# J.K. Rowling faces backlash after tweeting support for 'transphobic' researcher



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 19, 2019)

> “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling trended on social media Thursday morning — and not because she's coming out with a new book. The British author sparked a backlash after tweeting her support for a woman with a history of making comments considered transphobic.
> 
> “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you,” Rowling wrote on Thursday, in her first tweet since September. “Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”
> 
> ...



https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...eting-support-transphobic-researcher-n1104971

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gunners (Dec 19, 2019)

The alphabet people were furious!

Seriously, I'm going to sit back and watch the shit show. Frankenstein must now deal with the monster that he created.

And to be clear, I'm not referring to transsexuals as monsters. I'm simply referring to the state of affairs that exists whereby people cannot raise reasonable concerns.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 19, 2019)

Gunners said:


> The alphabet people were furious!
> 
> Seriously, I'm going to sit back and watch the shit show. Frankenstein must now deal with the monster that he created.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not referring to transsexuals as monsters. I'm simply referring to the state of affairs that exists whereby people cannot raise reasonable concerns.



Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.

That is not a reasonable concern. That's the minimal requirement for functioning in modern society.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 19, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.
> 
> That is not a reasonable concern. That's the minimal requirement for functioning in modern society.



I don't think it is a sign of hatred to point at the elephant that is standing in the room. 

If I put a wig on tomorrow, and made the claim that I feel as though I'm a woman, would it be reasonable of me to expect my female colleagues to be comfortable with me just walking into the female restroom? 

You can argue about where right or wrong falls. However I feel people are losing sight of the fact that it isn't an area people have been conditioned to accept and that it will reasonable cause certain questions and a level of discomfort.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## stream (Dec 19, 2019)

I understand that there is a branch of radical feminism which is pretty outraged at transwomen. They say that the true oppression of women is that they have to bear children for the future of the human race, and that transwomen are not oppressed. In fact, those women feel somehow oppressed by transwomen.

On one hand, it's really surprising when an oppressed group hates on another oppressed group; and there are too few transwomen to oppress anybody.

On the other hand, I guess it's a bit like black people would feel if there were white people suddenly declaring that they identify as black. And possibly complaining about how oppressed they are as transblack people. I think that many black people would feel pretty insulted by that.


----------



## GRIMMM (Dec 19, 2019)

"Stunning and brave".


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 19, 2019)

This shit is ridiculous no matter how many mental gymnastic they do, at the end of the day, trans woman are still men... 

i repeat: trans women are not & never will be real women, they are men

trans like reduce being a woman down to makeup, breasts & feminine clothing or men to beard, jean or drinking when there's much more to being a woman or men than that

you cannot "feel" like you are a woman or a man, you either are one biologically or you're not, they follow the very gender norms they claim they & their delusional supporters despise. isn't that ironic?

if we let this ideology spread and become normal, tomorrow a white people can claim that his ancestor suffer of slavery because he feel like he is black or an old man can ask to go high school because he feel again that he seveenteen

Reactions: Like 5 | Winner 2


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 19, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.



If their job has nothing to do with their hate, is not affected by it and is not done within working hours, no they dont.

That being said:

Given the job of the fired women was in a think tank I do think her hate warrants being fired because it can indeed contaminate her work. So it would with jobs like teachers and HR.

But if I have lets say, a computer programmet ir accountant in my business, I dont give a shit if he or she is a neonazi, provided they do their job well.


----------



## hammer (Dec 19, 2019)

Orochibuto said:


> If their job has nothing to do with their hate, is not affected by it and is not done within working hours, no they dont.


by virtue of having co workers it will always be affected


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 19, 2019)

Well, I'm sure J.K will be just fine. Probably fanning herself with her millions, I mean billion.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2019)

She got woke, and paid the price, people never learn.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## LesExit (Dec 19, 2019)

If saying "sex is real", a biological fact, is considered transphobic....something is clearly wrong with the trans movement. 
And something is wrong with it. It has become one of the most misogynistic, homophobic & anti-science mainstream political movements today.  

Just because a fact upsets you, doesn't change that it is a fact. It also doesn't turn the fact into hate speech. Trans women are not real women. Trans men are not real men. No matter how many times trans activists repeat the mantra that they are, it remains true that they aren't. They _are_ real _trans_ men and _trans_ women, but they are _still_ female and male respectively. 

Good on JK for speaking up, but it has been clear for a while now where she stands. She just clearly vocalized it this time, which is good. I'd like more people to become aware of how stupid trans politics have gotten, where basic facts are deemed hate speech.

Anyways, the trans movement and LGBTQ+++ movement is a clownfest, and my lesbian ass refuses to associate with them cause they're insane.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Aduro (Dec 19, 2019)

Gunners said:


> If I put a wig on tomorrow, and made the claim that I feel as though I'm a woman, would it be reasonable of me to expect my female colleagues to be comfortable with me just walking into the female restroom?


If you put on a wig tomorrow and someone beats the shit out of you for being trans, will you stop being a transphobic moron? Using transgenderism to commit sexual offences is a crime that almost never happens. And is not an excuse to abuse innocent trans people.

Also, every house you've ever been in probably has a gender-neutral toilet. Grow up.

I feel so bad for trans people. Even supposedly woke and liberal people will hate them for stupid, prejudicial reasons.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 19, 2019)

I'm going to call this, "I made 'Jesus Walk" so I'm not going to hell" logic.


----------



## hammer (Dec 19, 2019)

being afraid of men going to the womens room is such BS, I seen more CIS women walk into the mens room because the line is too long.


----------



## Santoryu (Dec 19, 2019)




----------



## Capt. Autismo (Dec 19, 2019)

Gunners said:


> If I put a wig on tomorrow, and made the claim that I feel as though I'm a woman, would it be reasonable of me to expect my female colleagues to be comfortable with me just walking into the female restroom?


I say get rid of the terms mens restroom and womens restroom and just call it penis or vagina room and then you dont have to attribute it to gender. If you got a dick go to the dick room. Boom problem solved. I need to get into politics. 

Autismo 2020


----------



## Kingdom Come (Dec 19, 2019)

J.K. Rowling is a brave soul


----------



## stream (Dec 19, 2019)

Actually, there should be no problem with anybody walking in a women's restroom. Women's restrooms have stalls, no urinal. You lock the door of the stall, and nobody can see you, no matter what sex or gender they are.


----------



## hammer (Dec 19, 2019)

stream said:


> Actually, there should be no problem with anybody walking in a women's restroom. Women's restrooms have stalls, no urinal. You lock the door of the stall, and nobody can see you, no matter what sex or gender they are.


I would feel kind of emberresed letting out my big ass dookie next to a women tbh

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1 | Lewd 1


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Dec 19, 2019)

stream said:


> Actually, there should be no problem with anybody walking in a women's restroom. Women's restrooms have stalls, no urinal. You lock the door of the stall, and nobody can see you, no matter what sex or gender they are.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 19, 2019)

hammer said:


> by virtue of having co workers it will always be affected



No, not if they can separate the personal from professional.

If there are zero reports against him in the work and all the shit happened because some virtual Batman tracked his workplace to report him with mommy I am not firing him, unless he is a HR manager.

Of course there would be a thorough investigation to see if his coworkers have been discriminated by him. If they havent, I see no reason to fire him.


----------



## Santoryu (Dec 19, 2019)

stream said:


> Actually, there should be no problem with anybody walking in a women's restroom. Women's restrooms have stalls, no urinal. You lock the door of the stall, and nobody can see you, no matter what sex or gender they are.



in theory there shouldn't be but such a rapid shift would lead to problems
no doubt about that


----------



## hammer (Dec 19, 2019)

Orochibuto said:


> No, not if they can separate the personal from professional.


if you are racist you can't do that.


----------



## Aduro (Dec 19, 2019)

Santoryu said:


> in theory there shouldn't be but such a rapid shift would lead to problems
> no doubt about that


Yeah, next thing you know, people will be expected to have toilets in their homes that both men and women can use. Women would have to take a shit with only a couple of inches of solid door between themselves and people with penises.


----------



## Santoryu (Dec 19, 2019)

Aduro said:


> Yeah, next thing you know, people will be expected to have toilets in their homes that both men and women can use. Women would have to take a shit with only a couple of inches of solid door between themselves and people with penises.



lol what


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Dec 19, 2019)

Aduro said:


> Yeah, next thing you know, people will be expected to have toilets in their homes that both men and women can use. Women would have to take a shit with only a couple of inches of solid door between themselves and people with penises.


Well generally if you are in your home it's not random strangers hanging out in your house.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 19, 2019)

Capt. Autismo said:


> I say get rid of the terms mens restroom and womens restroom and just call it penis or vagina room and then you dont have to attribute it to gender. If you got a dick go to the dick room. Boom problem solved. I need to get into politics.
> 
> Autismo 2020


Both of those are reproductive organs that belong to a gender. So that resolves nothing. I think you should get into politics. There are plenty of voters who think we should be back in the 1600's practicing colonialism*.*


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 19, 2019)

Meh.... No hero is perfect.

that being said [HASHTAG]#transrights[/HASHTAG]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Dec 19, 2019)

Hand Banana said:


> Both of those are reproductive organs that belong to a gender. So that resolves nothing. I think you should get into politics. There are plenty of voters who think we should be back in the 1600's practicing colonialism*.*


<3.

I mean I usually see people getting triggered by the names of the gender they dont identify with not necessarily the organs they have but that's just what I see.

Not really sure what the colonialism comment has to do with anything. Lmao


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 19, 2019)

Capt. Autismo said:


> <3.
> 
> I mean I usually see people getting triggered by the names of the gender they dont identify with not necessarily the organs they have but that's just what I see.
> 
> Not really what the colonialism comment has to do with anything. Lmao


Stop looking at people's dicks. Bathrooms are the least of anyone's worries. The internet on the other hand is a place where stupid ideologies spread like California wildfires.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Dec 19, 2019)

Hand Banana said:


> Stop looking at people's dicks. Bathrooms are the least of anyone's worries. The internet on the other hand is a place where stupid ideologies spread like California wildfires.


Well I mean it was more of a joke than a serious suggestion. Felt like that didnt really need to be explained. I guess I'll go back to adding "" to the end of my posts I'm not serious on. You can pull the wedgie out your ass now. Jesus.


----------



## Aduro (Dec 19, 2019)

Capt. Autismo said:


> Well generally if you are in your home it's not random strangers hanging out in your house.


That's true for staff toilets too. And there are public gender-neutral toilets.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 19, 2019)

Capt. Autismo said:


> Well I mean it was more of a joke than a serious suggestion. Felt like that didnt really need to be explained. I guess I'll go back to adding "" to the end of my posts I'm not serious on. You can pull the wedgie out your ass now. Jesus.


First of all I'm not Jesus. Never in your life call me that. Second of all address me improperly one more time and these hands gonna come flyin at your face 100 mph. (160 kph). With that said honestly the shit you said is no different than the stupid shit that comes out of your mouth.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 19, 2019)

In a commonsense world, people know how separate professional stuffs and personal opinion, as long as this man doesn't discriminate or have hateful speech during this work, i can't see for what reasons they can fired him.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 19, 2019)

hammer said:


> if you are racist you can't do that.



The fact that I got zero reports or complains about him in the workplace, and the only complains I got are from Internet Superman who didnt even knew about my business until he googled it up clearly indicate otherwise.


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Dec 19, 2019)

Hand Banana said:


> First of all I'm not Jesus. Never in your life call me that. Second of all address me improperly one more time and these hands gonna come flyin at your face 100 mph. (160 kph). With that said honestly the shit you said is no different than the stupid shit that comes out of your mouth.


Sorry daddy.


----------



## hammer (Dec 19, 2019)

Orochibuto said:


> The fact that I got zero reports or complains about him in the workplace, and the only complains I got are from Internet Superman who didnt even knew about my business until he googled it up clearly indicate otherwise.


of course someone wont scream to the rooftops the n or f word dosent mean there are no problems.  people are antgaonistic and we are raised to take BS.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 19, 2019)

Capt. Autismo said:


> Sorry daddy.


----------



## Aduro (Dec 19, 2019)

That may have wound up in the wrong thread...
But I'm still right about everything.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 19, 2019)

Hand Banana said:


> First of all I'm not Jesus. Never in your life call me that. Second of all address me improperly one more time and these hands gonna come flyin at your face 100 mph. (160 kph). With that said honestly the shit you said is no different than the stupid shit that comes out of your mouth.


Jesus, calm down.

FFS.


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 19, 2019)

hammer said:


> of course someone wont scream to the rooftops the n or f word dosent mean there are no problems.  people are antgaonistic and we are raised to take BS.



You dont have to be screaming the n or f word to get reported for discrimination.

The fact that no report happened at all in the workplace and all accusations come from Internet Batman is telling.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 19, 2019)

SJW’s always eat their own.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 19, 2019)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Jesus, calm down.
> 
> FFS.


I have no idea who you are.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 19, 2019)

Hand Banana said:


> I have no idea who you are.


Jesus Christ, simmer it down a bit.


----------



## Canute87 (Dec 20, 2019)

They opened the flood gates to the insanity and now they can't close it.


----------



## Amol (Dec 20, 2019)

I don't know how I feel about this. I am having lot of contradictory thoughts over this.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2019)

if you write Batman
Bruce Wayne will lurk around the thread 
seems suspicious


----------



## stream (Dec 20, 2019)

To be honest, I feel there are unreasonable people on each side. People shouldn't freak out that somebody they consider to be of the other gender is using their restroom (assuming the stalls close properly and give privacy). On the other hand, I don't really get either why it's so important for trans people to use the restroom of their chosen gender rather than the one of their external appearance (the two cases are rather symmetric in fact). And in any case the proposed solution is to have gender-neutral restrooms, which amounts to the same: You share your restroom with people of both gender.

And then you have the people who don't identify with either gender who reportedly feel uncomfortable in both men's and women's restrooms. At that point, it's hard for me not to say "it's your problem, deal with it"...

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## hammer (Dec 20, 2019)

stream said:


> And in any case the proposed solution is to have gender-neutral restrooms, which amounts to the same: You share your restroom with people of both gender.


I don't want to be on my first date and she walks in when I have my explosive shit. bad idea 0/10


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 20, 2019)

stream said:


> I understand that there is a branch of radical feminism which is pretty outraged at transwomen. They say that the true oppression of women is that they have to bear children for the future of the human race, and that transwomen are not oppressed. In fact, those women feel somehow oppressed by transwomen.
> 
> On one hand, it's really surprising when an oppressed group hates on another oppressed group; and there are too few transwomen to oppress anybody.
> 
> On the other hand, I guess it's a bit like black people would feel if there were white people suddenly declaring that they identify as black. And possibly complaining about how oppressed they are as transblack people. I think that many black people would feel pretty insulted by that.



I don't think this is the same as someone one day waking up and deciding they want to be black.

Transgender people are basically peoppe with female brains in a men's body, and vice-versa. They have a mental condition that has been scientifically proven to exist. They feel like their gender, and they can't just force their gender to match their sex, just like you and me can't force ourselves to change our gender either.

If someone has such a condition you adapt society to welcome them, not act like they are being selfish.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## GRIMMM (Dec 20, 2019)

Why is the toilet thing such a massive debate?


----------



## hammer (Dec 20, 2019)

GRIMMM said:


> Why is the toilet thing such a massive debate?


it's so stupid, when kids are as little as they say they are when they say think of the children they are always with an adult anyways


----------



## BlackBearD (Dec 20, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I don't think this is the same as someone one day waking up and deciding they want to be black.
> 
> Transgender people are basically peoppe with female brains in a men's body, and vice-versa. They have a mental condition that has been scientifically proven to exist. They feel like their gender, and they can't just force their gender to match their sex, just like you and me can't force ourselves to change our gender either.
> 
> If someone has such a condition you adapt society to welcome them, not act like they are being selfish.


----------



## Zeta42 (Dec 20, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> In a commonsense world, people know how separate professional stuffs and personal opinion, as long as this man doesn't discriminate or have hateful speech during this work, i can't see for what reasons they can fired him.


That used to be the case until SJWs realized they can use the Internet to ruin people and companies' reputations.


----------



## Subarashii (Dec 20, 2019)




----------



## Justiciar (Dec 20, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.


Why?


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 20, 2019)

Justiciar said:


> Why?



Because he way we end prejudice is by creating a society where people who practice are ostracized and tolerance becomes the norm.

We need to raise children to be tolerant, create a culture of tolerance, build society to be tolerant from its foundation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justiciar (Dec 20, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Because he way we end prejudice is by creating a society where people who practice are ostracized and tolerance becomes the norm.


That's not how we end prejudice, that's how we increase the tension between normal people and minority groups.

Not that terminating employments would be particularly effective. Because most businesses rely on their employees. Sure, a Star Bucks barista is replaceable. But a programmer with 10 years of experience could be the difference between profit and bankruptcy for a small business, and so no CEO would give them up.



> We need to raise children to be tolerant, create a culture of tolerance, build society to be tolerant from its foundation.


Wouldn't it be better if we raised children so that they'd be secure and not so easily offended?

I'm perfectly fine with people (say coworkers) cussing me out and thinking I'm retarded, I'll still socialize with them during After Work. People think and say stupid shit all the time, but I don't sit up thinking about it because I'm not 11 years old anymore.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 20, 2019)

^There does seem to be a cultural schism here because I also interpret excessive politeness and correctness as a _tension_ most of the time, not actually as politeness and progress. Whereas I interpret people teasing each other as something friendlier and more relaxed.

Like I can't think of any friend of mine I don't tease whereas the people I'm most proper and polite with are generally people I don't know and am not relaxed or comfortable with.

Not everybody's wired like me, but for people that are, this looks like tension more than progress. Maybe society just has to get over the hump and then the public can relax, but I'm pretty skeptical about there being any crest in this mountainside of expectations and manners that just gets steeper and steeper every year. You've gotta let us get to the top eventually or people will just say fuck it and start going downhill again.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 20, 2019)

Rowling has been shown to like tweets that were pretty anti trans in the past. Most places kind of let it slide when she was just the author of a beloved book series that was creating more content people were excited to see. Now after a lackluster theater play and two uneven movies, one of which is an utter disaster she also can’t seem to shut up shoving authorial intent and retcons into her books. 

A lot of the good will people had toward her dried up but then she said this. No one is going to go to bat for her really and once you see the kind of stuff she liked in the past you’ll see why. 

I was disappointed. I saw I Stand With Maya trending and figured we were going to finally go after those Conquistador bastards for what they did.


----------



## Doc Mindstorm (Dec 20, 2019)

Yes, we live in "Bizzaro World".


----------



## Aduro (Dec 20, 2019)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Rowling has been shown to like tweets that were pretty anti trans in the past. Most places kind of let it slide when she was just the author of a beloved book series that was creating more content people were excited to see. Now after a lackluster theater play and two uneven movies, one of which is an utter disaster she also can’t seem to shut up shoving authorial intent and retcons into her books.


Its a shame people can't get past their emotional attachment to realise that people who make stuff they enjoy can be horrible. Especially if the work isn't related to the things they say and do.
Its not like everyone who liked Lostprophets music is a pedo. And only _most_ people who enjoy Lovecraft are Nazis. I loved the Harry  Potter books growing up, and transgenderism was never really related to any of it.

I remember Rowling got in some controversy about defending the casting of Johnny Depp as Grindelwald after all the domestic abuse allegations. Not really a popular move from someone who likes to cast herself as a paragon of wokeness. Her attitudes aren't that old-fashioned for a boomer. But she put herself on too high of a pedestal to avoid criticism for this shit.


----------



## A. Waltz (Dec 20, 2019)

im not surprised, gay community told us how problematic it was for her to claim leadership in LGBTQ circles for making dumbledore gay /after/ the books are published.. like really bitch? you were too afraid to make it explicit in the book, dont try to cop out after the fact just to gain some brownie points with the gays. same thing with the whole "well i never said hermione's skin color! i did say she had curly hair, so yeah she could be black!! i never had a race envisioned for her" even though clearly she gave input into the casting of hermione in the movie as a white girl, and also input into illustrations drawn for the book. but now she claims "well of course i thought of hermione as black!!" to try to seem woke

-__-


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 20, 2019)

A. Waltz said:


> im not surprised, gay community told us how problematic it was for her to claim leadership in LGBTQ circles for making dumbledore gay /after/ the books are published.. like really bitch? you were too afraid to make it explicit in the book, dont try to cop out after the fact just to gain some brownie points with the gays. same thing with the whole "well i never said hermione's skin color! i did say she had curly hair, so yeah she could be black!! i never had a race envisioned for her" even though clearly she gave input into the casting of hermione in the movie as a white girl, and also input into illustrations drawn for the book. but now she claims "well of course i thought of hermione as black!!" to try to seem woke
> 
> -__-


I will say this. Most authors have no control over illustrating their book. You have books with black leads and whites on the cover. One reason for this is there’s racism in the publishing and book selling world. A black person on your cover could see you shelved in a different area of the store (African American if you’re in the US).


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2019)

Aduro said:


> And only _most_ people who enjoy Lovecraft are Nazis.



No.

Objectively, categorically, no.

Retraction please.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 20, 2019)

Counterpoint, _I _enjoy lovecraft and am basically a nazi.

Befuddling


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> Counterpoint, _I _enjoy lovecraft and am basically a nazi.
> 
> Befuddling



Not helping : P

(also I'd not call you that


----------



## Aduro (Dec 20, 2019)

San Juan Wolf said:


> No.
> 
> Objectively, categorically, no.
> 
> Retraction please.


I said most.
I feel for you. But you have to accept, some of them are just pretending to believe in the big Jewish conspracies to fit in.


----------



## A. Waltz (Dec 20, 2019)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I will say this. Most authors have no control over illustrating their book. You have books with black leads and whites on the cover. One reason for this is there’s racism in the publishing and book selling world. A black person on your cover could see you shelved in a different area of the store (African American if you’re in the US).


oh wow i didnt know about this. that's fucked up but sad also :\


----------



## Gunners (Dec 20, 2019)

Gunners said:


> I don't think it is a sign of hatred to point at the elephant that is standing in the room.
> 
> If I put a wig on tomorrow, and made the claim that I feel as though I'm a woman, would it be reasonable of me to expect my female colleagues to be comfortable with me just walking into the female restroom?
> 
> You can argue about where right or wrong falls. However I feel people are losing sight of the fact that it isn't an area people have been conditioned to accept and that it will reasonable cause certain questions and a level of discomfort.





Aduro said:


> If you put on a wig tomorrow and someone beats the shit out of you for being trans, will you stop being a transphobic moron? Using transgenderism to commit sexual offences is a crime that almost never happens. And is not an excuse to abuse innocent trans people.
> 
> Also, every house you've ever been in probably has a gender-neutral toilet. Grow up.
> 
> I feel so bad for trans people. Even supposedly woke and liberal people will hate them for stupid, prejudicial reasons.



Respect what the word hate and abuse means. They're not words that you throw around to shut down a discussion and avoid having to deal with understandable concerns. 

Your first sentence doesn't even make sense. It is like you got emotional and mashed together some sentence that involved me getting a beating. Grow up.



Aduro said:


> Its a shame people can't get past their emotional attachment to realise that people who make stuff they enjoy can be horrible. Especially if the work isn't related to the things they say and do.
> Its not like everyone who liked Lostprophets music is a pedo. And only _most_ people who enjoy Lovecraft are Nazis. I loved the Harry Potter books growing up, and transgenderism was never really related to any of it.
> 
> I remember Rowling got in some controversy about defending the casting of Johnny Depp as Grindelwald after all the domestic abuse allegations. Not really a popular move from someone who likes to cast herself as a paragon of wokeness. Her attitudes aren't that old-fashioned for a boomer. But she put herself on too high of a pedestal to avoid criticism for this shit.



The above is why I would be an absolute cunt if I had misfortune of becoming famous. What's I find shameful is the existence of people who feel entitled to the thoughts and opinions of their elected heroes. Effectively you they're viewed as puppets which is why people can't just leave things at "you know what, I disagree with them." It is seen as some great disappointment that results in actions of spite. 

Moreover what was she supposed to do regarding Johnny Depp? The way I looked at things, you had a group of peasants who wanted to lynch a man without hearing his side of the story. She was friends with him and she heard the side of the story where he was the victim. Someone being supportive of their friend in a situation where the story is unclear shouldn't be a controversy but people don't know where to the draw the line. They want to exist in a world where they have the power to completely isolate the accused before the truth even has a chance to surface.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2019)

Aduro said:


> I said most.
> I feel for you. But you have to accept, some of them are just pretending to believe in the big Jewish conspracies to fit in.



....Did you just call me a nazi ?


----------



## Nemesis (Dec 20, 2019)

GRIMMM said:


> Why is the toilet thing such a massive debate?



Because when the religious right lost the marriage debate in the west they started moving onto "Stop trans using toilets of their gender." thinking it will be an easy win


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 20, 2019)

A. Waltz said:


> oh wow i didnt know about this. that's fucked up but sad also :\


You’d be shocked how weird publishing is. 

Like there was a list of things that Christian publishing won’t allow and it’s bonkers.


----------



## A. Waltz (Dec 20, 2019)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You’d be shocked how weird publishing is.
> 
> Like there was a list of things that Christian publishing won’t allow and it’s bonkers.


oof i retweeted that thread already


----------



## Aduro (Dec 20, 2019)

San Juan Wolf said:


> ....Did you just call me a nazi ?


 I do think you're pretty right-wing. But I was joking. I know you aren't literally as bad as Nazis or Lovecraft himself. Neither are most Lovecraft fans.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I will say this. Most authors have no control over illustrating their book. You have books with black leads and whites on the cover. One reason for this is there’s racism in the publishing and book selling world. A black person on your cover could see you shelved in a different area of the store (African American if you’re in the US).


