unintentional - my bad. Can't seem to remove the tag so...my apologies Dia.
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2021, 01:26:26 pm
"You ain't got nuthin' on me, copper! I'll be backon the streetsin the women's showers in a week!"
This repeat sex offender is going to tell the judge that he is entitled to wave his dick around in the women's area because he says he's a woman. If the judge agrees, it's going to become a stick that progressives get beat over the head with for years to come. What's really disgusting is that some of you wokies will actually consider it a victory if Darren Merager gets acquitted.
Yeah it wpuld be awful is someone gets their day in court and found not guilty. We should lynch them before that can happen.
Quote
I fully acknowledge that the Proud Boys and other far-right groups were there (why can't you acknowledge that "antifa" and other left-wing extremists were also there?)
The claim that the protests were "put on" by them is false, however. The protest was initially organized by the woman in the video, "Cubana Angel", and people from her evangelical church. Lots of others, both for and against, heard about the protest and tried to rally others to support/oppose the protest.
Are the protesters violent far right because some violent far right groups attended? Are pro-Palestian protesters actually violent anti-Semites because some anti-Semite groups attend? Are anti-globalization protesters actually violent anarchists because some violent anarchist groups attend? Are BLM protesters actually violent anarchists because some violent anarchist groups attend? That's the same argument you're putting forth. It's not a good-faith argument.
Yes very important to distinguish between the bigots, Q-adjacent freaks and the really violent fascists.
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2021, 01:26:54 pm
(crickets)
(tumbleweeds)
(a lone coyote howls in the distance)
-k
I've been busy with my real life, you weirdo.
Post by: kimmy on October 09, 2021, 03:31:56 pm
I've been busy with my real life, you weirdo.
Yeah, yeah. You weren't the only person here who could have taken up the challenge, but none did. Except for Dia, who responded to the message but completely ignored the actual question.
I can wait another week, or a month, or a year, or however long, and it won't actually change anything, because you guys can't actually address that question.
You'll come back to me with some more insults, some "TERFs are Nazis" stuff, and some "ThAT NeVEr hApPEns!!!" and that'll be all you have to offer.
Yeah it wpuld be awful is someone gets their day in court and found not guilty. We should lynch them before that can happen.
He'll get his day in the court, and he'll tell the judge he belongs in the women's changing rooms and women's showers because he says he is a woman.
I think wokies are too dumb to understand how bad it will be for progressives if the judge says "yes, under the law of California, Darren is allowed to hang out in the women's changing rooms because he says he's a woman."
It will be a stick that conservatives use to batter progressives with for years to come.
Yes very important to distinguish between the bigots, Q-adjacent freaks and the really violent fascists.
Women are not bigots or fascists for not wanting to change, shower, and bathe with FUCKEN DARREN watching.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on October 12, 2021, 02:56:24 pm
Yeah, yeah. You weren't the only person here who could have taken up the challenge, but none did. Except for Dia, who responded to the message but completely ignored the actual question.
I can wait another week, or a month, or a year, or however long, and it won't actually change anything, because you guys can't actually address that question.
You'll come back to me with some more insults, some "TERFs are Nazis" stuff, and some "ThAT NeVEr hApPEns!!!" and that'll be all you have to offer.
Gee I wonder why no one picked up the challenge from someone who clearly is operating in such good faith when they also say stuff like:
Quote
What's really disgusting is that some of you wokies will actually consider it a victory if Darren Merager gets acquitted.
The question is a dumb one because no one is saying women can't protest whatever they want.
Quote
He'll get his day in the court, and he'll tell the judge he belongs in the women's changing rooms and women's showers because he says he is a woman.
I think wokies are too dumb to understand how bad it will be for progressives if the judge says "yes, under the law of California, Darren is allowed to hang out in the women's changing rooms because he says he's a woman."
It will be a stick that conservatives use to batter progressives with for years to come.
This is just concern trolling. You can't make common cause with these people (something you've quite openly supported here) and then pretend to be upset with how they'll weaponize it to attack other causes.
Quote
Women are not bigots or fascists for not wanting to change, shower, and bathe with FUCKEN DARREN watching.
Again, you can simultaneously welcome the support and money of the far right (which you have done repeatedly), gloss over their presence on the street and then turn around and whine about being tarred with the same brush. Lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
Post by: The Cynic on October 12, 2021, 04:34:32 pm
Again, you can simultaneously welcome the support and money of the far right (which you have done repeatedly), gloss over their presence on the street and then turn around and whine about being tarred with the same brush. Lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
You know, I can't fail to notice she said 'conservatives' and you translated that to 'far right'. That seems a tad reactionary of you - not to mention, well, extremist.
If you think the only people in this country who find the idea of biological male perverts forcing their way into women's private places are 'the far right' you really are quite the distance from understanding the thinking of the average Canadian. Never mind the somewhat more 'conservative' yanks.
Post by: Black Dog on October 13, 2021, 10:00:14 am
You know, I can't fail to notice she said 'conservatives' and you translated that to 'far right'. That seems a tad reactionary of you - not to mention, well, extremist.
(https://i.imgur.com/XFqHtXE.jpg?fb)
Quote
If you think the only people in this country who find the idea of biological male perverts forcing their way into women's private places are 'the far right' you really are quite the distance from understanding the thinking of the average Canadian. Never mind the somewhat more 'conservative' yanks.
I don't think the average Canadian genuinely gives a **** about trans people using facilities that correspond to their gender identity but your implication that people who would seek to do so are perverts reinforces to my point above.
Post by: wilber on October 13, 2021, 02:24:42 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/XFqHtXE.jpg?fb)
I don't think the average Canadian genuinely gives a **** about trans people using facilities that correspond to their gender identity but your implication that people who would seek to do so are perverts reinforces to my point above.
Average male Canadian anyway. There seems to be a bit of the Taliban everywhere.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 09:40:19 am
I have to point out that you didn't even attempt to answer the question. You glanced briefly at the question before going off in a completely different direction.
Yeah, yeah. You weren't the only person here who could have taken up the challenge, but none did. Except for Dia, who responded to the message but completely ignored the actual question.Your question was directed to "wokies"; I assume if any were on here, perhaps they'd have responded to the question.
-k
In any case, my response broadly supported your point, and brought up a concern I have - which is the assumption by so many that any non-biological-female who goes into women's spaces is lying about who they are and why they are there. My response seemed reasonable to me; sorry it didn't meet your high standards.
And to answer you purely rhetorical question: Of course women can protest laws that allow for screw ups; we can all do that. Your example isn't a particularly unusual incident: our legal system is full of such screwups.
It seems to me that on this issue, it's best to ignore you - you seem bent on putting everyone who says anything other than "Yes, Kim" into some box called "wokie" to dismiss and denigrate them.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 10:18:04 am
Hey, I just noticed I tagged your post as being dumb. That was unintentional - my bad. Can't seem to remove the tag so...my apologies Dia.
No problem, I didn't notice anyway.
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2021, 11:10:37 am
I think the objection to Darren's or any "man's" presence in a woman's changeroom is the assumption that "he" is sexually attracted to women and thereby invading their privacy with the potential for leering behaviour.
Women are not bigots or fascists for not wanting to change, shower, and bathe with FUCKEN DARREN watching.
-k
By that standard, how do you feel about lesbians and bisexual women being allowed in?
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2021, 11:39:16 am
I think the objection to Darren's or any "man's" presence in a woman's changeroom is the assumption that "he" is sexually attracted to women and thereby invading their privacy with the potential for leering behaviour.
By that standard, how do you feel about lesbians and bisexual women being allowed in?
She's fine with it if she thinks they are hot, but not if they are, like, really butch.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 11:41:45 am
She's fine with it if she thinks they are hot, but not if they are, like, really butch.
That's unnecessary. Kimmy has strong opinions, but she's not usually overly unfair or biased.
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2021, 11:48:17 am
Your question was directed to "wokies"; I assume if any were on here, perhaps they'd have responded to the question.
In any case, my response broadly supported your point, and brought up a concern I have - which is the assumption by so many that any non-biological-female who goes into women's spaces is lying about who they are and why they are there. My response seemed reasonable to me; sorry it didn't meet your high standards.
And to answer you purely rhetorical question: Of course women can protest laws that allow for screw ups; we can all do that. Your example isn't a particularly unusual incident: our legal system is full of such screwups.
So the TERF argument is if you allow people to self-identify and use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity, you enable predators like this Meager person to have unfettered access to women's spaces to do whatever they want and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
Except, as this incident shows (if the story is to be believed) bathrooms and change rooms are not the wild west where anything goes. There are norms and legal standards that govern behaviour, violations of which are actionable. So in a way, doesn't this story show how the system works to sanction bad actors?
I doubt a transwoman minding their own business and not actively flashing their genitals would be facing criminal charges, yet kimmy et al would treat those people in exactly the same way as your Yaniv's and Meagers despite no evidence that "creeps pretending to be women to wave their junk around" is a significant population of concern.
IOW: you can allow people to use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity AND enforce the legal and social norms that govern behaviour in those spaces.
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2021, 11:55:55 am
That's unnecessary. Kimmy has strong opinions, but she's not usually overly unfair or biased.
You're being too charitable. We had a discussion many many pages back where kimmy said the issue is that too many trans people using women's spaces are "obviously male" and that "passing individuals could come and go without anybody noticing." When I pointed out this standard would probably lead to a lot of masculine or butch-looking people getting confronted or harassed, her response was "it is what it its."
Post by: eyeball on October 14, 2021, 01:24:46 pm
I think the objection to Darren's or any "man's" presence in a woman's changeroom is the assumption that "he" is sexually attracted to women and thereby invading their privacy with the potential for leering behaviour.A good part of the assuming going on here appears to be that any given objection to sharing a washroom with an opposite sex is wrongheaded or bigoted. I fail to see why so many people can't simply empathize with or understand how uncomfortable many people are about this.
By that standard, how do you feel about lesbians and bisexual women being allowed in?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - multiple washrooms and changing rooms are really the only option.
We're only making 2 holes available for the diversity of pegs that need to be accommodated. Yes the cost of retrofitting washrooms around the country will be hellishly expensive but probably not compared to forcing two holes to accept any peg that's pushed into them.
Sorry for the doulble entendres but they seem kind of appropriate.
Post by: wilber on October 14, 2021, 01:40:18 pm
Post by: eyeball on October 14, 2021, 01:54:37 pm
Instead of installing multiple washrooms for crowds we could simply install more individual washrooms.
Change rooms will be a challenge but c'est la vie.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 02:15:14 pm
Are equal numbers of women fighting for the right to use men's rooms? Does that even matter?
Instead of installing multiple washrooms for crowds we could simply install more individual washrooms.
Change rooms will be a challenge but c'est la vie.
How about male, female, other? Although for the transgender folk who have to live as their preferred gender for X amount of time, "other" would not be appropriate either.
Post by: eyeball on October 14, 2021, 03:25:28 pm
How about male, female, other?How about just plain old un-hyphenated Washroom?
In all cases every individual should have the priviledge if not the right to care less once the door is locked behind them.
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2021, 04:12:21 pm
Post by: eyeball on October 14, 2021, 05:11:49 pm
How about people just mind their own business in the washroom they feel comfortable in, and we agree that inappropriate behaviour (e.g., not minding your own business) should not be tolerated?So do you subscribe to the installation of a diversity of multiple group washrooms in lieu of single universal washrooms? Will we need to leave room for that diversity to grow for future washrooms whose nature is yet to be determined?
Is a person's discomfort really a form of intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated? Whose business will it be to tell them they just have to get with the program?
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2021, 05:38:11 pm
So do you subscribe to the installation of a diversity of multiple group washrooms in lieu of single universal washrooms? Will we need to leave room for that diversity to grow for future washrooms whose nature is yet to be determined?I'm saying take your sh:t and leave.
Is a person's discomfort really a form of intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated? Whose business will it be to tell them they just have to get with the program?
Post by: eyeball on October 14, 2021, 05:57:25 pm
I'm saying take your sh:t and leave.Why does it feel like you're telling me to take your's?
Is the financial cost of making the necessary changes to infrastructure too much or something? The political costs of reengineering people's attitudes are a better deal?
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2021, 06:07:22 pm
Why does it feel like you're telling me to take your's?I haven't been convinced infrastructure changes are necessary. And security-wise, the meth-heads are way, way more concerning than the trans people. But they come in all conceivable genders.
Is the financial cost of making the necessary changes to infrastructure too much or something? The political costs of reengineering people's attitudes are a better deal?
Post by: eyeball on October 14, 2021, 06:14:45 pm
I haven't been convinced infrastructure changes are necessary.You think the politicization of people's bodily functions were?
Post by: The Cynic on October 14, 2021, 07:56:29 pm
I don't think the average Canadian genuinely gives a **** about trans people using facilities that correspond to their gender identity but your implication that people who would seek to do so are perverts reinforces to my point above.
No, they're really not. And sayin so would be like me calling everyone on the left side of the fence a commie. It'd be stupid, in other words.
I'm sure most people don't think much about trans people or pretend trans people in womens showers or changing rooms until they encounter one. Or until they read about incidents like the above. Then it pisses them off.
And the thing which gets me about your position and that of others like you on this subject is you've got a situation where you've won just about 100% of what almost all legitimate trans people wanted. And you're **** it up by trying to push, push, push that extra, stupid, unreasonable bit that is going to **** mainstream people off and provoke a backlash. It is from **** like this that the likes of Trump are born as people get tired of this kind of garbage.
Post by: The Cynic on October 14, 2021, 07:59:30 pm
I think the objection to Darren's or any "man's" presence in a woman's changeroom is the assumption that "he" is sexually attracted to women and thereby invading their privacy with the potential for leering behaviour.
By that standard, how do you feel about lesbians and bisexual women being allowed in?
Lesbian and bisexual women don't look at other women in the same way as hetro men do. They can appreciate when someone looks good but it's simply not the same. They have the same parts, after all.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 08:04:06 pm
Lesbian and bisexual women don't look at other women in the same way as hetro men do. They can appreciate when someone looks good but it's simply not the same. They have the same parts, after all.
There is just so much wrong with that. Having the 'same parts' has nothing to do with it; being attracted to that gender has everything to with it.
Post by: The Cynic on October 14, 2021, 08:07:14 pm
But I still get the impression, too often, that a transgendered person is assumed to have ill-intent in entering female spaces, just because they are transgendered. Do you see that too? e'?
Depends on the situation. Depends on the space. So okay, let me ask you a question. You're a biological man with a big hairy **** dangling between your fat, hairy thighs, big hairy belly and chest. You feel like you're a woman. You act and dress like you're a woman. You dream and fantasize about being a woman. You want people to respect that and accept you.
So do you go into a womens change room and strip naked and dangle your big hairy **** around at everyone? You know what the reaction will be. The women there will mostly recoil, make faces, maybe curse you, shun you, and scurry away as if you had the plague. Is that what you think a real transgender person is going to be looking for? Because I don't. I don't believe any mentally healthy person would be interested in that kind of thing. It would be too dispiriting on their part, and they know full well it would scare women, which they don't want to do anyway.
So yes, the odds of someone doing that being legitimately transgendered as opposed to being a sick **** are pretty low.
Post by: The Cynic on October 14, 2021, 08:09:30 pm
There is just so much wrong with that. Having the 'same parts' has nothing to do with it; being attracted to that gender has everything to with it.
It has something to do with it but it's just not the same attitude as a male hetro. I can't really explain it myself. My sister is gay and has a ton of friends and that's one of the things that came up years ago when we were chatting and they all were pretty confident that the way they look at women was entirely different. It's not like a crystal clear memory I can recite word for word for you.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 08:15:29 pm
Depends on the situation. Depends on the space. So okay, let me ask you a question. You're a biological man with a big hairy **** dangling between your fat, hairy thighs, big hairy belly and chest. You feel like you're a woman. You act and dress like you're a woman. You dream and fantasize about being a woman. You want people to respect that and accept you.
So do you go into a womens change room and strip naked and dangle your big hairy **** around at everyone? You know what the reaction will be. The women there will mostly recoil, make faces, maybe curse you, shun you, and scurry away as if you had the plague. Is that what you think a real transgender person is going to be looking for? Because I don't. I don't any mentally healthy person would be interested in that kind of thing.
So yes, the odds of someone doing that being legitimately transgendered as opposed to being a sick **** are pretty low.
And yet, when transgendered people behave as a mentally healthy person, nobody notices - not even the women whose space they're 'invading'. And when some sick fck waves his junk around in front of women, that's used to define transsexuals as perverts just looking to get a glimpse, and lying to do so.
Darren what's'name isn't the embodiment of transsexuals, despite all the hype about 'men pretending to be women so they can practice their perversion'.
Post by: Dia on October 14, 2021, 08:22:45 pm
It has something to do with it but it's just not the same attitude as a male hetro. I can't really explain it myself. My sister is gay and has a ton of friends and that's one of the things that came up years ago when we were chatting and they all were pretty confident that the way they look at women was entirely different. It's not like a crystal clear memory I can recite word for word for you.
I still don't understand how even your sister could determine that lesbian women being attracted to women is somehow different than men being attracted to women. Or men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to men.
Post by: guest18 on October 15, 2021, 06:06:48 am
Depends on the situation. Depends on the space. So okay, let me ask you a question. You're a biological man with a big hairy **** dangling between your fat, hairy thighs, big hairy belly and chest. You feel like you're a woman. You act and dress like you're a woman. You dream and fantasize about being a woman. You want people to respect that and accept you.Do you know what "straw man" means?.
So do you go into a womens change room and strip naked and dangle your big hairy **** around at everyone? You know what the reaction will be. The women there will mostly recoil, make faces, maybe curse you, shun you, and scurry away as if you had the plague. Is that what you think a real transgender person is going to be looking for? Because I don't. I don't believe any mentally healthy person would be interested in that kind of thing. It would be too dispiriting on their part, and they know full well it would scare women, which they don't want to do anyway.
So yes, the odds of someone doing that being legitimately transgendered as opposed to being a sick **** are pretty low.
Post by: Black Dog on October 15, 2021, 10:31:01 am
No, they're really not. And sayin so would be like me calling everyone on the left side of the fence a commie. It'd be stupid, in other words.
There are no conservatives anymore.
Quote
I'm sure most people don't think much about trans people or pretend trans people in womens showers or changing rooms until they encounter one. Or until they read about incidents like the above. Then it pisses them off.
OK and?
Quote
And the thing which gets me about your position and that of others like you on this subject is you've got a situation where you've won just about 100% of what almost all legitimate trans people wanted. And you're **** it up by trying to push, push, push that extra, stupid, unreasonable bit that is going to **** mainstream people off and provoke a backlash.
Yeah yeah yeah this is the same **** I heard for years when I was arguing for gay marriage. It was nonsense then as it is now.
Quote
It is from **** like this that the likes of Trump are born as people get tired of this kind of garbage.
Real "Look woman I wouldn't hit you if you didnt make me mad." energy here.
Post by: The Cynic on October 15, 2021, 06:15:17 pm
And yet, when transgendered people behave as a mentally healthy person, nobody notices - not even the women whose space they're 'invading'.
That's kind of my point. They don't have any interest in going into women's showers or open change rooms and revealing their hideous maleness. So why are certain people so determined to insist they be given the absolute legal the right to do so? Are they really campaigning for transgendered people or do they just have their own agenda? Maybe an agenda which is more than slightly misogynistic.
Quote
Darren what's'name isn't the embodiment of transsexuals, despite all the hype about 'men pretending to be women so they can practice their perversion'.
Of course not. But the activists seem to be determined to ensure he becomes that representative.
Post by: The Cynic on October 15, 2021, 06:16:28 pm
Do you know what "straw man" means?.
Point out to me where anything I said is a straw man in the context of a discussion of naked biological men introducing on female only changing/shower/bathing spaces.
Post by: The Cynic on October 15, 2021, 06:18:44 pm
There are no conservatives anymore.
That's as dumb as dirt.
Quote
Real "Look woman I wouldn't hit you if you didnt make me mad." energy here.
Given how misogynistic your views are that's quite the joke. Did your mom not like you or something? Get beat up by a girl in high school and never lived it down?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 15, 2021, 09:18:34 pm
Do trans men ever get plastic surgery to get themselves a ding-dong? Sounds complicated.
Post by: kimmy on October 15, 2021, 11:14:05 pm
Gee I wonder why no one picked up the challenge from someone who clearly is operating in such good faith when they also say stuff like:QuoteWhat's really disgusting is that some of you wokies will actually consider it a victory if Darren Merager gets acquitted.
If Merager gets acquitted, we both know that there will be a bazillion wokies saying "YEAH! Trans rights! Suck it, TERFs!", and we both know that there will be no wokies who will spend a moment, publicly at least, pondering the fairness of a law that allows a repeat sex offender to self-identify himself into spaces where women and girls are naked and vulnerable.
Book mark this, and if I am wrong come back and throw it in my face.
The question is a dumb one because no one is saying women can't protest whatever they want.
Nice try, but no. I didn't ask why they *can't* protest it. I asked why they *shouldn't* protest it.
You (and Slate, and Washington Post, and The Daily Beast, and The Guardian, and The Daily Dot, and Insider, and probably other supposedly reputable media outlets that I'm forgetting) clearly expressed the view that these women *shouldn't* have been protesting. So instead of weaseling out of it, lay that out for us.
"No one is saying those women can't protest against self-ID on demand, we're just saying that if they do they're Nazis and fascists and literally killing trans people."
-you (and Slate, and Washington Post, and The Daily Beast, and The Guardian, and The Daily Dot, and Insider, and probably other supposedly reputable media outlets that I'm forgetting.)
This is just concern trolling.
No. Concern trolling is when you and your team briefly, for a week or so in February, pretended as if you cared about women's privacy, when it was briefly useful in arguing against laws that keep dudes from competing in women's sports. Now that that ship has sailed, you're way past pretending to care about women's privacy, and all in favor of Fucken Darren being able to self-identify into the women's changing room and showers.
(pro-tip: if a WokeBro says he cares about women's privacy, he is lying.)
I'm not concern-trolling when I complain that woke idiots keep handing right-wingers ammo to shoot them with. I don't support repealing gay rights back to the 1980s. I don't support repealing women's rights back to the 1950s. But that's what is going to happen if you guys get your way, because you guys on the far left keep pushing policies that are completely disconnected from sane people in the real world. Woke ideology is far less popular than wokies think it is. I've talked about this in another thread. I'll bump that thread with some new material later this weekend.
You can't make common cause with these people (something you've quite openly supported here) and then pretend to be upset with how they'll weaponize it to attack other causes.
I am grateful to the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom (the right-wing religious law group) for defending the aestheticians, pro-bono, against Jessica Yaniv's vexatious HRC claims. I think that was outstanding, excellent, fantastic, amazing, tremendous, I can't find enough superlatives to put on that. And as a homosexual atheist, I hate having to applaud JCCF.
And I supported the Alliance Defending Freedom taking on the lawsuit of the female Connecticut athletes who challenged the Connecticut athletics policy that required them to compete against dudes. And as a homosexual atheist, I hate having to applaud ADF.
You're trying to draw a link between those two cases and the Proud Boys showing up uninvited at a protest. The link you're trying to draw fails. The connection you're trying to make is complete bullshit.
Again, you can simultaneously welcome the support and money of the far right (which you have done repeatedly), gloss over their presence on the street and then turn around and whine about being tarred with the same brush. Lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
And again, what you're selling here is bullshit. Your effort to equate supporting two meaningful legal efforts that had significance for women's legal rights with a bunch of goons showing up uninvited at a protest against an unjust law fails. You're attempting a sleight of hand, and it fails.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 15, 2021, 11:31:03 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/XFqHtXE.jpg?fb)
And again, the notion that anybody who isn't fully on board with Team Woke is "the far right" is disconnected from reality. People might agree with that in whatever bubble you inhabit, but that's not the real world.
I don't think the average Canadian genuinely gives a **** about trans people using facilities that correspond to their gender identity but your implication that people who would seek to do so are perverts reinforces to my point above.
Darren Merager is clearly a pervert; the repeat convictions for indecent exposure make the point. Reminder, he's also currently on trial for hanging out in the girl's locker room when a highschool girls' water polo team was changing. Implying that this could be exploited by perverts reinforces the point that it's made to be exploited by perverts.
You and the trans rights activists are cheerleading for a law that allows Darren Merager to self-identify himself into the girl's changing rooms.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 12:16:27 am
I think the objection to Darren's or any "man's" presence in a woman's changeroom is the assumption that "he" is sexually attracted to women and thereby invading their privacy with the potential for leering behaviour.
By that standard, how do you feel about lesbians and bisexual women being allowed in?
Bubber... I think you're the cleverest person on this forum by a mile. You're the closest thing the modern age has to a Mark Twain. So I hate having to say this, but I think you're way out in left field here.
If you grew up female in this society (or any other, I suspect) you'd understand the amount of time, attention, and "headspace" that go into protecting yourself from male violence.
(when I say headspace, I mean the things that every woman thinks about every day to avoid male violence or male antipathy. Everything from thinking about whether you're dressed too provocatively, to thinking about whether the route to home will take you to an unsafe place, to wondering whether the man who wants to chat with you at the bar is dangerous, to wondering whether your male coworkers will be angry if you speak up in response to a sexist joke. It's truly endless. I doubt you grasp it. )
So when you ask me why female people would be anxious when a male person arrives in a space where they're at their most vulnerable, it makes me think you're completely oblivious to the lived experience of female people.
I feel like if you think that the words "It's okay, I identify as a woman" should magically make female people comfortable with a male person's presence in their spaces then you're either incapable of empathy, or completely deranged.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 12:31:43 am
Real "Look woman I wouldn't hit you if you didnt make me mad." energy here.
Meanwhile you and the Woke Mafia be like "If you don't hop on the Girldick RIGHT NOW you FEEEEEMALES are going to be back in 1955!"
Wokies want women to believe that there are only two options: either embrace woke ideology, or forfeit everything women have gained in the past 50 years.
That's a false dichotomy.
The truth is that wokies have zero power if women aren't on board.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 12:55:59 am
She's fine with it if she thinks they are hot, but not if they are, like, really butch.
That's pretty scummy. But rather than play the indignation card or homophobia card, I will move on to this:
You're being too charitable. We had a discussion many many pages back where kimmy said the issue is that too many trans people using women's spaces are "obviously male" and that "passing individuals could come and go without anybody noticing." When I pointed out this standard would probably lead to a lot of masculine or butch-looking people getting confronted or harassed, her response was "it is what it its."
And what I told you at the time is that the issue is not peformative femininity, the issue is the OBVIOUSLY MALE part of the equation.
You told me that I've probably shared a washroom with some trans woman without even knowing and posted pictures of Contrapoints and that trans SI model and whoever else to illustrate the point that some trans women are highly passing.
And highly passing is the key point here.
Some trans women are highly passing and could easily enter female spaces without causing any anxiety whatsoever. Contrapoints or Blaire White or Nichole Maines or that SI model could enter a women's washroom without causing anybody any anxiety.
But trans right activists aren't fighting for the right for Contrapoints or Blaire White to enter women's spaces, because Contrapoints and Blaire White can easily enter women's spaces any time they want. They are "stealth mode"; few people if any would take a second look. Blaire White can go into any women's washroom anywhere any time she wants to. She doesn't need wokies to fight for her on that front.
What trans rights actives are actually fighting for is for trans women that look like Charlotte Clymer or Morgane Oger or Jessica Yaniv or Darren Merager to enter women's spaces. What wokies want is for "women" who are obviously male to be allowed into women's spaces without objection.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 01:26:21 am
No, they're really not. And sayin so would be like me calling everyone on the left side of the fence a commie. It'd be stupid, in other words.
I'm sure most people don't think much about trans people or pretend trans people in womens showers or changing rooms until they encounter one. Or until they read about incidents like the above. Then it pisses them off.
And the thing which gets me about your position and that of others like you on this subject is you've got a situation where you've won just about 100% of what almost all legitimate trans people wanted. And you're **** it up by trying to push, push, push that extra, stupid, unreasonable bit that is going to **** mainstream people off and provoke a backlash. It is from **** like this that the likes of Trump are born as people get tired of this kind of garbage.
We're from different parts of the political sphere, but this is the truth.
A former member here said something along the lines of "if you tell people that only an Nazi would defend the border, people will vote for a Nazi." It is the truth. Most people support the right for trans or "gender diverse" people to live their lives as they choose free from violence or discrimination. But that goodwill doesn't extend to putting dudes into women's sports or women's prisons.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 01:49:44 am
Are equal numbers of women fighting for the right to use men's rooms? Does that even matter?
Instead of installing multiple washrooms for crowds we could simply install more individual washrooms.
Change rooms will be a challenge but c'est la vie.
I love you, eyeball. What I love about you is that you are deeply, unabashedly leftist, yet not afraid to speak up against the current trend being embraced by leftists of the moment. That makes you a bit of a unicorn in today's political landscape. I hope there are more like you out there.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 03:36:24 am
Lesbian and bisexual women don't look at other women in the same way as hetro men do. They can appreciate when someone looks good but it's simply not the same. They have the same parts, after all.
okay, so this is actually a somewhat complicated subject and not something I feel like straight people from anywhere in the political spectrum really fully grasp.
For people who are same-sex attracted, locker room etiquette becomes a very anxious issue. People who are same-sex attracted are extremely anxious in situations where they might cause offense to others (and I suspect that trans people are the same, btw.) Lesbians I have talked to online have talked about walking from the shower to their locker with their eyes on the tile grouting because they were afraid that they might accidentally "out" themselves if they looked too closely at another girl's body.
For me, it was never like that, because I was more or less convinced I was heterosexual. I felt no anxiety complimenting my team-mate on how nice their trim looked or how nice their abs looked or so on because it never occurred to me that they might think I was flirting with them. I assumed every girl paid attention to these things.
After several years of sexual relations with women outside my long-term relationship with my special guy, I began to suspect that I might be "bi". And after moving away from my special guy and having 10 years of exclusively same sex relationships, I started to realize that I'm not really "bi" either.
I recall reading a couple of columns that touched me at a personal level. One was by Jo Bartosch, a well-known UK terf, who wrote that despite being in a long-term same-sex relationship and having no interest in going back to men, she is uncomfortable calling herself a lesbian because she never had to deal with the self-imposed stigma that lesbians inflict on themselves. She has no interest in being in a relationship with a man again, but she used to be and didn't hate it. She didn't like calling herself a lesbian because she felt like she would be laying claim to an experience she never had. Lesbians were people who couldn't envision a life with a male partner, and Jo had been in a long term relationship with a male partner, so that couldn't be her, could it?
The other was by Brooklyn 99 actress Stephanie Beatriz. She is bi. She is engaged to marry a man. She wrote about how she isn't defined by her last sexual relationship, or her current one, or her next one. She wrote that choosing to be in a relationship with a male partner didn't mean she had become "straight".
For me, "bi" would be a tricky label because it might suggest that I'd be open to things that I'm just not interested in right now. My partner Lindsey has been with men for most of her adult life; she laughingly calls herself a "flexitarian" and suggests that she's down for whatever. I'm not either of those things, but I think the main premise is that putting a label on experiences and feelings to claim membership in a group is a dicey affair.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 02:47:00 pm
In any case, my response broadly supported your point,
Yeah, I guess maybe in general terms, you expressed support for the idea that creeps and predators shouldn't be able to just wander into the women's shower. But how can we know who should or should not be allowed in?
and brought up a concern I have - which is the assumption by so many that any non-biological-female who goes into women's spaces is lying about who they are and why they are there. My response seemed reasonable to me; sorry it didn't meet your high standards.
You've slipped the word "any" into your statement. But nobody is claiming that "any" male who enters women's spaces is there for sinister reasons. But clearly it's a policy that's just begging to be exploited by creeps and predators.
We know that not all cisgender men are creeps and predators either. But we don't tolerate a cisgender man just walking into women's spaces even if that man says something reassuring like "it's alright ladies, I am not a rapist." And, for the most part cisgender men understand that the creation of separate women's spaces isn't an accusation against "all" men, but rather an acknowledgement that women need protection from "some" men.
And to answer you purely rhetorical question: Of course women can protest laws that allow for screw ups; we can all do that. Your example isn't a particularly unusual incident: our legal system is full of such screwups.
It's not a screw-up. No error was made. The law was being applied exactly as intended. This situation was the result of the law working as it was designed to. So people weren't protesting against a screw-up, they were protesting against a law that produced an unjust result. And people like Black Dog (and a number of media outlets) vilified these women and accused them of staging a hoax for doing so.
And yet, when transgendered people behave as a mentally healthy person, nobody notices - not even the women whose space they're 'invading'. And when some sick fck waves his junk around in front of women, that's used to define transsexuals as perverts just looking to get a glimpse, and lying to do so.
So again, no need to tell me "not all trans!" I fully accept that.
Darren what's'name isn't the embodiment of transsexuals, despite all the hype about 'men pretending to be women so they can practice their perversion'.
It's unclear whether Darren Merager is actually trans at all. But in California, all he has to do is say "I am a woman" to hang out in the women's showers.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 16, 2021, 03:48:39 pm
So the TERF argument is if you allow people to self-identify and use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity, you enable predators like this Meager person to have unfettered access to women's spaces to do whatever they want and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
Except, as this incident shows (if the story is to be believed) bathrooms and change rooms are not the wild west where anything goes. There are norms and legal standards that govern behaviour, violations of which are actionable. So in a way, doesn't this story show how the system works to sanction bad actors?
I doubt a transwoman minding their own business and not actively flashing their genitals would be facing criminal charges, yet kimmy et al would treat those people in exactly the same way as your Yaniv's and Meagers despite no evidence that "creeps pretending to be women to wave their junk around" is a significant population of concern.
IOW: you can allow people to use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity AND enforce the legal and social norms that govern behaviour in those spaces.
Okay, so is the part where you (and left-leaning media outlets) slandered and vilified these women, is that part of "how the system works"?
A quick reminder, you're the one who brought this incident into this thread, under the premise of something like "lying transphobes created a hoax to demonize trans women" because you thought it was such a devastating takedown of TERFs.
She complained to the spa staff, who did not help (as seen in the original video that went viral.)
She was slandered and vilified by not just random wokies all over the internet, but also by allegedly respectable media sites (the Slate article you posted, as well as similar articles pushing the hoax angle produced by The Guardian, The Daily Beast, Insider, and more.)
This was classic DARVO. DARVO is the template by which abusers gaslight their victims. Deny ("I didn't do anything!") Attack ("You're crazy!") Reverse Victim and Offender ("You made this up to hurt me!") These women were victimized by a repeat sex offender, and they were made out to be the offender and their predator was presented as the real victim.
Slate and the others were active participants in DARVOing these women. So were you.
So again: is this stuff all part of "how the system works"?
After the way you and others attacked these women, I think it's hilarious that you're now presenting this as a great result for "the system".
Some time ago in this thread you told me that if someone misbehaves in women's spaces you can just go complain to the manager, regardless of their gender identity. I replied that most women would rather just leave and not come back than risk the consequences of complaining about a trans person. The way this case played out illustrates why most women would rather just avoid confrontation.
If that's "how the system works" then I have to assume that the main objective of "the system" is intimidating women into staying silent.
-k
Post by: Dia on October 16, 2021, 04:22:47 pm
You've slipped the word "any" into your statement. But nobody is claiming that "any" male who enters women's spaces is there for sinister reasons. But clearly it's a policy that's just begging to be exploited by creeps and predators.
-k
Some do, Kimmy.
Quote
But in California, all he has to do is say "I am a woman" to hang out in the women's showers.
Is Darren Meager going to avoid prosecution for his actions because he said he was a woman to get in? If he couldn't have gotten access that way, would there have been anything stopping him from shaving really closely, putting on some make up, a dress and walking in anyway? Sure, people might have thought he was a remarkably manly looking women, but women do sometimes have a masculine look.
I think Meager should be prosecuted for what he did, absolutely. I don't think that all transgender people should have to prove themselves before they can enter places where there preferred gender would naturally go. That would seem remarkably unfair to me, since even you admit that the majority of transgender people are not predators or perverts.
Post by: BC_cheque on October 16, 2021, 05:20:56 pm
What trans rights actives are actually fighting for is for trans women that look like Charlotte Clymer or Morgane Oger or Jessica Yaniv or Darren Merager to enter women's spaces. What wokies want is for "women" who are obviously male to be allowed into women's spaces without objection.
I am not familiar with Merager and I think Yaniv has issues beyond her gender identification, and I don't pretend to speak for all women here (ahem) but I would not have any issues whatsoever with women like Clymer and Oger using women's washrooms. I think many women also don't, which is why we're seeing this movement along with trans allies (or wokies as you like to call them).
I think the problem with your thinking is the practicality of it. Who gets to define which trans women should use women's bathrooms and what is the criteria? How do we enforce it?
I'm sincerely curious about this, if you're ok with some trans women using the bathroom but not others, what is your solution?
Post by: BC_cheque on October 16, 2021, 05:26:03 pm
For people who are same-sex attracted, locker room etiquette becomes a very anxious issue. People who are same-sex attracted are extremely anxious in situations where they might cause offense to others (and I suspect that trans people are the same, btw.) Lesbians I have talked to online have talked about walking from the shower to their locker with their eyes on the tile grouting because they were afraid that they might accidentally "out" themselves if they looked too closely at another girl's body.
Some yes, others no. I've shared my experiences in the past by lesbians who come on too strong, don't take no for an answer and made me feel as uncomfortable as many men have done.
Nevertheless, I think you and I are both projecting our own experiences here which is kind of irrelevant. I think the bigger question here is... if enough people banded together and said we don't want lesbians in bathrooms because they could secretly be looking at us sexually, is that enough reason to ban them from using women's spaces?
Post by: The Cynic on October 16, 2021, 05:48:58 pm
Some yes, others no. I've shared my experiences in the past by lesbians who come on too strong, don't take no for an answer and made me feel as uncomfortable as many men have done.
Nevertheless, I think you and I are both projecting our own experiences here which is kind of irrelevant. I think the bigger question here is... if enough people banded together and said we don't want lesbians in bathrooms because they could secretly be looking at us sexually, is that enough reason to ban them from using women's spaces?
Not to put too fine a point on it but lesbians don't have erections. They also aren't generally as big and strong as males. Nor is it always obvious someone even is a lesbian. You are trying to equate something like whites not wanting blacks in a locker room but this is not an issue of discrimination or dislike but fear and safety. Do lesbians have a long record of sexually assaulting and harassing straight women? Not that I've heard.
Not to mention the extreme discomfort most women have undressing in front of strange males or even being in the same room as a naked man they don't know.
Post by: BC_cheque on October 16, 2021, 06:26:00 pm
Not to put too fine a point on it but lesbians don't have erections. They also aren't generally as big and strong as males. Nor is it always obvious someone even is a lesbian. You are trying to equate something like whites not wanting blacks in a locker room but this is not an issue of discrimination or dislike but fear and safety. Do lesbians have a long record of sexually assaulting and harassing straight women? Not that I've heard.
Not to mention the extreme discomfort most women have undressing in front of strange males or even being in the same room as a naked man they don't know.
And which do you think causes more violence... trans women using men's washrooms or women's washrooms?
Post by: eyeball on October 16, 2021, 09:45:06 pm
I love you, eyeball. What I love about you is that you are deeply, unabashedly leftist, yet not afraid to speak up against the current trend being embraced by leftists of the moment. That makes you a bit of a unicorn in today's political landscape. I hope there are more like you out there.
-k
I just can't see how politicizing going to the bathroom can go anywhere but sideways. Where it leads is anyone's guess. Maybe the largest public washroom infrastructure project in history or maybe the Mother-of-all right-wing populist backlashs. But co/multi-gendered public washrooms? I doubt it.
I wish the real human rights issues LGBTQ people face were wrestled with as human rights issues on a more fundamental level so solutions actually enhance everyone's rights. Instead things have taken the road that forks towards special rights. I think I blame that on the inherent insincerity of political moral entrepreneurship. Take the assumed wokiness of Trudeau for example, it has no basis given the doubts over his commitment to feminism in his workplace and his non-record protecting vulnerable women in the military.
Post by: The Cynic on October 17, 2021, 11:22:02 am
And which do you think causes more violence... trans women using men's washrooms or women's washrooms?
I don't believe washrooms are the issue as stalls guarantee a level of privacy. The issue is changing areas where women undress - including biological males.
Post by: BC_cheque on October 17, 2021, 04:04:20 pm
I don't believe washrooms are the issue as stalls guarantee a level of privacy. The issue is changing areas where women undress - including biological males.
Yes, I understand it could make people uncomfortable, but given that there are changing rooms and nobody NEEDS to get naked in the common area, I ask once again...
Which do you think will create more violence, trans women using men's areas or women's?
Trans women are going to exist and men will always have some bad apples who will creep into women's spaces or beat up trans women for existing. Which one do you think will cause more harm?
I think if you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit that you just don't really care about their safety. Perhaps victim-blaming for being trans?
Post by: eyeball on October 17, 2021, 08:12:52 pm
I don't believe washrooms are the issue as stalls guarantee a level of privacy. The issue is changing areas where women undress - including biological males.The real issue here is vulnerability and privacy is only one of many things people use to deal with it. Security, another measure, is pretty scant in most public washrooms given the sort of latches assumed to be enough to assure privacy in them.
I would think between many transexual women feeling vulnerable going into men's public washrooms and feeling pilloried when using women's public washrooms that washrooms will simply have to change to accommodate.
There is also the fact that going to the bathroom can sometimes be socially awkward for some people especially for those where sex or sexuality factors into their awkwardness. They're just supposed to suck it up and get with thr program? Good luck with that.
As for me I'll never forget the time I came out of a stall in a public washroom at Seatac airport. It was completely empty except for the 3 Homeland security dudes with machine guns and curly little wires coming out their ears. They glanced into the stall to see if I'd left anything worse than a stink bomb behind and then followed me out to the parking lot door. So yeah, I kinda get the washroom vulnerability thingy.
Post by: Black Dog on October 18, 2021, 09:14:23 am
That's as dumb as dirt.
Given how misogynistic your views are that's quite the joke. Did your mom not like you or something? Get beat up by a girl in high school and never lived it down?
F*ck you.
Post by: Black Dog on October 18, 2021, 09:22:38 am
If Merager gets acquitted, we both know that there will be a bazillion wokies saying "YEAH! Trans rights! Suck it, TERFs!", and we both know that there will be no wokies who will spend a moment, publicly at least, pondering the fairness of a law that allows a repeat sex offender to self-identify himself into spaces where women and girls are naked and vulnerable.
Book mark this, and if I am wrong come back and throw it in my face.
Yet more evidence your brain had been rotted from too much time Online. You can find anyone saying just about anything about anything out there. Who gives a ****?
Oh and a note all the incidents on Meager's rap sheet before this actually preceded California's self-id law, which came into effect in 2019. Seems like they were quite capable of getting into women's spaces without the woke mob pushing self id laws.
Quote
Nice try, but no. I didn't ask why they *can't* protest it. I asked why they *shouldn't* protest it.
You (and Slate, and Washington Post, and The Daily Beast, and The Guardian, and The Daily Dot, and Insider, and probably other supposedly reputable media outlets that I'm forgetting) clearly expressed the view that these women *shouldn't* have been protesting. So instead of weaseling out of it, lay that out for us.
"No one is saying those women can't protest against self-ID on demand, we're just saying that if they do they're Nazis and fascists and literally killing trans people."
-you (and Slate, and Washington Post, and The Daily Beast, and The Guardian, and The Daily Dot, and Insider, and probably other supposedly reputable media outlets that I'm forgetting.)
Usually people use quotes to denote something people actually said, not some hobgoblin they invented.
When you hold a rally and fascists show up, maybe you should ask yourself why what you're doing appeals to fascists.
Quote
No. Concern trolling is when you and your team briefly, for a week or so in February, pretended as if you cared about women's privacy, when it was briefly useful in arguing against laws that keep dudes from competing in women's sports. Now that that ship has sailed, you're way past pretending to care about women's privacy, and all in favor of Fucken Darren being able to self-identify into the women's changing room and showers.
(pro-tip: if a WokeBro says he cares about women's privacy, he is lying.)
Tu quoque fallacy. Stick to the point, which is you are happy to welcome far right organizations into the fold and take their money, but when the far right -ahem- just happen to show up at your events and start stabbing people, well you can't backpeddle fast enough.
Quote
I'm not concern-trolling when I complain that woke idiots keep handing right-wingers ammo to shoot them with. I don't support repealing gay rights back to the 1980s. I don't support repealing women's rights back to the 1950s. But that's what is going to happen if you guys get your way, because you guys on the far left keep pushing policies that are completely disconnected from sane people in the real world. Woke ideology is far less popular than wokies think it is. I've talked about this in another thread. I'll bump that thread with some new material later this weekend.
I am grateful to the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom (the right-wing religious law group) for defending the aestheticians, pro-bono, against Jessica Yaniv's vexatious HRC claims. I think that was outstanding, excellent, fantastic, amazing, tremendous, I can't find enough superlatives to put on that. And as a homosexual atheist, I hate having to applaud JCCF.
And I supported the Alliance Defending Freedom taking on the lawsuit of the female Connecticut athletes who challenged the Connecticut athletics policy that required them to compete against dudes. And as a homosexual atheist, I hate having to applaud ADF.
You're trying to draw a link between those two cases and the Proud Boys showing up uninvited at a protest. The link you're trying to draw fails. The connection you're trying to make is complete bullshit.
There is a link, you pretending that you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
It's funny too because there actually is a direct link between Andy Ngo the "journalist" who has been on the Wi Spa beat and the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer goons.
Quote
And again, what you're selling here is bullshit. Your effort to equate supporting two meaningful legal efforts that had significance for women's legal rights with a bunch of goons showing up uninvited at a protest against an unjust law fails. You're attempting a sleight of hand, and it fails.
I really can't imagine you're actually as stupid as you're acting here. Maybe you are and you genuinely can't see the link here. Here's a hint: you can't fan the flames of the culture war bullshit and then whinge when you get burned.
Post by: Black Dog on October 18, 2021, 09:25:13 am
And again, the notion that anybody who isn't fully on board with Team Woke is "the far right" is disconnected from reality. People might agree with that in whatever bubble you inhabit, but that's not the real world.
Darren Merager is clearly a pervert; the repeat convictions for indecent exposure make the point. Reminder, he's also currently on trial for hanging out in the girl's locker room when a highschool girls' water polo team was changing. Implying that this could be exploited by perverts reinforces the point that it's made to be exploited by perverts.
You and the trans rights activists are cheerleading for a law that allows Darren Merager to self-identify himself into the girl's changing rooms.
-k
If we're playing that game, i can only assume you jumped up and did a victory lap when you read this story (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/484704-a-transgender-woman-was-killed-after-using).
Again: this person was seemingly creeping into bathrooms before there was a self-id law on the books.
Post by: Black Dog on October 18, 2021, 09:30:14 am
That's pretty scummy. But rather than play the indignation card or homophobia card, I will move on to this:
And what I told you at the time is that the issue is not peformative femininity, the issue is the OBVIOUSLY MALE part of the equation.
You told me that I've probably shared a washroom with some trans woman without even knowing and posted pictures of Contrapoints and that trans SI model and whoever else to illustrate the point that some trans women are highly passing.
And highly passing is the key point here.
Some trans women are highly passing and could easily enter female spaces without causing any anxiety whatsoever. Contrapoints or Blaire White or Nichole Maines or that SI model could enter a women's washroom without causing anybody any anxiety.
But trans right activists aren't fighting for the right for Contrapoints or Blaire White to enter women's spaces, because Contrapoints and Blaire White can easily enter women's spaces any time they want. They are "stealth mode"; few people if any would take a second look. Blaire White can go into any women's washroom anywhere any time she wants to. She doesn't need wokies to fight for her on that front.
What trans rights actives are actually fighting for is for trans women that look like Charlotte Clymer or Morgane Oger or Jessica Yaniv or Darren Merager to enter women's spaces. What wokies want is for "women" who are obviously male to be allowed into women's spaces without objection.
Is there evidence that passing trans people are less likely to be creeps than ones who don't pass your test for looking sufficiently feminine? Because I thought the issue you had was safety, not "causing anxiety."
Post by: The Cynic on October 18, 2021, 03:50:45 pm
I think if you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit that you just don't really care about their safety. Perhaps victim-blaming for being trans?
How quickly you've decided for me that I dislike transpeople so much I don't care if some **** beat them up! Is it because anyone who dares to question that transgendered women belong in each and every single place where women consider their own must hate them? This really doesn't seem to leave the slightest option for compromise. Given I've already expressed an acceptance of them going into women's washrooms and already expressed what is admittedly a guesstimate based on human nature on whether transpeople would even want to get naked around those of the opposite gender I would have thought you'd put a bit more intelligent thought into this.But apparently, the world is all black and white to you.
Post by: The Cynic on October 18, 2021, 04:02:02 pm
The real issue here is vulnerability and privacy is only one of many things people use to deal with it. Security, another measure, is pretty scant in most public washrooms given the sort of latches assumed to be enough to assure privacy in them.
I get that. But I also get that this sense of security and privacy is far lower for the sex which nature has generally made much smaller and weaker than the other while also making them lifelong targets for the instinctive sexual hunger guiding that other sex. And a lot of people here don't seem to. From the time they can understand language little girls are guided by parental and authority figures into the understanding no one must ever see what's under their skirts. This is not an attitude generally taken with little boys. And even as we mature that holds to a degree. Do teenage boys fear girls passing around naked pictures of them? Not so much. Nor, as Kimmy points out, do they check themselves in the mirror before going out to make sure their outfit doesn't make them too sexy for the occasion. Why would they? Fear of rude/crude comments and getting hit on by girls and women?
What I'm getting at is womens need of privacy from being seen by men is more psychologically important than the latter.
Quote
I would think between many transexual women feeling vulnerable going into men's public washrooms and feeling pilloried when using women's public washrooms that washrooms will simply have to change to accommodate.
Remember that this question came up over a biological make undressing in front of women. As I already wrote, I don't think that's an issue that's going to come up among real transgendered women, not the sane ones. I don't think it's an issue that comes up in your average washroom either.
Post by: The Cynic on October 18, 2021, 04:02:45 pm
F*ck you.
Right back at ya, **** dog.
Post by: The Cynic on October 18, 2021, 04:11:02 pm
I really can't imagine you're actually as stupid as you're acting here. Maybe you are and you genuinely can't see the link here. Here's a hint: you can't fan the flames of the culture war bullshit and then whinge when you get burned.
The amazing lack of self-awareness you're showing here! You're blowing on those flames as hard as you can and now you're expressing indignation when some people object. The proud boys are a result of you and your side's actions. They were birthed by ANTIFA, a group I'm quite certain you are thrilled to support. The division in the US is fanned by the effort of you wokies to bring tribalism back into society and make it the basis for all political and social decisions, rules and laws.
Post by: Black Dog on October 18, 2021, 04:14:07 pm
The amazing lack of self-awareness you're showing here! You're blowing on those flames as hard as you can and now you're expressing indignation when some people object. The proud boys are a result of you and your side's actions. They were birthed by ANTIFA, a group I'm quite certain you are thrilled to support. The division in the US is fanned by the effort of you wokies to bring tribalism back into society and make it the basis for all political and social decisions, rules and laws.
same energy:
(https://images.dailykos.com/images/574802/story_image/1350.png?1533664371)
You should also know that the Proud Boys initially had nothing to do with antifa; if anything, it's the other way around with antifa stepping in to counter Proud boys, PP and other assorted far right gangs that took off post Trump's election.
Post by: The Cynic on October 18, 2021, 04:26:21 pm
You should also know that the Proud Boys initially had nothing to do with antifa; if anything, it's the other way around with antifa stepping in to counter Proud boys, PP and other assorted far right gangs that took off post Trump's election.
You should know that ANTIFA pre-dates the Proud Boys by about nine years, and the far left gang you seem to support have been carrying on violent political protests against anything perceived as right of center for almost that long. Their activities escalated after Trump was elected, and they and their ilk have often been blamed for much of the violence during the BLM protests, as well.
And some Trump people ARE racist, but most are just scared and angry about their economic future and a world they see as changing to exclude them.
Post by: Black Dog on October 18, 2021, 04:32:04 pm
You should know that ANTIFA pre-dates the Proud Boys by about nine years, and the far left gang you seem to support have been carrying on violent political protests against anything perceived as right of center for almost that long.
The only reason anyone knows about antifa (we called them Black Bloc in my day) outside of activist circles is because you had all these Nazis running around after Trump in places like Charlottesville or coming in to places like Portland expressly to stir trouble and pick fights. It was a niche group before that.
Quote
Their activities escalated after Trump was elected, and they and their ilk have often been blamed for much of the violence during the BLM protests, as well. The idea they're a defensive group against evil right-wing gangs is as laughable as most of your positions here.
Yes lots of extremely stupid people blamed antifa for the violence during the BLM protests when it was the cops who went on a spree of beating and gassing and maiming the people who protested George Floyd's murder. Oh and then there were all the incidents of violence precipitated by right wingers like the umbrella guy (https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/28/896515022/minneapolis-police-reportedly-identify-viral-umbrella-man-as-white-supremacist).
Quote
And some Trump people ARE racist, but most are just scared and angry about their economic future and a world they see as changing to exclude them.
Boo **** hoo. They should stop voting for Republicans then.
Post by: The Cynic on October 19, 2021, 03:44:06 pm
The only reason anyone knows about antifa (we called them Black Bloc in my day) outside of activist circles is because you had all these Nazis running around after Trump in places like Charlottesville or coming in to places like Portland expressly to stir trouble and pick fights. It was a niche group before that.
What really incited groups like the proud boys was what happened in Berkeley where a mob of black shirts attacked and beat up a group of Trump supporters at a rally. That was the one where the college professor was arrested for smashing Trumpies with a bicycle chain. Then a mob of pro-Trump people showed up a few days later and ran the ANTIFA types off with more violence.
Quote
Yes lots of extremely stupid people blamed antifa for the violence during the BLM protests when it was the cops who went on a spree of beating and gassing and maiming the people who protested George Floyd's murder.
Riiiight. They were mostly peaceful protesters who caused billions in damages as they burned down and looted buildings. Wanna see a few hundred videos of them attacking people in the streets? There were a ton going around the last couple of years so I'm sure I can find you some.
Post by: Black Dog on October 19, 2021, 05:41:47 pm
What really incited groups like the proud boys was what happened in Berkeley where a mob of black shirts attacked and beat up a group of Trump supporters at a rally. That was the one where the college professor was arrested for smashing Trumpies with a bicycle chain. Then a mob of pro-Trump people showed up a few days later and ran the ANTIFA types off with more violence.
That was like four months after the PB's and friends held Unite the Right in Charlottesville.
Quote
Riiiight. They were mostly peaceful protesters who caused billions in damages as they burned down and looted buildings. Wanna see a few hundred videos of them attacking people in the streets? There were a ton going around the last couple of years so I'm sure I can find you some.
Yeah I'm gonna need some evidence "antifa" was behind the looting and rioting (most of which was the direct result of police attacking actual peaceful protesters).
Post by: The Cynic on October 20, 2021, 02:59:54 pm
That was like four months after the PB's and friends held Unite the Right in Charlottesville.
Yeah I'm gonna need some evidence "antifa" was behind the looting and rioting (most of which was the direct result of police attacking actual peaceful protesters).
I'm confused by this. Your suggestion is that the billions in looting and arson were caused by the helpless peaceful protesters being attacked by police? I would have thought they'd have had little time to stop and do their free shopping while police were attacking them, but then I've never been in a riot before.
Post by: Black Dog on October 21, 2021, 09:28:01 am
I'm confused by this. Your suggestion is that the billions in looting and arson were caused by the helpless peaceful protesters being attacked by police? I would have thought they'd have had little time to stop and do their free shopping while police were attacking them, but then I've never been in a riot before.
And by a lot of things apparently.
Post by: The Cynic on October 22, 2021, 03:52:30 pm
And by a lot of things apparently.
That's as may be but at least I have a solid grip on reality, not something you can honestly claim.
Post by: Black Dog on October 22, 2021, 04:13:31 pm
That's as may be but at least I have a solid grip on reality, not something you can honestly claim.
I'm not the bid dumb idiot who doesn't understand the causal relationship between police violence and riots.
Post by: The Cynic on October 22, 2021, 04:21:47 pm
I'm not the bid dumb idiot who doesn't understand the causal relationship between police violence and riots.
No, you're the rabid extremist who ignores or waves away the violence his side commits because he believes it's entirely justified due to his righteous indignation.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 22, 2021, 06:12:53 pm
Let's not get all cranky pants now.
Post by: guest18 on October 23, 2021, 10:04:59 am
Post by: eyeball on October 23, 2021, 12:45:16 pm
When did "righteous" become a bad thing?
When social justice did. Justice soured when it became more like vengeance. Of course just about anything with the word social attached to it is naturally suspect cuz....commies.
Post by: wilber on October 23, 2021, 12:49:43 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-trans-rights-radical-activism-1.6220106
Post by: waldo on October 23, 2021, 01:26:43 pm
Of course just about anything with the word social attached to it is naturally suspect cuz....commies.
as in Trump's latest foray... "TRUTH Social" as an alternative to Twitter... posting "truths" instead of tweets!
Trump to launch new social media platform TRUTH Social (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58990330)
Pranksters have already defaced Trump’s new social network (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/21/trump-truth-social-fake-accounts/)
Post by: Black Dog on October 23, 2021, 03:16:42 pm
No, you're the rabid extremist who ignores or waves away the violence his side commits because he believes it's entirely justified due to his righteous indignation.
Don't try to both sides this when more people have been killed by right wing extremists than the left.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 23, 2021, 04:29:11 pm
Good piece on CBC this morning.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-trans-rights-radical-activism-1.6220106
I think people are less well socialized than they used to be say 100+ years ago. Before you had 5+ siblings you constantly fought with growing up, so people learned better how to disagree.
It was also far more rare for parents to bend over backwards for you on your every whim and give in to the tantrums of their children. More people have learned that throwing tantrums gets them what they want, even in adulthood.
There's even a big difference when talking to a boomer in a store vs someone under 50. Boomers and older are just far more sociable and approachable. I find people under 50 tend to keep to themselves and not want to be bothered. Maybe older people just mellow out too when they get old I dunno.
Post by: The Cynic on October 23, 2021, 07:30:16 pm
Don't try to both sides this when more people have been killed by right wing extremists than the left.
You bet your ass I'm gonna both sides this because both sides are freaking **** who are rabidly intolerent.
And we're not talking about terrorism but the morons in the streets.
Post by: The Cynic on October 23, 2021, 07:35:06 pm
I think people are less well socialized than they used to be say 100+ years ago. Before you had 5+ siblings you constantly fought with growing up, so people learned better how to disagree.
It was also far more rare for parents to bend over backwards for you on your every whim and give in to the tantrums of their children. More people have learned that throwing tantrums gets them what they want, even in adulthood.
My parents had like seven or eight siblings apiece. Every kid grew up in the old days with twenty or more uncles and aunts and dozens of first cousins mostly in the same city. They grew up in a family filled with kids they had to learn to get along with. They spent all their spare time in unsupervised groups of kids where they again had to learn to get along, learn to socialize.
Now they grow up as a single child, or one of two. They might have half a dozen or fewer uncles and aunts and maybe two or three cousins who may or may not live in the same city. They don't spend a single minute of unsupervised play until they're in their teens.They go nowhere alone. They spend their time on the internet, or watching Netflix or playing video games or on social media.
They don't know how to get along with others because they've never had to figure it out.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2021, 06:06:50 am
CBC publishes an article decrying 'toxic activism' and Margaret Atwood supports/retweets. The author, Jessica Triff, is accused of not existing although Canadaland says she does exist, I guess.
https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1451907253037060107
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2021, 06:10:05 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-trans-rights-radical-activism-1.6220106?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
Post by: Black Dog on October 24, 2021, 02:45:29 pm
You bet your ass I'm gonna both sides this because both sides are freaking **** who are rabidly intolerent.
And we're not talking about terrorism but the morons in the streets.
Yes I'm sure to a stupid person, the people protesting police brutality and the lack of accountability armed agents of the state face are the same as violent bigots and racists.
Post by: Black Dog on October 24, 2021, 02:51:02 pm
Good piece on CBC this morning.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-trans-rights-radical-activism-1.6220106
Someone tell this joker that we live in a pluralistic, democratic society and everyone has the right to express their views or opinions on laws or policies that impact their lives, rights and security even if that means being mean to celebs online.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 24, 2021, 04:26:27 pm
Someone tell this joker that we live in a pluralistic, democratic society and everyone has the right to express their views or opinions on laws or policies that impact their lives, rights and security even if that means being mean to celebs online.
You're right, we are free to express ourselves in any way we wish as long as it's legal, including protest. This is the beauty of our society.
The culture war is pretty heated and many sides of many issues seem to be using every means they can of furthering their goals. Some of it may not be polite but I suppose its fair game as long as its legal. Maybe more important is how people react to these things. People are free to protest as they choose as long as its legal, and people in society as free to respond to those protests as they choose.
People may prefer civil discourse but sometimes being polite doesn't get you as far.
Post by: The Cynic on October 24, 2021, 04:43:16 pm
Yes I'm sure to a stupid person, the people protesting police brutality and the lack of accountability armed agents of the state face are the same as violent bigots and racists.
No, to a stupid person their actions are justified by the cause. So whatever they do for the cause, whoever they assault, whatever buildings they burn down or statues they vandalize are all okay as long as it's in the name of the righteous cause of social justice.
Post by: The Cynic on October 24, 2021, 04:45:50 pm
Someone tell this joker that we live in a pluralistic, democratic society and everyone has the right to express their views or opinions on laws or policies that impact their lives, rights and security even if that means being mean to celebs online.
She's right. I've said as much before. Real transgender people are not the ones screaming in people's faces and demanding the right to wave their dong around in changing rooms. Those people are mentally ill or perverts. Same for most of the shrieking trans activists attacking and threatening people.
Post by: kimmy on October 24, 2021, 09:26:15 pm
QuoteIf Merager gets acquitted, we both know that there will be a bazillion wokies saying "YEAH! Trans rights! Suck it, TERFs!", and we both know that there will be no wokies who will spend a moment, publicly at least, pondering the fairness of a law that allows a repeat sex offender to self-identify himself into spaces where women and girls are naked and vulnerable.
Book mark this, and if I am wrong come back and throw it in my face.
Yet more evidence your brain had been rotted from too much time Online. You can find anyone saying just about anything about anything out there. Who gives a ****?
I never have seen trans rights activists spend even a moment reflecting on the impact of the policies they support on cisgender women. It leads to the obvious conclusion that you guys just couldn't care less. Feel free to change my mind, though. Show me any time when Katie Montgomery or Charlotte Clymer or any other trans activist or trans ally has ever spent a moment pondering how the policies you guys champion are going to impact cisgender women.
And, I'm skeptical that you or the trans allies in general are as willing to apply your notion of "who gives a **** what some rando on the internet is saying" in situations where it's not convenient to you. We don't say that in regard to people peddling covid misinformation, or anti-Muslim rhetoric, or people advocating for overturning elections by armed revolt, for example. But when it comes to trans activists saying things that are embarrassing to trans activism, you're willing to give them a blank cheque.
Also, you write this as if you're sure that the people writing this stuff online aren't the same people spreading these ideas at their college LGBT+ associations or highschool Gay-Straight Alliances and other LGBT+ spaces. Why would you assume that?
Oh and a note all the incidents on Meager's rap sheet before this actually preceded California's self-id law, which came into effect in 2019. Seems like they were quite capable of getting into women's spaces without the woke mob pushing self id laws.
In late 2018 when Merager walked into the change rooms while the highschool water polo girls were changing, Merager was the bad guy.
In summer 2021 when Merager walked into the n00d spa and Cubana Angel complained to the management, Cubana Angel was the bad guy.
Usually people use quotes to denote something people actually said, not some hobgoblin they invented.Yeah yeah, I'm paraphrasing. Clearly you think the protest is terrible and wrong. Explain why you think it is wrong for women to protest against self-ID on demand. I'm all ears.
When you hold a rally and fascists show up, maybe you should ask yourself why what you're doing appeals to fascists.
This is the same logic that links pro-Palestinian activists with neo-Nazis who show up at their protests, it's the same logic that links BLM activists when violent anarchists show up at their protests, it's the same logic that blamed anti-globalization activists when "Black Bloc" people showed up at their protests.
Tu quoque fallacy.
It's not a fallacy, it's an observation. Being accused of concern-trolling by a guy who set the gold standard for concern-trolling earlier in this thread isn't something I'm going to let pass without notice.
Stick to the point, which is you are happy to welcome far right organizations into the fold and take their money, but when the far right -ahem- just happen to show up at your events and start stabbing people, well you can't backpeddle fast enough.
There is a link, you pretending that you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
You keep trying to claim that there's a link between challenging bad laws in court and Proud Boys showing up at a protest, but repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more true the second time or the third time or however many times you're at.
Also have to point out that you still can't acknowledge the presence of Antifa people at the protest.
It's funny too because there actually is a direct link between Andy Ngo the "journalist" who has been on the Wi Spa beat and the Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer goons.
I'm aware of Andy Ngo's reputation, which is why I haven't posted anything citing him, and waited until the story had been verified by major media organizations and by actual court documents.
It must be very upsetting to you that Andy Ngo did actual journalism and got the story right, while your Slate article (and similar articles published by Daily Beast, The Guardian, Washington Post, etc) have been busted as at best pathetic journalism, and arguably as fake news.
Right after you linked your little article, I pointed out that it was a piece of dogshit that contained no actual facts and relied on speculation from message-board users plus a report from The Los Angeles Blade which itself was based on speculation from message board users plus "anonymous sources" in the LAPD. (Given that every claim sourced to one of their "anonymous sources" proved to be false, it seems clear that TransSuccubus420@TransSafety.net Forums doesn't actually have a secret source with the LAPD.)
That didn't stop Slate, and several other outlets, from publishing pieces pushing this allegation of a hoax.
So fast forward a couple of months and the LAPD have laid charges against a man these news outlets suggested didn't exist, for an incident that these news outlets alleged never happened. How did these media outlets respond?
Slate eventually added a little note to their story indicating that a man had been charged. The Daily Beast appears to have simply deleted their earlier article without any indication it ever existed. Washington Post left their earlier article unchanged and don't appeared to have posted anything further on the subject.
As far as I can find, The Guardian is the only one of the sources that alleged a hoax to have written a new article after the charges:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video
What does it indicate when the only guy doing actual journalism on this story was a hated alt-right guy?
What does it indicate that all these outlets that were eager to push this idea that the whole thing was a hoax suddenly had nothing to say when the facts of the story came out?
How are these outlets that pushed the hoax claim then vanished when the truth came out acting any differently than The Rebel or Breitbart or whichever other agenda-driven site?
You'd think that maybe some of these sites like Slate or Daily Beast or so on might have a moment of self reflection. "Gee, how did we get this story so wrong?" "Gee, these women were victimized by a registered sex offender, and we made them out to be the villains of this story." That sort of thing. But you'd be wrong. They have spent not a moment reflecting on having slandered these women or having vilified them for having spoken out after being abused by a serial sex predator. Because no different from their right-wing counterparts, their allegiance isn't to "the news" or "the truth" or "getting the story right", it's to an agenda.
And that should be of note to those here who say they are interested in "good dialogue" and "better discussions" about these issues. (HEY MICHAEL DID YOU NOTICE THAT?)
QuoteAnd again, what you're selling here is bullshit. Your effort to equate supporting two meaningful legal efforts that had significance for women's legal rights with a bunch of goons showing up uninvited at a protest against an unjust law fails. You're attempting a sleight of hand, and it fails.
I really can't imagine you're actually as stupid as you're acting here. Maybe you are and you genuinely can't see the link here. Here's a hint: you can't fan the flames of the culture war bullshit and then whinge when you get burned.
WHO is fanning the flames of the culture war here?
Jessica Yaniv drags a bunch of immigrant service workers through the Human Rights Tribunal process to extort money from them, the women accept legal defense from the only representatives who'll take their case, and you say that THEY are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
Highschool girls are being made to compete against DUDES WITH LONG HAIR and you say that THEY are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit by challenging that policy in court? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
Rapists and violent murderers are "discovering they're actually women" and the authorities are transferring them to women's prisons, and you think the ones who are protesting against it are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
Self-ID On Demand policies allow a registered sex offender identify himself into the women's showers, and you're saying that women who don't want to shower in front of registered sex offenders are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
You're pushing this notion that women need to meekly submit to whatever bullshit policies that wokies wish to inflict on them OR ELSE THE BAD GUYS WILL WIN AND ALL WE'LL BE BACK IN THE 1950s, and that is bullshit.
If you need victims of injustice to stay quiet to keep "the bad guys" from winning, YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 24, 2021, 09:45:51 pm
https://twitter.com/CTVW5/status/1451306731187970049
"You thought that taking the testosterone would make it go away, and it didn't. You thought that the double mastectomy would make it go away, and it didn't. So what if transition just wasn't what you were supposed to do? So it was a mish-mash between hating myself for putting myself in this situation, and hating the gender clinic for not properly screening me to make sure transition was right for me."
Like Kiera Bell, another former "trans man" in the UK, Watson is a target of hate and abuse from trans activists who view them about the same way that Muslim fundamentalists view apostates.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/dramatic-increase-in-children-and-youth-seeking-gender-treatments-has-some-experts-alarmed-1.5633076
"Whenever experts, in any given field, are too afraid to express their honest professional opinions on the record out of fear of being cancelled, something in the public discourse has gone terribly wrong.
So when some well-established experts in transgender health told us they weren’t willing to repeat on camera what they admitted to us in private because they sit on diversity boards and will almost certainly be called transphobic, it was confirmation our story was necessary. If only for the gender dysphoric children and youth, along with their families, who are struggling and do not know who to believe."
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 24, 2021, 09:56:47 pm
Someone tell this joker that we live in a pluralistic, democratic society and everyone has the right to express their views or opinions on laws or policies that impact their lives, rights and security even if that means being mean to celebs online.
Yeah, yeah. Nobody is saying that they don't have the right to express their views. The person who wrote the column is pointing out that the way they express themselves makes them look like a bunch of deranged misogynist lunatics. Personally, I think they should keep going, for about the same reason that I hope news networks keep using Dr Veronica Ivy as their go-to advocate for trans-women in women's sports.
This is the reaction to Margaret Atwood retweeting a Toronto Star column about "gender-inclusive language":
(https://i.imgur.com/xnPJjLt.png)
At least they've dialed back on the threats of **** and murder that they bombarded Rowling with...
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 24, 2021, 10:00:46 pm
My friend worked at an office that only had 2 single-occupancy bathrooms, 1 for men and 1 for women. Had about 15 employees. ~80% of the employees were men, 20% women.
As a male it was hard to go to the bathroom because it was often occupied while the female one was often free. Some of the men suggested they just make it 2 bathrooms without gender labels so anyone could use either one. The suggestion was ignored my the employer. So my friend falsely claimed he was gender ambiguous so he could access either of the bathrooms whenever he wanted. My friend is a bit of a d-bag lol.
Post by: kimmy on October 24, 2021, 10:05:23 pm
More wood on the fire...
CBC publishes an article decrying 'toxic activism' and Margaret Atwood supports/retweets. The author, Jessica Triff, is accused of not existing although Canadaland says she does exist, I guess.
https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1451907253037060107
Atwood was among the writers who signed the open letter condeming JK Rowling's comments, and now she's getting crucified by the transes and their allies for retweeting a thing that the hive-mind didn't approve of. Same thing happened to Sarah Paulson. Paulson was another who publicly condemned Rowling, but when Paulson refused to put pronouns in her Twitter bio the trans mob unleashed a huge torrent of misogynist abuse on Paulson and Paulson's wife Holland Taylor. Seeing the ageist and misogynist abuse that these people unleashed on Holland Taylor and now on Margaret Atwood should make people stop and reconsider how "progressive" these people really are. But it won't.
Atwood is now trying to put the genie back in the bottle by trying to tell people that she's totally not like JK Rowling and people should take their misogynist, ageist abuse to Rowling instead.
It won't work.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 24, 2021, 10:07:21 pm
Yeah, yeah. Nobody is saying that they don't have the right to express their views. The person who wrote the column is pointing out that the way they express themselves makes them look like a bunch of deranged misogynist lunatics. Personally, I think they should keep going, for about the same reason that I hope news networks keep using Dr Veronica Ivy as their go-to advocate for trans-women in women's sports.
This is the reaction to Margaret Atwood retweeting a Toronto Star column about "gender-inclusive language":
I have to admit I found 95% of those tweets to be hilarious. But I also thought Trump was a comedic genius.
I think i've watched too much South Park for my own good.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 24, 2021, 10:17:11 pm
Pretty sure this one woman who was just a friend of a friend still hates me 8 years later for saying stating the fact that men are better athletes than women. But in my defense she is just a legit b!tch in general. This b!tch was so crazy that she was of full italian descent on both sides but grew up in Venezuela and so considered herself latina and not Italian lol.
Post by: kimmy on October 25, 2021, 12:32:43 am
If we're playing that game,
It's not a game. Self-ID-on-demand is a non-negotiable for trans activists. Merager was using Self-ID-On-Demand exactly as intended.
You can't advocate for self-id-on-demand while simultaneously pretending that a serial sex offender self-IDing himself into the women's showers isn't something you support. The two positions are incompatible.
i can only assume you jumped up and did a victory lap when you read this story (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/484704-a-transgender-woman-was-killed-after-using).
I certainly don't support anyone being murdered.
I see that we had to go to Puerto Rico 20 months ago to find evidence of this alleged epidemic of violence against trans-women. Okay. This story does appear to be an actual hate-crime committed against a trans woman. Which makes it incredibly rare, actually. Murders of trans people are actually extremely rare. In the US it's usually between 20-30 per year, in the UK it's either 1 or 0 each year, and I have no idea what the statistic is in Canada (there was one in 2019 in Toronto; I remember this because it was blamed on Meghan Murphy having a speech there; that narrative vanished when it turned out the killer was a non-binary person known to the victim.) Given even conservative estimates of the trans population, these work out to very low murder rates. What's more, when you actually look into the specifics of the trans people who are killed each year, one finds that most of the deaths are of non-white sex workers, and the remainder are almost always murders of domestic violence. So this doesn't actually support the claim of an epidemic of violence against trans people. Rather it suggests that, non-white trans-women sex workers are at higher risk of violence for the same reasons that non-white cisgender-women sex workers are at higher risk of violence. And trans-women die from violence at the hands of male partners for more or less the same reasons that cisgender-women die at the hands of male partners.
The murder rate for trans people who aren't non-white sex workers is incredibly miniscule. That might be something to remember well-to-do white "transbian" activists or academics like Charlotte Clymer or Grace Lavery try and sell you on the idea that they take their lives in their hands each time they open their front door.
But yes, it appears you've found an actual hate-crime against a transgender woman.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 25, 2021, 01:05:05 am
Is there evidence that passing trans people are less likely to be creeps than ones who don't pass your test for looking sufficiently feminine? Because I thought the issue you had was safety, not "causing anxiety."
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or if you've suffered some kind of head trauma.
Women feel anxious in the presence of non-passing trans-women because they're aware that they're in the presence of males.
Women don't feel anxious in the presence of passing trans-women because they're not aware that they're in the presence of males.
This really isn't complicated.
Women feel anxious in the presence of male people for reasons that are well known to even the stupidest to wokies, but let me know if you need me to go over that again.
Women in places like India and Africa are fighting like hell to get single-sex spaces so that they can live their lives freer and safer from male violence, and meanwhile here in North America wokies have forgotten why we created single-sex spaces in the first place.
Trans activists and trans allies may say "who gives a **** if women are anxious?" My reply is that people who'd say that are just exposing their misogyny. Women have fought for generations to be able to participate fully in society without fear of male violence and intimidation. You guys want to undo that progress so that Fucken Darren can hang out in the girl's showers.