She did describe the characters in the first place though. There were only like half a dozen characters on the covers of her books. It is down to Rowling that nobody really important in Harry Potter wasn't white. Maybe Kingsley, and Lee Jordan, but Kingsley only showed up a few times and Jordan didn't do much that was important. They're not in anyone's top 10 favourite Harry Potter characters. The whole issue started in the first place because Rowling never much effort into writing any non-white characters.

Also, Rowling's defence of Hermione being cast as white was that she her ethnicity wasn't explicit. Its nice for authors to stick up for actors who face unfair abuse. But that wasn't even true. Hermione was described as being white faced with shock a few times. That's not how you describe a black person. Rowling thought of Hermione as white. Rowling created a world where everyone important was white, and then got on her high horse about people saying that a black person didn't belong in that story. A controversy that presumably started when a casting agency decided that it would look bad if they didn't add someone important who wasn't white to her mostly-white main cast.



Gunners said:


> Respect what the word hate and abuse means. They're not words that you throw around to shut down a discussion and avoid having to deal with understandable concerns.
> 
> Your first sentence doesn't even make sense. It is like you got emotional and mashed together some sentence that involved me getting a beating. Grow up.


Wait... do you actually think Trans people don't get abuse? Or do you just think that casual transphobia isn't related to their lack of legal protection? Or do you think that they are abused, but its fine because they are just pretending to be another gender?

And you're the first one who effectively rushed to the lazy slur along the lines of "they're just perverts just want to come into my toilet".



Gunners said:


> The above is why I would be an absolute cunt if I had misfortune of becoming famous. What's I find shameful is the existence of people who feel entitled to the thoughts and opinions of their elected heroes. Effectively you they're viewed as puppets which is why people can't just leave things at "you know what, I disagree with them." It is seen as some great disappointment that results in actions of spite.
> 
> Moreover what was she supposed to do regarding Johnny Depp? The way I looked at things, you had a group of peasants who wanted to lynch a man without hearing his side of the story. She was friends with him and she heard the side of the story where he was the victim. Someone being supportive of their friend in a situation where the story is unclear shouldn't be a controversy but people don't know where to the draw the line. They want to exist in a world where they have the power to completely isolate the accused before the truth even has a chance to surface.


Being famous wouldn't make you more of a cunt, it would make people more aware of it. Obviously people aren't entitled to their heroes beliefs and ideas. But they should be mature enough to see the truth of them. People have the freedom of speech, not the freedom from criticism for that speech.
About the Depp situation. I don't think Rowling is a particularly terrible person. But if she's going to hold herself up as some kind of social justice warrior, then she shouldn't be all that surprised when people hold her to a higher standard. People have the right to call her a hypocrite in these situations.

Same goes for Maya Forstater. She has the freedom to say thing which do tangentially make things very difficult for trans people. She is allowed to outright call for a legal denial of their existence, and defended her right to disrespect and deny their life choices. She has the right to do those things. She didn't actually commit a hate crime or harass any particular person.

But the CGD is a think tank that is supposed to help provide equality. It had the right to take those public tweets into account whether or not they they want to renew her contract. They have the right to look at her tweets and say "we no longer think you will be helpful" and refuse to hire her again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gunners (Dec 20, 2019)

Aduro said:


> Wait... do you actually think Trans people don't get abuse? Or do you just think that casual transphobia isn't related to their lack of legal protection? Or do you think that they are abused, but its fine because they are just pretending to be another gender?
> 
> And you're the first one who effectively rushed to the lazy slur along the lines of "they're just perverts just want to come into my toilet".



What are you prattling on about. 

I am not going to answer your questions until you learn to sequence things in a logical order. Explain to me how you reached the conclusion that I do not think trans people suffer from abuse. 

I would also be grateful if you did not lie. I have noticed that this is second nature for your sort. It's like you want people to make certain arguments so that you can rely on your stock counter arguments. I don't think trans people are "perverts looking to get in the woman's restroom." What I am appreciating is the fact that people don't know strangers. 

As a man, there are things I won't take personally because I appreciate the fact that someone who is a lot weaker than me does not know my intentions. Most men fall into the same category. Transgender women should feel the same way; that it isn't personal. 



Aduro said:


> Being famous wouldn't make you more of a cunt, it would make people more aware of it. Obviously people aren't entitled to their heroes beliefs and ideas. But they should be mature enough to see the truth of them. People have the freedom of speech, not the freedom from criticism for that speech.
> About the Depp situation. I don't think Rowling is a particularly terrible person. But if she's going to hold herself up as some kind of social justice warrior, then she shouldn't be all that surprised when people hold her to a higher standard. People have the right to call her a hypocrite in these situations.



Nah, it would make me more of a cunt. I know me. For the most part, I'm a live and let live type of person. When people try and shame me, I put my foot down in a way that says "what the fuck are you going to do about it." 

They should be mature enough to accept that not everyone sees things the same way. They should be mature enough to respect people's vulnerabilities, insecurities and uncertainties. They;'re not because "acceptance" has become a contest of demonstrating how accepting you are whilst trampling on the concerns of others. 

You can criticise people until your heart is content, but you just demonstrated that is not about being critical. If it was about being critical of someone's views, you wouldn't feel the need to attack someone with their decision to stand by their friend in the midst of a story with two sides. 

I don't think she is a hypocrite. She is someone who speaks her mind. Having thoughts that align with some of yours does not mean she needs to be in agreement with every point you make. 

I also think it worth noting Dumbledore. A lot of focus is placed on him being gay and not enough on him being someone who believed in Wizard supremacy at some stage in his life. People call her a hypocrite but to me it has always been clear that she was someone who placed more value in someone's overall character and the capacity to place someone's humanity over their world view. 



Aduro said:


> But the CGD is a think tank that is supposed to help provide equality. It had the right to take those public tweets into account whether or not they they want to renew her contract. They have the right to look at her tweets and say "we no longer think you will be helpful" and refuse to hire her again



I mean, in my view that goes against what a think tank should be. 

I don't know, call me idealistic and naive. When thinking about a problem and of possible solutions, I like to know about the opposing views.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 20, 2019)

Afaik Maya Forstater just worked on taxes.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 20, 2019)

Twitter bans people for anti-trans statements, so let's see what happens to her. This is becoming a free speech issue. You can't say biological sex exists anymore. What up next time : age is a social construct so pedophilia need to be legalized


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 20, 2019)

Watch what you’re liking. Lol


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 20, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> What up next time : age is a social construct so pedophilia need to be legalized



I mean, if we want to be _more scientific_ about it then different 20 year olds and 30 year olds and 40 year olds and etc may have metabolisms and telemere counts and all sorts of other deep dive biological measurements that indicate as being older or younger than their assigned age, so if a 40 year old still feels like a young man, which many do, maybe said 40 year old should be allowed to identify as a younger man if enough physical measurements check out. 

That's simply being _more scientific_. 

Maybe then fixed ages on documents and formal identifications are discriminatory and there should be an X option. Maybe we should cover plastic surgeries because these people feel uncomfortable looking in the mirror and seeing an older face.

Please don't tell someone to act their age because that's bigotry, and okay if you want to be_ more scientific_, because this is just about better science, not some agenda, biologically some 13 year olds are more physically mature than some 17 year olds so let's really just look at this rationally and completely break down our entire national system of laws and documentation and identity in order to accommodate more sciencing because that's just science.




/asshole


*Spoiler*: __ 



I'm sure this is tiring to hear for trans advocates and it sounds like I'm reaching and being ridiculous and I am being ridiculous _for now_, but I'm trying to be an asshole specifically towards the activism movement and the way they're languaging this whole thing. Not trying to be an asshole against an individual who has gender dysphoria or is hermaphroditic or all the various sex and gender spectrums that mainstream society and documentation doesn't cater to because I'm sure that's a hard life to live and not fun to deal with and sometimes you wish you could just hand people a Joker-esque card explaining your situation because you're tired of the looks, and I'm sorry you're getting caught in the crossfire because I don't have as much of a problem with you as it seems I do.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 20, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> What up next time : age is a social construct so pedophilia need to be legalized



No that was a century ago, when girls married at 12. Feminism made that crap less common in the West.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 20, 2019)

The amount of people treating sex and gender as the same thing in this thread makes me wonder if it's ignorance or it's on purpose.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mider T (Dec 20, 2019)

Gunners said:


> The alphabet people were furious!



That Chappelle bit never fails to amuse me.


Hand Banana said:


> I'm going to call this, "I made 'Jesus Walk" so I'm not going to hell" logic.


never*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 20, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> The amount of people treating sex and gender as the same thing in this thread makes me wonder if it's ignorance or it's on purpose.


Both?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Rukia (Dec 20, 2019)

I thought liberals like science?  They really need to make up their minds.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 20, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> The amount of people treating sex and gender as the same thing in this thread makes me wonder if it's ignorance or it's on purpose.



See the rowling tweet where she said you can't decide your sex (not gender) and apparently that's transphobic.

We're not the ones making this messy.


----------



## Konami Yatsa (Dec 21, 2019)

Moral grandstander getting dragged  after thinking that because they retroactively make they’re books more progressive their shit doesn’t stink.

Inject it.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

I did a quick Google search and the person that got fired went way beyond "biological sex exists".  Not sure why that strawman is being used by Rowling and others, maybe because it makes it come off more outrageous.  She doesn't simply say sex exists, she also outright refuses to accept trans people as the gender they identify with, even if they've transitioned, even if it causes no harm to her in any capacity.  It's like saying a man being only attracted to other men doesn't make them homosexual, since their organs only allow them to have biological sexual intercourse with females.  It's a begging of the question people use with semantics to justify their own prejudices.  They put up an iron wall of scientific axioms and act tonedeaf to more nuanced language that addresses real world experiences and problems, even if their scientific axioms aren't enough to address it. If someone has clinical gender dysphoria, identifies as a gender and has transitioned on top of it, and respectfully asks you to refer to them by their preferred gender identity, and you pull the biology card in refusing them, you're not "simply saying sex is real".  You're depriving trans people of common courtesy and dignity.  Biological sex can be real, and you can also use the term "male" and "female" without reducing it only to chromosome type and endocrinology in every context with no exceptions (which nobody actually does).

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> I did a quick Google search and the person that got fired went way beyond "biological sex exists".  Not sure why that strawman is being used by Rowling and others, maybe because it makes it come off more outrageous.  She doesn't simply say sex exists, she also outright refuses to accept trans people as the gender they identify with, even if they've transitioned, even if it causes no harm to her in any capacity.  It's like saying a man being only attracted to other men doesn't make them homosexual, since their organs only allow them to have biological sexual intercourse with females.  It's a begging of the question people use with semantics to justify their own prejudices.  They put up an iron wall of scientific axioms and act tonedeaf to more nuanced language that addresses real world experiences and problems, even if their scientific axioms aren't enough to address it. If someone has clinical gender dysphoria, identifies as a gender and has transitioned on top of it, and respectfully asks you to refer to them by their preferred gender identity, and you pull the biology card in refusing them, you're not "simply saying sex is real".  You're depriving trans people of common courtesy and dignity.  Biological sex can be real, and you can also use the term "male" and "female" without reducing it only to chromosome type and endocrinology in every context with no exceptions (which nobody actually does).


Where does this end? Do you support transracialism?


----------



## Aduro (Dec 21, 2019)

I kinda wonder if all the people who think trans people don't exist also think that societal gender norms have never, ever changed.

The genetic differences haven't really changed between men and women. But the expectations for men and women vary wildly from culture to culture. Therefore genetics isn't the only thing that defines someone's gender identity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Where does this end? Do you support transracialism?



Using the slippery slope fallacy is cool, but it's still a fallacy.

I haven't seen anyone supporting "transracialism". I have seen people supporting the right of humans who have a gender that does not match their sex to be treated as normal people.

The rest is just fearmongering from your part.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> See the rowling tweet where she said you can't decide your sex (not gender) and apparently that's transphobic.
> 
> We're not the ones making this messy.



She is being intellectually dishonest though. The woman who got fired was attacking people for having unmatching genders. Rowling pretended that was not a thing and that transgender people are about sex, not gender.

You and the people posting in this thread are all pretending the issue is about sex, and pretending you forgot that transgender people have different genders in their brains. I assume you know that too, since you have been posting here for years.

Sex =/= Gender. Any of you who approaches this discussion to talk about sex has lost it before it started.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Using the slippery slope fallacy is cool, but it's still a fallacy.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone supporting "transracialism". I have seen people supporting the right of humans who have a gender that does not match their sex to be treated as normal people.
> 
> The rest is just fearmongering from your part.


1) Why not? What makes one legitimate and the other illegitimate?

2) It’s not fear monger IMG. I’m not afraid and if a transgender person wants me to address them by different poses, I’d do it. I don’t really care as long as they aren’t trying to force it on me.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Why not? What makes one legitimate and the other illegitimate?



Because there is scientific proof that transgenderism is an actual biological condition. If you scan the brain of a transgender person you'll see it's more similar to someone of their gender than their biological sex.

_Nature Communications _.

Please post a link to scientific research that shows transracialism is a thing that actually affects how the human brain works.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Because there is scientific proof that transgenderism is an actual biological condition.
> 
> _Nature Communications _.
> 
> Please post a link to scientific research that shows transracialism is a thing that actually affects how the human brain works.


This stuff is often hijacked by left-wing ideologues. Besides, I never said that they’re making it up. I’m sure that their feelings are genuine. I don’t think that Rachel Dolezal made it up either.


----------



## Junta1987 (Dec 21, 2019)

People should be mad at the people who fired the woman for wrong-think



Aduro said:


> If you put on a wig tomorrow and someone beats the shit out of you for being trans, will you stop being a transphobic moron? Using transgenderism to commit sexual offences is a crime that almost never happens. And is not an excuse to abuse innocent trans people.
> 
> Also, every house you've ever been in probably has a gender-neutral toilet. Grow up.
> 
> I feel so bad for trans people. Even supposedly woke and liberal people will hate them for stupid, prejudicial reasons.



he never said that justifies violence. You can reject something without beaten somebody up



afgpride said:


> I did a quick Google search and the person that got fired went way beyond "biological sex exists".  Not sure why that strawman is being used by Rowling and others, maybe because it makes it come off more outrageous.  She doesn't simply say sex exists, she also outright refuses to accept trans people as the gender they identify with, even if they've transitioned, even if it causes no harm to her in any capacity.  It's like saying a man being only attracted to other men doesn't make them homosexual, since their organs only allow them to have biological sexual intercourse with females.  It's a begging of the question people use with semantics to justify their own prejudices.  They put up an iron wall of scientific axioms and act tonedeaf to more nuanced language that addresses real world experiences and problems, even if their scientific axioms aren't enough to address it. If someone has clinical gender dysphoria, identifies as a gender and has transitioned on top of it, and respectfully asks you to refer to them by their preferred gender identity, and you pull the biology card in refusing them, you're not "simply saying sex is real".  You're depriving trans people of common courtesy and dignity.  Biological sex can be real, and you can also use the term "male" and "female" without reducing it only to chromosome type and endocrinology in every context with no exceptions (which nobody actually does).



i still dont see how this justifies her firing. Hurting feelings should not be reason enough to fire somebody.

And biological differences of sex is a thing:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

How long have we been making this big of a distinction between sex and gender exactly?

I know the talking point is there's always been this distinction and we're just being more scientific now don't be ignorant,, but (random example) reading older ethological papers from the 90s about animal populations along the rocky mountains and the difference between sex and gender is not nearly as large as it is today. This is a new definitional thing we thought up and are pretending was always there.

Go customize your search range for the 90s on google. Maybe even the early aughts. Then search for "differences between sex and gender".



The only modernish usage I could find was some anthropology review at emory university from 1995 that specified gender as related to social roles and sex as related to biology, except even that paper only referred to gender as in the way society organizes members of each sex. Sex and gender weren't being used as different terms to umbrella different things. Gender only referred to the social extension of sex, not a different thing altogether that can separate from sex.

Science progresses, but give people some slack catching up and also maybe even being a little bit skeptical because this _is_ a new terminology we're all trying to wraps our heads around.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> This stuff is often hijacked by left-wing ideologues. Besides, I never said that they’re making it up. I’m sure that their feelings are genuine. I don’t think that Rachel Dolezal made it up either.



If you think the National Distance Education University in Madrid and the University of Barcelona are part of a left-wing conspiration to make shit up, then the issue is that you don't believe in science altogether and you should probably break your phone/PC and go live in the wild where science doesn't exist.

And did Rachel Dolezal post any peer-reviewed papers saying gender doesn't exist? Can you link to them? Because from what I know, she and JKR were just screaming baseless remarks about it.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Junta1987 said:


> And biological differences of sex is a thing:



Above: another user pretending the thread is about sex and not gender in order to push a disingenuous narrative.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Because there is scientific proof that transgenderism is an actual biological condition. If you scan the brain of a transgender person you'll see it's more similar to someone of their gender than their biological sex.
> 
> _Nature Communications _.
> 
> Please post a link to scientific research that shows transracialism is a thing that actually affects how the human brain works.



To be fair there weren't many studies showing transgenderism was a thing in this way either some 10 years ago.

Chalk it up to ignorance, but the transracial talking point isn't always disingenuous for people. I was being ridiculous with the ageism thing too, but underneath the ridiculousness I sincerely mean that I don't see why the framework we're using to validate transgenderism can't also be used to also validate these other things.

I've brought this up before because it seems like a harmless example, but if you look into the lgbtq+ materials about on-the-cusp new sexualities and orientations like asexuality, where it hasn't quite been ironed out and accepted into the mainstream, it's pretty messy and unconvincing in these early incubation stages. It's transparently not just something someone discovered through objective sciencing even though that's what they may claim at a future day. For example these materials state that asexuals aren't sexual and also that asexuals can enjoy sexual intercourse. Some of it is silly like that. Like I said, it's not ironed out and in this 'rough draft' phase I feel like I can peek some of the innerworkings of these movements and they aren't always genuine either.

Again, you're free to chalk to up to ignorance and I agree a person's ignorance of another human being's condition isn't the deciding factor on the equality of that condition (and thank god I'm in no position of power to actually weigh in on this issue with consequence), but friendly reminder that nobody is arguing for transgender people not being allowed to vote or be protected by the same laws as everyone else. You're not saying we are, but...just a reminder.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> To be fair there weren't many studies showing transgenderism was a thing in this way either some 10 years ago.
> 
> Chalk it up to ignorance, but the transracial talking point isn't always disingenuous for people. I was being ridiculous with the ageism thing too, but underneath the ridiculousness I sincerely mean that I don't see why the framework we're using to validate transgenderism can't also be used to also validate these other things.
> 
> ...



I've been in this forum for most of those 10 years and this discussion keeps coming up. I don't think I remember seeing someone go "welp, science changed, time to changed my beliefs".

If someone wants to do that, I'll gladly pretend their anti-trans posts never happened. What we see in this thread are people who also have years of forum, like junta, avoiding the subject, or people like lee-sensei going about how all science is a communist conspiracy.


----------



## Zeta42 (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Because there is scientific proof that transgenderism is an actual biological condition. If you scan the brain of a transgender person you'll see it's more similar to someone of their gender than their biological sex.
> 
> _Nature Communications _.
> 
> Please post a link to scientific research that shows transracialism is a thing that actually affects how the human brain works.


Uh


> Of course, behavior and experience shape brain anatomy, so it is impossible to say if these subtle differences are inborn.


 mentioned there is a pretty long read, so I'll be back.


----------



## Justiciar (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I've been in this forum for most of those 10 years and this discussion keeps coming up. I don't think I remember seeing someone go "welp, science changed, time to changed my beliefs".


You mean "our understanding of a condition as theorized by scientists after thorough examination of empirically derived evidence?"

Because science doesn't change, only theories do.


----------



## Ruthless Tsuchikage (Dec 21, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> Twitter bans people for anti-trans statements, so let's see what happens to her. This is becoming a free speech issue. You can't say biological sex exists anymore. What up next time : age is a social construct so pedophilia need to be legalized



I always find that argument more than a bit disingenuous. Whatever the intention the effect always ends up being an argument of denying rights to a group you don't like by linking them to the worst group imaginable. 

Things like trans rights or even gay rights are often linked to pedophilia despite that making no sense. For sexual minorities no one gets hurt by giving them their rights. But pedophilia always has a victim which makes those group un comparable. One groups just wants their rights, the other seeks to do harm.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

Ruthless Tsuchikage said:


> I always find that argument more than a bit disingenuous. Whatever the intention the effect always ends up being an argument of denying rights to a group you don't like by linking them to the worst group imaginable.
> 
> Things like trans rights or even gay rights are often linked to pedophilia despite that making no sense. For sexual minorities no one gets hurt by giving them their rights. But pedophilia always has a victim which makes those group un comparable. One groups just wants their rights, the other seeks to do harm.



Seems like when some people talk about equal rights they're talking about equality under the law and when other people talk about equal rights they're talking about accommodations and alterations to the law.

Examples run the gamut too. The american founders considering the language of the bible and the constitution and deciding the laws and rights should encompass all men including slaves. Modern america considering marriage laws and how they might be getting in the way of a gay couple's ability to function as spouses when they aren't officially married. The UK arguing about whether m/f identifications are discriminatory and there should be an x option.

People are going to react to those examples differently. Some people thought civil unions were a good compromise that effectively equalized gay couples with straight coupes under the law, other people thought they were still discriminatory. Some people might think adding an 'x' option on identification is progress and inclusive, other people not so much. I'm sure you know all this, but trying to expand the ref point.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Justiciar said:


> Because science doesn't change, only theories do.



Semantics.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

Luffy I thought you once said you thought a lot of transgenderism was mental illness outside of some exceptions. If that was you, what got you to change your tune? I might be mixing you up with another member but I thought that was you because I remember being surprised since it was an otherwise progressive poster


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Zeta42 said:


> mentioned there is a pretty long read, so I'll be back.



I'm not arguing whether transgederism is genetic, caused by the environment, or both, I'm saying it is a biological condition that causes observable differences in the brain, and we can't just pretend it's a whim by spoiled kids.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> Luffy I thought you once said you thought a lot of transgenderism was mental illness outside of some biological exceptions. If that was you, what got you to change your tune? I might be mixing you up with another member but I thought that was you because I remember being surprised since it was an otherwise progressive poster



The term illness seems to vary in usage. Some people think it applies to to any condition that caused harm to the individual, others think it only applies to things that should be treated, and therefore groups like transgenders deserve not to be called it.

Personally I think it's pretty clear it's an anomaly. It's not a thing that has a biological function and it only causes distress. From what I've heard, transgender people wish they had been born with the other sex. We don't have a magical way to fix it though, and sex change surgeries are not a perfect solution for a number of reasons. So imo we should treat it the same way we treat blind and deaf people: adapt society so that they can live normally even if they are transgender. Now, if that includes not using the term "illness" so that those people feel more normal, I don't mind avoiding the term altogether.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Justiciar (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I'm not arguing whether transgederism is genetic, caused by the environment, or both, I'm saying it is a biological condition that causes observable differences in the brain, and we can't just pretend it's a whim by spoiled kids.


I don't think that's the case. And I don't think people have an issue with transgender people for taking hormone supplements or putting on make-up.

The issue people have are serious concerns. Like the support for child drag shows, children forced into hormone treatments, the condemnation of people who don't want to date transgender people, accidental misuse of pronouns, transgender athletes, etc. The LGBT community should've taken a stance against these things, but they didn't. And now they're facing the backlash.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Justiciar said:


> I don't think that's the case. And I don't think people have an issue with transgender people for taking hormone supplements or putting on make-up.
> 
> The issue people have are serious concerns. Like the support for child drag shows, the condemnation of people who don't want to date transgender people, accidental misuse of pronouns, transgender athletes, etc.



Well I agree some of those things are troublesome, but there are extremists in every group, including the ones I defend.

I don't think attacking someone for saying transgenders don't deserve to have their legitimacy recognized is one of those troublesome things, though.

In other words, screw JKR.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Where does this end? Do you support transracialism?


No, I don't.

Any more questions?


----------



## Justiciar (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Well I agree some of those things are troublesome, but there are extremists in every group, including the ones I defend.
> 
> I don't think making twists saying transgenders don't deseve to have their legitimacy recognized is one of those troublesome things, though.
> 
> In other words, screw JKR.


People deserve the same rights and opportunities regardless of what they identify themselves as. I won't argue with that.

But I'm going to condemn any individual (transgender or not) that pushes for policies that endanger children, or seeks to ruin the lives of normal people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you think the National Distance Education University in Madrid and the University of Barcelona are part of a left-wing conspiration to make shit up, then the issue is that you don't believe in science altogether and you should probably break your phone/PC and go live in the wild where science doesn't exist.
> 
> And did Rachel Dolezal post any peer-reviewed papers saying gender doesn't exist? Can you link to them? Because from what I know, she and JKR were just screaming baseless remarks about it.


Biological sex is real. Men and women are different. It’s incredible that you would call me a science denier.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> Any more questions?


Don’t you see the hypocrisy here? If gender is fluid, why not race?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

Justiciar said:


> People deserve the same rights and opportunities regardless of what they identify themselves as. I won't argue with that.
> 
> But I'm going to condemn any individual (transgender or not) that pushes for policies that endanger children, or seeks to ruin the lives of normal people.



What do you mean seeks to ruin people's lives? Like, deplatforming? I don't follow.



Lee-Sensei said:


> Gender is real. Men and women are different. It’s incredible that you would call me a science denier.