Wokies: "Using proper pronouns is very important, because being misgendered is extremely traumatizing for trans people. Fear of not being accepted for who they are is really harmful to trans people and makes it hard for them to live their lives."
Also wokies: "Check your entitlement, you **** cis-privileged ****. If you don't feel safe, we don't give a ****. Get over it or stay home!"
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 25, 2021, 01:15:50 am
People may prefer civil discourse but sometimes being polite doesn't get you as far.
Acting like children doesn't get you far either. It makes you and your cause look ridiculous, mostly.
Did you see the clip from the Dave Chappelle protest where the transes and wokies confronted the guy with the "We Like Dave" sign?
They tore the cardboard off his sign, leaving him holding just a stick, and then they start screaming "HE'S GOT A WEAPON! HE'S GOT A WEAPON!"
What a bunch of losers. But still better than the ones at the Toronto Library protest marching around with their cardboard guillotine and shouting "Kill yourselves!" and "Bleed out!" at the attendees.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 25, 2021, 01:41:13 am
Why won't anybody give the males a chance (https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/10/19/wrentham-outlets-jacob-guerrero-amazon-driver-child-pornography-charges/)?
You know who is the real victims in all this? The males. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/loudoun-schools-sex-assault-allegations/2021/10/13/02d3f144-2c61-11ec-8ef6-3ca8fe943a92_story.html)
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 25, 2021, 01:56:17 am
Acting like children doesn't get you far either. It makes you and your cause look ridiculous, mostly.
Oh I totally agree it makes people look ridiculous, but unfortunately sometimes tantrums work because some in our society bend to them. I'm just being real here. Toddlers scream to get their way because sometimes it works. And then they grow up and work at Netflix.
Quote
Did you see the clip from the Dave Chappelle protest where the transes and wokies confronted the guy with the "We Like Dave" sign?
They tore the cardboard off his sign, leaving him holding just a stick, and then they start screaming "HE'S GOT A WEAPON! HE'S GOT A WEAPON!"
What a bunch of losers. But still better than the ones at the Toronto Library protest marching around with their cardboard guillotine and shouting "Kill yourselves!" and "Bleed out!" at the attendees.
I didn't see that Chappelle protest video. I just watched it. It's insane. They destroyed the guy's private property (sign), and then a woman leaned on the guy with her arms stretched out in order to move him away from the crowd which is technically physical assault (why is she touching him?). There's a huge difference in just being really annoying or rude VS breaking the law. I don't really support either but the former is fair game while the latter is intolerable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h6F6bJRVs
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 25, 2021, 02:02:34 am
https://youtu.be/KHL3THV0D4c?t=518
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 10:25:09 am
I never have seen trans rights activists spend even a moment reflecting on the impact of the policies they support on cisgender women. It leads to the obvious conclusion that you guys just couldn't care less. Feel free to change my mind, though. Show me any time when Katie Montgomery or Charlotte Clymer or any other trans activist or trans ally has ever spent a moment pondering how the policies you guys champion are going to impact cisgender women.
I dunno, I don't follow this online stuff as obsessively as you.
Quote
And, I'm skeptical that you or the trans allies in general are as willing to apply your notion of "who gives a **** what some rando on the internet is saying" in situations where it's not convenient to you. We don't say that in regard to people peddling covid misinformation, or anti-Muslim rhetoric, or people advocating for overturning elections by armed revolt, for example. But when it comes to trans activists saying things that are embarrassing to trans activism, you're willing to give them a blank cheque.
Those are issues that actually have an impact in the real world. This stuff is 99% niche ****.
Quote
Also, you write this as if you're sure that the people writing this stuff online aren't the same people spreading these ideas at their college LGBT+ associations or highschool Gay-Straight Alliances and other LGBT+ spaces. Why would you assume that?
Why would you assume they are?
Quote
In late 2018 when Merager walked into the change rooms while the highschool water polo girls were changing, Merager was the bad guy.
In summer 2021 when Merager walked into the n00d spa and Cubana Angel complained to the management, Cubana Angel was the bad guy.
lmao weak sh!t.
Quote
Yeah yeah, I'm paraphrasing. Clearly you think the protest is terrible and wrong. Explain why you think it is wrong for women to protest against self-ID on demand. I'm all ears.
yawn
Quote
This is the same logic that links pro-Palestinian activists with neo-Nazis who show up at their protests, it's the same logic that links BLM activists when violent anarchists show up at their protests, it's the same logic that blamed anti-globalization activists when "Black Bloc" people showed up at their protests.
Did they tell the PBs to leave? Do you know for a fact they weren't invited?
Do you think the Proud boys are genuinely interested in women's rights here?
Quote
It's not a fallacy, it's an observation. Being accused of concern-trolling by a guy who set the gold standard for concern-trolling earlier in this thread isn't something I'm going to let pass without notice.
No, it's a fallacy, whataboutism. And you're still hiding behind it.
Quote
You keep trying to claim that there's a link between challenging bad laws in court and Proud Boys showing up at a protest, but repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more true the second time or the third time or however many times you're at.
Because it's not just about "challenging bad laws in court" but whipping up a massive moral panic that will inevitably empower the same groups who would throw you in a bin if they could.
Quote
Also have to point out that you still can't acknowledge the presence of Antifa people at the protest.
Huh? I never denied they were there.
Quote
I'm aware of Andy Ngo's reputation, which is why I haven't posted anything citing him, and waited until the story had been verified by major media organizations and by actual court documents.
It must be very upsetting to you that Andy Ngo did actual journalism and got the story right, while your Slate article (and similar articles published by Daily Beast, The Guardian, Washington Post, etc) have been busted as at best pathetic journalism, and arguably as fake news.
Right after you linked your little article, I pointed out that it was a piece of dogshit that contained no actual facts and relied on speculation from message-board users plus a report from The Los Angeles Blade which itself was based on speculation from message board users plus "anonymous sources" in the LAPD. (Given that every claim sourced to one of their "anonymous sources" proved to be false, it seems clear that TransSuccubus420@TransSafety.net Forums doesn't actually have a secret source with the LAPD.)
That didn't stop Slate, and several other outlets, from publishing pieces pushing this allegation of a hoax.
So fast forward a couple of months and the LAPD have laid charges against a man these news outlets suggested didn't exist, for an incident that these news outlets alleged never happened. How did these media outlets respond?
Slate eventually added a little note to their story indicating that a man had been charged. The Daily Beast appears to have simply deleted their earlier article without any indication it ever existed. Washington Post left their earlier article unchanged and don't appeared to have posted anything further on the subject.
As far as I can find, The Guardian is the only one of the sources that alleged a hoax to have written a new article after the charges:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video
What does it indicate when the only guy doing actual journalism on this story was a hated alt-right guy?
What does it indicate that all these outlets that were eager to push this idea that the whole thing was a hoax suddenly had nothing to say when the facts of the story came out?
How are these outlets that pushed the hoax claim then vanished when the truth came out acting any differently than The Rebel or Breitbart or whichever other agenda-driven site?
You'd think that maybe some of these sites like Slate or Daily Beast or so on might have a moment of self reflection. "Gee, how did we get this story so wrong?" "Gee, these women were victimized by a registered sex offender, and we made them out to be the villains of this story." That sort of thing. But you'd be wrong. They have spent not a moment reflecting on having slandered these women or having vilified them for having spoken out after being abused by a serial sex predator. Because no different from their right-wing counterparts, their allegiance isn't to "the news" or "the truth" or "getting the story right", it's to an agenda.
And that should be of note to those here who say they are interested in "good dialogue" and "better discussions" about these issues. (HEY MICHAEL DID YOU NOTICE THAT?)
Feel better after all that?
You know you can google the story and find a shitload of coverage on the story and the charges beyond the two or three you're obsessing over here.
Quote
WHO is fanning the flames of the culture war here?
You and your friends on the right. I thought that was the whole point?
Quote
Jessica Yaniv drags a bunch of immigrant service workers through the Human Rights Tribunal process to extort money from them, the women accept legal defense from the only representatives who'll take their case, and you say that THEY are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
Highschool girls are being made to compete against DUDES WITH LONG HAIR and you say that THEY are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit by challenging that policy in court? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
Rapists and violent murderers are "discovering they're actually women" and the authorities are transferring them to women's prisons, and you think the ones who are protesting against it are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
Self-ID On Demand policies allow a registered sex offender identify himself into the women's showers, and you're saying that women who don't want to shower in front of registered sex offenders are the ones inflaming the culture war bullshit? That is FUCKEN DELUSIONAL.
You're pushing this notion that women need to meekly submit to whatever bullshit policies that wokies wish to inflict on them OR ELSE THE BAD GUYS WILL WIN AND ALL WE'LL BE BACK IN THE 1950s, and that is bullshit.
If you need victims of injustice to stay quiet to keep "the bad guys" from winning, YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS.
I love sitting back and watch you go absolutely apeshit on these strawmen.
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 10:26:29 am
Yeah, yeah. Nobody is saying that they don't have the right to express their views. The person who wrote the column is pointing out that the way they express themselves makes them look like a bunch of deranged misogynist lunatics. Personally, I think they should keep going, for about the same reason that I hope news networks keep using Dr Veronica Ivy as their go-to advocate for trans-women in women's sports.
This is the reaction to Margaret Atwood retweeting a Toronto Star column about "gender-inclusive language":
(https://i.imgur.com/xnPJjLt.png)
At least they've dialed back on the threats of **** and murder that they bombarded Rowling with...
-k
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2BtvH6UsAAIgnb?format=jpg&name=small)
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 10:31:45 am
It's not a game. Self-ID-on-demand is a non-negotiable for trans activists. Merager was using Self-ID-On-Demand exactly as intended.
You can't advocate for self-id-on-demand while simultaneously pretending that a serial sex offender self-IDing himself into the women's showers isn't something you support. The two positions are incompatible.
And the fact he was doing this before self-id laws should be a clue that maybe self id laws aren't the issue.
Quote
I certainly don't support anyone being murdered.
...but.
Quote
I see that we had to go to Puerto Rico 20 months ago to find evidence of this alleged epidemic of violence against trans-women. Okay. This story does appear to be an actual hate-crime committed against a trans woman.
Which makes it incredibly rare, actually. Murders of trans people are actually extremely rare. In the US it's usually between 20-30 per year, in the UK it's either 1 or 0 each year, and I have no idea what the statistic is in Canada (there was one in 2019 in Toronto; I remember this because it was blamed on Meghan Murphy having a speech there; that narrative vanished when it turned out the killer was a non-binary person known to the victim.) Given even conservative estimates of the trans population, these work out to very low murder rates. What's more, when you actually look into the specifics of the trans people who are killed each year, one finds that most of the deaths are of non-white sex workers, and the remainder are almost always murders of domestic violence. So this doesn't actually support the claim of an epidemic of violence against trans people. Rather it suggests that, non-white trans-women sex workers are at higher risk of violence for the same reasons that non-white cisgender-women sex workers are at higher risk of violence. And trans-women die from violence at the hands of male partners for more or less the same reasons that cisgender-women die at the hands of male partners.
The murder rate for trans people who aren't non-white sex workers is incredibly miniscule. That might be something to remember well-to-do white "transbian" activists or academics like Charlotte Clymer or Grace Lavery try and sell you on the idea that they take their lives in their hands each time they open their front door.
But yes, it appears you've found an actual hate-crime against a transgender woman.
"It's only a hate crime if they die."-you
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 10:37:42 am
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or if you've suffered some kind of head trauma.
Women feel anxious in the presence of non-passing trans-women because they're aware that they're in the presence of males.
Women don't feel anxious in the presence of passing trans-women because they're not aware that they're in the presence of males.
This really isn't complicated.
Women feel anxious in the presence of male people for reasons that are well known to even the stupidest to wokies, but let me know if you need me to go over that again.
Women in places like India and Africa are fighting like hell to get single-sex spaces so that they can live their lives freer and safer from male violence, and meanwhile here in North America wokies have forgotten why we created single-sex spaces in the first place.
Trans activists and trans allies may say "who gives a **** if women are anxious?" My reply is that people who'd say that are just exposing their misogyny. Women have fought for generations to be able to participate fully in society without fear of male violence and intimidation. You guys want to undo that progress so that Fucken Darren can hang out in the girl's showers.
Wokies: "Using proper pronouns is very important, because being misgendered is extremely traumatizing for trans people. Fear of not being accepted for who they are is really harmful to trans people and makes it hard for them to live their lives."
Also wokies: "Check your entitlement, you **** cis-privileged ****. If you don't feel safe, we don't give a ****. Get over it or stay home!"
-k
Serious question: what percentage of trans people do you think are actually just sex offenders trying to get access to women's spaces for nefarious means? Because you seem to think it's astronomically high. High enough that you're happy sending non creeps to use men's facilities where they are highly likely to be victims of violence or harassment.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 25, 2021, 11:44:48 am
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 11:49:50 am
Since both of you are talking about numbers, I suggest you decide what a significant percentage means... In good faith.. and only then go out and research your claims to see how prevalent they are.
I'd posit the overwhelming majority of transwomen just want to take a **** in peace.
And for all her issues, I actually think kimmy agrees, but for her, any risk, however small, that some creep would exploit self-id laws to gain access to women's spaces is enough for her to throw those people out (that is if they are insufficiently passing).
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 25, 2021, 11:52:33 am
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 12:00:13 pm
I don't think it's unreasonable to screen for imposters.
No, just unrealistic.
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 12:22:13 pm
Quote
Inclusion in women's spaces must be reasonable, rational and arrived at through good faith discussions and debate. Acceptance of limitations and exceptions to that inclusion is just being respectful of the differences in our lived experiences, physiological needs and the historical and ongoing oppression and inequality women face today.
The problem with this ahistorical, po-faced, "can't we all just get along?" rhetoric is that the gender critical side, to the best of my knowledge, isn't interested in inclusion. As our resident TERF makes clear, women's spaces are the sole preserve of natal women, transwomen are men and no accommodation is needed. And i think all this hand wringing about how the mean and nasty woke people intentionally obfuscates that fact, as does the oft-repeated claim that they aren't against transpeople, but "gender ideology."
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 25, 2021, 01:05:17 pm
No, just unrealistic.
Is it ? It doesn't seem like something impractical to me. There's already psychiatric screening for people looking to transition...
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 01:21:16 pm
Is it ? It doesn't seem like something impractical to me. There's already psychiatric screening for people looking to transition...
How do you "screen for imposters" in a change room or bathroom situation?
Post by: Dia on October 25, 2021, 01:53:23 pm
I don't think it's unreasonable to screen for imposters.
I agree, but at the same time how do you screen for imposters effectively? Do a background check on every transwomen (or male claiming to be female)? What kind of burden would that put on businesses or public institutions that serve women and transwomen? Should lesbian women be held to the same standard - a background check to ensure they gave not assaulted other women? How would someone determine who's an imposter without a record, with no intention of misbehaving in any way, and who is not?
I don't think a man should be able to simply claim he's a woman, or vice versa, in order to gain entry to gender specific spaces. As I understand it, in most jurisdictions gender reassignment is only permitted after at least a couple of years therapy and living as their preferred gender for some period of time. I think proof could be provided during that process, though protection from forgeries would have to be considered.
Post by: eyeball on October 25, 2021, 02:22:51 pm
No, just unrealistic.Hence the need for either multi-genderd public washrooms or nothing but single stall private washrooms for any and all.
I fail to see why but for some reason this solution must be the most radical suggestion of all. No one wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Is the expense of public infrastructure even more controversial?
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 02:37:59 pm
I agree, but at the same time how do you screen for imposters effectively? Do a background check on every transwomen (or male claiming to be female)? What kind of burden would that put on businesses or public institutions that serve women and transwomen? Should lesbian women be held to the same standard - a background check to ensure they gave not assaulted other women? How would someone determine who's an imposter without a record, with no intention of misbehaving in any way, and who is not?
I don't think a man should be able to simply claim he's a woman, or vice versa, in order to gain entry to gender specific spaces. As I understand it, in most jurisdictions gender reassignment is only permitted after at least a couple of years therapy and living as their preferred gender for some period of time. I think proof could be provided during that process, though protection from forgeries would have to be considered.
Self-id laws like the kind kimmy rails against mean you don't need to undergo any kind of medical or other screening to change your id, but yes, very few such laws are on the books.
Post by: Black Dog on October 25, 2021, 02:38:51 pm
Hence the need for either multi-genderd public washrooms or nothing but single stall private washrooms for any and all.
I fail to see why but for some reason this solution must be the most radical suggestion of all. No one wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Is the expense of public infrastructure even more controversial?
Because something that would come at such a massive cost simply isn't feasible.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 25, 2021, 03:27:21 pm
As I understand it, in most jurisdictions gender reassignment is only permitted after at least a couple of years therapy and living as their preferred gender for some period of time.
I don't believe in the concept of "gender reassignment". It's just plastic surgery and hormones. I could get plastic surgery to look like a lizard, it doesn't mean I'm a lizard. Gender is what you feel inside and how you identity, it has nothing to do with surgery or hormones, these are just medical activities that make a trans person feel better and look how they want to look. Trans people should be perfectly free to do these things but i don't see how it changes their identity categorization. Nobody should prevent a consenting adult from receiving whatever plastic surgery they want. It's their choice and nobody's business why they want that surgery.
It's different story for minors though, there needs to be some safeguards there IMO since a minor may not fully know what they're doing, so some therapy and wait time seems reasonable.
Quote
I think proof could be provided during that process, though protection from forgeries would have to be considered.
I just don't see this as practical, or even ethical. As I said, I don't think whether you have had surgery or not has anything to do with how you identify or how you feel inside.
Post by: eyeball on October 25, 2021, 09:41:02 pm
Because something that would come at such a massive cost simply isn't feasible.Compared to forcing millions of people, everyone that is, to accept that multi-gender populations can all use the same collective washrooms at the same time regardless of how anyone feels about it? And the only way forward is to invalidate the feelings of anyone who even questions why, by force if necessary.
Good luck with that.
Post by: BC_cheque on October 25, 2021, 11:59:06 pm
Serious question: what percentage of trans people do you think are actually just sex offenders trying to get access to women's spaces for nefarious means? Because you seem to think it's astronomically high. High enough that you're happy sending non creeps to use men's facilities where they are highly likely to be victims of violence or harassment.
This is more or less the question I've asked as well to no avail. There is a whole lot of complaining but other than eyeball, nobody is offering any solutions.
The silence leads me to believe that transgender women should be in men's bathrooms and I suppose the reason nobody wants to say that part out loud is because they would show lack of care for the safety of transgender women which would not bode well for the denial of transphobia.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 26, 2021, 09:25:27 am
I agree, but at the same time how do you screen for imposters effectively? Do a background check on every transwomen (or male claiming to be female)? What kind of burden would that put on businesses or public institutions that serve women and transwomen? Should lesbian women be held to the same standard - a background check to ensure they gave not assaulted other women? How would someone determine who's an imposter without a record, with no intention of misbehaving in any way, and who is not?
We were talking about a prison context and my assumption is that they have a check-in bureaucracy already in place.
In terms of specific contexts you would have to specify what it means.
Post by: Black Dog on October 26, 2021, 09:39:32 am
Compared to forcing millions of people, everyone that is, to accept that multi-gender populations can all use the same collective washrooms at the same time regardless of how anyone feels about it? And the only way forward is to invalidate the feelings of anyone who even questions why, by force if necessary.
Good luck with that.
What the **** are you talking about?
Post by: Black Dog on October 26, 2021, 10:24:31 am
This is more or less the question I've asked as well to no avail. There is a whole lot of complaining but other than eyeball, nobody is offering any solutions.
The silence leads me to believe that transgender women should be in men's bathrooms and I suppose the reason nobody wants to say that part out loud is because they would show lack of care for the safety of transgender women which would not bode well for the denial of transphobia.
I know when I raised the issue about transwomen being put in men's prisons with our resident TERF her actual response was "Why is it up to feminists to solve the problem of violence in men's prisons?" so I can't imagine their views on what happens to them in bathrooms is much different.
Post by: eyeball on October 26, 2021, 11:13:57 am
What the **** are you talking about?Being called a dinosaur and having my feelings on the subject dismissed as invalid. Ironic dont you think given the importance attached to validating peoples feelings about their gender?
Simply suggesting more public washrooms is all I've ever brought to the topic. Wtf?
Post by: Black Dog on October 26, 2021, 11:20:36 am
Being called a dinosaur and having my feelings on the subject dismissed as invalid. Ironic dont you think given the importance attached to validating peoples feelings about their gender?
Simply suggesting more public washrooms is all I've ever brought to the topic. Wtf?
Who is invalidating anyone's feelings by force?
Sorry you felt someone was mean to you and there's nothing wrong with the concept of providing a third space, but the problem is it's just not really practical.
Post by: The Cynic on October 26, 2021, 04:41:14 pm
I know when I raised the issue about transwomen being put in men's prisons with our resident TERF her actual response was "Why is it up to feminists to solve the problem of violence in men's prisons?" so I can't imagine their views on what happens to them in bathrooms is much different.
Trans women in men's prisons can simply wear the same outfits as the rest of the population there. Then nobody would know they were any different than any other man. But put them in women's prisons and you suddenly have a group which is larger, stronger, and motivated to sexually harass and assault women. Which has happened. This is especially an issue given that in some areas they don't have to be taking any kind of steps to live the life of a woman but can simply declare themselves to be a woman after their arrest. Even if the arrest was for sexual's assault on a woman.
Post by: Black Dog on October 26, 2021, 09:22:57 pm
Trans women in men's prisons can simply wear the same outfits as the rest of the population there. Then nobody would know they were any different than any other man.
Yo how do you think prisons work?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 26, 2021, 09:58:00 pm
Easy test for trans bathroom admittance: power-punch to the pu*ssy. If person says "ouch" admittance is granted.
Post by: eyeball on October 27, 2021, 12:26:31 am
Who is invalidating anyone's feelings by force?The law will if it keeps going in the direction its heading.
Quote
Sorry you felt someone was mean to you and there's nothing wrong with the concept of providing a third space, but the problem is it's just not really practical.Not mean just so utterly convinced of their certainty they couldn't help themselves. That's human nature raw and unplugged lol.
Again I ask, not practical compared to making millions upon millions of people accept a new staus quo regardless of how they feel about it? This seems to reflect a poor understanding or awareness of human nature and some sense that it can be changed by informing people their ignorance is preventing them from seeing reality. Seems to be a lot of that going around.
A friend of mine tried to posit that its actually only a small handful not millions who will be put off by multi-genderd collective public washrooms. He asked for evidence that it would be in the millions and I asked for evidence that most people will be perfectly okay with it. He's willing to go out on a limb and suggest that as much as half the human race are and have been naturally transexual since our species climbed out of the trees. One thing he suggested is evidence of widespread natural human sexual dysphoria was based on the fact that penguin males sometimes raise a chick between them. It seems people really have to stretch to make a point.
Interestingly enough he felt my solution was and would likely be the compromise we finally come up with. To bridge the gap between where we are now and when people can shower together like Starship Troopers!
Thay would be fun and I guess that's just my own nature - I just love a good freakers ball!
Post by: Black Dog on October 27, 2021, 09:59:23 am
The law will if it keeps going in the direction its heading.
Oh for sure, just like every other slippery slope that every other moral panic was going to lead to.
Quote
Again I ask, not practical compared to making millions upon millions of people accept a new staus quo regardless of how they feel about it? This seems to reflect a poor understanding or awareness of human nature and some sense that it can be changed by informing people their ignorance is preventing them from seeing reality. Seems to be a lot of that going around.
Changing minds is easier and cheaper than changing infrastructure. For one thing, it costs nothing.
To be clear: i think your solution is a good one, except for the fact it would cost tens of millions, if not billions, of dollars to implement.
Post by: eyeball on October 27, 2021, 10:33:10 am
Oh for sure, just like every other slippery slope that every other moral panic was going to lead to.With the moral entreprenuers in the lead.
Quote
Changing minds is easier and cheaper than changing infrastructure. For one thing, it costs nothing.How many millions and billions are spent to make society more accessible and safe to handicapped people in wheelchairs? There's 4 quadrillion dollars on the planet and a chunk of metal out in the asteroid belt worth another $10000 quadrillion. All in good time I guess but it's the lack of will not money mucking things up.
To be clear: i think your solution is a good one, except for the fact it would cost tens of millions, if not billions, of dollars to implement.
Post by: Black Dog on October 27, 2021, 10:37:36 am
With the moral entreprenuers in the lead.
Sure, been to any man-dog weddings lately?
Quote
How many millions and billions are spent to make society more accessible and safe to handicapped people in wheelchairs? There's 4 quadrillion dollars on the planet and a chunk of metal out in the asteroid belt worth another $10000 trillion. All in good time I guess but it's the lack of will not money mucking things up.
If you consider how bad we are at building accessible infrastructure for the disabled, this is not the defense you think it is.
And yeah, the money is there, but as with accessibility, the will to spend it is not.
Post by: eyeball on October 27, 2021, 10:50:58 am
Sure, been to any man-dog weddings lately?Haven't got a clue what that is and I doubt if I do.
Quote
If you consider how bad we are at building accessible infrastructure for the disabled, this is not the defense you think it is.I think it's more of a direction than a defense.
Quote
And yeah, the money is there, but as with accessibility, the will to spend it is not.Like you said above minds need to be changed.
Post by: Black Dog on October 27, 2021, 10:56:45 am
Haven't got a clue what that is and I doubt if I do.
When gay marriage was being debated, one of the slippery slope arguments was that it would lead to human-animal nuptials, which is in the same vein to me as your claim that the government will forcibly invalidate people's feelings, whatever the hell that means.
Post by: eyeball on October 27, 2021, 11:15:40 am
Quote from: Black Dog link=topic=119.msg81741#msg81741 koopdate=1635350205
When gay marriage was being debated, one of the slippery slope arguments was that it would lead to human-animal nuptials, which is in the same vein to me as your claim that the government will forcibly invalidate people's feelings, whatever the hell that means.Perhaps it's more a matter of benign neglect where governments seem willing to hang back while accusations of transphobia morph into hostility and acrimony and ultimately leave it to the courts to settle the issues and compel governments to accommodate everyone...with more public washrooms.
Post by: The Cynic on October 27, 2021, 03:15:33 pm
Yo how do you think prisons work?
I suppose this is supposed to be a trick question but I don't know what sort of answer you expect me to make.
Absent clothes, a trans man who hasn't done anything physically to adjust their body is male to any other prisoner in a male prison. Not so if she is in a female prison.
Post by: Black Dog on October 27, 2021, 03:33:49 pm
I suppose this is supposed to be a trick question but I don't know what sort of answer you expect me to make.
Absent clothes, a trans man who hasn't done anything physically to adjust their body is male to any other prisoner in a male prison. Not so if she is in a female prison.
You don't think there are other ways to perform gender?
Post by: The Cynic on October 27, 2021, 03:37:33 pm
You don't think there are other ways to perform gender?
I think that if a guy discovers he's a girl when very young by the time he goes to prison he ought to have done something about that. If he only recently discovered it then I have no doubt he has the experience and can 'pass' as a guy while in prison.
And frankly, I'm more concerned with the possibility a woman will find herself locked in a cell with a male sex offender than that a transwoman will have to act like she is a man again for a few months or years.
Post by: Black Dog on October 27, 2021, 04:11:19 pm
I think that if a guy discovers he's a girl when very young by the time he goes to prison he ought to have done something about that. If he only recently discovered it then I have no doubt he has the experience and can 'pass' as a guy while in prison.
And frankly, I'm more concerned with the possibility a woman will find herself locked in a cell with a male sex offender than that a transwoman will have to act like she is a man again for a few months or years.
You should be more concerned that female prisoners are more likely to be sexually assaulted by correctional officers or other natal female prisoners than a trans inmate but I doubt the welfare of female convicts is a real concern or you at all.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 27, 2021, 05:34:47 pm
In the world of politics, translates people could accept that as a compromise and we would have a new baseline for acceptance of these people in the prison system
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 27, 2021, 09:34:09 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 27, 2021, 10:06:32 pm
This thread has 2200 posts and almost 20,000 views.
We are amazing 😊
Post by: The Cynic on October 28, 2021, 07:39:19 pm
You should be more concerned that female prisoners are more likely to be sexually assaulted by correctional officers or other natal female prisoners than a trans inmate but I doubt the welfare of female convicts is a real concern or you at all.
Go f*ck yourself. As if you care about human beings at all. Like most on the fringe left all you care about is ideological purity. And if other people have to be sacrificed in the name of that purity you're perfectly fine with that. I have a lot more empathy for human beings of all kinds than you'll ever experience, you sociopath.
Post by: The Cynic on October 28, 2021, 07:42:52 pm
Well I do think it's telling that right wingers are concerned about prison conditions.. possibly for the first time ever I think a simple test of some kind would ring true as common sense for most people.
In the world of politics, translates people could accept that as a compromise and we would have a new baseline for acceptance of these people in the prison system
I designed a new kind of prison years ago for college, what a prison SHOULD be like. Focusing on rehabilitation for all but the most violent retrograde people, and ensuring everyone remained safe and secure in their persons. It would have been a co-ed prison except for sex offenders, though with separate male and female dorms. It would have a kind of 'town' centre with workshops, factories, and even clubs for socializing and dancing (no alcohol).
You people need to stop getting your belief about what a conservative is from watching the US.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 28, 2021, 08:39:05 pm
You people need to stop getting your belief about what a conservative is from watching the US.
A conservative believes in old ways... and so I am one. That means: unions, pensions, freedom, tolerance, ecology and fair taxes.
Nixon was more of a leftist than Bernie Sanders.
Post by: The Cynic on October 28, 2021, 09:11:27 pm
A conservative believes in old ways... and so I am one. That means: unions, pensions, freedom, tolerance, ecology and fair taxes.
Nixon was more of a leftist than Bernie Sanders.
I believe in all that too. Elon Musk needs to pay some damn taxes! Harvest as many trees as you want, but replace them, 1 for 1. Build that pipeline. But every penny of any cleanup costs is on you. Sure you can have a mine, but clean up after yourself. And if your company goes bankrupt then the money comes from every senior executive over the past however long it was that your company wasn't properly taking care of its pollution, even if we have to seize your bank and investment accounts, along with your house and pension. That also goes for you not paying into the worker's pensions properly. If they end up broke at the end so do you. I am all in favor of business getting on with business. But if you cause trouble for others you're gonna pay for it. I'm in favour of unions, but not so much with political involvement of government unions.
Post by: Dia on October 29, 2021, 08:28:07 am
I designed a new kind of prison years ago for college, what a prison SHOULD be like. Focusing on rehabilitation for all but the most violent retrograde people, and ensuring everyone remained safe and secure in their persons. It would have been a co-ed prison except for sex offenders, though with separate male and female dorms. It would have a kind of 'town' centre with workshops, factories, and even clubs for socializing and dancing (no alcohol).
You people need to stop getting your belief about what a conservative is from watching the US.
I wasn't even thinking you were conservative, so thanks for clarifying.
I haven't gotten my ideas of conservatives from watching the US, but from what I see online among Canadians. Glad to see an exception from the usual crop of RW extremists.
Did have a guy I knew in real-life call me a communist and declare his intention to stop talking to me because I posted on FB that people should be taught critical thinking skills; somehow he took this to mean that I was in favor of "re-education camps, like they have in China". Stuff like that doesn't help conservatives in general.
Post by: Black Dog on October 29, 2021, 01:39:12 pm
Go f*ck yourself. As if you care about human beings at all. Like most on the fringe left all you care about is ideological purity. And if other people have to be sacrificed in the name of that purity you're perfectly fine with that. I have a lot more empathy for human beings of all kinds than you'll ever experience, you sociopath.
cry more.
Post by: The Cynic on October 29, 2021, 05:06:20 pm
I wasn't even thinking you were conservative, so thanks for clarifying.
I haven't gotten my ideas of conservatives from watching the US, but from what I see online among Canadians. Glad to see an exception from the usual crop of RW extremists.
Did have a guy I knew in real-life call me a communist and declare his intention to stop talking to me because I posted on FB that people should be taught critical thinking skills; somehow he took this to mean that I was in favor of "re-education camps, like they have in China". Stuff like that doesn't help conservatives in general.
I'll be the first to admit there are a lot of idiot conservatives. You see a lot of them in the US and I find them infuriating. But this COVID thing has brought up a lot of ridiculous and paranoid thinking among conservatives here, too and I think they're being influenced by the Americans. Plus I don't see a lot of conservative politicians trumpeting conservative values. Not Doug Ford. Not Jason Kenny. Not Erin O'Toole. It's like they're afraid to be conservative because it's a lot harder to explain the complicated economic policies in a soundbite to people who just want politicians who promise them stuff without worrying about how it's going to be paid for.
Post by: eyeball on October 29, 2021, 07:14:33 pm
I'll be the first to admit there are a lot of idiot conservatives. You see a lot of them in the US and I find them infuriating. But this COVID thing has brought up a lot of ridiculous and paranoid thinking among conservatives here, too and I think they're being influenced by the Americans. Plus I don't see a lot of conservative politicians trumpeting conservative values. Not Doug Ford. Not Jason Kenny. Not Erin O'Toole. It's like they're afraid to be conservative because it's a lot harder to explain the complicated economic policies in a soundbite to people who just want politicians who promise them stuff without worrying about how it's going to be paid for.I don't know if conservatives make up the largest share of people prone to the fantastical thinking that religion preaches. I do suspect there is one tenet however that dovetails deeply with the shape of their own peculiar desire for a free lunch - our world is just for practice and it really doesn't matter what happens to it because Gawd has another one waiting in the afterlife. So party like its 1999.
COVID was never responsible for the stupidity that saturates society it merely took advantage of it.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 29, 2021, 09:26:21 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 30, 2021, 05:43:20 am
Can we rename this thread to "Gender-Bender Culture"?
No, sorry. All cultures are final.
Post by: Black Dog on October 30, 2021, 10:05:18 am
I'll be the first to admit there are a lot of idiot conservatives. You see a lot of them in the US and I find them infuriating. But this COVID thing has brought up a lot of ridiculous and paranoid thinking among conservatives here, too and I think they're being influenced by the Americans. Plus I don't see a lot of conservative politicians trumpeting conservative values. Not Doug Ford. Not Jason Kenny. Not Erin O'Toole. It's like they're afraid to be conservative because it's a lot harder to explain the complicated economic policies in a soundbite to people who just want politicians who promise them stuff without worrying about how it's going to be paid for.
LOL the entirety of conservative economic policies can be summed up by "the rich shouldn't pay taxes." And you wonder why they won't want to say that too loud.
Post by: Dia on October 30, 2021, 11:52:16 am
like they're afraid to be conservative because it's a lot harder to explain the complicated economic policies in a soundbite to people who just want politicians who promise them stuff without worrying about how it's going to be paid for.
They do put out simplistic ideas: "Vote for us! Pay less taxes! Get everything you have now plus .... " I, personally, am not impressed with the "less taxes" soundbite. I'd rather have "We think we can reduce taxes; here's how we'll do it (insert detailed information here). Instead, I get the 'less taxes' promises, and then when they win - maybe $10 less is taken off my paycheque, big whoop. But I still don't really know how they can do everything, if they have less money to do it with. I do hear about social programs being cut, big soundbites there.
On the other side, lower taxes - or at least no rise - is promised, while programs that would actually help people are promoted and, as you say, no real explanation of how those things will be paid for. But that party wins and I notice nothing on my paycheque and no certainty as to whether the promised social programs actually were implemented or did any good.
Still over time, I pay more taxes, my relative income decreases, I see more homeless/drug addicts on the street, hear lots about violent crime, see more schools with portables, find out more people are living in poverty, hear more stories about long waits at hospitals, people unable to even find a doctor, people having to take on impossible debt for higher education, etc. These issues haven't been solved with either conservatives or liberals, regardless of whether they lead for one or several terms.
I don't think either conservatives or liberals have "the answer". I think claiming one team and dismissing the other team - as politicians and their followers do - is unsustainable in the long term. I think politicians - and their followers - have to drop their flags, get together and actually work out a plan that addresses everyone's concerns, whether it's money, climate change, social programs or whatever.
Post by: The Cynic on October 31, 2021, 12:20:25 pm
They do put out simplistic ideas: "Vote for us! Pay less taxes! Get everything you have now plus .... " I, personally, am not impressed with the "less taxes" soundbite.Nor am I, but it seems like it's the only thing they can fit in a sound bite. The complex explanations of how certain economic policies will benefit our economy and result in more opportunities and more wealth require someone who is articulate and can put his or her information out there in a quick, easy to understand way which won't bore people. I haven't seen a tory able to do that for some time.
Quote
On the other side, lower taxes - or at least no rise - is promised, while programs that would actually help people are promoted and, as you say, no real explanation of how those things will be paid for. But that party wins and I notice nothing on my paycheque and no certainty as to whether the promised social programs actually were implemented or did any good.
There seems to be ever more social programs. Always there are more programs to combat homelessness, to help the poor, to deal with every manner of societal malediction, and yet things don't seem to get better, and there are no fewer homeless. But we do have higher taxes and higher borrowing and higher debt.
Quote
Still over time, I pay more taxes, my relative income decreases, I see more homeless/drug addicts on the street, hear lots about violent crime, see more schools with portables, find out more people are living in poverty, hear more stories about long waits at hospitals, people unable to even find a doctor, people having to take on impossible debt for higher education, etc. These issues haven't been solved with either conservatives or liberals, regardless of whether they lead for one or several terms.
Once in office politicians seem to lose interest in anything not overly ideological. That includes Trudeau, who fixates on relatively unimportant stuff like censoring the internet or banning gay conversion therapy and hunting rifles that look too military, legalizing marijuana and trans rights bills. I'm not speaking of whether any of those policies are good or bad but doing something to improve the lives of and integrate natives, dealing with the shortage of doctors and hospital beds, lowering our massive deficit, and dealing with how the new economy is failing workers are way more important to the country.
Post by: kimmy on November 12, 2021, 04:16:55 pm
This is more or less the question I've asked as well to no avail. There is a whole lot of complaining but other than eyeball, nobody is offering any solutions.
The silence leads me to believe that transgender women should be in men's bathrooms and I suppose the reason nobody wants to say that part out loud is because they would show lack of care for the safety of transgender women which would not bode well for the denial of transphobia.
I'm sure I've responded to this at least once. So, first off I'm not as concerned about bathrooms because in theory you can provide some level of privacy in bathrooms.
I say "in theory" because it seems as though when they're converting women's washrooms into all-gender washrooms, all they do is change the sign on the door. So you get these stalls with a big gap under the divider, as at UBC-Kim City. Article: RCMP guilt-trips UBC student out of pressing complaint against serial voyeur. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubco-voyeurism-rcmp-investigation-student-1.5917288) Note that this wasn't in the news because a guy got caught filming a girl in the newly-unisexed washroom. It wasn't even in the news because the same guy has been caught doing it five times. It was in the news because of police misconduct. How often does this happen? We can't really know; we do know that before PornHub purged unverifiable content from their library, there were tens of thousands of voyeur videos of women filmed without their consent in washrooms and changing rooms.
Some places have implemented unisex bathrooms well. A few of the establishments I go to have unisex bathrooms; they all provide either a single-occupancy washroom for each individual, or a full floor-to-ceiling privacy barrier around each toilet. I feel safe in those situations. I'd feel much less safe in situations where they've clearly given no consideration to women's privacy.
I would honestly prefer that trans women continue to use women's washrooms than to see women's washrooms converted into unisex washrooms. Being in the same washroom as the occasional trans woman is not nearly the ordeal that sharing washrooms with cisgender men all the time would be.
There's a gigantic disconnect in logic between "cisgender men are too dangerous for trans women to share washrooms with" and "let's turn women's washrooms into unisex spaces!" Cisgender men are too dangerous for trans women to share spaces with... so let's make all women share spaces with cisgender men? What could go wrong?
I've posted articles on this earlier in this thread. University of Toronto implements unisex facilities in dorms; University of Toronto cancels unisex facilities in dorms because of rampant complaints about voyeurism. Parents complaint after their children's middle-school changes most washrooms to unisex; complaints of boys peeking through gaps around stall doors, peeking over barriers, peeking under barriers, trying to take video; all the girls in the school end up lining up for the one washroom that had been left as girls-only. I've read about young women saying that they shower off-campus at a friend's place because they are uncomfortable showering in the unisex facilities at their residences.
Imagine you're in junior high and you're trying to change a tampon or just use the washroom, and there's boys trying to peek between the gaps in the barrier, or listening at the door, or holding their cell phone camera over or under the barrier. It's **** inhumane that school officials would inflict something like that on young girls. It makes me want to puke.
I'd propose that the policy be that public institutions (schools, colleges, government buildings of whatever sort) don't convert any women's washroom into a unisex space until the have done the work to improve the privacy. Private establishments... people will vote with their wallets if they feel you don't provide adequate facilities.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 12, 2021, 05:21:07 pm
QuoteAlso, you write this as if you're sure that the people writing this stuff online aren't the same people spreading these ideas at their college LGBT+ associations or highschool Gay-Straight Alliances and other LGBT+ spaces. Why would you assume that?Why would you assume they are?
Because I've read accounts from young women who've been bullied out of LGBT groups, or don't feel safe going to gay-friendly spaces anymore.
And event if it were limited to online only stuff, online stuff is often the first point of contact if you're a young person trying to sort out sexual identity issues. You don't come out in person to your friends, you go on the internet and start reaching out anonymously on social media because it's safer. So you get on Reddit or whatever and there's this wall of trans propaganda waiting for you.
Did they tell the PBs to leave? Do you know for a fact they weren't invited?
The initial event was organized by "Cubana Angel" and her church. The suggestion that maybe she or her church have a secret back-channel to white supremacist goons seems like something that a conspiracy-kook would come up with.
Once she posted the flyer on her Instagram page, a lot of people (including Antifa types, trans activists and woke allies, GC feminists, Q-anons, Proud Boys, and more) announced their intent to be there as well.
Do you think the Proud boys are genuinely interested in women's rights here?
Obviously not. They just wanted to beat up some Antifas. I doubt they would have attended at all if Antifa-types hadn't announced their intention to show up.
No, it's a fallacy, whataboutism. And you're still hiding behind it.
I already addressed your accusation: it's not concern trolling; I genuinely believe that progressives are handing conservatives ammunition to shoot them with.
And as you're a concern troll yourself, your concern over concern trolling is, itself, concern trolling. It's turtles all the way down.
QuoteYou keep trying to claim that there's a link between challenging bad laws in court and Proud Boys showing up at a protest, but repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more true the second time or the third time or however many times you're at.Because it's not just about "challenging bad laws in court" but whipping up a massive moral panic that will inevitably empower the same groups who would throw you in a bin if they could.
If you're willing to throw people under the bus to avoid this "massive moral panic", you're not actually the good guys.
Feel better after all that?
You know you can google the story and find a shitload of coverage on the story and the charges beyond the two or three you're obsessing over here.
In one thread here you're complaining about the CTV piece on detransition as being unbalanced, and meanwhile in this thread you've promoted this fake-news article pushing an ideologically driven narrative, seemingly without even recognizing the disconnect between your concern and your actions.
If you publish fake-news articles slandering the victims of a sex-offender, you're not actually the good guys.
QuoteWHO is fanning the flames of the culture war here?You and your friends on the right. I thought that was the whole point?
The people who have championed positions that normal sane people find absurd and then call anybody who isn't on board Nazis and fascists are just as guilty of inflaming a culture war as any demagogue on Fox News.
I love sitting back and watch you go absolutely apeshit on these strawmen.
These aren't strawmen, these are positions that wokies have championed.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 12, 2021, 11:15:59 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2BtvH6UsAAIgnb?format=jpg&name=small)
I have a hunch that this isn't the stance you took when women and minorities were being hounded off Twitter by Milo Yiannopoulos and his legions of alt-right followers, or by the GamerGaters.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 12, 2021, 11:18:35 pm
I know when I raised the issue about transwomen being put in men's prisons with our resident TERF her actual response was "Why is it up to feminists to solve the problem of violence in men's prisons?" so I can't imagine their views on what happens to them in bathrooms is much different.
Wasn't your response to that issue something along the lines of "So? Those women aren't angels"?
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 12, 2021, 11:41:11 pm
"It's only a hate crime if they die."-you
It's not minimizing this person's death to point out that while tragic it's not evidence of a "trans genocide" going on. We could acknowledge that if a person were kicked to death by a momma deer protecting her baby, it would be tragic, while also acknowledging that there's not any evidence of a mass genocide of humans by deer. There's no evidence of a "trans genocide", indeed the evidence we have appears to indicate that murder rates for trans people are actually lower than average.
So you point out that hate crime doesn't necessarily mean murder. That's a good point. But hate crime data from the US indicates by a very large margin most hate crimes involve race and religion. And according to the US data, even considering just hate crimes involving sexual orientation and gender identity, the large majority of victims are gay men, not trans or genderfabulous people.
So then I imagine the next thing is "okay well maybe trans people are victims of lots of non-murder hate crimes that just don't get reported to the authorities." But the only evidence to support that claim comes from non-scientific opt-in volunteered response surveys. Coming from people who claim that misgendering is "literal violence", I think that kind of data needs to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.
I don't doubt that trans people might hear hurtful comments as they go about their day. But so does everybody else, with the possible exception of cis white men.
-k
Post by: kimmy on November 13, 2021, 12:08:11 am
On a related note, the Scottish woman being prosecuted for wrongthink, Marion Millar, has obtained legal representation in the form of lawyer and Scottish MP Joanna Cherry. Which is probably better than being represented by a right-wing religious freedom outfit. Millar was supposed to make her first court appearance tomorrow, but the prosecution have announced that they are postponing the hearing until August 17. No reason was given.
I can only assume that the prosecutor must have had a nervous breakdown or mental health crisis at the prospect of appearing in court to argue that a picture of a suffragette ribbon constitutes a hate crime.
After multiple postponements, Scottish prosecutors have discontinued the case against Marion Millar. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59076966
They dragged proceedings on for as long as they could to keep the Sword of Damocles dangling over Millar for as long as possible; when more delays were no longer viable they punted. Discontinuing the case means they don't have to face a crushing legal defeat which would dissuade them from doing the same thing to someone else. They don't actually even want to go to court and risk defeat, because that would mean they'd have to stop this tactic. They're happy doing what they're doing, which is to use the process itself as the punishment. In regard to the months of anxiety and legal expense they inflicted upon Marion Millar they will simply say "well, we have discontinued the case, so no harm no foul, carry on, pip-pip" and move on to inflicting the same anxiety and legal expenses upon the next woman.
The next woman has already been picked; her name is Ceri Black, a Northern Ireland lesbian who police "requested" come for an interview regarding something-or-other she posted on the Bird App. She has publicly stated that she's not coming; they will have come arrest her. The police have embarked on a strategy of begging and/or pleading with Black (https://twitter.com/FemmeLoves/status/1453020812135522314)to get an interview.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 13, 2021, 12:18:50 am
Post by: Black Dog on November 13, 2021, 01:35:04 pm
Wasn't your response to that issue something along the lines of "So? Those women aren't angels"?
-k
No, that's super f(cked up.
Post by: Black Dog on November 13, 2021, 01:39:31 pm
It's not minimizing this person's death to point out that while tragic it's not evidence of a "trans genocide" going on.
Which wasn't something I claimed; rather, that kind of thing is an inevitable consequence of your preferred shitter policy.
Post by: Black Dog on November 13, 2021, 01:58:29 pm
She's been accused (and has admitted to) sexually assaulting multiple women (https://mobile.twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1453149042125332480) (including in bathrooms, ironically enough).
Oh and her website was pulled down after she posted some extremely violent and f*cked up (https://mobile.twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1455574098717913096) stuff about murdering trans people.
I only mention this because she was something of a poster child for the "trans people are pressuring lesbians for sex!" angle and that despite what some might claim, the hate isn't a one way street.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 18, 2021, 12:34:45 pm
Imagine you're in junior high and you're trying to change a tampon or just use the washroom, and there's boys trying to peek between the gaps in the barrier, or listening at the door, or holding their cell phone camera over or under the barrier. It's **** inhumane that school officials would inflict something like that on young girls. It makes me want to puke.
FWIW I still am not interested much in the content of the arguments as much as the framing of the debate... BUT... I went to high school in Europe with unisex bathrooms and it was not a big deal. If you were stupid enough to hang around in a bathroom and behave badly you would be easily caught and reported...
But your fears aren't irrational either.
Post by: kimmy on November 28, 2021, 05:47:51 pm
FWIW I still am not interested much in the content of the arguments as much as the framing of the debate... BUT... I went to high school in Europe with unisex bathrooms and it was not a big deal. If you were stupid enough to hang around in a bathroom and behave badly you would be easily caught and reported...
But your fears aren't irrational either.
From last week, another reminder that teenage boys are just animals with less fur:
https://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/education/councillors-hear-of-claims-that-boys-at-jedburgh-grammar-campus-waved-sanitary-products-like-flags-3471533
School administrators who inflict this kind of humiliation on teenage girls are either stupid or they just hate girls. Either way, they're not fit for their offices and should be terminated. Ideally they would also be marched down to town square and pelted with rotting fruit.
It might not seem like a big deal to you now; maybe when Peasy is older you'll feel differently.
FWIW I still am not interested much in the content of the arguments as much as the framing of the debate...
So on that front, I never did get your thoughts on that fake news article Black Dog posted, where Slate and a number of other left-wing websites were all pushing the narrative that the Wi Spa incident was a hoax, based on nothing more than speculation. Why are lefties so comfortable with fake news? You guys howl about right-wing sites covering stories in a way that you feel pushes an agenda, yet it seems clear that it's not so much the pushing of an agenda you guys disagree with, it's whether you support the agenda being pushed.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2021, 05:54:19 pm
Post by: Black Dog on November 28, 2021, 07:58:55 pm
So on that front, I never did get your thoughts on that fake news article Black Dog posted, where Slate and a number of other left-wing websites were all pushing the narrative that the Wi Spa incident was a hoax, based on nothing more than speculation. Why are lefties so comfortable with fake news? You guys howl about right-wing sites covering stories in a way that you feel pushes an agenda, yet it seems clear that it's not so much the pushing of an agenda you guys disagree with, it's whether you support the agenda being pushed.
-k
Yeah because all we had at the time was one claim by a person with a documented anti-LGBTQ agenda before this happened and a video which somehow managed to not include the alleged perpetrator. That you'd lump incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence in with "fake news" aka deliberately false or misleading propaganda shows you aren't addressing this in good faith at all.
Post by: kimmy on December 19, 2021, 10:59:19 pm
Yeah because all we had at the time was one claim by a person with a documented anti-LGBTQ agenda before this happened and a video which somehow managed to not include the alleged perpetrator. That you'd lump incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence in with "fake news" aka deliberately false or misleading propaganda shows you aren't addressing this in good faith at all.
So much wrong packed into such a short message. Let's have a closer look.
Quote
Yeah because all we had at the time was one claim
"We don't have any solid information so let's publish some unsourced speculation" is probably not something you'd hear in a credible news room.
The "hoax" claim in the headline of the Slate article you posted was based entirely on comments from an internet message board called "TransSafety.net" plus a post from the Los Angeles Blade which itself was based on more internet speculation and a claim from a make-believe source within the LAPD.
The Slate story you linked to, The Daily Beast, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Insider (and possibly other popular "progressive" sites like Vice, Daily Dot, and Vox) all decided to amplify these baseless claims because it fit the narrative they liked. It "fit their priors" to borrow your phrase.
Quote
by a person with a documented anti-LGBTQ agenda before this happened
cite? As far as I know her alleged "anti-LGBTQ" agenda consists of belonging to an evangelical church.
Quote
and a video which somehow managed to not include the alleged perpetrator.
It's funny to me that you and the super-sleuths of Trans social media are mystified as to why she stopped recording before she entered the **** AREA of the spa.
Quote
That you'd lump incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence in with "fake news" aka deliberately false or misleading propaganda
"Incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence" is an incredibly generous description. A more accurate description would be "agenda-driven reporting based on unsubstantiated claims."
If they had any intention of doing real reporting on this story, these outlets would have reported that a suspect had been named and a warrant had been issued. They didn't. Of all these outfits, The Guardian was the only one who published a new article after a warrant was issued for the arrest of Darren Merager (before immediately doubling down on "the transes are the real victims in all of this.") Your Slate article was updated with a footnote acknowledging that a warrant had been issued. Washington Post and Insider were completely silent. The Daily Beast didn't just stay silent, they also deleted their earlier story.
Trying to spin this as "incomplete reporting" is laughable because they had no intention of providing more complete reporting when the truth emerged. They made two extremely slanted decisions. First they published stories pushing this hoax narrative based on the flimsiest possible information. Second when real actual facts emerged they declined to post the update and let their "progressive" readers go on assuming the hoax claim was the end of it.
In short: they published the initial "hoax" claims because it was a narrative they liked, and they dropped the story when it stopped fitting a narrative they liked.
The result is that people like yourself spread this story around social media, without ever hearing the update. I doubt that you heard that they charged a suspect until I held the story under your nose. I doubt that people who helped spread this "hoax" allegation on their social media did anything to spread the truth once it emerged, even if they did learn the truth.
This is no different than some outfit like Fox (or Rebel Media or whatever) publishing some inflammatory junk about Obama and then posting a brief retraction a few days later in a time-slot when nobody is watching. But you're willing to make excuses for it in this case, because the false narrative being peddled is one that you support.
Quote
shows you aren't addressing this in good faith at all.
Good faith is certainly not coming from the side that pushed this "it's a hoax" narrative vociferously and then vanished into the woodwork when a suspect was named and charged.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 19, 2021, 11:37:43 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/QgLfWua.png)
One of the pieces of evidence presented against Forstater at the tribunal was that she had referred to this individual:
(https://i.imgur.com/uZi3QmK.png)
...as a "him". That individual, a Scottish politician/activist named Gregor Murray, is clearly not a "him" and is obviously a they/them person.
As you can tell from the picture, Murray was a Scout Leader at the time, as was Forstater. Murray complained to the Scouting association about being misgendered, which set off a long formal investigation of Forstater by the Scouts, which was used as evidence against Forstater at the tribunal.
Today, two years to the day after she lost her initial tribunal case, the Scouts issued an apology to Forstater for the investigation.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 20, 2021, 12:01:42 am
As "Will", Thomas was a relative nobody in the world of men's competitive swimming, but after taking a year off during covid to transform into "Lia", Thomas is the #1 college swimmer in the US.
Thomas is completely humiliating the female women by winning races by laughably large margins (a 38 second margin in one race) and bragging about it afterward ("That was so easy. I was just coasting.")
The Thomas story, like many other stories about trans women in women's sports, includes Thomas assuring an interviewer "the other girls are so supportive!" with the conspicuous absence of comment from female team-mates.
A couple of Thomas's team-mates spoke out anonymously last week, telling a website that their "support" for Thomas is very fake, and that they only do it because they feel they have to. They said that they have all individually told the coach they're unhappy with the situation and that he doesn't care and just wants to win. After their comments were published the U Penn athletics department rounded up the female swimmers and "strongly advised" them against talking to anybody about Thomas again.
-k
Post by: kimmy on December 20, 2021, 12:24:42 am
Remember Lily Cade, the **** actress and **** producer who makes **** for lesbians who became a TERF star for refusing to have sex with a trans performer?
She's been accused (and has admitted to) sexually assaulting multiple women (https://mobile.twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1453149042125332480) (including in bathrooms, ironically enough).
Oh and her website was pulled down after she posted some extremely violent and f*cked up (https://mobile.twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1455574098717913096) stuff about murdering trans people.
I only mention this because she was something of a poster child for the "trans people are pressuring lesbians for sex!" angle and that despite what some might claim, the hate isn't a one way street.
Sometimes people making outrageous demands hate people who won't accede to their demands, and sometimes the people of which outrageous demands are being made hate people who are making outrageous demands of them.
If you're talking about Lily Cade, then I assume you are aware of the BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385)and all the outrage it stirred up.
The "cotton ceiling" type rhetoric is real and widespread among "transbians" and their allies and it's no secret. But when the BBC publishes an article acknowledging that this is a real thing that lesbians are experiencing, wokies go ballistic. Howls of rage, calls for the police to investigate it as a hate crime, demands for apologies or retractions or for the article to be removed entirely.
As with the college swimmers, can't have the natal women saying things that are anything short of breathlessly enthusiastic about trans-women colonizing their spaces.
The head of the UK's largest LGBT group is quoted in the article, likening lesbians who don't like dick to people who won't date outside their own race:
Quote
Stonewall is the largest LGBT organisation in the UK and Europe. I asked the charity about these issues but it was unable to provide anyone for interview. However, in a statement, chief executive Nancy Kelley likened not wanting to date trans people to not wanting to date people of colour, fat people, or disabled people.
She said: "Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to.
"Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.
"We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."
I think it's worth pointing out that Stonewall (like it's counterparts in Canada and the US) was an organization founded expressly for the purpose of defending gay people's right to "write off entire groups of people" from their sex lives.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on December 20, 2021, 11:18:00 am
Sometimes people making outrageous demands hate people who won't accede to their demands, and sometimes the people of which outrageous demands are being made hate people who are making outrageous demands of them.
So you're saying trans activists made Lily Cade sexually assault all those women? Or maybe she's really not at all well in the head and the TERF stuff is part of that.
Quote
If you're talking about Lily Cade, then I assume you are aware of the BBC article and all the outrage it stirred up.
The "cotton ceiling" type rhetoric is real and widespread among "transbians" and their allies and it's no secret. But when the BBC publishes an article acknowledging that this is a real thing that lesbians are experiencing, wokies go ballistic. Howls of rage, calls for the police to investigate it as a hate crime, demands for apologies or retractions or for the article to be removed entirely.
The issue is the article treats "cotton ceiling" type rhetoric as real and widespread based on an unscientific online survey of 80 people with roughly half of the respondents reporting feeling pressured or been coerced into accepting a trans woman as a sexual partner and quotes a grand total of three people who agree with the premise.
Without tiny sample sized anecdotes-of bathroom perverts, dominating trans athletes, pushy "transbians"-you would have nothing to be mad about.
Post by: kimmy on December 30, 2021, 05:49:00 pm
So you're saying trans activists made Lily Cade sexually assault all those women?
I have no idea how you got that out of anything I wrote.
You wrote:
I only mention this because she was something of a poster child for the "trans people are pressuring lesbians for sex!" angle and that despite what some might claim, the hate isn't a one way street.
And no, clearly the hate flows both ways. A lot of the most ardent gender-critical people are lesbians; the "cotton ceiling" crap is one of the major points of friction within the "LGBT community" (which is really just the TQ+ community now.)
Or maybe she's really not at all well in the head and the TERF stuff is part of that.
She might well be a terrible person. (The transphobic rant certainly sounds terrible. As for the sexual assault accusations, I don't know the details, or if any have them have ever been proven, or if they accusations have ever been made anywhere other than by anonymous Twitter accounts that could easily be sock-puppets of the same "transbian **** star" who hounded her for years).
Nobody in p0rn is a TERF. Cade might be a transphobe, but calling her a TERF is inaccurate because Radical Feminists oppose p0rn.
The issue is the article treats "cotton ceiling" type rhetoric as real and widespread based on an unscientific online survey of 80 people with roughly half of the respondents reporting feeling pressured or been coerced into accepting a trans woman as a sexual partner and quotes a grand total of three people who agree with the premise.
No claim was made that it was a scientific survey-- the person who created the survey says as much themselves. "While acknowledging the sample may not be representative of the wider lesbian community, she believes it was important to capture their "points of view and stories".
You dismiss this survey because it's "not scientific", but you guys are willing to accept as gospel similarly unscientific surveys when they support your world view. Claims like "40% of trans people attempt suicide" and "trans women experience sexual assault at higher rates than cis women" (to name a couple) come from unscientific, opt-in surveys with sample sizes smaller than 80 people, but you guys (not just you but trans cheerleaders in general) never question the validity of those claims. Why is that?
You guys want to dismiss the women who responded to the survey, and the women who were interviewed, and make the whole thing disappear because Lily Cade is a bad person.
You object to these women sharing their experiences with the reporter. But we get anecdotes from trans people in stories all the time and nobody questions it. We get "I was in a washroom and some women harrassed me and said I didn't belong there" type anecdotes all the time. Why are "cis women are mean to trans women in the washroom" type anecdotes acceptable but "trans women pressure lesbians for sex" anecdotes not acceptable?
Anecdotes are apparently okay, but only if they're anecdotes that support views you already hold. Lots of effort has been expended trying to silence women who are saying things that just aren't convenient. Purged from reddit, banned from twitter, told to stop talking publicly about trans athletes by their athletics department or the national team, called liars and demonized as fascists for saying their was a pervert in the showers... The lesbians who talked to the BBC reporter have at least not been called fascists; they've just been told that their story should not be heard. Wokies love saying "Listen to women", but clearly they don't really mean it.
The arguments that the story should be removed from the BBC seem to fall into 3 categories
--Lily Cade is a bad person and/or the other women are lying
--we aren't sure how widespread this is so we shouldn't talk about it
--the story will harm trans women, so we shouldn't talk about this regardless of whether it's true or not.
Your notion that this "cotton ceiling" rhetoric is not widespread is based on nothing except for your disinterest in hearing anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas.
My belief that it is widespread comes from reading the stories of women and girls who've experienced this firsthand in LGBT spaces and in online dating, and from seeing published authors and trans community leaders express this stuff, and from seeing trans people themselves express it in massive volume on the internet and understanding that those people don't just exist on the internet but in the real world as well. From visiting trans spaces and seeing them strategize about how to meet cis lesbians (they advocate for "catfishing" on dating sites). From seeing organizations like Human Rights Campaign and Stonewall UK replace language about "sexual orientation" with language talking about "gender preferences" and "genital preferences". From seeing the Stonewall leader compare lesbians who don't like dick to racists. Not long ago Michael said that a "trans dude" in his own social circle has been talking about the "bigotry" of cis gay men who won't date trans men; that should be a clue about how far this stuff has spread.
And one of the things that's most upsetting is that the people who used to be gay allies don't recognize this homophobia for what it is.
Without tiny sample sized anecdotes-of bathroom perverts, dominating trans athletes, pushy "transbians"-you would have nothing to be mad about.
This is an Onion headline waiting to happen. "I don't get what the women and the gays are so mad about," declares local heterosexual man. "None of this stuff affects me at all!"
-k
Post by: Black Dog on January 04, 2022, 10:07:21 am
This is an Onion headline waiting to happen. "I don't get what the women and the gays are so mad about," declares local heterosexual man. "None of this stuff affects me at all!"
-k
Has any of the stuff you've been going insane over here actually impacted you personally IRL?
Post by: Black Dog on January 04, 2022, 10:14:45 am
You dismiss this survey because it's "not scientific", but you guys are willing to accept as gospel similarly unscientific surveys when they support your world view. Claims like "40% of trans people attempt suicide" and "trans women experience sexual assault at higher rates than cis women" (to name a couple) come from unscientific, opt-in surveys with sample sizes smaller than 80 people, but you guys (not just you but trans cheerleaders in general) never question the validity of those claims. Why is that?
I'm not familiar with the surveys you mention, nor have I referenced them. A quick google shows the 41% suicide attempt stat came from a self-reported survey of 6,450 which I'm pretty sure is a higher number than 80. Regardless, they're not really the point and so your counter here is literally whataboutism.
Quote
You guys want to dismiss the women who responded to the survey, and the women who were interviewed, and make the whole thing disappear because Lily Cade is a bad person.
No, it's being dismissed because the people making the claims here could fit in a phone booth.
Quote
You object to these women sharing their experiences with the reporter. But we get anecdotes from trans people in stories all the time and nobody questions it. We get "I was in a washroom and some women harrassed me and said I didn't belong there" type anecdotes all the time. Why are "cis women are mean to trans women in the washroom" type anecdotes acceptable but "trans women pressure lesbians for sex" anecdotes not acceptable?
LOL people don't question anecdotes from trans people? Your side does it all the time.
Quote
Anecdotes are apparentlyzokay, but only if they're anecdotes that support views you already hold. Lots of effort has been expended trying to silence women who are saying things that just aren't convenient. Purged from reddit, banned from twitter, told to stop talking publicly about trans athletes by their athletics department or the national team, called liars and demonized as fascists for saying their was a pervert in the showers... The lesbians who talked to the BBC reporter have at least not been called fascists; they've just been told that their story should not be heard. Wokies love saying "Listen to women", but clearly they don't really mean it.
lmao here's you talking about a person who confessed to sexually assaulting multiple women over the years:
Quote
She might well be a terrible person. (The transphobic rant certainly sounds terrible. As for the sexual assault accusations, I don't know the details, or if any have them have ever been proven, or if they accusations have ever been made anywhere other than by anonymous Twitter accounts that could easily be sock-puppets of the same "transbian **** star" who hounded her for years).
Quote
Your notion that this "cotton ceiling" rhetoric is not widespread is based on nothing except for your disinterest in hearing anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas.
My belief that it is widespread comes from reading the stories of women and girls who've experienced this firsthand in LGBT spaces and in online dating, and from seeing published authors and trans community leaders express this stuff, and from seeing trans people themselves express it in massive volume on the internet and understanding that those people don't just exist on the internet but in the real world as well. From visiting trans spaces and seeing them strategize about how to meet cis lesbians (they advocate for "catfishing" on dating sites). From seeing organizations like Human Rights Campaign and Stonewall UK replace language about "sexual orientation" with language talking about "gender preferences" and "genital preferences". From seeing the Stonewall leader compare lesbians who don't like dick to racists. Not long ago Michael said that a "trans dude" in his own social circle has been talking about the "bigotry" of cis gay men who won't date trans men; that should be a clue about how far this stuff has spread.
No it's from not seeing any of this stuff you're really worked up about anywhere except from TERFs like you who aren't afraid to spread a little fake news as a treat. To be fair there's a ton of stuff about the cotton ceiling examining how social prejudices shape dating and sexual preferences but you'd have to be a real dum-dum to think that's the same thing as "pressuring cis lesbian women into sex with trans men". But then, given how you've misconstrued the comment from the Stonewall leader's anodyne comment here, maybe you are that dum-dum?
Post by: kimmy on January 09, 2022, 02:40:36 pm
But then, given how you've misconstrued the comment from the Stonewall leader's anodyne comment here, maybe you are that dum-dum?
Nothing has been misconstrued, and it's not an "anodyne" comment.
Quote
"Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to.
"Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.
"We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."
There's nothing ambiguous about that. She equates sexual orientation to aesthetic preferences like body shape or skin tone. Coming from most people, that would be just pure ignorance. Coming from the head of one of the world's biggest LGBT organizations, it's shocking and traitorous.
It's 2022 and "progressives" are either too brainwashed or too god-damned stupid to recognize homophobia unless it comes out of the mouths of religious conservatives. How did we get to this point?
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on January 09, 2022, 11:12:37 pm
Has any of the stuff you've been going insane over here actually impacted you personally IRL?
Well to be fair, the Jewish holocaust and slavery in the south (minus the fact that I'm black) didn't personally affect me, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't matter.
Post by: Black Dog on January 10, 2022, 09:44:59 am
I'll get to the rest of this stuff later, but had to comment on this:
Nothing has been misconstrued, and it's not an "anodyne" comment.
There's nothing ambiguous about that. She equates sexual orientation to aesthetic preferences like body shape or skin tone. Coming from most people, that would be just pure ignorance. Coming from the head of one of the world's biggest LGBT organizations, it's shocking and traitorous.
It's 2022 and "progressives" are either too brainwashed or too god-damned stupid to recognize homophobia unless it comes out of the mouths of religious conservatives. How did we get to this point?
-k
Nope. She was talking about aesthetic preferences not saying lesbians should take the D.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 10, 2022, 02:12:43 pm
Well to be fair, the Jewish holocaust and slavery in the south (minus the fact that I'm black) didn't personally affect me, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't matter.
Right but... if you are getting involved in things at this level then are you doing it for other ... "rights" issues ?
And at a certain point, do you ask yourself "why" ?
The Sun was covering Jessica Yaniv for its angry white male audience, not because they are concerned about BC Vietnamese wax shops here in Toronto but because it is ... Angertainment.
Post by: wilber on January 10, 2022, 03:13:11 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on January 10, 2022, 03:58:37 pm
Right but... if you are getting involved in things at this level then are you doing it for other ... "rights" issues ?
And at a certain point, do you ask yourself "why" ?
The Sun was covering Jessica Yaniv for its angry white male audience, not because they are concerned about BC Vietnamese wax shops here in Toronto but because it is ... Angertainment.
Questions like:
1. Has this issue impacted you personally IRL?
2. Are you concerned about other rights issues?
3. Are you an angry white male?
IMO these are not relevant to whether someone's opinion on it is valid or not.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 11, 2022, 09:11:56 am
I hope it isn't only angry white guys who would think Yaniv is a dirtbag.
If they weren't the target audience for this story, it wouldn't be in The Sun.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 11, 2022, 09:13:35 am
Questions like:
1. Has this issue impacted you personally IRL?
2. Are you concerned about other rights issues?
3. Are you an angry white male?
IMO these are not relevant to whether someone's opinion on it is valid or not.
I don't think it's a question of validity, but more a question of the public forum and how we focus on issues (still) with the Angertainment angle.
It's the other side of the coin of cancel culture... outrage outrage outrage... zero empathy or listening...
Post by: kimmy on January 16, 2022, 05:31:38 pm
Nope. She was talking about aesthetic preferences
Yeah. she just casually sneaks in "trans" along side body shape and skin-tone as if it was the same. "if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions." One of these things is not like the others, and unless you're galactically stupid you should be able to spot which it is.
Gay people have fought for decades to get people to understand that sexual orientation isn't an aesthetic preference, and for the leader of a (former) LGBT organization to liken it to those other things is just naked betrayal.
not saying lesbians should take the D.
Yeah she's not saying you have to, she's just saying that if you won't then you're a bigot.
-k
Post by: wilber on January 16, 2022, 08:57:42 pm
If they weren't the target audience for this story, it wouldn't be in The Sun.
So what does that have to do with Yaniv's actions? If the wrong paper reports them, they never happened?
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 17, 2022, 06:19:04 am
So what does that have to do with Yaniv's actions? If the wrong paper reports them, they never happened?
Nothing, it's about the mechanism of public discourse.
Post by: kimmy on March 23, 2022, 01:09:33 am
(https://i.imgur.com/QhuMKvJ.png)
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 23, 2022, 07:53:43 am
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 01:20:47 pm
I think that there seems to be a discussion on this topic, although there is a level of toxicity involved.
It's weird to me that it's such a flashpoint since out of the 8 million high school athletes and the half million college ones (U.S. numbers), there's probably maaaybe a couple of hundred trans people.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 23, 2022, 02:36:05 pm
It's weird to me that it's such a flashpoint since out of the 8 million high school athletes and the half million college ones (U.S. numbers), there's probably maaaybe a couple of hundred trans people.
Unfairness to women has always been a flashpoint. Don’t you think it might matter to the women athletes?
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 02:49:38 pm
Unfairness to women has always been a flashpoint. Don’t you think it might matter to the women athletes?
Given the likelihood of them having to face a trans athlete is extremely small, I'd say not really, at least not as much as issues like sexual abuse by coaches, inferior training facilities and unequal funding. It's pretty clear this is a symbolic issue pushed mainly by people who otherwise do not care one bit about women's sports.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 23, 2022, 03:08:36 pm
It's weird to me that it's such a flashpoint since out of the 8 million high school athletes and the half million college ones (U.S. numbers), there's probably maaaybe a couple of hundred trans people.
Squid has a point though.
Even if there's an unnatural level of focus on the topic - and I believe there is - to ignore it entirely just enflames things.
It needs to be addressed.
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 03:16:42 pm
Squid has a point though.
Even if there's an unnatural level of focus on the topic - and I believe there is - to ignore it entirely just enflames things.
It needs to be addressed.
No one said it should be ignored. I personally think these things are best handled on a case-by-case basis and not through blanket bans.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 03:30:52 pm
Given the likelihood of them having to face a trans athlete is extremely small, I'd say not really, at least not as much as issues like sexual abuse by coaches, inferior training facilities and unequal funding. It's pretty clear this is a symbolic issue pushed mainly by people who otherwise do not care one bit about women's sports.The likelihood in this case for these swimmers is 100%. This particular male swimmer swimming as a female is taking away opportunities from actual female athletes. Women’s sports, across the board, swimming, track, weightlifting, etc are being infiltrated by biological men competing as women. It’s not fair and it’s not right.
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 03:36:36 pm
The likelihood in this case for these swimmers is 100%. This particular male swimmer swimming as a female is taking away opportunities from actual female athletes. Women’s sports, across the board, swimming, track, weightlifting, etc are being infiltrated by biological men competing as women. It’s not fair and it’s not right.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5ff84cc7fa853271067463fa7968c9c1/11f2891cbbd37689-14/s2048x3072/9ced80e4bcb367c8ab46c177a7fe0ff006f49f8c.png)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 03:38:17 pm
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5ff84cc7fa853271067463fa7968c9c1/11f2891cbbd37689-14/s2048x3072/9ced80e4bcb367c8ab46c177a7fe0ff006f49f8c.png)Other than you having no argument? Nope. 😁
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 03:41:22 pm
Other than you having no argument? Nope. 😁
Says the stupid piece of sh*t claiming sports are being infiltrated by trans people lmao.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 23, 2022, 03:44:13 pm
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/utah-governor-becomes-latest-republican-veto-transgender-sports-ban-rcna21116
For high school kids honestly just let kids do whatever they want. Gets more complicated for adults.
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 03:52:06 pm
GOP Utah governor cites suicide rates for transgender youth in vetoing sports ban bill: ‘I want them to live’:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/utah-governor-becomes-latest-republican-veto-transgender-sports-ban-rcna21116
For high school kids honestly just let kids do whatever they want. Gets more complicated for adults.
Good for him.
Quote
In a letter to the state's Senate president and House speaker, Cox told his fellow Republicans that he was moved by data showing that among 75,000 kids playing high school sports in Utah, only four were transgender, with just one involved in girls sports.
"Four kids and only one of them playing girls sports. That’s what all of this is about. Four kids who aren’t dominating or winning trophies or taking scholarships. Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day," he wrote. "Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few."
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 04:11:50 pm
GOP Utah governor cites suicide rates for transgender youth in vetoing sports ban bill: ‘I want them to live’:Trans suicide rates have nothing to do with fairness in sports.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/utah-governor-becomes-latest-republican-veto-transgender-sports-ban-rcna21116
For high school kids honestly just let kids do whatever they want. Gets more complicated for adults.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 04:12:45 pm
Good for him.What about female suicide rates? Is that what this is going to devolve into?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 04:20:51 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 04:23:07 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 04:31:03 pm
Biological men physically dominating women for the win! Yay for progress! 😂🤣
That one in particular is such a funny example for you to use given the circumstances of the case, which I have no doubt you are completely unfamiliar with.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 23, 2022, 04:35:42 pm
Trans suicide rates have nothing to do with fairness in sports.
Oh I'm not so sure about that.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 04:36:15 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 04:37:42 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 05:45:37 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 23, 2022, 06:14:06 pm
Pretending this is equality is Orwellian.
(Attachment Link)
Photos are the lowest form of argument
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 07:50:12 pm
Photos are the lowest form of argument
They're actually better than when he tries to use words though.
Post by: Black Dog on March 23, 2022, 07:51:28 pm
This man is now fighting biological women in mma.
(Attachment Link)
HRT really does a number on ya.
(https://e00-marca.uecdn.es/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2021/09/16/16317959759724.png)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 09:52:49 pm
Photos are the lowest form of argumentWhat have you got against empirical evidence? How is illustrating the absurdity of this nonsense a low form or argument? Because you say so? And who the eff are you? Saying that photos are the lowest form of argument is actually the lowest form of argument. Actually, it’s no argument at all. Try harder Mike.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 23, 2022, 09:56:03 pm
HRT really does a number on ya.Yes, unfortunately for biological women, a biological man that’s gone through their entire growth cycle as a man still has massive advantages in muscle mass, bone structure, etc compared to a biological women. So now you lunatics are arguing for men fighting women? This in conjunction to sexualizing 5 year olds. You people have gone completely mental. JFC.
(https://e00-marca.uecdn.es/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2021/09/16/16317959759724.png)
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 23, 2022, 11:23:06 pm
If you're a female gendered person with a d!ck you're a female gendered person with a d!ck and there's nothing wrong with that. It's who you are. Maybe we as a society should be more accepting so people don't feel they need to cut off their pen!s or breasts, which is frankly insane and I feel sorry for those people.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 24, 2022, 02:04:56 am
Quote
Just how much of an advantage did Lia Thomas possesses over biological females? The numbers paint a clear picture. The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story of the unfairness which unfolded at the NCAA level.https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/a-look-at-the-numbers-and-times-no-denying-the-advantages-of-lia-thomas/
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 24, 2022, 05:52:15 am
What have you got against empirical evidence? How is illustrating the absurdity of this nonsense a low form or argument? Because you say so? And who the eff are you? Saying that photos are the lowest form of argument is actually the lowest form of argument. Actually, it’s no argument at all. Try harder Mike.Photos are surface observations. The same event photographed from a different angle wouldn't make your point.
So how good can it be?
How do you capture rights, inner thoughts, and important things that can't be seen in a photo.
Triumph of the Will was a great looking movie.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 10:12:41 am
I have no issue with trans people. I also think that if you weren't born with boobs and you feel you need them to feel "complete" you probably suffer from a psychological disorder, no different than cis women who go get boob jobs or anyone who gets a nose job. It's seeded in insecurity based on social expectations.The issue isn’t about being more accepting. If somebody wants to live that way, more power to them. Competing in sports and biological advantages is the issue. However, I do feel sorry for people suffering from gender dysphoria.
If you're a female gendered person with a d!ck you're a female gendered person with a d!ck and there's nothing wrong with that. It's who you are. Maybe we as a society should be more accepting so people don't feel they need to cut off their pen!s or breasts, which is frankly insane and I feel sorry for those people.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 10:13:14 am
KYS you scumbag.How about just leave children alone. Creep.
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:44 am
How about just leave children alone. Creep.What have you done to take up this new line of projection? Seek help (or KYS).
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 10:25:18 am
What have you done to take up this new line of projection? Seek help (or KYS).I’m just glad that in Canada people like you are in the fringe minority.
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2022, 10:38:07 am
I’m just glad that in Canada people like you are in the fringe minority.The only position I ever take is that you're a lying, gullible idiot who has no integrity. I don't think anyone would even disagree with me, even among your "ilk".
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 10:44:39 am
Someone definitely needs to take a look at the contents of your hard drive.Sounds like projection.
Post by: Black Dog on March 24, 2022, 10:57:18 am
Sounds like projection.
Very original.
What have you done to take up this new line of projection? Seek help (or KYS).
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 12:39:40 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on March 24, 2022, 01:18:01 pm
Truth. This is why certain laws are necessary.
Says a lot about you that so much of your worldview is shaped by memes made by teenage virgins.
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2022, 01:20:53 pm
Says a lot about you that so much of your worldview is shaped by memes made by teenage virgins.Not as much as by memes from Russian troll farms.
Post by: Black Dog on March 24, 2022, 01:31:09 pm
Not as much as by memes from Russian troll farms.
Why not both?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 02:12:38 pm
Says a lot about you that so much of your worldview is shaped by memes made by teenage virgins.More projection.
Post by: Black Dog on March 24, 2022, 02:18:20 pm
More projection.
I don't post memes made by teenage virgins like you do.
There's a good reason why you post images and almost never link to anything longer than tweet: you're extremely stupid, incurious, unoriginal and exist only to get negative attention. Basically you're a parasite.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 02:23:00 pm
I don't post memes made by teenage virgins like you do.More deflection. Assuming you know who created the meme and not addressing the issue that’s been illustrated. Pathetic.
There's a good reason why you post images and almost never link to anything longer than tweet: you're extremely stupid, incurious, unoriginal and exist only to get negative attention. Basically you're a parasite.
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2022, 03:05:50 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 24, 2022, 03:12:53 pm
More deflection. Assuming you knoAgain, th estupid meme is w who created the meme and not addressing the issue that’s been illustrated. Pathetic.
"Addressing issues" only works with people who are operating in good faith, not trolls like you.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 03:35:11 pm
It is pathetic not to address the issues in the Russian troll factory memes as he presents them. Once you are done, he has more where those came from.You need professional help.
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 03:35:47 pm
And even more projection.
"Addressing issues" only works with people who are operating in good faith, not trolls like you.
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2022, 03:46:35 pm
You need professional help.Good one. Where'd you get it?
(Attachment Link)
Scared to say?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 24, 2022, 04:07:18 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 05:02:01 pm
Good one. Where'd you get it?The internet. Who cares?
Scared to say?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2022, 05:03:23 pm
You guys all need an Xbox or something.I have a PS4. Playing Kingdom Come Deliverance right now. It’s set in medieval Eastern Europe. It’s amazing so far. Highly recommended.
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2022, 05:04:03 pm
The internet. Who cares?You certainly don't.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2022, 10:17:31 am
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/a-look-at-the-numbers-and-times-no-denying-the-advantages-of-lia-thomas/
A counterpoint:
Critics accuse trans swimming star Lia Thomas of having an unfair advantage. The data tells a different story (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-data-b2044949.html)
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 29, 2022, 02:07:00 pm
A counterpoint:
Critics accuse trans swimming star Lia Thomas of having an unfair advantage. The data tells a different story (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-data-b2044949.html)
Their conclusion is that because she didn’t break any women’s records, therefor she has no advantage. That’s faulty logic.
The fact that she was a mediocre swimmer as a man but vaulted to first as a woman directly contradicts their conclusion.
But, neither of those is really a biological comparison of men’s versus women’s physiology, which, in my view, is how this should be looked at.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2022, 02:26:56 pm
Their conclusion is that because she didn’t break any women’s records, therefor she has no advantage. That’s faulty logic.
No, the conclusion was that her times aren't particularly spectacular and within the range of cisgendered competitors.
Quote
The fact that she was a mediocre swimmer as a man but vaulted to first as a woman directly contradicts their conclusion.
Except that's not true either.
Quote
But, neither of those is really a biological comparison of men’s versus women’s physiology, which, in my view, is how this should be looked at.
What about cisgendered athletes whose physiology gives them an unfair advantage?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 29, 2022, 02:48:45 pm
No, the conclusion was that her times aren't particularly spectacular and within the range of cisgendered competitors.
Direct quote:
These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking.
Quote
Except that's not true either.
Depends what I mean by mediocre…. When she was a he, his results were not the tops, particularly in the shorter event.
From 554th to 5th….
Yeah, I’d say that’s mediocre to one of the top female athletes.
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women’s deck.
Quote
What about cisgendered athletes whose physiology gives them an unfair advantage?
Irrelevant straw-man.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2022, 03:56:59 pm
Direct quote:
These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking.
And that's a statement of fact, but not the entire conclusion. Here's another direct quote
Quote
Her swimming times are on par with cis women
Quote
Depends what I mean by mediocre…. When she was a he, his results were not the tops, particularly in the shorter event.
From 554th to 5th….
Yeah, I’d say that’s mediocre to one of the top female athletes.
5th? (https://www.swimcloud.com/country/usa/swimmers/?page=1&gender=F&season_id=25)
Quote
Irrelevant straw-man.
No it's not.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 29, 2022, 04:34:42 pm
And that's a statement of fact, but not the entire conclusion. Here's another direct quote
Do you think if she smashed all the records, then that would lead you to conclude that it is unfair?
Quote
5th? (https://www.swimcloud.com/country/usa/swimmers/?page=1&gender=F&season_id=25)
The Swimming magazine said she went from 500-ish to 5th in the 200m. You link to an overall rankings, which was never the claim.
Quote
No it's not.
Of course it’s a straw-man. The fact that women are not born all exactly the same is irrelevant to whether someone born a biological man should be allowed to compete against biological women.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2022, 04:56:01 pm
Do you think if she smashed all the records, then that would lead you to conclude that it is unfair?
So you're going to continue to insist its unfair and she has advantages despite the results not indicating that?
Quote
The Swimming magazine said she went from 500-ish to 5th in the 200m. You link to an overall rankings, which was never the claim.
I looked at their history on that website and it seems they barely swam the 200 before they transitioned (I counted four total 200y swims between 2017 and 2019), so I'm not sure what that ranking in that specific event tells us here.
Quote
Of course it’s a straw-man. The fact that women are not born all exactly the same is irrelevant to whether someone born a biological man should be allowed to compete against biological women.
Look, you've decided there's a line of "unfair advantage" that cannot be crossed, I'm just trying to figure out where it is. It's interesting because if you look at Thomas's times pre- and post-transition, they are significantly slower now and, again, in line with those of natal women competitors. So if there's an "unfair advantage" it doesn't seem to be manifesting itself.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 29, 2022, 05:20:55 pm
So you're going to continue to insist its unfair and she has advantages despite the results not indicating that?
You never answered the question.
No, it’s not something that can be looked at in terms of “she’s slow as a woman, so should be able to compete against biological women”. It’s not about individual results, but inherent unfairness as biological males competing against biological females.
The argument that the results should indicate no inherent unfairness is ridiculous. I’d rank last. I still shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports, any more than I should be allowed to compete in children’s sport, where I would kick some serious ass! I might even rank near the top of 12 year old wrestling.
Quote
I looked at their history on that website and it seems they barely swam the 200 before they transitioned (I counted four total 200y swims between 2017 and 2019), so I'm not sure what that ranking in that specific event tells us here.
I don’t care. The swimming magazine looked at the rankings and times. You dug up some measure of overall rankings because it seemed to suit your argument.
Quote
Look, you've decided there's a line of "unfair advantage" that cannot be crossed, I'm just trying to figure out where it is. It's interesting because if you look at Thomas's times pre- and post-transition, they are significantly slower now and, again, in line with those of natal women competitors. So if there's an "unfair advantage" it doesn't seem to be manifesting itself.
Individually, maybe there isn’t. But, you refused to even answer the hypothetical of whether it would be unfair to you if she smashed records.
Clearly, from the numbers, she is more competitive as a woman than a man. That should tell you something…?
But, regardless, there are biological advantages compared between men and women. Sports are organized that way because it is rather obvious.
No one has ever said that there are not differences within the biological sexes. That’s a strawman.
No one has said that the slowest man is still faster than the fastest woman. Also a strawman.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2022, 07:11:53 pm
You never answered the question.
No, it’s not something that can be looked at in terms of “she’s slow as a woman, so should be able to compete against biological women”. It’s not about individual results, but inherent unfairness as biological males competing against biological females.
The argument that the results should indicate no inherent unfairness is ridiculous. I’d rank last. I still shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports, any more than I should be allowed to compete in children’s sport, where I would kick some serious ass! I might even rank near the top of 12 year old wrestling.
LOL this is insane. In fact it's so insane I'm going to need time to process just how insane it is. You're literally arguing that results-tangible results, the very thing sports measure-are irrelevant in determining if someone has an "unfair" advantage? Like, what?
Quote
I don’t care. The swimming magazine looked at the rankings and times. You dug up some measure of overall rankings because it seemed to suit your argument.
No, I simply asked the source of the rankings and it turns out to be a cherry picked small sample size. When you look at Thomas's results in long distance events before transitioning, she was a highly ranked competitor. Now I'll wait for you to move the goalposts to "it's not fair that a highly ranked male should compete as a woman!"
Quote
Individually, maybe there isn’t. But, you refused to even answer the hypothetical of whether it would be unfair to you if she smashed records.
Clearly, from the numbers, she is more competitive as a woman than a man. That should tell you something…?
Again, that's not actually clear at all.
Quote
But, regardless, there are biological advantages compared between men and women. Sports are organized that way because it is rather obvious.
And it seems, in this case at least, that medically transitioning significantly blunts those advantages to the point where the results are within the range of natal women competitors.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 29, 2022, 07:30:33 pm
Quote
You're literally arguing that results-tangible results, the very thing sports measure-are irrelevant in determining if someone has an "unfair" advantage?
Well, obviously it’s not just individual results, otherwise there would be no problem with me competing in women’s sports.
The unfair advantage of an athlete is being born a male. Is it that difficult to grasp?
Now, will you answer the question…. Would it be unfair if the person came in and smashed all the records?
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 09:41:50 am
Well, obviously it’s not just individual results, otherwise there would be no problem with me competing in women’s sports.
The fact that individual results can range widely is exactly why these things should be treated on a case by case basis.
Quote
The unfair advantage of an athlete is being born a male. Is it that difficult to grasp?Quote
If that "unfair advantage" doesn't translate to results, how big an advantage is it?QuoteNow, will you answer the question…. Would it be unfair if the person came in and smashed all the records?
Not necessarily, no.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 30, 2022, 10:11:25 am
The fact that individual results can range widely is exactly why these things should be treated on a case by case basis.
Not necessarily, no.
So, if they’re slow, it’s fair. If they come in and break records, it’s fair.
Then how can you say it should be judged on the results of individuals, when whatever the results are, it’s still fair.
That makes zero sense.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 10:59:40 am
So, if they’re slow, it’s fair. If they come in and break records, it’s fair.
Then how can you say it should be judged on the results of individuals, when whatever the results are, it’s still fair.
That makes zero sense.
Well, I didn't say that, did I?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 11:57:20 am
Well, I didn't say that, did I?You continue to argue against indisputable differences in biology between men and women. You're anti-science. It's why a male swimmer that's ranked 450th, can switch to competing against women, and be ranked number 1. It's why male weightlifters switch to competing against women and break all previous weightlifting records.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 12:23:14 pm
You continue to argue against indisputable differences in biology between men and women. You're anti-science. It's why a male swimmer that's ranked 450th, can switch to competing against women, and be ranked number 1. It's why male weightlifters switch to competing against women and break all previous weightlifting records.
The "using too much hand sanitizer makes you sick" guy says what now?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 12:29:32 pm
The "using too much hand sanitizer makes you sick" guy says what now?I didn't say that. Why do you feel necessary to lie and make up things? Keep arguing against biological differences between men and women, oh and natural immunity. While at the same time pretending that you're a "follow the science" guy. It's hilarious.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 30, 2022, 12:34:57 pm
Well, I didn't say that, did I?
It seemed important to you that the person was within the range of females. And then you said if they smashed records, it wouldn’t matter.
So, either you’re dancing around the answer to make it unclear, or you can’t articulate when the results actually matter.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 12:38:18 pm
I didn't say that. Why do you feel necessary to lie and make up things? Keep arguing against biological differences between men and women, oh and natural immunity. While at the same time pretending that you're a "follow the science" guy. It's hilarious.
My dude, no one needs to make up stupid **** you've said, it's all on the record, from "too much hand sanitizer weakens the immune system" to "COVID vaccines weren't peer reviewed" to the ivermectin stuff and on and on and on. it's such an extensive record of sheer stupidity it's no wonder you have to make up strawmen arguments like this.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 12:41:11 pm
It seemed important to you that the person was within the range of females. And then you said if they smashed records, it wouldn’t matter.
So, either you’re dancing around the answer to make it unclear, or you can’t articulate when the results actually matter.
I have no idea what's confusing you here.
Fairness is a subjective measure and the degree to which being born a man confers an "unfair" advantage will depend on the sport, the quality of competition, and the individual athlete, hence why I'm avoiding making any blanket statements here.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 30, 2022, 12:46:44 pm
I have no idea what's confusing you here.
Fairness is a subjective measure and the degree to which being born a man confers an "unfair" advantage will depend on the sport, the quality of competition, and the individual athlete, hence why I'm avoiding making any blanket statements here.
Right. Getting an answer from you is like nailing jello to a tree.
Fairness is only subjective if you define it in a vague way. It’s perfectly objective if you consider male/female physiology as a factor.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 01:03:37 pm
Right. Getting an answer from you is like nailing jello to a tree.
Fairness is only subjective if you define it in a vague way. It’s perfectly objective if you consider male/female physiology as a factor.
But you're taking it as a given that male physiology confers an unfair and insurmountable advantage in every case.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 30, 2022, 01:04:48 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 30, 2022, 01:10:56 pm
But you're taking it as a given that male physiology confers an unfair and insurmountable advantage in every case.
Nope. That’s a strawman you’re creating. I specifically said that it isn’t the case with every individual.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 01:12:19 pm
Nope. That’s a strawman you’re creating. I specifically said that it isn’t the case with every individual.
OK, thanks for clarifying. So, what's the issue then?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 30, 2022, 01:15:57 pm
OK, thanks for clarifying. So, what's the issue then?
The issue is that, in general, biological males have an advantage. Why do I need to repeat this?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 01:19:39 pm
OK, thanks for clarifying. So, what's the issue then?Are you purposely being obtuse?
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 01:25:41 pm
The issue is that, in general, biological males have an advantage. Why do I need to repeat this?
Yes that's the case in general, which is why these things need to be handled on a case by case basis. What's wrong with that?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 01:32:00 pm
Yes that's the case in general, which is why these things need to be handled on a case by case basis. What's wrong with that?No it shouldn’t. Women deserve their own sports/competition.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 30, 2022, 02:31:29 pm
Yes that's the case in general, which is why these things need to be handled on a case by case basis. What's wrong with that?
What is wrong with that is it’s clearly not a workable solution. There’s no way to tell when the transgender female is at an advantage sufficient enough to justify an “unfair advantage”, as you admitted yourself that even if they broke all the female records, that wouldn’t necessarily point to an unfair advantage.
Your criteria to determine this is actually…. A mystery.
While my criteria: “generally biological males have an advantage over biological females, therefor women’s sport should exclude biological males” is neither subjective (as you claimed it was), nor vague.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 02:43:52 pm
What is wrong with that is it’s clearly not a workable solution. There’s no way to tell when the transgender female is at an advantage sufficient enough to justify an “unfair advantage”, as you admitted yourself that even if they broke all the female records, that wouldn’t necessarily point to an unfair advantage.
Your criteria to determine this is actually…. A mystery.
While my criteria: “generally biological males have an advantage over biological females, therefor women’s sport should exclude biological males” is neither subjective (as you claimed it was), nor vague.
Point of order: I said the concept of "fairness" was subjective, not your criteria. And it is.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 03:07:50 pm
-whether a trans athlete has an unfair advantage or not depends on a great many factors (such as the sport they're participating in, their transition status etc) that a blanket ban seems unnecessarily exclusionary
-the number of trans athletes is so small overall and extremely small at the elite level that this question doesn't really warrant the amount of attention it gets as an existential threat to women's sports.
-most people making a big deal about trans participation in women's sports don't actually care about fairness or women's sports at all; rather it's a wedge issue for a broader anti-LGBTQ agenda (and make no mistake, they won't stop with the T part).
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 03:16:16 pm
Last thing on this (for now):Make no mistake, you still can't acknowledge the fundamental biological differences between men and women.
-whether a trans athlete has an unfair advantage or not depends on a great many factors (such as the sport they're participating in, their transition status ) that a blanket ban seems unnecessarily exclusionary
-the number of trans athletes is so small overall and extremely small at the elite level that this question doesn't really warrant the attention it gets
-most people making a big deal about trans participation in women's sports don't actually care about fairness or women's sports at all; rather it's a wedge issue for a broader anti-LGBTQ agenda (and make no mistake, they won't stop with the T part).
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 03:17:38 pm
Make no mistake, you still can't acknowledge the fundamental biological differences between men and women.
Make no mistake, you're still a stupid illiterate c*nt and always will be.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 03:29:34 pm
Make no mistake, you're still a stupid illiterate c*nt and always will be.Make no mistake, people that have to resort to cursing and name calling are without an argument.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 05:00:22 pm
Make no mistake, people that have to resort to cursing and name calling are without an argument.
People who have to resort to obvious strawman arguments, as you do almost constantly, are without the brains god gave snails.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2022, 05:58:30 pm
People who have to resort to obvious strawman arguments, as you do almost constantly, are without the brains god gave snails.No idea how you think that the scientific fact of the biological differences between men and women is a straw man. It’s actually the crux of the issue. You keep trying to obfuscate and downplay it.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2022, 08:07:12 pm
No idea how you think that the scientific fact of the biological differences between men and women is a straw man. It’s actually the crux of the issue. You keep trying to obfuscate and downplay it.
Learn to read, idiot.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 04, 2022, 09:49:28 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on April 04, 2022, 09:52:45 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 04, 2022, 11:58:22 pm
Post by: kimmy on April 05, 2022, 12:57:12 am
This is the insanity being pushed by progressives now. They’ve completely lost their f**king minds. And people wonder why they don’t want this stuff taught to 5 year olds?????? Disgusting.
"People have periods" is actually an improvement from the gender-people. "People" isn't dehumanizing and insulting like "menstruator", "bleeder", and similar garbage that these shitbags have tried to foist on us over the past few years.
However, "people" is also laughably imprecise. I recently saw an advert from some sort of advocacy group claiming that 70% of "people" have experienced period shaming, which by my math seems highly improbable.
Also, the idea that "things" happen to "people" but we're not supposed to say anything about what kind of people experience these things should not pass without comment. People weren't allowed to own property until less than 150 years ago. People didn't get the right to vote until 100 years ago. In many societies around the world, people were treated as little more than property. In many places in the world today, people still don't have the rights of people. In many parts of the world, people don't have access to education; many people are married to older people as soon as they are old enough to menstruate. Over 70% of the victims of sexual violence are people; over 99% of their attackers are people. People have their own special medical concerns, ranging from childbirth and menstruation, to medicines and treatments being tested on people (historically viewed as "the default human" by the medical establishment) with only minimal testing on people (whose medical needs have historically been viewed as special cases by the medical establishment). This is by no means an exhaustive list of the things that are of special concern to people that people might not be concerned with.
People both the language and the freedom to organize as a group to articulate their needs to society as a whole. Describing any of these things as something that happens to some mysterious portion of people without actually naming those people serves to obscure the cause and hampers the discussion. One might even wonder if it's an intentional effort by people to continue to keep people under their heel.
Also, I find this trend of normalizing and even glamorizing double mastectomies for healthy young women to be disturbing.
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 05, 2022, 02:14:55 am
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 05, 2022, 02:18:00 am
Also, I find this trend of normalizing and even glamorizing double mastectomies for healthy young women to be disturbing.
-k
How do you feel about someone cutting off their **** and shoving their balls inside their body?
Post by: kimmy on April 05, 2022, 02:48:51 am
A counterpoint:
Critics accuse trans swimming star Lia Thomas of having an unfair advantage. The data tells a different story (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-data-b2044949.html)
Your article fits into this burgeoning new trans cheerleader journalism genre that is actually more akin to lawyering or Christian apologetics, in the sense that it starts with the conclusion ("Your honor, my client is innocent!", "Jesus DID rise on the third day!" or in this case "male bodies do belong in women's sports" and then work backwards to find the argument.
The elephant in the room, obviously, is the big boost in results Thomas got after transitioning-- from a guy who made the finals at some Ivy League meets (comparable to making the playoffs in the AHL) to NCAA champion.
Your article attempts to tackle this by arguing that Thomas actually was a top swimmer before transitioning, because his 1650m time was around 30-34th best in the country. Yeah, but he didn't compete in the 1650m at the NCAA championships. He competed in the 100, 200, and 500m. He didn't compete again in the 1650m race after the Zippy Invitational meet where he beat the second place swimmer by over 30 seconds.
The bottom line is this: 500m freestyle: 65th in the country as a man, #1 as a woman. 200m freestyle: 554th in the country as a man, #5 as a woman. Despite how hard your article tries to spin it otherwise, that's a pretty extraordinary jump.
Thomas is not the first story like this. Craig Tefler was #390 in men's hurdles; after transforming into CeCe Tefler he became the NCAA women's champion. Gavin Hubbard briefly held some New Zealand records but never qualified for a single international meet during the prime of his athletic career... but after transforming into Laurel Hubbard he became an elite international women's competitor in his late 30s, winning multiple medals and qualified for the Olympics at age 43. If it wasn't for the transgender angle, the story of a relative nobody becoming an elite medal-winning athlete in his late 30s would have in itself been such an improbable story that it would have deserved a Disney movie. Dr Rachel McKinnon didn't have any sort of competitive background before transitioning, but became a world champion and world record holder in his age group. (He is now known as Dr Veronica Ivy, and now looks like a spandex-wrapped zeppelin, but still competing successfully.)
Your article fails to mention that international organizations have already dropped the testosterone limit from 10nmol/L to 5nmol/L; NCAA swimming is implementing the change this summer, so Thomas got in just under the wire.
Your article grasps at straws trying to find alternative explanations for Thomas's jump from mediocre to champion. Maybe his technique improved! Maybe his mindset improved! Yeah, or maybe reducing testosterone levels just isn't the magic solution that people had imagined it would be. Which is what the studies have shown us and what international bodies in a number of sports have already decided.
The article flounders around by pointing out that elite basketball players are taller than the average citizen and similar nonsense. This is a nonsensical line of argument. Elite athletics obviously weeds out those who are merely average; I have no idea what they're trying to accomplish. People keep invoking Michael Phelps to show that "sport is never completely even because somebody always have some sort of advantage". At it's core, their argument is that since categories aren't perfect, they should be scrapped. Some 12 year olds are bigger than others, so why don't we make them compete against 16 year olds?
The article brings up Katie Ledecky. That they need to invoke this once-in-a-century athlete to justify this middle-of-the-pack dude speaks for itself. And the part where they quote Ryan Lochte comparing Ledecky to "a guy" strikes me as a big self-own. It's a swimming version of "They used to say that Martina and Serena aren't feminine too!" They're missing the point. It's not about feminine, it's about female. "Katie Ledecky swims like a guy, so why do we even have women's swimming?" isn't the clever argument they seem to think it is.
Your article wants to talk about "the results", but doesn't address the Zippy Invitational results. Comparing the Zippy results to the NCAA championship results, Thomas got faster in the 500m, but slower in both the 100m and 200m races. And why didn't he even bother competing again in his strongest event, the 1650m, after winning the one race by over 30 seconds? Thomas's anonymous teammates claimed that he said "that was so easy! I was just cruising!" after the race, he denies having said that, but somebody did a chart of Thomas's split times during his NCAA championship race compared to his competitors, and it sure looks like he was "just cruising".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzhCMADl_nY
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 05, 2022, 09:37:06 am
A counterpoint:
Critics accuse trans swimming star Lia Thomas of having an unfair advantage. The data tells a different story (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-data-b2044949.html)
Hormones don't change skeletal structure in any significant way. A 6"4 biological male on hormones is still 6'4
Post by: Black Dog on April 05, 2022, 10:08:45 am
Hormones don't change skeletal structure in any significant way. A 6"4 biological male on hormones is still 6'4
And that may or may not give them an advantage depending on the sport.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 05, 2022, 10:10:14 am
And that may or may not give them an advantage depending on the sport.What sport does being stronger, bigger, faster, etc not give an advantage?
Post by: Black Dog on April 05, 2022, 10:35:10 am
What sport does being stronger, bigger, faster, etc not give an advantage?
Someone being 6'4" doesn't necessarily make them stronger or faster than someone who is shorter.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 05, 2022, 10:36:36 am
This is the insanity ....
Oh wow - argument by posting a photo ! Great job ! Too bad I can't post a pic of your soul....
Next....
Post by: Black Dog on April 05, 2022, 05:59:28 pm
Oh wow - argument by posting a photo ! Great job ! Too bad I can't post a pic of your soul....
Next....
Shiddy's tactic of just posting images without context or elaboration (what is that, an ad for underwear? A poster for a queer theatre troupe? Who the **** knows?) is pretty representative of how the right wing communicates these days, it's all about ringing the culture war bells and making the dogs slobber and bark. Pure propaganda.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 05, 2022, 06:05:09 pm
Oh wow - argument by posting a photo ! Great job ! Too bad I can't post a pic of your soul....Name calling isn’t an argument either. Next.
Next....
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 05, 2022, 06:06:35 pm
Shiddy's tactic of just posting images without context or elaboration (what is that, an ad for underwear? A poster for a queer theatre troupe? Who the **** knows?) is pretty representative of how the right wing communicates these days, it's all about ringing the culture war bells and making the dogs slobber and bark. Pure propaganda.You’re right, insisting that men can menstruate definitely is propaganda. It’s also anti-science.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 05, 2022, 07:03:58 pm
Name calling isn’t an argument either. Next.
I never called you a name... I explained to you the state of your soul.
Post by: Black Dog on April 05, 2022, 07:52:55 pm
You’re right, insisting that men can menstruate definitely is propaganda. It’s also anti-science.
Picture didn't say men, did it?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 05, 2022, 08:52:32 pm
I never called you a name... I explained to you the state of your soul.Well, your soul is much worse. Next.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 05, 2022, 08:54:07 pm
Says the guy who calls people he disagrees with ****. GTFO.I don’t know what else to call an almost unstoppable desire to sexualize young children. 5 year olds have no businesses being taught anything related to sex and sexuality.
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 07:06:15 am
I don’t know what else to call an almost unstoppable desire to sexualize young children. 5 year olds have no businesses being taught anything related to sex and sexuality.So how do you explain that they have a mommy and daddy, pervert?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 06, 2022, 07:38:12 am
Well, your soul is much worse. Next.
No, I just checked...
You are based in a need to punish... not good.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 08:24:45 am
No, I just checked...Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
You are based in a need to punish... not good.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 08:47:00 am
So how do you explain that they have a mommy and daddy, pervert?You need to explain to them that they have a mommy and daddy? They usually already know that.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 06, 2022, 08:53:09 am
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
Your first reaction to things tends to be to invoke law and order and punishment etc.
Mine is more to ask why, to try to understand.
I will actually withdraw my catty comment about the soul - neither approach is better.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 08:59:35 am
Your first reaction to things tends to be to invoke law and order and punishment etc.Fair enough. My reason for posting that advertisement that's going around social media is because it's blatantly anti-science. If we're to accept things that we know are factually untrue, like men can menstruate, how far will this nonsense go? I have no problem trying to understand why somebody might want to think that, but at some point adults in the room have to step up and say no, that's false, that's not true.
Mine is more to ask why, to try to understand.
I will actually withdraw my catty comment about the soul - neither approach is better.
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 09:03:40 am
You need to explain to them that they have a mommy and daddy? They usually already know that.You propose making it illegal to acknowledge it.
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 09:09:41 am
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1511504578423963655?t=o9SvTsRtXcVlj-jGCE0YHw&s=19
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 09:22:54 am
You propose making it illegal to acknowledge it.Complete nonsense.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 09:24:29 am
Pre-Trump Shady would have condemned this kind of rhetoric...I think. Although he was always inexplicably stupid.Leftists insistence on sexualizing young children is fairly new. There's nothing wrong with that "rhetoric", it's the truth. Sexualizing 5 year olds is wrong. And should be denounced in the harshest terms possible.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1511504578423963655?t=o9SvTsRtXcVlj-jGCE0YHw&s=19
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 09:25:40 am
I don’t know what else to call an almost unstoppable desire to sexualize young children. 5 year olds have no businesses being taught anything related to sex and sexuality.
I've told you multiple that the law you support doesn't even prohibit teaching sex but you're too interested in parroting the latest retarded talking points from the American Taliban to let facts get in the way because you don't have any capacity for original thought.
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 09:29:56 am
Leftists insistence on sexualizing young children is fairly new. There's nothing wrong with that "rhetoric", it's the truth. Sexualizing 5 year olds is wrong. And should be denounced in the harshest terms possible.
The GOP is the official party of sexual predators
(https://twitter.com/Cajsa/status/1042539457327448065)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 09:32:52 am
I've told you multiple that the law you support doesn't even prohibit teaching sex but you're too interested in parroting the latest retarded talking points from the American Taliban to let facts get in the way because you don't have any capacity for original thought.It's all based on what's age appropriate. Your side has lost the argument on what's age appropriate. The vast majority of Floridians disagree with you, even a majority of Florida Democrats. Get over it already.
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 09:49:07 am
It's all based on what's age appropriate.
You keep doubling down when you've already been shown there are no standards for what is age appropriate and there is nothing in this law stopping people from teaching kids about the mechanics of sex; indeed Republicans insisted that sex education or instruction not be included. So: are you stupid, a liar or both?
Quote
Your side has lost the argument on what's age appropriate. The vast majority of Floridians disagree with you, even a majority of Florida Democrats. Get over it already.
I simply have to assume that most people don't actually know what's in this bill or, like you, know and are too stupid or too partisan to be honest about it. For example, I doubt most people actually know that under this law, you can teach 5 year olds about sucking c**k and be fine because it only covers "sexual orientation or gender identity" and not sexual activity.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 09:56:01 am
You keep doubling down when you've already been shown there are no standards for what is age appropriate and there is nothing in this law stopping people from teaching kids about the mechanics of sex. So are you stupid, a liar or both?Yes, there are no standards in this bill, but direction of what's age appropriate is provided by the Florida Department of Education.
I simply have to assume that most people don't actualy know what's in this bill or, like you, know and are too stupid or too partisan to be honest about it. For example, I doubt most people actually know that under this law, you can teach 5 year olds about sucking c**k and be fine because it only covers "sexual orientation or gender identity" and not sexual activity.
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 09:56:47 am
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 09:57:36 am
Yes, there are no standards in this bill, but direction of what's age appropriate is provided by the Florida Department of Education.
No, there are no statewide standards period. So once again: you're either lying or just ignorant.
Quote
Sex education is not currently mandated in Florida. Schools that do teach sex education must emphasize abstinence as the expected social standard. Since Florida schools are not required to provide sex education to students, school districts are left to decide what type of sex education–if any at all–they provide to youth.
link (https://siecus.org/state_profile/florida-state-profile/#:~:text=Florida%20schools%20are%20not%20required%20to%20teach%20sex%20education.,as%20the%20expected%20social%20standard.)
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 09:59:52 am
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tennessee-law-child-marriage/
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 10:11:07 am
It seems to be created to divert attention from the DeSantis-Gaetz pedo-cabal.Is that what your BlueAnon sources are telling you?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 10:13:34 am
No, there are no statewide standards period. So once again: you're either lying or just ignorant.Incorrect. The governor has said repeatedly that the Department of Education provides direction, despite what your **** group that you've cited has to say about it. Really? You're citing Sex Ed for Social Change? Give me a break.
link (https://siecus.org/state_profile/florida-state-profile/#:~:text=Florida%20schools%20are%20not%20required%20to%20teach%20sex%20education.,as%20the%20expected%20social%20standard.)
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 10:14:42 am
Is that what your BlueAnon sources are telling you?
You're literally regurgitating QAnon talking points you scumbag.
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 10:16:36 am
Incorrect. The governor has said repeatedly that the Department of Education provides direction, despite what your **** group that you've cited has to say about it. Really? You're citing Sex Ed for Social Change? Give me a break.
Well he's lying. Here's the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/policy/pdf/summary_report_factsheets/Florida.pdf)if you want another source; oh wait you probably don't believe them either.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 10:23:50 am
Well he's lying. Here's the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/policy/pdf/summary_report_factsheets/Florida.pdf)if you want another source; oh wait you probably don't believe them either.I'm not sure what you're referring to in that link. Regardless, it looks like that graphic is from 2015/2016. Is your objection to the law that it's not specific in what's age appropriate? It sounds like it's either determined by the Department of Education or by local school boards.
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 10:30:42 am
I'm not sure what you're referring to in that link. Regardless, it looks like that graphic is from 2015/2016. Is your objection to the law that it's not specific in what's age appropriate? It sounds like it's either determined by the Department of Education or by local school boards.
No, I'm saying your claims- that the bill is "based on what's age appropriate", that there are state standards for sex ed- are all utter horseshit.
Florida Republicans aren't interested in ensuring kids get age appropriate sex ed. If they were, they would have developed standards and they would not have outright rejected an amendment to broaden the bill language to prohibit instruction of "human sexuality."
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 10:42:57 am
No, I'm saying your claims- that the bill is "based on what's age appropriate", that there are state standards for sex ed- are all utter horseshit.That’s incorrect. I believe sex education in Florida starts at 10 years old. I’m sorry that upsets you so much, but it’s like that in pretty much all of Canada too. This crusade you’re on is bizarre.
Florida Republicans aren't interested in ensuring kids get age appropriate sex ed. If they were, they would have developed standards and they would not have outright rejected an amendment to broaden the bill language to prohibit instruction of "human sexuality."
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 10:48:55 am
That’s incorrect. I believe sex education in Florida starts at 10 years old. I’m sorry that upsets you so much, but it’s like that in pretty much all of Canada too.
Once again, you're either lying or completely ignorant. The sum total of state-mandated sex education in Florida is as follows:
"The health education curriculum for students in grades 6 through 12 shall include an awareness of the benefits of sexual abstinence as the expected standard and the consequences of teenage pregnancy."
That's it.
Quote
This crusade you’re on is bizarre.
Again: you say anyone who disagrees with laws forbidding mentioning the existence of gay people is a pedo, so you sir can go f*ck yourself with a rusty screwdriver.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 10:57:08 am
Once again, you're either lying or completely ignorant. The sum total of state-mandated sex education in Florida is as follows:No, that's not it. Schools can teach sex education beyond that. It's just not required. You don't know what you're talking about.
"The health education curriculum for students in grades 6 through 12 shall include an awareness of the benefits of sexual abstinence as the expected standard and the consequences of teenage pregnancy."
That's it.
Again: you say anyone who disagrees with laws forbidding mentioning the existence of gay people is a pedo, so you sir can go f*ck yourself with a rusty screwdriver.Not the existence of gay people, sexuality, whether it's gay, straight etc. Anyone that feels the need to teach 5 year olds about sex or sexuality, or that men can menstruate etc, are about as close to pedo as it gets. Why are you so concerned about what Florida teaches, yet you seem to have no problem with all of Canada wait to teach kids about sex until grade 6 at the earliest. Yet you want 5 year olds in Florida to be taught a greater extend of sex and sexuality than 12 years olds in Canada. That's f**ked up.
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 11:04:04 am
No, that's not it. Schools can teach sex education beyond that. It's just not required. You don't know what you're talking about.
So you admit there's no statewide standard for sex ed, despite you saying there was. So: are you stupid or a liar or both?
Quote
Not the existence of gay people, sexuality, whether it's gay, straight etc.
Meaning what, exactly? Like if there's a book where someone has a mom and a dad, that's out because it's depicting a heterosexual lifestyle?
Quote
Anyone that feels the need to teach 5 year olds about sex or sexuality, or that men can menstruate etc, are about as close to pedo as it gets.
Nobody is doing that now you dumbass. It's telling that you need to cloak your bigotry in these vile lies.
Quote
Why are you so concerned about what Florida teaches, yet you seem to have no problem with all of Canada wait to teach kids about sex until grade 6 at the earliest. Yet you want 5 year olds in Florida to be taught a greater extend of sex and sexuality than 12 years olds in Canada. That's f**ked up.
Classic Shiddy strawman.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 06, 2022, 11:30:36 am
So you admit there's no statewide standard for sex ed, despite you saying there was. So: are you stupid or a liar or both?We're just going around in circles. I guess we can agree to disagree, as there is really no point in continuing to beat a dead horse so to speak.
Meaning what, exactly? Like if there's a book where someone has a mom and a dad, that's out because it's depicting a heterosexual lifestyle?
Nobody is doing that now you dumbass. It's telling that you need to cloak your bigotry in these vile lies.
Classic Shiddy strawman.
Post by: Black Dog on April 06, 2022, 11:49:59 am
We're just going around in circles. I guess we can agree to disagree, as there is really no point in continuing to beat a dead horse so to speak.
The circles were going around in are you making a false or misleading claim, being proven wrong, making a different false or misleading claim, having that one proven wrong, and then you circling back to the original false claim that had already been proven wrong.
Here's some of the outright nonsense you've spewed on this topic:
-five year olds are being taught anal sex
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/cancel-culture-culture/?message=87653)-five year olds are incapable of comprehending gender or sexuality (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/cancel-culture-culture/?message=87893)
-the Florida bill prevents the sexualization of young children (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/cancel-culture-culture/?message=88655)
-there are state standards for sex ed in Florida (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=88996)
So yeah, if I was as wrong on a subject as often as you have been on this, I'd want to move on too.
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 04:19:27 pm
Post by: guest18 on April 06, 2022, 05:12:53 pm
Then there was that Moore guy who was banned from shopping malls for trying to pick up teenagers.
And Dennis Hastert, who was convicted of unspeakable crimes.
And Jim Jordan, who facilitated child sexual abuse when he was a coach ...
The party of projection. Their accusations are always confessions.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 08:21:25 am
Congressman John Rose of Tennessee, where they are trying to legalize marriage with children, started courting his wife when she was a child.Classic whataboutism. Now do a list of Democrats.
Then there was that Moore guy who was banned from shopping malls for trying to pick up teenagers.
And Dennis Hastert, who was convicted of unspeakable crimes.
And Jim Jordan, who facilitated child sexual abuse when he was a coach ...
The party of projection. Their accusations are always confessions.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 08:22:34 am
If I may sum up shady's argument because he isn't quite literate enough to do so himself, talking about a mommy and daddy is fine, but talkng about two daddies is grooming children for anal sex.Complete nonsense. All sexuality is off limits. Your obsession with needing to sexualize 5 year olds is really disturbing.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 09:49:03 am
Complete nonsense. All sexuality is off limits. Your obsession with needing to sexualize 5 year olds is really disturbing.
This doesn't' get any less stupid the more you repeat it, quite the opposite. I'm not sure why you seem to think people can't talk about human relationships without resorting to graphic descriptions of sex acts, but that definitely is a "you" problem.
Also the idea that five year olds are exposed to depictions of "sexuality" (that is, normal romantic relationships) is utterly preposterous and goes to show how little understanding and experience you actually have with real five year olds.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 10:05:12 am
This doesn't' get any less stupid the more you repeat it, quite the opposite. I'm not sure why you seem to think people can't talk about human relationships without resorting to graphic descriptions of sex acts, but that definitely is a "you" problem.It's not the 5 year olds that are the issue, it's some of the teachers that are the problems. They're referred to as groomers.
Also the idea that five year olds are exposed to depictions of "sexuality" (that is, normal romantic relationships) is utterly preposterous and goes to show how little understanding and experience you actually have with real five year olds.
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 10:16:14 am
Complete nonsense. All sexuality is off limits. Your obsession with needing to sexualize 5 year olds is really disturbing.You said talking about mommy and daddy is fine. Now you're saying it should be criminalized. Maybe you should have this debate with yourself.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 10:18:01 am
It's not the 5 year olds that are the issue, it's some of the teachers that are the problems. They're referred to as groomers.
Bullshit. This is psycho QAnon garbage. You have no evidence anyone is teaching kids inappropriate sexual content (which, again, this law doesn't even prohibit). This junk may work on mouth-breathers who haven't read the law, but nobody with half a brain is buying it.
Again, the fact you think you can't talk about human relationships without getting into great detail about who is f*cking who says more about you than anything.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 07, 2022, 12:10:36 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 12:14:40 pm
How's the chat going ? Can I get a status ?We've agreed to disagree.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 12:21:00 pm
We've agreed to disagree.
This is like Spinks saying him and Tyson decided to call their '88 bout a draw.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 02:33:09 pm
Congressman John Rose of Tennessee, where they are trying to legalize marriage with children, started courting his wife when she was a child.
Then there was that Moore guy who was banned from shopping malls for trying to pick up teenagers.
And Dennis Hastert, who was convicted of unspeakable crimes.
And Jim Jordan, who facilitated child sexual abuse when he was a coach ...
The party of projection. Their accusations are always confessions.
Quote
Tucker Carlson said underage marriage is not “the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child. ... The rapist in this case has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person so it is a little different.”
...
After Bubba the Love Sponge described underage girls at Tucker Carlson's daughter’s boarding school experimenting sexually with each other, Carlson said, “If it weren't my daughter I would love that scenario.”
...
Carlson: If I made the laws, “Michael Vick would have been executed and (child r*pist) Warren Jeffs would be out on the street.”
link
(https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/unearthed-audio-tucker-carlson-makes-numerous-misogynistic-and-perverted-comments)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 02:45:14 pm
This is like Spinks saying him and Tyson decided to call their '88 bout a draw.Why? Was Spinks obsessed with sexualizing young children?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 02:50:22 pm
(https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F022%2F017%2Fthumb.jpg)You're delusional. Completely delusional.
You just love to be humiliated here don't you.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 03:12:06 pm
Keep going, you're just one step away from the "I'm not mad, I'm actually laughing" stage of Cope.Ditto. Also, keep posting Simpson's pictures. LOL!
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 07, 2022, 03:22:25 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 03:38:22 pm
"I know you are but what am I" is such a classic Shiddy response. I guess you never really left the short bus.Whatever you say Black Douche. Like I've already said, we can agree to disagree. You keep demanding that 5 year olds be sexualized, and I'll keep disagreeing.
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 03:40:29 pm
. You keep demanding that 5 year olds be sexualized, and I'll keep disagreeing.Are you saying you oppose GOP attempts to legalize marrying children?
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 03:45:40 pm
Whatever you say Black Douche. Like I've already said, we can agree to disagree. You keep demanding that 5 year olds be sexualized, and I'll keep disagreeing.
Shiddy, we can't agree to disagree when you've been proven wrong over and over again, that's not how it works.
But I understand why you, a giant loser who is wrong all the time, would want to move on.
It's also kinda sad that you have like one line for this topic you use over and over again and it's not even an attack line you came up with. Just another example how you're just an empty vessel for whatever thing the psycho freaks on FOX News are mad about this week.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 03:52:17 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 03:53:34 pm
Shiddy, we can't agree to disagree when you've been proven wrong over and over again, that's not how it works.Black Douche, I haven't been "proven" wrong over and over again. Citing your **** groups like Sex Ed for Social Change isn't an objective source. It's actually a disgusting source, which only validates the need for this law.
But I understand why you, a giant loser who is wrong all the time, would want to move on.
It's also kinda sad that you have like one line for this topic you use over and over again and it's not even an attack line you came up with. Just another example how you're just an empty vessel for whatever thing the psycho freaks on FOX News are mad about this week.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 03:55:01 pm
Conservatives will put their babies in a onesie that says "I love sucking titties" at 18 months, a bikini for a child beauty contest at age 6 and a gown for a purity ball to celebrate their virginity at age 15 and then complain that kids are being sexualized for reading a picture book where a character has two moms. And those are the "normal" ones who aren't actual child predators like the countless Republican and Evangelical sex offenders out there.That's just more stereotypes and prejudging. What other groups to you stereotype and prejudge? You're a flatout bigot.
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 04:05:05 pm
That's just more stereotypes and prejudging. What other groups to you stereotype and prejudge? You're a flatout bigot.That's true. Conservatives are more diverse and also include non-breeding incels like yourself.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 04:07:46 pm
Black Douche, I haven't been "proven" wrong over and over again. Citing your **** groups like Sex Ed for Social Change isn't an objective source. It's actually a disgusting source, which only validates the need for this law.
You could provide a link to the actual state standards for sex ed then. Except you can't because they don't exist. So we'll just add this to the pile along with your advocacy for ivermectin or your claim that undocumented immigrants have no legal rights or that COVID vaccines were peer reviewed or that Iraq had WMDs and on and on and on....
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 06:10:14 pm
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 06:13:28 pm
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 08:00:28 pm
No wonder the projection has been so strong. Apparently there are more to come.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 08:30:10 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 08:39:01 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 08:43:33 pm
OMG! Discussing gender! Just because you can't understand things doesn't mean four year olds can't. They're often much smarter than youYou should be required to register as a sex offender immediately. Holy s**t.
Post by: Black Dog on April 07, 2022, 09:20:00 pm
This is why Parental rights laws are being enacted.
(Attachment Link)
Imagine posting a screenshot-not even a link!-of an account known for peddling fake **** and pretending you're making some kind of point.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 09:26:25 pm
Imagine posting a screenshot-not even a link!-of an account known for peddling fake **** and pretending you're making some kind of point.Spoken like a true groomer. I’m starting to understand your point of view now.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512208604421496832?s=21&t=KIksDKIhDzD3_47AtY-LpQ
Post by: guest18 on April 07, 2022, 09:49:04 pm
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2021/08/lawyer-on-alabama-gov-kay-iveys-staff-arrested-on-child-solicitation-charge.html
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 07, 2022, 10:43:00 pm
That is the fakest **** I've ever seen, of course a boomer brain retard like you would fall for it lol.BlueAnon! 😂
Ok groomer.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 06:35:57 am
Listen, I know we've had our differences over the years, but I want you to know that I mean this deeply and sincerely: I hope you or someone you love dies a slow, agonizing death very soon. 😂😂😂😂😂😂Typical groomer. They become unhinged when you get between them and children.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 08, 2022, 08:34:29 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 09:25:25 am
I love that you're so addicted to the attention that you can't stay way even after announcing you were done with this topic after being exposed as a know-nothing scumbag.I had no idea you were going to become this unhinged. It’s like a car crash, you just can’t look away! I’m not sure if you’re just pretending to act this way, or if this is how you actually are. It’s astonishing.
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 09:27:06 am
I had no idea you were going to become this unhinged. It’s like a car crash, you just can’t look away! I’m not sure if you’re just pretending to act this way, or if this is how you actually are. It’s astonishing.
"Unhinged" says the guy calling everyone he disagrees with **** and groomers because he doesn't have any actual arguments left.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 01:37:50 pm
https://twitter.com/_teacherexposed/status/1504139595658629121?s=21&t=-f9v4rsm3W4q7jmWG_dsMQ
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 01:57:00 pm
Some teachers have “transition closets” at schools for children to change clothes in.
https://twitter.com/_teacherexposed/status/1504139595658629121?s=21&t=-f9v4rsm3W4q7jmWG_dsMQ
So?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 08, 2022, 02:32:36 pm
So?
So, it’s a great idea. Some parents are such shitty people that school is the only escape these kids have from them.
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 02:40:13 pm
So, it’s a great idea. Some parents are such shitty people that school is the only escape these kids have from them.
Yeah if this was kid who was being forced to wear a hijab at home, Shitbag would have no issue with the school facilitating their rebellion.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 02:47:50 pm
So, it’s a great idea. Some parents are such shitty people that school is the only escape these kids have from them.I wasn’t aware that you were also a groomer. It’s not some shitty teachers job to decide what clothes a young child should be wearing. They certainly don’t have the right to overrule a parent or parents. You’re another example as to why these parental rights bills are necessary.
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 02:51:33 pm
I wasn’t aware that you were also a groomer. It’s not some shitty teachers job to decide what clothes a young child should be wearing. They certainly don’t have the right to overrule a parent or parents. You’re another example as to why these parental rights bills are necessary.
The teacher's aren't deciding, the kids are.
Also, how can you call high school students "young children" when they are old enough to date Republican senators and get married in Tennessee?
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 08, 2022, 02:57:38 pm
I wasn’t aware that you were also a groomer. It’s not some shitty teachers job to decide what clothes a young child should be wearing. They certainly don’t have the right to overrule a parent or parents. You’re another example as to why these parental rights bills are necessary.
Your name calling everyone a pedo-phile is getting a bit silly.
You do like to take advantage of the lack of a moderator on the forum.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 08, 2022, 03:39:27 pm
Any thoughts ?
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 03:41:38 pm
Yeah. I am inclined to delete the whole thread and start a new one if there is name calling.
Any thoughts ?
Why not just clean this one up, I'll start by nuking some of my posts.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 03:42:04 pm
Your name calling everyone a pedo-phile is getting a bit silly.A groomer is not a ****. Regardless, you’re gonna complain about name calling? You???
You do like to take advantage of the lack of a moderator on the forum.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 03:43:23 pm
Yeah. I am inclined to delete the whole thread and start a new one if there is name calling.Sure. Doesn’t matter to me. I didn’t start the name calling.
Any thoughts ?
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 03:48:44 pm
Sure. Doesn’t matter to me. I didn’t start the name calling.
You just enthusiastically participated and fanned the flames with your calling people **** bit. (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=88974)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 04:06:51 pm
You just enthusiastically participated and fanned the flames with your calling people **** bit. (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/gender-culture/?message=88974)Aww does baby want a bottle? Can’t take the taste of your own medicine? Classic Black Dog Double Standard.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 08, 2022, 04:07:27 pm
Yeah. I am inclined to delete the whole thread and start a new one if there is name calling.
Any thoughts ?
Shady is banned from my threads. I suggest everyone do the same.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 04:10:24 pm
Shady is banned from my threads. I suggest everyone do the same.You’re another one that can’t take a bit of your own medicine. You’ve existed in this echo chamber for so long that you’ve never had anyone return your own behaviour in kind. Classic leftist, banning anything you don’t like.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 04:14:41 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 08, 2022, 04:28:51 pm
You’re another one that can’t take a bit of your own medicine. You’ve existed in this echo chamber for so long that you’ve never had anyone return your own behaviour in kind. Classic leftist, banning anything you don’t like.
Naw, it was the abortion pictures that did it.
I received PMs from other members here asking me to do something about it.
The fact is, you’re simply a turd. If there was an actual mod here, you would’ve been banned a long time ago.
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 04:43:16 pm
Aww does baby want a bottle? Can’t take the taste of your own medicine? Classic Black Dog Double Standard.
"You started it" is literally a child's response and it does nothing to diminish your own actions. You are completely incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions, which is no surprise given your also completely incapable of forming an original thought, opinion or insults.
Post by: Black Dog on April 08, 2022, 05:27:03 pm
I can confirm this sicko stuff starts even earlier as I recently caught my toddler singing about "heads, shoulders, knees and toes" which she must have learned from the perverts at daycare.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 05:52:10 pm
Naw, it was the abortion pictures that did it.Nah. You had already said I was banned from your threads long before that. Nice try though! Regardless, yes, when people are shown what abortion actually is and entails, it does cause some consternation. It’s no longer just a talking point about so-called rights to choose. It thrusts people into reality and to face the consequences of the policies they support. Similar to photos of war, etc.
I received PMs from other members here asking me to do something about it.
The fact is, you’re simply a turd. If there was an actual mod here, you would’ve been banned a long time ago.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 05:56:22 pm
"You started it" is literally a child's response and it does nothing to diminish your own actions. You are completely incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions, which is no surprise given your also completely incapable of forming an original thought, opinion or insults.No, it’s not a childish response, it’s the truth. You’ve been name calling long before I started returning fire. The fact is that you’re a bigot, incapable of even acknowledging differing points of view. Just hearing them triggers you beyond comprehension, wishing death on anyone that has the nerve to express a differing opinion. Anyways, when you openly insult and assert that you’re going to “bully” somebody out of participating, all it does it make me turn the dial up to 10. Actions have consequences. It was about time you found that out. It’s just too bad someone hasn’t stepped up and confronted you on your nonsense sooner. Well, all I can say is get used to it punk.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 08, 2022, 07:06:31 pm
Apparently chemical castration of young children is a thing now, and progressives are insisting that it’s considered life saving health care. That’s how messed up society has become.
Post by: guest18 on April 08, 2022, 07:27:16 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 09, 2022, 09:32:42 am
That's not a bad idea. Has your family considered it?I realize this topic is uncomfortable for you being a progressive. But eventually you really need to address the toxic policies of your ideological comrades.
Post by: Black Dog on April 09, 2022, 10:49:34 am
No, it’s not a childish response, it’s the truth. You’ve been name calling long before I started returning fire.
Not true Mr "Libtards"
Also you're still a child.
Quote
The fact is that you’re a bigot, incapable of even acknowledging differing points of view. Just hearing them triggers you beyond comprehension, wishing death on anyone that has the nerve to express a differing opinion.
I have no problem with different points of view. I do have a problem with ignorant trolls whose only purpose is to stir s*it up. and who are impervious to reason. In other words: you.
Quote
Anyways, when you openly insult and assert that you’re going to “bully” somebody out of participating, all it does it make me turn the dial up to 10. Actions have consequences. It was about time you found that out. It’s just too bad someone hasn’t stepped up and confronted you on your nonsense sooner. Well, all I can say is get used to it punk.
lmao this is so cringe
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F4c%2F4c56057e030bbb4c25f568a4d91dbb510a674a9225204d43ec1cf24da5802a3a.jpg&hash=ba9aefcb8c06ed6c81564e62dc6692e5e89c34f6)
Post by: Black Dog on April 09, 2022, 10:52:47 am
Anyways, back on topic.
Apparently chemical castration of young children is a thing now, and progressives are insisting that it’s considered life saving health care. That’s how messed up society has become.
I'm guessing "chemical castration" is the new right wing term for puberty blockers, just as "groomer" is the new "gay person."
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 11:05:39 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 09, 2022, 11:54:54 am
You can give children guns, send them to school to get shot, marry them and force them to carry a baby full term, but don't talk about race or gender. That's child abuse.That’s whataboutism. Try to concentrate on the actual subject. Like chemical castration of young children.
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 12:17:56 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 09, 2022, 12:20:02 pm
That's not whataboutism and the topic is "gender", not the latest BS you're repeating directly from your cyberops blogs.Guns aren’t about gender. Stop the whataboutism already. I’m not going to be responding to whataboutism anymore.
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 12:38:12 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 09, 2022, 12:54:10 pm
You must come from a world that obsesses about being precisely on topic all the time.Nope, just when it comes to this thread. I’m going to try to respect MH’s wishes, I’m not going to be indulging in name calling or thread drift. I talk about many other things as well. See my posts in such threads as sports culture, hockey cultist, etc.
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 01:15:06 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 09, 2022, 01:52:53 pm
That’s whataboutism. Try to concentrate on the actual subject. Like chemical castration of young children.
Why would we concentrate on something that's a complete figment of your imagination?
Anyway Bubber has a good point even if you're too dumb to see it: the right wing's ambivalence towards protecting children from actual harms like gun violence, poverty and hunger shows that this crusade against LGBTQ people (and the CRT boogeyman) has nothing to do with the well being of kids, but is just another part of the white grievance movement that gave us Trump and, in the words of Adam Serwer, holds as its only fundamental belief "that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men." And that birthright gives them license to inflict whatever cruelty they want on any other group in service of their hegemony.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 09, 2022, 02:21:34 pm
Why would we concentrate on something that's a complete figment of your imagination?Complete nonsense. Just because you’re not familiar with something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Chemical castration, puberty blockers and even invasive surgery are bring thrust upon young children all in the name of this woke/trans/gender fluid nonsense. It’s still tantamount to child abuse. State sanctioned child abuse. Not all that different from genital mutilation customs that exist in other countries.
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 02:34:52 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 09, 2022, 02:36:31 pm
Remember when your blogs had you all hysterical about Islam and Sharia law? Did you notice how you don't worry about that anymore, even though it was taking over western society just a few years ago?I don’t respond to whataboutism anymore. Sorry.
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 03:15:26 pm
I don’t respond to whataboutism anymore. Sorry.You just did. Couldn't help yourself.
Post by: Black Dog on April 09, 2022, 06:28:26 pm
Complete nonsense. Just because you’re not familiar with something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Chemical castration, puberty blockers and even invasive surgery are bring thrust upon young children all in the name of this woke/trans/gender fluid nonsense. It’s still tantamount to child abuse. State sanctioned child abuse. Not all that different from genital mutilation customs that exist in other countries.
Onus is on you to prove it, but i won't hold my breath that you can since it's completely made up, just like your claims that 5 year olds are being taught anal sex etc.
In short: you're a f**cking liar.
Post by: Black Dog on April 09, 2022, 06:29:06 pm
Remember when your blogs had you all hysterical about Islam and Sharia law? Did you notice how you don't worry about that anymore, even though it was taking over western society just a few years ago?
They never had a problem with the worldview, it was just the skin colour.
Post by: guest18 on April 09, 2022, 06:47:23 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 10, 2022, 02:43:19 pm
If that were the case, they would still be talking about it. Rather they are mindless drones who have no original thoughts and just regurgitate what they see on their blogs and "news" sites. They aren't being fed hate speech about Islam since the pandemic began so Islam has ceased to exist to them.
Yeah I think the best solution for some of these guys when they start going on about pedo groomer public school teachers is jingle keys in front of them for a minute.
Some of the people with influence who are pushing this stuff like Carlson and Christopher Rufo should 100% get the wall.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 10, 2022, 04:11:22 pm
A theater in the UK is advertising a “Family Sex Show.” They want parents to come with their little kids to learn all about sex, ****, ****, etc.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512257114994970625?s=21&t=87fDPvgSOqUl7pgOINGO5w
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 10, 2022, 04:12:53 pm
Why not just clean this one up, I'll start by nuking some of my posts.
OK - go ahead and clean up everyone !
Post by: guest18 on April 10, 2022, 04:44:54 pm
This nonsense gets more and more disturbing and disgusting. This time out ok the UK.It's almost like they cherry-pick content they know you will react to at an emotional level. Don't you ever wonder what happened to the muslims?
Post by: Black Dog on April 10, 2022, 04:47:00 pm
This nonsense gets more and more disturbing and disgusting. This time out ok the UK.
A theater in the UK is advertising a “Family Sex Show.” They want parents to come with their little kids to learn all about sex, ****, ****, etc.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512257114994970625?s=21&t=87fDPvgSOqUl7pgOINGO5w
hey dipshit, before you post another trash tweet from that bogus account, how about you provide some evidence for your claims here:
Chemical castration, puberty blockers and even invasive surgery are bring thrust upon young children all in the name of this woke/trans/gender fluid nonsense.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 10, 2022, 06:10:52 pm
hey dipshit, before you post another trash tweet from that bogus account, how about you provide some evidence for your claims here:Sorry. I don’t response to vulgarity. Try again.
Post by: guest18 on April 10, 2022, 06:39:14 pm
Sorry. I don’t response to vulgarity. Try again.You seem to be getting more cowardly now that you're realizing the fake BS you post is BS
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 10, 2022, 06:52:48 pm
You seem to be getting more cowardly now that you're realizing the fake BS you post is BSNot at all. But I’m strictly enforcing a new no response policy to whataboutism and personal insults.
Post by: guest18 on April 10, 2022, 07:12:11 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 10, 2022, 08:08:44 pm
Sorry. I don’t response to vulgarity. Try again.
(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/search/canvas-print/10/7.5/mirror/break/images/artworkimages/medium/1/the-studio-sophie-anderson-canvas-print.jpg)
Post by: guest18 on April 10, 2022, 08:27:59 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 11, 2022, 09:56:26 am
Not at all. But I’m strictly enforcing a new no response policy to whataboutism and personal insults.
That goes well with your policy of not posting facts or original ideas.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 12, 2022, 03:18:14 pm
Post by: guest18 on April 12, 2022, 04:32:10 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 12, 2022, 05:25:04 pm
Warner Bros has removed all gay references from it's upcoming Harry Potter movie for distribution in China. So far the whiners are silent about Warner Bros' don't say gay policy.
Must be tough for you seeing a regime you claim to hate doing stuff you support.
Post by: Black Dog on April 13, 2022, 10:38:22 am
Transwoman harassed on metro (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/i-felt-terrified-for-my-life-transgender-woman-verbally-assaulted-on-metro-green-line-train/3022457)
The full video, which is basically a live reading of Shiddy's posts, is here (https://twitter.com/saoirsegowan/status/1512977926819618818?s=20&t=04UqpzwSdxSFql_HsVRT_Q).
Post by: Black Dog on April 13, 2022, 01:29:06 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FP_eRCMXIAkRAvR?format=jpg&name=medium)
Post by: Black Dog on June 05, 2022, 03:01:38 pm
(https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/03/gop-passes-bill-aiming-to-root-out-suspected-transgender-female-athletes-with-genital-inspection/)
Quote
The proposed rules would prohibit any trans athlete from competing with cisgender girls or women. It also has a verification requirement, if someone is “accused” or “suspected” of being trans.
If someone is suspected to be transgender, she must go through evaluations of her external and internal genitalia, testosterone levels and genetic makeup.
“This is truly bizarre medically and nonsensical, but looking at it practically, this bill means that if anyone decides to question a child’s true gender, that child must undergo a sensitive exam,” the doctor said.
A huge fear of Bruno’s is that not only will this traumatize young people, but also can cause a huge ripple effect on competitions in general.
Technically, under this bill, anyone can “accuse” someone else of being transgender, thus prompting this chain reaction.
Once “inspected,” the girl or woman has to give a signed physician’s statement indicating their sex based on those three evaluations, according to the bill.
Post by: Black Dog on June 06, 2022, 05:51:37 pm
Post by: kimmy on June 07, 2022, 01:34:37 am
Ohio GOP passes bill aiming to root out ‘suspected’ transgender female athletes with genital inspection
(https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/03/gop-passes-bill-aiming-to-root-out-suspected-transgender-female-athletes-with-genital-inspection/)
What the bill actually says about what happens if an athlete's sex is disputed:
(https://i.imgur.com/riOp0rQ.png)
https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb151/PH/02/hb151_02_PH?format=pdf
So first off, the key thing to note is that it doesn't state that all three of those things are required. It states that those are the only criteria that they'll accept. They're saying they want actual observable medical information for an actual doctor, not make-believe nonsense from a gender therapist, shaman, spirit-guide, oracle, swami, sooth-sayer, or so-on.
-physiology
yes-hormone levels
yes -genetics
yes -"feels like a girl" or similar gender-identity drivel
nope.They're not requiring invasive exams, they're requiring a signed statement from a physician.
This is another attempt by gender activists to conjure outrage by making **** up. And the reason they keep doing that is that they can't win this argument on its own merits. You guys haven't succeeding in convincing anybody that males don't have an advantage over females in most sports, so the fallback position is howling that laws like this will result in girls being "violated".
And as with last time I have to point out how utterly fake the trans activists' concern for the privacy of women and girls is. It materializes out of thin air the moment it becomes handy to argue against one of these trans sports bills, and vanishes the instant it's no longer useful for that purpose.
Women required to obtain a note from their doctor to participate in sports: "OMG this is heinous, this is literally state-sanctioned r4pe!"
Women required to change and shower in front of any creep who self-identifies as a woman at any given moment: "WOMEN WILL NEED TO OVERCOME THEIR INSECURITIES."
Trans activists and their supporters only care about the privacy of women with dicks.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 07, 2022, 02:03:00 am
Just two prominent TERFs from Extremely Normal Island talking (https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/1532681679592210433?s=20&t=NqZnBaQmO5J3dO6kOvw7lQ) about how "the fewer (trans) people there are, the better."
I've heard the genderfabulous types howling that Joyce was calling for LiTeRaL GeNoCidE against the transes, but this is the first time I'd seen the clip. And pretty much as I expected the content of the clip is completely disconnected from the kook activists represent it to be.
While nutbars (like Katie Montgomery or Non-Binary Ronald McDonald here) would have people believe that she's talking concentration camp type mass extermination of people, that's obviously not what she's talking about.
She argues for trying to reduce the number of people transitioning for two reasons.
The first being reducing the amount of harm. We've talked about Keira Bell and Sinead Watson earlier in this thread; Joyce is a personal friend of Bell and has seen that harm first hand. I posted a clip of Sinead Watson from the W5 interview with her earlier in the thread; rewatch her if you don't believe young people are being harmed. As medical transition for teenagers becomes more common, there's good reason to believe that it'll be more common for it to be used on people who need mental health care rather than mastectomies and hormones and sterilization.
The second reason Joyce gives is the increased burden of accommodation imposed as the number of trans people increases. And if you don't agree with that, then explain to me why "we're talking about such a small number of people" comes up so frequently trans activist arguments.
"We're talking about such a small number of trans athletes, it's silly to think it would disrupt women's athletics."
"We're talking about such a small number of transgender prisoners, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to accommodate them in women's prisons."
"Why, there's such a small number of transgender women, you'll probably never meet one in the changing rooms."
and this sort of thing.
That you guys sell "it's just a small number of them" as a reason why accommodating trans women is not an unreasonable burden on women concedes implicit agreement with Joyce's statement.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on June 07, 2022, 09:49:38 am
What the bill actually says about what happens if an athlete's sex is disputed:
https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb151/PH/02/hb151_02_PH?format=pdf
So first off, the key thing to note is that it doesn't state that all three of those things are required. It states that those are the only criteria that they'll accept.
It doesn't say that they will accept any one or two of them either. The language is vague enough that you could argue that they require all three.
Quote
They're saying they want actual observable medical information for an actual doctor, not make-believe nonsense from a gender therapist, shaman, spirit-guide, oracle, swami, sooth-sayer, or so-on.
-physiology
-hormone levels
-genetics
-"feels like a girl" or similar gender-identity drivel
They're not requiring invasive exams, they're requiring a signed statement from a physician.
And how do they get that signed statement without undergoing an exam?
Incredible mental gymnastics here, someone should check your gender to make sure you're not in the wrong category in the Big Brain Olympics.
Quote
This is another attempt by gender activists to conjure outrage by making **** up. And the reason they keep doing that is that they can't win this argument on its own merits. You guys haven't succeeding in convincing anybody that males don't have an advantage over females in most sports, so the fallback position is howling that laws like this will result in girls being "violated".
And as with last time I have to point out how utterly fake the trans activists' concern for the privacy of women and girls is. It materializes out of thin air the moment it becomes handy to argue against one of these trans sports bills, and vanishes the instant it's no longer useful for that purpose.
Women required to obtain a note from their doctor to participate in sports: "OMG this is heinous, this is literally state-sanctioned r4pe!"
Women required to change and shower in front of any creep who self-identifies as a woman at any given moment: "WOMEN WILL NEED TO OVERCOME THEIR INSECURITIES."
Trans activists and their supporters only care about the privacy of women with dicks.
You realize that anyone can use this to challenge any participant's gender, right? No you don't because you're too far up your own TERF ass. So if a few cis-girls have to submit to unwanted medical examinations because they don't look femme enough or they're just better than others, that's a price you're willing to pay to keep the already minuscule number of trans athletes out of sport.
Post by: Black Dog on June 07, 2022, 10:03:45 am
I've heard the genderfabulous types howling that Joyce was calling for LiTeRaL GeNoCidE against the transes, but this is the first time I'd seen the clip. And pretty much as I expected the content of the clip is completely disconnected from the kook activists represent it to be.
Oh wow you mean your interpretation confirmed your priors? Knock me over with a feather.
Quote
While nutbars (like Katie Montgomery or Non-Binary Ronald McDonald here) would have people believe that she's talking concentration camp type mass extermination of people, that's obviously not what she's talking about.
Any evidence people are saying this?
Quote
She argues for trying to reduce the number of people transitioning for two reasons.
The first being reducing the amount of harm. We've talked about Keira Bell and Sinead Watson earlier in this thread; Joyce is a personal friend of Bell and has seen that harm first hand. I posted a clip of Sinead Watson from the W5 interview with her earlier in the thread; rewatch her if you don't believe young people are being harmed. As medical transition for teenagers becomes more common, there's good reason to believe that it'll be more common for it to be used on people who need mental health care rather than mastectomies and hormones and sterilization.
This is bullshit, of course. Her clearly stated premise is that every single person who transitions is "damaged". So it follows (and again, this is clear from her interview) that harm reduction in her terms isn't just reducing the chances of someone undergoing a medical transition they later regret, but eliminating any and all forms of gender affirming healthcare even for those people who genuinely want or need it because of the "damage" they undergo and the "accommodation" they require. And you wonder why people might interpret this as "she doesn't want trans people to exist"?
Post by: Black Dog on June 16, 2022, 11:45:07 am
(https://www.mediamatters.org/candace-owens/daily-wires-candace-owens-calls-state-take-away-children-parents-trans-kids-and)
I guess "parent's rights" only apply when the parents in question are trying to ban books.
Post by: wilber on June 19, 2022, 01:57:09 pm
https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/61853450
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 20, 2022, 10:55:13 am
One sporting body finally gets it right.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/61853450
Makes sense, given biological advantages of biological males.
Their “open” category will likely be composed of athletes not able to compete at the sufficient level to compete in the “men’s” category.
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2022, 02:12:15 pm
One sporting body finally gets it right.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/61853450
Yeah seems like a great org too lol (https://twitter.com/fina_president/status/1538493520922742784?s=20&t=gRZ4bbXRkRN2__LZ-JEQHw)
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 20, 2022, 06:58:55 pm
Yeah seems like a great org too lol (https://twitter.com/fina_president/status/1538493520922742784?s=20&t=gRZ4bbXRkRN2__LZ-JEQHw)
You think they’re taking direction from Hungary on this?
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 10:46:19 am
I hope Rugby Union follows their example.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/61875651
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2022, 11:49:07 am
I didn't realize it until I watched the news last night but apparently women's Rugby League has the same rules when it comes to international competition.
I hope Rugby Union follows their example.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/61875651
Quote
The IRL said it had considered "relevant developments in world sport" in coming to its decision to ban "male-to-female (transwomen) players" until it had completed research on its final inclusion policy.
If their concern is perceived risk why aren't they also banning FTM people who would presumably be at risk because they have the anatomy of puny women?
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 12:30:24 pm
If their concern is perceived risk why aren't they also banning FTM people who would presumably be at risk because they have the anatomy of puny women?No, quite the opposite, they are banning them because women would be at risk from people with the anatomy of men.
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2022, 12:43:07 pm
No, quite the opposite, they are banning them because women would be at risk from people with the anatomy of men.
yeah you obviously didn't understand my post at all.
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 12:47:27 pm
yeah you obviously didn't understand my post at all.
I did. Those people are choosing to compete in a mens sport and accepting the risk. Allowing MTF athletes to compete in women's sports puts women at risk without their consent.
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2022, 01:17:59 pm
I did. Those people are choosing to compete in a mens sport and accepting the risk. Allowing MTF athletes to compete in women's sports puts women at risk without their consent.
Everyone who competes in rugby is accepting risk of injury, this is absurd.
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 01:50:23 pm
Everyone who competes in rugby is accepting risk of injury, this is absurd.
Tell me about it. I have two grand daughters who play for UBC. One is rehabbing from a torn ACL and the other is having surgery on both shoulders. Their younger brother is in a knee brace rehabbing from a knee injury he got in a high school game. It's risky enough as it is without going out of your way to make it worse.
Maybe you would feel a little different if you had daughters playing contact sports with men who decided to become girls . You wouldn't give them a say about accepting that risk. They would either have to accept that risk or not play. Think about it, women not being able to play a women's sport to satisfy men who decided to become women.
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2022, 01:52:46 pm
Tell me about it. I have two grand daughters who play for UBC. One is rehabbing from a torn ACL and the other is having surgery on both shoulders. Their younger brother is in a knee brace rehabbing from a knee injury he got in a high school game. It's risky enough as it is without going out of your way to make it worse.
Maybe you would feel a little different if you had daughters playing contact sports with men who decided to become girls . You wouldn't give them a say about accepting that risk. They would either have to accept that risk or not play. Think about it, women not being able to play a women's sport to satisfy men who decided to become women.
Again, if the concern is for the safety of all participants, why doesn't the ban cover FTM people?
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 04:10:39 pm
Again, if the concern is for the safety of all participants, why doesn't the ban cover FTM people?
Would you feel better if they were banned, for their own safety?
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2022, 04:49:46 pm
Would you feel better if they were banned, for their own safety?
That would actually demonstrate consistency on the part of the decision makers with regard to their stated concerns about the safety of participants.
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 05:04:37 pm
That would actually demonstrate consistency on the part of the decision makers with regard to their stated concerns about the safety of participants.