He's talking about gender as a social construct, not gender a direct expression of sex.

Which means



Lee-Sensei said:


> Don’t you see the hypocrisy here? If gender is fluid, why not race?



you're sort of right. We've only recently completely separated gender from sex, so if we can tinker around with this language even more and separate _race_ from _ethnicity,_ now race is a social construct and voila we should be able to identify with different races even if ethnicity is fixed.


I know these must sound like annoying meme responses but I think you guys are being too dismissive of the slippery slope cautionary stuff. Just look at all of the current listings for the "+" in lgtbq+. The progressive movement is always moving and always progressing; not necessarily _forward_, just _moving_. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm critical of it because of how civil rights-y these movements are making each new glass ceiling they find and that's where it gets problematic.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Don’t you see the hypocrisy here? If gender is fluid, why not race?


I don't know what you mean by "if gender is fluid".  Most people's gender identity aren't fluid.  For some people it is, but it's very rare. 

As for "then why not race", because there's no reason to and it doesn't make any sense either logically or socially.  You're assuming transgender people simply pull their identity out of their ass when it's a multilayered consequence of not only their internal biology but how rigidly society and language organizes around gender.  It does so in a way that it doesn't with race, which is poorly defined in practically every domain and only shows up in social roles and expectations as stereotypes.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## sworder (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> What do you mean seeks to ruin people's lives? Like, deplatforming? I don't follow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think this is a meme-y response at all.



> "Race" and "ethnicity" are complex terms and often used interchangeably.  These terms were initially separated to designate “race” as a biological quality and “ethnicity” as a cultural phenomenon. This distinction mirrors efforts to distinguish  and . Unlike “sex” and “gender,” however, there is little agreement on core distinctions between race and ethnicity.
> 
> *Definition of Race *
> Race is a powerful social category forged historically through oppression, slavery, and conquest.  Most geneticists agree that racial taxonomies at the DNA level are invalid.  Genetic differences within any designated racial group are often greater than differences between racial groups.  Most genetic markers do not differ sufficiently by race to be useful in medical research (Duster, 2009;Cosmides, 2003).
> ...





It's kinda interesting, race can in fact be a social construct as much as gender is. Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I am a supporter of trans people being their desired gender because there is a scientific basis behind them being born in the wrong body. I still draw a hard line at trans women participating in women sports, they should be aware being born with a male body gives them unfair advantages cisgender women don't posses.

There is no scientific study behind transracialism, but if race can be a social group separated from ethnicity, what's the difference?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> think you guys are being too dismissive of the slippery slope cautionary stuff. Just look at all of the current listings for the "+" in lgtbq+. The progressive movement is always moving and always progressing; not necessarily _forward_, just _moving_. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm critical of it because of how civil rights-y these movements are making each new glass ceiling they find and that's where it gets problematic.


The slippery slope of 300,000 new genders doesn't come from respecting transpeople's identities.  It actually extends back further than that to the time when humans decided there would be a list of attributes, behaviors, feelings and expectations that defined your identity in society.  There was no differentiation between sex and gender because, while gender was always the social side, men were expected to be masculine in everything and women were expected to be feminine in everything.  Instead of "live and let live" regardless of one's DNA/secondary-sex-characteristics/hormones, it was "you are X which is different than Y so you do Z".

When we recently realized the "biological males are masculine in everything and only do masculine things and biological females are feminine in everything and only do feminine things" was bullshit is when the floodgates became opened.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

I don't get the whole, "well gender is just a social construct so why should we care about people switching them", when gender is still directly tied to sex. Gender is literally defined by the social roles expected _of the sexes_. That is why male and female children who pick up the wrong toy for the expected social role of their biological sex, are being socially transitioned to a new gender these days. That is why trans men and women get surgeries to physically resemble the opposite sex. Gender as a concept is completely meaningless without its connection to biological sex. So, do not pretend that gender is some playful, far away thing that can be handled without any connection to biological sex. The moment we erase this connection is the day we live in a society that stops giving a rats ass about how males and females live their lives as individuals. 

The real issue is that people are having the _concept_ of gender identity forced onto them, to allow people of the opposite sex to be _legally_ treated as exactly the same as them. Gender identity, a social construct, is being treated as stronger than the material reality of the differences between the sexes. A material reality that should make us deeply consider the ways in which we make laws the same or different for the sexes. A legal definition of man or woman which boils down to: I _really really really really_ feel like one. Is insanely useless. It also ignores the fact that most people don't even think there man-ness or woman-ness is defined by how much they really feel like one. These ideas of "identifying" as and "really feel like" are unfairly pushed on everyone. It is wrong.

I am a woman. I don't identify as a woman. I did not wake up one day and decide that I wanted to be a woman. 99.999% of all women in the world experience the same thing. I have no idea what trans women are talking about or feeling when they say they "feel" like women. I don't remember feeling like a woman. I surely don't identify with how society thinks a person with my body should be. I remember feeling like I fit in more with boys as a child. I remember feeling like I hated wearing dresses. I remember feeling inadequate next to my super feminine best friend. I remember feeling like I had to wear as many layers as possible to hide the changing body hated. But it turns out that _not feeling_ like a woman...is a normal feeling for actual women. 

I want to know why I am being forced by others into some sort of ideology about "identifying" with a gender, just so people can claim we are somehow the same type of thing. In what way do women benefit from being _legally_ recognized as no different than a male who _desires_ to have a female body, and once again has some _undefinable f*eeling*_ that he is actually like women? I can tell you what women _lose_ by doing this: The ability to have fair professional sports, the ability to not interact with male sex offenders in prisons, the ability to recover in women's shelters and hospitals without interacting with males, the ability to accurately describe and record sexual crimes, the ability to give ourselves a meaningful definition that actual describes us as a coherent group. And these aren't what-ifs. All of the above is already happening. Women lose everything in this situation. 

Well, I guess we do win one thing: a pat on the back for being so damn accommodating and kind. 

Why is it too much for me to say that my body is a physical reality that has its own unique issues and capabilities that a male can never have, no matter how many hormones they take or surgeries they get? They will never be pregnant, they will never menstruate, they will always maintain the physical advantage of size and strength, they will never know what it feels like to be raised as a female, to live as a female. 

What is the connecting piece between us that puts us in the same LEGAL GROUP? Dresses? Makeup? A soft side? Hormone levels that are slightly more similar to each other? Both of us _feeling_ like a woman? Well, I've already told you that I don't feel like anything. I only am. 

So, why can't we have a fair fucking conversation about this issue without being called transphobic bigots? These changes are and will have real effects on people? Stop assuming that everything is about wanting to be mean & consider that people literally want to figure out what is best _for everyone_. Trans rights cannot come at the expense of the rights of others. The trans movement is not the gay rights movement, it is not the civil rights movement, it is its own _specific_ movement with _specific demands_, not just another progressive movement that needs to be supported no matter what to be on the right side of history. We need to figure out what can be afforded and what cannot be afforded to transgender people as a population. We need to figure out when lines do need to be drawn hard in the sand and when we can be more fluid. 

As of right now, there is no real conversation. No real debate. Just an emotional, reactionary clown fest.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> I can tell you what women _lose_ by doing this: The ability to have fair professional sports,


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> He's talking about gender as a social construct, not gender a direct expression of sex.



No, I'm talking about gender as a characteristic of the brain that makes a human feel and act as a male or female which, turns out, can differ from biological sex.

A transgender is like the brain of a man inside a woman's body, or vice-versa.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Biological sex is real. Men and women are different. It’s incredible that you would call me a science denier.



I'm not talking about sex.

Again, I'm talking about gender.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> I am a woman. I don't identify as a woman. I did not wake up one day and decide that I wanted to be a woman. 99.999% of all women in the world experience the same thing. I have no idea what trans women are talking about or feeling when they say they "feel" like women. I don't remember feeling like a woman. I surely don't identify with how society thinks a person with my body should be. I remember feeling like I fit in more with boys as a child. I remember feeling like I hated wearing dresses. I remember feeling inadequate next to my super feminine best friend. I remember feeling like I had to wear as many layers as possible to hide the changing body hated. But it turns out that _not feeling_ like a woman...is a normal feeling for actual women.



You don't know what it feels to be a woman because you've never felt anything else. So you think your status is the only possible one.

I don't know what it feels to be a man either, because that's the only thing I've ever felt as.

But millions of people say they feel as the opposite gender. I can't imagine how it's like to feel that myself. But I've decided to empathize with their condition, not say they are making it up. Turns out I don't have to feel the same thing as someone does in order to believe in their feeling.

And again, we have fucking brain scans proving the transgender condition actually exists. Yes, the brain is physically different depending on the individual's gender.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

I've seen this. I laugh...then I am distressed when I think of the real images of real trans women participating in professional women's sports. It is so blatantly wrong.


Dragon D. Luffy said:


> No, I'm talking about gender as a characteristic of the brain that makes a human feel and act as a male or female which, turns out, can differ from biological sex.
> 
> A transgender is like the brain of a man inside a woman's body, or vice-versa.


This is junk science. 
I mean. What in the world are you referring to? Gender as a _characteristic of the brain_? It is called being an individual human with an individual personality. There is a reason why gender non-conforming men and women exist, all women and all men are _not_ the same. I can't begin to understand people who think like you. Have you ever seen a butch lesbian :/?


Dragon D. Luffy said:


> You don't know what it feels to be a woman because you've never felt anything else. So you think your status is the only possible one.
> 
> I don't know what it feels to be a man either, because that's the only thing I've ever felt as.
> 
> ...


No. I don't know what it feels like, because being a woman is not something you can boil down to any sort of feeling. I don't deny that some trans women believe they feel like actual women(There are trans women who understand that they have literally no way of feeling this). I just deny that what they are describing has anything to do with them actually being female. Empathizing with trans people feeling upset with their own body does not mean you must ignore the fact that they are not what they _desire_ to actually be. I can empathize with a person who has psychosis without also assuring them that everything they see and hear is really there. 

No, we don't have science supporting this. The closest we have to anything is that brain plasticity exists. Good luck scanning the brains of every person who says they are trans and finding the same exact similarities based on their declared gender. Trans people as a population will never go for this because they know it won't be true. And even if there was some clear similarity in the brain, that still wouldn't change the reality of their entire bodies. A male with gender dysphoria is no less physically male than a male without it, and thus we still need to discuss in what ways they could, if ever, be given the same rights as actual women. 

We also currently live in a world where we have trans women who desire no surgery, no hormones, and even dress like stereotypical men...but still want to be legally recognized as actual women. But yes. I'm sure when we scan their brains we will find the well-know gender section lit up in bright pink.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 21, 2019)

I support transracials. If someone wants a plate at the cookout, all I ask is t


Dragon D. Luffy said:


> You don't know what it feels to be a woman because you've never felt anything else. So you think your status is the only possible one.



Peak left.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 21, 2019)

I support transracials. If someone wants a plate at the cookout, all I ask is that if there are two pork chops left he/she grabs one for me.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> No, I'm talking about gender as a characteristic of the brain that makes a human feel and act as a male or female which, turns out, can differ from biological sex.
> 
> A transgender is like the brain of a man inside a woman's body, or vice-versa.



I figure that's a small and quiet portion of transgender advocacy in the culture because the main bulldozer here seems to be wanting to smash binaries down into gooey fluidity, illustrated below with the genderbread person (thanks contrapoints).



^This is a pretty popular little infographic I still see passed around sometimes, and although they have identity in the brain like you're saying, there's a lot more to it. Like gender expression being separate from gender identity. That's what a lot of these discussions are about, or at least have been about.


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> I figure that's a small and quiet portion of transgender advocacy in the culture because the main bulldozer here seems to be wanting to smash binaries down into gooey fluidity, illustrated below with the genderbread person (thanks contrapoints).
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is a pretty popular little infographic I still see passed around sometimes, and although they have identity in the brain like you're saying, there's a lot more to it. Like gender expression being separate from gender identity. That's what a lot of these discussions are about, or at least have been about.


Don't forget the gender snowperson that they now teach at elementary schools

If only I could've known it was this easy as a kid. I could've known why I always played with boys and felt no kinship with girls. I was never really a girl. Kids today are so lucky. This will have nothing but positive effects on the next generation. "Mommy mommy. You know how I love hockey and having short hair? Turns out it is because I'm a boy!" This freedom is amazing. So much better than teaching little girls and boy that they are valid girls and boys no matter their interests. Beautiful times.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> I don't know what you mean by "if gender is fluid".  Most people's gender identity aren't fluid.  For some people it is, but it's very rare.
> 
> As for "then why not race", because there's no reason to and it doesn't make any sense either logically or socially.  You're assuming transgender people simply pull their identity out of their ass when it's a multilayered consequence of not only their internal biology but how rigidly society and language organizes around gender.  It does so in a way that it doesn't with race, which is poorly defined in practically every domain and only shows up in social roles and expectations as stereotypes.


1) If gender is fluid for some people, how do you not no what I’m talking about?

2) No. I’m saying that some people identify more with different races than their biological one.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> I'm not talking about sex.
> 
> Again, I'm talking about gender.


They’re tied together.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> They’re tied together.



Unless you are transgender.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> I figure that's a small and quiet portion of transgender advocacy in the culture because the main bulldozer here seems to be wanting to smash binaries down into gooey fluidity, illustrated below with the genderbread person (thanks contrapoints).
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is a pretty popular little infographic I still see passed around sometimes, and although they have identity in the brain like you're saying, there's a lot more to it. Like gender expression being separate from gender identity. That's what a lot of these discussions are about, or at least have been about.



Fair enough.



Gunners said:


> Peak left.



Taking posts out of context without noticing what they are replying to is fun, isn't it


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> 1) If gender is fluid for some people, how do you not no what I’m talking about?
> 
> 2) No. I’m saying that some people identify more with different races than their biological one.


1. "Genderfluid" is what some people identify with, it doesn't apply to every transgender person. 

2. And?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> 2. And?





There's not a lot of examples to draw from with this one but on top of the readymade wedge between ethnicity and race with race being the social construct and ethnicity being the fixed point, the people who've gotten caught identifying with another race than the one they were assigned by society (check me out with the languaging) talk about identifying with... Like a white person identifies with racial blackness in america because despite being white they feel a kinship with the oppression, hardship, struggle, whatever that defines racial blackness in america.

That's stereotypical and all, but plenty of the ways transwomen embody female gender expression are stereotypical too. Wearing dresses and makeup, speaking softly, you know. Or transmen who join the military and bulk and engage in very stereotypically male behaviors.

A white person identifying with racial blackness in america doesn't _have_ to be that much sillier. I forget if dolezal was the one who said this or not because it doesn't sound like her, but one of these transracial types talked about being a poor white kid with family dysfunction and having to deal with white-on-white discrimination and genuinely feeling connected to the construct of blackness in america, taking inspiration from that history and those stories and it was apparently a deeply moving thing for this person.

Who I'm pretty sure was a guy talking about his boyhood, so not dolezal. To the googles I go~


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> Empathizing with trans people feeling upset with their own body does not mean you must ignore the fact that they are not what they _desire_ to actually be. I can empathize with a person who has psychosis without also assuring them that everything they see and hear is really there.





> A male with gender dysphoria is no less physically male than a male without it, and thus we still need to discuss in what ways they could, if ever, be given the same rights as actual women.


What do you think the legal difference should be between an infertile biological woman and a transwoman who has gone through gender reassignment surgery and HRT?  Why do you think it's important to keep legal distinctions between men and women even when their DNA isn't important (like it is for childbearing and sports)?

Btw: in practically every case I've personally seen, transwomen are legally classified as trans.  There's a reason for this.  In social conversation they're referred to as "women", but the trans is implied.   They don't have to be physiologically indistinguishable from a biological female. 



reiatsuflow said:


> There's not a lot of examples to draw from with this one but on top of the readymade wedge between ethnicity and race with race being the social construct and ethnicity being the fixed point, the people who've gotten caught identifying with another race than the one they were assigned by society (check me out with the languaging) talk about identifying with... Like a white person identifies with racial blackness in america because despite being white they feel a kinship with the oppression, hardship, struggle, whatever that defines racial blackness in america.
> 
> That's stereotypical and all, but plenty of the ways transwomen embody female gender expression are stereotypical too. Wearing dresses and makeup, speaking softly, you know. Or transmen who join the military and bulk and engage in very stereotypically male behaviors.
> 
> ...


To this I say... And?

Who cares?  Why is this important, and why is it a compelling point?  I already pointed out the differences.  Just because you can draw a symmetry doesn't mean it's tactful, useful or exposes some sort of glaring hypocrisy.

Here, look, I can do it too.  Interracial marriages?  Gee, what's next, bestiality?  Sure, there's a difference between having sex with animals and having sex outside of your race, but they both involve having sexual relations outside of one's own kind.  Humans rarely ever date outside of their race and there's a reason for this, I just feel like allowing it is a slippery slope that justifies relationships between people or organisms that come from different genetic groups.  I'm not trying to be offensive either, I just think people are a little dismissive of the slippery slope that comes with saying racemixing is fine.  People should keep to their own kind imo!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Unless you are transgender.


I just disagree.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> 1. "Genderfluid" is what some people identify with, it doesn't apply to every transgender person.
> 
> 2. And?


1) I don’t keep up with the lingo.

2) Transracialism is legitimate if transgenderism is.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> 1) I don’t keep up with the lingo.
> 
> 2) Transracialism is legitimate if transgenderism is.


1) That's fine, but then it might be unwise to use it.

2) False. You can keep trying though.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> 1) That's fine, but then it might be unwise to use it.
> 
> 2) False. You can keep trying though.


1) I don’t think that it matters. The point remains valid. Biological sex is real and it’s tied to gender. Men and women are different.

2) Nope. It’s almost exactly the same.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> 1) I don’t think that it matters. The point remains valid. Biological sex is real and it’s tied to gender. Men and women are different.
> 
> 2) Nope. It’s almost exactly the same.


Not knowing the terms you use doesn't matter?  Well, since you don't actually have an argument to make and are just regurgitating slogans I guess that makes sense.  Biological sex can be real, and it can also influence gender, and transgender can still be a thing and trans people can still deserve dignity.  Tough pill to swallow I know.

It's exactly the same to someone who is special pleading and has no interest in whether it actually is, sure.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

Anyway, J.K. Rowling is a privileged asshole that tried to use minorities as props for years, so to see it blowing up in her face is very satisfying.  Sitting in her giga mansion giving post-mortem notes about the sexuality of her characters to get brownie points, it was like a rich wine aunt that got bored of being rich and famous and wanted new validation for being woke.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> To this I say... And?
> 
> Who cares?  Why is this important, and why is it a compelling point?  I already pointed out the differences.  Just because you can draw a symmetry doesn't mean it's tactful, useful or exposes some sort of glaring hypocrisy.
> 
> Here, look, I can do it too.  Interracial marriages?  Gee, what's next, bestiality?  Sure, there's a difference between having sex with animals and having sex outside of your race, but they both involve having sexual relations outside of one's own kind.  Humans rarely ever date outside of their race and there's a reason for this, I just feel like allowing it is a slippery slope that justifies relationships between people or organisms that come from different genetic groups.  I'm not trying to be offensive either, I just think people are a little dismissive of the slippery slope that comes with saying racemixing is fine.  People should keep to their own kind imo!



We're discussing transracialism not because we pulled it out of our asses but because there was a very public hubbub about dolezal and serious enough journals and university professors published articles accommodating it or at least making room for it, not just hypatia but a prof called reed at the university of pennsylvania and a ucla sociology prof who wrote a whole book about it, a prof of philosophy at queen's university, actually a decent number of professors of philosophy and sociology. And lower down there's still an active argument online with plenty of search results and magazine articles and popular youtube personalities (thanks again contrapoints), there's active reddit forums under lgtbq+ subs still actively discussing it and fairly seriously, and I understand you don't take it seriously but I don't take gender expression seriously either and that hasn't stopped the world from going around.

Time will tell I guess. I can't imagine @Dragon D. Luffy's point about brains and gender expression being used for identifying with different races. I can't imagine science having much to say in that arena at all, so there's that.


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> What do you think the legal difference should be between an infertile biological woman and a transwoman who has gone through gender reassignment surgery and HRT?  Why do you think it's important to keep legal distinctions between men and women even when their DNA isn't important (like it is for childbearing and sports)?
> 
> Btw: in practically every case I've personally seen, transwomen are legally classified as trans.  There's a reason for this.  In social conversation they're referred to as "women", but the trans is implied.   They don't have to be physiologically indistinguishable from a biological female.


A female with fertility complications is still female. A male who takes hormones and has surgery is still male. I don't even know what you're attempting to do here. The male should still not be able to enter the same professional sports competition the women should be able to. Also, are you under the belief that in order for a trans woman to legally become a woman they MUST be on hormones and have surgery? You do realize that self-id is what is now being pushed, the legal change that Maya originally spoke out against when the government asked the public for thoughts on such a legal change. The vast majority of trans women keep their penis, in fact, many trans women speaking animatedly about how much they love their penises and how womanly their dicks are. Do not try to limit discussion on trans politics to one segment of its population, it isn't an accurate portrayal of everything we are dealing with right now. 

I care about there being legal distinctions for when biological sex is important. I care about having an open conversation about the areas in which this distinction is important. Sports, prisons, shelters, bathrooms, hospitals, statistics. And where it perhaps isn't.

I also care about having a meaningful legal definition of woman and man. Having it defined by "gender identity" means forcing an ideology on people. I don't identify with the concept of woman as a gender. I know myself to be a woman because I am an adult female. Laws should _by default_ be based on a foundation of material reality. Defining woman by biological sex gives us a clear population of people. Defining a woman as "whoever feels like a woman" expands the legal group to any and every kind of person there is, as long as they claim they "feel" a certain way. In which case, why even have the word or concept of woman or man to begin with when they can clearly be anything at all. 

The thing is I don't know what to do with your idea of situations where sex isn't important. So...what about them? What even are these situations? Walking down the street? Adopting a dog?  We can have some sort of social recognition of their transition, but their biological sex would still affect them in all scenarios in which sex does matter, and this would be many scenarios in which they will encounter & have to face the fact that they are not the same as biological men and women. So we help them pretend in certain scenarios legally, like having everyone call them their pronouns in an office, but when they want to join a women's rugby team remind them...no no no, remember, you are still male. 

I really think the best we can do is provide mental and medical care and be respectful towards them in general. But this respect cannot come at the expense of robbing people of their ability to operate in a world based on material reality.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 21, 2019)

Here's a new york times article from the ucla prof who wrote the book about emerging trans concepts in philosophy and society.

It's isn't supporting what I'm saying, it's just a refresh / rundown of the years old thing that started this borderline memey backtalk.





> I argue that transracial is a productively disruptive concept because it can unsettle the taken-for-granted assumptions about the stability and naturalness of racial categories on which the reproduction of the racial order depends. The term also brings into focus the ways in which racial and ethnic identities have already become more fluid in recent decades. Sociologists have documented substantial shifts in racial identification from one census to the next, and from one social context to another. Ancestry, increasingly understood as mixed, has begun losing its authority over identity. And race and ethnicity, like gender, have come to be understood as something we do, not just something we have.
> 
> Of course, race is also — crucially — something others do to us, and opportunities for ethnoracial re-identification remain unequally distributed both across and within racial groups. Yet that is not a good reason for banning the term “transracial.” I was therefore deeply troubled by the attempt to shut down, rather than critically engage, Dr. Tuvel’s argument.
> 
> ...Todd Gitlin’s devastating observation about the debilitating consequences of the left’s cultural politics — “while the right has been busy taking the White House, the left has been marching on the English department” — dates from the ’90s, but it has lost none of its pertinence. Only now the battle lines are drawn within the cultural left; the English department was conquered long ago. The spectacle of the left devouring its own children — and of emancipatory liberalism turning into its opposite — may read as farce. But in the context of the wider political emergency we face, the obsessively inward focus of the cultural left can also be understood as tragedy.


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> We're discussing transracialism not because we pulled it out of our asses but because there was a very public hubbub about dolezal and serious enough journals and university professors published articles accommodating it or at least making room for it, not just hypatia but a prof called reed at the university of pennsylvania and a ucla sociology prof who wrote a whole book about it, a prof of philosophy at queen's university, actually a decent number of professors of philosophy and sociology. And lower down there's still an active argument online with plenty of search results and magazine articles and popular youtube personalities (thanks again contrapoints), there's active reddit forums under lgtbq+ subs still actively discussing it and fairly seriously, and I understand you don't take it seriously but I don't take gender expression seriously either and that hasn't stopped the world from going around.
> 
> Time will tell I guess. I can't imagine @Dragon D. Luffy's point about brains and gender expression being used for identifying with different races. I can't imagine science having much to say in that arena at all, so there's that.


I literally brought this up in my LGBTQ club on campus a few years back when this was going down. Note: it was specifically an LGBTQ club for topics related to people of color.

When this all first came up, everyone was against it & thought she was crazy. 
But I brought it up again in relation to transgenderism. It was so interesting seeing how the responses changed with the concept of transgenderism in the background. Basically people said it was different because gender was a social construct & race wasn't.... when race can easily be argued to be a social construct. But you could just see how they were struggling to describe the situations as different...when they so blatantly weren't. Then one black guy said that maybe there was room for Dolezal, comparing her feelings to what trans people feel because it seemed like she truly felt like she was black & people looked at him like he was crazy. Then one girl suggested we end the conversation because she felt it might hurt people's feelings, probably because it became more and more clear...that the situations weren't very different. 