What is it you don't understand about men's and women's sports? Biological men playing in women's contact sports are a real danger to women. It is a woman's sport after all. Biological women playing in mens contact sports will likely get creamed so maybe they shouldn't. It is a man's sport after all. What do you suggest, we get rid of men's and women's sports and just have sports where anyone can compete? Of course that would prevent women from competing at the highest level of just about anything other than equestrian sports and shooting, where they already compete as equals. You come across like a misogynist.
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2022, 05:14:13 pm
What is it you don't understand about men's and women's sports? Biological men playing in women's contact sports are a real danger to women. It is a woman's sport after all. Biological women playing in mens contact sports will likely get creamed so maybe they shouldn't. It is a man's sport after all.
And yet they aren't banned so I guess maybe biological women's safety isn't the real concern here.
Quote
What do you suggest, we get rid of men's and women's sports and just have sports where anyone can compete? Of course that would prevent women from competing at the highest level of just about anything other than equestrian sports and shooting, where they already compete as equals. You come across like a misogynist.
How many elite trans athletes do you think there are?
Post by: wilber on June 21, 2022, 06:08:33 pm
And yet they aren't banned so I guess maybe biological women's safety isn't the real concern here.
They have the option of not competing in men's sports. You seem to think they should be banned. You would force women to compete with biological men or not be able do compete in women's sports..
Quote
How many elite trans athletes do you think there are?
If they are allowed to compete unrestricted in women's sport, there will be quite a few and for every spot taken by a trans athlete on an elite women's team, a biological woman will be denied an opportunity to compete in her own sport. .
Why do you dislike women?
Post by: kimmy on June 21, 2022, 10:27:21 pm
You think they’re taking direction from Hungary on this?
Of course he's not going to say that, because saying so would prove how ridiculous his post is.
He just wants to get FINA and Orban in the same sentence, because of the implications.
Here's how the argument goes:
1. FINA adopts trans-exclusive position
2. FINA hosts world championships in Hungary
3. Prime Minister of Hungary is a fascist.
4. trans-exclusive position ---> FINA ---> Orban ---> Fascism
5. :: trans-exclusive == fascism
Black Dog: "there's an obvious link between trans-exclusive people and fascists."
see? It's a fun game.
ROUND TWO
1. IOC adopts trans-inclusive position
2. IOC hosts 2022 games in China
3. China engaged in genocide against Uighur minority
4. trans-inclusive position ---> IOC ---> China ---> genocide
5. :: trans-incclusive == genocide
Black Dog: "there's an obvious link between trans-inclusive people and _____."
FILL IN THE BLANK FOR US BUBBA
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 22, 2022, 12:36:02 am
If their concern is perceived risk why aren't they also banning FTM people who would presumably be at risk because they have the anatomy of puny women?
I can't believe you think this is a smart argument. Go back to the drawing board.
If a Kailer Yamamoto sized person wants to compete in a league filled with Milan Lucic sized opponents, then that's his choice, and if he can succeed at it then more power to him.
If a Milan Lucic sized person wants to compete against a league of Kailer Yamamoto sized opponents, then he's creating a hazard for them and their consent, not his, should be needed.
If a Muggsy Bogues sized person wants to compete in a league filled with Shaquille O'Neal sized opponents, then that's his choice, and if he can succeed at it then more power to him.
If a Shaquille O'Neal sized person wants to compete against a league of Muggsy Bogues sized opponents, then he's creating a hazard for them and their consent, not his, should be needed.
We talked about this earlier in this thread in regard to MTF rugby goon Hannah Mouncey breaking a female opponent's leg, and the best response you could come up with was complaining that I didn't reference Fallon Fox. Give it another go, champ.
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 22, 2022, 01:23:20 am
Oh wow you mean your interpretation confirmed your priors? Knock me over with a feather.
I think my "priors" are pretty much the same as your "priors", which is that when people with a proven track record of dishonesty and idiocy make extravagant claims, you should be skeptical. Those are good "priors", and I think everybody should apply the same "priors".
I think the only difference between us here is that you haven't yet figured out that the likes of Katy Montgomerie and India Willoughby and Chase Strangio and PinkNews and the genderbeat reporters at Slate or Vice or whatever else the **** you're reading aren't honest or credible.
Any evidence people are saying this?
Of course. Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? Will the sun set tomorrow night? Are the transes talking about "LiTerAll GeNoCiDe"? The answer is always yes.
Owen Jones is one of the wokies I regularly check in on on Twitter. He's a highly prominent UK journalist. He's the sort of chauvinist gay man who considers female people icky and wouldn't bother with us at all if maintaining his woke credentials didn't require it. But he's smart and funny and I regularly check in on him because he's worth reading and because I want to see what the "be kind" people are on about. When the Helens controversy landed, he issued an unequivocal statement condemning their comments. Then he wrote something to the effect that the word "genocide" should be reserved for the kind of atrocities we saw in Rwanda, and that the statements of the Helens were "chilling" and didn't need the hyperbole of "genocide" to be condemned. And then Owen spent the rest of the week fending off accusations from the transes that he was "soft on TERFs".
(https://i.imgur.com/n0P8aZL.png)
https://twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1533755386582470656
This is bullshit, of course. Her clearly stated premise is that every single person who transitions is "damaged". So it follows (and again, this is clear from her interview) that harm reduction in her terms isn't just reducing the chances of someone undergoing a medical transition they later regret, but eliminating any and all forms of gender affirming healthcare even for those people who genuinely want or need it because of the "damage" they undergo and the "accommodation" they require. And you wonder why people might interpret this as "she doesn't want trans people to exist"?
Helen Joyce talks about this at some length here:
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-8/
I don't think most people would find anything she says objectionable. If you disagree, quote the part you object to.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 09:28:40 am
1. They have the option of not competing in men's sports. You seem to think they should be banned. You would force women to compete with biological men or not be able do compete in women's sports..
2. If they are allowed to compete unrestricted in women's sport, there will be quite a few and for every spot taken by a trans athlete on an elite women's team, a biological woman will be denied an opportunity to compete in her own sport.
3. Why do you dislike women?
1. The fact they didn't outright ban FTM participants from rugby shows they aren't concerned about the safety of biological women. That's my entire point.
2. There's no evidence of this.
3. Why are you such a dumb cu*nt?
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 09:30:26 am
Of course he's not going to say that, because saying so would prove how ridiculous his post is.
He just wants to get FINA and Orban in the same sentence, because of the implications.
Here's how the argument goes:
1. FINA adopts trans-exclusive position
2. FINA hosts world championships in Hungary
3. Prime Minister of Hungary is a fascist.
4. trans-exclusive position ---> FINA ---> Orban ---> Fascism
5. :: trans-exclusive == fascism
Black Dog: "there's an obvious link between trans-exclusive people and fascists."
see? It's a fun game.
ROUND TWO
1. IOC adopts trans-inclusive position
2. IOC hosts 2022 games in China
3. China engaged in genocide against Uighur minority
4. trans-inclusive position ---> IOC ---> China ---> genocide
5. :: trans-incclusive == genocide
Black Dog: "there's an obvious link between trans-inclusive people and _____."
FILL IN THE BLANK FOR US BUBBA
-k
(https://c.tenor.com/p54UKZMskZoAAAAd/jonah-jameson-laugh.gif)
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 09:32:41 am
I think my "priors" are pretty much the same as your "priors", which is that when people with a proven track record of dishonesty and idiocy make extravagant claims, you should be skeptical. Those are good "priors", and I think everybody should apply the same "priors".
I think the only difference between us here is that you haven't yet figured out that the likes of Katy Montgomerie and India Willoughby and Chase Strangio and PinkNews and the genderbeat reporters at Slate or Vice or whatever else the **** you're reading aren't honest or credible.
Of course. Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? Will the sun set tomorrow night? Are the transes talking about "LiTerAll GeNoCiDe"? The answer is always yes.
Owen Jones is one of the wokies I regularly check in on on Twitter. He's a highly prominent UK journalist. He's the sort of chauvinist gay man who considers female people icky and wouldn't bother with us at all if maintaining his woke credentials didn't require it. But he's smart and funny and I regularly check in on him because he's worth reading and because I want to see what the "be kind" people are on about. When the Helens controversy landed, he issued an unequivocal statement condemning their comments. Then he wrote something to the effect that the word "genocide" should be reserved for the kind of atrocities we saw in Rwanda, and that the statements of the Helens were "chilling" and didn't need the hyperbole of "genocide" to be condemned. And then Owen spent the rest of the week fending off accusations from the transes that he was "soft on TERFs".
(https://i.imgur.com/n0P8aZL.png)
https://twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1533755386582470656
Helen Joyce talks about this at some length here:
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-8/
I don't think most people would find anything she says objectionable. If you disagree, quote the part you object to.
-k
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/876/233/4c9.jpg)
Srsly though I read that Joyce thing and it's a pile of garbage from start to finish so picking just out one bit that sucks is a real challenge. But I guess I disagree with her premise that trans people are bad.
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2022, 09:45:13 am
1. The fact they didn't outright ban FTM participants from rugby shows they aren't concerned about the safety of biological women. That's my entire point.They can choose not to compete on their own if they think they are in danger. Sports federations are not their nannies. Women having to compete against MTF do not get that choice. When will that sink in?
There is, and there will be more. New Zealand Olympic weight lifter
Quite the mouth you have.
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 10:28:06 am
They can choose not to compete on their own if they think they are in danger. Sports federations are not their nannies. Women having to compete against MTF do not get that choice. When will that sink in?
Everyone here has a choice.
Quote
There is, and there will be more. New Zealand Olympic weight lifter
Yeah it's always the same like half dozen examples with you people. it's like you have no idea what a tiny percentage of the population are elite athletes and what an even tinier percentage of those will be trans.
Quote
Quite the mouth you have.
Don't put words in mine and I'll consider treating you with a little more respect.
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2022, 11:00:01 am
Everyone here has a choice.Yow want to force biological women to compete with MTF athletes in women's sports. That isn't a choice.
Quote
Yeah it's always the same like half dozen examples with you people. it's like you have no idea what a tiny percentage of the population are elite athletes and what an even tinier percentage of those will be trans.
It doesn't matter what the percentage if it prevents biological women from competing in their own sports.
Quote
Don't put words in mine and I'll consider treating you with a little more respect.
I didn't put words in yours, I asked a question. You responded with vulgarity.
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 11:17:51 am
Yow want to force biological women to compete with MTF athletes in women's sports. That isn't a choice.
Where'd I say that?
Quote
It doesn't matter what the percentage if it prevents biological women from competing in their own sports.
If you're getting into blanket bans, then yeah the numbers matter.
Quote
I didn't put words in yours, I asked a question. You responded with vulgarity.
You asked stupid, bad faith, trollish question and got the response you deserved.
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2022, 02:04:46 pm
Where'd I say that?Well you seem intent on the idea that biological women should have to play contact sports against MTF athletes in women's sport, accept the additional dangers and lose the opportunities to take part in women's sport to MTF athletes. Are you or aren't you?
Quote
If you're getting into blanket bans, then yeah the numbers matter.
So how many? 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%. Disregarding the additional physical danger, what is an appropriate number and why?
Quote
You asked stupid, bad faith, trollish question and got the response you deserved.
So all you have is a foul mouth response. That's on you.
I still don't know what you have against women that you would subject them to that.
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 02:46:33 pm
Well you seem intent on the idea that biological women should have to play contact sports against MTF athletes in women's sport, accept the additional dangers and lose the opportunities to take part in women's sport to MTF athletes. Are you or aren't you?
Where'd I say that?
Quote
So how many? 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%. Disregarding the additional physical danger, what is an appropriate number and why?
Depends on the sport and the individual.
Quote
So all you have is a foul mouth response. That's on you.
Yeah I don't dignify bad faith questions like that with anything else.
Quote
I still don't know what you have against women that you would subject them to that.
See? Retarded.
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2022, 03:08:55 pm
Where'd I say that?
What are you saying?
Quote
Depends on the sport and the individual.
So you don't know.
Quote
Yeah I don't dignify bad faith questions like that with anything else.You are good at not answering questions at all
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 03:48:59 pm
What are you saying?
Same thing I've been saying this entire thread.
Quote
So you don't know.
How many whats?
Quote
You are good at not answering questions at all
Try asking ones that aren't bad faith or badly constructed?
Post by: wilber on June 22, 2022, 04:56:48 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 22, 2022, 05:23:26 pm
So nothing.
lmao imagine thinking this is a legit question that warrants an answer when it's barely english:
Quote
So how many? 1%, 5%, 20%, 50%. Disregarding the additional physical danger, what is an appropriate number and why?
Post by: Black Dog on June 25, 2022, 01:53:35 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWB4ehzXwAEVfkv?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER-XqM2XsAEwqp4.jpg)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 29, 2022, 02:57:23 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on July 29, 2022, 03:16:59 pm
Based.
(Attachment Link)
This is hands down the most Boomer thing you've ever posted and given how much Boomer stuff you post, that's saying something.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/pm7Wv8rS1KX1u7f50u/giphy.gif?cid=82a1493b28wrk4x3wca7mcgf4qr5dzqq9tgpxckuhmsgy7y2&rid=giphy.gif&ct=v)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 29, 2022, 03:23:19 pm
This is hands down the most Boomer thing you've ever posted and given how much Boomer stuff you post, that's saying something.Tell me you don’t understand what boomer means without telling me you don’t understand what boomer means.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/pm7Wv8rS1KX1u7f50u/giphy.gif?cid=82a1493b28wrk4x3wca7mcgf4qr5dzqq9tgpxckuhmsgy7y2&rid=giphy.gif&ct=v)
Post by: Black Dog on July 29, 2022, 03:27:35 pm
Tell me you don’t understand what boomer means without telling me you don’t understand what boomer means.
Boomer means posting cringey sh!it about kids with purple hair. You are the Boomeriest Boomer that ever Boomered.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 29, 2022, 03:38:15 pm
Boomer means posting cringey sh!it about kids with purple hair. You are the Boomeriest Boomer that ever Boomered.I love that you make up your own definitions. That’s about as boomer as it gets.
Post by: Black Dog on July 29, 2022, 03:51:46 pm
I love that you make up your own definitions. That’s about as boomer as it gets.
It was a joke, you dummy.
Post by: guest18 on July 29, 2022, 04:34:35 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 29, 2022, 05:02:09 pm
It was a joke, you dummy.So was the meme. You guys need to lighten up a little. Sheesh.
Post by: Black Dog on July 29, 2022, 05:03:08 pm
Who's the lady with purple hair and why are the memes telling shady to hate her?
Boomer-brained cons: lefties get triggered by everything these days
*five minutes later*
WHY PERSON HAVE PURPLE HAIR?!
Post by: Black Dog on July 29, 2022, 05:03:46 pm
So was the meme. You guys need to lighten up a little. Sheesh.
Not all jokes are actually funny and your memes are cringe.
Post by: Dia on July 29, 2022, 06:51:58 pm
Based.
(Attachment Link)
You and people like you are the true poison in our society.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 29, 2022, 07:04:17 pm
You and people like you are the true poison in our society.Nope, it’s actually people like you. Nice projection though.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 29, 2022, 07:23:25 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on July 29, 2022, 07:25:26 pm
Post by: Black Dog on July 29, 2022, 08:56:12 pm
Yep, because a first grader knows if they’re “trans”. Groomers are THE worst and most poisonous in society because they target young children.
If reading a book is grooming then we know you’re safe.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 30, 2022, 10:14:10 am
You don't have the self-awareness to see how you're being played by memes? You don't wonder how come you don't talk about muslims anymore and now trans people are the boogeyman?
Because the real enemy is the tiny group of wealthy Republicans funding all of the disinformation, to keep the focus off their institutional bribery to make anti -worker laws ?
Wild guess.
Post by: Michael Hardner on July 30, 2022, 10:17:30 am
If people use that, they are accusing others of being **** because they are against some public education policies.
I am ashamed of Shady for using it.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on July 30, 2022, 10:02:20 pm
By the way the term 'groomer' is the worst term in politics.
If people use that, they are accusing others of being **** because they are against some public education policies.
I am ashamed of Shady for using it.
LOL
We’ll, Shady knows no shame. The troll has posted abortion pics that he gets off to.
Post by: Black Dog on August 01, 2022, 11:56:47 am
By the way the term 'groomer' is the worst term in politics.
If people use that, they are accusing others of being **** because they are against some public education policies.
I am ashamed of Shady for using it.
You can't expect him not to brainlessly parrot the Current Thing talking points, can you?
Also the groomer stuff coming from the side that wants to impregnate young girls and force them to give birth is pretty rich.
Post by: kimmy on August 02, 2022, 01:42:32 am
By the way the term 'groomer' is the worst term in politics.
If people use that, they are accusing others of being **** because they are against some public education policies.
I am ashamed of Shady for using it.
I wish we lived in a world where people were not storming schools and libraries.
But I also wish we lived in a world where people were asking questions like "who decided that kids need to see drag shows?" and "why are we teaching gender-identity bullshit to little kids?"
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 07:33:35 am
What it seems like is a counter offensive in the culture wars, nothing more.
I take it as a fad.
It's weird to me because nothing about it is necessarily LGBT. Maybe a little queer.
Should it be protested? I don't see why...
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 02, 2022, 08:05:35 am
But if you want your kid to learn about it you should have that freedom. In a public library maybe a little much, maybe not, i dunno, but forcing it down kids throats (for lack of a better phrase) in school is definitely too much.
I think there's a reasonable solution here. At the very least parents should have a choice, especially if they're elementary age.
I also think writing children's books about the drag lifestyle and cross dressing etc is pretty weird.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 08:40:52 am
I feel like it's just a burlesque show for kids. So...
What's being taught? Life presents strange situations? Clowns exist? Or... Nothing except for a shot across the bow towards those who oppose this sort of thing?
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 09:47:38 am
I wish we lived in a world where people were not storming schools and libraries.
But I also wish we lived in a world where people were asking questions like "who decided that kids need to see drag shows?" and "why are we teaching gender-identity bullshit to little kids?"
-k
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/994/418/48b.jpg)
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 09:50:28 am
I learned about testicles, semen, and reproduction in the 6th grade. Teaching kids about alternative sexual expression lifestyles much before that seems a bit much.
Gender identity and sexual lifestyles aren't the same thing.
The funny thing about drag being, ahem, dragged into the trans fight is that drag performers are overwhelmingly cis men.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 02, 2022, 10:08:24 am
Gender identity and sexual lifestyles aren't the same thing.So are groomers.
The funny thing about drag being, ahem, dragged into the trans fight is that drag performers are overwhelmingly cis men.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 02, 2022, 10:15:34 am
A choice about what, in this case?Even if it was, why are presenting burlesque shows to young children? It’s completely unnecessary, and just add to the sexualizing of kids, which is already a big problem. The fact that you’re defending this is disturbing. If you want to sexualize your kids, go for it, but you have no right to sexualize other people’s children without their consent.
I feel like it's just a burlesque show for kids. So...
What's being taught? Life presents strange situations? Clowns exist? Or... Nothing except for a shot across the bow towards those who oppose this sort of thing?
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 11:16:17 am
Gender identity and sexual lifestyles aren't the same thing.
The funny thing about drag being, ahem, dragged into the trans fight is that drag performers are overwhelmingly cis men.
It feels like they're joining willingly.
Seems like another fight about symbolism, which seems like 99% of politics now.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 11:23:09 am
Even if it was, why are presenting burlesque shows to young children? It’s completely unnecessary, and just add to the sexualizing of kids, which is already a big problem. The fact that you’re defending this is disturbing. If you want to sexualize your kids, go for it, but you have no right to sexualize other people’s children without their consent.
First of all, I'm not defending it.
I'm questioning it.
Why? Because it's outrageous, garish and weird I guess. Some people are really into that.
It's not sexual, and if it were seen that way by most people then it wouldn't be allowed.
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 11:45:42 am
So are groomers.
You're so goddamned stupid that you don't even understand how this completely undercuts your whole argument against teaching kids about gender identity, LOL what a maroon.
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 11:46:58 am
Even if it was, why are presenting burlesque shows to young children? It’s completely unnecessary, and just add to the sexualizing of kids, which is already a big problem. The fact that you’re defending this is disturbing. If you want to sexualize your kids, go for it, but you have no right to sexualize other people’s children without their consent.
Citation required. Remember, you're so f*cking retarded you think "kids learning sex ed" is the same as "sexualizing".
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 02, 2022, 12:51:15 pm
First of all, I'm not defending it.
I'm questioning it.
Why? Because it's outrageous, garish and weird I guess. Some people are really into that.
It's not sexual, and if it were seen that way by most people then it wouldn't be allowed.
There's a sexual element to drag. There's also a gender identity element to it, probably.
I've watched a couple of seasons of Ru Paul's drag race. It's not **** **** but it's also not Saturday morning cartoons.
Post by: guest18 on August 02, 2022, 01:26:02 pm
There's a sexual element to drag.I never once felt the urge to masturbate to Milton Berle as a youngster. Although there was a time they dressed up Gilligan as a woman against his will...
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 01:47:27 pm
There's a sexual element to drag. There's also a gender identity element to it, probably.
I've watched a couple of seasons of Ru Paul's drag race. It's not **** **** but it's also not Saturday morning cartoons.
I don't get the drag thing at all. Doesn't appeal to me. But no one is forcing anyone to take kids to drag brunch or drag queen story time at the library, so it's kinda weird to see the same people who claim to be for parental choice in education and so on complain about where other people take their kids on their own free time, let alone stage violent protests at such events. Mind your own business, you freaks!
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 02:34:37 pm
There's a sexual element to drag. There's also a gender identity element to it, probably.
I've watched a couple of seasons of Ru Paul's drag race. It's not **** **** but it's also not Saturday morning cartoons.
I just don't see the sexual part, but I agree that it's bizarre.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 02:35:53 pm
I don't get the drag thing at all. Doesn't appeal to me. But no one is forcing anyone to take kids to drag brunch or drag queen story time at the library, so it's kinda weird to see the same people who claim to be for parental choice in education and so on complain about where other people take their kids on their own free time, let alone stage violent protests at such events. Mind your own business, you freaks!
I think that they object to it in school.
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 02:42:01 pm
I think that they object to it in school.
Nope (https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/us/drag-lgbtq-rights-race-deconstructed-newsletter-reaj/index.html).
Quote
The drag queen Panda Dulce was at the San Lorenzo Library in California when members of the extremist group the Proud Boys barged in.
...
A bookstore in the DC area said that protesters interrupted DQSH at one of its events just this past Saturday. Last week, protesters in Houston staged a demonstration outside a drag show at Hamburger Mary's, a popular restaurant and queer institution. The agitators were with Protect Texas Kids, a nonprofit organization that baselessly claims that LGBTQ people and their allies are "indoctrinating" children, among other things.
In June, in response to a celebration in West Palm Beach that advertised a "drag show for kids" -- part of Pride on the Block, which included arts and crafts, cooking classes and a variety of other youth activities -- Florida Republican state Rep. Anthony Sabatini stated on Twitter, "I will be proposing Legislation to charge w/ a Felony & terminate the parental rights of any adult who brings a child to these perverted sex shows aimed at FL kids."
...
"There's an overriding concern, and to me it's the maintaining of traditional political, social, cultural and economic hierarchies. That's the underlying political project," Zimmer said. "It's about weaponizing unease over changes the country has undergone over the past few decades and restoring and entrenching traditional authority, not just on a political level but also in the local community, in the public square, in the workplace and in the family. The assault on LGBTQ rights is very much a part of it, and must be seen in this context."
Post by: guest18 on August 02, 2022, 02:52:06 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 03:21:46 pm
Is that the only controversy we're talking about here?
Is this the whole groomers debate?
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 02, 2022, 03:26:19 pm
So it's just about people questioning other people's parenting choices...
If you want to make a comment about me bringing my kid to a drag show at the library, then why don't you let me talk to you about taking your kids hunting? I've got some things to say.
Post by: Black Dog on August 02, 2022, 03:29:24 pm
Reading back, this doesn't seem to be happening in schools..
Moral panics don't tend to connect with reality.
Quote
So it's just about people questioning other people's parenting choices...Or to Church.
If you want to make a comment about me bringing my kid to a drag show at the library, then why don't you let me talk to you about taking your kids hunting? I've got some things to say.
Post by: Black Dog on August 17, 2022, 04:59:03 pm
LINK (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition)
Meanwhile in other gender war news, the trash Twitter account LibsofTikTok promoted a lie about gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital and now doctors are getting death threats.
Link (https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9a/libsoftiktok-trans-children-boston-hospital)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 17, 2022, 05:25:16 pm
First large longitudinal study on trans youth finds that 97.5% of those who socially transition continue to identify as trans or non binary 5 years later.Is that study of adults? I couldn’t give a **** what an adult decided to do. Leave children alone for **** sakes. What’s your problem?
LINK (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition)
Meanwhile in other gender war news, the trash Twitter account LibsofTikTok promoted a lie about gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital and now doctors are getting death threats.
Link (https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9a/libsoftiktok-trans-children-boston-hospital)
It’s not a lie, it’s been “debunked” because there’s no “evidence”. Since medical records etc are private. BFD. This doesn’t mean your experimentation with kids is not grotesque.
Post by: Black Dog on August 18, 2022, 12:50:14 am
Is that study of adults? I couldn’t give a **** what an adult decided to do. Leave children alone for **** sakes. What’s your problem?
Lol I guess you really don’t know how to read anything that’s not a meme you stupid piece of trash.
Quote
”debunked” because there’s no “evidence”. Since medical records etc are private. BFD. This doesn’t mean your experimentation with kids is not grotesque.
What an incredible self own, one for the Shiddy cringe compilation for sure.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 18, 2022, 09:10:05 am
Lol I guess you really don’t know how to read anything that’s not a meme you stupid piece of It’s not a lie, it’s beenLeave young children alone you sick f**K.
What an incredible self own, one for the Shiddy cringe compilation for sure.
Post by: Black Dog on August 18, 2022, 09:47:56 am
Leave young children alone you sick f**K.
Learn to read you illiterate c*nt.
Post by: Black Dog on August 18, 2022, 10:11:51 am
You realize that anyone can use this to challenge any participant's gender, right? No you don't because you're too far up your own TERF ass. So if a few cis-girls have to submit to unwanted medical examinations because they don't look femme enough or they're just better than others, that's a price you're willing to pay to keep the already minuscule number of trans athletes out of sport.
After their daughters were beat by a girl in sports, Utah parents triggered investigation into whether she was transgender (https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/8/17/23310668/school-investigates-female-athlete-transgender-complaint)
Quote
After one competitor “outclassed” the rest of the field in a girls’ state-level competition last year, the parents of the competitors who placed second and third lodged a complaint with the Utah High School Activities Association calling into question the winner’s gender.
David Spatafore, the UHSAA’s legislative representative, addressing the Utah Legislature’s Education Interim Committee on Wednesday, said the association — without informing the student or family members about the inquiry — asked the student’s school to investigate.
The school examined the students’ enrollment records.
“The school went back to kindergarten and she’d always been a female,” he said.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 19, 2022, 04:28:53 pm
🤔
Post by: Black Dog on August 19, 2022, 04:32:10 pm
(Attachment Link)
🤔
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5Cl--TXEAAht5l.png)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 19, 2022, 04:32:34 pm
After their daughters were beat by a girl in sports, Utah parents triggered investigation into whether she was transgender (https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/8/17/23310668/school-investigates-female-athlete-transgender-complaint)So what? Unfortunately groomers like you have made this necessary. Biological men shouldn’t be competing against biological women. And in college sports medical examinations are already performed, by doctors, even before all of this trans nonsense. Leave young children alone for the love of f**k, what in the hell is wrong with your brain?
Post by: Black Dog on August 19, 2022, 04:38:35 pm
So what? Unfortunately groomers like you have made this necessary.
Your obsession with children's genitals is no one's fault but your own.
Post by: Black Dog on August 19, 2022, 04:53:54 pm
Quote
In her own widely circulated retelling of the incident, Jaman said she felt concerned about the young trans woman’s presence around children, and so she asked the worker about her genitals. When the worker said that was none of her business, she told the worker to leave the locker room, which violated the YMCA’s code of conduct. Accordingly, staff banned Jaman from the pool.
link (https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/08/16/77901545/port-townsend-responds-to-transphobic-bullying-with-trans-inclusive-proclamation)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 19, 2022, 05:19:20 pm
Your obsession with children's genitals is no one's fault but your own.Black Douche will be disappointed about this.
Virginia school district employed convicted sex offender for months before firing
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-school-district-employed-convicted-sex-offender-months-firing.amp
Post by: Black Dog on August 19, 2022, 08:06:39 pm
Black Douche will be disappointed about this.
Virginia school district employed convicted sex offender for months before firing
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-school-district-employed-convicted-sex-offender-months-firing.amp
That’s a cis man and you should kill yourself.
Post by: kimmy on September 20, 2022, 01:22:03 am
Some of his students posted some pictures on social media, and the photos circulated, and LibsOfTikTok got ahold of them, and now this person is internationally famous.
This person probably has the legal right to wear this thing to school. As the school board puts it,
Quote
When asked by blogTO on Friday about the teacher and backlash to their in-class look, the Halton District School Board (which operates Oakville Trafalgar) said that it "recognizes the rights of students, staff, parents/guardians and community members to equitable treatment without discrimination based upon gender identity and gender expression."
"Gender identity and gender expression are protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code," said a representative for the school board.
"As this is a personnel matter, we cannot provide further information."
(...)
The board told blogTO on Monday that its statement remains the same, reiterating that "the Halton District School Board is committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable and welcoming learning and working environment for all students and staff."
Personally, this makes me want to puke. I don't think this person is "expressing their authentic self". I don't think anyone's "authentic self" involves 58" quintuple-Z cup prosthetic breastplate. This person is living out a fetish, and involving students in the process.
I have to imagine that this is gross and awkward and uncomfortable for all the students at the school. But I feel especially bad for the girls. Imagine how it must feel for them to see this disgusting, demeaning caricature of women when they go to school. I can't imagine how this can possibly be compatible with the stated goal of creating a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable and welcoming learning and working environment for girls. The only educational value for the girls is that they're seeing first hand evidence of how much men despise them.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/09/ontario-teacher-prosthetic-bust-school-board-defends/
(https://i.imgur.com/30OPSUv.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/E1jGtLO.png)
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 07:05:49 am
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2022, 09:47:03 am
Yeah this is ridiculous...
It's also one person.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on September 20, 2022, 10:11:17 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 10:39:24 am
It's also one person.
Of course it is. They need to deal with it, though and I think people are correct as to why they are not.
A woman who dresses inappropriately for the job needs to be told so. Prosthetics... ok but be reasonable.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 10:39:42 am
Fire the weirdo.
Wouldn't work...
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2022, 10:42:21 am
Of course it is. They need to deal with it, though and I think people are correct as to why they are not.
A woman who dresses inappropriately for the job needs to be told so. Prosthetics... ok but be reasonable.
I don't disagree, but you know as well as I do that this solitary weirdo is going to be pushed as an avatar of What's Wrong With Society Today.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 10:51:36 am
I don't disagree, but you know as well as I do that this solitary weirdo is going to be pushed as an avatar of What's Wrong With Society Today.
Right.
But I won't die on the hill of protecting one weirdo to try to manage the public dialogue around trans issues. I think we would do trans people in general a service by ignoring the unhinged or dealing with them if required. This is part of normalizing the new norms around trans acceptance.
You can still do something WRONG if you're trans. If The Sun pushes these things and they're dealt with normally then that's business as usual IMO.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 20, 2022, 10:58:34 am
I don't disagree, but you know as well as I do that this solitary weirdo is going to be pushed as an avatar of What's Wrong With Society Today.
That's already happened, because this person was allowed to dress like that in a workplace, and one filled with minors.
This person has shown bad enough judgement to be reprimanded or possibly fired. At the very least, send them home for the day and tell them to keep their boobs at home tomorrow.
Whatever Twitter says is irrelevant to doing the right thing.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2022, 11:00:43 am
That's already happened, because this person was allowed to dress like that in a workplace, and one filled with minors.
This person has shown bad enough judgement to be reprimanded or possibly fired. At the very least, send them home for the day and tell them to keep their boobs at home tomorrow.
Whatever Twitter says is irrelevant to doing the right thing.
Yeah it's dress code/professional conduct issue, not a gender identity issue and should be handled as such.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 20, 2022, 01:40:12 pm
I suspect a Chinese 5th column plot through a 3rd party (Disney).
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 01:46:57 pm
There is a progressive feminist plot to turn all men to women and all women to men. Reproductive rates will plummet. Large nipples will be everywhere.
I suspect a Chinese 5th column plot through a 3rd party (Disney).
Sarcastic trolling doesn't work in this day and age because there are Republicans.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 20, 2022, 01:48:47 pm
Sarcastic trolling doesn't work in this day and age because there are Republicans.
I suspect you are Chinese.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2022, 01:50:31 pm
Yeah it's dress code/professional conduct issue, not a gender identity issue and should be handled as such.It’s also a gender issue and a mental health issue.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 02:32:49 pm
I suspect you are Chinese.
I like Chinese FOOD but I am 100% Euro
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 20, 2022, 02:33:34 pm
It’s also a gender issue and a mental health issue.
'gender issue' ... don't know
'mental health' ... maybe
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 20, 2022, 03:01:40 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 22, 2022, 05:10:36 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 22, 2022, 05:43:10 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 25, 2022, 10:35:30 am
Post by: guest18 on September 25, 2022, 10:49:35 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 25, 2022, 11:43:35 am
Are you trying to deny you're a right-wing extremist now? How brave of you. 😆Everyone now is a right wing extremist to you wokies. It has no meaning anymore.
Post by: Black Dog on September 25, 2022, 12:49:04 pm
Everyone now is a right wing extremist to you wokies. It has no meaning anymore.
Not just fascists like you.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 25, 2022, 01:39:14 pm
Not just fascists like you.That’s the other term that no longer has any meaning. Also nazi. Everyone that isn’t a wokie is deemed to be those nowadays. It’s meaningless thanks to idiots like you and your side kick blubber slimy. Oh and the Prime Minister whom you run to the defence of at every opportunity.
Post by: Black Dog on September 25, 2022, 03:11:20 pm
That’s the other term that no longer has any meaning. Also nazi. Everyone that isn’t a wokie is deemed to be those nowadays. It’s meaningless thanks to idiots like you and your side kick blubber slimy. Oh and the Prime Minister whom you run to the defence of at every opportunity.
You call everyone you disagree with a fascist, even the lame milquetoast neoliberal PM you obsess over.
Post by: kimmy on September 28, 2022, 01:51:40 am
It's also one person.
Of course it is. They need to deal with it, though and I think people are correct as to why they are not.
A woman who dresses inappropriately for the job needs to be told so. Prosthetics... ok but be reasonable.
Except that the school board says that they can't "deal with it". They contend that Ontario law protects this person's right to "express their gender identity" in this manner.
Perhaps they are simply too wokebrained to see any issue with the way this person is acting. Perhaps they are afraid that if they take any action they'll end up in front of a Human Rights Tribunal writing a big cheque to this person.
Whatever the case, clearly the school board is not able to "deal with it" on their own. Their only action, so far, has been to draft a "safety plan" for this teacher. The Ontario education minister has requested that the college of teachers review their policies.
It may be just one person, but these edge cases help illustrate the deficiencies in legislation. If the world were composed entirely of reasonable and well-behaved people, we would hardly need laws at all. But inevitably circumstances arise that the people who drafted the legislation perhaps didn't anticipate, conflicting rights or priorities that they might not have identified at the time, changing social views, this sort of thing. In the case of this Ontario teacher, or the Wax My Balls Guy of a few years back, I'd suggest that perhaps people put too much stock in the notion that people wouldn't act in bad faith. "That would never happen", as the activists like to say.
We also get to measure the school board's words against their actions. Their words express their commitment to "a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable and welcoming learning and working environment for all students and staff." Their actions, however, make clear that the only person they consider a priority is the fetish-gear clad teacher.
This teacher is performing a degrading caricature of women that some people have compared to blackface. I think it's more akin to the dehumanizing portrayals of the Japanese in WW2 propaganda posters. I think that if this teacher were performing such a disgusting portrayal of a racial or ethnic or religious group, he would be at the very least reprimanded and sent home, and quite likely face professional discipline or be fired. It would probably be discussed as a hate incident. But because women are the target of this abuse, we're told we just have to be considerate of this person's feelings and his right to express his gender feelings. In fact we risk being accused of spreading hate ourselves in speaking out against this debacle.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2022, 05:59:56 am
Except that the school board says that they can't "deal with it". They contend that Ontario law protects this person's right to "express their gender identity" in this manner.
One of us doesn't have the latest News on this.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on September 28, 2022, 12:05:11 pm
One of us doesn't have the latest News on this.
Which is…?
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2022, 01:03:01 pm
Which is…?
My version is: the School Board is looking at it again
Post by: kimmy on September 30, 2022, 01:32:07 am
My version is: the School Board is looking at it again
The latest (as of Monday, at least) is that the school board still refuses to do anything, and that the provincial education minister has asked the Ontario College of Teachers to do a professional standards review. The school board ain't doing ****, Mike.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 30, 2022, 09:37:15 am
The latest (as of Monday, at least) is that the school board still refuses to do anything, and that the provincial education minister has asked the Ontario College of Teachers to do a professional standards review. The school board ain't doing ****, Mike.
-k
Post your cite. I looked and we still have a request for a dress code review in process as of one week ago. I couldn't find anything since then.
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2022, 12:47:13 am
Post your cite. I looked and we still have a request for a dress code review in process as of one week ago. I couldn't find anything since then.
Here's an update from this Monday.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-heres-the-latest-on-viral-prosthetic-breast-teacher-scandal
The piece of dogshit is still wearing the giant prosthetic **** to school, and the school board still refuses to do anything. (The request for a review has come from Ontario Education minister Stephen Lecce, not from the school board.)
Ontario municipal elections are coming up soon, and you'd think that there would be hell to pay. But school board trustees are the least scrutinized elected officials in the history of democracy, and I suspect that few Oakville voters can even name one of the school board trustees, much less know their position on letting scumbags wander around in giant fake ****.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2022, 04:36:19 am
And this is a non-update update. They're just saying that the teacher is still going to work. They're not acknowledging that the situation is still being looked at.
It just seems like stoking the outrage machine... again. If they wanted the right thing to be done, and not to foment anger, they would acknowledge that there's something still coming from the school board.
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2022, 09:09:13 am
The school board has refused to make any comment beyond "this is a personnel matter and we will not comment further". That has been their position since this began, which was several weeks ago now.
When did the school board promise a review? Share with the rest of the class, Michael.
-k
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 07, 2022, 10:48:56 am
I posted the update from this Monday because it demonstrates that the situation has not changed, this fiasco is still ongoing, and nothing has been done. Who is really stoking the outrage machine? Is it the reporter who posted an update on this story? Or is it the individual in question and the school and school board officials who are allowing this continue?If I was a parent of children attending that school and particularly that class, I'd pull them from school. I don't want my kids around somebody with such obviously bad mental health issues. the teacher is a f**king lunatic.
The school board has refused to make any comment beyond "this is a personnel matter and we will not comment further". That has been their position since this began, which was several weeks ago now.
When did the school board promise a review? Share with the rest of the class, Michael.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2022, 10:52:57 am
I posted the update from this Monday because it demonstrates that the situation has not changed, this fiasco is still ongoing, and nothing has been done. Who is really stoking the outrage machine? Is it the reporter who posted an update on this story? Or is it the individual in question and the school and school board officials who are allowing this continue?
The school board has refused to make any comment beyond "this is a personnel matter and we will not comment further". That has been their position since this began, which was several weeks ago now.
When did the school board promise a review? Share with the rest of the class, Michael.
-k
How can it be simultaneously true that the board is looking at this and they're refusing to do anything?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 07, 2022, 10:54:46 am
How long does it take for them to "do something" about it?
How can it be simultaneously true that the board is looking at this and they're refusing to do anything?
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2022, 11:21:57 am
My version is: the School Board is looking at it again
Cite?
How can it be simultaneously true that the board is looking at this and they're refusing to do anything?
The only person I am aware of having requested a review is education minister Stephen Lecce, who asked the Ontario College of Teachers to review their standards. I have seen nothing to support the claim that the Halton District School Board is conducting any sort of review of Miss MegaJuggs.
-k
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 05:33:06 pm
https://twitter.com/TheProblem/status/1578414849083654144?t=o8s1PxRzrEvNRb75ugOUSQ&s=19
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 06:57:11 pm
Jon Stewart is still awesome.
https://twitter.com/TheProblem/status/1578414849083654144?t=o8s1PxRzrEvNRb75ugOUSQ&s=19
Do you think puberty blockers are appropriate for minors?
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 07:09:53 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2022, 07:10:04 pm
Do you think puberty blockers are appropriate for minors?
Well it would be pretty pointless to use them on adults, now wouldn't it?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 07:18:19 pm
I think I have absolutely no qualifications to make that judgment.
Then how can you say Jon Stewart is awesome?
I like him. But I wouldn't support giving minors puberty blockers. It's insane.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 07:19:16 pm
Well it would be pretty pointless to use them on adults, now wouldn't it?
Would you support giving minors access to them through a doctor?
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2022, 07:25:09 pm
Would you support giving minors access to them through a doctor?
Provided they are safe and effective and administered with the consent of all involved, why not?
You know most of the kids who get puberty blockers aren't ones who are confused about their genders, they're 8 year olds who are growing breasts and getting periods.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 07, 2022, 07:32:24 pm
Provided they are safe and effective and administered with the consent of all involved, why not?They’re not safe, and they can cause permanent damage to children. I e said this navy times, leave children alone you piece of s**t f**king groomer. You’re a sick f**k.
You know most of the kids who get puberty blockers aren't ones who are confused about their genders, they're 8 year olds who are growing breasts and getting periods.
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2022, 07:34:47 pm
They’re not safe, and they can cause permanent damage to children. I e said this navy times, leave children alone you piece of s**t f**king groomer. You’re a sick f**k.
You having a stroke there, fuckface? I hope so.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 07:44:04 pm
Then how can you say Jon Stewart is awesome?Because I support the overwhelming consensus of medical professionals to make those decisions for me. It's insane that you think you know better.
I like him. But I wouldn't support giving minors puberty blockers. It's insane.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 07:45:16 pm
They’re not safe, and they can cause permanent damage to children. .Cite?
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2022, 07:49:10 pm
Cite?
I've read some older stuff about Lupron having later in life side effects like reduced bone-density and chronic pain, but I have no idea how prevalent those side effects are or if there are many other options with fewer concerns. I can just about guarantee that, even if these drugs were perfectly safe, chuds like Shiddy would still be against using them.
Oh and the most recent data (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/) I've seen shows the number of kids getting puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in the entire USA is just over 1,000.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 07, 2022, 07:50:48 pm
Puberty Blockers Not “Safe & Reversible” - Ministry Of Health
https://m.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2209/S00147/puberty-blockers-not-safe-reversible-ministry-of-health.htm
And these drugs haven’t even been approved. Yet the sick f**ks are stil bent on pushing these drugs on young vulnerable children.
life-altering treatments that have little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/
Imagine pushing drugs that haven’t been studied long term, and haven’t been approved by the FDA. Only partisan political sick f**ks, that value their political agenda over the lives of children would resort to advocating this grotesque procedure.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 07:59:42 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 07, 2022, 08:07:46 pm
Is Scoop peer-reviewed? 😆Are puberty blockers?
Regardless, they’re just reporting on the ministry of health. Try harder groomer.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 08:15:18 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2022, 08:28:48 pm
Quote
The only FDA-approved use for these drugs in children is for central precocious puberty, a condition in which children begin to sexually mature before age 8 or 9 because of pituitary gland dysfunction.
Also the evidence that there's serious and irreversible harms doesn't seem strong:
Quote
In September, the FDA published a study that found “no evidence for an increased risk of fracture” for precocious puberty patients who take leuprolide, the generic name for AbbVie’s Lupron and similar drugs. However, the FDA study didn’t review cases of children who took the drug for gender dysphoria.
IDK why the side effects would be dramatically different depending on the reasons someone is taking a medication?
Quote
Another concern about puberty blockers emerged in 2016, when the FDA ordered drugmakers to add a warning about psychiatric problems to the drugs’ label as a treatment for children with precocious puberty. On its label for Lupron, AbbVie says: “Psychiatric events have been reported in patients” taking puberty blockers. Events include emotional symptoms “such as crying, irritability, impatience, anger and aggression.”
The FDA pursued the label change after receiving 10 reports through its adverse event reporting system of children who had suicidal thoughts, including one suicide attempt, according to a Dec. 5, 2016, agency report reviewed by Reuters. One of the cases involved a 14-year-old patient taking Lupron for gender dysphoria, the records show. In the report, the FDA said suicidal ideation and depression are “serious events,” and there is “enough evidence to warrant informing prescribers, even in the face of uncertainty about causality.”
Is 10 a lot? Is that number any higher than what you'd see among kids in that age group not taking puberty blockers?
Quote
Reuters found 72 adverse event reports submitted to the FDA from 2013 through 2021 of children on puberty blockers who showed suicidal, self-injurious, or depressive behavior. The children were taking the drug for central precocious puberty or gender dysphoria or were simply identified as under 18.
A Dec. 17, 2020, adverse event report to the FDA describes a 15-year-old patient taking Lupron for gender therapy. The patient had a history of “major depressive disorder” and a family history of depression. The patient experienced “mental health deterioration” while on Lupron and attempted suicide twice. AbbVie wrote in the report to the FDA that “there is no reasonable possibility” that the adverse events were related to Lupron. The company did not elaborate.
Again, is 72 over 8 years a lot compared to a regular sample?
Quote
Dr Brad Miller, division director of pediatric endocrinology at the University of Minnesota Medical School and M Health Masonic Children’s Hospital, expressed surprise at the number of adverse event reports Reuters found. He said he was particularly concerned because doctors prescribe puberty blockers for transgender children, who are already at higher risk of mental health problems.
So are the blockers creating mental health problems, exacerbating existing ones or are people who take them simply more likely to have mental health problems already?
I also want to know how to these types of side effects compare with other commonly prescribed medications for children and youth?
Of course, all of this should be studied in depth, but the only way to do that would be to "experiment with children" which I'm told should be a crime.
Post by: wilber on October 07, 2022, 08:39:13 pm
Well it would be pretty pointless to use them on adults, now wouldn't it?
Why give them to anyone?
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 08:49:58 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2022, 09:18:03 pm
How long does it take for them to "do something" about it?
That's a good question, but not what The Sun was asking.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 10:18:09 pm
Provided they are safe and effective and administered with the consent of all involved, why not?
You know most of the kids who get puberty blockers aren't ones who are confused about their genders, they're 8 year olds who are growing breasts and getting periods.
Yes I know that. But that would be a medical reason if needed.
I don't think doing it for cosmetic reasons is ethical. It can have longterm effects on bone density, fertility etc. It's bonkers.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 10:24:36 pm
Because I support the overwhelming consensus of medical professionals to make those decisions for me. It's insane that you think you know better.
And what do you think these puberty blockers do? Do you know the longterm side effects? Do you think blocking puberty artificially is healthy for an otherwise physically healthy person?
Would you also support breast implants for a depressed teen girl who has bad self-esteem issues because they have small breasts? Or a nose job?
If certain doctors are insane then yes I do know better.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 10:32:13 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 10:33:57 pm
So they don't kill themselves.
If somebody has mental health issues isn't the most prudent solution some therapy? So they can accept their own body? You know that's it's totally OK and healthy if your gender identity doesn't match your biological sex. That's how nature made you, there's nothing wrong with you.
Do you think puberty blockers to block body hair and genital formation and pumping yourself full of artificial hormones and cutting off your **** is a more healthy alternative to accepting and embracing who you are and that there's NOTHING wrong with you?... especially as a minor when your still figuring out your identity?
If a teen girl hated her big nose would you recommend therapy to try to get her to accept who she is and help her self-image or would you recommend a nose job?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 10:35:17 pm
Again, I don't form opinions on whether medical procedures should be administered based on Internet debates and memes. I leave that to medical professionals. If they are largely in agreement that something is beneficial, I defer to them.
Well if you have medical evidence of why I'm incorrect let me know.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 10:40:04 pm
Cite?
It does what it sounds like it does:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075
Possible side effects of GnRH analogue treatment include:
Injection site swelling, Weight gain, Hot flashes, Headaches
Use of GnRH analogues might also have long-term effects on:
Growth spurts
Bone growth and density
Future fertility — depending on when pubertal blockers are started
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 07, 2022, 10:46:47 pm
So they don't kill themselves.
The only ethical argument that makes sense to me is if a kid is very likely going to legit try to kill themselves if they don't get the blockers or whatever other surgery they want. A dead kid is worse than a biologically effed up kid. But it's still not healthy.
If a biologically make kid wants to wear makeup and a dress who cares if that's what they like. Once you get into hormones and cutting off the ding dong things start getting bonkers.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2022, 10:53:33 pm
Again, I don't spend any time thinking about these things because I'm not a medical professional and I'm not targeted by algorithms that think I'll get all emotional about it. Like Jon Stewart outlined, I would defer to the medical consensus on treatment for cancer because I know I don't know any better, so in this case I would do the same.
Do you think puberty blockers to block body hair and genital formation and pumping yourself full of artificial hormones and cutting off your **** is a more healthy alternative to accepting and embracing who you are and that there's NOTHING wrong with you?... especially as a minor when your still figuring out your identity?
If a teen girl hated her big nose would you recommend therapy to try to get her to accept who she is and help her self-image or would you recommend a nose job?
Post by: Black Dog on October 07, 2022, 11:23:54 pm
Yes I know that. But that would be a medical reason if needed.
I don't think doing it for cosmetic reasons is ethical. It can have longterm effects on bone density, fertility etc. It's bonkers.
Puberty isn’t cosmetic.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 08, 2022, 02:26:48 am
Puberty isn’t cosmetic.
Yeah preventing facial hair, boobs, or an adam's apple isn't about looks.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 08, 2022, 04:44:50 am
Cite?
The only person I am aware of having requested a review is education minister Stephen Lecce, who asked the Ontario College of Teachers to review their standards. I have seen nothing to support the claim that the Halton District School Board is conducting any sort of review of Miss MegaJuggs.
-k
They're looking at the dress code implications.
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/10717043-oakville-teacher-s-controversial-attire-prompts-halton-district-school-board-to-review-dress-code/
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 09:47:13 am
Yeah preventing facial hair, boobs, or an adam's apple isn't about looks.
Yes, correct. Like I know it’s been a very long time for you but do you remember anything about what going through puberty was like?
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2022, 01:19:54 pm
Yes, correct. Like I know it’s been a very long time for you but do you remember anything about what going through puberty was like?
So how long do you delay it, til they are 90? Now we have to protect kids from puberty? That says a lot more about our society than puberty.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 08, 2022, 02:05:47 pm
Yes, correct. Like I know it’s been a very long time for you but do you remember anything about what going through puberty was like?
Yeah it was awkward and confusing. Maybe my doc should have prescribed puberty blockers.
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 03:33:12 pm
So how long do you delay it, til they are 90? Now we have to protect kids from puberty? That says a lot more about our society than puberty.
Until they can figure out what they want to do next with the assistance of medical professionals.
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 03:34:13 pm
Yeah it was awkward and confusing. Maybe my doc should have prescribed puberty blockers.
If you were depressed and suicidal because of what was happening to your body, maybe.
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 03:43:13 pm
If somebody has mental health issues isn't the most prudent solution some therapy? So they can accept their own body? You know that's it's totally OK and healthy if your gender identity doesn't match your biological sex. That's how nature made you, there's nothing wrong with you.
Do you think puberty blockers to block body hair and genital formation and pumping yourself full of artificial hormones and cutting off your **** is a more healthy alternative to accepting and embracing who you are and that there's NOTHING wrong with you?... especially as a minor when your still figuring out your identity?
If a teen girl hated her big nose would you recommend therapy to try to get her to accept who she is and help her self-image or would you recommend a nose job?
Do you think kids are just getting hormones and puberty blockers out of a vending machine or something without any mental health assessments? Stop listening to the Shady’s of the world.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 08, 2022, 04:36:37 pm
Do you think kids are just getting hormones and puberty blockers out of a vending machine or something without any mental health assessments? Stop listening to the Shady’s of the world.Metal health assessments are irrelevant. Children aren’t capable of making those kinds of life altering irreversible decisions at such a young age. That’s why in every other aspect of life, they’re not able to give any kind of informed consent. Not even for a tattoo. Yet, now some people think that they’re mature enough to make these kinds of decisions? If anyone needs a mental health assessment, it’s you. You need your f**king head examined.
Post by: guest18 on October 08, 2022, 05:04:36 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 05:31:37 pm
Metal health assessments are irrelevant. Children aren’t capable of making those kinds of life altering irreversible decisions at such a young age. That’s why in every other aspect of life, they’re not able to give any kind of informed consent. Not even for a tattoo. Yet, now some people think that they’re mature enough to make these kinds of decisions? If anyone needs a mental health assessment, it’s you. You need your f**king head examined.
That’s why the vast majority of kids don’t get life altering and irreversible treatment for gender dysphoria you retard. Get your head out of the moral panic propaganda machine and think for yourself for once in your life you dickhead.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 08, 2022, 05:54:43 pm
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2022, 07:16:39 pm
Until they can figure out what they want to do next with the assistance of medical professionals.
Puberty has been a fact of life for humans from the beginning, every generation that has existed had to deal with it. Now we have to protect people from it? Obviously the problem isn’t puberty.
Post by: guest18 on October 08, 2022, 08:28:29 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 08:52:48 pm
Puberty has been a fact of life for humans from the beginning, every generation that has existed had to deal with it. Now we have to protect people from it? Obviously the problem isn’t puberty.
Wait are you just not registering the whole “gender dysphoria” thing here?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 08, 2022, 09:03:29 pm
Puberty has been a fact of life for humans from the beginning, every generation that has existed had to deal with it. Now we have to protect people from it? Obviously the problem isn’t puberty.Exactly. Now apparently we give children irreversible drug “therapy” based on what they tell adults while they’re children. Never mind that we would never allow children to vote, or smoke, or get tattoos or piercings or consent to sex. But on gender, they’re apparently wise beyond their years. So we prescribe drugs that not only block puberty, but also interfere with bone development, muscle development and brain development. Because that’s caring. And if you suggest that children wait until they’re 16 to make such decisions, decisions that will impact the rest of their lives, you’re an uncaring monster. That’s how f**ked up society has become.
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2022, 09:05:36 pm
Wait are you just not registering the whole “gender dysphoria” thing here?
Sure, and in large part a creation of our society. How do you reconcile kids of the same age having to associate with each other on both sides of puberty because some were drugged and others weren’t? If you are going to have a struggle, better to have company.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 08, 2022, 09:06:14 pm
Shady are you a religious person? Do you believe in God?I am a non-practicing catholic that is agnostic. Could there be a God? Sure. Could there not be? Sure.
Post by: guest18 on October 08, 2022, 10:00:26 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 08, 2022, 10:17:03 pm
I don't think I would ever be confident to make a decision that overrides the best research of medical professionals after thinking about the issue for 10 minutes.Not really a surprise since you have no independent thought. If a medical professional recommended that you shove your fist up your own arse, you probably would. Regardless, puberty blockers actually haven’t been researched much at all, so I’m not sure what research you’re referring to.
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 10:48:38 pm
Exactly. Now apparently we give children irreversible drug “therapy” based on what they tell adults while they’re children. Never mind that we would never allow children to vote, or smoke, or get tattoos or piercings or consent to sex. But on gender, they’re apparently wise beyond their years. So we prescribe drugs that not only block puberty, but also interfere with bone development, muscle development and brain development. Because that’s caring. And if you suggest that children wait until they’re 16 to make such decisions, decisions that will impact the rest of their lives, you’re an uncaring monster. That’s how f**ked up society has become.
Look you’re a complete retard with no idea what is actually going on and your skull is full of nothing but Daily Wire propaganda so it’s probably best if you stfu and kys.
Post by: Black Dog on October 08, 2022, 10:50:01 pm
Sure, and in large part a creation of our society.Cite?
Are homosexuals also a "creation of society"? How about left-handed people?
Post by: guest18 on October 08, 2022, 11:04:49 pm
. If a medical professional recommended that you shove your fist up your own arse, you probably would.You're in for a shock after you turn 50.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 10, 2022, 12:38:34 pm
Ontario school district teaches children they choose to be boys or girls
https://thepostmillennial.com/ontario-school-district-teaches-children-they-choose-to-be-boys-or-girls?fbclid=IwAR02IBYvu0N9GlZDve3tj0yq6DPMwtOwB6NsRec4-toraUyFQ1UCh0LljAw
Post by: guest18 on October 10, 2022, 12:51:10 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 10, 2022, 12:56:55 pm
Quote
n her speech on Tuesday, Burjoski told the story of an eleven-year-old girl who attended a presentation about gender given by an outside group at the girl’s WRDSB middle school. After the presentation, the girl told her friend: “I didn’t realize until today that I could be a boy.”
That’s girl’s name? Anne Frank.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 10, 2022, 03:36:32 pm
Don't worry. The post millenial has never been accurate or true yet. If I were you, I would resent how their reporting has consistently made you look like a gullible idiot.
I like that you speak exactly like Black Dog now.
Post by: guest18 on October 10, 2022, 03:57:22 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 10, 2022, 08:28:39 pm
I like that you speak exactly like Black Dog now.
He’s much nicer than I am.
Post by: guest18 on October 10, 2022, 08:33:04 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 10, 2022, 08:55:12 pm
He’s much nicer than I am.Nicer, but just as stupid.
Post by: Black Dog on October 11, 2022, 10:23:57 am
Nicer, but just as stupid.
Everyone here thinks you're barely sentient.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 11, 2022, 05:32:18 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 11, 2022, 05:34:42 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on October 11, 2022, 05:55:04 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 11, 2022, 06:06:38 pm
What a coincidence! Groomers push trendy fad of transgenderism, and young impressionable children reflect the propaganda.
(Attachment Link)
Reminds me of when woke groomers pushed the fad of left-handedness.
(https://i0.wp.com/slowrevealgraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/screen-shot-2021-11-08-at-9.37.02-pm.png?resize=543%2C416&ssl=1)
But I wonder why they went with a percentage figure instead of the rate or absolute number oh here we go:
Quote
During the 2021-2022 school year the total number of students reporting gender nonconformity spiked to 239, including 18 elementary students, 129 middle schoolers and 92 high schoolers.
The Montgomery County Public School system says it has more than 160,000 students so the number of GNC students represents a total of 0.0015% of the student body.
Again, this is "gender non-conforming" not transgender as Shiddy claims in his post, though he's definitely too stupid to know the difference.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 11, 2022, 06:27:37 pm
Reminds me of when woke groomers pushed the fad of left-handedness.
(https://i0.wp.com/slowrevealgraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/screen-shot-2021-11-08-at-9.37.02-pm.png?resize=543%2C416&ssl=1)
But I wonder why they went with a percentage figure instead of the rate or absolute number oh here we go:
The Montgomery County Public School system says it has more than 160,000 students so the number of GNC students represents a total of 0.0015% of the student body.
Again, this is "gender non-conforming" not transgender as Shiddy claims in his post, though he's definitely too stupid to know the difference.
https://youtu.be/mMBzfUj5zsg
Post by: guest18 on October 11, 2022, 06:33:55 pm
Shocking that there were fewer people self-identitying as LGBTQ when it was a popular pastime among shady types to go gay-bashing.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 11, 2022, 07:20:02 pm
Shocking that there were fewer people self-identitying as LGBTQ when it was a popular pastime among shady types to go gay-bashing.Not people, children. Trans children. Keep pushing your grotesque experiments, groomer. Society is finally pushing back.
Post by: guest18 on October 11, 2022, 07:34:56 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 11, 2022, 08:18:36 pm
Not people, children. Trans children. Keep pushing your grotesque experiments, groomer. Society is finally pushing back.
The video says LGBTQ, your link said “gender non conforming” and you still lie about what they say. Dishonest and stupid is a helluva way to go through life.
Post by: kimmy on October 14, 2022, 01:30:44 pm
So they don't kill themselves.
I think the serious conversation is among people who would give a sh!t if a trans kid killed themself.
Certainly nobody wants anybody to commit suicide. And I believe that people who support medical intervention for trans kids do so with the best intentions in mind. People who have concerns about medical intervention on trans kids don't want trans kids to kill themselves either, they're concerned that it might not actually be what is best for the kids.
There are two major questions here:
(1) is medical intervention (ie, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery) really the most effective way of treating someone with severe gender dysphoria?
(2) how do you actually diagnose somebody with gender dysphoria? How can a doctor distinguish between a patient with gender dysphoria vs a patient who is experiencing psychological problems or trauma? Gender dysphoria can be a symptom of depression or result from sexual abuse, for example. Autistic children claim to be trans at much higher rate than other children.
Despite what Jon Stewart and Chase Strangio might tell you (I haven't watched that video yet) there isn't actually an overwhelming scientific consensus on either of those questions.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2022, 01:36:03 pm
Certainly nobody wants anybody to commit suicide. And I believe that people who support medical intervention for trans kids do so with the best intentions in mind. People who have concerns about medical intervention on trans kids don't want trans kids to kill themselves either, they're concerned that it might not actually be what is best for the kids.
I'm not sure about this at all.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 14, 2022, 02:35:40 pm
I'm not sure about this at all.
Have you considered the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you is motivated by pure evil?
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2022, 02:40:35 pm
Have you considered the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you aren't motivated by pure evil?
Have you considered the possibility that some or a lot of them are?
But it's not so much about their motivations as their actions and the consequences thereof. I don't really care about the motivations of someone who passes a law that classifies parents who support and affirm their kids' chosen gender identity as child abusers, I just know that's a pretty awful thing to do.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 14, 2022, 03:57:21 pm
Have you considered the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you aren't motivated by pure evil?That’s the Antifa mindset. Anyone that disagrees is a fascist and evil. And when your opponents are fascist and evil, anything can be justified in combating them, even violence.
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2022, 04:06:33 pm
That’s the Antifa mindset. Anyone that disagrees is a fascist and evil. And when your opponents are fascist and evil, anything can be justified in combating them, even violence.
I wish I loved anything as much as you freaks love pretending to be victims.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 14, 2022, 05:01:43 pm
I wish I loved anything as much as you freaks love pretending to be victims.The only victims are the children that you and your ilk mutilate.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 14, 2022, 05:15:43 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2022, 05:17:16 pm
The only victims are the children that you and your ilk mutilate.
You'd prefer we ran them over with an SUV or shot them in the face with an AR15.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 14, 2022, 05:37:33 pm
You'd prefer we ran them over with an SUV or shot them in the face with an AR15.Complete and utter nonsense. Get professional help.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 14, 2022, 10:23:22 pm
Have you considered the possibility that some or a lot of them are?
But it's not so much about their motivations as their actions and the consequences thereof. I don't really care about the motivations of someone who passes a law that classifies parents who support and affirm their kids' chosen gender identity as child abusers, I just know that's a pretty awful thing to do.
Affirming a child's gender identity is very different than unnaturally changing fundamental aspects of their biology, such as puberty or hormones, to affirm the delusion that they won't be "complete" unless their biology looks the same as their gender. Gender and biology are two entirely separate things. The idea that's there's something "wrong" with trans people biologically is ridiculous, what is wrong is society's acceptance of ie a trans man who has breasts. So what?
I think if you want to start changing your biological characteristics that it should be done when you're an adult and you have the perspective, maturity, experience, and intellect development to make such life-changing decisions.
If you're going to kill yourself then ok sure I guess they could make exceptions in those cases but I still don't see how this is healthy.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 16, 2022, 05:51:18 am
That update came THIS Monday, after I posted my question about updates from the previous Monday.Speaking of stoking the outrage machine... I'm seeing posts online that this case is actually a man trolling the system.
And this is a non-update update. They're just saying that the teacher is still going to work. They're not acknowledging that the situation is still being looked at.
It just seems like stoking the outrage machine... again. If they wanted the right thing to be done, and not to foment anger, they would acknowledge that there's something still coming from the school board.
If so, my position doesn't change...
And I doubt anything will happen to (?him?) differently.
Post by: guest18 on October 16, 2022, 08:52:57 am
https://twitter.com/politicsusa46/status/1581412217714790400?t=ebWF-eZN1CiERNcVzg0u-w&s=19
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 16, 2022, 10:52:38 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 21, 2022, 11:10:42 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on October 22, 2022, 05:16:00 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 22, 2022, 06:51:48 am
Dictatorship of the distracted masses.
China's government may be actually more responsive to the needs of their people at this point.
Post by: Black Dog on October 22, 2022, 10:07:28 am
Sums it up pretty well...
(Attachment Link)
See it’s all psychosexual hang ups about masculinity with you Facebook boomer freaks.
Post by: guest18 on October 22, 2022, 10:27:12 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 23, 2022, 09:35:41 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 24, 2022, 05:20:01 am
Post by: Black Dog on October 24, 2022, 10:08:53 am
Don’t forget about irreversible surgery as well. Can’t get a tattoo though.
(Attachment Link)
No five year olds are getting irreversible surgery or hormones you dumb prick.
It's great that you highlight stuff like that because it shows you lot are more out of touch with reality than any "xe/xer/birthing person" type.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 12, 2022, 06:42:22 am
They're looking at the dress code implications.
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/10717043-oakville-teacher-s-controversial-attire-prompts-halton-district-school-board-to-review-dress-code/
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/school-board-deems-dress-code-a-liability-after-oakville-teacher-wears-prosthetic-breasts-1.6148982?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3Actvtoronto%3Atwitterpost&taid=636f83c0dddb9b000179c9c1&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
Looks like board doesn't want to go near this. NP is also reporting that the teacher is suspected of trolling WOKISM. 😯
So would those who opposed this ad a genuine expression of gender support it as a protest?
Joan and I have both suspected trolling and as such this story should just die if true.
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 07:17:12 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 09:38:23 am
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/school-board-deems-dress-code-a-liability-after-oakville-teacher-wears-prosthetic-breasts-1.6148982?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3Actvtoronto%3Atwitterpost&taid=636f83c0dddb9b000179c9c1&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebookIt’s irrelevant. The teacher needs to be suspended and/or fired. This is insanity.
Looks like board doesn't want to go near this. NP is also reporting that the teacher is suspected of trolling WOKISM. 😯
So would those who opposed this ad a genuine expression of gender support it as a protest?
Joan and I have both suspected trolling and as such this story should just die if true.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 10:04:38 am
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 10:23:35 am
It’s irrelevant. The teacher needs to be suspended and/or fired. This is insanity.But he was trolling the wokesters. Doesn't that qualify as free speech?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 12, 2022, 01:03:27 pm
Pretty easy call not to allow sexually explicit attire.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 12, 2022, 01:05:53 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 01:31:07 pm
But he was trolling the wokesters. Doesn't that qualify as free speech?There’s no such thing as free speech in the work place. You obviously have no clue as to what rights are and how they work.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 01:32:03 pm
If this guy is a troll is he an idiot or a hero for exposing the board?He’s both. But regardless, he should be suspended or fired.
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 01:35:39 pm
There’s no such thing as free speech in the work place. You obviously have no clue as to what rights are and how they work.Didn't you just try to argue you have a right to not wear a mask when you enter a private healthcare facility?
But I agree that teachers shouldn't be allowed to be political trills.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 01:38:24 pm
Didn't you just try to argue you have a right to not wear a mask when you enter a private healthcare facility?No I didn’t argue that at all. You’re a moron.
But I agree that teachers shouldn't be allowed to be political trills.
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 01:44:15 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 02:05:35 pm
You said that there is no right to free speech in the workplace. I agree. Accordingly, I don't think teachers should be allowed to be political trolls in the workplace. We agree, don't we?Yes we do. And if a private business decides on their own that masks are required, that’s their right.
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 02:14:15 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 03:03:49 pm
How do you feel about pants mandates?I’m generally supportive of upholding public decency laws. You know the kind that are debated in legislatures, voted on and passed into law? Crazy concept huh? But depending on the private business, pants can be optional, or not even required at all!
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 04:32:23 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 05:30:14 pm
Legislatures enact public health laws too, and reducing sickness and hospital burdens is a sounder reason for mandates than your arbitrary, uptight notions of "decency."Legislatures absolutely can enact public safety laws. Hopefully they’ll do so at some point. I think we can agree on that. These measures should be debated and voted on. After all, it’s been 3 years now since covid. There’s been more than enough time.
It’s not my notion of decency. It’s what’s been agreed to by voters and legislatures. However, if you think pants being mandated is wrong, work to change the law. The same way laws were changed allowing women to be **** in public, the same way men can.
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 05:39:12 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 12, 2022, 06:36:23 pm
If there is a mask mandate in Ontario, Doug Ford is instituting it with his legislative majority. I don't know who misinformed you that this wasn't the case, but they were wrong and lying to youOnly under emergency declaration. Why do you always side with the government over people’s rights and freedoms? I mean, I knew that you’re authoritarian fascist, but didn’t realize the scope of your authoritarianism.
Post by: guest18 on November 12, 2022, 06:50:46 pm
Could it be you're embarrassed for being caught spreading lies again?
Post by: kimmy on November 13, 2022, 02:29:07 pm
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/school-board-deems-dress-code-a-liability-after-oakville-teacher-wears-prosthetic-breasts-1.6148982?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3Actvtoronto%3Atwitterpost&taid=636f83c0dddb9b000179c9c1&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
Looks like board doesn't want to go near this. NP is also reporting that the teacher is suspected of trolling WOKISM. 😯
So would those who opposed this ad a genuine expression of gender support it as a protest?
Joan and I have both suspected trolling and as such this story should just die if true.
"Dude you can't wear blackface to school."
"But I'm doing it ironically."
"Oh okay then."
"Dude you can't wear swastikas to school."
"Relax bro it's satire."
"Alright then go ahead."
No fukken way would that argument be accepted in other situations, so why should be accepted in this one?
Until somebody comes up with a practical mind-reading technology, we can't know what his motivation is, and it's irrelevant what his motivation is. As a matter of law in this country, it does not matter why he says he is a woman. All that matters is that he says he is a woman; no other consideration is relevant. You're attempting to make a distinction that simply doesn't exist.
There are no legal requirements he to meet in order for him to be considered a "real" trans person. There's no legal definition of what a "real" trans person is. The long-held position of trans rights activists is that someone's gender identity is not up for debate. What's the point in claiming that he isn't a "real" trans person? I recall that people wanted to assert that "Jessica" Yaniv wasn't a "real" trans person either, once they found out what a scumbag he is. But it's irrelevant. As far as the law is concerned, Yaniv IS a woman, and so is the Oakville teacher. Their reasons for identifying as women are unknowable and don't make a whit of difference to the real-world considerations of these cases. You can argue that he is "No True Scotsman" if you wish, but I am here to tell you I don't give a **** if he is Scottish or not.
(for the record: I have heard the claim that he's "just trolling" before, and the only evidence I have seen was an anonymous post on 4chan written by somebody claiming to be one of his former students. So that's not something I would put much faith in.)
When this story first arrived you suggested that people should be quiet about it because it would be handled. Later on you suggested that people should be quiet about it because the school board was in the process of handling it. And now that the school board has decided that they won't or can't handle it, you're now suggesting that people should be quiet about it because this person might be a bad faith actor. It seems like your primary concern isn't about whether this situation be handled, but rather that people be quiet about it.
I disagree. People should not be quiet about this, because this is an assault on the dignity of women and girls, especially the ones who work and study at that school. This is despicable.
I hope some woman who works at that school is in contact with a lawyer about the possibility of a human rights case based around maybe sexual discrimination or a hostile work environment. The school board is obviously very concerned about being sued if they do anything; I hope they get sued for doing nothing. Maybe it would disabuse them and others of the notion that women will just willingly suffer every insult heaped upon us.
What makes me especially irate is the school board's statements that they're "committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable and welcoming learning and working environment for all students and staff."
That's a huge lie. They're actually only concerned with a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable, welcoming learning and working environment for Miss Jumbo-Juggs. Their decision to let this walking, breathing insult to women continue to wander the halls of their school puts the lie to the claim that they are concerned with a caring, welcoming, inclusive, equitable environment for women and girls at their school. As often seems to be the case, when they talk about "inclusivity" and "equity" they really only give a **** about people they view as "marginalized". Inclusion and fairness to women and girls at that school are not a consideration.
-k
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on November 13, 2022, 02:40:41 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 13, 2022, 02:52:52 pm
The irony is that it would take a lot of balls to go to work like that whether trolling or not. Trolling here is possible since male shop teachers typically aren't the progressive gender-bending types.
This story just keeps getting more interesting.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 13, 2022, 04:05:10 pm
Imagine being a teenage girl at that school…. Or a youth who is legitimately transgender…. Yikes.I agree, it would feel like this teacher was mocking you. It’s disgusting.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 13, 2022, 04:05:53 pm
I hope a teacher or student dues the f**k out of the school board. They deserve it.
"Dude you can't wear blackface to school."
"But I'm doing it ironically."
"Oh okay then."
"Dude you can't wear swastikas to school."
"Relax bro it's satire."
"Alright then go ahead."
No fukken way would that argument be accepted in other situations, so why should be accepted in this one?
Until somebody comes up with a practical mind-reading technology, we can't know what his motivation is, and it's irrelevant what his motivation is. As a matter of law in this country, it does not matter why he says he is a woman. All that matters is that he says he is a woman; no other consideration is relevant. You're attempting to make a distinction that simply doesn't exist.
There are no legal requirements he to meet in order for him to be considered a "real" trans person. There's no legal definition of what a "real" trans person is. The long-held position of trans rights activists is that someone's gender identity is not up for debate. What's the point in claiming that he isn't a "real" trans person? I recall that people wanted to assert that "Jessica" Yaniv wasn't a "real" trans person either, once they found out what a scumbag he is. But it's irrelevant. As far as the law is concerned, Yaniv IS a woman, and so is the Oakville teacher. Their reasons for identifying as women are unknowable and don't make a whit of difference to the real-world considerations of these cases. You can argue that he is "No True Scotsman" if you wish, but I am here to tell you I don't give a **** if he is Scottish or not.
(for the record: I have heard the claim that he's "just trolling" before, and the only evidence I have seen was an anonymous post on 4chan written by somebody claiming to be one of his former students. So that's not something I would put much faith in.)
When this story first arrived you suggested that people should be quiet about it because it would be handled. Later on you suggested that people should be quiet about it because the school board was in the process of handling it. And now that the school board has decided that they won't or can't handle it, you're now suggesting that people should be quiet about it because this person might be a bad faith actor. It seems like your primary concern isn't about whether this situation be handled, but rather that people be quiet about it.
I disagree. People should not be quiet about this, because this is an assault on the dignity of women and girls, especially the ones who work and study at that school. This is despicable.
I hope some woman who works at that school is in contact with a lawyer about the possibility of a human rights case based around maybe sexual discrimination or a hostile work environment. The school board is obviously very concerned about being sued if they do anything; I hope they get sued for doing nothing. Maybe it would disabuse them and others of the notion that women will just willingly suffer every insult heaped upon us.
What makes me especially irate is the school board's statements that they're "committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable and welcoming learning and working environment for all students and staff."
That's a huge lie. They're actually only concerned with a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable, welcoming learning and working environment for Miss Jumbo-Juggs. Their decision to let this walking, breathing insult to women continue to wander the halls of their school puts the lie to the claim that they are concerned with a caring, welcoming, inclusive, equitable environment for women and girls at their school. As often seems to be the case, when they talk about "inclusivity" and "equity" they really only give a **** about people they view as "marginalized". Inclusion and fairness to women and girls at that school are not a consideration.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 13, 2022, 07:23:44 pm
When this story first arrived you suggested that people should be quiet about it because it would be handled. Later on you suggested that people should be quiet about it because the school board was in the process of handling it. And now that the school board has decided that they won't or can't handle it, you're now suggesting that people should be quiet about it because this person might be a bad faith actor. It seems like your primary concern isn't about whether this situation be handled, but rather that people be quiet about it.
I don't know if people should be quiet about it, if they're upset. But there's this well known saying about not feeding trolls.
I'm not telling you to shut up but I am sick of the news being dominated by trolls. Obviously I don't support this person, but I don't know what can be done about it.
A woman in the school suing someone... I don't think that would do anything. Sometimes there's no way to deal with a dick.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 13, 2022, 07:51:13 pm
I don't know if people should be quiet about it, if they're upset. But there's this well known saying about not feeding trolls.
I'm not telling you to shut up but I am sick of the news being dominated by trolls. Obviously I don't support this person, but I don't know what can be done about it.
A woman in the school suing someone... I don't think that would do anything. Sometimes there's no way to deal with a dick.
This person (let's call her boom-boom), whether they are trolling or not, has exposed how weak this board is and how inept their policies or lack of are. Boom-boom is doing society a favor. The board put themselves in a corner and this teacher has checkmated them when in fact it's quite easy for the board to use some basic common sense to get out of it. But they don't want to offend anyone because they're cowards with no backbone, coupled with a human rights code that tells them they could be fined for gender discrimination.
I think this is all fantastic entertainment and I'm munching popcorn watching it all unfold.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 13, 2022, 08:17:32 pm
This person (let's call her boom-boom), whether they are trolling or not, has exposed how weak this board is and how inept their policies or lack of are. Boom-boom is doing society a favor. The board put themselves in a corner and this teacher has checkmated them when in fact it's quite easy for the board to use some basic common sense to get out of it. But they don't want to offend anyone because they're cowards with no backbone, coupled with a human rights code that tells them they could be fined for gender discrimination.
I think this is all fantastic entertainment and I'm munching popcorn watching it all unfold.
Maybe. But people sometimes say 'they should just fire him' and that doesn't work. What would you suggest.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 13, 2022, 08:38:28 pm
Maybe. But people sometimes say 'they should just fire him' and that doesn't work. What would you suggest.
Having a reasonable dress code and enforcing it. I'm sure they have methods of reprimanding teachers. They don't need to be fired.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 14, 2022, 04:52:06 am
Having a reasonable dress code and enforcing it. I'm sure they have methods of reprimanding teachers. They don't need to be fired.
I can say that school boards are ineffectual and weak, yes I agree with you on this point. This person seems ready to weaponize the system to respond to any measures though. So I also think that the authorities have a difficult path to managing this.
And by authority I also mean teacher's union.
Nobody would be able to just assume that this person is not genuine, you see. That's against the principle where we believe self-reporting.
I don't support this but I don't see any easy way through. With Yaniv, the system could implicitly disbelieve her claims by siding with the nail salon. I don't see any parallel here.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 14, 2022, 05:25:01 am
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/chaudhri-halton-district-school-board-missed-the-point-on-dress-codes
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 16, 2022, 02:47:49 pm
I'd assume they already had one. They do for students typically.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 16, 2022, 02:52:56 pm
They don't want to get sued. I get that, but any employer can require a dress code. It doesn't have to be a gendered code.
I'd assume they already had one. They do for students typically.
Student dress codes are going away for the same reasons that this dress code isn't forthcoming.
They haven't navigated how to specify one without stepping on toes, to be generous.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 16, 2022, 03:56:06 pm
Student dress codes are going away for the same reasons that this dress code isn't forthcoming.So you think employers don’t have the legal rights to enforce a dress code, but do have the legal rights to enforce a medical procedure like a vaccination? This is pure insanity. Our society is going to complete s**t.
They haven't navigated how to specify one without stepping on toes, to be generous.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 16, 2022, 04:00:36 pm
Midriffs OK, Playboy logos banned in school board dress code overhaul
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/midriffs-ok-playboy-logos-banned-in-school-board-dress-code-overhaul?fbclid=IwAR28vQL8lGoHR3on-MEEoB21u271RJD8You4YylkmdHy_q17yfQAWnLdtU0
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 16, 2022, 04:01:04 pm
Student dress codes are going away for the same reasons that this dress code isn't forthcoming.
They haven't navigated how to specify one without stepping on toes, to be generous.
Suns out, balls out.
Post by: Black Dog on November 16, 2022, 04:15:18 pm
So you think employers don’t have the legal rights to enforce a dress code, but do have the legal rights to enforce a medical procedure like a vaccination? This is pure insanity.
"Anti-vaxx dipshit" is not a protected identity like gender expression.
Quote
Our society is going to complete s**t.
You're free to leave at anytime for someplace like Hungary but we all know you'll stick around no matter how bad you think it gets because you lack the courage of your convictions, like when you got jabbed so you could go to the gym, you cuck.
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 16, 2022, 07:16:09 pm
So you think employers don’t have the legal rights to enforce a dress code, but do have the legal rights to enforce a medical procedure like a vaccination? This is pure insanity. Our society is going to complete s**t.
Well I didn't say that. And comparing to vaccine rules is pretty off topic... I guess my answer is I don't know.
Post by: kimmy on November 19, 2022, 12:41:26 pm
Student dress codes are going away for the same reasons that this dress code isn't forthcoming.
You just linked to an article from an actual lawyer who just explained that Ontario labor code actually has a significant chunk of verbiage devoted to the issue of dress codes.
Quote
Turning first to the shortcomings of the report, it does not consult a legal expert on the issue despite its stated intention to determine if the “imposition of a staff dress code would be permissible from a labour and employment law perspective.”
The report authored is by the Superintendent of Human Resources and the Director of Education, references the Ontario Human Rights Commission to support its finding dress codes are fraught with legal risk. In fact, the Commission devotes a sizable component of it’s website to the removal of sexualized and gender specific dress codes at work.
The Commission’s website states “sexualized dress codes reinforce stereoptical and sexist notions about women.” Specifically the Commission referred to a CBC Marketplace inquiry about restaurants where dress codes “that require female servers to wear short skirts, tight dresses, high heels and low cut tops to work.”
As a woman, I would venture to say that oversized prosthetic breasts reinforce stereotypical and sexist notions about women — especially in a school environment.
As a professional, I’m also required to follow a dress code. To attend court before a judge, I am required to wear a robe, a vest, pants or a skirt, a court shirt, and tabs. Even with the advent of zoom courtrooms, there is still an attire and etiquette protocol.
I have to point out how ludicrous it is that the Toronto Sun consulted the opinion of an actual lawyer for their opinion piece, but the Halton School Board couldn't be bothered to consult a lawyer during the course of their TWO MONTH review on this issue. What a fucken joke, Michael, that the HDSB didn't consult a lawyer in the course of deciding whether they had any legal options in dealing with this issue.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the board wasn't interested in finding out whether they had any legal options, and were content with the preconceived assumption that they didn't.
(another column, also by a lawyer, makes the same point as the Toronto Sun piece: https://financialpost.com/fp-work/halton-school-board-power-ban-trans-teachers-outfit-too-scared )
Quote
A woman in the school suing someone... I don't think that would do anything. Sometimes there's no way to deal with a dick.
I think that it would do two things. First off, it would inspire the HSDB people to reconsider their options, with perhaps a new sense of urgency.
Second, it would remind people that the trans person is not the only one who has rights. Despite claiming to care about the dignity and inclusion of their female students and staff, it is clear that they do not. Perhaps being brought before a Human Rights Tribunal over this would remind them that it's not only "the marginalized" who have rights.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 19, 2022, 02:04:33 pm
1. It sure doesn't look like they did.
1. I have to point out how ludicrous it is that the Toronto Sun consulted the opinion of an actual lawyer for their opinion piece, but the Halton School Board couldn't be bothered to consult a lawyer during the course of their TWO MONTH review on this issue.
2. What a fucken joke, Michael, that the HDSB didn't consult a lawyer in the course of deciding whether they had any legal options in dealing with this issue.
3. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the board wasn't interested in finding out whether they had any legal options, and were content with the preconceived assumption that they didn't.
2. 3. Seems so.
All right, are we past the point where you try to pick a fight with me on this, no matter what I post about it?
If so, good.
Post by: kimmy on November 19, 2022, 02:22:42 pm
All right, are we past the point where you try to pick a fight with me on this, no matter what I post about it?
uhhhh, maybe?
Your initial premise was that people shouldn't flip out over this because it would get "handled". I think we're both in agreement now that it has not been "handled" in any satisfactory way, right?
So what should happen next?
I don't think that shrugging our shoulders and saying "the fates have decided" is acceptable, and I also don't think that sending bomb threats to the school is acceptable (there were two last week), so I don't know what happens next. A lawsuit from a female staffer or student is the only constructive option I can think of.
Any ideas?
-k
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 19, 2022, 02:56:42 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 19, 2022, 05:51:37 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 23, 2022, 08:38:39 am
Wants to be referred to as they/them! 🤣
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 23, 2022, 08:56:04 am
Even if he's trolling?
Especially if he's trolling.
Post by: guest18 on November 23, 2022, 09:11:50 am
Colorado shooter is non-binary! 😂Not surprised shady would approve of mass-shooters' trolling antics
Wants to be referred to as they/them! 🤣
Post by: Black Dog on November 23, 2022, 09:37:16 am
Colorado shooter is non-binary! 😂
Wants to be referred to as they/them! 🤣
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fht-kjkXwAA8aWr?format=jpg&name=small)
Post by: Black Dog on November 23, 2022, 09:38:33 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 23, 2022, 09:45:14 am
Not surprised shady would approve of mass-shooters' trolling anticsNot accepting someone's preferred pronouns is a hate crime.
Post by: Black Dog on November 23, 2022, 10:20:20 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiQfkBnWIAM8tQA?format=jpg&name=medium)
If you think a maniac who murdered a bunch of innocent people deciding to use they/them pronouns as a troll is funny/clever, you should get in your car, start the engine, close the garage door and take a nice long nap.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on November 27, 2022, 07:56:57 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2022, 04:48:35 am
Post by: Black Dog on November 28, 2022, 09:27:32 am
Trolly
It's all feels over reals for these dickheads.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 15, 2022, 04:14:45 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWOhjx_Ldew
Post by: Black Dog on December 15, 2022, 04:32:26 pm
Sam Harris discusses transgenderism and language with an apparent trans woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWOhjx_Ldew
5 minutes of talking and all he really says is there are extremes on both sides. Oh wow, man that's insightful.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on December 15, 2022, 04:48:20 pm
5 minutes of talking and all he really says is there are extremes on both sides. Oh wow, man that's insightful.
Either you’re really not a smart person, or you didn’t listen to what was said.
Post by: Black Dog on December 15, 2022, 04:51:09 pm
Either you’re really not a smart person, or you didn’t listen to what was said.
I listened to the entire thing, there's no there there.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 16, 2022, 05:50:08 am
I listened to the entire thing, there's no there there.
He drew the line to say we have to be able to use words so that we can talk about the issues themselves. If we ban words from being said then we're not going to make progress on the issues.
Of course it's not super deep, but we don't really have been with for those types of conversations of people are screaming at each other. It's clarity and geometry of the playing field for building rules for coexistence.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 16, 2022, 05:53:08 am
Ultimately they will lose out to what the majority wants, but it's better for social cohesion to try to unify even if the effort is doomed.
Post by: Black Dog on December 16, 2022, 12:26:37 pm
He drew the line to say we have to be able to use words so that we can talk about the issues themselves. If we ban words from being said then we're not going to make progress on the issues.
Of course it's not super deep, but we don't really have been with for those types of conversations of people are screaming at each other. It's clarity and geometry of the playing field for building rules for coexistence.
It hinges on a strawman that there are those who are trying to ban words when the opposite is occurring; the debate is around expanding the definitions of certain terms.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 16, 2022, 02:09:28 pm
It hinges on a strawman that there are those who are trying to ban words when the opposite is occurring; the debate is around expanding the definitions of certain terms.
He says that - 'language changes all the time' - in his defense of NOT changing the definition or at least having a definition that matches the old meaning.
Post by: Black Dog on December 16, 2022, 03:02:59 pm
He says that - 'language changes all the time' - in his defense of NOT changing the definition or at least having a definition that matches the old meaning.
I've watched this three or four times now and TBH it's not all that clear what his point is beyond "we should be able to use the words men and women" and, like, ok? That's it? Also, who are the Taliban-defending leftists or the people who think they shouldn't put boy or girl on birth certificates or are destroying people's lives for using the term "woman?"
I don't think this is a great clip, but it's pretty funny how much stronger a communicator he is than Peterson.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 16, 2022, 03:32:35 pm
I've watched this three or four times now and TBH it's not all that clear what his point is beyond "we should be able to use the words men and women" and, like, ok? That's it? Also, who are the Taliban-defending leftists or the people who think they shouldn't put boy or girl on birth certificates or are destroying people's lives for using the term "woman?"
I don't think this is a great clip, but it's pretty funny how much stronger a communicator he is than Peterson.
Like I say - I disagree with him on major items but his game is good enough. I have no respect for Peterson outside of self-help, which I don't need from him anyway.
Post by: Michael Hardner on December 19, 2022, 01:05:11 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43DbcwDYTsg
Post by: Black Dog on December 19, 2022, 02:54:00 pm
Embarrassing video...
That's a drag queen.
Post by: Black Dog on January 24, 2023, 03:12:59 pm
DeSantis seeks details on transgender university students
(https://apnews.com/article/ron-desantis-colleges-and-universities-race-ethnicity-florida-education-97d0b8aef2fc3a60733c8bd4080cc07b)
Quote
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is asking state universities for the number and ages of their students who sought gender dysphoria treatment, including sex reassignment surgery and hormone prescriptions, according to a survey released Wednesday.
Why he’s conducting the survey wasn’t completely clear. DeSantis has been criticized by LGTBQ advocates for policies seen as discriminatory, including banning instruction on sexual and gender identity in early grades and making it easier for parents to remove books related to the topic in public schools.
...The current memo asks universities to “provide the number of encounters for sex-reassignment treatment or where such treatment was sought” as well as data for students referred to other facilities. It says to protect students’ identities when completing the information.
The survey requires a breakdown by age, regardless of whether the student is age 18 or older, of people prescribed hormones or hormone antagonists or who underwent a medical procedures like mastectomies, breast augmentation or removal and reconstruction of genitals.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on January 25, 2023, 12:00:05 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: waldo on January 25, 2023, 12:02:43 pm
Just in case anyone needed more proof that the non-binary gender movement is completely insane.
Really concentrating on the important stuff! 😂
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 25, 2023, 12:11:59 pm
Post by: Black Dog on January 25, 2023, 01:21:33 pm
Just in case anyone needed more proof that the non-binary gender movement is completely insane.
So funny how much you shitheels love this serial grifter:
Quote
Raichik's account, however, featured her full name in both her handle and bio as recently as last year, according to The Washington Post. She pivoted to anonymous handles by the end of January, first with @cuomomustgo, which called for former Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to resign.
Next, she tried her hand at satire with @houseplantpotus, an account that tweeted from the voice of a houseplant living with President Biden. That account, which also failed to take off, noted that she was a real estate agent in Brooklyn and Orthodox Jew.
She finally struck internet gold on April 19, 2021, when she again rebranded, this time to 'Libs of TikTok.'
Post by: Black Dog on January 25, 2023, 01:22:53 pm
Anybody posting a wacky woke should be forced to post an accompanying mad MAGA...
I can guarantee you a lot of these outrageous tik toks are being made specifically to get idiots mad for engagement purposes.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on January 25, 2023, 01:26:21 pm
Anybody posting a wacky woke should be forced to post an accompanying mad MAGA...Mad Maga aren’t embraced by popular culture and the mainstream media etc. They’re not grooming kids either.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 25, 2023, 01:47:24 pm
I can guarantee you a lot of these outrageous tik toks are being made specifically to get idiots mad for engagement purposes.
MSM does this on a different level...
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 25, 2023, 01:47:47 pm
Mad Maga aren’t embraced by popular culture and the mainstream media etc. They’re not grooming kids either.
My request stands.
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 25, 2023, 01:48:37 pm
https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/11/09/man-featured-at-giuliani-press-conference-is-a-sex-offender-1335241
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on January 25, 2023, 02:46:24 pm
My request stands.Feel free to post whatever you want.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on January 25, 2023, 02:47:25 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on January 25, 2023, 02:49:18 pm
Mad Maga aren’t embraced by popular culture and the mainstream media etc. They’re not grooming kids either.
LMAOOOOOOOOOO
Quote
During the 2018 U.S. Senate race, Alabama Republican candidate Roy Moore was accused of preying on girls as young as 14. Six women accused Moore of pursuing sexual relationships with him when they were teenagers as young as 14 when he was an assistant district attorney in his 30s, according to The New York Times.
The newspaper reported that Moore’s habits of trying to pick up high school girls was so notorious that it got him banned from a local mall.
Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who was accused of covering up sexual misconduct while he was the wrestling coach at Ohio State University, according to CNN. Team Doctor Richard Strauss was accused of sexually abusing 177 male student athletes on the team.
Numerous former wrestlers told reporters that Jordan was personally aware of the abuse that happened during the early 1990’s but chose to turn a blind eye, CNN said. One victim has said that Jordan called him crying and begged to not let the story go public. Twenty-two coaches confirmed to an investigative team that they were aware of rumors/complaints about Strauss, dating back to the late 1970s. Strauss ended up committing suicide in 2005. Jordan denies any knowledge of the abuse, according to CNN.
Former GOP staffer and Republican National Committee aide, Ruben Verastigua, admitted to being part of a ring that traded child pornography that involved babies, according to Politico. He was sentenced to more than 12-and-a-half years in prison, according to Politico.
Former Republican U.S..Rep. Dennis Hastert, the longest ever serving Republican Speaker of the House, pleaded guilty of withdrawing $952,000 to use as hush money to hide the fact that he sexually abused teenage wrestlers that he coached from 1965 until 1981, according to The New York Times.
Republican Congressmen David Dreier, Porter Gross, John Doolittle, Thomas Ewing and former Republican House Majority Whip Tom Delay all wrote letters to the judge on Hastert’s case to “give him leniency where you can,” The New York Times. Hastert was sentenced to 15 months in prison and two years’ supervised probation. Judge Durkin said, “that to have to use the words ‘serial molester’ and Speaker of the House’ in the same sentence makes me sick” according to The New York Times.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz is currently the subject of a sex-trafficking investigation which is looking into whether Gaetz had sex with an underage 17-year-old girl and transported her over state lines for the purposes of sexual activities, among other allegations, according The Washington Post.
In 2017 Gaetz was the only member of Congress to vote against a law boosting the governments human trafficking investigating powers saying he was sent to congress to reduce the reach of government, according to The Washington Post
Tennessee Republican State Rep. David Byrd had been accused of sexual misconduct by three women who were underage at the time, according to The Washington Post. Christi Rice alleged that Byrd abused her over the course of her sophomore year of high school while he was her basketball coach.
Rice said that “he talked about it, he wanted to see me naked, he told me he spent more hours with me in a day that he did of his wife, that when he had sex with her he was thinking of me,” according to The Washington Post.
Republican talking head Tucker Carlson defended Warren Jeffs, the fundamentalist cult leader who is currently in prison for child ****. Carlson said that Jeffs was in prison for his “weird and unpopular beliefs,” like the forced marriage of underage girls.
Jeffs was convicted on two counts of felony child sexual assault. Carlson said the conviction “was unjustified,” according to Buzzfeed.
Former Republican Speaker of the House in Puerto Rico, Edison Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughters when they were between the ages of 9 and 17, according to the Guardian.
Former Republican Waterbury, Conn., Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year-old girls, according to the New Haven Register.
Former Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortage was sentenced to three years’ probation for taking **** photographs of a 15-year-old girl, according to The Guardian.
Former Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl, according to The New York Times.
Former Republican U.S. Sen. Strom Thurman had sex with a 15-year-old which produced a child, according to The New York Times.
There are more than 300 accusations or convictions that could still be written about.
With every conservative accusation on this a veiled confession, I think London, Ontario police should be looking into one particular local pervert with a thing for candy and kid's cartoons.
Post by: kimmy on January 26, 2023, 04:06:31 am
It hinges on a strawman that there are those who are trying to ban words when the opposite is occurring; the debate is around expanding the definitions of certain terms.
"Woman" is a word that is by definition discriminatory. It is used to describe a specific subset of humans. Expanding it to make it inclusive erodes its meaning. It's like if you "expanded" the definition of prime numbers to include all odd numbers.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 26, 2023, 04:09:50 am
It's all feels over reals for these dickheads.
That's the entirety of gender ideology.
-k
Post by: kimmy on January 26, 2023, 04:18:59 am
uhhhh, maybe?
Your initial premise was that people shouldn't flip out over this because it would get "handled". I think we're both in agreement now that it has not been "handled" in any satisfactory way, right?
So what should happen next?
I don't think that shrugging our shoulders and saying "the fates have decided" is acceptable, and I also don't think that sending bomb threats to the school is acceptable (there were two last week), so I don't know what happens next. A lawsuit from a female staffer or student is the only constructive option I can think of.
Any ideas?
So apparently the threat of a lawsuit is exactly what it needed for this to get "handled". As if by magic a dress code has suddenly become possible. How astounding!
Inflicting this degrading spectacle on the girls at that school every day for 4 months could not inspire these scumbags to give a ****, but hire a lawyer and suddenly they care.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 26, 2023, 08:47:22 am
So apparently the threat of a lawsuit is exactly what it needed for this to get "handled". As if by magic a dress code has suddenly become possible. How astounding!
Inflicting this degrading spectacle on the girls at that school every day for 4 months could not inspire these scumbags to give a ****, but hire a lawyer and suddenly they care.
-k
Yeah, but no.
First of all the lawsuit based on what ? And what damages ? "I'm suing because my shop teacher has fake ****, judge"
No.
I'll tell you that it was the politics, including the Provincial Education Minister openly telling them what to do. Is that ok ? Not sure but if it gets this piece of **** controversy out of the news I'm fine with it.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on January 27, 2023, 09:32:12 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on January 30, 2023, 05:25:38 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on January 30, 2023, 05:40:46 pm
Post by: guest18 on January 30, 2023, 06:30:12 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 06, 2023, 03:46:22 pm
Transgender Teacher at Maine Middle School Shared Salacious TikTok Videos With 6th Graders
https://www.themainewire.com/2023/01/maine-transgender-portland-teacher-kings-middle-school-groomer/
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 06, 2023, 06:21:24 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Coolio on February 06, 2023, 06:44:20 pm
Groomers have infiltrated every part of education. It might be time to defund the teachers and start over.
Transgender Teacher at Maine Middle School Shared Salacious TikTok Videos With 6th Graders
https://www.themainewire.com/2023/01/maine-transgender-portland-teacher-kings-middle-school-groomer/
I've come to believe that this whole "child grooming" hysteria has as much merit as the "satanic panic" and "daycare sex-abuse" hysteria of the 80s.
In other words it's overblown, and will fizzle out soon enough.
Post by: Coolio on February 06, 2023, 06:46:05 pm
God damn lunatics.
(Attachment Link)
If social media was around in the 1930s, "Libs of TikTok" would have been huge in Nazi Germany.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 06, 2023, 06:52:38 pm
If social media was around in the 1930s, "Libs of TikTok" would have been huge in Nazi Germany.Really? We’re there a lot of people outing nazis?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 06, 2023, 06:54:15 pm
I've come to believe that this whole "child grooming" hysteria has as much merit as the "satanic panic" and "daycare sex-abuse" hysteria of the 80s.I wish you were right. Unfortunately young healthy children are being given chemicals to block their puberty, and are even having their breasts cut off, in the name of “health”. It’s quite grotesque.
In other words it's overblown, and will fizzle out soon enough.
Post by: Black Dog on February 06, 2023, 07:03:34 pm
I wish you were right. Unfortunately young healthy children are being given chemicals to block their puberty, and are even having their breasts cut off, in the name of “health”. It’s quite grotesque.
No there aren’t.
Post by: Black Dog on February 06, 2023, 07:23:50 pm
I've come to believe that this whole "child grooming" hysteria has as much merit as the "satanic panic" and "daycare sex-abuse" hysteria of the 80s.
In other words it's overblown, and will fizzle out soon enough.
They’re doing both of those still.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 06, 2023, 07:35:05 pm
Groomers are child abusers. There’s no other way to characterize adults insisting a 2 year old is trans. Even suggesting a 10 year old is disgusting. This is pure evil.
(Attachment Link)
2 and 1/2? That's a bit much. Maybe master potty training first before figuring out your child's gender identity.
Post by: Coolio on February 06, 2023, 07:43:59 pm
They’re doing both of those still.
Last time I heard of a phoney daycare sex scandal, was the infamous Martensite, Saskatchewan Satanic/Sex Daycare Scandal in 1992.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 06, 2023, 07:48:40 pm
Last time I heard of a phoney daycare sex scandal, was the infamous Martensite, Saskatchewan Satanic/Sex Daycare Scandal in 1992.
Baltimore public school teacher charged with sexually abusing children
https://thepostmillennial.com/baltimore-public-school-teacher-charged-with-sexually-abusing-children?fbclid=IwAR2J3q8lt2B3RJ9fqLz_DqePFYTjuKgJxIsBjpg-6M6OTYzc6eltfZATimc
Post by: Black Dog on February 06, 2023, 10:59:39 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 09, 2023, 11:36:25 am
I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle.
There are more than 100 pediatric gender clinics across the U.S. I worked at one. What’s happening to children is morally and medically appalling.
I am a 42-year-old St. Louis native, a queer woman, and politically to the left of Bernie Sanders. My worldview has deeply shaped my career. I have spent my professional life providing counseling to vulnerable populations: children in foster care, sexual minorities, the poor.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=101682797&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 09, 2023, 11:40:41 am
Post by: Black Dog on February 09, 2023, 01:42:11 pm
Holy sh*t!
I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle.
There are more than 100 pediatric gender clinics across the U.S. I worked at one. What’s happening to children is morally and medically appalling.
I am a 42-year-old St. Louis native, a queer woman, and politically to the left of Bernie Sanders. My worldview has deeply shaped my career. I have spent my professional life providing counseling to vulnerable populations: children in foster care, sexual minorities, the poor.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=101682797&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
Me: "There's no hard evidence that underage kids are being fast tracked into surgery or hormones, just unsubstantiated anecdotes."
Dipshit: "Oh yeah? Have you considered THESE unsubstantiated anecdotes by a person not directly involved in providing medical care?"
Quote
During the four years I worked at the clinic as a case manager—I was responsible for patient intake and oversight—around a thousand distressed young people came through our doors. The majority of them received hormone prescriptions that can have life-altering consequences—including sterility.
So several hundred "young people" (note she doesn't specify an exact number or how many were underage) get hormones (not puberty blockers: hormones). So where are they all?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 09, 2023, 06:45:29 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on February 09, 2023, 07:18:47 pm
I almost spit out my coffee when I saw this! What a great point.
(Attachment Link)
So where's the right-wing campaign to ban tattoos or breast implants which far more young people get than do medical transitions? The fact you c*nts don't care about those things just shows the real purpose behind the anti-trans care stuff is just hate for LGBTQ people. Nice self-own, loser.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 09, 2023, 07:47:55 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 09, 2023, 07:50:52 pm
Free face tattoos for all youth who want it.Yep. Apparently there are retards that don’t understand that you need to be an adult for cosmetic surgery, tattoos, etc.
Post by: Black Dog on February 09, 2023, 07:57:43 pm
Yep. Apparently there are retards that don’t understand that you need to be an adult for cosmetic surgery, tattoos, etc.
No, retard, you just need parental consent.
Post by: Black Dog on February 09, 2023, 08:03:57 pm
(https://www.center4research.org/bella-hadid-regrets-getting-a-nose-job-at-14-how-young-is-too-young-for-plastic-surgery/)
Quote
And it’s not uncommon for teens to get cosmetic procedures. According to the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, nearly 230,000 cosmetic surgeries were performed on teens ages 13-19 in 2017, and some as young as 15 are even documenting their plastic surgeries on social media.
That's almost twice as many teens getting cosmetic surgery in one year (and that number is almost certainly higher now) as kids aged 6 to 17 diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 09, 2023, 08:52:24 pm
Bella Hadid regrets getting a nose job at 14. How young is too young for plastic surgery?
(https://www.center4research.org/bella-hadid-regrets-getting-a-nose-job-at-14-how-young-is-too-young-for-plastic-surgery/)
That's almost twice as many teens getting cosmetic surgery in one year (and that number is almost certainly higher now) as kids aged 6 to 17 diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021.
Minors shouldn't be getting cosmetic surgery unless they have a legit malformation, like cleft palate or scars/disfigurement from an accident etc. The odd mole or skin tag is fine. But they shouldn't be getting boob and nose jobs etc, what kind of sick doctor would perform that nonsense? When you're 18 you can do whatever you want.
Tattoos i dunno. Maybe parental consent up to a certain reasonable age? 16? Same with ear piercing, some reasonable age of consent.
Circumcision is kind of dumb, but has a very long cultural/religious history in the West and most seem to like it when they're older for various reasons.
Hormones & genital reassignment etc should either be medically required due to physical ailment/malformation or have a high bar They should focus more on self-acceptable therapy. They can schedule an appointment with Jordan Peterson!
All consenting adults should have the right to cut their penises and cooter lips off.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 09, 2023, 08:57:35 pm
The greatest self own ever! 😂
Anyone that condones cutting off the healthy breasts of a 14 year old, is a sick evil f**k. There’s just no debate about that. These people need to be destroyed and removed from society.
Post by: Black Dog on February 10, 2023, 09:38:49 am
Citing a minor regretting surgery in an effort to defend minors having surgery is absolutely f**king hilarious! 🤣
The greatest self own ever! 😂
Can't even imagine how dumb one has to be to miss the point this badly.
Quote
Anyone that condones cutting off the healthy breasts of a 14 year old, is a sick evil f**k. There’s just no debate about that. These people need to be destroyed and removed from society.
You thought about this, typed it out and hit post and you have the nerve to call other people groomers? London Police need to check this freak's hard drive ASAP.
Post by: Black Dog on February 10, 2023, 09:40:59 am
Minors shouldn't be getting cosmetic surgery unless they have a legit malformation, like cleft palate or scars/disfigurement from an accident etc. The odd mole or skin tag is fine. But they shouldn't be getting boob and nose jobs etc, what kind of sick doctor would perform that nonsense? When you're 18 you can do whatever you want.
But there are lots of doctors who do that stuff, more than perform gender reassignment surgery, but there's no coordinated campaign by the neo-fascists to ban that stuff. Because they don't actually care about kids getting surgery they just don't want trans people to exist, which is why the locus of this moral panic has continually shifted from bathrooms and sports to concern trolling over kids medically transitioning to the latest push back against allowing kids to socially transition. The next step, which Trump has come out for, is banning gender affirming care for adults too.
Post by: Black Dog on February 10, 2023, 10:38:16 am
New guidelines for treating childhood obesity include medications and surgery (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/new-guidelines-treating-childhood-obesity-include-medications-surgery-rcna64651)
Quote
For the first time in 15 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday released new guidelines for treating childhood obesity, emphasizing a need for early and intensive treatment.
...
For children ages 12 and up, one of the major changes in the recommendations is the inclusion of anti-obesity drugs and weight-loss surgery alongside lifestyle changes.
...
...
The guidelines say that pediatricians should offer weight-loss drugs for children age 12 and up with obesity.
...
The guidelines also recommend that teens age 13 and up with severe obesity consider discussing weight-loss surgery, which evidence has shown can be a safe and effective treatment with lasting results.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 10, 2023, 10:48:08 am
Post by: Black Dog on February 10, 2023, 11:21:20 am
It’s so f**ked up that our remedy for fat kids now is drugs and surgery. So f**ked up. There’s a reason why so many more kids today are fat compared to 30, 40 years ago. We should be addressing those reasons, not knifing up children, and injecting them with drugs. It’s called eating HEALTHY and EXERCISING. Leave children alone you f**king nazi monsters. JFC, we’ve completely lost our minds as a society!
And yet there's no outcry from the usual suspects like your boy Groomer Ron DeSicko, no calls for heavy handed government intervention or bans like with trans healthcare or books about LGBTQ people or anything of the sort. And you're too stupid to wonder why that is.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 10, 2023, 12:06:59 pm
This came out a few months ago and I didn't hear one goddamned word about it from the "nooo you can't give kids drugs and surgery" crowd.
New guidelines for treating childhood obesity include medications and surgery (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/new-guidelines-treating-childhood-obesity-include-medications-surgery-rcna64651)
Pretty dumb.
I guess in some rare people who have legit genetic disorders its pretty hard to not pack on every calorie they intake as fat, so in rare cases it might be the healthiest option. But i don't think i'd give it to kids.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 10, 2023, 12:50:24 pm
Pretty dumb.Exactly. It shouldn’t be a guideline for treating obesity. But it is now because society has lost its collective mind. It’s too difficult to tell people these days, that guess what? You’re going to have to stop eating so much junk, and you’re going to have to get off your ass and exercise. That will literally work for 99.999999999999999% of people suffering from obesity. It’ll even work for a on somebody with a “genetic” problem. Maybe not as well, but it would still yield some results. But society is too fond of its “healthy at any weight “ bullsh*t.
I guess in some rare people who have legit genetic disorders its pretty hard to not pack on every calorie they intake as fat, so in rare cases it might be the healthiest option. But i don't think i'd give it to kids.
Post by: Black Dog on February 10, 2023, 01:30:21 pm
Exactly. It shouldn’t be a guideline for treating obesity. But it is now because society has lost its collective mind. It’s too difficult to tell people these days, that guess what? You’re going to have to stop eating so much junk, and you’re going to have to get off your ass and exercise. That will literally work for 99.999999999999999% of people suffering from obesity. It’ll even work for a on somebody with a “genetic” problem. Maybe not as well, but it would still yield some results. But society is too fond of its “healthy at any weight “ bullsh*t.
While I don't agree with making kids get surgery or take weight loss drugs, this is just typical conservative bullshit that places the onus on individuals and completely ignores the complex economic social and environmental factors that contribute to the problem.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 10, 2023, 05:45:25 pm
While I don't agree with making kids get surgery or take weight loss drugs
Holy actually reasonable Batman!
Quote
this is just typical conservative bullshit that places the onus on individuals and completely ignores the complex economic social and environmental factors that contribute to the problem.
And the typical progressive response blames everything on external factors and makes everyone out to be victims and ignores personal agency. Things aren't so black and white.
Who is responsible for our lifestyles? Who is going to change it? We are largely, and we will. Parents let their kids watch tv and play on their phones and Playstations all day while eating junk, how do you change that? Limit their screen time, feed them better food. The excuse that "healthy food is just too expensive" is a bunch of nonsense. A bag of lettuce is $3. A half-dozen bananas is like $1.50. Apples aren't expensive. A bag of baby carrots for snacks isn't that expensive, no more than a bag of chips. Less educated parents make less educated decisions, and their fat arses can't stop eating chips and cookies either.
There are obviously some environmental factors, like school buses instead of walking to school (evil cars), and junk food in the cafeteria, but this is largely a problem created by our own lifestyle choices, and kids are fatter today than 50 years ago largely because parents aren't making the right choices for their tots.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 13, 2023, 04:15:14 pm
Post by: guest7 on February 13, 2023, 04:23:33 pm
Do trans women have a right to use women's locker rooms, or do cis women have a right not to have to undress in front of trans women (biological men of female gender) and be exposed to their male genitals?
When rights collide you picks your side...
I'm with the latter in this case.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on February 17, 2023, 11:05:44 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest7 on February 17, 2023, 11:21:06 am
Complete insanity and child abuse. Protective services should be taking her child.
(Attachment Link)
Keep her out of the kitchen and she'll be okay.
Post by: Black Dog on February 17, 2023, 11:44:05 am
Post by: Black Dog on March 02, 2023, 01:41:12 pm
Parents push back on allegations against St. Louis transgender center. ‘I’m baffled.’ (https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/parents-push-back-on-allegations-against-st-louis-transgender-center-i-m-baffled/article_a94bc4d2-e68b-535f-b0c7-9fefb9e8e9f4.html?utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)
Quote
Explosive allegations made public last month about a St. Louis clinic that treats transgender children have flung parents into a vortex of emotions: shock, confusion, anger, fear.
Kim Hutton, among those confused by the reports, views the treatment her son, now 19, received from Washington University’s Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital as vital to making him the outgoing college freshman he is today.
“The idea that nobody got information, that everybody was pushed toward treatment, is just not true. It’s devastating,” Hutton said. “I’m baffled by it.”
Almost two dozen parents of children seen at the clinic, which opened in 2017, say their experiences sharply contradict the examples supplied by Jamie Reed, a case manager who left the WU center after being employed there for more than four years. Reed outlined her concerns in an article published online Feb. 9; her sworn affidavit, which included additional allegations, was released that day by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who is leading a state investigation.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 02, 2023, 01:54:37 pm
Turns out the person who said they worked at a clinic where kids were being fast tracked into puberty blockers and hormones (and who said they had kids coming in identifying as helicopters and otehr inanimate objects) may have been full of crap!
Parents push back on allegations against St. Louis transgender center. ‘I’m baffled.’ (https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/parents-push-back-on-allegations-against-st-louis-transgender-center-i-m-baffled/article_a94bc4d2-e68b-535f-b0c7-9fefb9e8e9f4.html?utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)
Facts don't matter in times of (culture) war
Post by: Black Dog on March 02, 2023, 02:57:01 pm
Facts don't matter in times of (culture) war
It's just disheartening to see the number of "liberal" media types jump on this stuff without doing due dilligence simply because it conforms with their biases.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 02, 2023, 03:25:58 pm
Facts don't matter in times of (culture) warWe don’t know what the facts are. That’s why there’s an investigation.
Post by: Black Dog on March 02, 2023, 04:21:30 pm
Quote
The picture painted by whistleblower Jamie Reed of how patients were treated at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital doesn’t match Jess Jones’ experience.
Jones worked alongside Reed for two years as the center’s educational coordinator before resigning in 2020. The allegations of misconduct laid out by Reed — both on a national news website called The Free Press and in an affidavit with the Missouri attorney general’s office — simply don’t match the reality during the time they worked together, Jones said.
“I feel like I could go line by line to her affidavit,” Jones said, “and debunk it all.”
This handwaving away by the "whistleblower's" lawyer is also very telling:
Quote
Reed’s attorney, Vernadette Broyles, said Wednesday that it is not surprising that the only patients speaking up are those who have had good experiences.
Broyles said those unhappy with their transition often feel pressure to stay quiet. She said she’s heard from many former patients nationwide who have come to regret their treatment.
It's actually very surprising that patients with negative experiences aren't speaking up since there's a huge incentive to do so (attention and $$$ from the right wing dark money machine), but the fact that they only have the same handful of detransitioners going on record suggests there's not very many of them.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 02, 2023, 04:52:44 pm
'Detransitioner' sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child
https://katv.com/amp/news/nation-world/detransitioner-sues-doctors-over-medical-negligence-after-she-was-given-irreversible-gender-treatments-as-minor-chloe-cole
Post by: Black Dog on March 02, 2023, 05:48:57 pm
Another lawsuit.
'Detransitioner' sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child
https://katv.com/amp/news/nation-world/detransitioner-sues-doctors-over-medical-negligence-after-she-was-given-irreversible-gender-treatments-as-minor-chloe-cole
LOL this is exactly what I was talking about. This person is one of the like five "detransitioners" that constantly get trotted out by right wing billionaire-backed dark money front groups.
Quote
Cole and her attorneys from the Center for American Liberty, the Dhillon Law Group and LiMandri and Jonna LLP, are seeking compensatory damages for the pain and suffering allegedly caused by her doctors.
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2023, 10:30:51 am
A CPAC Speaker Wants Transgenderism “Eradicated”
(https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/a-cpac-speaker-wants-transgenderism-eradicated/)
Curious how you can do that without eradicating trans people.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 06, 2023, 02:35:07 pm
He seems to be saying that it should never come up.
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2023, 04:33:19 pm
"From public life"
He seems to be saying that it should never come up.
Well he's pretending it's an ideology and not an identity but we know what the deal is. It's textbook eliminationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminationism).
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 06, 2023, 06:53:00 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 06, 2023, 06:55:00 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2023, 07:06:33 pm
The only people that should be eradicated are the groomers. Preferably in a very long and painful way.
Regular reminder that you should kill yourself.
Post by: Black Dog on March 06, 2023, 07:07:50 pm
No surprise. They probably know the kind of demented triggered employees they’d be hiring. Not worth the headache.
(Attachment Link)
Remember how hard you were triggered by a cartoon?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 08, 2023, 08:32:54 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on March 08, 2023, 11:53:03 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 09, 2023, 12:28:36 am
How come you became so obsessed with trans people? Ten years ago you were only worried about muslims. Now you don't talk about them at all anymore.
User Shiddy has spoken the Shahadah and joined the faithful followers of the prophet Muhammad PBUH.
Post by: guest18 on March 10, 2023, 06:07:56 pm
The only people that should be eradicated are the groomers. Preferably in a very long and painful way.You guys are always projecting.
https://tinyurl.com/2p9efsjf
Post by: Black Dog on March 10, 2023, 06:20:15 pm
You guys are always projecting.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/man-who-spray-painted-groomer-on-libraries-possess-child-****-police-say_n_640b4a53e4b09c5c6d6e94f9
It’s not projection it’s distraction.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 10, 2023, 07:39:00 pm
You guys are always projecting.Aren’t you and your butt buddy busy trying to chop the ducks off of underage boys, and chop the **** off of underage girls?
https://tinyurl.com/2p9efsjf
Post by: guest18 on March 10, 2023, 07:52:42 pm
Aren’t you and your butt buddy busy trying to chop the ducks off of underage boys, and chop the **** off of underage girls?I've never chopped a duck in my life.
Post by: Black Dog on March 11, 2023, 12:28:34 am
Aren’t you and your butt buddy busy trying to chop the ducks off of underage boys, and chop the **** off of underage girls?
Oops looks like autocorrect got you again just like how it’s constantly inserting “trans” into your posts for some weird reason almost like it’s a word you’re typing an awful lot in your phone. 🤔🤔🤔
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 13, 2023, 04:09:18 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on March 13, 2023, 11:46:42 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 18, 2023, 02:29:08 pm
👇👇👇👇
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 18, 2023, 02:30:46 pm
Catholic Church says 27 Jesuits are "credibly accused" of sexually assaulting minors. Obviously, groomers need to make a bigger stink about drag queens now.I’m against anyone that sexually assaults children, whether they’re jesuits it teachers, etc. You should be too. Stop treating it like a team sport.
Post by: guest18 on March 18, 2023, 02:39:50 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 18, 2023, 06:43:47 pm
This!!!!!
👇👇👇👇
(Attachment Link)
You already posted this you dumb clown.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 22, 2023, 12:41:07 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on March 22, 2023, 12:52:23 pm
😂😂😂
(Attachment Link)
You should try identifying as "not retarded" for a change.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 22, 2023, 01:27:05 pm
😂😂😂
(Attachment Link)
Ellie's character is gay.
I'd suggest not watching future seasons. Lesbian sex love and muscular man-woman villain incoming.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 22, 2023, 01:34:30 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 22, 2023, 01:51:55 pm
Ellie's character is gay.Yes, I realize there are woke changes from the game to the show. Regardless, sexual preference does not mean non binary.
I'd suggest not watching future seasons. Lesbian sex love and muscular man-woman villain incoming.
Post by: Black Dog on March 22, 2023, 02:10:53 pm
Yes, I realize there are woke changes from the game to the show. Regardless, sexual preference does not mean non binary.
Ellie is canonically gay in the game, you dumb c*nt.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 22, 2023, 02:14:12 pm
Yes, I realize there are woke changes from the game to the show. Regardless, sexual preference does not mean non binary.
The Last of Us games are the most woke mass-market games ever made.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 22, 2023, 03:49:36 pm
The Last of Us games are the most woke mass-market games ever made.The sexual orientation of the girl is number 100 on the top 100 reasons that's it a good game. It's very important to wokies though.
Post by: Black Dog on March 22, 2023, 04:10:42 pm
The sexual orientation of the girl is number 100 on the top 100 reasons that's it a good game. It's very important to wokies though.
How would you know? It's pretty clear you didn't play it since you were unaware that she was queer in the game.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 22, 2023, 05:18:47 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 22, 2023, 05:23:35 pm
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg)
Post by: kimmy on March 23, 2023, 11:45:43 pm
The sexual orientation of the girl is number 100 on the top 100 reasons that's it a good game. It's very important to wokies though.
It seems very important to you as well.
-k
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2023, 08:25:58 pm
Post by: guest18 on March 24, 2023, 08:30:35 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 24, 2023, 09:41:00 pm
That's exactly what I imagined your pornhub history to look likeThat sounds like projection.
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 25, 2023, 05:48:50 am
Post by: Black Dog on March 25, 2023, 10:37:17 am
That sounds like projection.
Have a seat and tell the good doctor here why your phone always autocorrects words like "teams" to "trans."
(https://cdn.britannica.com/29/59229-050-F6C36BC9/Portrait-Sigmund-Freud-1921.jpg?w=400&h=300&c=crop)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 25, 2023, 10:47:30 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest7 on March 25, 2023, 10:52:32 am
Soon women won’t have any sports left for themselves.
(Attachment Link)
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 25, 2023, 10:56:01 am
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900Unfortunately that’s only a small temporary carve out. Although at least some jurisdictions are starting to recognize that unfairness of biological men competing against biological women.
Post by: guest7 on March 25, 2023, 11:16:22 am
Unfortunately that’s only a small temporary carve out. Although at least some jurisdictions are starting to recognize that unfairness of biological men competing against biological women.
Cycling, Rugby, Swimming, now Athletics. A lot of sports are assessing the issue.
Post by: Black Dog on March 25, 2023, 05:29:14 pm
Soon women won’t have any sports left for themselves.
(Attachment Link)
Lol how many trans woman athletes are there world wide? 50? 100?
Post by: kimmy on March 27, 2023, 06:59:20 pm
Cycling, Rugby, Swimming, now Athletics. A lot of sports are assessing the issue.
Yep. The tide is turning. Finally.
-k
Post by: Coolio on March 27, 2023, 08:47:14 pm
The attacker was shot dead by police after a confrontation with officers following the assault at the Covenant School. They were armed with two assault-type weapons and a pistol.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsQdEr4WIAAE6vl?format=png&name=360x360)
Tuesday 28 March 2023 01:42, UK
A woman has shot dead three children aged nine and three adults at a private Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee. A 28-year-old, who identified as transgender, has shot dead three children aged nine and three adults at a private Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee.
Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who was once a student there, was killed by police after a confrontation with officers following the attack at the Covenant School. Police said the "lone zealot", who lived in Nashville, was armed with two assault-type weapons, and a handgun.
Hale had a manifesto and detailed maps of the school, and entered the building by shooting through a door before the killings.
It was also revealed the attacker identified as transgender.
Police chief John Drake said: "We have a manifesto. We have some writings that we're going over that pertain to this day, the actual incident. We have a map drawn out about how this was all going to take place."
The six victims have been named as Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs, and William Kinney, all aged nine, 61-year-olds Cynthia Peak and Mike Hill, and 60-year-old Katherine Koonce who was the school's headteacher
-----
Politically motivated.
Why does the name "Hershel Grynszpan" come to mind.
Post by: guest7 on March 27, 2023, 08:57:34 pm
Nashville school shooting: Transgender killer who murdered three kids was ex-student who made 'manifesto' and maps of building
The attacker was shot dead by police after a confrontation with officers following the assault at the Covenant School. They were armed with two assault-type weapons and a pistol.
Tuesday 28 March 2023 01:42, UK
A woman has shot dead three children aged nine and three adults at a private Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee. A 28-year-old, who identified as transgender, has shot dead three children aged nine and three adults at a private Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee.
Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who was once a student there, was killed by police after a confrontation with officers following the attack at the Covenant School. Police said the "lone zealot", who lived in Nashville, was armed with two assault-type weapons, and a handgun.
Hale had a manifesto and detailed maps of the school, and entered the building by shooting through a door before the killings.
It was also revealed the attacker identified as transgender.
Police chief John Drake said: "We have a manifesto. We have some writings that we're going over that pertain to this day, the actual incident. We have a map drawn out about how this was all going to take place."
The six victims have been named as Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs, and William Kinney, all aged nine, 61-year-olds Cynthia Peak and Mike Hill, and 60-year-old Katherine Koonce who was the school's headteacher
-----
Politically motivated.
Why does the name "Hershel Grynszpan" come to mind.
Apparently born a woman and preferred being known as a man.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/27/nashville-mourns-mass-shooting-covenant-school/70052585007/
How is it politically motivated? Seems like just another loony to me.
Post by: Coolio on March 27, 2023, 09:18:55 pm
Apparently born a woman and preferred being know as a man.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2023/03/27/nashville-mourns-mass-shooting-covenant-school/70052585007/
How is it politically motivated? Seems like just another loony to me.
The shooter targeted a Christian school, and wrote a manifesto about how the LGBTQ community was being persecuted. That was his/her justification for the shooting.
That is why I made reference to Hershel Grynszpan, a 17 year old Jewish German refugee who lived in Paris. For those not familiar with the story of Grynszpan, in November 1938, he walked into the German consulate in Paris, and shot a low level Nazi party member who was working in the administration. He told the media that it was in response to his family in Germany having their German citizenship revoked, and sent to the Polish border.
His motives were political, to bring attention to the persecution of the Jews. It led to Kristallnacht, and what was widely regarded as the beginning of the Holocaust. Don't be surprised if right wing pundits use Audrey Elizabeth Hale to champion their anti-LGBTQ agenda.
Post by: guest7 on March 27, 2023, 09:27:01 pm
The shooter targeted a Christian school, and wrote a manifesto about how the LGBTQ community was being persecuted. That was his/her justification for the shooting.
That is why I made reference to Hershel Grynszpan, a 17 year old Jewish German refugee who lived in Paris. For those not familiar with the story of Grynszpan, in November 1938, he walked into the German consulate in Paris, and shot a low level Nazi party member who was working in the administration. He told the media that it was in response to his family in Germany having their German citizenship revoked, and sent to the Polish border.
His motives were political, to bring attention to the persecution of the Jews. It led to Kristallnacht, and what was widely regarded as the beginning of the Holocaust. Don't be surprised if right wing pundits use Audrey Elizabeth Hale to champion their anti-LGBTQ agenda.
I didn't know about the contents of the manifesto. Do you have a link to that? None of the outlets I've read referenced it.
I do see why you called it politically motivated and referenced Grynszpan if such is the case.
Post by: Black Dog on March 27, 2023, 09:34:36 pm
The shooter targeted a Christian school, and wrote a manifesto about how the LGBTQ community was being persecuted. That was his/her justification for the shooting.
Where'd you see that?
Post by: Coolio on March 27, 2023, 09:45:46 pm
Where'd you see that?
https://news.sky.com/story/nashville-school-shooting-what-we-know-about-the-killer-so-far-12843858
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/nashville-police-identify-victims-suspect-in-nashville-school-mass-shooting-audrey-elizabeth-hale-evelyn-dieckhaus-hallie-scruggs-william-kinney-cynthia-peak-katherine-koonce-mike-hill-christian
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/everything-we-know-nashville-shooter-b2308987.html
Post by: Black Dog on March 27, 2023, 09:49:13 pm
https://news.sky.com/story/nashville-school-shooting-what-we-know-about-the-killer-so-far-12843858
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/nashville-police-identify-victims-suspect-in-nashville-school-mass-shooting-audrey-elizabeth-hale-evelyn-dieckhaus-hallie-scruggs-william-kinney-cynthia-peak-katherine-koonce-mike-hill-christian
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/everything-we-know-nashville-shooter-b2308987.html
None of those links say anything about the content of the mainfesto.
Post by: guest7 on March 27, 2023, 09:55:01 pm
If you are right, it would be terrorism.
(quote function inop again)
Post by: Black Dog on March 27, 2023, 10:07:48 pm
I had seen that there was a manifesto, but nothing regarding its contents. None of those articles went into its contents. One even went so far as to say no motive was confirmed.
If you are right, it would be terrorism.
(quote function inop again)
It's an easy answer, but there are other explanations. For example, right wing mass shooters have been known to be less than honest in their manifestos. Like the Christchurch shooter's was full of memes and shitposts, (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mPw_6gCAu-EJ:https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/the-shooters-manifesto-was-designed-to-troll/585058/&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca) the Nazi who shot up that gay bar in Colorado started to pretend to use opposite gender pronouns in court. The trolling is the point. We'll see.
Of course the same right wing c*nts who cry about "politicizing tragedy" when people use events like this to argue for gun control are creaming their pants right now, real sick stuff.
See, look at this piece of excrement:
Another trans shooter, this time targeting Christians. Trans terrorism is on the rise.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 27, 2023, 10:24:35 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 27, 2023, 10:25:33 pm
I had seen that there was a manifesto, but nothing regarding its contents. None of those articles went into its contents. One even went so far as to say no motive was confirmed.Definitely terrorism.
If you are right, it would be terrorism.
(quote function inop again)
Post by: guest7 on March 27, 2023, 10:30:28 pm
Definitely terrorism.
Have you seen the contents of the manifesto? I have not been able to find them yet.
Post by: Black Dog on March 27, 2023, 10:57:32 pm
Have you seen the contents of the manifesto? I have not been able to find them yet.
Of course he hasn't he's just repeating the stuff he sees on right wing social media.
Post by: Coolio on March 28, 2023, 01:07:16 am
Another trans shooter, this time targeting Christians. Trans terrorism is on the rise.
I read a study that stated Transgender ppl are like 50 times more likely to be victims of violence, than perpetrators of it.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 07:42:26 am
Definitely terrorism.I bet a school shooting has never made you happier.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 08:27:03 am
Trans terrorism is terrorism.
Trans terrorism is terrorism.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 08:54:14 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 08:58:18 am
So we should limit access to weapons of terrorism, obviously. (Sorry to interrupt your **** mantra.)I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the dangerous anti-Christian rhetoric used by you and you ilk has contributed to these events.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 09:03:26 am
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 09:46:28 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the dangerous anti-Christian rhetoric used by you and you ilk has contributed to these events.
This forum deserves a better class of troll, this stuff is so weak.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 28, 2023, 10:04:55 am
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 12:23:10 pm
-books
-drag shows
-medical care
-pronouns
Things they won't:
-assault weapons
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 12:24:47 pm
I found it odd that the shooter was a woman since it's usually men who do these things. But now this throws a wrinkle into things.Yes, the last two shooters were trans. Which is kind of amazing since the pool of potential shooters is minuscule compared to the rest of the population. It could be a sign of a much bigger problem.
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 12:30:44 pm
Yes, the last two shooters were trans. Which is kind of amazing since the pool of potential shooters is minuscule compared to the rest of the population. It could be a sign of a much bigger problem.
No they weren't you lying turd.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 28, 2023, 12:34:05 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 12:35:54 pm
Colorado club shooting suspect is nonbinary
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/23/colorado-club-shooting-suspect-non-binary-attorneys-say
Transgender killer who murdered three kids
https://news.sky.com/story/nashville-school-shooting-trans-woman-who-murdered-three-kids-was-ex-student-who-made-manifesto-and-maps-of-building-12843695
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 12:50:36 pm
Some people hate facts.
Colorado club shooting suspect is nonbinary
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/23/colorado-club-shooting-suspect-non-binary-attorneys-say
Transgender killer who murdered three kids
https://news.sky.com/story/nashville-school-shooting-trans-woman-who-murdered-three-kids-was-ex-student-who-made-manifesto-and-maps-of-building-12843695
Some people (you) are too stupid to live. First, nonbinary is not trans. Second, the shooter claiming to be NB is an obvious troll designed for idiots like you.
Quote
The 22-year-old accused of carrying out the deadly mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs in November ran a neo-Nazi website and used gay and racial slurs while gaming online, a police detective testified Wednesday.
Anderson Lee Aldrich also posted an image of a rifle scope trained on a gay pride parade and used a bigoted slur when referring to someone who was gay, Detective Rebecca Joines said.
link (https://apnews.com/article/colorado-springs-crime-hate-crimes-d2379dce03c66ea3bc0faa2c5ffb7c21)
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 01:00:43 pm
It could be a sign of a much bigger problem.How much bigger does it need to get before you would do something about it?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 01:16:19 pm
How much bigger does it need to get before you would do something about it?I'm a big proponent of armed security at every school. How about you?
Post by: wilber on March 28, 2023, 01:19:03 pm
I'm a big proponent of armed security at every school. How about you?
I'd rather live in a civilized country.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 01:27:37 pm
I'm a big proponent of armed security at every school. How about you?Cost is no object? How many? No trans need apply?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 01:33:49 pm
I'd rather live in a civilized country.Civilized is subjective. Regardless, what you're rather live in is irrelevant to what rights the constitution provides.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 01:38:17 pm
Cost is no object? How many? No trans need apply?The cost wouldn't be all that expensive. I see that now you're a budget hawk when it comes to children's lives. But there's no limit the amount of money you want to send to Ukraine. You need proper priorties.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 01:58:43 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 01:59:15 pm
I'm a big proponent of armed security at every school. How about you?
Uvalde had armed guards and the district had its own police force and the shooter still got in. 700 cops were on the scene and did **** all.
It's the guns, stupid.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 02:09:36 pm
It doesn't take long for you to play the "whatabout your disloyality to Vlad?" card.I'm just trying to figure out your priorities. To me, penny pinching when it comes to children's lives isn't logical. Highly trained, professional armed security would prevent many of these tragedies. Enough with either no security, or half a$$ed rent-a-cops.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 02:19:56 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 02:27:02 pm
I doubt that's true, but I'm still not sure what that has to do with my disloyalty to Putin.It’s about priorities. Stop penny pinching when it comes to children’s lives.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 02:28:54 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 02:34:40 pm
It’s about priorities. Stop penny pinching when it comes to children’s lives.
Armed guards in schools is such a quintessentially retarded right-wing solution to a problem. Sure it's expensive, ineffective (https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/do-armed-school-police-officers-prevent-shootings/) and doesn't address any of the root causes of the problem, but it feels like it should work and to retarded conservatives (but I repeat myself), that's what matters.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 02:50:36 pm
Do you mean to say you weren't thrilled with joy about this latest mass shooting?Not particularly. But it’s still funny watching people fight tooth n nail to prevent professional armed security to protect children. It makes no sense at all. It’s something that could be done relatively quickly too. It’s funny how members of the government can enjoy the same privilege.
Btw, I’ll provide a bit of a heads up to the brain dead members of the forum arguing against this. Until you amend the constitution, you CANNOT ban guns. Banning guns is unconstitutional and has been found that way for the last hundred years. So laws banning guns is not a solution, as they are easily struck down based on their unconstitutionality. I don’t know how some of the brain dead left hasn’t figured that out already. Amend the constitution or STFU.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 03:07:33 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: kimmy on March 28, 2023, 03:08:14 pm
First off, mental health. "Being transgender isn't a mental illness!" That's true, but identifying as trans is often accompanied by mental health comorbidities or trauma or other life struggles. Vastly disproportionate numbers of people who identify as trans also have depression or are on the autism spectrum, or are survivors of sexual abuse. People in distress look for answers, and hopefully it's seeing a qualified psychologist or therapist and getting treatment, but it might also be using alcohol or drugs to numb the pain, or joining a religion or some kind of extremist movement. In recent years "maybe I am trans?" is one of the answers they are exploring with greater frequency.
We will have to wait for more information, but my hunch is that we will find out that Audrey had not been identifying as "Aiden" for very long, and that becoming trans is just her latest attempt to find some answer to why her life didn't make sense.
Second: over-the-top rhetoric. How many times have we talked about how over-the-top rhetoric is going to get people killed? I feel like we've been saying it ever since that mook tried to kill Gabby Giffords over 10 years ago. "This fevered rhetoric over drag queens is going to get people killed." Q-Anon. Accusations of child-grooming. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and "Great Replacement" conspiracy theories. Well, the rhetoric coming from trans activists is as fevered and over-the-top as anything out there. Claims that "There is a trans genocide going on!" and "We are literally in a fight for our very existence!" and
"the TERFs literally want to kill us." Or slogans like "Punch TERFs" and "Kill TERFs". Threats of **** and murder directed at women who won't toe the line. Talk of striking back using "unalive booming" and "taking as many TERFs with me as I can."
Some portion of trans activists are dedicated to trying to convince the general public, as well as each other, that they are in the same situation right now that Jews faced in 1930s Germany. If someone convinced you that you were in that situation, wouldn't you want to "fight back"? Trans activists are out in force today blaming this shooting on state legislatures that banned medical transition of adolescents, or banned Drag Queen Story Hour from school, or banned trans women from women's sport, without giving a moment's thought to whether their own hyperbole has contributed to this.
-k
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 03:10:42 pm
Not particularly. But it’s still funny watching people fight tooth n nail to prevent professional armed security to protect children. It makes no sense at all.Are you willing to share what you tell yourself when reminded that Columbine had two armed guards on duty, or are you frightened that might make you look foolish so you'd rather say nothing? 😂
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-more-armed-guards-in-schools/armed-law-enforcement-didnt-stop-columbine
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 03:16:34 pm
Are you willing to share what you tell yourself when reminded that Columbine had two armed guards on duty, or are you frightened that might make you look foolish so you'd rather say nothing? 😂Because they weren’t prepared for that type of scenario. Regardless, you cannot argue that the odds drastically improve of a shooting being prevented with the presence of armed security vs no armed security. Seat belts don’t always prevent death or injury, but they still tend to work much of the time. Why are you so against this?
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-more-armed-guards-in-schools/armed-law-enforcement-didnt-stop-columbine
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 28, 2023, 03:18:13 pm
As such, I am going to check out of this because it seems to me it will be an opportunity for people to be awful to each other.
Enjoy, I guess...
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 03:39:15 pm
Not particularly. But it’s still funny watching people fight tooth n nail to prevent professional armed security to protect children. It makes no sense at all. It’s something that could be done relatively quickly too. It’s funny how members of the government can enjoy the same privilege.
Yeah it's almost as if it's easier for a bunch of people to protect a single individual as they go about their business than it is for one person to protect hundreds of people in a big building. I swear to god you're getting stupider by the day.
Quote
Btw, I’ll provide a bit of a heads up to the brain dead members of the forum arguing against this. Until you amend the constitution, you CANNOT ban guns. Banning guns is unconstitutional and has been found that way for the last hundred years.So laws banning guns is not a solution, as they are easily struck down based on their unconstitutionality. I don’t know how some of the brain dead left hasn’t figured that out already. Amend the constitution or STFU.
This is not true of course. For most of America's history it was widely understood that restrictions on who could carry firearms and what kind of firearms were legal were normal and legal under the constitution. It wasn't until the rabidly partisan Supreme Court invented a whole new interpretation of the meaning of the 2A in the Heller decision in 2008 that Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations became more common. And while the conservative majority is continuing to invent new and ever more fanciful reasons to disregard history and stare decisis there's no reason a potential future liberal court couldn't do the same.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 03:44:26 pm
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 03:48:33 pm
Because they weren’t prepared for that type of scenario.And when all the well-armed cops stood around picking their noses a few shootings ago, that was also just a failure in preparation? It's amazing the lengths you will go to to facilitate your hard-on for dead children.
https://twitter.com/sweetdoodmd/status/1640487142613741568?t=DZ-6SsKTRb3Ug7wi6zn7Og&s=19
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 03:52:34 pm
a BuIldInG fUll Of mEmBeRS oF cONgReSs Is eAsIEr tO pRoTeCt tHaN a BuIldInG fUll oF cHiLdReN!!!!
The United States Capitol Police has an annual budget of more than $515 million and employs more than 2,000 officers, so I guess if you want to multiply that by 115,576 so that every school in the U.S. enjoys the same level of protection, you're welcome to try but i can think of more cost effective ways of doing it.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 03:55:42 pm
And when all the well-armed cops stood around picking their noses a few shootings ago, that was also just a failure in preparation? It's amazing the lengths you will go to to facilitate your hard-on for dead children.Yeah, they didn't do their job. Not all police and security are like that. You're the one with a hard on for dead children. fighting tooth and nail to deprive them of armed security. That's a new low, even for you.
https://twitter.com/sweetdoodmd/status/1640487142613741568?t=DZ-6SsKTRb3Ug7wi6zn7Og&s=19
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 04:01:00 pm
Second: over-the-top rhetoric. How many times have we talked about how over-the-top rhetoric is going to get people killed? I feel like we've been saying it ever since that mook tried to kill Gabby Giffords over 10 years ago. "This fevered rhetoric over drag queens is going to get people killed." Q-Anon. Accusations of child-grooming. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and "Great Replacement" conspiracy theories. Well, the rhetoric coming from trans activists is as fevered and over-the-top as anything out there. Claims that "There is a trans genocide going on!" and "We are literally in a fight for our very existence!" and "the TERFs literally want to kill us." Or slogans like "Punch TERFs" and "Kill TERFs". Threats of **** and murder directed at women who won't toe the line. Talk of striking back using "unalive booming" and "taking as many TERFs with me as I can."
Some portion of trans activists are dedicated to trying to convince the general public, as well as each other, that they are in the same situation right now that Jews faced in 1930s Germany. If someone convinced you that you were in that situation, wouldn't you want to "fight back"? Trans activists are out in force today blaming this shooting on state legislatures that banned medical transition of adolescents, or banned Drag Queen Story Hour from school, or banned trans women from women's sport, without giving a moment's thought to whether their own hyperbole has contributed to this.
-k
The reason we talk about how over the top rhetoric from the right is getting people killed is because we have multiple cases of mass shooters leaving detailed explanations for their actions that cite right wing rhetoric as their inspiration. It remains to be seen if that's the case here.
Another key difference: Q, the Great Replacement, the child grooming accusations etc? All fake, whereas there's an actual ongoing effort to roll back LGBTQ rights in the States. That in no way justifies shooting up a school, but if someone Mozambique Drill'd Matt Walsh, I wouldn't blame them.
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 04:06:54 pm
Yeah, they didn't do their job. Not all police and security are like that.
Happens a lot.
Quote
In four high-profile 2018 school shootings — Kentucky’s Marshall County High School in January; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February; Maryland’s Great Mills High School in March, and Santa Fe High School in Texas in May — attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards. In all four of those cases, guards failed to stop the gunman from killing.
link (https://www.thetrace.org/2019/04/guns-armed-guards-school-shootings/)
Quote
You're the one with a hard on for dead children.
As opposed to you, who has hard on for living children? Again, this man needs his hard drive checked.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 04:21:04 pm
Yeah, they didn't do their job. Not all police and security are like that. You're the one with a hard on for dead children. fighting tooth and nail to deprive them of armed security. That's a new low, even for you.Uh...I'm not fighting anything. I'm just pointing out you're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about...like always
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 05:11:33 pm
Uh...I'm not fighting anything. I'm just pointing out you're an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about...like alwaysNo, you’re the one that doesn’t know what you’re taking about. Your solution is do nothing, and hope at some point in the future, every state will pass sufficient legislation and that it won’t be deemed unconstitutional. Until then, children are in their own. When at the very least, an extra layer of protection could be provided. The same kind of protection that keeps members of congress, as well as for private companies, safe. How many dead children are ok with you until you agree to add an extra layer of security? How many? I’d expect this from your butt buddy, but not from you.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 06:09:05 pm
No, you’re the one that doesn’t know what you’re taking about.Does your Grindr profile include pictures of you in drag?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 06:16:05 pm
Does your Grindr profile include pictures of you in drag?Hey dumb a$$. You know what one of the security recommendations was to the 9/11 hijackings? Armed Marshalls in planes. How many dead children do you need to see before agreeing to secure schools?
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 06:36:54 pm
Hey dumb a$$. You know what one of the security recommendations was to the 9/11 hijackings? Armed Marshalls in planes. How many dead children do you need to see before agreeing to secure schools?
Planes, schools, what’s the difference?
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 06:48:09 pm
How many dead children do you need to see before agreeing to secure schools?is that a threat? Kind of reminds me of "Burn it all down!"
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 06:50:37 pm
is that a threat? Kind of reminds me of "Burn it all down!"You mean my leftist satirical anthem? I’m actually surprised you people aren’t burning down catholic and christian schools.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 06:50:47 pm
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 07:01:22 pm
Btw, as a primer for the brain dead, there actually isn’t a big difference between a building and a plane. Especially once you take measures to properly secure them, for instance, designing one exit/entrance, save for fire escapes. When an individual MUST enter at one entry point, a shooter can be easily neutralized.
lmao, incredible. "Whoops there's fire exits everywhere but the sign says I have to go through the front door if I want to shoot up the place, oh well."
Quote
Honestly, it’s like some of you are trying to find reasons not to make schools safer. All due to ideology and politics. It’s completely pathetic, and frankly borderline evil. Correction, it IS evil.
No retard, your solution is totally impractical and a distraction from the real issue. Kill yourself.
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 07:27:14 pm
You mean my leftist satirical anthem? I’m actually surprised you people aren’t burning down catholic and christian schools.Too bad you'll be completely impotent in stopping it when it happens because you thought rent-a-cops would save you.
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 08:08:15 pm
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falumni.media.mit.edu%2F%7Ecarsonr%2Fphd_thesis%2Ffigures%2Freal-panopticon.jpg&hash=d1c27230c2c7995c45d3e205221b86d619a94a18)
I’m still chuckling about “an airplane and a school are basically the same.” Like school kids have to pass through multiple security check points before even getting the chance to enter the building.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 08:47:13 pm
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 08:48:23 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 08:55:17 pm
Know what you can also do? Make it less easy to buy automatic weapons.Automatic weapons are already banned. As usual you don’t know what the f**k you’re talking about.
Post by: Black Dog on March 28, 2023, 09:17:52 pm
Btw, if you go to any courthouse in Ontario, there’s ONE entrance, with security, etc. There’s no reason that can’t be done with schools. At least there isn’t if you care about children’s safety in the immediate future. Don’t need multiple checkpoints. Just ONE. Even libtards can count to one! 😂
And many cops and security guards are in a courthouse? Dozens. So we’ve gone from an armed guard in every school to multiple armed guards and security checkpoints in more than 115,000 schools,any of which can’t even afford school lunches. You’re a joke and a failed abortion,
Post by: guest18 on March 28, 2023, 10:05:39 pm
Automatic weapons are already banned. As usual you don’t know what the f**k you’re talking about.Pardon me. Semi-automatic weapons that can easily be converted to automatic weapons. Like the one on the pin the Republicans wear to celebrate school shootings.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 28, 2023, 10:12:09 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 10:21:25 pm
Pardon me. Semi-automatic weapons that can easily be converted to automatic weapons. Like the one on the pin the Republicans wear to celebrate school shootings.Thank you for admitting that automatic weapons are already illegal, and have been for 70+ years. Regardless, no, it’s no easy to convert a gun to automatic. And all semi automatic means is one trigger pull per bullet fired. Literally ALL guns are semi automatic, including all hand guns. Btw, none of the guns that the trans terrorist used were automatic or converted automatic. Please stop the disinformation, misinformation and out right lying.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 10:29:11 pm
Americans reap what they sow. A sad culture of guns.You can blame the British. If they didn’t force America to fight a war for their independence, the second amendment probably wouldn’t exist.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 28, 2023, 10:33:04 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Coolio on March 28, 2023, 11:13:54 pm
For the first time ever, guns are the leading cause of death for children under 18.
Of the 2840 mass shootings in the US since 2018, only 3 have been committed by Transgenders. That is 0.03%
Transgenders make up 0.5% of the US population.
Post by: guest18 on March 29, 2023, 06:18:19 am
This lady seems wise. Someone should nominate her for president.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1640717504342523904?s=20
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2023, 09:50:05 am
You can blame the British. If they didn’t force America to fight a war for their independence, the second amendment probably wouldn’t exist.
No I'll blame the hack right wing judges who invented an interpretation of the second amendment out of whole cloth and the gun lobby that value sits profits over the lives of children.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 29, 2023, 09:53:03 am
How many have been committed by far-right incels with victimhood complexes?Gun deaths were flat for several years, even after the "assault" weapons ban. Regardless, what's the difference between a child being killed with a semi automatic hand gun, vs a semi automatic rifle? Why are you ok with a child being killed with a hand gun? If we banned "assault" weapons, and kids were being killed with only hand guns, would you finally be on board with armed security? Or would you still be a no?
This lady seems wise. Someone should nominate her for president.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1640717504342523904?s=20
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 29, 2023, 10:04:07 am
Meanwhile, in reality, the Heller decision was joined by Justice Roberts, who upheld Obamacare, and joined by Justice Kennedy, who was a centrist. Also, Supreme Courts going back 100 - 150 years have all affirmed the second amendment. If you want to address guns, you need to AMEND the constitution. Until then, STFU, because you're not a serious person.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2023, 10:04:31 am
Gun deaths were flat for several years, even after the "assault" weapons ban.
"flat"
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.statcdn.com%2FInfographic%2Fimages%2Fnormal%2F14823.jpeg&hash=802efb0214927f84e7e7cb2cc103bb3dbf583b69)
Quote
Regardless, what's the difference between a child being killed with a semi automatic hand gun, vs a semi automatic rifle?Why are you ok with a child being killed with a hand gun? If we banned "assault" weapons, and kids were being killed with only hand guns, would you finally be on board with armed security? Or would you still be a no?
A child is obviously more likely to survive being shot with a handgun than a AR15 because of the significant difference in muzzle velocity. Also a 9mm pistol like a Glock or Sig Sauer might have a 10 or 12 round magazine compared to 20 or 30 in an AR which means a shooter with a pistol would have to spend more time reloading, giving his victims more time to escape or for help to arrive.
Post by: guest18 on March 29, 2023, 10:07:29 am
Not sure how gun deaths being flat and then taking off after the ban was lifted is as convincing an argument as you think though.
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2023, 10:16:58 am
eVeRy dEciSiOn i DiSaGrEE wItH iS a hAcK jUdGe!
Meanwhile, in reality, the Heller decision was joined by Justice Roberts, who upheld Obamacare, and joined by Justice Kennedy, who was a centrist. Also, Supreme Courts going back 100 - 150 years have all affirmed the second amendment. If you want to address guns, you need to AMEND the constitution. Until then, STFU, because you're not a serious person.
"(the Second Amendment) is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”-Antonin Scalia in Heller.
Every Supreme Court decision pre-Heller affirmed the federal power to regulate the civilian use. To this day there remain a multitude of restrictions on gun ownership possession and use that do not conflict with the 2A. The idea you're putting forward that any and all gun control legislation would be unconstitutional is farcical in a world where civilians are still forbidden to possess automatic weapons, convicted felons can be barred from owning guns etc etc.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 29, 2023, 11:10:20 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Michael Hardner on March 29, 2023, 11:15:50 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizYgXqwWcA
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2023, 11:17:44 am
Btw, this shooting came just a few days before the highly publicized Trans day of vengeance.
(Attachment Link)
The Trans Radical Activist Network:
(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1171266198/photo/fbi-agent-using-computer-in-office.jpg?s=170667a&w=0&k=20&c=KhyD3NyUxekbBtXdgE9lMvKcL7OVFurRj00lEOCJbDQ=)
Even if they are legit, they're a group from California with like 400 Twitter followers. They're nobodies.
The real question here is why do you have a profile pic of the trans video game streamer you jack off to?
Post by: Black Dog on March 29, 2023, 12:38:08 pm
I'm not a no on armed security. I have just noticed that it doesn't appear to work. I'm also not opposed to trying it further, just so long as it isn't another way for right-wingers to deliver lucrative security contracts to their friends so they can pick their noses while shootings continue.
Even if armed security was a practical solution (and it's not for a plethora of reasons), it's still a band-aid over the problem that basically any jabroni can buy a high powered assault weapon.