I see this for what it is. Cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> We're discussing transracialism not because we pulled it out of our asses but because there was a very public hubbub about dolezal and serious enough journals and university professors published articles accommodating it or at least making room for it, not just hypatia but a prof called reed at the university of pennsylvania and a ucla sociology prof who wrote a whole book about it, a prof of philosophy at queen's university, actually a decent number of professors of philosophy and sociology. And lower down there's still an active argument online at least with plenty of search results and magazine articles and popular youtube personalities (thanks again contrapoints), there's active reddit forums under lgtbq+ subs still actively discussing it and fairly seriously, and I understand you don't take it seriously but I don't take gender expression seriously either and that hasn't stopped the world from going around.
> 
> Time will tell I guess. I can't imagine @Dragon D. Luffy's point about brains and gender expression being used for identifying with different races. I can't imagine science having much to say in that arena at all, so there's that.


Yeah, I know good and well the treasure trove of stupidity coming out of sociology journals. Their standards are really low, so you can pull out any wacky idea from there you choose. I don't think transgender issues are wacky though, and I can (and have) explained why.  My point isn't that transracialism isn't an idea that is floated around, and people who "identify as another race" don't exist, it's that it's not a compelling trump card against transgender issues.  The similarities are inconsequential to me and the slippery slope pointed to is fallacious.



LesExit said:


> A female with fertility complications is still female. A male who takes hormones and has surgery is still male. I don't even know what you're attempting to do here. The male should still not be able to enter the same professional sports competition the women should be able to. Also, are you under the belief that in order for a trans woman to legally become a woman they MUST be on hormones and have surgery? You do realize that self-id is what is now being pushed, the legal change that Maya originally spoke out against when the government asked the public for thoughts on such a legal change. The vast majority of trans women keep their penis, in fact, many trans women speaking animatedly about how much they love their penises and how womanly their dicks are. Do not try to limit discussion on trans politics to one segment of its population, it isn't an accurate portrayal of everything we are dealing with right now.
> 
> I care about there being legal distinctions for when biological sex is important. I care about having an open conversation about the areas in which this distinction is important. Sports, prisons, shelters, bathrooms, hospitals, statistics. And where it perhaps isn't.
> 
> ...


What I'm attempting to do is get you to qualify why you insist trans women shouldn't be thought of or referred to as trans women but males, even in situations where their genitalia, chromosome type and endocrinology don't matter.  A trans woman isn't a biological woman and a biological woman isn't a trans woman.  You still refuse to acknowledge them as trans _women_ and are keen on using isolated controversial circumstances as your pretext.  In the vast majority of cases trans people go about their business and expect you to mind yours, all they ask is that you dignify their gender identity when interacting with them.  The vast majority of them aren't trying to convince you they have a specific combination of amino acids in their cell nuclei that neatly conforms to your conception of what a woman is.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Santoryu (Dec 21, 2019)

At first glance the whole situation does sound crazy, BUT

I'd like to know the whole context and specifics of the women who lost her job. I know people are saying she lost her job because she said that biological sex is a thing, but I suspect that there is more to it than just that. I've also read that this women is a particular type of feminist and has made incendiary remarks before?

Links and information would be appreciated.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> What I'm attempting to do is get you to qualify why you insist trans women shouldn't be thought of as trans women but biological males, even in situations where their genitalia, chromosome type and endocrinology don't matter.  A trans woman isn't a biological woman and a biological woman isn't a trans woman.  You still refuse to acknowledge them as trans _women_ and are keen on using isolated controversial circumstances as your pretext.  In the vast majority of cases trans people go about their business and expect you to mind yours, all they ask is that you dignify their gender identity when interacting with them.  The vast majority of them aren't trying to convince you they have a specific combination of amino acids in their cell nuclei that neatly conforms to your conception of what a woman is.


Why are you talking as if the two things are mutually exclusive? Trans women are biological males. This will be true in every situation they exist in. But in situations in which their genitalia, chromosome type, and endocrinology don't matter, they will be treated the same way I treat any other humans in which those things don't matter, male or female. I put no emphasis on the "woman" in trans women because their concept of woman has literally nothing to do with what makes me a woman, which is my biology. Just because we share one word does not mean that the word represents an actual shared experience between us. The second trans women are born as female is the second I'll see them as just women, and not always _trans _women. 

And why _must_ I see trans women as just _women_ to respect them? I've said nothing to suggest that I have any issues with being respectful towards their pronouns and _desire to be seen_ as a woman. I don't go out of my way trying to embarrass trans people. I simply give as much as I can before being kind becomes a detriment to the rights of others. There are scenarios in which we won't be able to dignity their gender identity the way many of them want it to be, which is by literally treating them as if _they are no different_ than biological women. These are the trans people demanding access to all of the spaces and things I've already outlined. Those are the issues with this movement. This ain't about calling a male Stacy or Lucy at the office :/, but whether or not a male called Stacy should be on that professional women's team, in that women's shelter, housed in a prison with access to females. 

Anyone who thinks these issues aren't worthy of concerns and debate is just....I don't even know.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> Why are you talking as if the two things are mutually exclusive? Trans women are biological males. This will be true in every situation they exist in. But in situations in which their genitalia, chromosome type, and endocrinology don't matter, they will be treated the same way I treat any other humans in which those things don't matter, male or female. I put no emphasis on the "woman" in trans women because their concept of woman has literally nothing to do with what makes me a woman, which is my biology. Just because we share one word does not mean that the word represents an actual shared experience between us. The second trans women are born as female is the second I'll see them as just women, and not always _trans _women.
> 
> And why _must_ I see trans women as just _women_ to respect them? I've said nothing to suggest that I have any issues with being respectful towards their pronouns and _desire to be seen_ as a woman. I don't go out of my way trying to embarrass trans people. I simply give as much as I can before being kind becomes a detriment to the rights of others. There are scenarios in which we won't be able to dignity their gender identity the way many of them want it to be, which is by literally treating them as if _they are no different_ than biological women. These are the trans people demanding access to all of the spaces and things I've already outlined. Those are the issues with this movement. This ain't about calling a male Stacy or Lucy at the office :/, but whether or not a male called Stacy should be on that professional women's team, in that women's shelter, housed in a prison with access to females.
> 
> Anyone who thinks these issues aren't worthy of concerns and debate is just....I don't even know.


Let me put it this way.  Biological males who identify as female are trans and _female_ for all intents and purposes where their innate sex characteristics don't matter or don't harm anyone by treating them as such.  This is a social and linguistic position, not a biological one, and it doesn't pretend they don't have a Y chromosome or can bear children.  All it does is dignify gender identity in a social setting.  It's sort of like how lesbians can't sexually reproduce with women, yet we classify them as homosexual; a very smug supergenius with a nasally voice can come in and make a point about how sex is between a man and woman involving a penis and vagina for the purpose of procreation and homosexuals can't have sex outside of this circumstance, and then dare you to disprove them biologically, but it wouldn't make them any less wrong.

You say you have no problem respecting people's pronouns and "desire to be a seen as a woman", but everything you say seems to come with backhanded implications about how their sense of self and experiences are stupid and they're imposters that will never be a "real" woman like you are, because something something biology.  You practically rejected the concept of gender dysphoria altogether in a separate post too.  I'd like to think I just misread you, but I think it's more likely I'm seeing through your rationalizations.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

Santoryu said:


> At first glance the whole situation does sound crazy, BUT
> 
> I'd like to know the whole context and specifics of the women who lost her job. I know people are saying she lost her job because she said that biological sex is a thing, but I suspect that there is more to it than just that. I've also read that this women is a particular type of feminist and has made incendiary remarks before?
> 
> Links and information would be appreciated.



Read this . It is written by her. She talks openly and honestly about all of her views. The articles include her "horrifying" tweets:

Talking about the importance of recognizing how sex is important.
Talking about a trans woman named Karen white, convicted of pedophilia, who wished to be moved to a women's prison.
Talking about how it wasn't fair for a male who wore wigs and dresses for part of every week was put on a top female executives lists.

The "incendiary remarks" that I keep hearing people refer to is that she misgendered a non-binary dude named Greggor Murray on Twitter.

This is Greggor Murray:



In the words of the judge who ruled Maya as a big transphobic meanie, referring to Gregor, the non-binary dude, above as a "he" is a _crime against human dignity in a democratic society_.

Maya said: “I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’… In reality Murray is a man … Women and children in particular should not be forced to lie or obfuscate about someone’s sex.”

Oh god. The horror. She is so evil. She spoke the truth that a segment of the population doesn't want to hear.

And then, this same counselor from Scotland was then suspended for comments he made online by swearing and calling women cunts & TERFS. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-48295000
.__.

We live in a clown world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> Let me put it this way.  Biological males who identify as female are trans and _female_ for all intents and purposes where their innate sex characteristics don't matter or don't harm anyone by treating them as such.  This is a social and linguistic position, not a biological one, and it doesn't pretend they don't have a Y chromosome or can bear children.  All it does is dignify gender identity in a social setting.  It's sort of like how lesbians can't sexually reproduce with women, yet we classify them as homosexual; a very smug supergenius with a nasally voice can come in and make a point about how sex is between a man and woman involving a penis and vagina for the purpose of procreation and homosexuals can't have sex outside of this circumstance, and then dare you to disprove them biologically, but it wouldn't make them any less wrong.
> 
> You say you have no problem respecting people's pronouns and "desire to be a seen as a woman", but everything you say seems to come with backhanded implications about how their sense of self and experiences are stupid and they're imposters that will never be a "real" woman like you are, because something something biology.  You practically rejected the concept of gender dysphoria altogether in a separate post too.  I'd like to think I just misread you, but I think it's more likely I'm seeing through your rationalizations.


Yes. How great no one is concerned about those scenarios. But the scenarios I listed WHICH ARE A PROBLEM.
Homosexuality refers to attraction to the same sex.  Lesbians are lesbians because they're females attracted to females. 

What are you even trying to say? Are you trying to debate what counts as sex? People do that for every sexuality. Is it penis in vagina? Is it dick in mouth? Is it whether or not someone's orgasms? Only thing that is true is that homosexuals cannot sexually procreate.

Because I don't see them as real women and men. Respecting pronouns does not mean that I literally believe you are a real woman or man. Gender dysphoria is a real feeling. What isn't real is that hating your body means you were literally born in the wrong body and can actually become the opposite sex.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns* ‘they*’ and *‘them*’



Lol. This is getting hilarious.
If he isn't a He or a She, then he should be referred to as an It.

Plurals are for royalty.
And "We" don't agree that such a privilege be given to plebs.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> Yes. How great no one is concerned about those scenarios. But the scenarios I listed WHICH ARE A PROBLEM.
> Homosexuality refers to attraction to the same sex.  Lesbians are lesbians because they're females attracted to females.
> 
> What are you even trying to say? Are you trying to debate what counts as sex? People do that for every sexuality. Is it penis in vagina? Is it dick in mouth? Is it whether or not someone's orgasms? Only thing that is true is that homosexuals cannot sexually procreate.
> ...


I know what homosexuality is, I was showing how trying to be smug about biology is very easy and could be used on homosexuality too.  Someone can be biologically reductionist about sex and claim lesbians can't have sex, oral sex isn't sex, etc because sex is a reproductive activity.  The point?  Just because you invoke biology doesn't mean everyone is checkmated into oblivion.  Humans are very complex creatures with varying experiences, and using language that accommodates this doesn't have to threaten science. 

I'm not saying you shouldn't object to things like trans women competing in women's sports against biological women, nothing I've responded to has been on those gripes, just your "female only means what I want it to mean because muh biology" takes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

afgpride said:


> I know what homosexuality is, I was showing how trying to be smug about biology is very easy and could be used on homosexuality too.  Someone can be biologically reductionist about sex and claim lesbians can't have sex, oral sex isn't sex, etc because sex is a reproductive activity.  The point?  Just because you invoke biology doesn't mean everyone is checkmated into oblivion.  Humans are very complex creatures with varying experiences, and using language that accommodates this doesn't have to threaten science.
> 
> I'm not saying you shouldn't object to things like trans women competing in women's sports against biological women, nothing I've responded to has been on those gripes, just your "female only means what I want it to mean because muh biology" takes.


Smug. Ok.

Why would I care if some random person thinks me going down on a woman is not sex? What does another person care if I think _it is _sex? The only effect we really have on each other is making the other upset. These are the disagreements that _should_ be allowed to safely exist in a democratic society. Gay people fucking and marrying has virtually no real affect on the life of anyone else.

The same cannot be said for a male who believes that he should be afforded access to female spaces because he declares himself female. The main difference between the trans movement and the gay rights movement is the difference between claim rights and liberty rights.

Your comparison with homosexuality is simply not there.

Humans being complex creatures does not mean that we can't have words with actual definitions. The world being a complex place does not mean we can't have words with actual definitions.

Female is literally a biological term. Redefining it to include a group of people, because it hurts their feelings to not be included in it even when they do not meet the material definition of the word, is indeed threatening science. Or rather...just ignoring it.

People are free to think female means "feeling like a female" just as they are free to think "the earth is really flat" or that "there is a god" or that "two women can't really have sex" or that "black people are innately more stupid than white people". I don't care as long as their beliefs cannot be allowed to guide the way we write laws that negatively affect anyone else.

Stop trying to boil this down to _accommodating language._ It is a lie. This is a conversation about forcing one sex to legally _accommodate the opposite sex *in their single-sex spaces*_.



ClandestineSchemer said:


> Lol. This is getting hilarious.
> If he isn't a He or a She, then he should be referred to as an It.
> 
> Plurals are for royalty.
> And "We" don't agree that such a privilege be given to plebs.


There is always xe/xim/xer ...


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> We live in a clown world.



Heh. Don't worry, all generations that come after ours will be more tolerant than the previous ones. This world isn't getting more conservative, quite the opposite.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## LesExit (Dec 21, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Heh. Don't worry, all generations that come after ours will be more tolerant than the previous ones. This world isn't getting more conservative, quite the opposite.


These responses are so strange to me. I was raised by Tumblr from late middle school through highschool. A few years ago I was fully on the trans woman are real woman, anti-terf wagon. My first month of college, I made sure everyone knew what my pronouns were upon introductions. A few thanksgivings ago I got into an argument with my aunt who didn't believe Caitlyn Jenner should be compared to a real woman.

Now, I go to meetings every few weeks in real life with a group of 20-30 young women who were the same way as me. Women who were literally the leaders of their LGBTQ clubs in college. Women who used to be trans men. We all eventually came to the same conclusion: The trans movement is regressive as fuck.

Consider this: People aren't against the current trans movement because it is too new or they aren't with the times or they are just conservative bigots or aren't tolerant enough. They are against it by seeing it for what it truly is. Practically every "terf" I speak to used to believe the same things you do. Change is not by definition progressive. Society does not by definition always move forward in a good way. There are many times in history where we make mistakes. We go backward.

But for all of the people who I believe this movement is horrifically damaging, I hope you're right .

Edit: Ya. This is probably how I'll leave this thread. I actually promised myself like 5 months ago that I would take a break from discussing gender-critical stuff in settings like this and leave it to real-life meetings or in private with people online. But when I saw what Rowling said, I couldn't just ignore the thread. 

Good-bye, everyone. The evil terf is going back to bigot land now .

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 21, 2019)

LesExit said:


> Smug. Ok.
> 
> Why would I care if some random person thinks me going down on a woman is not sex? What does another person care if I think _it is _sex? The only effect we really have on each other is making the other upset. These are the disagreements that _should_ be allowed to safely exist in a democratic society. Gay people fucking and marrying has virtually no real affect on the life of anyone else.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about forcing people to do anything.  I'm talking about your opinion being tonedeaf despite appealing to "science".  Your take is bad, because it assumes just because a biological definition is more specific and reliable no other interpretations of that word can exist.   I can call this out as a bad take on its own merits, independent of your right to have it.



> Humans being complex creatures does not mean that we can't have words with actual definitions. The world being a complex place does not mean we can't have words with actual definitions.


Who said we can't?

In case you haven't noticed, I never rejected a biological definition of male and female.  I just think these terms can be used in social contexts as well, since language is malleable.  You're the one trying to reject terminology to suit your own prejudices.



> Female is literally a biological term.


It's a biological term, a social term, a grammatical term, even an engineering term.  What it means depends on the context in which it's used.



> Redefining it to include a group of people, because it hurts their feelings to not be included in it even when they do not meet the material definition of the word, is indeed threatening science. Or rather...just ignoring it.


Like the word marriage?



> People are free to think female means "feeling like a female" just as they are free to think "the earth is really flat" or that "there is a god" or that "two women can't really have sex" or that "black people are innately more stupid than white people". I don't care as long as their beliefs cannot be allowed to guide the way we write laws that negatively affect anyone else.
> 
> Stop trying to boil this down to _accommodating language._ It is a lie. This is a conversation about forcing one sex to legally _accommodate the opposite sex *in their single-sex spaces*_.


It's funny you don't seem to realize "two women can't really have sex" uses the exact same logic you're using.  There's no difference.  It's interesting you find your own argument to be perfect and obvious but that one to be stupid and pseudoscientific.

In any case, I already told you I don't care about the political point you're making, you are also making a social, philosophical and linguistic point that simply holds no water and that's what I've been responding to.

Reactions: Like 4 | Winner 1


----------



## Zenith (Dec 22, 2019)

LesExit said:


> If saying "sex is real", a biological fact, is considered transphobic....something is clearly wrong with the trans movement.
> And something is wrong with it. It has become one of the most misogynistic, homophobic & anti-science mainstream political movements today.
> 
> *Just because a fact upsets you, doesn't change that it is a fact. It also doesn't turn the fact into hate speech.* Trans women are not real women. Trans men are not real men. No matter how many times trans activists repeat the mantra that they are, it remains true that they aren't. They _are_ real _trans_ men and _trans_ women, but they are _still_ female and male respectively.
> ...



I must admit that reading the bit in bold was refreshing, coming from a lesbian even more so. It just shows that not everyone has lost their minds yet.


Pro tip: when a video has the word "destroyed" in the title, it can be safely skipped/discarded.

Only teenagers speak like that. It's reminiscent of the Call of Duty 12 years old who "are fucking your mum".



Lee-Sensei said:


> SJW’s always eat their own.



Kind of like sharks who turn on their siblings in the womb but without the teeth of sharks, so their bites are sloppy, awkward and ultimately ineffective.



Dragon D. Luffy said:


> The amount of people treating sex and gender as the same thing in this thread makes me wonder if it's ignorance or it's on purpose.



I'm a simple man. I try to decompose complex facts into smaller "atomic" bits but I don't understand why sex and gender are not the same thing.

I understand there is a minority of the population born with the gender dysphoria thing I've seen mentioned in this thread, but does that change reality?

As a believer in freedom my mantra is to live and let live but I draw the line when your freedom borders on the oppression of others, for example, females in professional sports who will have an unfair and insurmountable disadvantage against men who identify as women.

It's the same reason why, another day in another thread you'll find me bashing religious fanatics because of the same exact principle: you are free to do what you want with your life, but don't try to superimpose your belief on others who don't see it that way.



Rukia said:


> I thought liberals like science?  They really need to make up their minds.



Science until it clashes with the agenda. Big difference.


----------



## Zenith (Dec 22, 2019)

To add more to why it's confusing to me that we suddenly differentiate between sex and gender, in the Italian language sex and gender are the same thing. When you have to tick a box in a document, it says "sesso", which literally means "sex" as in gender not the act. So why the dramma lamma Cafe'?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 22, 2019)

LesExit said:


> I literally brought this up in my LGBTQ club on campus a few years back when this was going down. Note: it was specifically an LGBTQ club for topics related to people of color.
> 
> When this all first came up, everyone was against it & thought she was crazy.
> But I brought it up again in relation to transgenderism. It was so interesting seeing how the responses changed with the concept of transgenderism in the background. Basically people said it was different because gender was a social construct & race wasn't.... when race can easily be argued to be a social construct. But you could just see how they were struggling to describe the situations as different...when they so blatantly weren't. Then one black guy said that maybe there was room for Dolezal, comparing her feelings to what trans people feel because it seemed like she truly felt like she was black & people looked at him like he was crazy. Then one girl suggested we end the conversation because she felt it might hurt people's feelings, probably because it became more and more clear...that the situations weren't very different.
> ...





afgpride said:


> Yeah, I know good and well the treasure trove of stupidity coming out of sociology journals. Their standards are really low, so you can pull out any wacky idea from there you choose. I don't think transgender issues are wacky though, and I can (and have) explained why.  My point isn't that transracialism isn't an idea that is floated around, and people who "identify as another race" don't exist, it's that it's not a compelling trump card against transgender issues.  The similarities are inconsequential to me and the slippery slope pointed to is fallacious.



You guys have been generous with what is (for the last time) a borderline meme, but the point I'm pressing with transracialism is why I don't trust the advocacy around trans to not tumblr on into something as strange as transracialism. Because like afg said, transracial people isn't really a thing. Transracial as a term didn't even mean anything close to 'racial transvestite', it apparently defined people who grew up through different cultures and ethnicities. It had nothing to do with any dysphoria or a white person identifying as a black person.

And yeah, what happened was antitrans people looked at the doleza situation and went, "Let's call this transracialism and use the same language transgender people use and it'll look silly and ridiculous and maybe we can discredit transgender people," and that argument was rightly mocked and dismissed by progressives and trans advocates.

The dolezal controversy went down in 2015. You can practically sketch out what happened next in real time. Because those same advocacy groups who dismissed transracialism out of hand as something that doesn't exist and is silly - which it is - they suddenly stopped, completely of their own volition, and seemed to go, "Well hold on, is it possible transracialism _could_ exist? I don't want to be closeminded," and slowly but surely started to language together ways in which transracialism could exist and ways in which they could flex their semantic sensitivities to the spectrum of human experience and years later it appears they've started to validate transracialism or at least take it seriously as a concept.

That's weird. 

And look I know people are unfair with the soft sciences, I know many philosophers and sociologists treat their fields more empirically and not like a creative writing exercise, but whoever these other people and groups are...I mean, I don't want those horses hitched to this wagon because I don't trust them to stay on the trail, if you catch my clumsy drift. And they seem to be, unfortunately, leading some of our cultural conversations around transgenderism.


----------



## Illusory (Dec 22, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.
> 
> That is not a reasonable concern. That's the minimal requirement for functioning in modern society.



Stating a fact = hating on minorities now.

Sex is determined at birth. Quick! Ban me for venomous hate speech!


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 22, 2019)

"lmao Man sometimes I hate Southpark, My god that was hilarious.


----------



## stream (Dec 23, 2019)

Aduro said:


> I kinda wonder if all the people who think trans people don't exist also think that societal gender norms have never, ever changed.
> 
> The genetic differences haven't really changed between men and women. But the expectations for men and women vary wildly from culture to culture. Therefore genetics isn't the only thing that defines someone's gender identity.


I would claim that the answer to that is not "this person must have that gender according to today's societal gender norms" but rather "fuck societal gender norms, let everybody do what they want".

From my point of view, telling people they have to declare themselves as a different gender in order to act different is like telling women they have to pretend to be men in order to wear pants. It was stupid when they started wearing pants, and it's stupid now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## stream (Dec 23, 2019)

LesExit said:


> The moment we erase this connection is the day we live in a society that stops giving a rats ass about how males and females live their lives as individuals.


Yes, please. I want this to happen. I have a dream that my children will live in a society where their sex doesn't matter.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 23, 2019)

stream said:


> I have a dream that my children will live in a society where their sex doesn't matter.



Okay, just don't go too crazy with this stuff. 

"Congratulations on the newborn! Is it a boy or a girl?"
"Doesn't matter."
"What?"

because we'll never ferret out a place in society where nobody judges us on anything and there are no categories or expectations for anything, whether it's the family we came from, the city we grew up in, our physical appearance, gendered expectations, class expectations, cultural expectations, but there's still plenty of compromise in between suffocating authoritarian rigidity ("men shouldn't have long hair, if you grow yours too long Tom I'll fire you, don't be a dirty hippie") and over the top nonconformity ("I don't even identify as a person anymore, that's too binary, just call me a lifeform"). There's still plenty of room.


----------



## mali (Dec 23, 2019)

hopefully the evil is defeated. let dobby rest. he doesnt have to be into chemsex. he doesnt have to be in a polycule.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 23, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Heh. Don't worry, all generations that come after ours will be more tolerant than the previous ones. This world isn't getting more conservative, quite the opposite.


Aren’t you Brazilian? Didn’t Jair Bolsonaro just get elected last year? This stuff is going to lead to a backlash.


----------



## JJ Baloney (Dec 23, 2019)

Tesk said:


> y chromosome human=male (a man)
> 
> double-x chromosome human=female (a woman)


I guess people with Klinefelter syndrome....


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 23, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.
> 
> That is not a reasonable concern. That's the minimal requirement for functioning in modern society.



Question: if they were to state that biological men can never become biological women, would that be "hating on minorities" in your opinion ? I have seen absolutist statements on both sides of the issue in the past.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 23, 2019)

Wait PC Principal has a family?


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 23, 2019)

Mider T said:


> Wait PC Principal has a family?


I think that he’s in an open relationship with Vice Principal Strong Woman and they have a bunch of PV babies.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 23, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I think that he’s in an open relationship with Vice Principal Strong Woman and they have a bunch of PV babies.


Strong Woman is the Vice Principal?  And what is PV?


----------



## Konami Yatsa (Dec 23, 2019)

Mider T said:


> Strong Woman is the Vice Principal?  And what is PV?



Pc babies


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 23, 2019)

stream said:


> Yes, please. I want this to happen. I have a dream that my children will live in a society where their sex doesn't matter.


My dream is a society that is directionless and doomed to failure as well.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 23, 2019)

Konami Yatsa said:


> Pc babies


. I need to catch up.