Post by: guest18 on March 30, 2023, 07:43:17 am
https://twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status/1641124990870339602?t=my-rMBfuYfJbI-4ycVHhCg&s=19
Post by: guest18 on March 30, 2023, 10:41:39 am
https://twitter.com/TheBreakdownAB/status/1641134773790994432?t=mhLU96bGoQnOPQ6Rt7STrQ&s=19
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2023, 10:46:14 am
I'm kind of interested in what will result from conservatives doubling down on being crazy and awful. It might work.But that has been happening, at least south of the border.
https://twitter.com/TheBreakdownAB/status/1641134773790994432?t=mhLU96bGoQnOPQ6Rt7STrQ&s=19
Post by: guest18 on March 30, 2023, 10:53:05 am
But that has been happening, at least south of the border.Only in your **** fantasies.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2023, 10:56:17 am
Only in your **** fantasies.Unfortunately no.
Post by: guest18 on March 30, 2023, 10:59:45 am
Unfortunately no.Nice cite.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on March 30, 2023, 11:21:15 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2023, 12:46:01 pm
😂
(Attachment Link)
I like how these boomer memes are getting increasingly inscrutable and pixelated. Matches your own mental decline.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2023, 12:46:28 pm
But that has been happening, at least south of the border.
I bet you still believe in Santa too.
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2023, 07:01:06 pm
I'm kind of interested in what will result from conservatives doubling down on being crazy and awful. It might work.
https://twitter.com/TheBreakdownAB/status/1641134773790994432?t=mhLU96bGoQnOPQ6Rt7STrQ&s=19
She pulled out of the race, which is a bit of a shame because I really wanted to see her at a candidate's forum.
Her statement is quite funny tho.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fse0FI8aUAITaOH?format=jpg&name=small)
"How dare my opponents use the insane sh!t I was saying to try and hurt my political party!"
Post by: Black Dog on March 30, 2023, 11:04:47 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 06, 2023, 09:31:22 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/drag-performance-legal-protections-1.6800932
Post by: guest18 on April 15, 2023, 06:30:02 pm
All because of this bold offensive strike in the culture war:
https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1647273891117826050?s=20
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 15, 2023, 08:29:54 pm
Having a trans BudLight spokesperson made right wingers completely lose their minds and make bomb threats. Kid Rock even shot his beer.
All because of this bold offensive strike in the culture war:
https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1647273891117826050?s=20
Maybe in trying to expand their brand the Budlight marketeers just kinda forgot who their main demographic was? NFL/Nascar types.
As for me, I just want people to be able to express themselves in whatever way makes them happy, including trans people, and for things to be fair & just for everyone. Unfortunately there's some conflicts of rights (ie trans women in female bathrooms and female sport events) that's making this difficult. This Budlight thing is more about transphobic culture war stuff largely from people who do not encounter or understand trans people anyways.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 15, 2023, 08:52:15 pm
Maybe in trying to expand their brand the Budlight marketeers just kinda forgot who their main demographic was? NFL/Nascar types.That’s exactly what happened. They alienated their core customers for a tiny fringe of the population that don’t drink beer.
As for me, I just want people to be able to express themselves in whatever way makes them happy, including trans people, and for things to be fair & just for everyone. Unfortunately there's some conflicts of rights (ie trans women in female bathrooms and female sport events) that's making this difficult. This Budlight thing is more about transphobic culture war stuff largely from people who do not encounter or understand trans people anyways.
Regardless, this Dylan guy is just a performer, who is essentially doing woman face. He dresses up and pretends to be a woman by acting out every stereotype of women that exists.
Post by: guest18 on April 15, 2023, 09:34:30 pm
That’s exactly what happened. They alienated their core customers for a tiny fringe of the population that don’t drink beer.You only feel alienated after you climax
Post by: wilber on April 15, 2023, 09:56:17 pm
Maybe in trying to expand their brand the Budlight marketeers just kinda forgot who their main demographic was? NFL/Nascar types.
As for me, I just want people to be able to express themselves in whatever way makes them happy, including trans people, and for things to be fair & just for everyone. Unfortunately there's some conflicts of rights (ie trans women in female bathrooms and female sport events) that's making this difficult. This Budlight thing is more about transphobic culture war stuff largely from people who do not encounter or understand trans people anyways.
InBev is a global company with literally hundreds of brands all over the world. Bubba's aren't their only customers.
Post by: Black Dog on April 15, 2023, 10:03:20 pm
Maybe in trying to expand their brand the Budlight marketeers just kinda forgot who their main demographic was? NFL/Nascar types.
As for me, I just want people to be able to express themselves in whatever way makes them happy, including trans people, and for things to be fair & just for everyone. Unfortunately there's some conflicts of rights (ie trans women in female bathrooms and female sport events) that's making this difficult. This Budlight thing is more about transphobic culture war stuff largely from people who do not encounter or understand trans people anyways.
Or maybe they know better than anyone that the demographic of the best selling beer in America by a country mile is not limited to NFL/NASCAR types.
Post by: Black Dog on April 15, 2023, 10:05:06 pm
That’s exactly what happened. They alienated their core customers for a tiny fringe of the population that don’t drink beer.
Maybe if you knew any queer people in real life instead of just the ones you jack off to online, then you'd know that they drink beer too. A lot of it in fact!
Regardless, this Dylan guy is just a performer, who is essentially doing woman face. He dresses up and pretends to be a woman by acting out every stereotype of women that exists.
Boy you must spend a lot of time watching their videos on TikTok to have formed such a strong opinion, huh.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2023, 01:03:11 am
InBev is a global company with literally hundreds of brands all over the world. Bubba's aren't their only customers.
Budlight tho.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2023, 01:08:05 am
Or maybe they know better than anyone that the demographic of the best selling beer in America by a country mile is not limited to NFL/NASCAR types.
Next you'll tell me that fans of the most popular sport in America by a country mile, the NFL, is not limited to NFL types.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 16, 2023, 01:17:36 pm
InBev is a global company with literally hundreds of brands all over the world. Bubba's aren't their only customers.When it comes to beer, they actually are. Maybe not as much with other brands, but the issue here isn’t other brands. The moral of the story is know you’re customer base. They don’t want to be associated with groomers.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 16, 2023, 01:19:01 pm
You only feel alienated after you climaxKeep defending woman face. Which woman stereotype is your favourite of his? He does a variety.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2023, 01:29:13 pm
I'm pretty sure that they know who their customers are.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2023, 01:31:14 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2023, 01:51:11 pm
When it comes to beer, they actually are. Maybe not as much with other brands, but the issue here isn’t other brands. The moral of the story is know you’re customer base. They don’t want to be associated with groomers.
lol this fuckin loser doesn't drink beer, doesn't know any queer people and has obviously never set foot in a gay bar.
Keep defending woman face. Which woman stereotype is your favourite of his? He does a variety.
I can only imagine the shame and self hate you experience every time you jack off to her channel.
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2023, 01:53:40 pm
I guess Shady doesn't care that a lot of people really react strongly to that kind of language?
I'm pretty sure that they know who their customers are.
Republicans keep getting clobbered at the ballot box because of this garbage I hope they never learn their lesson. But the point isn't that they think normal people care about this stuff or that it will help them win elections, it's pure in-group signalling.
Post by: guest18 on April 16, 2023, 01:58:57 pm
Keep defending woman face. Which woman stereotype is your favourite of his? He does a variety.To be honest, I didn't bother watching. But obviously you've seen everything you could get your hands on.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 16, 2023, 04:06:04 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=024iztEL4-4
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2023, 04:59:11 pm
So the most popular guy on Youtube, Mr Beast (sorry PewDiePie), well his friend who appears in many of his videos with his other male friends recently started hormone replacement therapy and has transitioned to a woman, and in a recent livestream its super awkward and none of the friends really know how to handle it or how to interact with each other anymore. Kind of sad. But its probably just an awkward transition period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=024iztEL4-4
1. You can’t look like that and call yourself Mr. Beast, come on.
2. He’s actually been super supportive of his friend and defended them from a ton of online harassment, which is nice to see.
Post by: wilber on April 16, 2023, 05:11:24 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 16, 2023, 05:25:06 pm
I will trust educators and administrators as a default.
Post by: Black Dog on April 16, 2023, 08:23:23 pm
I couldn't care less if they get a trans to sell their beer, as long as "she" doesn't want to compete in women's sports.
That would be the normie position on most of this stuff but folks like you are not the target audience for this moral panic.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 05:46:07 am
That would be the normie position on most of this stuff but folks like you are not the target audience for this moral panic.
As young people rise in proportion of the population, they are going to be more confrontational about promoting social attitudes that **** off the olds.
The olds are bringing this upon themselves by adopting a war footing that they can't back up for long.
Post by: guest7 on April 17, 2023, 09:54:37 am
As young people rise in proportion of the population, they are going to be more confrontational about promoting social attitudes that **** off the olds.
The olds are bringing this upon themselves by adopting a war footing that they can't back up for long.
That's why I'm pro-choice up until the 40th trimester.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 10:12:20 am
As young people rise in proportion of the population, they are going to be more confrontational about promoting social attitudes that **** off the olds.Whether you’re young or old, biological facts still exist.
The olds are bringing this upon themselves by adopting a war footing that they can't back up for long.
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 10:34:52 am
Whether you’re young or old, biological facts still exist.
Gender is not biology.
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 10:51:45 am
Quote
When the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nearly eight years ago, social conservatives were set adrift.
The ruling stripped them of an issue they had used to galvanize rank-and-file supporters and big donors. And it left them searching for a cause that — like opposing gay marriage — would rally the base and raise the movement’s profile on the national stage.
“We knew we needed to find an issue that the candidates were comfortable talking about,” said Terry Schilling, the president of American Principles Project, a social conservative advocacy group. “And we threw everything at the wall.”
What has stuck, somewhat unexpectedly, is the issue of transgender identity, particularly among young people
link (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/us/politics/transgender-conservative-campaign.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
Interesting that the Times doesn't mention its own contributions to the project in the form of spreading anti-trans propaganda under the classic centrist guise of "just asking questions".
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 12:12:14 pm
As young people rise in proportion of the population, they are going to be more confrontational about promoting social attitudes that **** off the olds.
The olds are bringing this upon themselves by adopting a war footing that they can't back up for long.
This Bud Light thing really shows how far off the deep end they've gone. Even if one is conservative on trans people's participation in women's sports, say, or even bathroom stuff, having an extended freak out because a company did a promo with a trans person (just a promo, they'd didn't make them the new face of the brand, they aren't appearing in every commercial) is just a deeply weird thing to do.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 12:23:12 pm
This Bud Light thing really shows how far off the deep end they've gone. Even if one is conservative on trans people's participation in women's sports, say, or even bathroom stuff, having an extended freak out because a company did a promo with a trans person (just a promo, they'd didn't make them the new face of the brand, they aren't appearing in every commercial) is just a deeply weird thing to do.
It's just clickbait... the system is designed to direct attention to the most noise.
When problems get resolved nobody even hears about it.
What happened to the Oakville shop teacher troll that people were losing their s*** over ? You see... nobody anywhere actually cares.
The design treats all threats to the status quo equally and refuses to introduce sensitivity or analysis.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 12:33:40 pm
It's just clickbait... the system is designed to direct attention to the most noise.Actually, the parents care. So do citizens that aren’t interested in seeing the province, country etc turned into a complete clown show. The school board has put him on leave with full pay. The school board even tried to move him to other schools, but other parents threatened to sue. It’s still a completely disgusting situation. But yes, out of sight, out of mind right?
When problems get resolved nobody even hears about it.
What happened to the Oakville shop teacher troll that people were losing their s*** over ? You see... nobody anywhere actually cares.
The design treats all threats to the status quo equally and refuses to introduce sensitivity or analysis.
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 12:35:25 pm
Actually, the parents care. So do citizens that aren’t interested in seeing the province, country etc turned into a complete clown show. The school board has put him on leave with full pay. The school board even tried to move him to other schools, but other parents threatened to sue. It’s still a completely disgusting situation. But yes, out of sight, out of mind right?
I agree they should have fired the conservative troll.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 01:28:12 pm
Actually, the parents care. So do citizens that aren’t interested in seeing the province, country etc turned into a complete clown show. The school board has put him on leave with full pay. The school board even tried to move him to other schools, but other parents threatened to sue. It’s still a completely disgusting situation. But yes, out of sight, out of mind right?
Well, considering that it had millions of people following it, that's exactly it: out of sight out of mind.
The 'disgusting' situation is because trolls love controversy and troll media loves covering it. This person by many accounts wasn't trans and so he trolled his own trollish tribe. That's why it's quiet now. The trolls are embarassed.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 01:29:31 pm
It's faded from view, probably permanently, on a national scale. Did somebody's freedom of speech get hurt by that ?
No, but the journalistic nose picking quieted down that's all...
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 17, 2023, 03:31:47 pm
As young people rise in proportion of the population, they are going to be more confrontational about promoting social attitudes that **** off the olds.
The olds are bringing this upon themselves by adopting a war footing that they can't back up for long.
War footing?
And what happens when the youngins are wrong about some stuff? The olds have been wrong about a lot of stuff over the decades. As a youngin I was not afraid to challenge them, and am still not. I am not afraid to challenge the youngins either when I think they're wrong.
It doesn't really matter if a view is from the youngins or the olds, being young or old doesn't make you right, the only thing that matters is what is fair and just. If what is fair and just is just based on a demographic numbers game, well then that's not really justice, its just tyranny of the majority.
If we default to the politically correct position on any issue then it means we don't stand for anything, we're not even thinking, we're not using our noggins one bit other than the mental energy it takes to stick our finger in the air to see which direction the wind is blowing. All of our thoughts and beliefs are decided by the mob and we'd rather remain compliant than dare to stand for anything and face their wrath. #cancelculture
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 17, 2023, 03:34:17 pm
Gender is not biology.
DING DING DING!!!
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 17, 2023, 03:41:08 pm
Maybe this Oakville situation is the perfect response to all of those who constantly ask me "So you would ban people from covering it ??"
It's faded from view, probably permanently, on a national scale. Did somebody's freedom of speech get hurt by that ?
No, but the journalistic nose picking quieted down that's all...
But would you have banned people from covering it?
The story was reported, the issue was debated by the public, the board made its decision and the story dried up. Typical news cycle, i see no issues, a healthy civil society worked through the issue.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 03:45:15 pm
Well, considering that it had millions of people following it, that's exactly it: out of sight out of mind.It’s irrelevant whether this person is trans or not. Work places have standards that should be upheld, especially when it comes to children. This issue SHOULD have been covered. We should want to know whether there is a PERVERT teaching children. And we should know how the school board handles it. This person should be fired, whether they’re a troll or not.
The 'disgusting' situation is because trolls love controversy and troll media loves covering it. This person by many accounts wasn't trans and so he trolled his own trollish tribe. That's why it's quiet now. The trolls are embarassed.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 03:46:38 pm
Maybe this Oakville situation is the perfect response to all of those who constantly ask me "So you would ban people from covering it ??"That’s because the teacher hasn’t been teaching. They’re paying this teacher full salary to not teach.
It's faded from view, probably permanently, on a national scale. Did somebody's freedom of speech get hurt by that ?
No, but the journalistic nose picking quieted down that's all...
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 03:51:42 pm
DING DING DING!!!Yep. Some people don't understand that just because you "change" your gender, doesn't make biological differences, advantages, disappear.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 17, 2023, 03:52:18 pm
This Bud Light thing really shows how far off the deep end they've gone. Even if one is conservative on trans people's participation in women's sports, say, or even bathroom stuff, having an extended freak out because a company did a promo with a trans person (just a promo, they'd didn't make them the new face of the brand, they aren't appearing in every commercial) is just a deeply weird thing to do.
I find this issue just a distraction from more important issues, like the M&M mascot's boots.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 05:45:47 pm
But would you have banned people from covering it?
The story was reported, the issue was debated by the public, the board made its decision and the story dried up. Typical news cycle, i see no issues, a healthy civil society worked through the issue.
"Dried up" 🤔
As far as I can tell, this means the entertainment value dropped to zero.
No I wouldn't ban such stupidity, but I would hope that people stop falling for it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 05:46:39 pm
It’s irrelevant whether this person is trans or not. Work places have standards that should be upheld, especially when it comes to children. This issue SHOULD have been covered. We should want to know whether there is a PERVERT teaching children. And we should know how the school board handles it. This person should be fired, whether they’re a troll or not.
The story broke because everybody thought the teacher was trans, and it died because they weren't. Does this seem like normal coverage of an incident?
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 06:48:54 pm
Yep. Some people don't understand that just because you "change" your gender, doesn't make biological differences, advantages, disappear.
As your willing embrace of the vile “groomer” slur shows you don’t give a tinker’s damn about women’s sports, you just hate LGBTQ people. Get **** you turd.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 08:07:05 pm
Middle school hosted ‘disturbing’ licking game with staff and students
https://mynorthwest.com/3875475/rantz-middle-school-hosted-disturbing-licking-game-with-staff-and-students/
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 08:14:15 pm
Biden DOJ recommends no jail time for trans vandal of Catholic Church
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-doj-recommends-no-jail-time-for-trans-vandal-of-catholic-church-f-catholics
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on April 17, 2023, 08:18:50 pm
Trans person arrested over brutal murder of Portland cab drive
https://thepostmillennial.com/andy-ngo-reports-trans-person-arrested-over-brutal-murder-of-portland-cab-driver?utm_campaign=64466&fbclid=IwAR11Ch3-MYCxbXm7aPf1fMDXPWzELpCWwYH53T84EzEWx77cWlkE3ZjMhgw
Post by: guest18 on April 17, 2023, 08:27:02 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 17, 2023, 09:30:26 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 10:18:14 pm
More trans terrorism. But assaulting somebody, destroying statues and vandalizing a church with paint gets you no jail time, because the guy is a trans. What do you think Biden’s DOJ would’ve done with somebody doing the same thing to a Black or Jewish church? I think we all know.
Biden DOJ recommends no jail time for trans vandal of Catholic Church
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-doj-recommends-no-jail-time-for-trans-vandal-of-catholic-church-f-catholics
lol seethe.
Post by: Black Dog on April 17, 2023, 10:19:10 pm
We have to remember that these people are a minuscule percentage of the population, but making up an increasingly higher number of crimes. The trans population has been radicalized.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/399/768/cb0)
Post by: kimmy on April 23, 2023, 02:41:19 pm
The story broke because everybody thought the teacher was trans, and it died because they weren't. Does this seem like normal coverage of an incident?
That is pure drivel, Michael.
Ongoing coverage of this story was coverage of the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit against the school board. Coverage "dried up" because the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit stopped. And those things stopped when the teacher was removed from the classroom.
The idea that the story went away because people didn't think he is trans anymore is just stupid.
Also I have to ask about this notion that the teacher "isn't really trans". What does that mean? How have you determined that? What is the difference between someone who is "really trans" and somebody who just says they are? How can you tell the difference?
As a matter of law in Canada, this person is "really trans", because the only requirement to be trans is to say you are. He doesn't need to wear fake titz to be trans. He doesn't need to wear a wig or women's clothes to be trans. All he has to do to be trans is to say he is.
Everybody with a brain in their head knew that it was unacceptable for a teacher to wear fetish gear to class. The only people who thought him being trans mattered in the least were the balloon-brained wokies who thought that him being trans excused this behavior.
You seem to think that it was conservatives who got trolled by this guy. That's also stupid. The people who got trolled here are the brainless wokies who protected this guy because they thought that this was a "Rosa Parks moment". Isn't it interesting that the school board only took action on this after the NY Post photos? That's what it took to show them that Miss MegaJugz isn't the new Rosa Parks after all.
But the real victims in all this aren't the school board, it's the girls who attend that school and the women who work there.
If this clown had come to work dressed in blackface, this issue would have taken 5 seconds to resolve, not 5 months. If he had come to school dressed in blackface, it would have been immediately obvious to everyone that this was harmful to black students at the school.
And yet none of the despicable imbeciles at the school or the school board could process that letting this demeaning, degrading parody of women wandering around the school is harmful to the girls there. That's because, as I've said before, present-day "progressives" only care about BIPOC or gender-fabulous people. Nobody else matters.
If a teacher had come to school in blackface, the BIPOC students at the school would have been the first and only consideration (and rightly so.)
But since he came to school dressed as a disgusting parody of women, their only concern was for the feelings of the guy who claimed to be gender-fabulous and wgaf about the teenaged girls there. It's unforgivable.
-k
Post by: guest18 on April 23, 2023, 02:51:51 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 23, 2023, 04:50:30 pm
That is pure drivel, Michael.
Ongoing coverage of this story was coverage of the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit against the school board. Coverage "dried up" because the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit stopped. And those things stopped when the teacher was removed from the classroom.
I agree. The story died because the administrative matter was settled, so there's no more story.
Trans teachers teaching while wearing fake nippled booby contraptions is a new issue in the public interest we as a society need to solve. The solution was easy and obvious but took longer due to the high profile and possible lawsuits etc.
Post by: Black Dog on April 23, 2023, 06:31:53 pm
That is pure drivel, Michael.
Ongoing coverage of this story was coverage of the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit against the school board. Coverage "dried up" because the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit stopped. And those things stopped when the teacher was removed from the classroom.
The idea that the story went away because people didn't think he is trans anymore is just stupid.
Also I have to ask about this notion that the teacher "isn't really trans". What does that mean? How have you determined that? What is the difference between someone who is "really trans" and somebody who just says they are? How can you tell the difference?
As a matter of law in Canada, this person is "really trans", because the only requirement to be trans is to say you are. He doesn't need to wear fake titz to be trans. He doesn't need to wear a wig or women's clothes to be trans. All he has to do to be trans is to say he is.
Everybody with a brain in their head knew that it was unacceptable for a teacher to wear fetish gear to class. The only people who thought him being trans mattered in the least were the balloon-brained wokies who thought that him being trans excused this behavior.
You seem to think that it was conservatives who got trolled by this guy. That's also stupid. The people who got trolled here are the brainless wokies who protected this guy because they thought that this was a "Rosa Parks moment". Isn't it interesting that the school board only took action on this after the NY Post photos? That's what it took to show them that Miss MegaJugz isn't the new Rosa Parks after all.
But the real victims in all this aren't the school board, it's the girls who attend that school and the women who work there.
If this clown had come to work dressed in blackface, this issue would have taken 5 seconds to resolve, not 5 months. If he had come to school dressed in blackface, it would have been immediately obvious to everyone that this was harmful to black students at the school.
And yet none of the despicable imbeciles at the school or the school board could process that letting this demeaning, degrading parody of women wandering around the school is harmful to the girls there. That's because, as I've said before, present-day "progressives" only care about BIPOC or gender-fabulous people. Nobody else matters.
If a teacher had come to school in blackface, the BIPOC students at the school would have been the first and only consideration (and rightly so.)
But since he came to school dressed as a disgusting parody of women, their only concern was for the feelings of the guy who claimed to be gender-fabulous and wgaf about the teenaged girls there. It's unforgivable.
-k
I'd love to see a single example of anyone defending this character or making Rosa Parks analogies. Looks like another case of kimmy making up people to be mad at.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 23, 2023, 06:40:44 pm
That is pure drivel, Michael.
Ongoing coverage of this story was coverage of the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit against the school board. Coverage "dried up" because the bomb threats, protests, and potential lawsuit stopped. And those things stopped when the teacher was removed from the classroom.
The idea that the story went away because people didn't think he is trans anymore is just stupid.
Also I have to ask about this notion that the teacher "isn't really trans". What does that mean? How have you determined that? What is the difference between someone who is "really trans" and somebody who just says they are? How can you tell the difference?
As a matter of law in Canada, this person is "really trans", because the only requirement to be trans is to say you are. He doesn't need to wear fake titz to be trans. He doesn't need to wear a wig or women's clothes to be trans. All he has to do to be trans is to say he is.
Everybody with a brain in their head knew that it was unacceptable for a teacher to wear fetish gear to class. The only people who thought him being trans mattered in the least were the balloon-brained wokies who thought that him being trans excused this behavior.
You seem to think that it was conservatives who got trolled by this guy. That's also stupid. The people who got trolled here are the brainless wokies who protected this guy because they thought that this was a "Rosa Parks moment". Isn't it interesting that the school board only took action on this after the NY Post photos? That's what it took to show them that Miss MegaJugz isn't the new Rosa Parks after all.
But the real victims in all this aren't the school board, it's the girls who attend that school and the women who work there.
If this clown had come to work dressed in blackface, this issue would have taken 5 seconds to resolve, not 5 months. If he had come to school dressed in blackface, it would have been immediately obvious to everyone that this was harmful to black students at the school.
And yet none of the despicable imbeciles at the school or the school board could process that letting this demeaning, degrading parody of women wandering around the school is harmful to the girls there. That's because, as I've said before, present-day "progressives" only care about BIPOC or gender-fabulous people. Nobody else matters.
If a teacher had come to school in blackface, the BIPOC students at the school would have been the first and only consideration (and rightly so.)
But since he came to school dressed as a disgusting parody of women, their only concern was for the feelings of the guy who claimed to be gender-fabulous and wgaf about the teenaged girls there. It's unforgivable.
-k
I don't remember a single wokie protecting him. Many people were wondering what was up with this and when the NY Post revealed that it was a scam the story stopped.
Yes. It was the outrage set who very much was trolled by one of their own.
The Sun doesn't seem to talk about this anymore, likely because they were duped...
Post by: guest7 on April 23, 2023, 07:27:18 pm
I don't remember a single wokie protecting him. Many people were wondering what was up with this and when the NY Post revealed that it was a scam the story stopped.
Yes. It was the outrage set who very much was trolled by one of their own.
The Sun doesn't seem to talk about this anymore, likely because they were duped...
How long did it take to remove him from the classroom? Genuine question, because I don't know the answer.
I figure if it was more than fifteen minutes, woke, or someone's idea of woke, is probably the reason.
Post by: guest18 on April 23, 2023, 07:33:07 pm
Post by: guest7 on April 23, 2023, 07:40:58 pm
More likely someone's idea of potential wrongful dismissal legal liability.
Because "woke" right?
Without that, why can't you just can the jerk? Maybe with a warning first.
Post by: guest18 on April 23, 2023, 08:39:31 pm
Post by: guest7 on April 23, 2023, 09:05:32 pm
Because "laws" and "charters", which may exist because "woke".
I don't know what that means, exactly, but I think if he'd just showed up for work like that he would have been removed from the class room, warned and maybe fired. Maybe sent to a psychiatrist for an evaluation.
I don't think laws or any part of the Charter of Rights would have been mentioned.
But because he said he was a woman, it was a completely different situation. I daresay the people in charge at the school figured there was nothing in any law or any part of the Charter of Rights that mentions fake **** even if you do say you're a women, but they sure as hell were terrified to find out.
It used to be called political correctness, and now it's called woke. There are as many definitions on either as there are people doing the defining but I have no doubt that's what they would have called it, if they were being honest with themselves.
Post by: kimmy on April 23, 2023, 10:07:52 pm
I'd love to see a single example of anyone defending this character or making Rosa Parks analogies. Looks like another case of kimmy making up people to be mad at.
You don't remember a single wokie defending him? You don't remember the school board protecting this dirtbag for 5 months, issuing supportive statements and threatening to suspend or expel students who posted about the situation on social media? Perhaps your memory just isn't very good?
As for comparisons to Rosa Parks:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/03/01/fear-anxiety-bomb-threats-inside-the-halton-school-reeling-amid-furor-over-teacher-dress-code.html
Quote
The Star interviewed students who say they were offended when they heard a school staff member liken Lemieux, a white person, to Rosa Parks, a Black woman and U.S. civil rights icon. The topic surfaced during a conversation among some students and staff about the bomb threats and the staff member said it was important to show solidarity with Lemieux.
“(The staff member) said that it was a proud and momentous occasion in history and she was proud to be standing there with the teacher,” recalled one teen. “She said this was just like Rosa Parks … It was just such a strange comparison.”
On Tuesday, Ennis told the Star he was not aware of the comments and could not speak to what individual staff members said.
“The message that we have provided for staff, and the message that I would like to give, is that we are protective of all rights,” he said. “We’re protective of everyone, whether they be racialized, marginalized members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, anyone who has been underserved or anyone who has been marginalized in any way ... The message from the board is that we stand on our principles of human rights, equity and inclusion.”
(Yes, it's behind a paywall. Yes, I paid $4 for this message. I'd seen screencaps of the Rosa Parks reference before, so I knew it was there.)
True Believers.
From the same article:
Quote
Some of the girls said they feel Lemieux’s appearance — tight revealing clothing and oversized breasts with erect nipples — makes a mockery of women’s bodies.
One student who’s had Lemieux as a substitute teacher said boys are more likely to laugh about it, while girls seem more uncomfortable, adding, “It’s very, very uncomfortable. It just makes me feel like, ‘What am I doing here?’”
Another teen described Lemieux’s attire as “hurtful” and “a caricature of a woman,” which is particularly “strange” in “an environment with a lot of impressionable young kids.”
I don't know how old your daughter is, I do know how old Michael's daughter is, and I can promise this to both of you: right now you might not have a clue how stressful adolescence is for girls, but within 10 years, both of you are going to understand it very well. And when that time comes this won't be a joke to you anymore.
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 23, 2023, 10:30:22 pm
I'd be embarrassed if I fell for a right-wing troll too.
You and Michael keep claiming that it's embarrassing for myself and "the right" and The Sun and "the outrage set". For the life of me I can't see how. I have no idea how you guys think it's some kind of a "gotcha" that this guy doesn't wear his fake titz and wig full time. To me it sounds like (to borrow Black Dog's word) pure copium. Nobody outside of the irredeemably woke thought that his he had a right to wear fetish gear to school if he was a "real" trans-person.
As I said before, the only people who got clowned here are the people who spent 5 months defending this goon because of their commitment to "inclusivity".
Also, I'm fascinated to learn more about the process by which you discerned that "Kayla" is a troll rather than a real trans person. As I pointed out earlier, as a matter of law in this country the only requirement for "Kayla" to be a woman is for him to say he is. So how is it that you and Michael and Black Dog have determined otherwise? I put to you and Black Dog the same questions I put to Michael earlier. How do you know he "isn't really trans". What does "really trans" mean? How have you determined that he isn't really trans? What is the difference between someone who is "really trans" and somebody who just says they are? How can you tell the difference?
I am 99% confident that neither Michael or Black Dog can come up with an answer to those questions. And you, Bubber, I'm 99.9% you can't come up with answers to those questions, because you're really not able to contribute anything more than witty quips to any topic other than jazz music.
But all three of you, go ahead and prove me wrong. Exceed my low expectations.
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 23, 2023, 10:36:07 pm
More likely someone's idea of potential wrongful dismissal legal liability.
None of you guys have come up with an explanation for why the school board stood behind this goon for 5 months, but yanked him out of the classroom after the NY Post published those photos.
Perhaps they just very suddenly found a solution to the wrongful dismissal issue.
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 23, 2023, 11:11:58 pm
I don't remember a single wokie protecting him. Many people were wondering what was up with this and when the NY Post revealed that it was a scam the story stopped.
Yes. It was the outrage set who very much was trolled by one of their own.
The Sun doesn't seem to talk about this anymore, likely because they were duped...
Laughable, Michael. As I said earlier, the only people who cared whether "Kayla Lemieux" was "really trans" are the wokies who spent months standing behind him because they thought "inclusivity" required it.
"The right" doesn't think it's acceptable for teachers to wear fetish gear to class, even if they're "really trans".
"The left" doesn't think it's acceptable for teachers to wear fetish gear to class either, even if they're "really trans".
"The LGBTQ+ community" doesn't think it's acceptable for teachers to wear fetish gear to class either, even if they're "really trans".
The only people who thought it's acceptable for Kayla to wear his giant fake titz to class if he's "really trans" are stupid-people. Yourself and other fake progressives have given yourselves permission to be critical of this guy now that you've decided he's not "really trans". (friendly reminder: you can't explain what "really trans" or "not really trans" actually mean.)
There's no sensible argument you can make as to how "Kayla" being caught out-of-costume is "embarrassing" to myself or The Sun or "the outrage set" or "the right". None of us hinged our opposition to him on whether he was "really trans" or not. All of us felt that his outfit was unacceptable under any condition. The only people who thought his outfit would be acceptable under any condition were the wokies who thought that if he was "really trans" then he needed to be allowed to wear his fake titz to class because inclusivity.
And you've made this "we aren't talking about it now so it was never a real news story" argument before, and it was stupid then and it's stupid now and you should stop making this argument because it just makes me feel embarrassed for you. It's patently stupid.
We haven't heard any Chinese spy balloon stories for 2 months, so I guess those were never real news either.
Stories about the Iran women's protests have disappeared from the news, so I guess that was fake news too.
It's a stupid claim and you should stop making stupid claims because it makes me feel bad for you.
But your primary concern here has always been that this story was harmful to the "trans rights" agenda. You never actually cared about the welfare of the girls at that school, your only concern was that negative news coverage would make people skeptical of trans activist objectives. As with the Jessica Yaniv stuff in the very early days of this thread. You didn't care that a disgusting creep was using the BC human rights tribunal process to shake down aestheticians who didn't want to handle his dick and balls, you just wanted the media to stop covering the story because it was harmful to trans activist objectives.
Fake progressives.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on April 24, 2023, 12:34:01 am
You don't remember a single wokie defending him?
No.
Quote
You don't remember the school board protecting this dirtbag for 5 months, issuing supportive statements and threatening to suspend or expel students who posted about the situation on social media? Perhaps your memory just isn't very good?
Cite.
Quote
As for comparisons to Rosa Parks:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/03/01/fear-anxiety-bomb-threats-inside-the-halton-school-reeling-amid-furor-over-teacher-dress-code.html
(Yes, it's behind a paywall. Yes, I paid $4 for this message. I'd seen screencaps of the Rosa Parks reference before, so I knew it was there.)
lol, so no actual first hand quotes? Just hearsay from some random teen?
Quote
I don't know how old your daughter is, I do know how old Michael's daughter is, and I can promise this to both of you: right now you might not have a clue how stressful adolescence is for girls, but within 10 years, both of you are going to understand it very well. And when that time comes this won't be a joke to you anymore.
Hey how about you go f*ck yourself.
Post by: Black Dog on April 24, 2023, 12:36:06 am
Also, I'm fascinated to learn more about the process by which you discerned that "Kayla" is a troll rather than a real trans person. As I pointed out earlier, as a matter of law in this country the only requirement for "Kayla" to be a woman is for him to say he is. So how is it that you and Michael and Black Dog have determined otherwise? I put to you and Black Dog the same questions I put to Michael earlier. How do you know he "isn't really trans". What does "really trans" mean? How have you determined that he isn't really trans? What is the difference between someone who is "really trans" and somebody who just says they are? How can you tell the difference?
I am 99% confident that neither Michael or Black Dog can come up with an answer to those questions. And you, Bubber, I'm 99.9% you can't come up with answers to those questions, because you're really not able to contribute anything more than witty quips to any topic other than jazz music.
But all three of you, go ahead and prove me wrong. Exceed my low expectations.
-k
People who are really trans (that is; people who identify as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth) don't switch back to their originally assigned gender when in the comfort of their own homes. There, that was super fuckin' easy.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 07:00:18 am
The only people who thought it's acceptable for Kayla to wear his giant fake titz to class if he's "really trans" are stupid-people. Yourself and other fake progressives have given yourselves permission to be critical of this guy now that you've decided he's not "really trans".
Yeah, so I guess you're calling me stupid now ?
That's below you.
Maybe take a breath and read what I say instead of insulting me. I felt that this case was suspicious and I also understood that the system isn't built to deal with a fake-trans troll. Rage-nauts screaming "fire him !" and bomb threats to the school don't help speed the process along, and rational people know this.
Here's the word on why it died down - the NY Post reveals that the troll was put on leave AFTER they posted evidence of him him being a fake trans. Clearly this gave the system something to work with, in terms of doubts to his credibility and reason for an investigation that could be immune to Human Rights challenges.
And... Clearly The Sun et. al were embarrassed at being trolled which is why they aren't still calling for him to be fired etc.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/02/kayla-lemieux-canadian-teacher-with-size-z-prosthetic-breasts-on-paid-leave/
I have explained how many times, kimmy, that I don't have a dog in this fight. I speak for public institutions and processes and how things work. Yes, they're stupid sometimes but the system can be rolled.
I'm not sure why you pick on me but it's not becoming of you.
Post by: guest18 on April 24, 2023, 09:10:05 am
And you, Bubber, I'm 99.9% you can't come up with answers to those questions, because you're really not to contribute anything more than witty quips to any topic other than jazz music.You think I'm witty?
But it's true I've spent no more time on this topic than to read a little bit about it here (skimming really, as the posts can be long-winded) and thinking "that sounds like an obvious troll." I'm not really interested enough to pursue it further. There is jazz to be listened to instead.
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 09:42:16 am
Well, at least we've established a couple of things beyond a reasonable doubt.
The response of those charged with looking after schoolchildren was a dismal failure due to their abject fear of whatever woke meant to them at the time, and a man isn't a woman just because he says he is.
That's something at least.
Post by: guest18 on April 24, 2023, 10:06:27 am
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 10:13:36 am
You don't think their fear is of lawyers and court cases and getting fired? And you don't mind perpetuating the Republican vernacular by using "woke" as a vague, racist, and ultimately meaningless perjorative?
Yeah, it's like I said, it's reminiscent of political correctness. Awesomely scary if you think it's going to apply to you.
Are you of the opinion such things never entered their minds?
Why should they be afraid of lawyers and court cases? It didn't used to be the case that a male teacher could show up for work wearing massive fake boobs with nipples the OH&S would be concerned about.
I wonder what changed?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 11:38:18 am
The response of those charged with looking after schoolchildren was a dismal failure due to their abject fear of whatever woke meant to them at the time, and a man isn't a woman just because he says he is.
How about "the abject anti-woke mob doesn't understand process or law".
When they get upset they expect somebody to "be fired", or they get very very upset.
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 02:21:29 pm
How about "the abject anti-woke mob doesn't understand process or law".
When they get upset they expect somebody to "be fired", or they get very very upset.
If you like. Nothing to do with me what you think.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 02:25:34 pm
If you like. Nothing to do with me what you think.
No but it contradicts your sure-footed view of the people at the centre of it.
To be fair, I don't actually stand with my assessment but I put it up only to show you there could be another side.
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 02:36:45 pm
No but it contradicts your sure-footed view of the people at the centre of it.
To be fair, I don't actually stand with my assessment but I put it up only to show you there could be another side.
Could you be more specific? Where exactly do you differ from the view that those people in charge were reluctant to take action for what seems to be an unconscionable length of time due to their fear of being seen to be somehow unsympathetic to the Trans movement?
If it is your view that such had no bearing whatsoever, say so and we can disagree.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 05:03:11 pm
- obvious something crazy with the outfit
- reported to have been written up and online speculation was that he was trolling
- actually denied that he's the guy in the photo
Ridiculous.
The idea that people stood by him because he wasn't fired reflects an unwillingness to fathom the facts of the labor management system in education.
It's not like delivering pizzas and dripping tomato sauce on the boss'tie....
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 06:36:10 pm
The reason the teacher wasn't trans, and why nobody stood up for him:
- obvious something crazy with the outfit
- reported to have been written up and online speculation was that he was trolling
- actually denied that he's the guy in the photo
Ridiculous.
The idea that people stood by him because he wasn't fired reflects an unwillingness to fathom the facts of the labor management system in education.
It's not like delivering pizzas and dripping tomato sauce on the boss'tie....
Sure, but none of that matters to the discussion in question.
Like I said earlier, if he'd worn a swastika to school, (or blackface and an afro wig, come to that) no-one would have been afraid to do the right thing.
There's a reason they were afraid to do the right thing. It's because he was a man and he claimed to be woman.
I don't know if "stood by him" is an accurate description of what his employers did. "Ran away and hid" might be closer.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 24, 2023, 06:54:19 pm
I'd love to see a single example of anyone defending this character or making Rosa Parks analogies. Looks like another case of kimmy making up people to be mad at.
I want statues of this nippled crusader.
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 06:57:54 pm
I want statues of this nippled crusader.
You'll put your eye out...
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 07:47:03 pm
Could you be more specific? Where exactly do you differ from the view that those people in charge were reluctant to take action for what seems to be an unconscionable length of time due to their fear of being seen to be somehow unsympathetic to the Trans movement?
If it is your view that such had no bearing whatsoever, say so and we can disagree.
You don't even know them and yet you are absolutely certain that they're afraid.
Do you stand by that?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 07:48:27 pm
Sure, but none of that matters to the discussion in question.
Like I said earlier, if he'd worn a swastika to school, (or blackface and an afro wig, come to that) no-one would have been afraid to do the right thing.
There's a reason they were afraid to do the right thing. It's because he was a man and he claimed to be woman.
I don't know if "stood by him" is an accurate description of what his employers did. "Ran away and hid" might be closer.
And if he'd assaulted a student too.
Do you know that there are rules that define things like insubordination, acceptable behavior, etc. ?
Post by: guest7 on April 24, 2023, 07:56:04 pm
You don't even know them and yet you are absolutely certain that they're afraid.
Do you stand by that?
I'm not absolutely certain.
Occam's Razor.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 24, 2023, 08:33:26 pm
I'm not absolutely certain.
Occam's Razor.
Okay well trust your "gut" I guess...
Post by: guest7 on April 25, 2023, 12:10:51 am
And if he'd assaulted a student too.
Do you know that there are rules that define things like insubordination, acceptable behavior, etc. ?
Yeah. I'm assuming they did too. That's why I was stunned to find out it took them more than just a few minutes to remove him from the classroom.
Unless there's a special fake boob section of the rule book that I wasn't aware of.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 25, 2023, 06:52:47 am
Yeah. I'm assuming they did too. That's why I was stunned to find out it took them more than just a few minutes to remove him from the classroom.
Unless there's a special fake boob section of the rule book that I wasn't aware of.
I don't know what else to say.
I know how such things work, so I'm not surprised. Your gut feel tells you they were terrified of the woke mob so that's your take...
Post by: guest7 on April 25, 2023, 09:34:00 am
I don't know what else to say.
I know how such things work, so I'm not surprised. Your gut feel tells you they were terrified of the woke mob so that's your take...
I do wonder sometimes if we even know what the other is talking about. You don't know how such things work, because it's never happened before.
Respond solely to my point about swastikas and blackface. Obviously such things would have had him sent home right away. There really is no way he should have been allowed to teach wearing that prosthetic.
What does your gut tell you about how long it took them to figure that out, and why?
Post by: Black Dog on April 25, 2023, 11:32:26 am
I do wonder sometimes if we even know what the other is talking about. You don't know how such things work, because it's never happened before.
Respond solely to my point about swastikas and blackface. Obviously such things would have had him sent home right away. There really is no way he should have been allowed to teach wearing that prosthetic.
What does your gut tell you about how long it took them to figure that out, and why?
The individual in question claims their giant cans are real if that makes any difference.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 25, 2023, 12:44:19 pm
1. You don't know how such things work, because it's never happened before.1. True but that's part of it.
2. Respond solely to my point about swastikas and blackface. Obviously such things would have had him sent home right away. There really is no way he should have been allowed to teach wearing that prosthetic.
What does your gut tell you about how long it took them to figure that out, and why?
2. I'll do even more:
- Current situation, teacher comes in with giant fake boobs
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
If they're friendly with the union rep they may have a cautious word to find out what the union would be doing about this if there were action
Principle would call their contact at the local board and/or HR
Complaints continue, this ends up in the press
The board and HR contact their lawyers and the board head to strategize an approach
Lawyers and board have never seen this before, consult with more legal assistance
There's no provision, no precedent, and so they have to strategize
Tradeoffs involve playing the following factors:
- Angry parents
- The press
- The wider public
- Legal challenges
- The union
They can't figure out how to respond
The Minister of Education provides pressure
The school board initiates a policy change around dress code, presumably working behind the scenes with lawyers and the union
By the time that comes to fruition, the NY Post comes out, the teacher is clearly lying and is placed on 'leave' based on unreported factors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 25, 2023, 12:45:10 pm
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 25, 2023, 02:29:33 pm
1. True but that's part of it.
2. I'll do even more:
- Current situation, teacher comes in with giant fake boobs
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
If they're friendly with the union rep they may have a cautious word to find out what the union would be doing about this if there were action
Principle would call their contact at the local board and/or HR
Complaints continue, this ends up in the press
The board and HR contact their lawyers and the board head to strategize an approach
Lawyers and board have never seen this before, consult with more legal assistance
There's no provision, no precedent, and so they have to strategize
Tradeoffs involve playing the following factors:
- Angry parents
- The press
- The wider public
- Legal challenges
- The union
They can't figure out how to respond
The Minister of Education provides pressure
The school board initiates a policy change around dress code, presumably working behind the scenes with lawyers and the union
By the time that comes to fruition, the NY Post comes out, the teacher is clearly lying and is placed on 'leave' based on unreported factors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired
Lawyers need to be consulted for a school to say to a teacher “please take those massive prosthetic t!ts off”?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 25, 2023, 04:12:29 pm
Lawyers need to be consulted for a school to say to a teacher “please take those massive prosthetic t!ts off”?
Of course. That can't be a surprise to you can it ?
Is it ?
The next statement from the teacher would be "you just contravened my rights" and we're off to her majesty's court as well as the court of public opinion.
The job of the school manage is to ... manage these things not set off litigation.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 25, 2023, 04:23:19 pm
Of course. That can't be a surprise to you can it ?
Is it ?
The next statement from the teacher would be "you just contravened my rights" and we're off to her majesty's court as well as the court of public opinion.
The job of the school manage is to ... manage these things not set off litigation.
It is? I thought their first priority would be the well-being of the students.
This is so ridiculous and absurd that my thought is that they should deal with the troll first and let them take it to a human rights tribunal hearing.
Post by: guest7 on April 25, 2023, 07:31:34 pm
1. True but that's part of it.
2. I'll do even more:
- Current situation, teacher comes in with giant fake boobs
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
If they're friendly with the union rep they may have a cautious word to find out what the union would be doing about this if there were action
Principle would call their contact at the local board and/or HR
Complaints continue, this ends up in the press
The board and HR contact their lawyers and the board head to strategize an approach
Lawyers and board have never seen this before, consult with more legal assistance
There's no provision, no precedent, and so they have to strategize
Tradeoffs involve playing the following factors:
- Angry parents
- The press
- The wider public
- Legal challenges
- The union
They can't figure out how to respond
The Minister of Education provides pressure
The school board initiates a policy change around dress code, presumably working behind the scenes with lawyers and the union
By the time that comes to fruition, the NY Post comes out, the teacher is clearly lying and is placed on 'leave' based on unreported factors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired
I fixed that for you, below.
- Current situation, teacher comes in with giant fake boobs, or
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired.
Only difference, the boobs might get a warning first.
Unless some kind of Trans thing was involved. Then it might be different.
Anyway, we've reached the panto stage now. I think the fact that Trans rights were involved has a bearing on this, and you don't.
We're not going to agree. You can have the last word, I won't respond.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2023, 09:05:49 am
1. I thought their first priority would be the well-being of the students.
2. This is so ridiculous and absurd that my thought is that they should deal with the troll first and let them take it to a human rights tribunal hearing.
1. Of course it is. That doesn't preclude following the processes that are in place to ensure that the well-being of the students, staff, parents, etc. are respected.
2. So - act FIRST then think SECOND. Got it.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2023, 09:08:22 am
1. Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired.
2. We're not going to agree. You can have the last word, I won't respond.
1. Well that's the thing. I'm 100% sure there would have been no existing code on this one. Unless a teacher flaunted fake boobs before and it was dealt with.
2. I will 100% agree with you if you can show there was a code in place.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 26, 2023, 12:03:07 pm
1. Of course it is. That doesn't preclude following the processes that are in place to ensure that the well-being of the students, staff, parents, etc. are respected.
2. So - act FIRST then think SECOND. Got it.
So, if a teacher came to school with a fake giant dick, because fake giant dicks are not in the dress code prohibitions, you would encourage waiting for several weeks while lawyers are consulted before taking action? Is there nothing that would warrant action within hours, or days at most?
Post by: Black Dog on April 26, 2023, 12:04:36 pm
So, if a teacher came to school with a fake giant dick, because fake giant dicks are not in the dress code prohibitions, you would encourage waiting for several weeks while lawyers are consulted before taking action? Is there nothing that would warrant action within hours, or days at most?
Wild that you think those are the same thing.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 26, 2023, 12:11:00 pm
Wild that you think those are the same thing.
I didn’t say they were “the same thing”. I’m wondering if a giant dick would illicit a different level of response time than absurdly huge prosthetic breasts.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2023, 12:20:18 pm
So, if a teacher came to school with a fake giant dick, because fake giant dicks are not in the dress code prohibitions, you would encourage waiting for several weeks while lawyers are consulted before taking action? Is there nothing that would warrant action within hours, or days at most?
Why are you playing this dumb game ?
Do you live in a universe without context ?
The context is the employee taking a human rights posture that was legally defensible.
Do you make legal decisions without discussing a lawyer ? If so, don't work in HR.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2023, 12:22:57 pm
I didn’t say they were “the same thing”. I’m wondering if a giant dick would illicit a different level of response time than absurdly huge prosthetic breasts.
I just don't understand why people can't see the difficulty in "just firing" somebody.
The other thing I don't understand is why people hate on me for pointing these things out. It's not that I agree or disagree, it's just that's how the system works.
I'll tell you what the alternative is: You give individuals a huge amount of discretion and then stand by them on WHATEVER they think.
The problem with that is the same people who yell, troll and scream about due process would do this in even greater force if somebody arbitrarily decided it was absolutely ok for the fake **** to come into the classroom....
So we don't allow people in government to make decisions because of outrage.
Post by: guest7 on April 26, 2023, 01:33:33 pm
I just don't understand why people can't see the difficulty in "just firing" somebody.
The other thing I don't understand is why people hate on me for pointing these things out. It's not that I agree or disagree, it's just that's how the system works.
I'll tell you what the alternative is: You give individuals a huge amount of discretion and then stand by them on WHATEVER they think.
The problem with that is the same people who yell, troll and scream about due process would do this in even greater force if somebody arbitrarily decided it was absolutely ok for the fake **** to come into the classroom....
So we don't allow people in government to make decisions because of outrage.
I said I wouldn't respond, but I do want you to understand that disagreeing with you does not mean hating you.
I really never imagined for a moment you hated me.
Post by: Black Dog on April 26, 2023, 01:47:03 pm
I didn’t say they were “the same thing”. I’m wondering if a giant dick would illicit a different level of response time than absurdly huge prosthetic breasts.
Yes because you're not allowed to show your dick to high school students whereas people with breasts exist.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 26, 2023, 01:55:24 pm
Yes because you're not allowed to show your dick to high school students whereas people with breasts exist.
Who said anything about showing the prosthetic giant appendage?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2023, 03:27:47 pm
I said I wouldn't respond, but I do want you to understand that disagreeing with you does not mean hating you.
I really never imagined for a moment you hated me.
I don't think you hate me.
Post by: Coolio on April 26, 2023, 03:30:51 pm
However, they have to stop this ridiculous narrative they are pushing about allowing biological men to compete in Women's sport. It is cheating, and the push-back is not unexpected. Anyone who was born male (regardless of gender preference), and encroaches on Women's safe space (washrooms, change rooms, etc), should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
If the LGBTQ community can focus on real issues, instead of overstepping societal norms, they will find the Transphobia in the United States will subside.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 26, 2023, 05:01:17 pm
I am all for Transgender people having equal rights.
However, they have to stop this ridiculous narrative they are pushing about allowing biological men to compete in Women's sport. It is cheating, and the push-back is not unexpected. Anyone who was born male (regardless of gender preference), and encroaches on Women's safe space (washrooms, change rooms, etc), should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
If the LGBTQ community can focus on real issues, instead of overstepping societal norms, they will find the Transphobia in the United States will subside.
I accept that the sports question is open. A lot of people will call you transphobic for saying that but I think that it is. I don't think that laws need to be passed, there are local or public rules about such things.
I don't know of any laws saying that you can't go into a women's bathroom if you have a ****.
Post by: Black Dog on April 26, 2023, 05:17:46 pm
Who said anything about showing the prosthetic giant appendage?
How else would you know about it?
Post by: Black Dog on April 26, 2023, 05:18:40 pm
I am all for Transgender people having equal rights.
However, they have to stop this ridiculous narrative they are pushing about allowing biological men to compete in Women's sport. It is cheating, and the push-back is not unexpected. Anyone who was born male (regardless of gender preference), and encroaches on Women's safe space (washrooms, change rooms, etc), should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
If the LGBTQ community can focus on real issues, instead of overstepping societal norms, they will find the Transphobia in the United States will subside.
LMAO. LOL, even.
The idea that it's possible to appease reactionaries is absurd and ahistorical. The people claiming LGBTQ people are groomer paedos, who want kids taken from their parents, who are advocating for the banning of gender-affirming healthcare care for everyone and executing doctors (https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9a/libsoftiktok-trans-children-boston-hospital), who are banning books and discussion of gender identity do not care one bit about the sanctity of women's amateur sports except as another cudgel to attack a minority group.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 27, 2023, 02:54:23 pm
LMAO. LOL, even.
The idea that it's possible to appease reactionaries is absurd and ahistorical. The people claiming LGBTQ people are groomer paedos, who want kids taken from their parents, who are advocating for the banning of gender-affirming healthcare care for everyone and executing doctors (https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9a/libsoftiktok-trans-children-boston-hospital), who are banning books and discussion of gender identity do not care one bit about the sanctity of women's amateur sports except as another cudgel to attack a minority group.
And you know this how? Maybe they think biological men competing in women's sports is nonsense like most everyone else.
Any biological man who would take any kind of pride in beating women in their own sports category is either an idiot or mentally ill. If I were trans woman I would either not take hormones and compete with other men, take the hormones and compete vs men and likely lose, or take the hormones and not bother competing.
Post by: Black Dog on April 27, 2023, 03:33:45 pm
And you know this how? Maybe they think biological men competing in women's sports is nonsense like most everyone else.
Do you really think people who want to eliminate transgender people as a category will back off if trans folks stop trying to compete in women's sports?
Quote
Any biological man who would take any kind of pride in beating women in their own sports category is either an idiot or mentally ill. If I were trans woman I would either not take hormones and compete with other men, take the hormones and compete vs men and likely lose, or take the hormones and not bother competing.
The trans people in sports thing is "problem" invented by the radical right to galvanize their bigoted supporters.
Post by: guest7 on April 27, 2023, 04:00:11 pm
Do you really think people who want to eliminate transgender people as a category will back off if trans folks stop trying to compete in women's sports?
The trans people in sports thing is "problem" invented by the radical right to galvanize their bigoted supporters.
Bollocks is it.
This might surprise you, but I think biological males should not compete in female sports, and doctors should not be executed.
I know such views are incompatible to some, but I gotta be me.
Post by: Coolio on April 27, 2023, 04:06:53 pm
LMAO. LOL, even.
The idea that it's possible to appease reactionaries is absurd and ahistorical. The people claiming LGBTQ people are groomer paedos, who want kids taken from their parents, who are advocating for the banning of gender-affirming healthcare care for everyone and executing doctors (https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9a/libsoftiktok-trans-children-boston-hospital), who are banning books and discussion of gender identity do not care one bit about the sanctity of women's amateur sports except as another cudgel to attack a minority group.
Obviously the notion that LGBTQ persons are more likely to groom children is unfounded. However, it would be naive to think that there has not been a considerable backlash against Transgender people, in regards to the sports issue.
It doesn't help that legitimately horrible people like Morgane Oger and Jessica Yaniv are gaming the system in Canada.
Post by: Black Dog on April 27, 2023, 04:38:14 pm
Bollocks is it.
This might surprise you, but I think biological males should not compete in female sports, and doctors should not be executed.
I know such views are incompatible to some, but I gotta be me.
Trans people are a tiny fraction of the population. Transwomen are a fraction of that. Transwoman athletes are a tinier fraction of that. Transwoman athletes who are competitive enough to actually present a threat to "women's sports" are a tinier fraction of that tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Yet somehow this issue has received an astonishing and certainly disproportionate amount of attention and media coverage. You cannot tell me that is organic grassroots backlash to a major issue, no f**king way, especially since the architects of this whole anti-trans moral panic have been pretty upfront about using it to fundraise off their base after their win on abortion.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 27, 2023, 04:47:59 pm
The trans people in sports thing is "problem" invented by the radical right to galvanize their bigoted supporters.
So trans women aren't competing or trying to compete in women's sports? Sounds like a problem needing to be solved, even if the number of examples are huge.
Post by: Black Dog on April 27, 2023, 04:55:03 pm
Obviously the notion that LGBTQ persons are more likely to groom children is unfounded. However, it would be naive to think that there has not been a considerable backlash against Transgender people, in regards to the sports issue.
The specific claim I'm contesting here is that all the transphobes would cease to be transphobes if transgender people just stopped pushing things like participating in sports.
Quote
It doesn't help that legitimately horrible people like Morgane Oger and Jessica Yaniv are gaming the system in Canada.
What did she do?
Post by: Coolio on April 27, 2023, 05:13:32 pm
Trans people are a tiny fraction of the population. Transwomen are a fraction of that. Transwoman athletes are a tinier fraction of that. Transwoman athletes who are competitive enough to actually present a threat to "women's sports" are a tinier fraction of that tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Yet somehow this issue has received an astonishing and certainly disproportionate amount of attention and media coverage. You cannot tell me that is organic grassroots backlash to a major issue, no f**king way, especially since the architects of this whole anti-trans moral panic have been pretty upfront about using it to fundraise off their base after their win on abortion.
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Z4zXN/fallback.png)
Post by: guest7 on April 27, 2023, 05:23:50 pm
Trans people are a tiny fraction of the population. Transwomen are a fraction of that. Transwoman athletes are a tinier fraction of that. Transwoman athletes who are competitive enough to actually present a threat to "women's sports" are a tinier fraction of that tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Yet somehow this issue has received an astonishing and certainly disproportionate amount of attention and media coverage. You cannot tell me that is organic grassroots backlash to a major issue, no f**king way, especially since the architects of this whole anti-trans moral panic have been pretty upfront about using it to fundraise off their base after their win on abortion.
I can tell you whatever I want. You can disagree if you want.
Trans women don't present a threat to women's sport. They present a threat to whichever women they beat. That's okay with you, and it's not okay with me.
Whether or not the reaction of those women, and any who wish to emulate them, will present a threat to the sport, I don't know. I hope we don't have to find out.
I don't know what an organic grassroots backlash is, unless it's something that threatens TERFs. As for abortion, I see no problem with being pro-choice and having the views I have.
Post by: Black Dog on April 27, 2023, 05:25:50 pm
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Z4zXN/fallback.png)
What exactly do you think this proves?
Also they polled more people in that survey than there probably are transgender women athletes lol.
Post by: Black Dog on April 27, 2023, 07:28:36 pm
I can tell you whatever I want. You can disagree if you want.
Trans women don't present a threat to women's sport. They present a threat to whichever women they beat. That's okay with you, and it's not okay with me.
It's not that I'm okay with as much as I don't see it as something worth whipping up a hate campaign over.
Post by: Coolio on April 27, 2023, 08:00:27 pm
I can tell you whatever I want. You can disagree if you want.
Trans women don't present a threat to women's sport. They present a threat to whichever women they beat. That's okay with you, and it's not okay with me.
It's cheating. No different than an Olympic athlete roided up on steroids. Biological males should not be allowed in women's sport, since it gives them an unfair competitive advantage.
Post by: guest7 on April 27, 2023, 08:15:07 pm
It's not that I'm okay with as much as I don't see it as something worth whipping up a hate campaign over.
Me neither. But I also don't see ignoring it because others might be whipping up a hate campaign over it.
Post by: segnosaur on April 28, 2023, 02:55:41 am
It's cheating. No different than an Olympic athlete roided up on steroids. Biological males should not be allowed in women's sport, since it gives them an unfair competitive advantage.Just wondering, how far do you go with your "unfair advantage" arguments go?
If there was a woman who had a higher testosterone level than other athletes (not because she was born with an XY chromosome but just the sort of natural variation that occurs) should she be bared from sports too, because it might give her more strength? What about a woman who is naturally 7 feet tall... should she be banned from playing basketball because her freakish height gives her an advantage over her smaller competitors?
Yes, I recognize that being a woman born with XY chromosomes can give an advantage in many sports. However:
- There are a lot of biological factors that would give an athlete an advantage
- The number of transgender athletes is relatively small, and while they may occasionally become "champions" it is not that common
- For trans individuals who are struggling to handle their particular situation, sports can provide a useful outlet to help them cope
Perhaps in a decade or 2, if the situation changes (and all the olympic gold is won by trans athletes) then perhaps we can revisit the issue. But at this point there is probably more overall harm in banning trans athletes than in allowing them to compete
Post by: wilber on April 28, 2023, 09:50:17 am
Just wondering, how far do you go with your "unfair advantage" arguments go?
If there was a woman who had a higher testosterone level than other athletes (not because she was born with an XY chromosome but just the sort of natural variation that occurs) should she be bared from sports too, because it might give her more strength? What about a woman who is naturally 7 feet tall... should she be banned from playing basketball because her freakish height gives her an advantage over her smaller competitors?
Yes, I recognize that being a woman born with XY chromosomes can give an advantage in many sports. However:
- There are a lot of biological factors that would give an athlete an advantage
- The number of transgender athletes is relatively small, and while they may occasionally become "champions" it is not that common
- For trans individuals who are struggling to handle their particular situation, sports can provide a useful outlet to help them cope
Perhaps in a decade or 2, if the situation changes (and all the olympic gold is won by trans athletes) then perhaps we can revisit the issue. But at this point there is probably more overall harm in banning trans athletes than in allowing them to compete
I have two grand daughters who play varsity rugby. There is no godamn way they should have to go up against guys who have decided they want to play as women.
They are called women's sports for a reason.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 10:05:58 am
It's cheating. No different than an Olympic athlete roided up on steroids. Biological males should not be allowed in women's sport, since it gives them an unfair competitive advantage.
Was Michael Phelps cheating because his physiology (massive wingspan, huge hands, lower lactic acid production) gave him a competitive advantage?
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 10:07:35 am
I have two grand daughters who play varsity rugby. There is no godamn way they should have to go up against guys who have decided they want to play as women.
They are called women's sports for a reason.
But they can play against a biological woman with elevated testosterone levels? What's the baseline?
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 28, 2023, 10:09:24 am
Trans women are allowed to play though.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 10:09:44 am
Me neither. But I also don't see ignoring it because others might be whipping up a hate campaign over it.
What if I told you by giving the issue such a disproportionate amount of attention and oxygen, you're helping those people.
Post by: wilber on April 28, 2023, 10:12:50 am
But they can play against a biological woman with elevated testosterone levels? What's the baseline?
The baseline is that they are biological women.
The assertion that we should let men play women's sports because some women have higher testosterone levels than others is idiotic.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 10:23:19 am
The baseline is that they are biological women.
"It's ok that my granddaughter got pancaked by a 6'2", 210 pound prop because at least she was born a woman!"
Quote
The assertion that we should let men play women's sports because some women have higher testosterone levels than others is idiotic.
The question is the degree to which one is willing to police biological differences that could give one an unfair advantage over others. If you think it's ok for some to possess extreme advantages over others as long as they have the same chromosomes, fine, but recognize that is an arbitrarily chosen line.
Post by: guest7 on April 28, 2023, 10:31:25 am
What if I told you by giving the issue such a disproportionate amount of attention and oxygen, you're helping those people.
I would disagree with you, and then ask: How many of them are reading this?
But seriously, you are saying that in order to try and keep rabid bigots from their antics I should change my views, or keep them quiet?
I've been told that before, with regard to a different group of people, and I thought that was wrong too.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 10:44:05 am
I would disagree with you, and then ask: How many of them are reading this?
But seriously, you are saying that in order to try and keep rabid bigots from their antics I should change my views, or keep them quiet?
I've been told that before, with regard to a different group of people, and I thought that was wrong too.
You do you. Personally if I find myself taking a position that lines up with those of a buncha Nazis, I'd probably reconsider that position or the extent to which i want to broadcast it.
Post by: wilber on April 28, 2023, 10:49:50 am
"It's ok that my granddaughter got pancaked by a 6'2", 210 pound prop because at least she was born a woman!"
The question is the degree to which one is willing to police biological differences that could give one an unfair advantage over others. If you think it's ok for some to possess extreme advantages over others as long as they have the same chromosomes, fine, but recognize that is an arbitrarily chosen line.
Men come in all shapes and sizes with different testosterone levels. So what, they aren't women. Why do you want to destroy women's sport? Why do you want scholarships that should be going to women, going to men who decide to identify as women because they can't cut it in men's sport?
Post by: guest7 on April 28, 2023, 10:57:53 am
Just wondering, how far do you go with your "unfair advantage" arguments go?
If there was a woman who had a higher testosterone level than other athletes (not because she was born with an XY chromosome but just the sort of natural variation that occurs) should she be bared from sports too, because it might give her more strength? What about a woman who is naturally 7 feet tall... should she be banned from playing basketball because her freakish height gives her an advantage over her smaller competitors?
Yes, I recognize that being a woman born with XY chromosomes can give an advantage in many sports. However:
- There are a lot of biological factors that would give an athlete an advantage
- The number of transgender athletes is relatively small, and while they may occasionally become "champions" it is not that common
- For trans individuals who are struggling to handle their particular situation, sports can provide a useful outlet to help them cope
Perhaps in a decade or 2, if the situation changes (and all the olympic gold is won by trans athletes) then perhaps we can revisit the issue. But at this point there is probably more overall harm in banning trans athletes than in allowing them to compete
I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the opinion of where it should be drawn differs with each of us.
My own personal view is that if a biological male has gone through puberty, and experienced the physiological changes that brings, then they should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.
I'm sure there are sports where such would not provide an unfair advantage, but I can't think of any offhand.
The fact there are very few trans athletes is not a reason to allow them to compete. It could be argued that there are very few trans athletes, so not allowing them to compete is not a big deal.
The fact is, someone is going to lose out. The same with safe spaces. I come down on the side of biological women in both cases.
So what are my views on trans rights? I don't care if my grocery clerk, barista, mechanic, doctor, MLA, MP, or Prime Minister is trans. Where do my views on those two aspects put me where the whole issue is concerned?
Beats me.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 10:59:21 am
Men come in all shapes and sizes with different testosterone levels. So what, they aren't women. Why do you want to destroy women's sport? Why do you want scholarships that should be going to women, going to men who decide to identify as women because they can't cut it in men's sport?
Tapping the sign harder:
The question is the degree to which one is willing to police biological differences that could give one an unfair advantage over others. If you think it's ok for some to possess extreme advantages over others as long as they have the same chromosomes, fine, but recognize that is an arbitrarily chosen line.
Post by: guest7 on April 28, 2023, 11:00:32 am
You do you. Personally if I find myself taking a position that lines up with those of a buncha Nazis, I'd probably reconsider that position or the extent to which i want to broadcast it.
That's about as dumb a post as I've read from an actual sane poster. I don't actually give dumb tags, (except in reciprocation) but if I did...
Those Nazis, are they going to pack up their swastikas if trans athletes aren't allowed in the Olympics?
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 11:33:03 am
That's about as dumb a post as I've read from an actual sane poster. I don't actually give dumb tags, (except in reciprocation) but if I did...
Those Nazis, are they going to pack up their swastikas if trans athletes aren't allowed in the Olympics?
How tf did you get that from what I wrote?
Post by: guest7 on April 28, 2023, 11:42:09 am
How tf did you get that from what I wrote?
If my position lines up with that of a bunch of Nazis, would that not follow?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 28, 2023, 11:54:09 am
The truth is far more important than who says it, and the truth is far more important than protecting the feelings and enabling the delusions of the small # of biological men who think they're biological women.
These people have psychological and identity issues and we should help them instead of enabling their delusions. They need to accept the fact that they are male in biology and female or feminine in gender expression and that's that. Cutting off your genitals and pumping artifical hormones into your body in order to meet society's expectations or your own expectations is not what I'd consider healthy, we should encourage them to accept who they are and how they were made, not much different than young women getting boob and nose jobs or old celebs getting cheek implants and lip injections.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 12:01:10 pm
If my position lines up with that of a bunch of Nazis, would that not follow?
no.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 12:02:17 pm
If Nazis say trans women aren't biological women and they shouldn't compete in a category that doesn't apply to them then congrats Nazis even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The truth is far more important than who says it, and the truth is far more important than protecting the feelings and enabling the delusions of the small # of biological men who think they're biological women.
These people have psychological and identity issues and we should help them instead of enabling their delusions. They need to accept the fact that they are male in biology and female or feminine in gender expression and that's that. Cutting off your genitals and pumping artifical hormones into your body in order to meet society's expectations or your own expectations is not what I'd consider healthy we should encourage them to accept who they are and how they were made, not much different than young women getting boob and nose jobs or old celebs getting cheek implants and lip injections.
It's none of your business.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 28, 2023, 02:25:12 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 02:50:11 pm
That's all you got? Lol
What you consider healthy or not is completely irrelevant, especially in teh discussion of participation is sports.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 28, 2023, 03:50:43 pm
What you consider healthy or not is completely irrelevant, especially in teh discussion of participation is sports.
Really? If I care about my fellow human beings even those who are trans I don't think society including myself supporting a false belief of theirs that they are akin to biological women is good for their mental health. So yeah it is my business if they want to compete in sports that would interfere with the opportunities of biological women.
I'm allowed to have an opinion on whatever I want, including what is healthy, but whatever procedures they decide as a consenting adult is up to them.
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 04:18:47 pm
Really? If I care about my fellow human beings even those who are trans I don't think society including myself supporting a false belief of theirs that they are akin to biological women is good for their mental health. So yeah it is my business if they want to compete in sports that would interfere with the opportunities of biological women.
I'm allowed to have an opinion on whatever I want, including what is healthy, but whatever procedures they decide as a consenting adult is up to them.
Well, no, it's not really. You don't have a dog in that fight.
But sure, you're allowed to have an opinion. Personally, my opinion is banning trans athletes from competing ultimately does more harm than good, especially among younger athletes. For example, we've seen examples where such bans have been weaponized against cisgendered girls by other kids' parents, plus the whole process of having to "prove" one's sex through medical examinations or even genetic testing.
It's also telling to me how many of the folks speaking out against trans people in sports are silent when it comes to things like funding disparities or rampant sexual abuse in girl's sports…
Post by: wilber on April 28, 2023, 04:34:45 pm
Post by: Black Dog on April 28, 2023, 05:03:31 pm
Intersecting that some people think inclusiveness means excluding women from women’s sports in favour of made up women.
Nobody thinks that, but keep going.
If the price of keeping transwomen out of women's sports was your granddaughters being subject to genital or genetic inspections to confirm their biological sex, you'd be fine with that, right?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 28, 2023, 07:26:39 pm
Nobody thinks that, but keep going.
If the price of keeping transwomen out of women's sports was your granddaughters being subject to genital or genetic inspections to confirm their biological sex, you'd be fine with that, right?
Just show a birth certificate. Hopefully the jurisdiction isn't insane enough to allow sex to be changed on the BC.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 28, 2023, 07:37:01 pm
Well, no, it's not really. You don't have a dog in that fight.
But sure, you're allowed to have an opinion. Personally, my opinion is banning trans athletes from competing ultimately does more harm than good, especially among younger athletes. For example, we've seen examples where such bans have been weaponized against cisgendered girls by other kids' parents, plus the whole process of having to "prove" one's sex through medical examinations or even genetic testing.
You're basically just throwing your hands up and saying well I give up and allowing some women's events to turn into a joke if literally anyone can "identify" as a woman. Cis women have rights too and shouldn't have to give them up just to protect someone's feeling.
Nobody is saying they can't compete, they should just compete in the biological category they actually belong to instead of what they incorrectly believe they belong to. And nowhere does it say a trans person needs to take hormones, its a choice.
Quote
It's also telling to me how many of the folks speaking out against trans people in sports are silent when it comes to things like funding disparities or rampant sexual abuse in girl's sports…
There's a difference in being a trans hater and being reasonable. I can't imagine the Olympics is transphobic for not allowing men in women's events.
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 28, 2023, 07:43:12 pm
Post by: wilber on April 28, 2023, 08:05:52 pm
Nobody thinks that, but keep going.
If the price of keeping transwomen out of women's sports was your granddaughters being subject to genital or genetic inspections to confirm their biological sex, you'd be fine with that, right?
You do think that, because there can be no other result.
I think a letter from their family doctor would be adequate but it would be up to the women involved, not you or me.
But hell, why would we ask women about their sports, how dare they have a say in what happens to their sports.
Post by: Coolio on April 29, 2023, 01:32:14 am
You do think that, because there can be no other result.
A backlash.
It's an overreaction to a few narcissistic biological males, that failed miserably in men's sports, and decided to "game" the system by cheating, and going into women's sports.
I should know, as a former elite athletes throughout my teens, I observed first hand the dedication female members in sport put in. Years of training 3 hours a day, 6 days a week.
Nearly all the "Transgender" athletes who are trying to compete in Women's sport, participated in Men's sport prior. One who would finish 48th in a field of 65 runners, are now winning races as "female." It's a complete joke, and I completely understand the moral outrage of the community.
However, "inspecting" female athletes is ridiculous. This would have never taken place, if some well-meaning, but clueless bureaucrats would ban biological males completely from Wonen's sports.
Post by: kimmy on April 29, 2023, 12:49:00 pm
People who are really trans (that is; people who identify as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth) don't switch back to their originally assigned gender when in the comfort of their own homes.
Well, you're the only one who attempted to answer the question, so kudos to you for that. However, your answer reveals a lot of misconceptions and cisnormative assumptions about the truths of trans lived experience, especially the difference between gender identity and gender expression. Please educate yourself so that you can be a better ally. We need to deconstruct your misconceptions and decolonize your biases. There's a lot here to unpack, so let's get together and really do the work!
What is especially problematic here is your claim that Kayla has "switched gender" when she removed her wig and gender-affirming prosthetics, and dressed in gender non-conforming clothes. But her gender identity did not change! Only her gender expression did.
You would not claim that a cisgender woman has ceased being a woman if she cut her hair short, or wore gender non-conforming clothes. I don't become a non-binary person when I walk the dog in sweats and a hoodie at 6am, and I don't transform into a woman later when I style my hair and put on the clothes I wear to work. My gender expression may change throughout the day, but my gender identity remains constant.
Imagine a cisgender woman who is battling cancer. She has had a mastectomy and she has no hair left due to chemo. She wears a wig and prosthetic breasts to work, but at the end of the day she comes home and removes those things. Does she cease being a woman when she removes those items? Or did she cease being a woman when she lost her hair or her breasts? Of course not! We would not police a cis-woman's gender identity based on her gender expression. So why would you try to police Kayla's gender identity based on whether she's wearing her wig and prosthetics? You are demonstrating a deeply transphobic double standard!
Trans
women don't owe you femininity!Trans
women don't owe you passing!There, that was super fuckin' easy.
He failed miserably, but he self-IDs as successful!
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 29, 2023, 01:33:53 pm
QuoteThe only people who thought it's acceptable for Kayla to wear his giant fake titz to class if he's "really trans" are stupid-people. Yourself and other fake progressives have given yourselves permission to be critical of this guy now that you've decided he's not "really trans".Yeah, so I guess you're calling me stupid now ?
That's below you.
People who thought that this guy should have been allowed to wear his fetish-gear (under any circumstances, be he "really trans" or not) are stupid-people. You can self-identify with that if you wish.
Maybe take a breath and read what I say instead of insulting me. I felt that this case was suspicious and I also understood that the system isn't built to deal with a fake-trans troll. Rage-nauts screaming "fire him !" and bomb threats to the school don't help speed the process along, and rational people know this.
Here's the word on why it died down - the NY Post reveals that the troll was put on leave AFTER they posted evidence of him him being a fake trans. Clearly this gave the system something to work with, in terms of doubts to his credibility and reason for an investigation that could be immune to Human Rights challenges.
And... Clearly The Sun et. al were embarrassed at being trolled which is why they aren't still calling for him to be fired etc.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/02/kayla-lemieux-canadian-teacher-with-size-z-prosthetic-breasts-on-paid-leave/
That's your theory on why it died down, but it's not a good theory.
As I keep pointing out, the rage-nauts anger over this situation didn't hinge on him being "actually trans".
"The clowns at the woke school board are letting him do this because he says he's trans" doesn't need him to be actually be trans for the school-board people to be clowns.
"The clowns at the woke school board are letting him do this because he says he's trans, even though he's an obvious troll" doesn't make the rage-nauts look dumb, but it does emphasize how what colossal clowns the school board people are.
There's version of this where "and he wasn't even trans!" makes people who were angry about this look dumb. There's no version of this where "and he wasn't even trans!" makes the school board look less dumb.
In regard to him being belatedly removed from the school: As you point out, he has not actually been fired. He's just "not on active assignment". They could have put him on non-classroom assignment five months ago. As I mentioned before, being caught out of his costume doesn't invalidate his claim to being trans, so it doesn't actually make the board's legal case easier.
-k
Post by: kimmy on April 29, 2023, 01:41:54 pm
1. True but that's part of it.
2. I'll do even more:
- Current situation, teacher comes in with giant fake boobs
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
If they're friendly with the union rep they may have a cautious word to find out what the union would be doing about this if there were action
Principle would call their contact at the local board and/or HR
Complaints continue, this ends up in the press
The board and HR contact their lawyers and the board head to strategize an approach
Lawyers and board have never seen this before, consult with more legal assistance
There's no provision, no precedent, and so they have to strategize
Tradeoffs involve playing the following factors:
- Angry parents
- The press
- The wider public
- Legal challenges
- The union
They can't figure out how to respond
The Minister of Education provides pressure
The school board initiates a policy change around dress code, presumably working behind the scenes with lawyers and the union
By the time that comes to fruition, the NY Post comes out, the teacher is clearly lying and is placed on 'leave' based on unreported factors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired
You see what you did there, right?
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired
- New situation, teacher comes in with Nazi regalia
Principle would be notified by staff, or would see it themselves or get complaints from parents
Clear violation of [some] code, no support for keeping this person in the job, they are sent home/fired
If you're proposing that "no support for keeping this person in the job" is a factor as to why Nazi guy gets booted, you're implying the opposite in the case of Miss MegaJuggz.
It should have been very easy to make a case as to why this guy's outfit was offensive. Creates a hostile workplace for female staff; creates a discriminatory environment for female students. The HR deparment would reprimand a teacher for having a poster of this abomination in their classroom, but having the actual abomination in their classroom is somehow acceptable? Nah.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on April 29, 2023, 02:46:13 pm
Well, you're the only one who attempted to answer the question, so kudos to you for that. However, your answer reveals a lot of misconceptions and cisnormative assumptions about the truths of trans lived experience, especially the difference between gender identity and gender expression. Please educate yourself so that you can be a better ally. We need to deconstruct your misconceptions and decolonize your biases. There's a lot here to unpack, so let's get together and really do the work!
What is especially problematic here is your claim that Kayla has "switched gender" when she removed her wig and gender-affirming prosthetics, and dressed in gender non-conforming clothes. But her gender identity did not change! Only her gender expression did.
You would not claim that a cisgender woman has ceased being a woman if she cut her hair short, or wore gender non-conforming clothes. I don't become a non-binary person when I walk the dog in sweats and a hoodie at 6am, and I don't transform into a woman later when I style my hair and put on the clothes I wear to work. My gender expression may change throughout the day, but my gender identity remains constant.
Imagine a cisgender woman who is battling cancer. She has had a mastectomy and she has no hair left due to chemo. She wears a wig and prosthetic breasts to work, but at the end of the day she comes home and removes those things. Does she cease being a woman when she removes those items? Or did she cease being a woman when she lost her hair or her breasts? Of course not! We would not police a cis-woman's gender identity based on her gender expression. So why would you try to police Kayla's gender identity based on whether she's wearing her wig and prosthetics? You are demonstrating a deeply transphobic double standard!
Trans
Trans
He failed miserably, but he self-IDs as successful!
-k
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/034/711/Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg)
Post by: Black Dog on April 29, 2023, 02:49:26 pm
You're basically just throwing your hands up and saying well I give up and allowing some women's events to turn into a joke if literally anyone can "identify" as a woman. Cis women have rights too and shouldn't have to give them up just to protect someone's feeling.
Nobody is saying they can't compete, they should just compete in the biological category they actually belong to instead of what they incorrectly believe they belong to. And nowhere does it say a trans person needs to take hormones, its a choice.
There's a difference in being a trans hater and being reasonable. I can't imagine the Olympics is transphobic for not allowing men in women's events.
No, I've been pretty clear in the past that this is something that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not with blanket bans or throwing open the doors.
Post by: Coolio on April 29, 2023, 11:07:18 pm
No, I've been pretty clear in the past that this is something that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not with blanket bans or throwing open the doors.
I am 100% in favour of a blanket ban on biological males competing in women's sports.
Transgender activists don’t want equal rights. They want to take women’s rights.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 01, 2023, 01:50:05 am
No, I've been pretty clear in the past that this is something that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not with blanket bans or throwing open the doors.
Why would a case-by-case work? You're either a biological woman or you're not. Unless you're born biologically intersex or whatnot.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 09:04:07 am
Why would a case-by-case work? You're either a biological woman or you're not. Unless you're born biologically intersex or whatnot.
So your base assumption here is all biological men are intrinsically better athletes than all biological women?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 01, 2023, 02:25:57 pm
So your base assumption here is all biological men are intrinsically better athletes than all biological women?
No the base assumption is that if you categorize athletes based on men and women due to biology then biological women should only compete against other biological women and vice versa. Taking artificial hormones doesn't make you a biological woman.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 03:36:23 pm
No the base assumption is that if you categorize athletes based on men and women due to biology then biological women should only compete against other biological women and vice versa. Taking artificial hormones doesn't make you a biological woman.
This is a completely circular argument.
Post by: Coolio on May 01, 2023, 04:14:36 pm
So your base assumption here is all biological men are intrinsically better athletes than all biological women?
Let me guess. You were never a competitive athlete.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 04:16:14 pm
Let me guess. You were never a competitive athlete.
Let me guess: you can't bench the bar.
Post by: Coolio on May 01, 2023, 04:18:41 pm
Let me guess: you can't bench the bar.
Answer the question.
Were you a competitive/elite athlete?
Post by: wilber on May 01, 2023, 04:19:14 pm
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 04:21:25 pm
Answer the question.
Were you a competitive/elite athlete?
Answer the question.
CAN YOU BENCH THE BAR
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 04:23:31 pm
Whether it is about abortion, birth control or women's sport, it is always about women being told what they can or can't have and what they may or may not do.
allowing trans people to play sports/=telling women they cannot play sports
Also, you seem to ignore the part where vigorous policing of people's biological gender is far more likely to cause girls./women to stop playing sports than the microscopic chance of facing a transwoman on the field of play.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 01, 2023, 04:30:13 pm
Answer the question.
Were you a competitive/elite athlete?
what does this have to do with anything?
Post by: wilber on May 01, 2023, 04:32:38 pm
allowing trans people to play sports/=telling women they cannot play sports
Also, you seem to ignore the part where vigorous policing of people's biological gender is far more likely to cause girls./women to stop playing sports than the microscopic chance of facing a transwoman on the field of play.
There you go, telling women what they must put up with in their own sports. Thanks for making my point.
Post by: Coolio on May 01, 2023, 04:39:31 pm
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/red_herring1.png)
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 04:46:20 pm
Black Dog should change his name to "Red Herring," since he comes up with so many red herrings, that he could feed a village.
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/red_herring1.png)
Answer the question.
what does this have to do with anything?
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 04:46:59 pm
There you go, telling women what they must put up with in their own sports. Thanks for making my point.
I'm not the one calling for genital inspections, that's your team here bud.
Post by: wilber on May 01, 2023, 04:52:21 pm
I'm not the one calling for genital inspections, that's your team here bud.
Why don't we just let women make those decisions.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 05:09:54 pm
Why don't we just let women make those decisions.
What does that mean? The players/participants? The governing bodies (but only if they're run by women)?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 01, 2023, 05:12:11 pm
I'm not the one calling for genital inspections, that's your team here bud.Genital “inspection” happen in every league for proper physicals. As usual you don’t know what the f**k you’re talking about. Regardless, stop destroying women’s sports.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 01, 2023, 05:12:55 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 05:13:14 pm
Genital “inspection” happen in every league for proper physicals. As usual you don’t know what the f**k you’re talking about. Regardless, stop destroying women’s sports.
Maybe that's what your coach told you but I'm sorry to report that is not a normal thing that happens.
Post by: wilber on May 01, 2023, 05:16:39 pm
What does that mean? The players/participants? The governing bodies (but only if they're run by women)?
Should be obvious. You are the only one here ranting about genital inspections.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 05:19:17 pm
It’s time to start chemically castrating groomers as a safety precaution.
(Attachment Link)
**** yeah I'm so glad you posted Oli London, I knew it was only a matter of time before you did because there's not a single one of these freak grifter ghouls who's slop you don't swallow.
For the rest of you: Oli London is an extremely disturbed individual who got multiple plastic surgery procedures intended to make him look like Jimin, a member of the South Korean boy band BTS, who once married a cardboard cutout of said BTS member, who paid for his husband, a teenage pornstar to also get plastic surgery to look like Jimin, and who spent three months pretending to be a south Korean woman before "detransitioning" and is now a huge right-wing anti-trans influencer.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 05:19:50 pm
Should be obvious. You are the only one here ranting about genital inspections.
It's not remotely obvious, but way to dodge the question old-timer.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 01, 2023, 05:20:59 pm
Maybe that's what your coach told you but I'm sorry to report that is not a normal thing that happens.It is in collegiate sports, in the context of an overall physical. You’re against it because some bio males won’t be able to complete against biological females. Tough sh*t.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 01, 2023, 05:23:44 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 05:26:18 pm
It is in collegiate sports, in the context of an overall physical. You’re against it because some bio males won’t be able to complete against biological females. Tough sh*t.
We're not talking about regular physical check ups or college sports you dumb ****.
Post by: wilber on May 01, 2023, 05:43:13 pm
It's not remotely obvious, but way to dodge the question old-timer.
Yes it is, you just think you are entitled to dictate to women over things that have nothing to do with you.
Post by: guest18 on May 01, 2023, 05:44:24 pm
It’s time to start chemically castrating groomers as a safety precaution.You haven't been already? I thought all you incels were into that.
(Attachment Link)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 01, 2023, 05:56:17 pm
Yes it is, you just think you are entitled to dictate to women over things that have nothing to do with you.Exactly. There’s nothing like privileged white men dictating the destruction of women’s sports in support of other privileged white men. Notice how it’s not men’s sports that are being affected. Your daughter MUST compete against a biological male. Your daughter MUST change and shower with a biological male. Your daughter MUST share a bathroom with a biological male. Says the privileged white biological males. Somebody needs to finally tells these woke nazi types to go f**k themselves. It’s not their call. It’s up to actual women. Not men in woman face.
Post by: guest18 on May 01, 2023, 07:00:30 pm
Post by: Coolio on May 01, 2023, 07:32:56 pm
Maybe that's what your coach told you but I'm sorry to report that is not a normal thing that happens.
You have finally made a post that is sensible.
I was an elite athlete, and I was never asked to reveal my genitals by a coach, or official.
Then again, I competed in the 90s.
Post by: Coolio on May 01, 2023, 07:37:09 pm
**** yeah I'm so glad you posted Oli London, I knew it was only a matter of time before you did because there's not a single one of these freak grifter ghouls who's slop you don't swallow.
For the rest of you: Oli London is an extremely disturbed individual who got multiple plastic surgery procedures intended to make him look like Jimin, a member of the South Korean boy band BTS, who once married a cardboard cutout of said BTS member, who paid for his husband, a teenage pornstar to also get plastic surgery to look like Jimin, and who spent three months pretending to be a south Korean woman before "detransitioning" and is now a huge right-wing anti-trans influencer.
(https://images.thestar.com/PlQvut9balcyMtzI9gnsYN-mozg=/1280x1024/smart/filters:cb(1571065857715)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2019/03/27/transgender-rights-upheld-in-landmark-decision/van_morganeoger4_jennifergauthier.jpg)
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.5227440.1564183592!/fileImage/httpImage/transgender-waxing-hrt-jessica-yaniv.JPG)
The two biggest "Transgender" grifters in BC: Morgane Oger and Jessica Yaniv.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 07:51:05 pm
An unrelenting assault on women and girls. It never ends.
(Attachment Link)
You care so much about women and girls that you support anti-woman anti-abortion laws and of course are completely silent about the rampant sexual abuse by conservatives. KYS
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 07:52:35 pm
The two biggest "Transgender" grifters in BC: Morgane Oger and Jessica Yaniv.
You still haven’t told me what Oger has done to make you so mad at them.
Post by: Coolio on May 01, 2023, 07:53:59 pm
You still haven’t told me what Ogee has done to make you so mad at them.
Google it, sport.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 07:54:24 pm
Exactly. There’s nothing like privileged white men dictating the destruction of women’s sports in support of other privileged white men. Notice how it’s not men’s sports that are being affected. Your daughter MUST compete against a biological male. Your daughter MUST change and shower with a biological male. Your daughter MUST share a bathroom with a biological male. Says the privileged white biological males. Somebody needs to finally tells these woke nazi types to go f**k themselves. It’s not their call. It’s up to actual women. Not men in woman face.
I remember your passion for women’s sports really came through when you threw a hissy fit over women participating in the NHL All Star skills competition lol. Fuckin loser.
RECIEPTS:
Why are there women at the NHL all star game? There are probably 100 Junior players that are better than them and will never have a chance to go.
For how long? Everybody knows that women’s hockey exists? People generally aren’t interested in watching inferior hockey. Any guys high school team could beat them. I know these aren’t politically correct things to say, but it’s the truth. Same for the WNBA.
Post by: Black Dog on May 01, 2023, 07:55:11 pm
Google it, sport.
Lol no.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 02, 2023, 06:13:55 am
I'm not the one calling for genital inspections, that's your team here bud.
How would genital inspections even work if people get their dongs cut off and made into a clitoris?
If you want to police hormone levels like high level sports do anyways a chromosome test can be done at the same time thrift blood sample.
Post by: guest18 on May 02, 2023, 08:36:22 am
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 03, 2023, 08:58:20 pm
Post by: Coolio on May 03, 2023, 09:09:20 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/cycling/road/transgender-cyclist-austin-killips-1.6830956
What a complete joke, and mockery of women's sport.
Get a load of the most popular comments:
"What a pant load of rubbish not to mention terribly unfair to biological females. Testing for nanomoles of serum testosterone is one thing but what about the observable, provable differences between men and women's skeletal muscles? Energy metabolism, fibre type composition and contractile speed are 3 key differences between the sexes. Male muscles have a higher capacity for anaerobic metabolism and higher maximum power output than females. That in itself gives an unfair advantage to a born biological male over females in sport."
"The rule is missing the point. The athlete's body developed and grew in their youth as a man, which confers an advantage that will last for most of their adult life. Not having testosterone in your body for a brief time before the competition doesn't change that."
"This will take naturally born women to fight against this. Many already do but for a person who went through puberty as a man to then compete against women isn't right. They have a biological advantage. These women train every bit as hard as men do to compete and win. Then you throw someone in the competition who has a biological advantage isn't fair."
"I stopped watching competitive cycling after Lance Armstrong was found out "steroid doping". Now we have this case of "gender doping".
"Congratulations a biological male wins against a biological female in a physical sport.
What a win for the women's movement."
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 01:16:34 am
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 01:26:23 am
Guys aren't allowed to play as women.
Trans women are allowed to play though.
How can you tell the difference between "guys" and "trans women", Michael?
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 01:29:20 am
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/034/711/Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg)
LMAO you gutless puke.
(https://i.imgur.com/bTAAVu3.jpg)
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 01:33:48 am
Kayla Lemieux is a woman because he says he's a woman, and as a matter of law in that country that's all that matters.
And the sooner you chumps wrap your head around that concept, the sooner you'll grasp what a sham this whole movement is.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 01:55:00 am
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 01:56:44 am
You still haven’t told me what Oger has done to make you so mad at them.
Morgane Oger was one of the leaders of the campaign to remove public funds from Vancouver **** Relief on the grounds that they weren't trans-inclusive.
And I wanted to puke when Oger was selected as the gov't of BC's representative to a UN conference on "period poverty". What is Oger going to add to that dialogue? "Guys! Did you know that men have periods too?" What a joke.
That said, Oger is far from the grossest trans activist around. When allegations of Jessica Yaniv's child-grooming activities (actual child grooming, not Republican child grooming) came to light, Oger attempted to reach out to Yaniv's targets, and even forwarded a complaint to the RCMP after conversing with one of the girls Yaniv targeted.
So overall I don't think Oger is even close to the worst trans rights activists.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 02:33:35 am
I'm not the one calling for genital inspections, that's your team here bud.
oh ffs, this bullshit again?
Point 1: when trans activists claim they're concerned about the privacy and dignity of cisgender girls and women, they're always lying. You guys believe that cisgender girls and women have to change or shower in the presence of any male who self-IDs into women's spaces. So you don't get to pretend you care about the privacy and dignity of cisgender women and girls. You guys only care about the privacy and dignity of women and girls that have pen1ses. That's a fact.
Point 2: you've offered some kind of of Larry Nasser type nightmare as the inevitable consequence of banning trans women from women's sports, but when this actually happened in the Utah case you mentioned they verified that the girl wasn't trans by checking her registration records. Wow, thank the stars that the trans activists are here to protect cis-girls from having their enrollment records examined!
Point 3: verifying someone's biological sex is actually very easy. As demonstrated in Point 2, there's a paper trail. At the elite levels there cheek swabs and blood testing. They can tell that Shakarri Richardson smoked a joint at a party 8 months ago, they can certainly tell whether she's a dude.
Point 4: Even the worst case... dropping your pants in front of your family doctor or school nurse? You absolute clowns want to call dropping your pants in front of the school nurse "state sanctioned sexual assault" and then tell girls they need to go shower with Lia Thomas while he walks around the locker room with his dick out. You fucken frauds.
-k
Post by: kimmy on May 04, 2023, 02:36:33 am
I have to hand it to the Republicans that they can manipulate the masses so well that they actually have people talking about this as though it were important.
Yeah, people who don't think women should have to compete against men must have been brainwashed by the Republicans. That's probably it.
-k
Post by: guest18 on May 04, 2023, 06:47:54 am
Friendly reminder to Black Dog, Michael, and Bubber.I believe the only position I've taken on this is that I couldn't care less. You, however, are posting like you're goddess after being advised to get a vaccine. I'm sorry I don't also think it's the Very Most Important Thing going on in the world too.
-k
Post by: guest7 on May 04, 2023, 08:38:07 am
I believe the only position I've taken on this is that I couldn't care less. You, however, are posting like you're goddess after being advised to get a vaccine. I'm sorry I don't also think it's the Very Most Important Thing going on in the world too.
No, she's posting like someone who supports women's rights.
Since when does something have to be the most important thing in the world for it to be argued?
And for someone who doesn't care less, you've sure picked a side.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 04, 2023, 08:40:48 am
How can you tell the difference between "guys" and "trans women", Michael?
-k
They tell us.
I should add that some trans women aren't allowed to compete. Some are.
Men aren't.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 04, 2023, 08:42:50 am
Friendly reminder to Black Dog, Michael, and Bubber: as a matter of law in Canada, Kayla Lemieux is a woman, whether he's wearing his wig and giant fake titz or whether he's dressed as a regular dude.
Kayla Lemieux is a woman because he says he's a woman, and as a matter of law in that country that's all that matters.
And the sooner you chumps wrap your head around that concept, the sooner you'll grasp what a sham this whole movement is.
-k
Sometimes people lie. If you find out that they are, you should call them out.
Just because someone is trans doesn't mean they are exempt from observation.
Post by: wilber on May 04, 2023, 09:15:36 am
I believe the only position I've taken on this is that I couldn't care less. You, however, are posting like you're goddess after being advised to get a vaccine. I'm sorry I don't also think it's the Very Most Important Thing going on in the world too.
You have a problem with women sticking up for themselves?
Post by: Black Dog on May 04, 2023, 09:55:36 am
LMAO you gutless puke.
-k
You rn:
(https://media.tenor.com/2fXX4C7i4KgAAAAC/pay-attention-to-me-focus.gif)
FYI no one is under any obligation to engage with your bad-faith tittering no matter how clever you think you are or how much time you spent coming up with it.
Post by: Black Dog on May 04, 2023, 10:00:37 am
Friendly reminder to Black Dog, Michael, and Bubber: as a matter of law in Canada, Kayla Lemieux is a woman, whether he's wearing his wig and giant fake titz or whether he's dressed as a regular dude.
Kayla Lemieux is a woman because he says he's a woman, and as a matter of law in that country that's all that matters.
And the sooner you chumps wrap your head around that concept, the sooner you'll grasp what a sham this whole movement is.
-k
Let's see their sworn affidavit which is the requirement for legal recognition of one's trans identity. Hell, in Ontario you need a letter from a physician or psychologist before you can change your gender on your driver's license or birth certificate, so the idea that one is legally recognized as trans by claiming that identity like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy is retarded.
Post by: guest18 on May 04, 2023, 11:13:06 am
No, she's posting like someone who supports women's rights.Actually, I haven't thought about it enough to have picked a side . Odd that you are more sure of my position than I am.
Since when does something have to be the most important thing in the world for it to be argued?
And for someone who doesn't care less, you've sure picked a side.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 04, 2023, 02:56:03 pm
Sometimes people lie. If you find out that they are, you should call them out.
Just because someone is trans doesn't mean they are exempt from observation.
So, how do you know the others in the example aren’t lying? Who decides they’re lying? Kimmy has decided they’re all lying. What now?
Post by: Black Dog on May 04, 2023, 03:41:18 pm
So, how do you know the others in the example aren’t lying? Who decides they’re lying? Kimmy has decided they’re all lying. What now?
I think someone like Dylan Mulvaney who went through the trouble of getting surgery, taking hormones and so on to affirm their gender identity is probably not faking it, while the person who discards the trappings of their supposed gender when they are not in the public eye and lies in the press about their giant **** being real is probably doing a goof.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 04, 2023, 06:48:12 pm
I think someone like Dylan Mulvaney who went through the trouble of getting surgery…
So, you want to check their genitals….
Post by: guest7 on May 04, 2023, 07:50:31 pm
Actually, I haven't thought about it enough to have picked a side . Odd that you are more sure of my position than I am.
Yes, if you like.
I have no problem with you self identifying as neutral on this issue.
Post by: Black Dog on May 04, 2023, 07:53:30 pm
So, you want to check their genitals….
What the **** are you talking about?
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 04, 2023, 08:13:55 pm
So, how do you know the others in the example aren’t lying? Who decides they’re lying? Kimmy has decided they’re all lying. What now?
Well, yes there is someone who has to assess such things in these cases.
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 04, 2023, 08:46:55 pm
Well, yes there is someone who has to assess such things in these cases.
Well, yes. Kimmy assessed it and found none of them credible.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2023, 05:21:14 am
Well, yes. Kimmy assessed it and found none of them credible.
I think that she thought that the Oakville teacher was trans. I don't think she said people were lying but I'd have to look back.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 05, 2023, 02:40:14 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on May 05, 2023, 02:41:46 pm
Well, yes there is someone who has to assess such things in these cases.You mean read people’s minds? How do you propose to do that? Do you see how absurd this stuff is now?
Post by: Black Dog on May 05, 2023, 02:53:57 pm
You mean read people’s minds? How do you propose to do that? Do you see how absurd this stuff is now?
Or you look at their actions. In this case, it was pretty obvious from the jump this person was not acting in good faith and that became increasingly clear as their narrative unravelled.
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2023, 03:01:59 pm
You mean read people’s minds? How do you propose to do that? Do you see how absurd this stuff is now?
I mean... people do lie and people get caught in lies too. Like the guy who said he was a women, got caught walking around dressed as a man then denied it was him. The entire case is therefore questionable, at least to me.
It must be to all of you too, even though he fooled you.
Post by: guest18 on June 04, 2023, 08:43:31 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2023, 12:04:40 pm
Can we all now agree that we would feel safer leaving our children with a drag queen than a Catholic priest?A false choice if there ever was one.
I don't think that I would leave my kid with any stranger, but as far as I know there's nothing that says that drag queens or priests are more likely than the general population to be predators.
Post by: guest18 on June 04, 2023, 01:30:02 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2023, 02:24:59 pm
Other than the hundreds of priests recently exposed as child molestersI'm guessing you need me to explain what likelihood and probability are?
Post by: guest18 on June 04, 2023, 02:36:03 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2023, 02:52:42 pm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/do-the-right-thing/202004/keeping-children-safe-in-the-catholic-church
Post by: guest18 on June 04, 2023, 03:26:32 pm
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/hundreds-of-catholic-clergy-in-illinois-sexually-abused-thousands-of-children-ag-finds
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thousands-abused-by-members-portuguese-church-past-70-years-2023-02-13/
https://globalnews.ca/news/8243783/over-200000-children-sexually-abused-french-catholic-church-since-1950-probe-finds/
Post by: kimmy on June 04, 2023, 04:21:54 pm
And for the same reason, an occupation with mandatory celibacy would be an ideal cover for someone whose sexual attraction was towards children. But with the decline of religion in society, I think many of those people would instead be funneled towards other areas that make sex with adult partners impossible, like "pro gamer" or "anime enthusiast".
-k
Post by: kimmy on June 04, 2023, 05:23:58 pm
So, how do you know the others in the example aren’t lying? Who decides they’re lying? Kimmy has decided they’re all lying. What now?
Hold up, here's what I said:
Quote
I can state with 100% sincerity that I believe Kayla Lemieux is every bit as much a woman as Dylan Mulvaney, Caitlyn Jenner, Lia Thomas, Jessica Yaniv, Rachel Levine, and Dr Veronica Ivy.
I didn't say any of them are lying. Some or maybe even all of them might sincerely believe that they're women. But we all know they aren't. "Trans women are women" is something people say to be polite, or to virtue signal, not because they actually believe it.
Trying to create a distinction between those who are sincere and those who aren't is destined to fail, because sincerity can always be feigned.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 04, 2023, 05:34:57 pm
He relies on data from the John Jay survey, which was up to 2002. There has been a windfall of allegations in just the last two years.Exclusively? I would think they would look at a few studies.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/hundreds-of-catholic-clergy-in-illinois-sexually-abused-thousands-of-children-ag-finds
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thousands-abused-by-members-portuguese-church-past-70-years-2023-02-13/
https://globalnews.ca/news/8243783/over-200000-children-sexually-abused-french-catholic-church-since-1950-probe-finds/
You seem to know more about this than I do, do you have any studies you can put here.
Post by: kimmy on June 04, 2023, 05:56:04 pm
I think that she thought that the Oakville teacher was trans. I don't think she said people were lying but I'd have to look back.
The Oakville teacher is trans if he says he's trans. That's how self-ID works. That's the holy grail that the transes and their allies have been fighting for for years. It's largely how things already work in Canada.
You seem to be under the impression that there's some sort of objective standard as to what a "real trans" person is, and that this teacher has failed to meet this objective standard by being caught without his costume.
But the reality is that no such objective standard exists. If you disagree, try and describe what that objective standard might look like. You might come up with ideas like:
-somebody who has surgery or hormone treatments
-someone who successfully passes as a member of the opposite sex
-somebody who at least tries to dress or act like a member of the opposite sex
-somebody who has clinically diagnosed gender dysphoria
-perhaps some other seemingly reasonable notion
But none of these are widely agreed on even within the trans community. Mention any of these criteria to trans activists and they'll tell you it's unacceptable gatekeeping.
You might tell me that even if you can't actually define what trans is you know that Kayla Lemieux can't be a real trans person, because he got caught without his costume. But a trans supporter would tell you that there are many reasons why a trans woman might be out-of-costume. Perhaps Kayla felt anxious or unsafe due to all the scrutiny and wanted to be anonymous for a while. Perhaps Kayla was exploring "butch" forms of gender expression. Perhaps Kayla's titz and wig were at the dry cleaner that night. We don't know.
And, it doesn't matter, because Kayla changed her gender expression, not her gender identity. Just as a cis-woman doesn't stop being a woman just because she wears unfeminine clothes or gets a short haircut, Kayla doesn't stop being a woman just because she wore unfeminine clothes or went out without his wig and titz. He may have not been presenting a feminine gender expression that day, but that doesn't mean she doesn't still have a female gender identity.
That's what a gender-person would tell you. I, of course, believe it's all a load of dogshit.
And while Woke Dog points out that there are some paperwork steps to get your legal documents changed, you don't actually have to get your legal documents changed to declare your own gender and to demand to be treated as your self-declared gender. Yaniv didn't need to have his documents changed to take the aestheticians who wouldn't handle his balls to the BC HRT. This ham-planet from Squid-Country (https://www.cheknews.ca/transgender-woman-told-she-is-not-allowed-to-use-women-only-gym-in-parksville-1134924/) doesn't need to have his documents changed to take the Parksville gym to the BC HRT for not letting him hang out in the women's showers.
-k
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 04, 2023, 06:36:39 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 04, 2023, 08:32:33 pm
Kimmy needs to post more often. Her content is gold.
You know that she thinks you’re retarded too, right?
Post by: Black Dog on June 04, 2023, 08:37:33 pm
The Oakville teacher is trans if he says he's trans. That's how self-ID works. That's the holy grail that the transes l
-k
The only reason you should post more is so it doesn’t pour out like diarrhea when you do, my god.
Anyhoo the thing about self-id is that anyone can identify as anything they want, like the Queefer does when he says he's Black: whether it is deemed to be sincere or done in good faith largely depends on their actions and the observations of others.
Quote
You seem to be under the impression that there's some sort of objective standard as to what a "real trans" person is, and that this teacher has failed to meet this objective standard by being caught without his costume.
...
You might tell me that even if you can't actually define what trans is you know that Kayla Lemieux can't be a real trans person, because he got caught without his costume. But a trans supporter would tell you that there are many reasons why a trans woman might be out-of-costume. Perhaps Kayla felt anxious or unsafe due to all the scrutiny and wanted to be anonymous for a while. Perhaps Kayla was exploring "butch" forms of gender expression. Perhaps Kayla's titz and wig were at the dry cleaner that night. We don't know.
It's funny to me that you're arguments here largely depend on ignoring the specifics of this case. For starters, Lemieux didn't claim to be trans, they claimed to be intersex and that their giant **** were real, not a "costume". So right there the "gender expression" gotcha falls apart in this instance.
At the end of the day, all these weird legalesque maneuvers to try and pin trans supporters into a corner are a lot like when right-wing shitheads say "uh I thought you guys said believe all women" or pretend that the guy who shot up that gay club and then claimed to be non-binary was not just a troll relying as they do on the notion that there are hard and fast rules that are being broken, making women or transgender advocates look like hypocrites.
Post by: guest18 on June 05, 2023, 07:48:17 am
People need to step back from the internet and engage in reality more.
https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/1665529822909456384?s=20
Post by: guest18 on June 06, 2023, 08:49:11 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 09, 2023, 03:53:06 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 09, 2023, 03:59:12 pm
(Attachment Link)
LOL boomer.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 09, 2023, 04:24:23 pm
LOL boomer.LOL, groomer.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 09, 2023, 05:24:33 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 09, 2023, 05:44:08 pm
LOL, groomer.
Just another example of you brainlessly following along with whatever garbage other stupid people are talking about because you have no mind of your own or critical thinking skills.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 09, 2023, 06:13:37 pm
Just another example of you brainlessly following along with whatever garbage other stupid people are talking about because you have no mind of your own or critical thinking skills.(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0G7kQw3GHM/UrDOHsy5OuI/AAAAAAAAPV0/712TpTxlCws/s1600/michael-keaton.gif)
Post by: Black Dog on June 09, 2023, 06:23:07 pm
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0G7kQw3GHM/UrDOHsy5OuI/AAAAAAAAPV0/712TpTxlCws/s1600/michael-keaton.gif)
(https://i.imgflip.com/7cxlk6.jpg)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 09, 2023, 06:33:09 pm
(https://i.imgflip.com/7cxlk6.jpg)Congratulations, you have a meme app!
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 09, 2023, 07:33:10 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 13, 2023, 10:39:54 am
Girl, 9, accused of being trans at Kelowna track meet
(https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/431500/Girl-9-falsely-accused-of-being-trans-at-Kelowna-track-meet)
Quote
Two Kelowna moms are speaking out after their 9-year-old daughter was verbally assaulted at a track and field event on Thursday at Kelowna's Apple Bowl.
The mothers, who choose not to identify their daughter, say she was competing in a shot-put event when a grandfather of one of the other participants started yelling at her.
"She went to step up to compete for the grade four shot-put final, and right before she went to throw, a grandfather of a student said, 'Hey, this is supposed to be a girls' event, and why are you letting boys compete.' My daughter is cisgender, born female, uses she/her pronouns. She has a pixie haircut," said mom Heidi Star.
Star says the man then carried on to demand certification to prove that her daughter was born female.
"He stopped the entire event. He also pointed at another girl who also had short hair. He then piped in and said, 'Well, if she is not a boy, then she is obviously trans.'"
Star said the man's wife then started calling her "a genital mutilator, a groomer, and a ****."
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 13, 2023, 10:47:41 am
England bans puberty blockers and surgeries for minors.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/uk-bans-puberty-blockers-national-health-service
Norway restricts puberty blockers and surgeries for minors to clinical studies
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=47e84d87efbd
Post by: Black Dog on June 13, 2023, 11:20:25 am
Some sanity is returning to Europe at least.
England bans puberty blockers and surgeries for minors.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/uk-bans-puberty-blockers-national-health-service
Norway restricts puberty blockers and surgeries for minors to clinical studies
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=47e84d87efbd
No evidence kids are getting puberty blockers in significant numbers. Pure vibes-based decision making.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 13, 2023, 12:00:57 pm
No evidence kids are getting puberty blockers in significant numbers. Pure vibes-based decision making.I guess England and Norway would disagree with your uninformed opinion.
Post by: guest18 on June 13, 2023, 12:05:29 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 13, 2023, 12:10:33 pm
You're informed? Then how common is it?Common enough for two countries health services to restrict it to clinical research.
Post by: guest18 on June 13, 2023, 12:16:41 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 13, 2023, 12:32:31 pm
I guess England and Norway would disagree with your uninformed opinion.
No, they don't have any evidence either. The NHS document you link to doesn't have any numbers, it only lists the number of referrals, from which only a tiny percentage might go on puberty blockers.
EDIT:
The Cass report says that in 2019, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) reported that about 200 children and young people from a referral base of 2,500 were referred to puberty blockers. How many actually took them or stayed on them is unknown, but even if they all did, that number represents 0.00001% of the population of people under 18 in the UK.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 14, 2023, 03:39:00 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3y3ZIBN7fc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj-X2U1z9rc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNOBlyvaPKo
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 14, 2023, 03:39:53 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxdvOLdG_34
Post by: guest18 on June 14, 2023, 04:06:24 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 14, 2023, 04:28:53 pm
More power to drag queens but this is just creepy and age-inappropriate.F*^king disgusting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3y3ZIBN7fc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj-X2U1z9rc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNOBlyvaPKo
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 14, 2023, 04:29:46 pm
Grooming or not grooming?Groomers are trying for younger and younger children. New laws are going to have to be passed. It’s like a f*^king cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxdvOLdG_34
Post by: guest18 on June 14, 2023, 06:46:56 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 14, 2023, 07:42:04 pm
It was ok, but the kids got bored pretty quick...
Drag Queen story hour is perfect for enraging trolls but neither educational nor super entertaining IMO.
Post by: Black Dog on June 14, 2023, 08:44:31 pm
Groomers are trying for younger and younger children. New laws are going to have to be passed. It’s like a f*^king cult.
Weird how you’re completely silent on the rampant abuses in the various churches but cry endlessly about men dressing up in drag. Drink bleach, bigot.
Post by: Black Dog on June 14, 2023, 08:46:23 pm
More power to drag queens but this is just creepy and age-inappropriate.
What, specifically, is your issue here?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 14, 2023, 11:20:15 pm
Where'd you find the links? The same source that warned you about 15-minute cities?
You mean this one?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/amp/radical-plan-to-ban-drivers-crossing-neighbourhoods-275055/
Do you have an actual opinion on the videos I posted?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 14, 2023, 11:27:28 pm
Weird how you’re completely silent on the rampant abuses in the various churches but cry endlessly about men dressing up in drag. Drink bleach, bigot.
Weird how you’re completely silent about alleged Chinese interference into Canada's elections and compromised politicians but you can't stop posting about real issues like Ron DeSantis and gender culture.
Post by: guest18 on June 15, 2023, 06:34:30 am
You mean this one?I see it as a classic example of gullible peopke being manipulated on the internet to believe the stupidest things.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/amp/radical-plan-to-ban-drivers-crossing-neighbourhoods-275055/
Do you have an actual opinion on the videos I posted?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 15, 2023, 07:33:41 am
I see it as a classic example of gullible peopke being manipulated on the internet to believe the stupidest things.
Why? City politicians are quoted defending their gulag zones in that article.
Post by: guest18 on June 15, 2023, 09:26:38 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 15, 2023, 09:30:30 am
I see it as a classic example of gullible peopke being manipulated on the internet to believe the stupidest things.Classic projection. Keep lighting your hair on fire about nazis! 😂😂😂
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 15, 2023, 09:31:35 am
Hilarious... We saw that Drag Queen Story time show...Find another way to “own” conservatives than to involve children. What the f**k is wrong with you people?
It was ok, but the kids got bored pretty quick...
Drag Queen story hour is perfect for enraging trolls but neither educational nor super entertaining IMO.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 15, 2023, 09:33:10 am
Weird how you’re completely silent on the rampant abuses in the various churches but cry endlessly about men dressing up in drag. Drink bleach, bigot.How so? Classic whataboutism. Because something happened many years ago, doesn’t mean something happening right now doesn’t matter. I also haven’t brought up the rampant abuse of children from teachers either.
Post by: guest18 on June 15, 2023, 09:40:59 am
Find another way to “own” conservatives than to involve children. What the f**k is wrong with you people?You still haven't explained why men in women's clothes makes you think only of sex.
Post by: guest7 on June 15, 2023, 10:45:35 am
You still haven't explained why men in women's clothes makes you think only of sex.
Just makes me think of Monty Python.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 15, 2023, 11:09:07 am
You still haven't explained why men in women's clothes makes you think only of sex.You still haven’t explained why grown men dressed as woman feel the intense need to be involved with children.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 15, 2023, 11:09:39 am
Just makes me think of Monty Python.Makes me think of a f*^ked up society.
Post by: guest18 on June 15, 2023, 11:58:34 am
You still haven’t explained why grown men dressed as woman feel the intense need to be involved with children.It's a storytime. You're the one imagining it as a sex show. Apparently, you find it arousing and that makes you angry.
Post by: Black Dog on June 15, 2023, 12:52:22 pm
How so? Classic whataboutism. Because something happened many years ago, doesn’t mean something happening right now doesn’t matter. I also haven’t brought up the rampant abuse of children from teachers either.
Pretty retarded of you to think rampant child abuse by clergy is a thing of the past and not an ongoing thing. Also you have actually whatabouted abuse by teachers, but only to attack unions lol. Oh and finally, people in drag reading stories to kids is not comparable to actual sexual abuse and you are a bigot and a moron for implying as much.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 15, 2023, 01:01:12 pm
Don't worry. City politicians don't have the power to force you to stay in one area. You should be embarrassed for falling for it.
They literally did it in Cantebury in the UK lol.
You're the one falling for misinformation on Twitter or seems.
Post by: guest18 on June 15, 2023, 01:23:50 pm
They literally did it in Cantebury in the UK lol.That was debunked long ago. I even sent you a link explained how you were played for a fool. Their traffic restrictions had nothing to do with 15 minute cities. And there was no gulag at all.
You're the one falling for misinformation on Twitter or seems.
Post by: guest7 on June 15, 2023, 01:41:06 pm
They literally did it in Cantebury in the UK lol.
How so exactly? I could only find reference to vehicle prohibitions involving restrictions on access to certain areas, except by certain routes involving a city circle highway.
There was no talk of forcing anyone to stay in any area. Other than the aforementioned vehicle route, a person could walk, cycle or take public transit to any other area of the city, as they see fit.
Granted, there will be certain circumstances where the city circle option would result in longer mileage for a certain trip, and in some cases, might seem downright lunatic, but a little forethought and planning should minimize such occurrences.
Post by: guest18 on June 15, 2023, 02:02:36 pm
But it's always funny watching people double-down on their own misconceptions and insist they're real.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 16, 2023, 08:10:08 am
Post by: Black Dog on June 16, 2023, 09:30:27 am
(Attachment Link)
Post face.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 16, 2023, 09:38:16 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 16, 2023, 11:23:12 am
Post face.[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on June 16, 2023, 11:38:30 am
(Attachment Link)
You wouldn’t even pass for the back of Brad Pitt’s ballsack.
Post by: Black Dog on June 16, 2023, 05:06:47 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 16, 2023, 05:24:19 pm
London is a real breeding ground for bigoted pieces of crap https://twitter.com/atrachelgilmore/status/1669735339911438336?s=46&t=G8DtftIJA1neVWFQ7OQYYgThe guy is from Windsor. Regardless, wow, you cherry picked a story to fit your narrative. BFD.
Post by: Black Dog on June 16, 2023, 07:00:27 pm
The guy is from Windsor. Regardless, wow, you cherry picked a story to fit your narrative. BFD.
Travelled from London to Windsor, arrested by London police.
Wait is it you?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 16, 2023, 07:14:06 pm
Travelled from London to Windsor, arrested by London police.I confess, it’s me, I’m out on bail.
Wait is it you?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 17, 2023, 09:59:49 am
Girl sues hospital for removing breasts at age 13
Quote
Jane, now 18, was influenced by people online when she was just 11 and told her parents that she was a boy, prompting them to ask for guidance from doctors.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/girl-sues-hospital-for-removing-her-breasts-at-age-13-post_5335492.html
Post by: Black Dog on June 17, 2023, 01:02:13 pm
I confess, it’s me, I’m out on bail.
Nah couldn’t be, that would mean you left the basement
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 17, 2023, 01:45:06 pm
Nah couldn’t be, that would mean you left the basementI get out of the basement on a regular basis, you’d be surprised. You know, I bet if we sat down and had a beer or two, we could talk things out and be good friends.
Post by: Black Dog on June 17, 2023, 01:59:27 pm
I get out of the basement on a regular basis, you’d be surprised. You know, I bet if we sat down and had a beer or two, we could talk things out and be good friends.
I say this with absolute certainty and conviction: not a fuckin chance.
Post by: Black Dog on June 17, 2023, 02:04:06 pm
Leave children alone. This is why this sh*t is being banned around the world.
Girl sues hospital for removing breasts at age 13
https://www.theepochtimes.com/girl-sues-hospital-for-removing-her-breasts-at-age-13-post_5335492.html
The number of kids who receive gender affirming medical care is miniscule. The number of those who regret or desist is microscopic. Bigots are using edge cases of regret like this to ram through laws that ban all gender-affirming care for young people (including social transitions that require no medical intervention) and are moving on to adults as part of a much broader campaign against LGBTQ people as a whole. And you aren't even being subtle about it so there's no sense in trying to deny it: we see you.
Post by: Coolio on June 17, 2023, 04:15:27 pm
Leave children alone. This is why this sh*t is being banned around the world.
Girl sues hospital for removing breasts at age 13
https://www.theepochtimes.com/girl-sues-hospital-for-removing-her-breasts-at-age-13-post_5335492.html
The Epoch Times is borderline hate speech.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 18, 2023, 06:02:46 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 18, 2023, 06:18:53 am
More than half the non-binary people I know do nothing about their situation medically.
Post by: guest18 on June 18, 2023, 07:31:38 am
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 18, 2023, 09:11:56 am
You know non-binary people? I thought they were just on rhe internet and in public washrooms.
For sure in the double digits.. but some of them basically do nothing to change their appearance or how they come across. Others you might not know they weren't cis
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 18, 2023, 06:42:20 pm
I read up on the case. I think that it's possible to say that the wrong thing was done here AND say that the right is stoking hysteria.So pointing out that a 13 year old child was mutilated by “health professionals” is stoking hysteria? I think that’s absurd.
More than half the non-binary people I know do nothing about their situation medically.
If a non-binary person who’s an adult wants to go ahead with hormone therapy or cosmetic surgery, that’s their choice. The issue is about children. Leave children alone for f**k sakes.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 18, 2023, 06:42:42 pm
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 18, 2023, 10:02:34 pm
So pointing out that a 13 year old child was mutilated by “health professionals” is stoking hysteria? I think that’s absurd.
If a non-binary person who’s an adult wants to go ahead with hormone therapy or cosmetic surgery, that’s their choice. The issue is about children. Leave children alone for f**k sakes.
No, this is worthy of criticism but it's not a general argument for anything beyond the obvious.
Post by: Black Dog on June 19, 2023, 09:51:46 am
So pointing out that a 13 year old child was mutilated by “health professionals” is stoking hysteria? I think that’s absurd.
Yes, that's exactly what you're doing here; you just lack any sort of self-awareness about it or you're simply a lying f*ck.
These types of cases are an argument for greater oversight and better guidelines for trans youth healthcare, not banning it outright.
Quote
If a non-binary person who’s an adult wants to go ahead with hormone therapy or cosmetic surgery, that’s their choice. The issue is about children. Leave children alone for f**k sakes.
This is another lie of course.
Many States Are Trying to Restrict Gender Treatments for Adults, Too (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/health/transgender-adults-treatment-bans.html)
Quote
Missouri this month became the first state in the country to severely restrict gender treatments for people of all ages, following a series of quieter moves across the country that have been chipping away at transgender adults’ access to medical care.
Last year, Florida joined six other states in banning Medicaid from covering some form of gender care for transgender people of all ages. These bans affect an estimated 38,000 beneficiaries of the public insurance program, according to the Williams Institute, a research center at U.C.L.A.’s law school.
And in at least five states, Republican legislators have proposed bills that would abolish gender care for minors as well as young adults. Some are attempting to ban it for anyone under 21, and others for those under 26.
Missouri’s sweeping new policy took a different approach. Citing consumer protection laws meant to regulate fraud, the state attorney general, Andrew Bailey, issued an emergency rule prohibiting doctors from providing gender treatments to patients — of any age — unless they adhere to a slew of significant restrictions, including 18 months of psychological assessment. The rule also said that patients should not receive gender treatments until any mental health issues are “resolved.”
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 20, 2023, 05:49:56 am
But extending that into disparaging all LGBTQ+ people, or implying that rights need to be rolled back..
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2023, 10:06:43 am
"Something went wrong with this process" is legitimate.
But extending that into disparaging all LGBTQ+ people, or implying that rights need to be rolled back..
As many as 30% of patients regret getting knee replacement surgeries yet strangely enough no one is talking about banning those.
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2023, 04:13:00 pm
Trump-appointed judge blocks parts of Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth
(https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/17/politics/indiana-transgender-youth-care-ban-judge/index.html)
Judge strikes down Arkansas ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors
(https://apnews.com/article/politics-arkansas-gender-lgbtq-legislation-us-news-2a0d032f4e4f3195c180d879239e6521#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A%20federal%20judge,led%20states%20adopt%20similar%20restrictions.)
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 20, 2023, 05:12:19 pm
Bigots keep taking Ls in the courts:
Trump-appointed judge blocks parts of Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth
(https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/17/politics/indiana-transgender-youth-care-ban-judge/index.html)
Judge strikes down Arkansas ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors
(https://apnews.com/article/politics-arkansas-gender-lgbtq-legislation-us-news-2a0d032f4e4f3195c180d879239e6521#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A%20federal%20judge,led%20states%20adopt%20similar%20restrictions.)
I'm so glad children in these states get to have puberty blockers, hormones, and have their dinks cut off before they're able to have an orgasm or know what sex is or know generally wtf is going on in life. Big congrats to not screwing up these kids forever.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 20, 2023, 05:20:07 pm
Bigots keep taking Ls in the courts:Hey child abuser. England and Norway have banned this bullsh*t. At least you’ve given up on pretending children aren’t being subjected to this barbarism. You’re on the wrong side of history, and I hope f**ks like you end up in prison for this monstrosity.
Trump-appointed judge blocks parts of Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth
(https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/17/politics/indiana-transgender-youth-care-ban-judge/index.html)
Judge strikes down Arkansas ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors
(https://apnews.com/article/politics-arkansas-gender-lgbtq-legislation-us-news-2a0d032f4e4f3195c180d879239e6521#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A%20federal%20judge,led%20states%20adopt%20similar%20restrictions.)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 20, 2023, 05:22:54 pm
I'm so glad children in these states get to have puberty blockers, hormones, and have their dinks cut off before they're able to have an orgasm or know what sex is or know generally wtf is going on in life. Big congrats to not screwing up these kids forever.Exactly. Providing mental health services such as counselling, and allowing children to dress as their preference just doesn’t go far enough, no money to be made. We need to chop healthy body parts off before they’re old enough to consent. But if they want to get a tattoo, it’s not permitted by law. This is how f*^ked up and completely void of logic libtards have become.
Post by: guest18 on June 20, 2023, 05:28:10 pm
I'm so glad children in these states get to have puberty blockers, hormones, and have their dinks cut off before they're able to have an orgasm or know what sex is or know generally wtf is going on in life. Big congrats to not screwing up these kids forever.I know virtually nothing on this subject, but I'm guessing you're totally misinformed and have fallen for internet misinformation designed to get your emotions riled up. Because that seems to be by far the most likely scenario.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 20, 2023, 05:31:13 pm
I know virtually nothing on this subjectAnd we can tell.
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2023, 08:10:54 pm
Hey child abuser. England and Norway have banned this bullsh*t.
Norway didn't (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-norway-not-ban-gender-affirming-care-956221436313).
Quote
The country has not changed its guidelines on gender-affirming care for minors, which currently includes non-surgical treatments but recommends against surgery for under-18s in most cases. An independent Norwegian healthcare board not associated with the government recently proposed increased restrictions on such care — though not an outright ban — but it has no authority to institute the changes. Norway’s health agency is considering the recommendations but confirmed nothing has been banned.
As for England, hilarious to pretend that the decision there was the result of anything other than a vicious campaign by virulent transphobes who make teh kooks in Florida look like members of PFLAG.
Quote
At least you’ve given up on pretending children aren’t being subjected to this barbarism.
Hey retard you know there's a difference between denying something happens and pointing out the fact that the number of cases of it happening are infinitesimally tiny, kinda like your brain and your d*ck.
Quote
You’re on the wrong side of history, and I hope f**ks like you end up in prison for this monstrosity.
Sorry whose side is getting slapped down left and right in the courts again?
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2023, 08:12:28 pm
I'm so glad children in these states get to have puberty blockers, hormones, and have their dinks cut off before they're able to have an orgasm or know what sex is or know generally wtf is going on in life. Big congrats to not screwing up these kids forever.
I think kids and adults should be able to access whatever healthcare they, their parents and their physicians deem necessary for their long term health and wellbeing and those decisions should not be made by retards of Shady's ilk.
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2023, 09:57:16 pm
Exactly. Providing mental health services such as counselling, and allowing children to dress as their preference just doesn’t go far enough, no money to be made. We need to chop healthy body parts off before they’re old enough to consent. But if they want to get a tattoo, it’s not permitted by law. This is how f*^ked up and completely void of logic libtards have become.
Oh yeah I’m sure Big Gender is absolutely raking it in from the roughly 1,000 kids (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/) going on puberty blockers every year. Incredible thinking here brain genius.
Post by: guest18 on June 20, 2023, 10:21:33 pm
And we can tell.My computer doesn't autocomplete "trans" every time I start a word with a t.
Post by: Black Dog on June 20, 2023, 10:54:46 pm
My computer doesn't autocomplete "trans" every time I start a word with a t.
I bet $100 I know what his phone does to the word “transport”.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 21, 2023, 12:01:53 am
I know virtually nothing on this subject, but I'm guessing you're totally misinformed and have fallen for internet misinformation designed to get your emotions riled up. Because that seems to be by far the most likely scenario.
That seems like your only argument these days. Every time you disagree with me it must be because Twitter tricked me lol
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on June 21, 2023, 12:06:14 am
I think kids and adults should be able to access whatever healthcare they, their parents and their physicians deem necessary for their long term health and wellbeing and those decisions should not be made by retards of Shady's ilk.
What if the parents are woketard nutters and the physicians are afraid to say no because they'll get canceled?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 21, 2023, 06:37:11 am
Note that all of Florida's laws are framed around parental choice, but the parents can't choose certain types of care for their children.
Post by: guest18 on June 21, 2023, 06:40:42 am
That seems like your only argument these days. Every time you disagree with me it must be because Twitter tricked me lolI didn't say I disagreed with you. I said I know little about the topic and lack the interest to find out more. But given you and shady's similar past record for gullible hysteria and misinformation, I'm guessing people aren't chopping off their children's genitals en masse in 15 minute city gulags.
Post by: Moonbox on June 21, 2023, 09:00:19 am
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2023, 09:46:02 am
What if the parents are woketard nutters and the physicians are afraid to say no because they'll get canceled?
What if the doctor was actually harvesting body parts to build Frankenstein's monster out of penises? What if the parents were members of the Heaven's Gate cult? Like are you actually so smooth-brained to think woke parents are forcing their kids to have gender surgery against their will and doctors are too scared to say no? Come on.
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2023, 09:56:08 am
I was on in a bachelor party a couple of weeks ago. It was pride weekend at the Jays game and the bachelor made us all get our pictures taken with the trans/cross-dressers. It's not contagious...is it? :-\
Depends: were you also drinking Bud Light?
Post by: Moonbox on June 21, 2023, 12:07:04 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 21, 2023, 12:40:03 pm
Bud Lite is my favorite. It tastes so good and is totally not like water.
I only drink BL after hockey because the other option is usually Kokanee which just tastes like Mountain Dew to me now.
Post by: Moonbox on June 21, 2023, 01:55:29 pm
I only drink BL after hockey because the other option is usually Kokanee which just tastes like Mountain Dew to me now.
That's about the only time I drink it (and never buy it - I like PBR for American water beer) but I have bought it a few times lately for friends who like to rant about woke woke woke Klaus Schwab Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation something something Blackrock.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 22, 2023, 06:54:14 pm
You use cis, I use fag.
Post by: guest18 on June 22, 2023, 07:17:12 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 22, 2023, 07:44:02 pm
Okay, there are trans men, cis men, and baby-men.There’s no such thing as cis men. That’s a made up term, kind of like fag.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 22, 2023, 08:03:46 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on June 22, 2023, 10:13:40 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 23, 2023, 10:30:49 am
There’s no such thing as cis men. That’s a made up term, kind of like fag.
It’s Latin you fuckin dink.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 23, 2023, 11:10:34 am
And fag is English. So what?
It’s Latin you fuckin dink.
Post by: Black Dog on June 23, 2023, 11:53:31 am
And fag is English. So what?
Kill yourself is what.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 23, 2023, 12:20:31 pm
Kill yourself is what.You first! 😂
Post by: Black Dog on June 23, 2023, 03:14:11 pm
You first! 😂
No unlike you I have things to live for and people who care about me. You’re just a shitstain that needs to be scrunbend.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 23, 2023, 03:49:41 pm
No unlike you I have things to live for and people who care about me. You’re just a shitstain that needs to be scrunbend.Your online buddies don’t count as people that care about you.
Post by: Black Dog on June 23, 2023, 05:01:45 pm
Your online buddies don’t count as people that care about you.
Well first off, I have family and friends and second, at least I can say I can come to a place like this and have conversations with people that don't end in me being called a retard on a daily basis so that's two more things i have on you, you dork-ass loser.
This issue more than any other really shows what a hollow shell you are with no original thoughts, you just cosplay American culture war garbage and repeat the lines they tell you to repeat (first "groomer" and now "cis is a slur") like the mindless drone you are.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 11:50:18 am
Well first off, I have family and friends and second, at least I can say I can come to a place like this and have conversations with people that don't end in me being called a retard on a daily basis so that's two more things i have on you, you dork-ass loser.Pure projection. You’re talking about yourself. Get professional help.
This issue more than any other really shows what a hollow shell you are with no original thoughts, you just cosplay American culture war garbage and repeat the lines they tell you to repeat (first "groomer" and now "cis is a slur") like the mindless drone you are.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 11:51:13 am
https://thepostmillennial.com/first-elected-transgender-state-rep-arrested-in-new-hampshire-for-distributing-child-exploitation-images?fbclid=IwAR2rSlx91oBMb4LdOKXC45Pgkr1uBtbkoyIhj3bRIuu5SFsXEmwEGxV7vXk_aem_AVSfvAi4NcUxeOAB5mPK1QkFxCGRmxUM4s97q_-f2A59q90oHI1xgb1PQo19eTxc_i8
Post by: guest7 on June 24, 2023, 11:57:05 am
First elected transgender state rep arrested in New Hampshire for distributing child exploitation images
https://thepostmillennial.com/first-elected-transgender-state-rep-arrested-in-new-hampshire-for-distributing-child-exploitation-images?fbclid=IwAR2rSlx91oBMb4LdOKXC45Pgkr1uBtbkoyIhj3bRIuu5SFsXEmwEGxV7vXk_aem_AVSfvAi4NcUxeOAB5mPK1QkFxCGRmxUM4s97q_-f2A59q90oHI1xgb1PQo19eTxc_i8
What does it all mean?
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 12:05:14 pm
Pure projection. You’re talking about yourself. Get professional help.
The truth hurts, but you need to accept you have nothing to offer, no original thoughts or ideas, no one who cares about you and just end it all.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 12:46:28 pm
You’re literally talking about yourself. 😂😂😂
The truth hurts, but you need to accept you have nothing to offer, no original thoughts or ideas, no one who cares about you and just end it all.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 12:50:45 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 12:52:56 pm
What does it all mean?It’s one of the reasons this destructive nonsense is tolerated. It’s because it has supporters in high places. Government, education, etc.
Post by: guest7 on June 24, 2023, 12:56:47 pm
It’s one of the reasons this destructive nonsense is tolerated. It’s because it has supporters in high places. Government, education, etc.
Well, that's one.
Have the others been arrested?
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 01:02:33 pm
What does it all mean?
Nothing, just a clumsy attempt by a rank bigot to paint trans and queer people as degenerates, even as multiple cisgender Republican politicians have been caught with CP or busted assaulting minors while shitbag says nothing.
Post by: guest7 on June 24, 2023, 01:06:29 pm
Nothing, just a clumsy attempt by a rank bigot to paint trans and queer people as degenerates, even as multiple cisgender Republican politicians have been caught with CP or busted assaulting minors while shitbag says nothing.
I was getting worried. He was white, balding, and looked as though he could stand to lose a few pounds.
I was wondering if I should hand myself in...
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 01:07:56 pm
(Attachment Link)
Seethe more cissy boy.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 01:43:09 pm
Well, that's one.Many. Mostly teachers.
Have the others been arrested?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 01:44:21 pm
Seethe more cissy boy.Hey f**k stick. You don’t get to tell people what is it isn’t a slur.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 01:46:22 pm
Kind of like the way you do, with police, etc. It’s funny that you get so made when people use the same kinds of tactics that you use. You don’t see the irony or hypocrisy in it. 🤣
Nothing, just a clumsy attempt by a rank bigot to paint trans and queer people as degenerates
Post by: guest7 on June 24, 2023, 01:59:09 pm
Many. Mostly teachers.
Wow, I had no idea.
Has anyone who is not trans ever been arrested for that kind of thing?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 02:32:51 pm
Wow, I had no idea.Absolutely. This new gender ideology has quite a lot of support, trans and non trans.
Has anyone who is not trans ever been arrested for that kind of thing?
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 02:40:52 pm
Hey f**k stick. You don’t get to tell people what is it isn’t a slur.
Yes I do cis boy.
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 02:44:01 pm
Kind of like the way you do, with police, etc. It’s funny that you get so made when people use the same kinds of tactics that you use. You don’t see the irony or hypocrisy in it. 🤣
Thanks for mentioning cops another institution with high rates of abuse. Good job retard.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 02:49:34 pm
Thanks for mentioning cops another institution with high rates of abuse. Good job retard.You’re welcome retard.
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 02:50:32 pm
You’re welcome retard.
Lol, your insults, like your political views, are just copied from smarter people.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 03:09:32 pm
Lol, your insults, like your political views, are just copied from smarter people.You’re talking about yourself again! 🤣
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 03:54:16 pm
You’re talking about yourself again! 🤣
Self awareness has never been your strong suit, has it you botched abortion?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 04:08:25 pm
Self awareness has never been your strong suit, has it you botched abortion?🥱🥱🥱
Why don’t you just post like a normal person? Nobody cares about your name calling and insults. Nobody is scared of you. Everybody laughs behind your back, I even have the private messages to prove it. Get some professional help already and get to be normal again, if you ever were at one point. It’s a nice weekend, spend some time with your stupid f**king family. It’s more important than an Internet forum.
Post by: guest18 on June 24, 2023, 04:20:52 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 05:00:55 pm
🥱🥱🥱
Why don’t you just post like a normal person? Nobody cares about your name calling and insults. Nobody is scared of you. Everybody laughs behind your back, I even have the private messages to prove it. Get some professional help already and get to be normal again, if you ever were at one point. It’s a nice weekend, spend some time with your stupid f**king family. It’s more important than an Internet forum.
The seething jealousy emanating from your posts when you reference my family could power a small city. Also I love the “I have PM’s” line like anyone would sympathize with a mere worm like you who wasn’t similarly afflicted with acute mental retardation.
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 05:02:04 pm
You even have fake evidence you won't ever produce? That definitely proves it. 😂
I mean that’s also how he posts about the news so he’s nothing if not consistent(ly stupid ).
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 05:55:25 pm
You even have fake evidence you won't ever produce? That definitely proves it. 😂Kind of like your pee tape huh? Keep your pornhub account active, I’m sure it’ll turn up any moment! 😂
I appreciate coming to the defence of your butt buddy though.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 24, 2023, 05:56:50 pm
The seething jealousy emanating from your posts when you reference my family could power a small city. Also I love the “I have PM’s” line like anyone would sympathize with a mere worm like you who wasn’t similarly afflicted with acute mental retardation.Dude, nobody cares what you say. We just laugh behind your back about how f** king deranged you are. Try just posting like a normal person. 🤣
Post by: Black Dog on June 24, 2023, 06:37:38 pm
Dude, nobody cares what you say. We just laugh behind your back about how f** king deranged you are. Try just posting like a normal person. 🤣
By “normal” you mean shitty boomer men and screenshots from the most deranged right wing propagandists on Twitter? Lol you are as far removed from normal as it’s possible to be, go back to your crusted anime body pillow you lost little loser.
Post by: guest7 on June 24, 2023, 06:43:57 pm
Absolutely. This new gender ideology has quite a lot of support, trans and non trans.
So his actions had nothing to do with him (or her?) being trans then? I thought not.
At least I don't have to worry about being arrested for being white, balding and a little bit heavy.
Post by: guest18 on June 24, 2023, 06:47:47 pm
Kind of like your pee tape huh?You give up so easily. It's sad to watch.
Post by: Coolio on June 25, 2023, 08:21:35 am
Honestly, have transgender people affected anyone's life on this forum? Aside from the daily reminders of people on social media accusing trans people of "grooming children" how many cases can one point to in their own community, where a transgender has molested a child, after grooming them in the school system?
It's a nothing burger- meant to distract us from real issues.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2023, 10:30:20 am
We should say what the real issues are:
Unity, and environment with economy
Post by: Black Dog on June 25, 2023, 11:50:46 am
On a serious note, there is no way that transgender issues should be a major political issue in North America.
Honestly, have transgender people affected anyone's life on this forum? Aside from the daily reminders of people on social media accusing trans people of "grooming children" how many cases can one point to in their own community, where a transgender has molested a child, after grooming them in the school system?
It's a nothing burger- meant to distract us from real issues.
It’s a manufactured moral panic by conservatives who needed a cause to fire up the base and fundraiser off after they won on R v Wade. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have real life consequences for trans people,
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 25, 2023, 12:16:56 pm
On a serious note, there is no way that transgender issues should be a major political issue in North America.They wouldn’t be, if not forced upon the rest of society. Nobody cares what you want to do with your life. Just don’t ask others to comply, and especially don’t involve children. Those should be two fairly easy rules to follow.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 25, 2023, 12:17:35 pm
[attachimg=1]
https://twitter.com/clownworld_/status/1672415953886523392?s=46&t=C8Zj6S2wjnbPysohBCizdg
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2023, 12:33:10 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 25, 2023, 12:38:44 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 25, 2023, 02:15:39 pm
I can't imagine the type of middle American closet case would be shocked by that overt propaganda
Sure you can, that’s exactly who posted it.
Post by: Black Dog on June 25, 2023, 02:17:28 pm
Utter human garbage.
(Attachment Link)
https://twitter.com/clownworld_/status/1672415953886523392?s=46&t=C8Zj6S2wjnbPysohBCizdg
They’re mocking you, idiot.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 25, 2023, 03:30:13 pm
Sure you can, that’s exactly who posted it.
Shady is american? I don't think so he's like from Selkirk Manitoba or something, probably has parents who own a local business... And drives a truck although he lives in a ranch house in the suburbs.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 25, 2023, 09:02:19 pm
'Non-binary' identifying students in New Jersey skyrocket over 4,000% since 2019
https://thepostmillennial.com/non-binary-identifying-students-in-new-jersey-skyrocket-over-4000-since-2019?utm_campaign=64466&fbclid=IwAR2BOOMlNwh7Yxlv_qlJJE9_HIVp3FIBSm5WpxdRDa85AJf7fhiRWpacdPw_aem_AdnfR4MAzB1fW7BkXX1slggg8mtQTXTaQbkRzK6LpYNM9SmUhkhcqiPfgGP5KrGOmnw
Post by: guest18 on June 25, 2023, 09:16:44 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 25, 2023, 09:24:14 pm
You sound as though you think that's a bad thing. I bet kids are more open to admitting they're gay now too, compared to the days you would have beaten and humiliated them for coming out.
(https://i0.wp.com/slowrevealgraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/screen-shot-2021-11-08-at-9.37.02-pm-1.png?fit=1566%2C1198&ssl=1)
Post by: Black Dog on June 25, 2023, 09:41:25 pm
Post by: Coolio on June 26, 2023, 09:32:15 am
How can anyone not see that this is almost exclusively a social contagion now? Which happens when you target children.
'Non-binary' identifying students in New Jersey skyrocket over 4,000% since 2019
https://thepostmillennial.com/non-binary-identifying-students-in-new-jersey-skyrocket-over-4000-since-2019?utm_campaign=64466&fbclid=IwAR2BOOMlNwh7Yxlv_qlJJE9_HIVp3FIBSm5WpxdRDa85AJf7fhiRWpacdPw_aem_AdnfR4MAzB1fW7BkXX1slggg8mtQTXTaQbkRzK6LpYNM9SmUhkhcqiPfgGP5KrGOmnw
We can always count on The Post Millennial and The Free Beacon to give us impartial, and non politically motivated headlines and articles.
Post by: Black Dog on June 26, 2023, 09:47:18 am
We can always count on The Post Millennial and The Free Beacon to give us impartial, and non politically motivated headlines and articles.
This is so funny.
Quote
In the 2019-2020 school year, a mere total of 16 students identified with such a label, according to enrollment figures from the New Jersey Department of Education. Now, that number has ballooned to 675, marking an excess of a 4118 percent increase for the 2022-23 school year.
There are 1,371,921 students in the New Jersey public school system so the percentage of NB students is 0.0005%. Truly the most important issue of our times.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 26, 2023, 10:00:01 am
There are 1,371,921 students in the New Jersey public school system so the number of NB students is 0.0005%. Truly the most important issue of our times.
Actual numbers:
In the 2019-2020 school year, a mere total of 16 students identified with such a label, according to enrollment figures from the New Jersey Department of Education. Now, that number has ballooned to 675,
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 26, 2023, 05:28:17 pm
[attachimg=1]
https://twitter.com/tpostmillennial/status/1673158734619774976?s=46&t=C8Zj6S2wjnbPysohBCizdg
Post by: Black Dog on June 26, 2023, 05:31:37 pm
These are the lunatics that we’re asked to affirm and support.
(Attachment Link)
https://twitter.com/tpostmillennial/status/1673158734619774976?s=46&t=C8Zj6S2wjnbPysohBCizdg
Thanks for sharing this very funny video of the scabby bible thumping bigot getting shouted down. These pricks are lucky they don't catch hands more often.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 26, 2023, 05:35:35 pm
Thanks for sharing this very funny video of the scabby bible thumping bigot getting shouted down. These pricks are lucky they don't catch hands more often.The man with the bible was just reading. He wasn’t breaking any laws, nor hurting anyone. The fact that you wish violence in him is no surprise. You’re a fascist c*nt, that only respects rights of people on your political side. The people you support are legit f**king lunatics! 😂😂😂
But you’re a lunatic too, so I guess I understand it.
Post by: Black Dog on June 26, 2023, 05:40:59 pm
The man with the bible was just reading. He wasn’t breaking any laws, nor hurting anyone. The fact that you wish violence in him is no surprise.
LOL where did I "wish violence upon him?" Learn to read, shithead.
Quote
You’re a fascist c*nt, that only respects rights of people on your political side. The people you support are legit f**king lunatics! 😂😂😂
But you’re a lunatic too, so I guess I understand it.
Yes we're the lunatics not the loser who believes in a man in the sky. Nice one shitstain.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 26, 2023, 06:23:20 pm
LOL where did I "wish violence upon him?" Learn to read, shithead.But you believe a man can be a woman if they say they are! 😂😂😂
Yes we're the lunatics not the loser who believes in a man in the sky. Nice one shitstain.
I’m not sure which one of you is more crazy!
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 26, 2023, 06:50:08 pm
Post by: Black Dog on June 26, 2023, 07:16:13 pm
But you believe a man can be a woman if they say they are! 😂😂😂
I’m not sure which one of you is more crazy!
What’s a woman? What’s a man for that matter? These are questions that seem simple but only a simpleton would pretend the answers are easy.
Post by: guest18 on June 26, 2023, 07:32:40 pm
But you believe a man can be a woman if they say they are! 😂😂😂Why do you care so much about this issue?
I’m not sure which one of you is more crazy!
If it were really about "the children", you would talk more about all the priests banging young boys. So how come the fear of gay people has supplanted your fear of muslim people so well?
Post by: Black Dog on June 26, 2023, 08:10:58 pm
Why do you care so much about this issue?
If it were really about "the children", you would talk more about all the priests banging young boys. So how come the fear of gay people has supplanted your fear of muslim people so well?
It’s the new Current Thing for people with brain damage and no personality.
Post by: Coolio on June 26, 2023, 08:18:02 pm
Why do you care so much about this issue?
If it were really about "the children", you would talk more about all the priests banging young boys. So how come the fear of gay people has supplanted your fear of muslim people so well?
Be easy on Shady. He buys into conspiracy theories, and misinformation easily.
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 26, 2023, 08:42:19 pm
What’s a woman? What’s a man for that matter? These are questions that seem simple but only a simpleton would pretend the answers are easy.
https://youtu.be/yif5TIzaPYU?t=96
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 27, 2023, 11:10:13 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 27, 2023, 11:16:02 am
The woke attack on science.
(Attachment Link)
The majority of the "I got fired for being woke" claims we've looked into were actually due to other things.
Post by: Black Dog on June 27, 2023, 11:25:48 am
The majority of the "I got fired for being woke" claims we've looked into were actually due to other things.
Yep.
Quote
Varkey was terminated in late January under the accusation of having engaged in “religious preaching, discriminatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter.”
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on June 27, 2023, 11:57:00 am
The majority of the "I got fired for being woke" claims we've looked into were actually due to other things.Says who?
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 27, 2023, 01:34:09 pm
Says who?
Says me the one who has looked them up on here. There have been about 4 claims from what I recall and one (Lindsay Shepherd) was a justified complaint IMO.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 06, 2023, 05:43:38 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Moonbox on July 06, 2023, 06:02:13 pm
Says me the one who has looked them up on here. There have been about 4 claims from what I recall and one (Lindsay Shepherd) was a justified complaint IMO.
Ya but that's not what shows up on my twitter feed so how am I supposed to copypaste it here?
Post by: Black Dog on July 06, 2023, 07:36:12 pm
😂
(Attachment Link)
All this time and you still don’t understand gender vs. sex. You knew you were extremely stupid but come on.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 06, 2023, 08:23:11 pm
All this time and you still don’t understand gender vs. sex. You knew you were extremely stupid but come on.Hey buddy, what is a woman?
Post by: guest18 on July 06, 2023, 08:25:11 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 06, 2023, 08:50:38 pm
I knew you were an incel but I didn't realize you were so far gone.Hey Bubber, what is a woman?
Post by: guest18 on July 06, 2023, 10:20:45 pm
Hey Bubber, what is a woman?The greatest thing you will never know.
Post by: Black Dog on July 07, 2023, 09:54:35 am
Hey buddy, what is a woman?
Biologically, legally or philosophically?
It's funny that when right-wingers talk about what makes a man, they usually list behaviours like, IDK, chopping wood and grilling, so it's not like they don't have an intrinsic understanding of gender as a performance/socially constructed identity.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 19, 2023, 12:03:05 pm
Post by: guest18 on July 19, 2023, 01:03:37 pm
Key word: bottom 😂
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 19, 2023, 01:40:30 pm
The existence of trans people is still consuming you? Maybe some therapy could help you get to the bottom of that.It’s funny that you people think men are actually women just because they say they are.
Key word: bottom 😂
Post by: guest18 on July 19, 2023, 03:26:39 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 20, 2023, 03:34:28 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 28, 2023, 09:45:03 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on July 28, 2023, 10:14:01 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: kimmy on August 07, 2023, 01:11:28 pm
You mean kind of like separate change rooms you f**king woke idiots.
(Attachment Link)
I saw a clip of that guy saying that. With his seersucker suit and his Foghorn Leghorn accent I thought he seemed like a character from a comedy sketch. He was responding to testimony from Paula Scanlan, who was one of Lia Thomas's team-mates at U-Penn. Scanlan said that swimmers who complained to the U-Penn athletics department about having to change and shower while Lia wandered around with his dick out were told that it wasn't negotiable, and that the school offered to provide psychological counseling services for them to help them with their discomfort.
Because in our current day, women having sexual boundaries is apparently a problem that requires psychological treatment or reeducation.
-k
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 07, 2023, 01:17:35 pm
I saw a clip of that guy saying that. With his seersucker suit and his Foghorn Leghorn accent I thought he seemed like a character from a comedy sketch. He was responding to testimony from Paula Scanlan, who was one of Lia Thomas's team-mates at U-Penn. Scanlan said that swimmers who complained to the U-Penn athletics department about having to change and shower while Lia wandered around with his dick out were told that it wasn't negotiable, and that the school offered to provide psychological counseling services for them to help them with their discomfort.I feel really bad for women today. Their well-being is a complete after thought now. If biological men dressed as women want to shower and change with them, so be it. If biological men want to complete against them and take scholarships away from them, so be it. And if you push back in any way your banned from your sport and/or offered psychological counseling. It’s as f*^ed up a situation as I’ve ever seen.