----------



## jesusus (Dec 23, 2019)




----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 23, 2019)

Mider T said:


> Strong Woman is the Vice Principal?  And what is PV?


That was a typo. I meant PC babies.


----------



## sworder (Dec 23, 2019)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> My dream is a society that is directionless and doomed to failure as well.


shows how small minded you are when you think capitalism cares about anyone's sex


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 23, 2019)

LesExit said:


> Yes. How great no one is concerned about those scenarios. But the scenarios I listed WHICH ARE A PROBLEM.
> Homosexuality refers to attraction to the same sex.  Lesbians are lesbians because they're females attracted to females.
> 
> What are you even trying to say? Are you trying to debate what counts as sex? People do that for every sexuality. Is it penis in vagina? Is it dick in mouth? Is it whether or not someone's orgasms? Only thing that is true is that homosexuals cannot sexually procreate.
> ...



Exactly a ideology claiming that you born in the wrong body because you like pink, dress in skirts and watching the next season of the real housewife and then claiming at the same time a woman can be whatever she want, dress like she want and like whatever she want doesn't match at all, if a black people bleach his skin for becoming white because he think that his born with the wrong skin, i bet the bell ring will be different...... transwoman are not the same as biological woman and a transman isn't the same as a biological man. They're different. Not better or worse, just different.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 23, 2019)

Well guys, Voldemort has been confirmed pro brexit, and is a nationalist according to our distressed author, trying to avoid being devoured by the same leftists she pandered to.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 23, 2019)

Chelydra said:


> Well guys, Voldemort has been confirmed pro brexit, and is a nationalist according to our distressed author, trying to avoid being devoured by the same leftists she pandered to.


Did she actually say that?


----------



## Esdese (Dec 23, 2019)

twitter is not the real world.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 24, 2019)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Did she actually say that?



Yes,


----------



## Junta1987 (Dec 24, 2019)

Vee made an interesting video about this: 


Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Above: another user pretending the thread is about sex and not gender in order to push a disingenuous narrative.



when a man sees himself as a woman and makes a sex change that doesn't make him a woman. That's like i identify myself as a 10-year-old even though i am not


----------



## KidTony (Dec 24, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> This shit is ridiculous no matter how many mental gymnastic they do, at the end of the day, trans woman are still men...
> 
> i repeat: trans women are not & never will be real women, they are men
> 
> ...



Gender and Sex are not the same thing. Sex is between your legs, gender is in your head.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 24, 2019)

10 pages into a trans thread and I don't think the mods had to come in even once.

It's a christmas holiday miracle.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 24, 2019)

Chelydra said:


> Yes,



Lol.
As if he gave a rats ass about muggle politics.
She can't even keep her own characterizations consistent.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 24, 2019)

KidTony said:


> Gender and Sex are not the same thing. Sex is between your legs, gender is in your head.



Nonsense, Sex is a biological fact, gender is a social contruct made by human norms which doesn't follow any rational facts, prefering pink over blue and dolls over cars doesn't make you magically a girl, what a hollow mindset !


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Dec 25, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> 10 pages into a trans thread and I don't think the mods had to come in even once.
> 
> It's a christmas holiday miracle.


It’s a Christmas miracle! The war on Christmas must end!


----------



## Ren. (Dec 25, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...eting-support-transphobic-researcher-n1104971


Retards these from UK nowadays.



Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Yes, people deserve to lose their jobs for hating on minorities.


No, they don't and saying that man and women are distinct at chromosomes level is a fact!


----------



## Island (Dec 26, 2019)

Don't call transgender people delusional or other things like that.

We don't care what your stance is, but you still have to be respectful about it.


----------



## Arles Celes (Dec 26, 2019)

Serious business... 

I wonder though...is it considered a crime or something that one should apologize for IF someone were to say that he/she dislikes/hates some minority?

Dude X: I hate minority abc

But lets say said person does not encourage anyone to hate on said minority nor does he/she insult members of said minority wherever he/she does meet them. Just admits to hate them but takes no real actions to hurt them. Or simply says he/she finds said minority weird or something of the sort.

Is stating such an opinion worthy of punishement? What if it wasn't even stated in a TV show but by some dude who was taking a walk with his/her friend and happened to have his/her talk about disliking minority X to be recorded? Should he/she apologize or get fired from his/her job because of that?

Where does "hate" turn into a crime? At which point?

Can it happen even by simply being friendly with someone who is known as a hater of minorities? Or just praising said controversial person for anything? Would any praise also mean to signify that the one who praises does so having in mind EVERYTHING about said person?


----------



## KidTony (Dec 26, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> Nonsense, Sex is a biological fact, gender is a social contruct made by human norms which doesn't follow any rational facts, prefering pink over blue and dolls over cars doesn't make you magically a girl, what a hollow mindset !



The first part is correct. Gender is a social construct that does not reflect biological differences. The problem with you people is that on top of being prejudiced, you don't even take the trouble to be informed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Island (Dec 26, 2019)

Tesk said:


> can i call delusional people delusional? @Island
> 
> and it's obvious you do care - otherwise you wouldn't be making the effort to censor people.
> 
> the only form of disrespect i know is a lie - and i didn't lie to anyone here.


You have to be respectful of gender identities here and that includes not making remarks about them being delusional, etc.

Like I said, you can believe whatever you'd like to believe about them, but when you're talking about groups of people and things like race, sex, religion, orientation, identity, etc., you have to be mindful of what you're saying and how you're saying it.


----------



## stream (Dec 26, 2019)

Since I don't really understand what it is that trans people mean when they say they identify as a man, I guess the most logical thing for me  to say is that I have a man's body, but I don't particularly identify as a man.

I mean, there is nothing that I can think of that would define a male gender identity that I wouldn't claim is a stereotype. At the most, I guess some people feel they are part of the great male brotherhood, but I don't.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 27, 2019)

Arles Celes said:


> Serious business...
> 
> I wonder though...is it considered a crime or something that one should apologize for IF someone were to say that he/she dislikes/hates some minority?
> 
> ...



If you sit at a table with 10 nazis and don't do anything about it, there are 11 nazis at the table.

If you validate hate as a legit opinion, you validate the violence and opression of freedom that will inevitably come from that hate. The people who hate will use that freedom you gave to them to take the freedom away from the ones they hate.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## HisokaRollin (Dec 27, 2019)

LesExit said:


> I am a woman. I don't identify as a woman. I did not wake up one day and decide that I wanted to be a woman. 99.999% of all women in the world experience the same thing. I have no idea what trans women are talking about or feeling when they say they "feel" like women. I don't remember feeling like a woman. I surely don't identify with how society thinks a person with my body should be. I remember feeling like I fit in more with boys as a child. I remember feeling like I hated wearing dresses. I remember feeling inadequate next to my super feminine best friend. I remember feeling like I had to wear as many layers as possible to hide the changing body hated. But it turns out that _not feeling_ like a woman...is a normal feeling for actual women.
> 
> I want to know why I am being forced by others into some sort of ideology about "identifying" with a gender, just so people can claim we are somehow the same type of thing. In what way do women benefit from being _legally_ recognized as no different than a male who _desires_ to have a female body, and once again has some _undefinable f*eeling*_ that he is actually like women? I can tell you what women _lose_ by doing this: The ability to have fair professional sports, the ability to not interact with male sex offenders in prisons, the ability to recover in women's shelters and hospitals without interacting with males, the ability to accurately describe and record sexual crimes, the ability to give ourselves a meaningful definition that actual describes us as a coherent group. And these aren't what-ifs. All of the above is already happening. Women lose everything in this situation.
> .



You're so full of shit. I felt it already with your fake attitude of liking and excusing almost every character just cause they were a female but this just confirms it.

Tolerant my ass.

,,I never felt like my gender was wrong so trans people's feelings are invalid. I'm a woman, I know for sure".

Somehow you piss me off more than other transphobes here because they at least don't pretend to be nice about it.

Accepting trans people, not pretending like you know better than them how they feel and not being a bitch about their situation when they clearly don't have it easy and are not doing anyone harm by trying to live true to themselves, is just being a decent human being.

They didn't chose feeling of having wrong gender.
And if they could change this i'm sure they wouldn't make their lives way more difficult. So we can at least be considerate about it.

Also why are you acting like only trans people are man identifying as woman? There are trans males out there too.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 27, 2019)

This thread turned into a circus real fast, jeebus.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 27, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you sit at a table with 10 nazis and don't do anything about it, there are 11 nazis at the table.
> 
> If you validate hate as a legit opinion, you validate the violence and opression of freedom that will inevitably come from that hate. The people who hate will use that freedom you gave to them to take the freedom away from the ones they hate.



Guilt by association is ok then, glad to hear it.


----------



## Aduro (Dec 27, 2019)

Chelydra said:


> Guilt by association is ok then, glad to hear it.


Eh, if you're tolerating as extremist ideology. Yes. 

People who benefit from the advantages from discrimination and don't do anything to try and mitigate it are part of the problem. Especially if they deny the severity of that discrimination.


----------



## Illusory (Dec 27, 2019)

Island said:


> Don't call transgender people delusional or other things like that.
> 
> We don't care what your stance is, but you still have to be respectful about it.



What is a polite word for denying physical reality in favor of a desired existence?

If I feel like I’m a wolf in a man’s body, and want to take drugs and have surgery to be more wolf-like, what word is the best description for that... mindset?

I mean at a certain point, even the PC-police should call a spade a spade.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ren. (Dec 28, 2019)

Island said:


> Don't call transgender people delusional or other things like that.


Don't force anyone to refute or agree with your vision on gender or sex and we will be polite.

Saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman, is a fact, there is not gene treatment that reverses this PERIOD.


Arles Celes said:


> Where does "hate" turn into a crime? At which point?


That is not a crime, firing anyone because of a view is a crime and they know it.



KidTony said:


> he problem with you people is that on top of being prejudiced, you don't even take the trouble to be informed.


LOL, who is not informed, did she say that her genre, she said biological sex that is not social construct, that is pure biology and it is not affected by the difference in the brain, that body is what it is, even if it had both genitals, there is the predominant one and it would still be labeled as one sex not whatever you believe!

Also, there is a difference in muscle density and bone density.



Island said:


> You have to be respectful of gender identities here and that includes not making remarks about them being delusional, etc.


Being delusional is not an insult and if you don't know about sex differences or if you ignoring that, well you are ignoring a fact or just want to pretend that those do not exist and forcing anyone to believe that way is let's recall who did that?

So just because you made the genre a social construct this does not mean sex is not real and saying that it is not is a delusion.



Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you sit at a table with 10 nazis and don't do anything about it, there are 11 nazis at the table.


Wrong, So anyone in Germany was a nazi because they lived there ), that is a fallacy.

For example, you believe that anyone that is trans agrees with this decision, a fallacy, not every person believes that one and what you said is pure dogma and guilt by association.

It is like if a trans is wrong then all trans are wrong 


Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you validate hate as a legit opinion, you validate the violence and opression of freedom that will inevitably come from that hate. The people who hate will use that freedom you gave to them to take the freedom away from the ones they hate.


Wrong, you define what you believe not what all believe and hate that is ... , sex is a fact, saying that is, is not hate and hate is not violence, nor oppression of freedom.

So let me see this you take freedom of those that "hate", labeled by you, not by many is justified because you believe they will take freedom from others that they hate ), did you read what you wrote?

You take freedom, full stop!

I could tell you who did this some time ago for a so-called justified belief also!

It will be a time when the majority of men will be fed wit this crap and then it will be funny in a way.



afgpride said:


> I'm not talking about forcing people to do anything. I'm talking about your opinion being tonedeaf despite appealing to "science". Your take is bad, because it assumes just because a biological definition is more specific and reliable no other interpretations of that word can exist. I can call this out as a bad take on its own merits, independent of your right to have it.


So we should have 100k definition per year and not a general one because that way some people might not be offended?

Well, that is so practical.



Illusory said:


> Stating a fact = hating on minorities now.
> 
> Sex is determined at birth. Quick! Ban me for venomous hate speech!


Sex is defined by the body ... Even if you take the brain of a female and put it  into a male body ,well a shock but the body is still male 

And this is not a "science" but science, if you take a DNA sample it will 100% tell you that .
Sex is for reproduction, our kind is not asexual, it does not divide itself or has the male and female part in one body so that is that.

@afgpride



Zenith said:


> n the Italian language sex and gender are the same thing. When


I think is the same in all neo-Latin languages mine included!



stream said:


> Yes, please. I want this to happen. I have a dream that my children will live in a society where their sex doesn't matter.


It will never happen because women and men are half of one being.
There is no buts about that.

That is imprinted on your genetical code, look at that as binary code of the PC that is our genome.

And you said children well that is the point of this to make a new generation.


----------



## Esdese (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you sit at a table with 10 nazis and don't do anything about it, there are 11 nazis at the table.
> 
> If you validate hate as a legit opinion, you validate the violence and opression of freedom that will inevitably come from that hate. The people who hate will use that freedom you gave to them to take the freedom away from the ones they hate.



oh please fuck off with the sophistry

not only is what u said dumb as shit it is also dangerous


----------



## GRIMMM (Dec 28, 2019)

As with worker's rights, women's rights, and the acceptance of gay rights, it is only a matter of time before the acceptance of trans rights becomes a thing.

As history has shown, and was pointed out earlier in this thread, progressive values have always came out on top. I give it 10 years max until we're onto the next human rights "debate".


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 28, 2019)

Illusory said:


> What is a polite word for denying physical reality in favor of a desired existence?
> 
> If I feel like I’m a wolf in a man’s body, and want to take drugs and have surgery to be more wolf-like, what word is the best description for that... mindset?
> 
> I mean at a certain point, even the PC-police should call a spade a spade.



Well the difference is gender dysphoria is a medical diagnosis.

Being otherkin isn't and yes I realise the joke that can be made here but I won't


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 28, 2019)

Esdese said:


> oh please fuck off with the sophistry
> 
> not only is what u said dumb as shit it is also dangerous





In other words: fuck yeah outlaw rascism and other forms of intolerance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> In other words: fuck yeah outlaw rascism and other forms of intolerance.



I mean you can't outlaw racism itself because you can't outlaw peole's thoughts.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 28, 2019)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I mean you can't outlaw racism itself because you can't outlaw peole's thoughts.



Not the thinking, the manifestation.

Next time someone grabs a mic to say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Not the thinking, the manifestation.
> 
> Next time someone grabs a mic to say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass.


For example when they say "we must exterminate the intolerant"?


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Dec 28, 2019)

Unicornsilovethem said:


> For example when they say "we must exterminate the intolerant"?



That's why it's called a paradox in the first place.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> That's why it's called a paradox in the first place.


This is not a paradox. You are just saying something silly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Esdese (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> In other words: fuck yeah outlaw rascism and other forms of intolerance.





Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Not the thinking, the manifestation.
> 
> Next time someone grabs a mic to say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass.



holy shit, not only are you arguably the dumbest person I have ever ran into on this site, what your proposing goes contrary to the out come you wish to achieve. That is extremely dangerous ground.

When people say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass." That is their thought. To outlaw speak in anyway is to outlaw thought, as speech is the mechanism in which your express yourself/thought in the world. Speech is the manifestation of thought. Do you know what happens when people can't express themselves? It 100% ultimately leads to violence, then going by your own logic you will be guiltily by association because now you have blood on your hands.

Before you get pedantic when I say speech that include writing.


----------



## Esdese (Dec 28, 2019)

one method to dealing with people that say racist shit is to debating them and make their arguments not hold from scrutiny and show people the holes in there reasoning.

never do what you are suggesting.


----------



## Ren. (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> In other words: fuck yeah outlaw rascism and other forms of intolerance.


You are intolerant to the views that are 180degree to yours so that is bigotry.

The same mentality the fascists had.

You are intolerant to those that are thinking differently from you.

You can't force anything if someone wants to be racists but does no violence he has the same right of trans.

In fact, from what I can see just because someone is a minority he has no more right from the majority but in RL they have because of minority and fake values.

Do progress this way and in a while the majority: male white while say: fuck you all, want some do it don't demand it from others.

Only in this dystopia, a minority's rights should supersede the majority and it always has a negative effect that will generate violence for good reasons.



Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Next time someone grabs a mic to say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass.


Oh, boy are we in 1940?
Should I show you the TV examples of blacks, women that did this to white and men?
And no one cares!

Or is this again only for the minorities?
So bigotism once more.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 28, 2019)

GRIMMM said:


> As with worker's rights, women's rights, and the acceptance of gay rights, it is only a matter of time before the acceptance of trans rights becomes a thing.
> 
> As history has shown, and was pointed out earlier in this thread, progressive values have always came out on top. I give it 10 years max until we're onto the next human rights "debate".



There are lots of progressive movements that fizzled out and show no signs of resurgence around family structures, childcare, social structures, economic practices, drug use, sexual liberality, etc. The civil rights movement is rightfully something people look back on with pride, but as has also been said in this thread not everything is the next civil rights movement. Or the next suffrage movement.


----------



## Arles Celes (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> If you sit at a table with 10 nazis and don't do anything about it, there are 11 nazis at the table.
> 
> If you validate hate as a legit opinion, you validate the violence and opression of freedom that will inevitably come from that hate. The people who hate will use that freedom you gave to them to take the freedom away from the ones they hate.



But do what exactly? Punch those nazis in the face? Try to Talk no Jutsu them? Call the authorities?

If someone does not want to shake my hand because of my race and gives me a cold glare does he/she deserve to lose his/her job?

I can understand that if someone is assaulting another person sexually or via violence then its better to intervene otherwise we are contributing to social apathy and one day we may be abandoned in a similar situation via sheer karma.

But can we force people to change their beliefs? Try to make everyone love everyone? Even if a dude who dislikes me because of my race/sexual orientation/political beliefs/whatever else was fined/imprisoned due to confessing his/hers hate towards me it wouldn't necessarily make him/her change such beliefs. Actually its possible that he/she would hate me even more and considered himself/herself the real victim and me as the guilty party.

I can understand demanding an apology in such a situation but to make such person the target of society vengeance/scorn or make him lose his/hers job sounds a bit too extreme IMO.

Even worse if the person did not directly even offend anyone and just happens to have controversial acquaintances.


----------



## Ren. (Dec 28, 2019)

Arles Celes said:


> But do what exactly? Punch those nazis in the face? Try to Talk no Jutsu them? Call the authorities?
> 
> If someone does not want to shake my hand because of my race and gives me a cold glare does he/she deserve to lose his/her job?
> 
> ...


Bingo!


----------



## Illusory (Dec 28, 2019)

GRIMMM said:


> As history has shown, and was pointed out earlier in this thread, progressive values have always came out on top. I give it 10 years max until we're onto the next human rights "debate".



It’s not outlawed to be trans. So what is up next? Furries? They have a medical condition where they believe they’re animals trapped in the wrong body!


----------



## Illusory (Dec 28, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> There are lots of progressive movements that fizzled out and show no signs of resurgence around family structures, childcare, social structures, economic practices, drug use, sexual liberality, etc. The civil rights movement is rightfully something people look back on with pride, but as has also been said in this thread not everything is the next civil rights movement. Or the next suffrage movement.



Democrats also delude (oh shit, am I allowed to say “delude”?) themselves into thinking they passed the civil rights movements when a larger percentage of Republicans voted for it in both the house and the senate, even in the 1960s.



Believe it or not, you can be against racism AND be against higher taxes and more regulations from an already bloated and overly intrusive federal government.

That said, gay people did get screwed by fundamentalist Christians that more often vote Republican though. That’s one of the reasons I voted Obama. But Trump is the first President to support gay marriage at inauguration and is very gay friendly, so that’s no longer a partisan issue.

But Democrats jumped from that solid cause to... defending illegal immigration and the sex and drug trafficking that goes with it, arguing that people that often can’t deploy due to a psychological dysphoric state should join the military, strongly supporting reverse racism in multiple forms, throwing billions of tax dollars per year at nasty rivals like China to ‘save the planet’ with green energy, and wiping out the debt that people knowingly took on to better their lives with other people’s money.

They can’t run on issues because their stances are now a radicalized joke. Hence why they prefer yelling “fascist” or “racist” toward the opposition instead. Basically, their party is on life support from leftist propaganda provided by mainstream media.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 28, 2019)

Illusory said:


> If I feel like I’m a wolf in a man’s body, and want to take drugs and have surgery to be more wolf-like, what word is the best description for that... mindset?



You're a furry, Harry.

Furryphobia for the next big SJW thing in 2020.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 28, 2019)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> You're a furry, Harry.
> 
> Furryphobia for the next big SJW thing in 2020.



I think the only reason this hasn't had a big push is because most furrys seem to be male ?

Also you know, the fact that when they get in the news, they get in the news _hard_.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 28, 2019)

Arles Celes said:


> If someone does not want to shake my hand because of my race and gives me a cold glare does he/she deserve to lose his/her job?



This is funny. 

People tend to clap and cheer when countries take a hard stance on foreigners who refuse to shake hands because of their faith. The more I see these topics come up is the more I see people not being willing to show the same energy when it comes to racists exercising their rights. People seem to develop a newfound respect and appreciation when it is time to defend the views and actions of a bigot.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Island (Dec 28, 2019)

QMS said:


> Don't force anyone to refute or agree with your vision on gender or sex and we will be polite.


I wasn't giving you an option.

If you want to participate in this thread, you have to be respectful towards trangender people.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 28, 2019)

Aduro said:


> Eh, if you're tolerating as extremist ideology. Yes.
> 
> People who benefit from the advantages from discrimination and don't do anything to try and mitigate it are part of the problem. Especially if they deny the severity of that discrimination.



Round up _all_ the islamists then. 

There is a reason guilt by association in regards to these matters is generally unaccepted in modern society.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 28, 2019)

I'm trying to watch this thread from behind the piles of exams I'm correcting.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 28, 2019)

Comparing transgender to furries and transracialism and etc _sounds_ belittling because it is, okay, but I still think most of this stuff is criticizing the activism and culture and ideas behind the trans topic and not necessarily trans individuals themselves.

This is after all a thread about a tax accountant who said sex is real or gender is real and the controversy around that, so this topic has as much to do with social attitudes as it does dysphoria or gender roles or the research luffy was talking about with brain patterns or the fact that trans people exist and they deserve the same lawful protections that I enjoy.

And if we're arguing whether gender roles are ideas imposed on us by society, whether gender is just an 'idea' and not a fixed reality, then we're at least partly arguing about _ideas _and these belitting comparisons to transracialism and furries are meant to be belittling to the ideas of progressives.

/trying to thread a needle


----------



## GRIMMM (Dec 28, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> There are lots of progressive movements that fizzled out and show no signs of resurgence around *family structures, childcare, social structures, economic practices, drug use, sexual liberality*, etc. The civil rights movement is rightfully something people look back on with pride, but as has also been said in this thread not everything is the next civil rights movement. Or the next suffrage movement.


Examples needed on all your statements, because as of today we are significantly more progressive and liberal than we have ever been throughout our history (in the West), and I can point out how everything you've listed here has completely changed over the last 50 years. Hell, look at ten years ago even, and then today. The difference is significant and it's only been a 10 year gap. There may have been some smaller movements as you said, but the overwhelming number of them have succeeded and it is well evidenced.

Again, this is something that will be normalised in about 10 years, and we'll be onto something else, maybe robotic modifications if we're lucky.


Illusory said:


> It’s not outlawed to be trans. So what is up next? Furries? They have a medical condition where they believe they’re animals trapped in the wrong body!


Where did I claim it was outlawed? I never spoke about furries either.

Do keep making stuff up, using hyperbole, and the slippery slope fallacy though. I'm sure it'll work out for you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Illusory (Dec 28, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> Comparing transgender to furries and transracialism and etc _sounds_ belittling because it is, okay



Lol based on what logic?

If a one guy wants to wear a squirrel tail and hump another adult wearing a squirrel tail, or if another guy wants to get facial surgery to appear more Asian, then why is that belittling to some other guy that wants to transform his genitalia and take drugs to grow breasts and a feminine body? They are all psychologically compelled to transform themselves to assuage their inner turmoil from being what they physically are.

If we start defining what’s “belittling” based on what mainstream liberals choose to be offended about (transgender) and what they choose to agree is odd (furries) or inappropriate (transracial), then the sky is the limit for their nonsense.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Dec 28, 2019)

GRIMMM said:


> Do keep making stuff up, using hyperbole, and the slippery slope fallacy though. I'm sure it'll work out for you.



He's a conspiracy theorist who believes he's some great "conservative culture crusader" against anything left of his political beliefs. Hyperbole and slippery slopes are all he has.


----------



## Masterblack06 (Dec 28, 2019)

Question. Does JK Rowling even care about all of this?


----------



## sworder (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Not the thinking, the manifestation.
> 
> Next time someone grabs a mic to say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass.


the biggest most dangerous thing that could happen is censoring freedom of speech

what you say is beyond idiotic, it's insane


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 28, 2019)

KidTony said:


> The first part is correct. Gender is a social construct that does not reflect biological differences. The problem with you people is that on top of being prejudiced, you don't even take the trouble to be informed.


If being prejudiced is telling the truth then i'm 100% on this board, the fact gender is a social contruct is already enough to say that isn't neither male, female or binary, trinary or whatevernary this lobby come with, they exist only three sexes  : male, female or hermaphrodite , the rest is either interpretentions or fallacies at choices.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 28, 2019)

Masterblack06 said:


> Question. Does JK Rowling even care about all of this?



She likely cares about supporting the woman who lost her job stating a fact. As for the rest it's pandering imo.


----------



## Masterblack06 (Dec 28, 2019)

Chelydra said:


> She likely cares about supporting the woman who lost her job stating a fact. As for the rest it's pandering imo.


Would she even care though? Like alot of people are complaining at her about it but would she even pay them any mind?


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 28, 2019)

I just read a rather good article from Cathy Young regarding this and transgender issues.





> *Harry Potter and the Transgender Revolution*
> *J.K. Rowling’s tweet sparked accusations of transphobia — but the debate about gender identity raises real and complicated issues*
> 
> Last week, the bells of cancel culture tolled for J.K. Rowling, the writer whose _Harry Potter_ novels have helped shape the shared culture of two generations of young adults. (Or at least they tried: JKR is too big to cancel even if people are literally burning her books.) Rowling, who generally espouses liberal feminist politics, ran afoul of the progressive community with a tweet deemed “transphobic”:
> ...



Continued next post.


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 28, 2019)

Continued...



> Can a person “change sex”? Skeptics argue that regardless of surgery and hormone treatments, every cell in the body of someone born male still has XY chromosomes, so such a person remains a man forever no matter how female “he” may look — the feminine body is just a fiction, a particularly elaborate form of disguise. But it’s not that simple. *While the use of rare intersex conditions to push the idea that “sex isn’t binary” is deeply misleading — as some have said, it’s a bit like arguing that the existence of people born without legs negates human bipedalism — those conditions do suggest that chromosomes don’t automatically equal sex/gender. Thus, children with Swyer syndrome, who have an XY karyotype, have normal female external genitalia and a female identity but require hormone treatment to experience puberty. Others have XY chromosomes and internal testes but grow up as women due to androgen insensitivity.*
> 
> *There are other cases in which we allow a social construction to override biological fact. For instance: Strictly speaking, a father is a man whose sperm has fertilized an egg, resulting in the gestation and birth of a child, and a mother is someone who contributes the egg and gestates the child in her uterus. But we also recognize many other forms of motherhood and fatherhood, especially in the age of assisted reproduction. *An infertile man whose wife conceives with donor sperm is still a father; a woman who conceives with a donor egg, or whose embryo is carried to term by another woman, is still a mother. *Adoptive parents are parents. Most now accept that a gay man or woman co-raising a partner’s biological child is a parent.*
> 
> ...


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 28, 2019)

Continued



> _When does transgender access pose the risk of serious disruption of single-sex spaces and services?_
> 
> There is no doubt that transgender people have been using single-sex public bathrooms and locker rooms for decades with no problem. *What’s new in recent years is the demand that transgender women who not only have male anatomy but do not “pass” as women be accepted in all-female spaces. The issue is not that trans women are particularly likely to be sexual predators; it’s that sexual predators may take advantage of the situation. One needn’t see every man as “Schrödinger’s rapist” to understand that if women are reluctant to raise an alarm, call for help, or run when they see a male in the women’s room, this is likely to put women at risk.* Locker rooms and showers where people frequently see each other in a state of undress can pose even thornier problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 28, 2019)

Last part.



> There are vast numbers of transgender women and men who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace and be treated with dignity. More power to them.
> 
> There is also a radical transgender movement whose goals are less about personal identity than about revolutionizing cultural beliefs about gender. Its views have been mainstreamed to a remarkable degree: today, respectable publications talk about people being “assigned female/male at birth” rather than “born female/male” and refer to “gender affirmation” rather than “gender reassignment” procedures. More and more publications use “they” to refer to individuals who profess a nonbinary identity, no matter how painful the results may sound and look. Six of the 20 Democrats running for President in October were using pronouns in their Twitter bios, a ritual genuflection to the idea that gender shouldn’t be assumed from appearance or name; Kamala Harris also announced hers on CNN. Even Goldman Sachs now encourages employees to proactively announce their pronouns and defer to the wishes of people wishing to be called “ze/zir.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 28, 2019)

Masterblack06 said:


> Would she even care though? Like alot of people are complaining at her about it but would she even pay them any mind?



She cared enough to retcon her characters in an attempt to pander so maybe it's just for relevance?

I don't know what's going on in her head but she felt the need to make the main villain a pro brexit nationalist and other characters gay to appease a certain group of people so I can only come to the conclusion that she cares somewhat, if only for publicity.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 28, 2019)

@hcheng02's posts reminded me that for all the talk about gender not being sex and gender being a social construct and sex being fixed, isn't transgender referring to people physically transitioning to the opposite _sex_ through hormones and surgeries and such? Eddie izzard wearing a dress isn't what we're talking about.



Illusory said:


> If we start defining what’s “belittling” based on what mainstream liberals choose to be offended about (transgender) and what they choose to agree is odd (furries) or inappropriate (transracial), then the sky is the limit for their nonsense.



I’m just saying I know how this stuff sounds to people on the other side of the argument. For whatever that’s worth.



GRIMMM said:


> Examples needed on all your statements, because as of today we are significantly more progressive and liberal than we have ever been throughout our history (in the West), and I can point out how everything you've listed here has completely changed over the last 50 years. Hell, look at ten years ago even, and then today. The difference is significant and it's only been a 10 year gap. There may have been some smaller movements as you said, but the overwhelming number of them have succeeded and it is well evidenced..



I bet the history buffs on the forum could say a thing or two about this. Even the progressive ones who don’t agree with the suggestion. For ex wasn't ancient rome more liberal about gay relationships than the modern world until very recently? Ancient greece too.

You could say the same for gender roles, which don’t so much _progress_ through human history as change from region to region.

There’s a healthy smattering of primitive and ancient cultures that were more liberal with sexual expression than we are, especially with their children. Our tolerance of ebophelia and pedophelia is also much lower today than in the past.

On sexuality specifically there seem to be lots of liberal attitudes throughout history that we're more uptight about in the modern world, and even though you can explain that away as the influence of the church and also women’s rights (when women have more autonomy in relationships that cancels out some male hedonism) — that’s still not a straight line of successful, successive progress. To me it looks like a lot of going forward and then backing up and then reversing completely and then slowing down and then going forward again.

Maybe progress is like fashion. Fashion is mostly moving forward, yeah, but for every trend that sticks around there are thousands that don’t. Most fashions probably fail to leave a mark. A minority becomes trendy and a minority of that minority becomes permanent. Exhibit A, 80% of what the left-wing counter culture explored in the 60s (fashion too).


----------



## Asaya7 (Dec 28, 2019)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Not the thinking, the manifestation.
> 
> Next time someone grabs a mic to say "we must exterminate the [insert group here]", arrest their ass.


Sure, because that is advocating for violence.

If that someone grabs the mic to say that [insert group here] suck, would you still arrest their ass?


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 29, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> @hcheng02's posts reminded me that for all the talk about gender not being sex and gender being a social construct and sex being fixed, isn't transgender referring to people physically transitioning to the opposite _sex_ through hormones and surgeries and such? Eddie izzard wearing a dress isn't what we're talking about.



Except that's not quite true. There is a growing contingent of trans-activists say that simply allowing people to physically transition to the opposite sex implies that you have two genders only and disenfranchises non-binary trans people. Thus a biological male who wears a wig and dress but calls themselves a female despite having male genitalia and male levels of hormones would qualify as a non-binary trans and entitled to go to previously female only spaces like female sports competitions, female prisons, female bathrooms, etc. There are some in the trans community who are ambivalent about this because they worry it might provoke further backlash 


Here's an article that further explains it.




> *ContraPoints and the Scandal That Shouldn’t Be*
> *Why a segment of left-wing Twitter is at its own throat*
> 
> Jesse Singal
> ...


----------



## Kingslayer (Dec 29, 2019)

I am less liking rowling she used to be my fav author. Why has she turned sjw all of a sudden ? Did popularity turned her like that.

She should stick where she is good at.


----------



## Asaya7 (Dec 30, 2019)

Kingslayer said:


> I am less liking rowling she used to be my fav author. Why has she turned sjw all of a sudden ? Did popularity turned her like that.
> 
> She should stick where she is good at.


she is getting criticism from sjw's though.


----------



## Superstars (Dec 30, 2019)

We all know what God the Father and His Christ Jesus says on the issue. I'll leave it at that.



Hand Banana said:


> I'm going to call this, "I made 'Jesus Walk" so I'm not going to hell" logic.


----------



## KidTony (Dec 30, 2019)

CrownedEagle said:


> If being prejudiced is telling the truth then i'm 100% on this board, the fact gender is a social contruct is already enough to say that isn't neither male, female or binary, trinary or whatevernary this lobby come with, they exist only three sexes  : male, female or hermaphrodite , the rest is either interpretentions or fallacies at choices.



Right, so when people who don't feel like they are the gender they were assigned to by society at birth say they aren't that gender, it has nothing to do with biological sex. You keep conflating one and the other. When someone who is born a man but say they identify now as a woman, they are not saying they are biologically female; because, if you have been following along, gender and sex are not the same thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 30, 2019)

Superstars said:


> We all know what God the Father and His Christ Jesus says on the issue.



I figured the bible was mum on transgenderism 



KidTony said:


> Right, so when people who don't feel like they are the gender they were assigned to by society at birth say they aren't that gender, it has nothing to do with biological sex. You keep conflating one and the other. When someone who is born a man but say they identify now as a woman, they are not saying they are biologically female; because, if you have been following along, gender and sex are not the same thing.



But then you run into the knot I tangled up earlier because we're not talking about people who want to identify with feminine expectations in society like eddie izzard or metrosexuals or transvestites or tommy wanting to wear a dress, we're talking about people who try to transition their bodies into the other sex _physically_. We are exactly talking about sex, not gender. If we were only talking about social structures nobody would have ever dreamed up hormone blockers for kids.


----------



## sworder (Dec 30, 2019)

KidTony said:


> Right, so when people who don't feel like they are the gender they were assigned to by society at birth say they aren't that gender, it has nothing to do with biological sex. You keep conflating one and the other. When someone who is born a man but say they identify now as a woman, they are not saying they are biologically female; because, if you have been following along, gender and sex are not the same thing.


And when those people want to enter the female bathroom, even when they have no intention of ever transitioning, they are MAKING it about sex not gender

We have to stop pretending the trans issue is solely about gender, it's not


----------



## Superstars (Dec 30, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> I figured the bible was mum on transgenderism .


It's addressed, like everything else.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 30, 2019)

Superstars said:


>



That's exactly how I imagine god's face when he's looking down on humanity.


----------



## Superstars (Dec 30, 2019)

reiatsuflow said:


> That's exactly how I imagine god's face when he's looking down on humanity.


While humanity is catching His vengeful hands.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 30, 2019)

KidTony said:


> Right, so when people who don't feel like they are the gender they were assigned to by society at birth say they aren't that gender, it has nothing to do with biological sex. You keep conflating one and the other. When someone who is born a man but say they identify now as a woman, they are not saying they are biologically female; because, if you have been following along, gender and sex are not the same thing.



Except that its not about conflating sex and gender, its about sex differences mattering in the physical world and tran-activists saying that personal gender preference overrides all other considerations. Here's a quote from the article I posted.



			
				Cathy Young article said:
			
		

> _When does transgender access pose the risk of serious disruption of single-sex spaces and services?_
> 
> There is no doubt that transgender people have been using single-sex public bathrooms and locker rooms for decades with no problem. *What’s new in recent years is the demand that transgender women who not only have male anatomy but do not “pass” as women be accepted in all-female spaces. The issue is not that trans women are particularly likely to be sexual predators; it’s that sexual predators may take advantage of the situation. One needn’t see every man as “Schrödinger’s rapist” to understand that if women are reluctant to raise an alarm, call for help, or run when they see a male in the women’s room, this is likely to put women at risk.* Locker rooms and showers where people frequently see each other in a state of undress can pose even thornier problems.
> 
> While transgender activists minimize these problems, a lot of transgender-critical rhetoric on this subject tends to vilify males and equate femaleness with victimhood and innocence—for instance, to downplay female violence in prisons or shelters and to show utter unconcern with the safety of male or trans inmates or residents. *A safer environment for everyone should be the goal. But in the meantime, we should not be afraid to say that putting a legally male, male-bodied violent sex offender in a women’s prison because that person has taken a female name and wears a wig and lipstick — a thing that actually happened in England — is quite literally political correctness gone mad. (The reasons are many, from disparity in physical strength to the risk of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy.)*



FYI here's the incident about a trans-woman being sent to a female prison.




> *Did a Male Rapist Who Identifies as Female Transfer to a Women’s Jail and Assault Female Inmates?*
> *Karen White, formerly Stephen Woods, confessed not only to abusing fellow inmates in a West Yorkshire women's jail, but to committing rape years earlier when she still identified as a male.*
> 
> David Emery
> ...


----------



## Kurak (Dec 30, 2019)

Shame she's not brave enough to write anything good with lgbt main hero.
Just empty talk. 
All her main characters are white and hetero. 
Lying bi***


----------



## Kingslayer (Jan 6, 2020)

Rowling transformation to radical feminism is almost done. 

I think she is really fucked up. I am sorry but lay off from internet from sometime. She needs it.


----------



## stream (Jan 6, 2020)

Kingslayer said:


> Rowling transformation to radical feminism is almost done.
> 
> I think she is really fucked up. I am sorry but lay off from internet from sometime. She needs it.


I have to say, I think there is a very large number of people her age who would say the same thing if they even said anything on the internet. Those are people who just vaguely learnt that transgender people exist, but haven't been on the Internet enough to know that denying the reality of transgenderism is a big no-no. But I don't think that counts as radical feminism, just lack of information.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

stream said:


> denying the reality of transgenderism is a big no-no


did this happen in this case though?

Thought this was just about biological reality, which apparently is perfectly fine to deny....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aduro (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> did this happen in this case though?
> 
> Thought this was just about biological reality, which apparently is perfectly fine to deny....


I think the issue is that people have a very basic idea that the gender you are born with is the only one that matters. And shaking that foundation can be very difficult. But if organisations argue that being anything other than your genetic gender is not even real, then it is impossible to deal with the very real discrimination that trans people suffer. 

In this case, Forstarter regularly ranted on social media about transpeople. She literally argued for segregation and very clearly argued that transpeople should not be recognised by law, rather than just arguing that they were genetically different.

I think its a case of a woman who believes in social justice when it benefits herself rather than others/

Feminism and transgenderism can come into conflict when women see it as men taking over their gender. Regardless of whether trans are actually making difficult for women. Even though both generally have more success when they argue that society runs to heavily on expected gender norms. It feels like a step backwards when people argue for more judgement based on gender norms, especially when they reinforce it with pseudo-science, supposedly in the name of feminism.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> I think the issue is that people have a very basic idea that the gender you are born with is the only one that matters. And shaking that foundation can be very difficult. But if organisations argue that being anything other than your genetic gender is not even real, then it is impossible to deal with the very real discrimination that trans people suffer.
> 
> In this case, Forstarter regularly ranted on social media about transpeople. She literally argued for segregation and very clearly argued that transpeople should not be recognised by law, rather than just arguing that they were genetically different.
> 
> ...


I fail to see any  _"denying the reality of transgenderism_" .


----------



## Aduro (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> I fail to see any  _"denying the reality of transgenderism_" .


"feminists are "tying themselves into knots to avoid saying that men cannot change into women (because that might hurt mens feelings)"
Here, she is clearly arguing that its ridiculous that women can't deny that people can transition. So clearly she doesn't think that trangenderism is real. She is by no means arguing that from a purely biological standpoint. And she is saying that is will "hurt mens feelings". Rather than saying transpeople's feelings. So she isn't recognising transwomen's identity as women.

"Some transgender people have cosmetic surgery. But most retian their genitals". In this case she's either saying that trans people who don't get surgery aren't changing gender, or ones that still have their penises are likely to rape women. A common and totally unfounded accusation against transpeople who by and large aren't proven to be particularly likely to commit sexual offences.
Clearly, she was defining people by their genitals in the name of feminism. 

I don't think its unfair to be critical towards someone who is arguing that an organisation designed to further human rights must renew the contract of someone who frequently shows an immature and discriminatory attitude to transpeople. People should be judged by their politcal and social attitudes.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> Here, she is clearly arguing that its ridiculous that women can't deny that people can transition. So clearly she doesn't think that trangenderism is real.


No. She just means that the biological reality of those people is still the gender they had at birth. Thats not denying that they feel whatever they feel and not denying that they identify as whatever they identify as. Its literally just stating that they cant magically change their chromosomes. At least from how im reading it.



Aduro said:


> In this case she's either saying that trans people who don't get surgery aren't changing gender, or ones that still have their penises are likely to rape women.


Sounds like you are forcing your own interpretation on to what she is saying. Either way, whether the people do get surgery or not, they are still the biological sex they were assigned to at birth.

Not to mention she literally says "some transgender people" and here you are trying to sell me she is denying transgenderism.



Aduro said:


> I don't think its unfair to be critical towards someone who is arguing that an organisation designed to further human rights must renew the contract of someone who frequently shows an immature and discriminatory attitude to transpeople. People should be judged by their politcal and social attitudes.


Sure, freedom of speech is a thing, you can be critical of anything you want and also have the freedom to voice that criticism. Just like she should have the freedom of speech to voice her opinion, right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aduro (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> No. She just means that the biological reality of those people is still the gender they had at birth. Thats not denying that they feel whatever they feel and not denying that they identify as whatever they identify as. Its literally just stating that they cant magically change their chromosomes. At least from how im reading it.





Asaya7 said:


> Sounds like you are forcing your own interpretation on to what she is saying. Either way, whether the people do get surgery or not, they are still the biological sex they were assigned to at birth.
> 
> Not to mention she literally says "some transgender people" and here you are trying to sell me she is denying transgenderism.


She at no point specified biological gender rather than gender identity. She outright said "men cannot change into women", with no hint that she was just talking about their genetic gender. I honestly doubt Forstarter even wants to accept that the difference exists. Also, she is demanding that transwomen be segregated from other women. Which means that she is talking about identity and law rather than biology.



Asaya7 said:


> Sure, freedom of speech is a thing, you can be critical of anything you want and also have the freedom to voice that criticism. Just like she should have the freedom of speech to voice her opinion, right?


She has freedom to say these things. But freedom of speech isn't freedom from the consequences of that speech. You are free to say what you feel, but you can't force other people to associate with you or support you afterwards. I'm not saying that Forstarter is a criminal or that she should be banned from twitter on the basis of she's been saying. I'm saying that nobody should be forced to hire someone who they reasonably consider transphobic.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> She at no point specified biological gender rather than gender identity. She outright said "men cannot change into women", with no hint that she was just talking about their genetic gender. I honestly doubt Forstarter even wants to accept that the difference exists. Also, she is demanding that transwomen be segregated from other women. Which means that she is talking about identity rather than biology.


saying "men cannot change into women" is like the most obvious way to talk about biological sex imho though lol.

"Also, she is demanding that transwomen be segregated from other women. Which means that she is talking about identity rather than biology."
This is a prime example of a non-sequitur. Not to mention that i also fail to see any "demand". And her talking about the genitals makes me think this is once again more about biological sex and makes me wonder how you even reached this conclusion.




Aduro said:


> She has freedom to say these things. But freedom of speech isn't freedom from the consequences of that speech. You are free to say what you feel, but you can't force other people to associate with you or support you afterwards. I'm not saying that Forstarter is a criminal or that she should be banned from twitter on the basis of she's been saying. I'm saying that nobody should be forced to hire someone who they reasonably consider transphobic.


Not hiring someone =/= firing someone for a personal opinion voiced outside of the job.

This is just mad insane to me.


----------



## Aduro (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> saying "men cannot change into women" is like the most obvious way to talk about biological sex imho though lol.
> 
> "Also, she is demanding that transwomen be segregated from other women. Which means that she is talking about identity rather than biology."
> This is a prime example of a non-sequitur. Not to mention that i also fail to see any "demand". And her talking about the genitals makes me think this is once again more about biological sex and makes me wonder how you even reached this conclusion.


"men cannot change into women" is an overall statement, not a specific commentary on biology, especially when it was followed by a tweet that says that transwomen people can't go into women's dormitories or prisons. Forstarter was not making a scientific observation, she was arguing for segregation.
 You should actually read the tweets, before you accuse me of motivated reasoning again.





Asaya7 said:


> Not hiring someone =/= firing someone for a personal opinion voiced outside of the job.
> 
> This is just mad insane to me.


CGD refused to renew her contract rather than firing her. If that detail is what's concerning you.
And again, its fine for a person to take another person's opinions into account when hiring or firing them. Its exactly the kind of thing people should be judged on.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> "men cannot change into women" is an overall statement, not a specific commentary on biology, especially when it was followed by a tweet that says that transwomen people can't go into women's dormitories or prisons. Forstarter was not making a scientific observation, she was arguing for segregation.
> You should actually read the tweets, before you accuse me of motivated reasoning again.


I did read the tweets, did you? Because you seem to have missed the part where she mentions "science" lmfao.

Really hard not to accuse you of motivated reasoning if its so obvious.



Aduro said:


> CGD refused to renew her contract rather than firing her. If that detail is what's concerning you.
> And again, its fine for a person to take another person's opinions into account when hiring or firing them. Its exactly the kind of thing people should be judged on.


I always thought people should be judged on how well or not they do their job. Silly me that i forgot that personal opinions are what matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## stream (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> followed by a tweet that says that *transwomen people can't go into women's dormitories or prisons*.


Yeah, exactly. Such things are considered as totally unacceptable and trans exclusive. That's telling transwomen that they cannot get to be treated by society as women. It's denying their identity, plainly and simply. If you say such things or agree with them, you better be ready for the onslaught.


----------



## Zef (Jan 6, 2020)

Why did I not see this thread earlier?
This shit is gold.


----------



## Aduro (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> I did read the tweets, did you? Because you seem to have missed the part where she mentions "science" lmfao.
> 
> Really hard not to accuse you of motivated reasoning if its so obvious.


She mentioned science, so she can't be a transphobe? 
Damn, that's a really easy out to discrimination. I bet no horrible fascists in history have thought that their ideas had a scientific basis to them.



Asaya7 said:


> I always thought people should be judged on how well or not they do their job. Silly me that i forgot that personal opinions are what matters.


Lets say you're running a carpenters. A guy who is very good at repairing furniture chairs applies for the job, but during the interview he says "so long as I don't have to work with any ^ (use bro) we'll get along fine".
You're still gonna hire they guy? Not being a bad person can be part of your job.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> She mentioned science, so she can't be a transphobe?
> Damn, that's a really easy out to discrimination. I bet no horrible fascists in history have thought that their ideas had a scientific basis to them.


Strawman, as this was obviously not what i was saying, and i quite frankly think you know that and therefore consider you disingenuous now, yay 

Collecting logical fallacies isnt helping you



Aduro said:


> Lets say you're running a carpenters. A guy who is very good at repairing furniture chairs applies for the job, but during the interview he says "so long as I don't have to work with any ^ (use bro) we'll get along fine".
> You're still gonna hire they guy? Not being a bad person can be part of your job.


Stupid analogy, as she afaik never voiced that she actively dislikes transgender people or that she cannot work with them. She just doesnt want biological males invading the spaces of females, which imo is perfectly fine.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

stream said:


> Yeah, exactly. Such things are considered as totally unacceptable and trans exclusive. That's telling transwomen that they cannot get to be treated by society as women. It's denying their identity, plainly and simply. If you say such things or agree with them, you better be ready for the onslaught.


Its not denying their identity in any way, and im super ready for the onslaught.


----------



## Aduro (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> Strawman, as this was obviously not what i was saying, and i quite frankly think you know that and therefore consider you disingenuous now, yay
> 
> Collecting logical fallacies isnt helping you


I feel like you're constantly looking up fallacies and getting further and further from trying to interpret the primary sources. And honestly there's not much point arguing with someone who thinks they should win at the cost of trying to understand. 

I'll leave with this summary.

Forstarter's tweets make it clear that she thinks that the existence of biological gender as a reason for segregation. With the blatant and unfounded implication that discrimination is justified because she feels that transwomen are potential rapists. Which is less of a sociologically valid argument, and more of a call for discrimination with a scientific excuse/offensive stereotype slapped onto it.

After public pressure, CGD decided that that is a good reason not to renew her contract. Granted, this was probably an attempt to save face. But the organisation is walking on the side of the line that says that discriminatoin is not anathema to their goal of improving human rights.

Now people are actively protesting against them for making that decision. While doing so, people who consider themselves feminists frequently argue for restricting people's rights, based on biological gender.

Frankly, I think I'm going to stay more sympathetic to the human rights pressure group than the hypocrites who don't understand or want to understand transpeople. Trans people's rights to legal recognition and protection are more important to me that Forstarter's privilege of a job that her clients have deemed her unsuitable for with valid reasons.


----------



## stream (Jan 6, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> Its not denying their identity in any way, and I'm super ready for the onslaught.


Lucky for you, you're posting that on a random forum, and you're not a celebrity 

It's obviously denying their identity, though. They identify as women, women go to women's dormitories. But they cannot go to women's dormitories; this is clearly _denying that they are women_, even though _they identify as women_. This is, literally, what it means to deny their identity. It's the definition.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aduro said:


> I feel like you're constantly looking up fallacies and getting further and further from trying to interpret the primary sources. And honestly there's not much point arguing with someone who thinks they should win at the cost of trying to understand.


So it is my fault you commited logical fallacies?





Aduro said:


> Forstarter's tweets make it clear that she thinks that the existence of biological gender as a reason for segregation. With the blatant and unfounded implication that discrimination is justified because she feels that transwomen *are potential rapists*. Which is less of a sociologically valid argument, and more of a call for discrimination with a scientific excuse/offensive stereotype slapped onto it.