Because in our current day, women having sexual boundaries is apparently a problem that requires psychological treatment or reeducation.
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 07, 2023, 01:31:47 pm
These four women want you to understand that "non-binary" isn't a look or an orientation or a hairstyle... it's the innate belief that your own inner life is infinitely more complex than that of the basic women around you:
https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2023/0714/1394519-any-person-youve-ever-met-could-be-non-binary/
Abby feels it's unfair that she has to deal with the kind of sexism that cisgender women have to deal with, even though she is not herself a women. As well, she has to deal with disapproval and misconceptions from people who just don't understand how unique and special she is. Also, it's hard for her to choose outfits that really express how unique and special she is.
https://archive.is/2020.10.05-180850/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nonbinary-agender-lgbtq-community_n_5f721b96c5b6117cd1028f17
And my personal favorite: Tracey wants you to know that she's not like other women. Her struggle is that if she dresses "basic", then people won't understand that she's not like other women. How can Tracey tell the world that she's not a basic woman if she's dressed "basic"? It is a dilemma.
https://www.today.com/style/essay/nonbinary-person-demand-right-basic-rcna89325
Favorite line: "I feel like people expect me to live a super exciting, flamboyant life because I am nonbinary."
-k
Post by: kimmy on August 07, 2023, 02:37:58 pm
Says me the one who has looked them up on here. There have been about 4 claims from what I recall and one (Lindsay Shepherd) was a justified complaint IMO.
You told us that Maya Forstater had no case, but her employer ended up having to pay her 100,000 British pounds, so your grasp of what is or isn't a justified complaint might be a little foggy.
Also, loss of employment isn't the only kind of silencing that is being used against people who dare to challenge the gender-people orthodoxy.
Lia Thomas's team-mates at U-Penn were told that if they spoke publicly, they could lose their places on the team and their scholarships, as well as harm their post-college futures. Harvard sent a similar letter warning their swimmers to not speak publicly about the Lia Thomas situation and telling them to refer all questions to the athletics department's media person. Some of them did speak out anonymously, at first through a sports radio show and later through letters sent out by Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a former Olympic swimmer who'd spoken out against the situation. Swimmers at another college spoke out anonymously through a letter sent out by their school's alumni association. Later on Riley Gaines became the first one to publicly speak out against the situation. Having graduated and finished her swimming career, they couldn't threaten her with the loss of a scholarship or a place on a team, so instead she has been vilified, slandered by a congresswoman, threatened with violence, physically assaulted, and even trapped in a room for 3 hours by an angry mob of gender-people while campus police stood by and did nothing. That's the kind of concerted effort that has been put into silencing women.
I talked earlier in this thread about Marion Millar, a Scottish woman who ended up being charged over things she'd posted on Twitter. The prosecutor kept applying for postponements, and then after a year, the charges were just dropped. Millar never even got her day in court. They held the Sword of Damocles over her head for a year over charges the prosecutor knew had no merit. The message here isn't that Millar was vindicated, the message is that they were able to drag her through the wringer for a year even though she hadn't done anything wrong. The process is the punishment.
Similar abuse of process is being used against BC nurse Amy Eileen Hamm right now, as the BC College of Nurses has been dragging her through a tribunal that has gone on for 2 and a half years already. Hamm's grievous crimes include posting about women's rights issues on Twitter, and most famously putting up that "I (heart) JK Rowling!" billboard in Vancouver. They've dragged this on for over two years, because some trans activist complained to the college of nurses that she put up a billboard. At the end of this, however many months or years down the road that is, they'll have found that Hamm has done nothing wrong, and they'll say "very well, carry on with your career, best of luck", and she'll receive no compensation for the years of stress and financial costs that this nonsense has put on her. Again: the process is the punishment.
And of course, as I've mentioned before, the purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn one witch. It's to scare every other would-be witch into compliance.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on August 07, 2023, 04:04:26 pm
Hey buddy, what is a woman?
Someone who covers their drink when you walk in the bar.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 07, 2023, 04:24:58 pm
You told us that Maya Forstater had no case, but her employer ended up having to pay her 100,000 British pounds, so your grasp of what is or isn't a justified complaint might be a little foggy.
Also, loss of employment isn't the only kind of silencing that is being used against people who dare to challenge the gender-people orthodoxy.
Lia Thomas's team-mates at U-Penn were told that if they spoke publicly, they could lose their places on the team and their scholarships, as well as harm their post-college futures. Harvard sent a similar letter warning their swimmers to not speak publicly about the Lia Thomas situation and telling them to refer all questions to the athletics department's media person. Some of them did speak out anonymously, at first through a sports radio show and later through letters sent out by Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a former Olympic swimmer who'd spoken out against the situation. Swimmers at another college spoke out anonymously through a letter sent out by their school's alumni association. Later on Riley Gaines became the first one to publicly speak out against the situation. Having graduated and finished her swimming career, they couldn't threaten her with the loss of a scholarship or a place on a team, so instead she has been vilified, slandered by a congresswoman, threatened with violence, physically assaulted, and even trapped in a room for 3 hours by an angry mob of gender-people while campus police stood by and did nothing. That's the kind of concerted effort that has been put into silencing women.
I talked earlier in this thread about Marion Millar, a Scottish woman who ended up being charged over things she'd posted on Twitter. The prosecutor kept applying for postponements, and then after a year, the charges were just dropped. Millar never even got her day in court. They held the Sword of Damocles over her head for a year over charges the prosecutor knew had no merit. The message here isn't that Millar was vindicated, the message is that they were able to drag her through the wringer for a year even though she hadn't done anything wrong. The process is the punishment.
Similar abuse of process is being used against BC nurse Amy Eileen Hamm right now, as the BC College of Nurses has been dragging her through a tribunal that has gone on for 2 and a half years already. Hamm's grievous crimes include posting about women's rights issues on Twitter, and most famously putting up that "I (heart) JK Rowling!" billboard in Vancouver. They've dragged this on for over two years, because some trans activist complained to the college of nurses that she put up a billboard. At the end of this, however many months or years down the road that is, they'll have found that Hamm has done nothing wrong, and they'll say "very well, carry on with your career, best of luck", and she'll receive no compensation for the years of stress and financial costs that this nonsense has put on her. Again: the process is the punishment.
And of course, as I've mentioned before, the purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn one witch. It's to scare every other would-be witch into compliance.
-k
Yes maybe I have made a mistake in the past. Lots of these cases are about other things though.
Post by: wilber on August 07, 2023, 05:22:51 pm
Yes maybe I have made a mistake in the past. Lots of these cases are about other things though.
Actually they are not.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 07, 2023, 06:39:11 pm
Actually they are not.The Twitter case and college of nurses weren't about academic freedom, which is what I thought we were talking about.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 07, 2023, 09:10:16 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on August 07, 2023, 09:18:50 pm
Yes maybe I have made a mistake in the past. Lots of these cases are about other things though.
2 things can be true at the same time:
1. Some of these cases are indeed about other things disguised as woke cancel culture because either a. rightwing trolls are dumb, or b. media uses it as clickbait.
2. Some people do get fired or reprimanded when it's unjust because employers are hyper-sensitive about being PC due to fear of bad PR.
Post by: Michael Hardner on August 08, 2023, 05:18:39 am
2 things can be true at the same time:
1. Some of these cases are indeed about other things disguised as woke cancel culture because either a. rightwing trolls are dumb, or b. media uses it as clickbait.
2. Some people do get fired or reprimanded when it's unjust because employers are hyper-sensitive about being PC due to fear of bad PR.
Maybe. I doubt that I had a strong feeling about the Forester case because I don't remember my arguments. I do remember that the judgement was interesting, that's all. It doesn't sound like me to say that such a case wouldn't have a chance but I don't want to page through dozens of pages to defend my views when I could have just been wrong.
For sure people are fired and reprimanded inappropriately all the time. I have said that the Lindsay Shepherd case was an example.
What I have said is that was the only academic freedom case I can remember that has merit. And the whole topic is pretty stale at this point.
Post by: Black Dog on August 08, 2023, 09:33:54 am
Here are three great articles, with 6 different non-binary people explaining in their own words why non-binary is absolute drivel.
These four women want you to understand that "non-binary" isn't a look or an orientation or a hairstyle... it's the innate belief that your own inner life is infinitely more complex than that of the basic women around you:
https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2023/0714/1394519-any-person-youve-ever-met-could-be-non-binary/
Abby feels it's unfair that she has to deal with the kind of sexism that cisgender women have to deal with, even though she is not herself a women. As well, she has to deal with disapproval and misconceptions from people who just don't understand how unique and special she is. Also, it's hard for her to choose outfits that really express how unique and special she is.
https://archive.is/2020.10.05-180850/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nonbinary-agender-lgbtq-community_n_5f721b96c5b6117cd1028f17
And my personal favorite: Tracey wants you to know that she's not like other women. Her struggle is that if she dresses "basic", then people won't understand that she's not like other women. How can Tracey tell the world that she's not a basic woman if she's dressed "basic"? It is a dilemma.
https://www.today.com/style/essay/nonbinary-person-demand-right-basic-rcna89325
Favorite line: "I feel like people expect me to live a super exciting, flamboyant life because I am nonbinary."
-k
Massive solipsist is appalled at other people's inflated egos, news at 11.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on August 28, 2023, 04:58:16 pm
Post by: guest7 on August 28, 2023, 05:10:29 pm
(Attachment Link)
Let's see. One was an indoctrination into a fascist regime that would eventually perpetrate the industrialized murder of 11 million people, (including an attempt at wiping out an entire race) and cause a world war that killed millions more, and the other is an attempt to teach children about perfectly normal, though marginalized, lifestyles, so they can learn tolerance and not become like the first group.
You would join the first group if you had to pick one to join, wouldn't you?
Post by: Black Dog on August 28, 2023, 05:27:29 pm
(Attachment Link)
lmao
(https://wpcdn.us-east-1.vip.tn-cloud.net/www.abccolumbia.com/content/uploads/2016/06/Independence-Day-Kids-Waving-Flags.jpg)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 18, 2023, 09:39:55 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest18 on September 18, 2023, 10:51:30 pm
But it's at least nice to see you no longer pathetically trying to pretend you aren't a
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 18, 2023, 11:54:25 pm
Why does Loeren Boebert jack off her boyfriend and expose her breasts at an all-ages musical? How come there are no calls among Republicans for her to resign?
But it's at least nice to see you no longer pathetically trying to pretend you aren't acloset casehomophobe.
Was it dark in the theater? That would explain the groping. Nothing explains the vaping indoors, that's pretty dumb.
Post by: guest18 on September 19, 2023, 07:15:32 am
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 19, 2023, 09:18:46 am
Why does Loeren Boebert jack off her boyfriend and expose her breasts at an all-ages musical? How come there are no calls among Republicans for her to resign?You’d be cheering it on if she was as a pride parade you degenerate hypocrite.
But it's at least nice to see you no longer pathetically trying to pretend you aren't acloset casehomophobe.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 19, 2023, 09:20:15 am
It wasn't dark enough to go unnoticed. The lying (and calling others liars) about the vaping was even worse than the vaping, but the sex acts were gross. Especially since they involved fake boobs in a trashy titty dress.If you think those sex acts were gross, you should check out Pride sometime! 😂😂😂
Oh right, you’re a massive hypocrite though, I forgot.
Post by: guest18 on September 19, 2023, 09:23:01 am
You’d be cheering it on if she was as a pride parade you degenerate hypocrite.No, I wouldn't, but you would definitely have a thread created about it if she were a Democrat.
I'm sorry I offended you with the comment about the fake boobs.
Post by: guest18 on September 19, 2023, 09:23:26 am
If you think those sex acts were gross, you should check out Pride sometime! 😂😂😂
Oh right, you’re a massive hypocrite though, I forgot.
There was a time when people expected more of elected officials than they do of random people at a Pride event. But what are you doing at Pride?
Post by: Black Dog on September 19, 2023, 09:41:06 am
If you think those sex acts were gross, you should check out Pride sometime! 😂😂😂
Oh right, you’re a massive hypocrite though, I forgot.
You've never been to any Pride events, all you know is what you read on the internet which is where all your shitty opinions come from. You have no life experience, no friends, nothing. A completely useless person.
Post by: guest18 on September 19, 2023, 09:52:44 am
Post by: Black Dog on September 19, 2023, 10:32:41 am
Regardless, how do you compare the behaviour of a random anonymous person to the behaviour of an elected official? By that logic, she can do anything she wants and no one should criticize her because (insert random person).
There's really no point trying to play these gotcha games with Shithead because they require some capacity for self-awareness or reflection that he simply does not possess. We know he's a hypocrite, he knows he's a hypocrite, what's the point of continuing to call him a hypocrite?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 19, 2023, 02:40:43 pm
It wasn't dark enough to go unnoticed. The lying (and calling others liars) about the vaping was even worse than the vaping, but the sex acts were gross. Especially since they involved fake boobs in a trashy titty dress.
The groping was caught by security cameras that probably had some kind of night vision to keep tabs on a dark theater.
They were probably kicked out for the vaping and flash photography etc. Groping was probably caught on tape later.
Post by: guest18 on September 19, 2023, 02:57:38 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 19, 2023, 05:15:15 pm
That's true. What's your point?
The groping isn't a big deal if it was done in the dark where nobody could see. If it was done in full sight then yes it's gross.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 19, 2023, 05:21:08 pm
The groping isn't a big deal if it was done in the dark where nobody could see. If it was done in full sight then yes it's gross.Exactly. But it’s funny coming from a side that champions dudes walking around children with their dongs out during pride month, guys dressed up in bdsm garb and people simulating sex. But omg! Two adults in the dark were making out! It’s why people like Bubber and his butt buddy have no credibility.
Post by: guest18 on September 19, 2023, 05:36:33 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 19, 2023, 10:31:53 pm
Exactly. But it’s funny coming from a side that champions dudes walking around children with their dongs out during pride month, guys dressed up in bdsm garb and people simulating sex. But omg! Two adults in the dark were making out!
This is basically true. If this was an LGBT person doing this in a crowd during a Pride event some people's reactions would be totally different. But then again what would your reaction be if a Democrat had done this?
A lot of people don't seem to have consistent principles other than what makes their "side" look better or worse.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 19, 2023, 11:59:10 pm
https://twitter.com/MagiruMevin/status/1701366122417991743
Post by: guest18 on September 20, 2023, 06:08:53 am
The groping isn't a big deal if it was done in the dark where nobody could see. If it was done in full sight then yes it's gross.It's trashy and unbecoming of an elected official. And the video is proof that it wasn't a situation where no one could see because now everyone has seen.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 09:20:38 am
This is basically true. If this was an LGBT person doing this in a crowd during a Pride event some people's reactions would be totally different. But then again what would your reaction be if a Democrat had done this?I've already stated my opinion, that it was completely inappropriate.
A lot of people don't seem to have consistent principles other than what makes their "side" look better or worse.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 09:22:26 am
It's trashy and unbecoming of an elected official. And the video is proof that it wasn't a situation where no one could see because now everyone has seen.Elected officials are just regular people. This didn't happen in congress, it happened in somebody's private life. Trashy and unbecoming? Ever heard of your buddy Bill Clinton? Regardless, I've already said it was inappropriate. I'm consistent. You're not. You're a total hypocrite, and your fake phony outrage is hilarious! LOL.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 09:38:07 am
WTF:
https://twitter.com/MagiruMevin/status/1701366122417991743
What's the issue here exactly.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 09:43:54 am
What's the issue here exactly.Classic groomer response. You are so f**ked up it's beyond belief. It's truly astonishing.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 09:46:13 am
Classic groomer response. You are so f**ked up it's beyond belief. It's truly astonishing.
Classic shithead response, completely incapable of fomenting an actual argument or even articulating the issue. Go die in a fire, you utter waste of skin.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 10:16:14 am
Classic shithead response, completely incapable of fomenting an actual argument or even articulating the issue. Go die in a fire, you utter waste of skin.If you think that that's appropriate for children than you're unfit to be around them. Be a parent of them. Or even live within 50 kms of them.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 10:37:07 am
If you think that that's appropriate for children than you're unfit to be around them. Be a parent of them. Or even live within 50 kms of them.
Classic shithead response, completely incapable of fomenting an actual argument or even articulating the issue. Go die in a fire, you utter waste of skin.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 10:54:11 am
Groomer type responseYou need an explaination as to why inappropriate behavior around children is in appropriate?
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 11:03:59 am
You need an explaination as to why inappropriate behavior around children is in appropriate?
No, I need you to actually articulate what's inappropriate here. There's no nudity, there's nothing even particularly suggestive. It's dancing.
Post by: guest18 on September 20, 2023, 11:22:01 am
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 11:25:57 am
Any Mennonite can tell you dancing is evil. Plus the dancer wasn't white, so there's that.
It's also funny that none of the kids in the video look old enough to possess object permanence let alone understand what they're seeing, but sure, they're going to be damaged by this.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 11:27:42 am
Any Mennonite can tell you dancing is evil. Plus the dancer wasn't white, so there's that.It's really sad that you're so anchored to "your team" and "your side" that sexualizing children means nothing to you. You really are a garbage human being. You and your butt buddy are meant for eachother.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 11:29:12 am
It's also funny that none of the kids in the video look old enough to possess object permanence let alone understand what they're seeing, but sure, they're going to be damaged by this.The new libtard mantra, it's ok to subject children to inappropriate material because they're not old enough to understand it! You can't make this sh*t up! It's like satire or something. LOL
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 11:31:56 am
It's really sad that you're so anchored to "your team" and "your side" that sexualizing children means nothing to you.
How is this sexualizing children? I ask this knowing full well you're incapable of actually articulating an argument or interrogating your own beliefs and you don't have the mental capacity to do anything but spout slogans. Might as well replace you with ChatGPT for all the thought you put into this stuff.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 11:34:14 am
The new libtard mantra, it's ok to subject children to inappropriate material because they're not old enough to understand it! You can't make this sh*t up! It's like satire or something. LOL
Dude you can't even explain what makes it inappropriate in the first place.
Post by: guest18 on September 20, 2023, 11:40:18 am
It's really sad that you're so anchored to "your team" and "your side" that sexualizing children means nothing to you. You really are a garbage human being. You and your butt buddy are meant for eachother.Did I miss the sexualization part? What was sexual? If Lauren Boebert danced in front of children, you would have no problem. She gave a guy a handjob while surrounded by children, pulled out her titty and got the guy to fondle it. That's sexual.
I realize you might be unfamiliar with sexual things, being an incel and all.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 02:50:37 pm
(https://media.tenor.com/m-2XXQuq-OwAAAAM/peace-out.gif)
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 03:47:44 pm
Did I miss the sexualization part? What was sexual? If Lauren Boebert danced in front of children, you would have no problem. She gave a guy a handjob while surrounded by children, pulled out her titty and got the guy to fondle it. That's sexual.Yeah, and I said it was completely inappropriate. Is consistency difficult for you to grasp?
I realize you might be unfamiliar with sexual things, being an incel and all.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 03:49:23 pm
Dude you can't even explain what makes it inappropriate in the first place.LOL, the only thing that's missing is the stripper pole. But I love the new standard, inappropriate material etc isn't a problem to subject children to, because they're too young to understand it. Do children everywhere a big favour, go find out what the bottom of a lake smells like.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 20, 2023, 03:51:28 pm
What's the issue here exactly.
Certainly not a bunch of males doing sexually provocative stripper moves in front of small children, and the lobotomized parents bringing their small kids to a sex show so a bunch of kinky men can get themselves off...or something.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 03:52:57 pm
Certainly not a bunch of males doing sexually provocative stripper moves in front of small children, and the lobotomized parents bringing their small kids to a sex show so a bunch of kinky men can get themselves off...or something.Can you believe that you need to explain this to them? Like, how f**ked up has society gotten? And they wonder why they're referred to as groomers.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 03:57:36 pm
LOL, the only thing that's missing is the stripper pole.
Do you think it's the pole and the dancing that makes stripping lewd? Because I think it's the full frontal nudity.
Quote
But I love the new standard, inappropriate material etc isn't a problem to subject children to, because they're too young to understand it.
I'd love for you to try and explain what the negative impacts of literal babies seeing someone dance like that would be, but we both know you can't.
Quote
Do children everywhere a big favour, go find out what the bottom of a lake smells like.
Now you're copying insults from your own shitty memes you copied from somewhere else? That's plain sad.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 03:59:23 pm
Certainly not a bunch of males doing sexually provocative stripper moves in front of small children, and the lobotomized parents bringing their small kids to a sex show so a bunch of kinky men can get themselves off...or something.
Look just because you got turned on doesn't mean there's anything "sexually provocative" about what was going on there especially to the literal infants.
Post by: guest18 on September 20, 2023, 04:12:50 pm
LOL, the only thing that's missing is the stripper pole. But I love the new standard, inappropriate material etc isn't a problem to subject children to, because they're too young to understand it. Do children everywhere a big favour, go find out what the bottom of a lake smells like.Also missing: stripping. What part of the compilation that was actually filmed in front of children was inappropriate? All I saw was a freaky looking guy jumping around.
Post by: guest18 on September 20, 2023, 04:14:52 pm
Certainly not a bunch of males doing sexually provocative stripper moves in front of small children, and the lobotomized parents bringing their small kids to a sex show so a bunch of kinky men can get themselves off...or something.Is that what you saw? Have you ever considered your reaction to men in drag is the only thing "sexualized"?
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 04:15:02 pm
Also missing: stripping. What part of the compilation that was actually filmed in front of children was inappropriate? All I saw was a freaky looking guy jumping around.
There was a split second of someone doing the splits while standing on their head on a chair, but that was more Cirque de Solei than Zanzibar Tavern.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 05:47:27 pm
Is that what you saw? Have you ever considered your reaction to men in drag is the only thing "sexualized"?Leave children alone. Honesty, what the f**k is your problem?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 05:48:27 pm
Do you think it's the pole and the dancing that makes stripping lewd? Because I think it's the full frontal nudity.It’s a really low bar. Leave children alone. But you can’t even clear that. You’re a really sick f**k.
I'd love for you to try and explain what the negative impacts of literal babies seeing someone dance like that would be, but we both know you can't.
Now you're copying insults from your own shitty memes you copied from somewhere else? That's plain sad.
Post by: guest18 on September 20, 2023, 05:51:36 pm
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 20, 2023, 06:10:16 pm
Look just because you got turned on doesn't mean there's anything "sexually provocative" about what was going on there especially to the literal infants.
Congrats you're dumb, sending you the certificate.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 06:30:00 pm
It’s a really low bar. Leave children alone. But you can’t even clear that. You’re a really sick f**k.It’s always amusing when you’re clearly unable to intellectually defend your position and immediately revert to empty sloganeering like the NPC you are.
Honest question: have you ever had an opinion that was not spoonfed to you by someone else?
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 06:30:46 pm
Congrats you're dumb, sending you the certificate.
Take it up with your therapist.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 07:00:25 pm
Congrats you're dumb, sending you the certificate.What’s so funny is that he actually thinks he’s very smart. He actually thinks he’s a good person, and that he’s actually fighting for good, and what’s right. Except everything in reality is the complete opposite of that. He’s a very dumb, perverted, disgusting sack of crap, who shouldn’t be allowed within a 100 yards of any child.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 07:04:01 pm
It’s always amusing when you’re clearly unable to intellectually defend your position and immediately revert to empty sloganeering like the NPC you are.Groomers are always confused as to why sexualizing children is harmful. Regardless, that’s a question that you should be answering, since you just spew every woke, libtard talking point that you get from your left wing blogs and sites. Are those the same sites that provided you the links to the “nazi” accounts on Twitter? 😂😂😂
Honest question: have you ever had an opinion that was not spoonfed to you by someone else?
You’re a parody of a libtard.
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 07:24:20 pm
What’s so funny is that he actually thinks he’s very smart. He actually thinks he’s a good person, and that he’s actually fighting for good, and what’s right. Except everything in reality is the complete opposite of that. He’s a very dumb, perverted, disgusting sack of crap, who shouldn’t be allowed within a 100 yards of any child.
The person you’re replying to also thinks you’re a retard fyi
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 07:25:39 pm
Groomers are always confused as to why sexualizing children is harmful. Regardless, that’s a question that you should be answering, since you just spew every woke, libtard talking point that you get from your left wing blogs and sites. Are those the same sites that provided you the links to the “nazi” accounts on Twitter? 😂😂😂
You’re a parody of a libtard.
See this is just you repeating stuff I said to you lol
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 08:27:05 pm
The person you’re replying to also thinks you’re a retard fyiAt least he doesn’t think I’m a perverted groomer, like you. People that harm children are the lowest type of life form.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 08:28:18 pm
See this is just you repeating stuff I said to you lolGo back to your left wing sites for more nazi accounts! 😂😂😂
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 08:32:05 pm
Go back to your left wing sites for more nazi accounts! 😂😂😂
You mean X where all the Nazi accounts you follow are?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 20, 2023, 08:40:55 pm
You mean X where all the Nazi accounts you follow are?Maybe your left wing sites will find a few that are more than a month old, with more than a dozen followers! 😂😂😂
Nazis are everywhere! Everyone I disagree with is a nazi! 🤣
Post by: Black Dog on September 20, 2023, 11:02:33 pm
Maybe your left wing sites will find a few that are more than a month old, with more than a dozen followers! 😂😂😂
Nazis are everywhere! Everyone I disagree with is a nazi! 🤣
Jesus this is just pathetic I’m genuinely starting to feel bad for you.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 22, 2023, 06:44:09 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Black Dog on September 22, 2023, 07:10:41 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 22, 2023, 07:47:54 pm
Is anyone really surprised?It’s funny to watch how you behave when presented facts that don’t fit your woke narratives and mindset. 😂
(Attachment Link)
Post by: Black Dog on September 22, 2023, 08:14:01 pm
It’s funny to watch how you behave when presented facts that don’t fit your woke narratives and mindset. 😂
Why are you talking to yourself?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 22, 2023, 08:25:32 pm
Why are you talking to yourself?I know you are but what am I! 😂😂😂
Post by: Black Dog on September 22, 2023, 09:18:17 pm
I know you are but what am I! 😂😂😂
Too stupid to see you quoted yourself in the reply up above? Maybe spend less time fantasizing about f*cking kids you sicko.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 22, 2023, 09:30:56 pm
Too stupid to see you quoted yourself in the reply up above? Maybe spend less time fantasizing about f*cking kids you sicko.More projection. Keep fighting for sexualizing children. It’s a long uphill road to climb. But somebody’s gotta do it right? More random dongs in children’s faces! No Justice no peace!
Post by: Black Dog on September 22, 2023, 10:01:05 pm
More projection. Keep fighting for sexualizing children. It’s a long uphill road to climb. But somebody’s gotta do it right? More random dongs in children’s faces! No Justice no peace!
We don’t want to read your fantasies here sicko.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 23, 2023, 09:46:41 am
We don’t want to read your fantasies here sicko.Most definitely. I also hate Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson. And I want to defund the police! 😂😂😂
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 23, 2023, 09:56:15 am
[attachimg=1]
Post by: kimmy on September 27, 2023, 12:33:50 am
Quote
Anne Andres’ total powerlifting score at the Brandon University Healthy Living Centre event was 597.5 kilograms, which was over 200 kilograms more than her opponent SuJan Gill who held a 387.5 kg score.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-who-anne-andres-trans-male-breaks-women-s-powerlifting-record-sparks-online-controversy
Only the world's biggest cretins support this dogshit at this point. World class imbeciles. Not merely dumb people, but really truly spectacularly stupid people. Like, really god damned contemptibly idiotic. The kind of people who's stupidity is so astounding that it would be in a P.T. Barnum Carnival of Freaks for people to marvel at. Only the genuinely and profoundly mentally defective still support males competing in women's sports.
-k
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 27, 2023, 10:35:51 pm
Alberta man sets new Canadian record in women's power-lifting!At this point it’s an extreme form of misogyny, with no regard for actual women. It’s also anti-science. These people and their sycophantic supporters ignore biological differences between men and women, and pretend that men don’t have significant advantages in most athletic competitions. Which is the reason there are separate competitions in the first place.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-who-anne-andres-trans-male-breaks-women-s-powerlifting-record-sparks-online-controversy
Only the world's biggest cretins support this dogshit at this point. World class imbeciles. Not merely dumb people, but really truly spectacularly stupid people. Like, really god damned contemptibly idiotic. The kind of people who's stupidity is so astounding that it would be in a P.T. Barnum Carnival of Freaks for people to marvel at. Only the genuinely and profoundly mentally defective still support males competing in women's sports.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2023, 08:02:33 am
Post by: guest7 on September 28, 2023, 09:39:34 am
Will it matter if nobody cares either way?
Obviously, the two posters you responded to care, I cared enough to flag them and you cared enough to respond.
(Not to mention the women in the article, and, I would imagine, many other women powerlifters)
If you really don't care, would you just ignore a blanket ban on trans women in women's sports, or would you have something to say on the position?
I am curious though. Do you really think it's fair?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on September 28, 2023, 10:05:34 am
(Not to mention the women in the article, and, I would imagine, many other women powerlifters)Exactly, women powerlifters care. Women swimmers care. Women cyclists care. Etc.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2023, 12:07:00 pm
Obviously, the two posters you responded to care, I cared enough to flag them and you cared enough to respond.
(Not to mention the women in the article, and, I would imagine, many other women powerlifters)
If you really don't care, would you just ignore a blanket ban on trans women in women's sports, or would you have something to say on the position?
I am curious though. Do you really think it's fair?
I don't care much. I really care inasmuch as we move towards less fighting about everything and more social peace.
I don't think that women's weightlifting should get more than a passing mention in question period given the depth of our problems.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2023, 12:08:01 pm
Just because I do not care doesn't mean others also don't.
For all I know it's a big deal...
Post by: guest7 on September 28, 2023, 12:41:12 pm
I don't care much. I really care inasmuch as we move towards less fighting about everything and more social peace.
I don't think that women's weightlifting should get more than a passing mention in question period given the depth of our problems.
How can we have social peace when people disagree on things?
Women who were born as men should not be allowed to take part in women's sports, and should only be allowed in women only spaces with the full permission of all of the women in those spaces.
If you agree with that, at least you and I can have social peace on this issue. What do you say?
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2023, 01:02:59 pm
How can we have social peace when people disagree on things?
Woman who were born as men should not be allowed to take part in women's sports, and should only be allowed in women only spaces with the full permission of all of the women in those spaces.
If you agree with that, at least you and I can have social peace on this issue. What do you say?
I don't care. If everyone is mostly ok with that then me too.
Social Peace is a relative thing. I do my part by not caring sometimes...
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on September 28, 2023, 01:50:21 pm
I don't care much. I really care inasmuch as we move towards less fighting about everything and more social peace.
I don't think that women's weightlifting should get more than a passing mention in question period given the depth of our problems.
This is whattaboutism.
Social peace is not the priority, basic justice and fairness is. Truckers are still crying about their trucks being removed from Ottawa streets, and Trumpsters are still crying about 2020. This is totally irrelevant to basic justice and fairness.
Whether you care or not is also not relevant to basic justice. You're not a woman so you don't have to care. Sticking our wet fingers in the air and determining what is right vs wrong based on how the progressive majority winds are blowing today is also not relevant to what is fair and just.
Biological males competing in a category specifically designed for biological females so they don't have to compete against males isn't justice.
Post by: Michael Hardner on September 28, 2023, 02:53:34 pm
1. This is whattaboutism.
2. Social peace is not the priority, basic justice and fairness is.
Truckers are still crying about their trucks being removed from Ottawa streets, and Trumpsters are still crying about 2020. This is totally irrelevant to basic justice and fairness.
3. Whether you care or not is also not relevant to basic justice. You're not a woman so you don't have to care. Sticking our wet fingers in the air and determining what is right vs wrong based on how the progressive majority winds are blowing today is also not relevant to what is fair and just.
Biological males competing in a category specifically designed for biological females so they don't have to compete against males isn't justice.
1. What? No... why? I'm walking away from the debate...
2. I disagree. There are lots of things that are debated solely because people care.
3. Well maybe. I am not going to respond to the points. And if there are lots of people like me, then it will be decided without Mass attention. That might be better, can you see why?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 03, 2023, 05:29:13 pm
[attachimg=1]
https://x.com/rottengirl/status/1709195019792318622?s=46&t=C8Zj6S2wjnbPysohBCizdg
[attachimg=2]
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 03, 2023, 05:37:04 pm
[attachimg=1]
https://x.com/anitab_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=46&t=C8Zj6S2wjnbPysohBCizdg
Post by: guest18 on October 03, 2023, 05:55:14 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 04, 2023, 09:33:38 am
When I first encountered the internet, I never even considered how it could be used to manipulate dimwits so they freak out and obsess about the most inconsequential things
It's funny when they create a problem and then complain about the problem they created.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 04, 2023, 11:22:18 am
When I first encountered the internet, I never even considered how it could be used to manipulate dimwits so they freak out and obsess about the most inconsequential thingsYou get manipulated constantly. Forget about the Steele dossier? 😂😂😂
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 04, 2023, 11:33:55 am
It's funny when they create a problem and then complain about the problem they created.Gender nonsense if a problem you and your ilk created.
Post by: Black Dog on October 04, 2023, 11:57:46 am
Gender nonsense if a problem you and your ilk created.
It's not a problem until bad faith chuds like you make it one.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 04, 2023, 11:59:26 am
It's not a problem until bad faith chuds like you make it one.
The word CHUD is really catching on btw...
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 11:26:18 am
When I first encountered the internet, I never even considered how it could be used to manipulate dimwits so they freak out and obsess about the most inconsequential things
If you're saying that what happened at the Grace Hopper conference is inconsequential, what you're really saying is that events for women are inconsequential. Lots of people would say that, but those people are (as the kids would put it) CHUDS. The kind of chuds who would say "Why should there be a conference for women? They should stay home and bake cookies."
Balloonheads will say "lololol you never even heard of this conference until this week and now you're upset about this lololol". It's true that I had not heard of this event before, but that's only because I don't work in the computer science field. For women in computer science, this conference IS a big deal. They attract over 10,000 attendees every year; they paid $1300 apiece to attend (a limited number of $649 tickets for students were available) so clearly this is a pretty big deal for women in that field. The Grace Hopper conference is considered the biggest event of its kind. Major employers send teams of recruiters to these events.
The aim of the event is to give women the opportunity to make contacts and network and get their foot in the door in an industry that's famed for misogyny and more than 75% male. Instead, this year's conference gave women the opportunity to experience that rampant misogyny they'll experience first hand. This story has been covered by tech journals as well as mainstream media sources, they're easy to find. You can see videos of recruiters being swarmed by men literally thrusting resumes at them. You can read accounts of women being physically bodied out of the way by men, and of sexual harassment. These women paid $1300 each for what was billed as an opportunity to make inroads in a male-dominated career; what they actually got at the conference was to be physically dominated by those same men.
Attendees are mad; many are demanding refunds. Organizers are embarrassed and promising to make changes, although they're candid in acknowledging that they don't have a clue how to do it. "The first step is listening," they promise. They'll have to do something, because this has been a major black eye for them... the kind of black eye that's going to make it hard for them to get women to give them $1300 to attend this gong show again.
Should I be mad? I'm not in the computer science field so why should I care, right? Well, I'd suggest that if you read the articles published by Wired and Newsweek and others this week and don't feel mad about this yourself, you're probably just a chud.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 11:36:47 am
It's not a problem until bad faith chuds like you make it one.
I bet the women at the conference felt it was a problem well before right wing media heard about it. In fact the official from the conference speaking about the incident acknowledged that there was a problem well before any media sources were reporting on it. Claiming it's not a problem unless people talk about it seems like the kind of argument that only a real piece of dogshit would advance. Much like claiming that domestic violence wouldn't be a problem if the victims would just shut up.
It's funny when they create a problem and then complain about the problem they created.
Who are "they" and how did "they" create this problem, genius? Are you going to tell me that Matt Walsh or Jordan Peterson bribed thousands of men to show up at the conference to assault and harass the women or something like that?
-k
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 11:44:16 am
I bet the women at the conference felt it was a problem well before right wing media heard about it. In fact the official from the conference speaking about the incident acknowledged that there was a problem well before any media sources were reporting on it. Claiming it's not a problem unless people talk about it seems like the kind of argument that only a real piece of dogshit would advance. Much like claiming that domestic violence wouldn't be a problem if the victims would just shut up.
Good thing that's not the argument. Cis men opposed to trans people in women's spaces invading women's spaces to prove that trans people are invading women's spaces does not make the point they or you seem to think it does. To take your domestic abuse analogy and apply it here, the equivalent would be a man trying to raise awareness for domestic abuse by beating the **** out of his partner and saying "see, this is bad!"
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 11:52:57 am
Quote
Li shared a LinkedIn comment left by an attendee towards AnitaB, the company that runs the conference. She said she suspected that cisgender men may have "finessed" the system by pretending to be non-binary, or selecting "prefer not to answer" on their entry forms, though there is no solid evidence for the claim.
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 12:15:03 pm
I don't care much. I really care inasmuch as we move towards less fighting about everything and more social peace.
I don't think that women's weightlifting should get more than a passing mention in question period given the depth of our problems.
Coonlight called this whataboutism, and I'm not sure that's quite accurate, but it's related. I'm seeing this tactic advanced a lot. People say "Is this really the right time to talk about women's sports? There's (thing) going on right now, which is a lot more important." It's a bad faith argument.
1) People people who say this are proposing that they want to talk about males competing in women's sports later, but only after (thing) is resolved. They truth is that they don't actually want to talk about males competing in women's sports, and if (thing) ever gets resolved there'll always be a next (thing) that's an excuse to not address men in women's sports.
2) It implies that we can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Our governments are large organizations that can actually handle many issues at once. We have a Minister of Sport, whose input isn't vital to working on the housing crisis or the affordability crisis or the climate crisis. The pandemic was still in high gear on Joe Biden's first day in office, but he still found time to sign their new equality bill that replaced biological sex with gender identity in legal definitions.
3) wokies never use this argument on issues that they support. You'll never hear a wokie say "I am really committed to getting trans women prisoners housed in women's prisons, but it has to wait until after we solve the housing crisis." Somehow they managed to get males into women's sports with a minimum of consultation without anybody even noticing when it happened, despite all the other pressing issues.
4) the scale of effort is quite different. Getting biological males out of women's sports would only take 5 minutes; solving housing, affordability, carbon emissions, etc etc, are multi-year or multi-decade aspirations that take regular and frequent (but not all-consuming) work. Our governments can always find 5 minutes to proclaim a holiday for Truth and Reconciliation or an inquiry or fund a battery plant or ban some guns or whatever; certainly they could find 5 minutes to get men out of women's sports.
Progressives should give up on this issue. It's free money for their opponents. Progressives who continue to support males competing in women's sports are just giving their opponents a stick and saying "hit me with this". It makes progressives look like they are either too stupid to recognize the truth or too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 12:41:37 pm
So the source for this "they claimed to be enby to get in" is a random comment on LinkedIn? (https://www.businessinsider.com/women-upset-grace-hopper-pushy-men-dominated-2023-10)
It's very likely that men just went to the online registration forms and clicked whichever buttons they needed to click to get a ticket. Very likely none of them give a **** about gender identity bullshit and just wanted access to the job fair portion of the conference.
What this event makes clear, first off, is the reason why we still need women-only spaces.
And it also makes clear that women-only spaces are fundamentally incompatible with the notion of including men who choose to identify as not men. Non-binary in particular is a problem, because the only requirement to be non-binary is to say that you are non-binary. There's literally no other criteria; it's based entirely on claiming a feeling, and anybody can claim to feel it. With trans women, at least there's some sort of assumption that they'd at least sort of present as feminine (although the new "butch trans lesbian" phenomenon certainly changes that). With non-binary you don't even have to wear guyliner or a man-bun. If somebody says they're non-binary, you either believe them or you're a hateful bigot.
The notion that men wouldn't abuse gender identity to gain access to women's spaces has always rested on an honor system. Anything based on an honor system will always be abused by people who don't have much honor. People who say "I wouldn't do that, and my buddies wouldn't do that" are naive. You haven't dealt with enough men to know better, and you might not know your buddies as well as you think either. Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher didn't think their buddy Hyde was a rapist. Most people simply wouldn't identify as non-binary because there's just nothing in it for them, but if you incentivize it (entrance to a job fair, some companies are introducing special workplace benefits for trans and non-binary individuals, BC is developing a housing project for trans people... not sure if non-binary are included...) then why wouldn't people take advantage?
The host organization, AnitaB, wants to "fix this" for next year's conference, but how are they going to do that while still humoring men who who claim to have special gender feelings? The self-imposed obligation to include such men makes an attempt to police this impossible. What are they going to do, challenge men at the gate? As long as they know the magic password "I am nonbinary" or "I identify as a woman", it's unenforceable.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 01:07:02 pm
Afrocentric schools in Toronto? Fantastic idea!
Black-only night at the art gallery? Of course! It will let black people learn about art without feeling judged.
Study spaces and lounges on campus set aside for BIPOC people? Obviously!
Pride events for genderfabulous people only? Yes, because privileged cisgendered gay people take up too much space in our community!
Housing projects for trans people only? Much needed! Trans people are disproportionately more unhoused than cisgender people.
vs
You want to have a speed-dating event for cisgender lesbians only? Not in our venue, that's transphobic.
You made a social media app for cisgender women only? See you in court, TERF!
A tech conference for women? That's a fantastic idea but only if it's inclusive of men who say they're women and also men who say they're not men.
-k
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 06, 2023, 01:13:06 pm
1. People say "Is this really the right time to talk about women's sports? There's (thing) going on right now, which is a lot more important." It's a bad faith argument.
2. It implies that we can only pay attention to one thing at a time.
3. wokies never use this argument on issues that they support.
1. It's bad faith to bring it up in the first place. Straight, white middle-aged males find Trans women repulsive and anything that happens in that domain of news gets a giant amount of clicks. If there was cheating at a state-level women's high school event would we otherwise hear about it ? No. I do think there's an issue in figuring out what is to be done about this but it doesn't warrant the attention it's getting which is almost daily anecdotes.
2. It does... but on closer inspection it means... the citizen who follows public affairs only has scant minutes in the day so 1 minute per day on this is probably too much.
3. True but wokie concerns don't make the mainstream bandwidth UNLESS it's something that can get anger clicks. I do trust that institutions are, in 2023, well aware of the issues and trying to figure it out.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 06, 2023, 01:26:55 pm
Straight, white middle-aged malesThat's because trans women are men. Btw, do you think straight black middle-aged males are fond of trans women? How about straight hispanic middle-aged? This is completely irrelevant.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 06, 2023, 01:30:55 pm
Female people are apparently the only marginalized group that aren't allowed to have our own spaces.Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. The tide is slowly turning though, especially in sports. Recently there are some women's cycling and swimming organizations that have finally banned biological men from competing.
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 02:00:38 pm
1. It's bad faith to bring it up in the first place. Straight, white middle-aged males find Trans women repulsive and anything that happens in that domain of news gets a giant amount of clicks.
That's chud logic because it views the issue strictly in terms of its relevance to straight white middle aged males.
It's also chud logic because you're dismissing the women speaking out against this.
If there was cheating at a state-level women's high school event would we otherwise hear about it ? No.
The comparison to plain old garden variety cheating is interesting because it's an admission that this is, indeed, unfair.
The difference between males in women's sports vs plain old cheating is that in this instance we have a large and well-funded political movement trying to gaslight people into believing that in this case the cheating is actually GOOD for the people who are being cheated.
I do think there's an issue in figuring out what is to be done about this but it doesn't warrant the attention it's getting which is almost daily anecdotes.
...
3. True but wokie concerns don't make the mainstream bandwidth UNLESS it's something that can get anger clicks. I do trust that institutions are, in 2023, well aware of the issues and trying to figure it out.
Progressive politicians would prefer to pretend this issue doesn't exist and will only address it if there's a political price to not addressing it. They understand that defending the current state makes them look like colossal idiots, but they also understand that kicking males out of women's sports will anger some hardline portion of their base, so they would prefer to simply not discuss it at all. Which is where arguments where "we have much more pressing issues to work on right now" come from. It's not an admission that there's a problem, it's not a promise to change anything, it's just an attempt to ignore the issue entirely.
They don't want to address this issue, they want to pretend there's no issue, and the only way change happens is if people push them.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 02:01:53 pm
Female people are apparently the only marginalized group that aren't allowed to have our own spaces.
Afrocentric schools in Toronto? Fantastic idea!
Black-only night at the art gallery? Of course! It will let black people learn about art without feeling judged.
Study spaces and lounges on campus set aside for BIPOC people? Obviously!
Pride events for genderfabulous people only? Yes, because privileged cisgendered gay people take up too much space in our community!
Housing projects for trans people only? Much needed! Trans people are disproportionately more unhoused than cisgender people.
vs
You want to have a speed-dating event for cisgender lesbians only? Not in our venue, that's transphobic.
You made a social media app for cisgender women only? See you in court, TERF!
A tech conference for women? That's a fantastic idea but only if it's inclusive of men who say they're women and also men who say they're not men.
-k
In what universe of perpetual victimhood are you living in where any of the things on that first list are uncontroversial?
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 02:09:18 pm
In what universe of perpetual victimhood are you living in where any of the things on that first list are uncontroversial?
Of course. But only the things on the second list are controversial amongst progressives.
In days gone by it would be the chuds who complained about the second list ("a women only gym is discriminatory against men because it damages my social opportunities to meet babes", "lesbian dating? you just haven't tried the right d*ck yet", "a women-only job fair? If they're good enough they can compete against men for the jobs" etc) but nowadays the progressives are right in there alongside the chuds. Serious horseshoe theory type effect.
-k
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 02:15:13 pm
Progressives should give up on this issue. It's free money for their opponents. Progressives who continue to support males competing in women's sports are just giving their opponents a stick and saying "hit me with this". It makes progressives look like they are either too stupid to recognize the truth or too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.
It's interesting how there's also never any expectation of or demand for quid pro quo from the other side that if like we give on the sports thing they'll stop phoning in bomb threats to children's hospitals or showing up with guns at public libraries or accusing school teachers of being pedos/groomers.
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 02:37:18 pm
The notion that men wouldn't abuse gender identity to gain access to women's spaces has always rested on an honor system. Anything based on an honor system will always be abused by people who don't have much honor. People who say "I wouldn't do that, and my buddies wouldn't do that" are naive. You haven't dealt with enough men to know better, and you might not know your buddies as well as you think either. Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher didn't think their buddy Hyde was a rapist. Most people simply wouldn't identify as non-binary because there's just nothing in it for them, but if you incentivize it (entrance to a job fair, some companies are introducing special workplace benefits for trans and non-binary individuals, BC is developing a housing project for trans people... not sure if non-binary are included...) then why wouldn't people take advantage?
The main thrust of your complaint around all of this is accommodating trans people will mean cis men will take advantage/abuse the system seems to leave out one particular group.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 06, 2023, 03:02:21 pm
The main thrust of your complaint around all of this is accommodating trans people will mean cis men will take advantage/abuse the system seems to leave out one particular group.No. Trans women (biological men) are abusing the system in women's sports, etc. Biological men shouldn't be competing in women's sports. Women should have their own leagues, etc.
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 03:13:28 pm
No. Trans women (biological men) are abusing the system in women's sports, etc. Biological men shouldn't be competing in women's sports. Women should have their own leagues, etc.
LOL the women's sports defender has chimed in.
Why are there women at the NHL all star game? There are probably 100 Junior players that are better than them and will never have a chance to go.
For how long? Everybody knows that women’s hockey exists? People generally aren’t interested in watching inferior hockey. Any guys high school team could beat them. I know these aren’t politically correct things to say, but it’s the truth. Same for the WNBA.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 06, 2023, 03:29:20 pm
1. That's chud logic because it views the issue strictly in terms of its relevance to straight white middle aged males.1. Yes, take that to the Toronto Sun and tell them... please.
2. It's also chud logic because you're dismissing the women speaking out against this.
3. The comparison to plain old garden variety cheating is interesting because it's an admission that this is, indeed, unfair.
2. I am not. I'm mostly not saying anything. If you ask me, of course I'm on their side with this.
3. It's unfair - just like Jessica Yaniv's stupid thing was unfair...
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 06, 2023, 03:35:06 pm
LOL the women's sports defender has chimed in.And??? Yes, women should have their own league. Why do you think my other comments speak against that? Try again.
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 03:53:27 pm
And??? Yes, women should have their own league. Why do you think my other comments speak against that? Try again.
I don't. I merely think it's hilarious you pretend to care about the integrity of women's sports while also thinking they suck and that women athletes shouldn't be involved in things like the All-Star Game. You don't watch women's sports and don't care about women's sports except as a culture war issue. And if everyone agreed that transwomen should not be allowed to compete in women's sports, you would just find some other bullshit crusade to attack them over. At least kimmy is coming at this from some place of self-interest, you're just doing what you're told.
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 05:26:42 pm
I don't. I merely think it's hilarious you pretend to care about the integrity of women's sports while also thinking they suck and that women athletes shouldn't be involved in things like the All-Star Game. You don't watch women's sports and don't care about women's sports except as a culture war issue.
Arguing that the issue isn't real because middle aged men don't watch women's sports is not a winning argument. First of all because it frames the entire issue around what matters to men as opposed to what matters to the young women who are actually affected. And secondly because you don't have to watch women's sports to realize that this is grossly unfair to those women. Leaving aside the possibility that men who speak on this have friends or family members who are involved in women's sports, like wilber's grand-daughters, there's also the blatant ridiculous unfairness of it which just offends most people with a basic sense of decency.
As I pointed out years ago during the Yaniv saga: when people like MH start asking "when did conservative men start caring about the powerless immigrant women Yaniv was suing?" it invites people like me to ask "when did progressives stop caring about those women?"
Likewise you guys shouldn't be asking Shady when he started caring about fairness for female athletes unless you're prepared to explain why you don't care about fairness for female athletes.
you're just doing what you're told.
I think there's a lot of that going on.
I don't think any of you actually believe that trans women are women in any meaningful sense, but you have to pretend you do because your political "team" demands it. Caitlyn Jenner? Dylan Mulvaney? Admiral Rachel "Doubtfire" Levine? Lia Thomas? Not women, and I think all of us know that in our hearts, but some of you aren't able to say so out loud.
I think all of us know that "non-binary" is just make-believe, some "not like other girls" internalized misogyny made woke, but some of you aren't able to say so out loud.
I think all of us know that men competing in women's sports isn't fair, but some of you have to find ways to rationalize it, because your political "team" says it's important.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 05:34:29 pm
It's interesting how there's also never any expectation of or demand for quid pro quo from the other side that if like we give on the sports thing they'll stop phoning in bomb threats to children's hospitals or showing up with guns at public libraries or accusing school teachers of being pedos/groomers.
"We've adopted stupid and unpopular positions, and we aren't going to abandon them until our demands are met!" A true strategic mastermind. There's Sun Tzu, there's Lord Admiral Nelson, there's Hannibal and Alexander the Great, and then there's this fucken guy.
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 05:36:02 pm
The main thrust of your complaint around all of this is accommodating trans people will mean cis men will take advantage/abuse the system seems to leave out one particular group.
I'm probably leaving out lots of particular groups. You'll have to expand on this. Are you trying to advance some particular line of discussion here?
-k
Post by: kimmy on October 06, 2023, 05:52:09 pm
1. Yes, take that to the Toronto Sun and tell them... please.
2. I am not. I'm mostly not saying anything. If you ask me, of course I'm on their side with this.
3. It's unfair - just like Jessica Yaniv's stupid thing was unfair...
1. So again, maybe the appropriate question isn't "why does the Toronto Sun care about this" but rather "why doesn't the Toronto Star care?" Progressives used to support female people. Why did that change?
2. Progressive activism around getting males into women's sports has two main prongs:
1: silence women who might speak out against it. That includes just not actually giving them a chance to speak, it includes disciplinary actions, threatening them with loss of scholarships and being removed from the team, and it includes demonization and even physical assault of those who do speak up.
2: try and focus attention instead on right-wingers who speak on this subject. "The female athletes don't mind (see step 1) so why is it just these right wing chuds speaking about this?"
3. To me what was unfair about the Yaniv thing is that women were shaken down for money and even lost their livelihoods for refusing to handle a man's balls. I have always suspected that to you what was unfair about the Yaniv thing is that made people mad about "trans rights" and trans activism. Your insistence that people shouldn't be talking about it was motivated by fear that it was bringing bad publicity to the whole "trans rights" enterprise, not out of any concern for any of the parties involved.
-k
Post by: guest7 on October 06, 2023, 06:14:07 pm
Progressives used to support female people. Why did that change?
It's not a recent phenomenon. I've lost count of the times I've been accused of Islamophobia because I care about women's and gay rights.
I will be again before today's out, you watch.
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 06, 2023, 06:26:25 pm
It's not a recent phenomenon. I've lost count of the times I've been accused of Islamophobia because I care about women's and gay rights.
I will be again before today's out, you watch.
Progressives typically side with the group they deem the most marginalized in their internalized victim hierarchy. It doesn't actually matter what is right vs wrong or what is "fair". Just what position will make them feel the least guilty or seem least like an a-hole to their peers. Muslims > women and gays. Trans women > cis women. Cis women > cis men.
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 08:24:48 pm
"We've adopted stupid and unpopular positions, and we aren't going to abandon them until our demands are met!" A true strategic mastermind. There's Sun Tzu, there's Lord Admiral Nelson, there's Hannibal and Alexander the Great, and then there's this fucken guy.
-
“If we give them this one thing the fascists will leave the Good Ones like me alone!” - kimmy just before they knock on her door
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 08:29:01 pm
Arguing that the issue isn't real because middle aged men don't watch women's sports is not a winning argument.
-k
That’s not the argument.
Post by: Black Dog on October 06, 2023, 08:32:05 pm
I'm probably leaving out lots of particular groups. You'll have to expand on this. Are you trying to advance some particular line of discussion here?
-k
Yes. I shouldn’t need to write a 2,000 word post explaining it either. Use your fuckin head.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2023, 07:01:49 am
1. So again, maybe the appropriate question isn't "why does the Toronto Sun care about this" but rather "why doesn't the Toronto Star care?"
2. Progressives used to support female people. Why did that change?
3. Progressive activism around getting males into women's sports has two main prongs:
1: silence women who might speak out against it. That includes just not actually giving them a chance to speak, it includes disciplinary actions, threatening them with loss of scholarships and being removed from the team, and it includes demonization and even physical assault of those who do speak up.
2: try and focus attention instead on right-wingers who speak on this subject. "The female athletes don't mind (see step 1) so why is it just these right wing chuds speaking about this?"
4. To me what was unfair about the Yaniv thing is that women were shaken down for money and even lost their livelihoods for refusing to handle a man's balls. I have always suspected that to you what was unfair about the Yaniv thing is that made people mad about "trans rights" and trans activism. Your insistence that people shouldn't be talking about it was motivated by fear that it was bringing bad publicity to the whole "trans rights" enterprise, not out of any concern for any of the parties involved.
-k
1. So we need to step back a bit on this because my "I don't care much" comment pertained to women's weightlifting. And, no, I don't care much about women's weightlifting or men's. This new social situation with trans people in society is of course going to collide into all kind of cultural domains, including sports. It's going to be messy and will have to be worked out. No, I DON'T need to have front page stories on trans women in weightlifting, water polo, croquet or what have you. The issue has to be worked out within those communities and I don't feel like I need to be consulted on that.
To answer why the Toronto Star doesn't care... there are two aspects: why don't they care ? should they care ?
Why don't they care ? Their readership isn't anger-clicking middle-aged white dudes, to be cynical. Should they care ? They should cover what is relevant to the public they serve - that is the prime directive of the press. So with regards to trans politics, the editor must make their best judgement on what to cover.
When you restarted this thread again, the topic was about a different case - which was the software conference event. I feel that that event should have been covered.
2. It's kind of a bad faith question. Most progressives would still say they care, I'm sure. Each person has to decide how to balance these rights and progressives vs you doesn't mean they don't care about women, obviously.
3. You are characterizing the people who oppose you as being dishonest. Your personal feelings on that are valid but generalizations around amorphous groups have limited use in analytical discussions such as these.
That's why I use the term "Chud"... it's a phenomenon/cultural fashion not a group with real objectives and so on. If I use "Chud" then it can be considered as a force, evaluated but it's a mass, it's a mob not a public. Just as you use "progressives". Using a group term like serves cultural criticism only... in fact a complaint.
Where it falls short is when you try to pivot to using this criticism against organized groups, with written arguments, stated goals and principles etc. To turn it back to how I use "Chud" ... I can try to say Chuds don't use arguments, they are tribal and stupid (I don't say all of those things) but if I say the same thing about the Republican party as an entity it's a lot easier to take down my statement. There are lots of smart Republicans, and they do use arguments as fallacious as they might be. If you are arguing against specific organizations then saying "they silence women" or "they have a strategy to silence women" is a more serious charge than a complaint against a mass group and needs specific arguments.
4. Coverage of any group, when it is done to enrage the audience, is done to get clicks. Ancillary effects of damaging the public sphere and further eroding unity in our fragile nation is my concern. As a same-sex attracted person, I would expect you to recognize this tactic from the past but maybe you are too young. The Sun and such papers made great hay around gay **** murders in the past. Doubtful to me that they had an AGENDA to demonize gay people, although they clearly didn't want to protect them. They wanted to convert innate distrust and hatred into $$$. Am i sad that trans people suffer ? Of course. That's the worst part of disunity. People suspecting Muslims of being evil, shooting them in their mosques (Quebec City) and driving over them (London) for example.
And if you doubt the cynicism of "the system" please note that the far right is now harnessing all that Muslim anti-LGBTQ sentiment to support the "Save the Kids" marches... storm libraries with drag queen reading hour, send crowds of people to schools and to troll school board meetings...
--------
I took a good part of time to respond on my Saturday for this, because I enjoy talking about what is to me the root issue: the public sphere.
kimmy, I do love you as much as I love any of you fake online personas (I am convinced Joan is catfishing me with all of you and she has set up a brilliant array of fake accounts to keep me occupied but I digress) ... but I am sad, because I think you see me as the enemy in this topic and you shouldn't. I am convinced I care about trans folks the same as you do but you see red when I am trying to find some unity in the public sphere.
As I said, I do like talking about this and I'm honoured that you keep bringing me back into a topic that I generally don't care about except for the public sphere angle. Maybe it's because I try to be intellectually honest on here; I hope it's that.
You are an activist for WOMEN... womyn... **** owners or whatever you want to call them... and that's good. You should be heartened that the debate seems to be coming around to your way and not just from Chud politics but for the real politics wherein normal and reasonable people look at a situation and say "well, yes, this seems to be a problem and we should do something about it"
-------
Last bit - the actual trans issue at the software conference. I'll comment on this, even though its Chud catnip, because it's a real problem in my eyes as opposed to a local girl's sports team in the midwest...
Why ?
It's a national conference of note to address an important and central social problem.
Clearly men cheated the system, misrepresented themselves as nonbinary, and took advantage.
Women suffered as a result.
What to do ?
We have to acknowledge that some men LIE about being women, for their advantage, to get attention or other illegitimate reasons.
That is difficult to do as believing them is a foundational element of the new trans politics but as with every progressive initiative ... reprobates will take advantage...
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 07, 2023, 07:02:20 am
Post by: wilber on October 07, 2023, 06:16:58 pm
Never mind that biological women will have to compete agains biological men in individual women's sports as well.
Find a way to rationalize that on your own, you will get no support from me, or understanding.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2023, 06:31:08 pm
Post by: wilber on October 07, 2023, 06:48:11 pm
Do you typically offer support and understanding for women's sport rules and regulations?
If you mean me. Yes. As kimmy mentioned, I have two grand daughters playing varsity rugby, I go to their games and I am always being hit up for money to support their program.
There is no **** way they should have to play against a two hundred pound man who calls himself a woman, nor should they lose a spot on their team for one.
It's called WOMEN'S sport for a reason.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 07, 2023, 06:58:09 pm
If you mean me. Yes. As kimmy mentioned, I have two grand daughters playing varsity rugby, I go to their games and I am always being hit up for money to support their program.Luckily sanity seems to be slowly prevailing. Extremists like Bubber and Black Dog are the fringe minority.
There is no **** way they should have to play against a two hundred pound man who calls himself a woman, nor should they lose a spot on their team for one.
It's called WOMEN'S sport for a reason.
Post by: guest18 on October 07, 2023, 07:21:41 pm
If you mean me. Yes. As kimmy mentioned, I have two grand daughters playing varsity rugby, I go to their games and I am always being hit up for money to support their program.I'm sorry that happened. We're they injured?
There is no **** way they should have to play against a two hundred pound man who calls himself a woman, nor should they lose a spot on their team for one.
It's called WOMEN'S sport for a reason.
Post by: wilber on October 07, 2023, 08:14:35 pm
I'm sorry that happened. We're they injured?
It hasn't happened yet and it shouldn't even be considered. As far as injuries go, it's part of the game. One has had a broken leg in a high school game against a visiting New Zealand team and surgery for a torn ACL in her second varsity season but is now playing, the other has had surgery on both shoulders but is back training but not playing yet. It's a tough enough sport without having to play against biological men.
Post by: guest18 on October 08, 2023, 05:50:39 am
Post by: guest7 on October 08, 2023, 09:07:04 am
So just hypothetical biological men? Get back to me when they're real and I'll worry. I'll defer any panic until I at least see a trans person in real life. In the meantime there's actual war and climate destruction to be concerned about.
No panic. Just common sense rules.
Good luck with the wars and climate change. Let us know how you do.
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2023, 12:50:21 pm
So just hypothetical biological men? Get back to me when they're real and I'll worry. I'll defer any panic until I at least see a trans person in real life. In the meantime there's actual war and climate destruction to be concerned about.
There have been several cases in weight lifting, cycling and swimming, amongst others.
https://news.yahoo.com/transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-continues-004435591.html
https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/transgender-cyclist-wins-nyc-womens-race/
https://www.aol.com/news/transgender-weightlifter-smashes-womens-world-163416496.html
Post by: guest18 on October 08, 2023, 02:13:50 pm
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 08, 2023, 09:10:20 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: guest7 on October 08, 2023, 10:09:42 pm
Just when I thought things couldn’t get more retarded, we have trans lesbians.
(Attachment Link)
A straight man who transitions would be attracted to women and therefore be a lesbian. They would have to have a relationship with a straight woman though, as a lesbian woman would not be interested. And they would not be a lesbian where other transitioned males are concerned.
A gay man who transitions would be attracted to men and therefore be a straight woman. They would have to have a relationship with a gay man though, as a straight man would not be interested. But they could have a relationship with a transitioned male, in which case they would be a lesbian.
If two gay men who are attracted to each other transition and are still attracted to each other, they would be lesbians, unless they fell out and met someone else, in which case they would be straight.
I can see people being confused by this.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 08, 2023, 10:36:11 pm
That’s a lot of words to describe a biological man being attracted to a biological woman, and vice versa! 😂😂😂
A straight man who transitions would be attracted to women and therefore be a lesbian. They would have to have a relationship with a straight woman though, as a lesbian woman would not be interested. And they would not be a lesbian where other transitioned males are concerned.
A gay man who transitions would be attracted to men and therefore be a straight woman. They would have to have a relationship with a gay man though, as a straight man would not be interested. But they could have a relationship with a transitioned male, in which case they would be a lesbian.
If two gay men who are attracted to each other transition and are still attracted to each other, they would be lesbians, unless they fell out and met someone else, in which case they would be straight.
I can see people being confused by this.
Post by: guest7 on October 08, 2023, 10:59:04 pm
That’s a lot of words to describe a biological man being attracted to a biological woman, and vice versa! 😂😂😂
Is that what you think I'm saying there? How do you figure?
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2023, 11:17:13 pm
Clearly the issue needs as many clicks as it can get.
Clearly the issue is to keep women’s sport for women.
Post by: guest18 on October 09, 2023, 05:32:52 am
Post by: guest7 on October 09, 2023, 08:52:31 am
Or to keep the halfwits talking about things that don't really matter so they don't talk about the things that do.
Couldn't they use another thread?
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on October 10, 2023, 02:02:21 pm
Or to keep the halfwits talking about things that don't really matter so they don't talk about the things that do.
#ConspiracyTheory
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 11, 2023, 07:34:46 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 11, 2023, 10:15:27 pm
(Attachment Link)
You don’t have kids lol
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 12, 2023, 11:13:14 am
(Attachment Link)
What about the medical community? Because they're under the same points of consideration.
If a teacher hears A kid telling another kid she wants to have an abortion do they have to tell the parent?
Post by: Black Dog on October 12, 2023, 11:16:48 am
What about the medical community? Because they're under the same points of consideration.
If a teacher hears A kid telling another kid she wants to have an abortion do they have to tell the parent?
According to these dopes, if a teacher hears from a kid that they are being sexually abused by a parent, that teacher will then have to tell the abuser.
Post by: wilber on October 12, 2023, 09:33:58 pm
According to these dopes, if a teacher hears from a kid that they are being sexually abused by a parent, that teacher will then have to tell the abuser.
No, they should be telling the police. Sexual abuse is a crime.
Post by: guest18 on October 13, 2023, 07:09:15 am
Yes: 45%
No: 35%
Unsure: 20%
Leger / October 9, 2023 / n=1518 / Online
Post by: guest18 on October 13, 2023, 07:12:02 am
But then again, they lost. So have at it, I guess.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 13, 2023, 09:25:26 am
The reason I'm dismissive about even talking about this culture war BS is because this sounds like an incident that doesn't happen all that often and is certainly not worthy of building a whole election campaign around, as the PCs did in the recent Manitoba election.
But then again, they lost. So have at it, I guess.
You are starting to see what I see...
A whole lot of bandwidth wasted on things that are so unimportant and suck the oxygen out of the room. If there is policy to be made, then talk about it at the level where the public is located, ie. local. If not, then ... I don't know ... create a support group for people who want to change the constitution and have no idea what is involved and think yelling F**K TRUDEAU enough will change the law...
Post by: guest7 on October 13, 2023, 09:49:07 am
You are starting to see what I see...
A whole lot of bandwidth wasted on things that are so unimportant and suck the oxygen out of the room. If there is policy to be made, then talk about it at the level where the public is located, ie. local. If not, then ... I don't know ... create a support group for people who want to change the constitution and have no idea what is involved and think yelling F**K TRUDEAU enough will change the law...
Unimportant to who?
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 13, 2023, 09:50:35 am
Unimportant to who?
Unimportant to a national audience how a local wrestling team applies policy w.r.t. transgender rights. It's outrage journalism... the last thing we need IMO.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 13, 2023, 09:51:14 am
Is the press supposed to feed our gluttony for ragertainment ?
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 13, 2023, 09:58:25 am
Unimportant to a national audience how a local wrestling team applies policy w.r.t. transgender rights. It's outrage journalism... the last thing we need IMO.This is completely absurd. Just because a particular issue doesn’t directly affect you, doesn’t mean it’s not important. Your argument lacks any kind of logic or reason. That ridiculous standard could be applied to almost every issue, rendering them all unimportant.
Post by: guest7 on October 13, 2023, 09:58:45 am
Unimportant to a national audience how a local wrestling team applies policy w.r.t. transgender rights. It's outrage journalism... the last thing we need IMO.
How come you get to speak for everyone else? I notice the unimportant things are things you personally would rather weren't being discussed.
If trans women were banned from all women's sports, and from all women's private spaces, (except under invitation, of course) I could see just letting that go and not bothering to talk about it anymore. But I bet you would.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 13, 2023, 10:06:01 am
How come you get to speak for everyone else? I notice the unimportant things are things you personally would rather weren't being discussed.Exactly. For some reason he thinks he's the issue sheriff, determining which issues are actually important and which aren't. I'm not sure where he gets this mindset from, but he basically determines the importance of issues based on his politics, and/or whether he is personally impacted by a specific issue. I guess we could all do that.
If trans women were banned from all women's sports, and from all women's private spaces, (except under invitation, of course) I could see just letting that go and not bothering to talk about it anymore. But I bet you would.
Post by: Black Dog on October 13, 2023, 10:40:39 am
No, they should be telling the police. Sexual abuse is a crime.
Take it up with Shady, he's the one who thinks sexual abusers should be informed if their victims are talking about their crimes.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 13, 2023, 12:05:28 pm
1. How come you get to speak for everyone else? I notice the unimportant things are things you personally would rather weren't being discussed.1. I get to comment on the public sphere. We all do. You did with this: "is certainly not worthy of building a whole election campaign around" Why is your comment, diminishing the importance of an issue, different from mine which talks about how it's covered ?
2. If trans women were banned from all women's sports, and from all women's private spaces, (except under invitation, of course) I could see just letting that go and not bothering to talk about it anymore. But I bet you would.
2. How is that anything like the scale of the example I gave ? I'm floored as to how you would see my example being the equivalent of this.
Post by: guest7 on October 13, 2023, 12:11:51 pm
1. I get to comment on the public sphere. We all do. You did with this: "is certainly not worthy of building a whole election campaign around" Why is your comment, diminishing the importance of an issue, different from mine which talks about how it's covered ?
2. How is that anything like the scale of the example I gave ? I'm floored as to how you would see my example being the equivalent of this.
1) I don't think I said that.
2) That's exactly what I mean. You assign importance, and decide what is worth discussing and what isn't. Others might differ. Female wrestlers, for instance.
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 13, 2023, 12:41:24 pm
1) I don't think I said that.1) My mistake
2) That's exactly what I mean. You assign importance, and decide what is worth discussing and what isn't. Others might differ. Female wrestlers, for instance.
2) Ok but there is likely even some objective metric someone could use to assess the relative importance of a local issue vs a national rights discussion ? And if the former is getting too much information, thereby determining that there is a common problem for us to discuss ?
Post by: guest7 on October 13, 2023, 01:04:23 pm
1) My mistake
2) Ok but there is likely even some objective metric someone could use to assess the relative importance of a local issue vs a national rights discussion ? And if the former is getting too much information, thereby determining that there is a common problem for us to discuss ?
1) No problem.
2) I think this view might have had some merit thirty years ago, when the news was limited by the number of pages a newspaper had, and to the number of people who bought it. Now, space is limitless, and the whole idea is to appeal to as many people as possible to increase ad revenue and sell subscriptions. Discussions are just a natural progression on from getting the information in the first place.
Post by: wilber on October 13, 2023, 01:52:01 pm
Take it up with Shady, he's the one who thinks sexual abusers should be informed if their victims are talking about their crimes.
Where did he say that?
Post by: guest18 on October 13, 2023, 02:05:29 pm
(Attachment Link)Here
Post by: wilber on October 13, 2023, 02:19:43 pm
Here
Teachers have an obligation to inform the police if a crime has been committed. After that it would be out of their hands.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 13, 2023, 02:19:50 pm
HereComplete nonsense. If a teacher suspected that a child was being abused, the authorities would be informed, ie police, child protective services, etc. Your people are literal bags of crap. Eat sh*t.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 13, 2023, 02:20:34 pm
Teachers have an obligation to inform the police if a crime has been committed. After that it would be out of their hands.Exactly.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 13, 2023, 02:21:54 pm
Take it up with Shady, he's the one who thinks sexual abusers should be informed if their victims are talking about their crimes.You’re a disgusting liar. Eat sh*t, along with your fellow terrorist sympathizing buddy.
Post by: Black Dog on October 13, 2023, 02:42:51 pm
You’re a disgusting liar. Eat sh*t, along with your fellow terrorist sympathizing buddy.
This is what you posted, do you not agree now?
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=2812;image)
I means the words "exhaustive" and "nothing" are pretty unequivocal. I guess maybe you shouldn't let memes do your thinking for you, hey shitbag?
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2023, 09:30:29 am
Post by: wilber on October 14, 2023, 09:37:45 am
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2023, 09:55:07 am
Post by: wilber on October 14, 2023, 10:22:45 am
How about if a kid asks for privacy on a personal matter? That seems reasonable, and apparently it takes the notwithstanding clause for the government to override that right. Doesn't that strike you as overreach, and an overreaction, on the government's part?
Could be, depending on the circumstances. I don't think you can have hard and fast rules. A student needs to understand that a teacher will do what they feel is right for the child, including calling the cops to report their parents if the child has been abused.
If a kid comes out to a teacher, I don't see a need for the teacher to inform the parents. If the kid is contemplating life changing surgery, I definitely think the parents should be involved. The devil would be in the details.
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2023, 10:32:29 am
Post by: wilber on October 14, 2023, 10:56:18 am
I don't think kids having life-changing surgery without their parents knowing is something that has ever happened, or might happen. This sort of talk is what I'm referring to when I say it's not a real issue.
I wouldn't know. It would certainly be a real issue for a 1 in 100,000 kid who might be thinking about it.
Post by: guest18 on October 14, 2023, 11:13:02 am
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2023, 01:25:19 pm
Could be, depending on the circumstances. I don't think you can have hard and fast rules. A student needs to understand that a teacher will do what they feel is right for the child, including calling the cops to report their parents if the child has been abused.
If a kid comes out to a teacher, I don't see a need for the teacher to inform the parents. If the kid is contemplating life changing surgery, I definitely think the parents should be involved. The devil would be in the details.
We’re not taking about surgery (which kids can’t get without parental consent anyway) we’re talking about pronouns.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 14, 2023, 03:31:49 pm
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
Post by: Black Dog on October 14, 2023, 04:12:32 pm
News flash to you libtards. This isn’t progress. This isn’t inclusiveness. This is absurd and barbaric. Enough of your f**king bullsh*t. F**k off.
(Attachment Link)
(Attachment Link)
(Attachment Link)
Funny as hell that you retards have like four examples you keep going back to and one of them is Mack Beggs who is a transman forced to wrestle in the girl's category because of antitrans policies. I'm surprised you didn't include Fallon Fox.
Post by: BC_cheque on October 17, 2023, 10:05:54 pm
I don't think kids having life-changing surgery without their parents knowing is something that has ever happened, or might happen. This sort of talk is what I'm referring to when I say it's not a real issue.
It's not. They just couldn't get enough people to jump on the hate wagon so they had to make **** up.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 21, 2023, 01:45:54 pm
I don't think kids having life-changing surgery without their parents knowing is something that has ever happened, or might happen. This sort of talk is what I'm referring to when I say it's not a real issue.I don’t think anyone has suggested that kids have surgery without knowledge of their parents. Now you’re making up issues that aren’t real. The issue is allowing permanent surgery and or drug therapy like puberty blockers on children because they say they think they need it, when things like tattoos and piercing aren’t even allowed. How about waiting until a child becomes an adult to make that big of a decision? Crazy concept huh? Besides, there’s now a billion dollar cosmetic surgery industry specifically targeted for children and their concerned parents.
Post by: guest18 on October 21, 2023, 02:39:36 pm
Post by: Black Dog on October 21, 2023, 02:40:00 pm
I don’t think anyone has suggested that kids have surgery without knowledge of their parents. Now you’re making up issues that aren’t real. The issue is allowing permanent surgery and or drug therapy like puberty blockers on children because they say they think they need it, when things like tattoos and piercing aren’t even allowed. How about waiting until a child becomes an adult to make that big of a decision? Crazy concept huh? Besides, there’s now a billion dollar cosmetic surgery industry specifically targeted for children and their concerned parents.
This is all horseshit of course but the idea that there’s a bill in dollar industry making money off the infinitesimal number if young people who receive gender affirming medical care is the dumbest fuckin thing ever. Only an absolute rube would believe that.
Post by: After 9 years of Trudeau Shady on October 26, 2023, 03:28:54 pm
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Michael Hardner on October 26, 2023, 04:15:43 pm
The Chuds are building resentment... I think that religious people are going to be heavily persecuted in the coming years.
Not good.