Well, they are. There are probably more issues that might arise though. And imo its perfectly fine to be critical of transgender people invading the spaces of females who *might* not be pleased with random strangers penises around.



Aduro said:


> After public pressure, CGD decided that that is a good reason not to renew her contract. Granted, this was probably an attempt to save face. But the organisation is walking on the side of the line that says that
> discriminatoin is not anathema to their goal of improving human rights.


Fair enough.



Aduro said:


> Now people are actively protesting against them for making that decision. While doing so, people who consider themselves feminists frequently argue for restricting people's rights, based on biological gender.
> 
> Frankly, I think I'm going to stay more sympathetic to the human rights pressure group than the hypocrites who don't understand or want to understand transpeople. Trans people's rights to legal recognition and protection are more important to me that Forstarter's privilege of a job that her clients have deemed her unsuitable for with valid reasons.


I can understand that.

They have all the rights to visit restrooms/changing rooms/whatevs according to their biological sex though.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 6, 2020)

the transphobia in this thread

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Superstars (Jan 6, 2020)

It's more like certain groups are downright insulting people's intelligence. Trying to pull a slick move over on some folk. This foments indignation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Six (Jan 7, 2020)

A. Waltz said:


> im not surprised, gay community told us how problematic it was for her to claim leadership in LGBTQ circles for making dumbledore gay /after/ the books are published.. like really bitch? you were too afraid to make it explicit in the book, dont try to cop out after the fact just to gain some brownie points with the gays. same thing with the whole "well i never said hermione's skin color! i did say she had curly hair, so yeah she could be black!! i never had a race envisioned for her" even though clearly she gave input into the casting of hermione in the movie as a white girl, and also input into illustrations drawn for the book. but now she claims "well of course i thought of hermione as black!!" to try to seem woke
> 
> -__-


The Hermione being black part was stupid, but how would introducing Dumbledore as gay in the series have impacted anything? You can tell from his mannerism and flamboyance that he definitely wasn’t straight. Not to mention that he had no children. He was a great character. Subtext is so much better than outright spoon feeding everything.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 7, 2020)

Superstars said:


> It's more like certain groups are downright insulting people's intelligence. Trying to pull a slick move over on some folk. This foments indignation.


what?


----------



## Superstars (Jan 7, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> what?


Certain people are trying to persuade others that something is when it isn't. Really offensive, causing strife.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 7, 2020)

Superstars said:


> Certain people are trying to persuade others that something is when it isn't. Really offensive, causing strife.


I would guess you are talking from a standpoint thats more against the LGBTQ+ stuff, right?

So you are saying people (lgbt people and supporters) are trying to persuade others with their stuff even though its not real?

Just trying to get behind what you are saying because it sounds somewhat vague to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Superstars (Jan 7, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> Just trying to get behind what you are saying because it sounds somewhat vague to me.


Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Lulu (Jan 7, 2020)

Superstars said:


> It's more like certain groups are downright insulting people's intelligence. Trying to pull a slick move over on some folk. This foments indignation.


Indeed...
and '_such groups'_ are not as intelligent as they think they are, with their slick moves

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Natty (Jan 8, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> Well, they are. There are probably more issues that might arise though. And imo its perfectly fine to be critical of transgender people invading the spaces of females who *might* not be pleased with random strangers penises around.



"Well they are" as in, they are potential rapists? Using that line of logic everyone is a potential rapist. Using the argument that a group of people could be rapists or that it could make people uncomfortable is the same line of arguments that was used to keep black people out of white bathrooms and the same arguments to demonize gay people.

It's the same repackaged baseless bullshit.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 8, 2020)

Natty said:


> "Well they are" as in, they are potential rapists? Using that line of logic everyone is a potential rapist. Using the argument that a group of people could be rapists or that it could make people uncomfortable is the same line of arguments that was used to keep black people out of white bathrooms and the same arguments to demonize gay people.
> 
> It's the same repackaged baseless bullshit.



A transwoman’s discomfort using the men’s bathroom is no more valid than trailer park mom Erma’s discomfort with a penis in the woman’s bathroom so neither side really has a righteous leg to stand on. I’m assuming you value the transwoman’s comfort and think Erma should accommodate and I value Erma’s discomfort and don't care whether a transwoman has to use the bathroom of the stick figure she doesn’t identify with and neither of those stances seem particularly, what, scientific. We're both just shooting from our hips here.

This goes back to the whole not everything is another civil rights movement thing because, yes, we have racial segregation as a bad example in history and then we have hundreds of other discriminatory social practices we continue to this day because again not everything is actually the next civil rights and there are tons of otherwise normal social separations societies develop.

We still have a lot of gender segregation in society that doesn’t seem to actually be going anywhere. There’s other unrelated things too like not allowing pets onto properties, requiring shoes and shirts, not hiring someone with a criminal record, all very different examples and non-direct comparisons to this issue, yet each one has advocacy groups and legal cases on record because somebody somewhere believed it was discrimination; advocates for comfort animals, people with orthopedic problems, ex cons. And I'm personally supportive of people with nonviolent criminal records, the issue just hasn't gotten much traction.

This controversy is at least settled in smaller businesses like starbucks where they just have generic private restrooms.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> A transwoman’s discomfort using the men’s bathroom is no more valid than trailer park mom Erma’s discomfort with a penis in the woman’s bathroom so neither side really has a righteous leg to stand on. I’m assuming you value the transwoman’s comfort and think Erma should accommodate and I value Erma’s discomfort and don't care whether a transwoman has to use the bathroom of the stick figure she doesn’t identify with and neither of those stances seem particularly, what, scientific. We're both just shooting from our hips here.
> 
> This goes back to the whole not everything is another civil rights movement thing because, yes, we have racial segregation as a bad example in history and then we have hundreds of other discriminatory social practices we continue to this day because again not everything is actually the next civil rights and there are tons of otherwise normal social separations societies develop.
> 
> ...


But you’re defending bigots. That’s the short version of it. 

one person is literally trying to be who they are and in most situations it will never be apparent that a person born biologically male is in the women’s restroom. The other person is trying to police a public space for their own comfort. 

basically you gave the same kind of defense people gave for whites only restrooms and drinking fountains.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 8, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But you’re defending bigots. That’s the short version of it.
> 
> one person is literally trying to be who they are and in most situations it will never be apparent that a person born biologically male is in the women’s restroom. The other person is trying to police a public space for their own comfort.
> 
> basically you gave the same kind of defense people gave for whites only restrooms and drinking fountains.


so you are more in support of unisex toilets in general? like, only one restroom for all human individuals?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> so you are more in support of unisex toilets in general? like, only one restroom for all human individuals?


No. What if you’re on a date and a girl smells the poo you just did?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jan 8, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No. What if you’re on a date and a girl smells the poo you just did?


Oh so you are uncomfortable with taking a massive shit next to a stall where someone of the opposite sex is in?


----------



## hammer (Jan 8, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No. What if you’re on a date and a girl smells the poo you just did?


it wasn't a date but I will say some of the older stops in the subway line where I live is unisex, and I just hear this little 20 year old girl have this massive diarrhea shit next to me.  fucking unsettling.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> Oh so you are uncomfortable with taking a massive shit next to a stall where someone of the opposite sex is in?


I was making a joke. I don’t shit in public restrooms

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Konami Yatsa (Jan 9, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No. What if you’re on a date and a girl smells the poo you just did?


Poo and enema before the date incase she's ito butt stuff


----------



## Mider T (Jan 9, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> I would guess you are talking from a standpoint thats more against the LGBTQ+ stuff, right?
> 
> So you are saying people (lgbt people and supporters) are trying to persuade others with their stuff even though its not real?
> 
> Just trying to get behind what you are saying because it sounds somewhat vague to me.


He's too afraid to say what he's thinking.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No. What if you’re on a date and a girl smells the poo you just did?


Who takes a shit on a date?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 9, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But you’re defending bigots. That’s the short version of it.
> 
> one person is literally trying to be who they are and in most situations it will never be apparent that a person born biologically male is in the women’s restroom. The other person is trying to police a public space for their own comfort.
> 
> basically you gave the same kind of defense people gave for whites only restrooms and drinking fountains.



It's the same defense people gave for racially segregating restrooms and it's the same defense people give for schools not hiring ex cons and it's the same defense neighborhood groups give for not wanting sex offenders in their area. There are a lot of applicable situations where you're arguing for people to respect comfort zones even when those comfort zones are prejudicial (not wanting ex cons in schools). Some of the situations are dumb, some of them aren't.





Mider T said:


> He's too afraid to say what he's thinking.



That's the first time I've heard anybody say superstars is afraid to say something, he straight up tells people they're going to hell


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jan 9, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> It's the same defense people gave for racially segregating restrooms and it's the same defense people give for schools not hiring ex cons and it's the same defense neighborhood groups give for not wanting sex offenders in their area. There are a lot of applicable situations where you're arguing for people to respect comfort zones even when those comfort zones are prejudicial (not wanting ex cons in schools). Some of the situations are dumb, some of them aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The sex offender thing is due to safety reasons. 
Ex-cons get punished too harshly in my opinion in the sense that the state continues their punishment ot a degree after they have been punished/served their time already.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 9, 2020)

Mider T said:


> He's too afraid to say what he's thinking.
> 
> Who takes a shit on a date?


I will...if she requests it.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jan 9, 2020)

Mider T said:


> Who takes a shit on a date?



Japanese, probably. 
Scat is a huge fetish over there.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 9, 2020)

Samus Aran said:


> The sex offender thing is due to safety reasons.
> Ex-cons get punished too harshly in my opinion in the sense that the state continues their punishment ot a degree after they have been punished/served their time already.



I agree with you about ex cons but that’s about safety concerns too.

This bathroom thing is also about safety concerns. Whether valid or not. 

There was a drag queen storytime volunteer in houston that turned out to be a sex offender who apparently got in because his lgtbq+ status shortcircuited the normal safety protocols the library would otherwise go through cuz nobody wants to be accused of bigotry. Now that’s not _evidence_ of anything and I personally don’t think pedos are any more common in one community than the other, but people are careful with kids and society is usually respectful of comfort zones when kids are involved.

Hell, there’s a whole school of thought about never hire a male babysitter because the risk for abuse is too high. That has nothing to do with trans, that's just women not trusting penises. Parents don’t trust penises.

Do I personally think penises get a bad rap? Sure, I guess. Penises make all sorts of useful contributions to society that have nothing to do with raping children. Just the shape and utility of penises inspired all sorts of tubular tools and inventions. Some penises can even alert you to impending earthquakes and I swear to god I heard a penis whistle once.

But regardless penises make people uncomfortable. They just do. Penises have their own separate restroom where they can urinate into troughs like barn animals and women don’t like penises swinging onto their side of the facility, and I forget what point I was trying to make.


----------



## Natty (Jan 10, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> I agree with you about ex cons but that’s about safety concerns too.
> 
> This bathroom thing is also about safety concerns. Whether valid or not.
> 
> ...



The point is is that society needs to get over it and actually read any statistics about trans people assaulting others. Just like whites got over sharing spaces with black people and straights got over sharing spaces with gay people. Once it's done and over with, people notice that it's not a problem. The stats have never supported the the bathroom predator myth. It was their bigotry the whole time. It was never a problem before being trans became part of the political zeitgeist, why is it now?

It's just concern trolling and bad faith, society as a whole have had these conversations before, just replace 'black' and/or 'gay' with 'trans' for many of the articles and newspapers at the time of their rights movements concerning bathrooms and holy shit it's almost the same. The arguments being that 'minority group' poses a threat to 'majority' because they might inact violence to you in a bathroom space or even just as bad, make you feel uncomfortable... The horror...it's an argument of perceived danger vs actual danger, and there's nearly 0 actual danger. This is what makes it different from say, policing a frequent sex offender's rights because there is an actual risk to allowing them into certain spaces.

It's more likely that a trans person will be harassed in a bathroom than a cis person, or hilariously, a bigot policing the bathroom will harass a butch lesbian in the girl's washroom. There's so many problems that arise when you set up policing of washrooms, and it effects every group. Even having a third bathroom is a problem, it's not much different from having a bathroom for black peeps once you reach this point. It also puts people who use these bathrooms at risk because it outs them almost immediately.

The way you're bringing down people to just their genitalia is pretty silly considering post op and pre op. but also I have 0 idea of what bathrooms you go into, let alone female bathrooms where people whip out their private parts for all to see. Do you frequent bathhouses or steambaths?

These conversations always centre around trans women too, always excluding trans men. Gotta go after those transies who usually take estrogen which lowers libido rather than the others who take testosterone which greatly increases it. Nah, it's only a trans woman problem because they're the degenerates and pedophiles and they're actually men in dresses. Which is complete degeneracy cause being trans is an inherently sexual thing. Just like how being gay is a sexual deviance.

If I'm acting snarky and grumpy, it's cause I am. This, as a whole effects absolutely no one in this thread and only effects a small marginalized group, which I happen to be apart of. It's hard to not stay mad when I'm part of the group these bigots are targeting. This thread as a whole is really fucking gross and embarrassing, as is every trans thread in this forum. It's absolutely ridiculous that I can call someone in this thread a transphobe and they'd get pissed off at me for calling them a bigot. "It's actually not transphobia cause IT'S SCIENCE" or the classic "I'm not transphobic cause I'm not scared of transies". Damn bitch, I didn't realize they kept up with biology or any research concerning trans people, because if they looked it up, it'd deconfirm their beliefs, and/or the research they do know actually doesn't support their position or they're misrepresenting them. And I challenge the second group to look up -phobia in the dictionary.

Tl;Dr

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Jan 10, 2020)

I think this has kind of strayed a bit beyond the discussion of the news story in question, maybe it'd be better to discuss in Perspectives instead ?


----------



## hammer (Jan 10, 2020)

while funny, my original point is pretty accurate of my personal experience, where I see more CIS women enter the mans room to cut in line at the ball game or movie theater.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jan 10, 2020)

hammer said:


> while funny, my original point is pretty accurate of my personal experience, where I see more CIS women enter the mans room to cut in line at the ball game or movie theater.



Oncoming women can't be rapists debate in 3, 2, 1. . .


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 10, 2020)

I've never seen anybody _willfully_ enter a men's public restroom. 

Even men, you can catch them sort of glancing wistfully at the women's side, sighing to themselves and then go into the men's only because they know they have no other options.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Jan 10, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> I've never seen anybody _willfully_ enter a men's public restroom.
> 
> Even men, you can catch them sort of glancing wistfully at the women's side, sighing to themselves and then go into the men's only because they know they have no other options.



I second this.

I sometimes had to use the girl's toilets or the teacher's at school when going during a lesson cause having 100 + guys in use it every day AND having the windows replaced with huge immovable glass cubes cemeneted directly into the wall....had the exact results you'd imagine.

"Let's purposefully make it physically impossible to let in fresh air into this men's toilet used every single day by several dozen people" said no one ever.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 10, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> I've never seen anybody _willfully_ enter a men's public restroom.
> 
> Even men, you can catch them sort of glancing wistfully at the women's side, sighing to themselves and then go into the men's only because they know they have no other options.


Women’s restrooms can be pretty bad.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jan 10, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Women’s restrooms can be pretty bad.



There were actual studies, that concluded women's restrooms are actually filthier.
Women just have a better stereotype compared to men as slobs.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 10, 2020)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> There were actual studies, that concluded women's restrooms are actually filthier.
> Women just have a better stereotype compared to men as slobs.



I was being prejudiced against men?


----------



## Konami Yatsa (Feb 2, 2020)

Gunners said:


>


Brev...


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 2, 2020)

Gunners said:


>


Who would want do this to Depp?


----------



## ~VK~ (Feb 3, 2020)

I always had doubts about the whole amber heard depp controversy. What ever you think of JK rowling i consider her a real one for not throwing depp under the bus which she easily could have.


----------



## hammer (Feb 3, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> I've never seen anybody _willfully_ enter a men's public restroom.
> 
> Even men, you can catch them sort of glancing wistfully at the women's side, sighing to themselves and then go into the men's only because they know they have no other options.





San Juan Wolf said:


> I second this.
> 
> I sometimes had to use the girl's toilets or the teacher's at school when going during a lesson cause having 100 + guys in use it every day AND having the windows replaced with huge immovable glass cubes cemeneted directly into the wall....had the exact results you'd imagine.
> 
> "Let's purposefully make it physically impossible to let in fresh air into this men's toilet used every single day by several dozen people" said no one ever.






baby made a boomboom


----------



## makeoutparadise (Feb 4, 2020)

Dobby is a TERF harry potter


----------



## GRIMMM (Feb 4, 2020)




----------



## Subarashii (Feb 4, 2020)

A fud?  How did that word become a slang for vagina???


----------



## Gunners (Feb 4, 2020)

Subarashii said:


> A fud?  How did that word become a slang for vagina???



They eat haggis. Don't ask why.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Feb 4, 2020)

In English, please


----------



## GRIMMM (Feb 4, 2020)

Unicornsilovethem said:


> In English, please


Why are you bored of other people's gender as if you have any business? You must sit awake at night foaming from the mouth in anger thinking about what other people have between their legs like a fucking weirdo.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Feb 5, 2020)

GRIMMM said:


> Why are you bored of other people's gender as if you have any business? You must sit awake at night foaming from the mouth in anger thinking about what other people have between their legs like a fucking weirdo.



I mean I show up in these threads a lot too.

imo I file it under everything has become politicized in a six degrees of kevin bacon way where it’s messaged to reach out to _everybody_ because you want everyone to feel some kind of way about your issue in order to pressure a solution. This has the side effect of causing everybody to feel involved somehow. If trans is the next civil rights movement of course everybody’s going to feel involved in it, and if trans _isn’t_ the next civil rights and it’s a niche issue affecting a niche population and why do most of us even care because it has nothing to do with the mainstream, then the whole conversational landscape around trans would look completely different than it does.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jun 11, 2020)

*Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, Sarah Paulson and More Condemn J.K. Rowling’s Anti-Trans Tweets*


Following “” author ’s anti-trans  earlier this week – and her further  of her comments in a 3,600 word essay – alums of the incredibly successful film franchise as well as other celebrities have publicly spoken out against the British writer.

Most recently, , who played Hermione Granger in the series, tweeted a short statement regarding her views on transgender rights. “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are,” Watson wrote.


----------



## Rukia (Jun 11, 2020)

I think there are a lot of women like Rowling that champion themselves as feminists.  And they don’t like that “pretenders” have hitched their wagons to their movement.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jun 11, 2020)

CrownedEagle said:


> Anti-Trans Tweets


----------



## Magic (Jun 11, 2020)

I saw this recently in the news was wondering how this had 17 pages already. Bump of the old thread.


----------



## Santoryu (Jun 11, 2020)

The same people sending her death threats are the same ones that preach inclusivity and kindness. Ironic.

@Mad Scientist

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jun 11, 2020)

The nerve of their TALENTLESS asses to turn on the person who made them rich and famous.Jeez, Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.


----------



## Garcher (Jun 11, 2020)

Rowling could have been a formidable porn actress but instead wrote British Naruto and now gets involved in identity politics bullshit. What a waste.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2020)

1) I agree with J K Rowling.

2) I find it amusing/disturbing that people cannot see the issue in trans woman telling her to suck their female dick. 

3) I think that people are cowards who jump at the opportunity to display how woke they are.

I doubt she will back down. Whether you agree with her or not, it is clear that this is the reaction she expected and that she believes it is her duty to do what is right in the face of a challenge. Reminiscent of the backlash Harry received for reporting Voldermort's return.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Yonatan (Jun 11, 2020)

I've had problems with her constant politically charged tweets and her annoying retconning of the HP series in recent years, but I don't feel that her statements about the transgender community were meant to be inflammatory. She was just spitting facts.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jun 11, 2020)

Gunners said:


> 1) I agree with J K Rowling.
> 
> 2) I find it amusing/disturbing that people cannot see the issue in trans woman telling her to suck their female dick.
> 
> ...



This backlash remind me when she stand for Johnny Deep and insisted for him to stay in the fantastic beast movie, an army of S.J.W try tried to muzzle her and make her apologize for her choice but at the end of the day she was right on this


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 11, 2020)

CrownedEagle said:


> The nerve of their TALENTLESS asses to turn on the person who made them rich and famous.Jeez, Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.


You cant be serious?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2020)

GRIMMM said:


> Why are you bored of other people's gender as if you have any business? You must sit awake at night foaming from the mouth in anger thinking about what other people have between their legs like a fucking weirdo.


Basically. Trans women existing doesn’t negate women. Trans rights are civil rights because the prevailing thought is this isn’t a conscious preference or fetish or whatever. People who get upset over this never seem as upset at the female to male trans community which usually kind of let’s me know this comes from fear. Like y’all were sick and at home in the 90s and early aughts and when you stayed home you caught Maury and Springer and other shows where cross dressers and trans people were made out to be sleeper agents to make men seem gay and a lot of you are going off that shit. 

And people always go “what if one of them tricked you...” if you got tricked into kissing someone who was trans (on the slim chance that happened) okay, so what. They were obviously enough like your preferred gender you couldn’t tell. 

This shit stems from fear and that’s all there is too it. If trans people are this rare niche then they’re not going to “overwrite women” or whatever. Give them rights and stop acting like this is some world ending event

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2020)

CrownedEagle said:


> This backlash remind me when she stand for Johnny Deep and insisted for him to stay in the fantastic beast movie, an army of S.J.W try tried to muzzle her and make her apologize for her choice but at the end of the day she was right on this



What is amusing to me is how similar we are. I don't know if it is the books having an influence on my development or a British thing.

Looking at her response I can tell that she is not going to back down as I get the impression that she has always been wary about their _support_.

It has always been clear to me that certain groups _welcome_ people in as a means of controlling their voice. If they can get someone as popular as J K Rowling to sing their tune, it is useful weapon.

When people don't like Rowling don't sing their tune, the goal becomes to destroy their credibility so that their views can be dismissed without actually having to refute. As a human, the fallout would cause a degree of anxiety that some people look to take control of. In an ironic way, they're behaving like religious groups and cults.

I'd have more respect for the Sarkeesian's of the world if they spoke out against the women telling Rowling to suck her dick over a disagreement. If the views came from a man, they'd be the first set of people to list it as an example of toxic masculinity.

Truth be told, I'm getting sick of the group of people who think it is acceptable to behave like a piece of pig shit because they are "left leaning". A cunt is a cunt.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And people always go “what if one of them tricked you...” if you got tricked into kissing someone who was trans (on the slim chance that happened) okay, so what. They were obviously enough like your preferred gender you couldn’t tell.



I would treat it as rape. I'd expect you to have an appreciation for the importance of consent.

You wouldn't be happy if you spent money on what you thought was a PS4 only to find out the box contained rocks.

Why on earth people are trying to fuck dismiss people's sense of trust and consent when it comes to sex, I do not understand. 

On one level you want people to be more conscious of what amounts to consent. But on the other level you want to disregard it. Be consistent.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jun 11, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Keeping the ^ (use bro) in those movies is basically further abuse. You want him to suffer more?



The point is not the fact that Fantastic Beasts is a good movie or not but using your personnal outrage and anger to ruin people live over facts without judgement. S.J.W strangely never speak about Amber The Abuser after the truth came because they were ashamed.



Hand Banana said:


> You cant be serious?



Dead serious, only Watson can put an act and she hot, that about all, i never like Radciffe. Also  I don’t forget that Harry Potter movie give Pattison a name.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2020)

It is funny.

This topic is why I am more mindful of people who tick all of the socially acceptable boxes as opposed to those who can be insensitive from time to time.

If you are sensitive enough to tick all of the right boxes, I would expect you to have the empathy to realise that the conversation is not over and that some people understandably feel uncomfortable.

For instance you can't expect to argue that an event should be women only because some women feel uncomfortable around men due to past abuse. And then in the next breath condemn the women who feel uncomfortable around a trans woman. The sensitivity in the first sentence is betrayed by the inability to understand the trust issues.

What it tells me is that people are more concerned about being seen to do the right thing, than they are with actually doing the right thing. 

I look at them with contempt because they are the same people who would watch someone getting lynched if they believed it made them look like an upstanding citizen.


----------



## ~VK~ (Jun 11, 2020)

I mean she's not wrong. The funny thing is she wasn't even bashing trans people. Dave chappelle was right the T's are tripping.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2020)

Gunners said:


> I would treat it as rape. I'd expect you to have an appreciation for the importance of consent.
> 
> You wouldn't be happy if you spent money on what you thought was a PS4 only to find out the box contained rocks.
> 
> ...



Sex? We’re talking about kissing. At best it would be sexual assault, but you’d have to prove in court that they sought to deceive you about something. Like to me at least I would think it would just be an awkward conversation about how it makes me uncomfortable and I don’t want to go further. 

And realistically I would compare it to race. I have a cousin who looks white. Guys will be ready to fuck and meet her mom and find out she's half black. That’s not something you can always tell by looking, same as being trans, and it’s not gonna harm you. 

They dump her or walk away. They can’t claim she raped them.


----------



## ~VK~ (Jun 11, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And realistically I would compare it to race. I have a cousin who looks white. Guys will be ready to fuck and meet her mom and find out she's half black. That’s not something you can always tell by looking, same as being trans, and it’s not gonna harm you.


You really want to compare this to race?  That's just begging people to use the "transracial" counter argument.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2020)

~VK~ said:


> You really want to compare this to race?  That's just begging people to use the "transracial" counter argument.


That would require there to be scientific research supporting it in any way. 

And I’m drawing the comparison in the case of kissing. Like kissing someone you thought was one thing and they turn out to be another isn’t rape. If that was rape all the guys who lie to get laid or fake how they are would be in big trouble.


----------



## ~VK~ (Jun 11, 2020)

I mean y'all really want to try and tell me the "people who menstruate" thing wasn't hilarious? Just say women weirdos.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sex? We’re talking about kissing. At best it would be sexual assault, but you’d have to prove in court that they sought to deceive you about something. Like to me at least I would think it would just be an awkward conversation about how it makes me uncomfortable and I don’t want to go further.
> 
> And realistically I would compare it to race. I have a cousin who looks white. Guys will be ready to fuck and meet her mom and find out she's half black. That’s not something you can always tell by looking, same as being trans, and it’s not gonna harm you.
> 
> They dump her or walk away. They can’t claim she raped them.



If your logic was put to a woman dealing with a violation of a sexual nature, what would be your response.

Woman: I feel I was raped.

Man: Raped? You were just kissed. At most it is just sexual assault and you would have to prove it in court. In your situation, the most I'd feel is uncomfortable.

My response to you is that it is cool if that's how you feel. I would view a kiss as sexual assault (not rape). I would acknowledge that whilst it is not rape it is still a violation of a sexual nature and not something to downplay. I would not question someone who felt more than a little bit uncomfortable afterwards.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2020)

For me, what is outrageous are the people being given a free pass to spew some vitriol. If that was a Trump supporter, people would somehow find the courage to talk about online bullying and misogyny. 

But it is ignored because it is coming from left leaning trans.

The lack of consistency sickens me.


----------



## Puppetry (Jun 11, 2020)

Rowling has actual empathy for trans people and the intense discrimination they often face. The problem is she's pretty much dismissed everything they've been arguing for -- from nouns to bathrooms to surgery. It would be interesting to see what equalizing measures she actually supports -- if any -- because right now her empathy feels a lot like 'thoughts and prayers.'

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jun 11, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Basically. Trans women existing doesn’t negate women. Trans rights are civil rights because the prevailing thought is this isn’t a conscious preference or fetish or whatever. People who get upset over this never seem as upset at the female to male trans community which usually kind of let’s me know this comes from fear. Like y’all were sick and at home in the 90s and early aughts and when you stayed home you caught Maury and Springer and other shows where cross dressers and trans people were made out to be sleeper agents to make men seem gay and a lot of you are going off that shit.
> 
> And people always go “what if one of them tricked you...” if you got tricked into kissing someone who was trans (on the slim chance that happened) okay, so what. They were obviously enough like your preferred gender you couldn’t tell.
> 
> This shit stems from fear and that’s all there is too it. If trans people are this rare niche then they’re not going to “overwrite women” or whatever. Give them rights and stop acting like this is some world ending event


is this generally speaking or in regards to the recent tweets?


----------



## Asaya7 (Jun 11, 2020)

Puppetry said:


> to surgery


even that? Why though, thats seems extremely unreasonable.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jun 11, 2020)

Gunners said:


> For me, what is outrageous are the people being given a free pass to spew some vitriol. If that was a Trump supporter, people would somehow find the courage to talk about online bullying and misogyny.
> 
> But it is ignored because it is coming from left leaning trans.
> 
> The lack of consistency sickens me.


are you suggesting twitter is....BIASED?!?!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2020)

Gunners said:


> For me, what is outrageous are the people being given a free pass to spew some vitriol. If that was a Trump supporter, people would somehow find the courage to talk about online bullying and misogyny.
> 
> But it is ignored because it is coming from left leaning trans.
> 
> The lack of consistency sickens me.


I mean that’s not some shit I would do to someone who disagrees about trans people’s status. If she wished harm on them or was leading people to attack them it would be one thing but death threats and harm isn’t necessary.


----------



## Magic (Jun 11, 2020)

Gunners said:


> For me, what is outrageous are the people being given a free pass to spew some vitriol. If that was a Trump supporter, people would somehow find the courage to talk about online bullying and misogyny.
> 
> But it is ignored because it is coming from left leaning trans.
> 
> The lack of consistency sickens me.


We live in a society.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Jun 11, 2020)

Can we maybe ignore Rowling and stop giving her attention ? She obviously is just someone who only caught onto the habbit of appearing "woke" for sociel media brownie points. Be it her making Dumbledore gay in a tweet several years after the books came out (so as to keep the bottom line as safe as possible), or her statement she never said Hermione was white, despite having written Hermione was white.

Even when she tries to be "progressive" it's only a cheap pantomime to get her attention.


----------



## Santoryu (Jun 11, 2020)

it's growing....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2020)

Asaya7 said:


> are you suggesting twitter is....BIASED?!?!


It’s biased if you go looking for targeted harassment of a person who is actively being harassed. There’s a lot of people saying the opposite on Twitter about trans people too. Twitter isn’t a person. You can’t brand a whole user base as one thing when the user base is as extensive and wide spread as Twitter


----------



## hcheng02 (Jun 11, 2020)

> J.K. Rowling Releases Controversial New Book 'Harry Potter And The Basic Biology Class'
> 
> KILLECHASSIE, SCOTLAND—J.K. Rowling has released a controversial new entry in the Harry Potter series, _Harry Potter and the Basic Biology Class_. The book details one of the earlier years of Harry Potter at Hogwarts in which he had to take a course on basic biology for Muggles.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oddjutsu (Jun 11, 2020)

If you still got some tar on a brush after brushing someone with tar then I don't the see the point of getting an entirely different brush just to brush someone else with tar


----------



## Aduro (Jun 11, 2020)

Its so bizarre to me that demanding that women be defined exclusively by their genitals is considered a feminist notion by some people.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jun 11, 2020)

I think this is another entry in teenagers interacting with adults on social media and adults not realizing the person who's yelling at them is 19 years old. Then again this is also how the president of the united states sounds on twitter.


----------



## Toph (Jun 11, 2020)




----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2020)

_“I haven’t really spoke to anyone about the Ronda Rousey situation, just to set the record straight,” Mayweather told Fighthype.com. “I don’t have anything against MMA fighters. It’s just like boxing; you win some, you lose some. A true champion can take a loss and bounce back.”

“I don’t think it’s cool how everyone is trolling her on social media,” Mayweather said. “Certain things you have to learn. People will love you on Friday and then Sunday morning, it’s nothing but negative comments and people making jokes and people making fun about you, which I don’t think is cool."_

Seems unrelated but allow me to explain. Celebrities need to realise that being a media darling is overrated. When Ronda was shitting on the big bad black man, she had everyone's support but the moment she got her ass kicked, people clowned.

There should be an understanding that pandering to peasants is a waste of time. You lose your integrity for a bunch of pigs who will feed on your carcass the moment your use has expired.



reiatsuflow said:


> I think this is another entry in teenagers interacting with adults on social media and adults not realizing the person who's yelling at them is 19 years old. Then again this is also how the president of the united states sounds on twitter.



We need to stop writing these people off as teenagers. They're from our generation. I don't know if these things are easier to see when you're black (you get exposed to the nasty side of people a lot earlier), but the bitch in them has always been clear. They're a bunch of dogs who grow more dangerous when they have pack supporting them. They now have social media as a means of congregating.

It isn't to say that 19 year old little shits are not in the mix, but if you're to look at a lot of filth you will see that that they're in their late 20s to early 40s.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jun 11, 2020)

Gunners said:


> We need to stop writing these people off as teenagers. They're from our generation. I don't know if these things are easier to see when you're black (you get exposed to the nasty side of people a lot earlier), but the bitch in them has always been clear. They're a bunch of dogs who grow more dangerous when they have pack supporting them. They now have social media as a means of congregating.
> 
> It isn't to say that 19 year old little shits are not in the mix, but if you're to look at a lot of filth you will see that that they're in their late 20s to early 40s.



I am running out of excuses for social media and I have been surprised before by how seriously people in positions of power take these ideas.

It wasn't until just recently I even encountered people getting heated about these things in real life.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jun 11, 2020)

It's also like something happened in the culture where everybody started feeling as though they needed to say something just to say something, like we're obligated to have an opinion on current events even when we don't have anything informative or productive to add. I've gotten caught up in that myself. All of a sudden I'm arguing about something I have no stake in. Don't even know how it happened.

That's the plato quote. "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 11, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> It's also like something happened in the culture where everybody started feeling as though they needed to say something just to say something, like we're obligated to have an opinion on current events even when we don't have anything informative or productive to add. I've gotten caught up in that myself. All of a sudden I'm arguing about something I have no stake in. Don't even know how it happened.
> 
> That's the plato quote. "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."



Yea been saying it for a while but social media, specifically the kind where people garner followers and "likes".

It's just one grand contest of who can be the most outraged and angry, and most people like to stay in their shitty little echo chamber.

TBH I really appreciate NF because at least on a forum we have discussions and regularly talk to people we radically disagree with on every level. I think for the most part we all enjoy reading other views or we wouldn't be here, so I really appreciate all you guys.


----------



## sworder (Jun 12, 2020)

reiatsuflow said:


> It's also like something happened in the culture where everybody started feeling as though they needed to say something just to say something, like we're obligated to have an opinion on current events even when we don't have anything informative or productive to add. I've gotten caught up in that myself. All of a sudden I'm arguing about something I have no stake in. Don't even know how it happened.
> 
> That's the plato quote. "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."


thats the entire point of twitter, for people to shout dumb shit into the void


----------



## Natty (Jun 12, 2020)

Santoryu said:


> The same people sending her death threats are the same ones that preach inclusivity and kindness. Ironic.



Yes, because we should just be polite to people when they tell us that we don't deserve basic respects or rights, harass and abuse the hell out of us and tell us that we aren't what we say we are. Or dismiss the struggles we suffer from.



Gunners said:


> 2) I find it amusing/disturbing that people cannot see the issue in trans woman telling her to suck their female dick.



It's amusing that no one sees the problem with bullying and punching down on a very marginalized minority with a nearly 50% suicide attempt rate. Why is the rate so high..? I wonder.

It's also amusing as fuck that people don't realize that almost every single anti-trans position, is one found throughout history. So many of the same points against segregation, and against gays in the 90s and in the 00s. Trans people gaining equal rights is not eroding the rights of others in the same way that have black people be able to be among whites has not eroded the rights of whites. Nor did gay people gaining the right to get married erode the rights or destroy the sanctity of marriage for straights.



Gunners said:


> I would treat it as rape. I'd expect you to have an appreciation for the importance of consent.



It's a made up position. Most trans people do disclose to potential partners, why? Because most trans people are afraid of being assaulted or killed by men who simply hit on us and freak the fuck out that they might be construed as "gay". It's the whole gay panic defense.

But hey, not every trans person didn't have surgery, why should any of them disclose after the fact? I expect every man and woman to disclose to me their dick size and breast size, ain't no way I'm taking donkey dick or flat as plywood girl.

Another made up position made by TERFs or transphobes, is that trans people expect that you must have sex with a trans person that fits your sexuality otherwise, you're transphobic. Most trans people do not believe this at all. Most believe that genital preferences come first, and many trans people would actually have genital preferences themselves. And many trans advocates advocate for the rights of consent, and bodily autonomy.



Gunners said:


> For me, what is outrageous are the people being given a free pass to spew some vitriol. If that was a Trump supporter, people would somehow find the courage to talk about online bullying and misogyny.
> 
> But it is ignored because it is coming from left leaning trans.
> 
> The lack of consistency sickens me.



Cry your crocodile tears somewhere else. Trans people experience transphobia, misogyny, and erasure all the fucking time. As well as threats on their lives, as well as being physically fucking attacked or attacked for the basis of being trans.  While I don't think it's good that these people attack like this, just like the riots that happened in the States, it's understandable.

After years of harassment and hate campaigns, what the fuck do you expect? Us to suck your toes or something and beg for mercy? Fat fucking chance. Personally I've been called a bug chaser, a p*d*p****, a child abuser, a freak, a monster, disgusting as well as repeated calls for me to be killed, put away in a ward for life, to be sterilized, or be put down solely because of my identity. I've been in a fight solely because because someone picked a fight with me concerning my identity. I almost got beat by a dude in a bar who insisted on hitting on me despite me telling him "I'm gay, go away", and then he figured out I was trans. I've been shown the door and harassed by my old employers because of my identity. Regarding the last bit, I've told several therapists about how fucked up it's made me feel about future employment, know what they said? "Don't tell them your trans". As if I'm in full control of that, and that precludes me from any sort of hateful rhetoric concerning me.

Even better, almost every single trans person I know personally online and off have experienced one of these things. There is very few exceptions.

But y'all never care about that, it's only when the shit flings the other way around is when people care. This point is so fucking laughable considering how much harassment is pointed towards trans people, but people fucking don't care. This is a response to hateful false rhetoric, if the misrepresentations; abuse; and harassment campaigns; stopped, so would these responses.

"Wah wah, I got told to suck a dick because I think a minority group deserves less than me and because I advocate for their continued oppression and I shared all the lies told to me to my 14.5M followers"



San Juan Wolf said:


> Can we maybe ignore Rowling and stop giving her attention ? She obviously is just someone who only caught onto the habbit of appearing "woke" for sociel media brownie points. Be it her making Dumbledore gay in a tweet several years after the books came out (so as to keep the bottom line as safe as possible), or her statement she never said Hermione was white, despite having written Hermione was white.
> 
> Even when she tries to be "progressive" it's only a cheap pantomime to get her attention.



You're 100% right. She was never fucking progressive, the racist caricatures she has in Harry Potter is one of several example.

Another more relevant example (for trans women) is from her series called Cormoran Strike series, when the main character remarks that the trans character, has large hands, an adam's apple, and threatens her to be arrested and alludes that she's going to be raped in prison. Nothing more than transphobic stereotypes and mocking the rate of which trans woman get raped in male prisons.

She writes this series under the name of Robert Galbraith. Assumedly, after the infamous Dr Robert Galbraith Heath, one of the founding fathers of gay conversion therapy. Even if it's just a coincidence, well, what a curious one it is.

She's definitely two-faced. And her essay is one of that most fanciful ways I've seen someone type up, "I'm not transphobic, here I outline every strawman, and Terf hatepoints, as well as call Trans men, women. And also excuse much of this because I'm an abuse survivor, and my abuser was a CIS MALE. Also I'm not transphobic cause I have trans friends". She claims to have done the research, but all of it is Terfery bullshit that has been debunked time and time again, and with the exact same terminology from them. She's only spoken to transphobes about this stuff, she prioritizes them over the voices of trans people. She has not done the research.

If anyone wants to be a shithead about it, her domestic abuse situation is horrible and no one deserves that at all, even transphobes. That's something almost everyone can agree on I hope. But it should not be used as a bludgeoning tool against the rights of a minority group.



Definitely not transphobic.



Aduro said:


> Its so bizarre to me that demanding that women be defined exclusively by their genitals is considered a feminist notion by some people.



A large component for feminism (and trans advocacy) is bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights. It's fucking embarrassing that people took up that mantle and said, "nah fuck this for _certain_ women". They write off trans men as "confused, poor, tomboyish lesbians" (which is kind of misogynistic) as well as ignore the real world effects of policing women spaces for solely cis women. . What a truly feminist position.

---

Since I don't have much energy to stand up for my own basic rights and treatment, and don't want to repeat myself for the trillionth time concerning any trans topic I've breached on this fucking terrible site (). Here's a good play by play (and a very civil one) of Rowling's "I'm not transphobic but here's the reasons why I'm transphobic" essay:



If you want to be better versed in this topic, the above is a good starting off point. However, I assume many people here, don't give a darn. I also assume, most of you have not read Rowling's shitty essay, or even the article linked.

---

A last note on "same sex spaces". If people are so worried about predators and advocating for solely same sex spaces, and somehow they policed every same sex space. A cis male predator could just go into the women's facility claiming that they're a trans male. As if the magical sign of "cis women only" would ever stop these people.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2020)

Natty said:


> It's amusing that no one sees the problem with bullying and punching down on a very marginalized minority with a nearly 50% suicide attempt rate. Why is the rate so high..? I wonder.



People do see the problem with bullying and punching down on people. The issue you have is that a universal approach is being displayed which is to say that it is not being overlooked when done by the marginalized group and exaggerated when done by someone in a _position of power_.

What took place was not a case of someone bullying and punching down. It was a woman expressing her concerns over the tendency to ignore sex as an identifier when discussing certain issues. It is a fair concern shared by many and should be discussed openly. I didn't witness her tearing into the trans community nor did I witness her saying they should be deprived of certain rights.

What I did witness was a wave of people throwing abuse her way, wishing death on her, whilst jumping at the opportunity to display how woke they were. That was reminiscent of school ground bullying. Thinking that because they have a crowd of people behind them, decency is not something they have to consider.



Natty said:


> It's also amusing as fuck that people don't realize that almost every single anti-trans position, is one found throughout history. So many of the same points against segregation, and against gays in the 90s and in the 00s. Trans people gaining equal rights is not eroding the rights of others in the same way that have black people be able to be among whites has not eroded the rights of whites. Nor did gay people gaining the right to get married erode the rights or destroy the sanctity of marriage for straights.



How did J K Rowling's comments challenge the rights of trans people? I see what you are doing as a form of cowardice. You're forcing one person to be responsible for all of the struggles in your life when you disagree on certain points. 



Natty said:


> It's a made up position. Most trans people do disclose to potential partners, why? Because most trans people are afraid of being assaulted or killed by men who simply hit on us and freak the fuck out that they might be construed as "gay". It's the whole gay panic defense.
> 
> But hey, not every trans person didn't have surgery, why should any of them disclose after the fact? I expect every man and woman to disclose to me their dick size and breast size, ain't no way I'm taking donkey dick or flat as plywood girl.
> 
> Another made up position made by TERFs or transphobes, is that trans people expect that you must have sex with a trans person that fits your sexuality otherwise, you're transphobic. Most trans people do not believe this at all. Most believe that genital preferences come first, and many trans people would actually have genital preferences themselves. And many trans advocates advocate for the rights of consent, and bodily autonomy.



You saw that I was responding to someone who raised instances of deception yet chose to challenge my post on the basis that the position was made up. Don't do that again. It is dishonest and gives me the impression that you're simply looking for the opportunity to get on your soap box. 



Natty said:


> Cry your crocodile tears somewhere else. Trans people experience transphobia, misogyny, and erasure all the fucking time. As well as threats on their lives, as well as being physically fucking attacked or attacked for the basis of being trans.  While I don't think it's good that these people attack like this, just like the riots that happened in the States, it's understandable.



Thank you for proving my point. Some people, shit bags in my eyes, feel that having a hard time removes the expectation of common decency. Did J K Rowling do those things to the people throwing abuse her way? The answer is no. 



Natty said:


> After years of harassment and hate campaigns, what the fuck do you expect? Us to suck your toes or something and beg for mercy? Fat fucking chance. Personally I've been called a bug chaser, a p*d*p****, a child abuser, a freak, a monster, disgusting as well as repeated calls for me to be killed, put away in a ward for life, to be sterilized, or be put down solely because of my identity. I've been in a fight solely because because someone picked a fight with me concerning my identity. I almost got beat by a dude in a bar who insisted on hitting on me despite me telling him "I'm gay, go away", and then he figured out I was trans. I've been shown the door and harassed by my old employers because of my identity. Regarding the last bit, I've told several therapists about how fucked up it's made me feel about future employment, know what they said? "Don't tell them your trans". As if I'm in full control of that, and that precludes me from any sort of hateful rhetoric concerning me.



Sad that you had to go through that. Don't see how it applies to what J K Rowling said. When voicing her concerns, did she direct those mean terminology towards the trans community or even condone that level of abuse?

As I said before, I view it as cowardice to pin all of your woes on a soft target. You could actually focus on the people who do those things but you know that they will actually have zero fucks to give. 




Natty said:


> Even better, almost every single trans person I know personally online and off have experienced one of these things. There is very few exceptions.
> 
> But y'all never care about that, it's only when the shit flings the other way around is when people care. This point is so fucking laughable considering how much harassment is pointed towards trans people, but people fucking don't care. This is a response to hateful false rhetoric, if the misrepresentations; abuse; and harassment campaigns; stopped, so would these responses.



When did focusing on biology and expressing concerns that core differences, and identifiers for many, are being overlooked become a hateful rhetoric. 

I am pretty sure that people care about discrimination and abuse. The problem is that people like you are starting to conflate valid concerns with hatred as a means of shutting down all conversations. You are behaving like bullies because that is what you have become.



Natty said:


> "Wah wah, I got told to suck a dick because I think a minority group deserves less than me and because I advocate for their continued oppression and I shared all the lies told to me to my 14.5M followers"
> 
> You're 100% right. She was never fucking progressive, the racist caricatures she has in Harry Potter is one of several example.



Expand on these racist caricatures please. I am familiar with the series inside out and cannot think of an example. 

That being said, being "progressive" as far as I am concerned should be a badge of dishonor. As you've displayed in this thread, it entails talking about the importance of dignity & respect whilst showing none to those who challenge you. 



Natty said:


> Another more relevant example (for trans women) is from her series called Cormoran Strike series, when the main character remarks that the trans character, has large hands, an adam's apple, and threatens her to be arrested and alludes that she's going to be raped in prison. Nothing more than transphobic stereotypes and mocking the rate of which trans woman get raped in male prisons.
> 
> She writes this series under the name of Robert Galbraith. Assumedly, after the infamous Dr Robert Galbraith Heath, one of the founding fathers of gay conversion therapy. Even if it's just a coincidence, well, what a curious one it is.



Not familiar with this series and I do not know her reason for adopting the name. 



Natty said:


> She's definitely two-faced. And her essay is one of that most fanciful ways I've seen someone type up, "I'm not transphobic, here I outline every strawman, and Terf hatepoints, as well as call Trans men, women. And also excuse much of this because I'm an abuse survivor, and my abuser was a CIS MALE. Also I'm not transphobic cause I have trans friends". She claims to have done the research, but all of it is Terfery bullshit that has been debunked time and time again, and with the exact same terminology from them. She's only spoken to transphobes about this stuff, she prioritizes them over the voices of trans people. She has not done the research.
> 
> If anyone wants to be a shithead about it, her domestic abuse situation is horrible and no one deserves that at all, even transphobes. That's something almost everyone can agree on I hope. But it should not be used as a bludgeoning tool against the rights of a minority group.



There is a difference between debunking something, and reinforcing your views in an echo chamber where everyone tells you that you are correct. 

I read her essay and there was not anything to "debunk". She effectively talked about what created her interest in the topic, the response she received towards showing support for Maya (positive and negative), and her concerns (shared by many). You can't debunk calling for a wider consideration to a complex issue. 

Which is something I am going to get out now. We are told that gender is a complex matter yet the response to people who have a hard time understanding it, is to tear them to pieces? No. A more measured approach is required.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 12, 2020)

Natty said:


> Yes, because we should just be polite to people....



Lost me before you got started by suggesting that death and rape threats are just impolite.


----------



## Santoryu (Jun 12, 2020)

PikaCheeka said:


> Lost me before you got started by suggesting that death and rape threats are just impolite.



Yeah...

I was going to provide a detailed response, but the flagrant advocating of death threats doesn't quite sit right with me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 12, 2020)

Santoryu said:


> Yeah...
> 
> I was going to provide a detailed response, but the flagrant advocating of death threats doesn't quite sit right with me.



No point. Anyone who thinks sending death/rape threats is acceptable is off their rocker. And from someone who thinks a couple of tweets from some stranger who just happens to be famous is harassment and abuse, too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parallax (Jun 12, 2020)

PikaCheeka said:


> Lost me before you got started by suggesting that death and rape threats are just impolite.



it's twitter chill

where this outrage when the other side you probably ride with does this


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 12, 2020)

Parallax said:


> it's twitter chill
> 
> where this outrage when the other side you probably ride with does this



What "other side"?

Civilized human beings who don't consider it acceptable or rational behavior to send threats like that and who have better things to do than have psychotic meltdowns and feel personally affronted by random shit that celebrities say on social media?

I think anyone who says stuff like that is deranged regardless of what they think about anything else.


----------



## T-Pein™ (Jun 12, 2020)

Didnt she get people triggered just for asking to be called a woman instead of "person who menstruates"?

What about women that stop menstruating? What are they? " person who stopped menstruating" 
This one was kind of ridiculous tbh.
Not a fan of JK Rowling but her recognising that female humans exist is not discrimination.


----------



## Parallax (Jun 12, 2020)

PikaCheeka said:


> What "other side"?
> 
> Civilized human beings who don't consider it acceptable or rational behavior to send threats like that and who have better things to do than have psychotic meltdowns and feel personally affronted by random shit that celebrities say on social media?
> 
> I think anyone who says stuff like that is deranged regardless of what they think about anything else.



I think these are just crocodile tears meant to deflect on the issue

no shit these people are deranged, these people exist on twitter on all sides and are active all the time.  I think it's disingenuous to just bring it up now and not bring it up in other threads where the very same thing is happening to attempt to derail the conversation at hand


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 12, 2020)

Parallax said:


> I think these are just crocodile tears meant to deflect on the issue
> 
> no shit these people are deranged, these people exist on twitter on all sides and are active all the time.  I think it's disingenuous to just bring it up now and not bring it up in other threads where the very same thing is happening to attempt to derail the conversation at hand



I don't normally see people on NF advocating death threats so I'm not sure what other threads I should be criticizing such behavior in. In fact I said earlier in this thread that most people here are pretty cool and as a general rule we enjoy reading each others' opinions even if we disagree or even dislike each other. Don't see much about death threats in here. I also pointed out that everyone on social media is an idiot desperate for attention, so I'm not sure why you think it's news to me.

The point is that it's hard for me to take someone seriously if they are crying about how they are being harassed and abused because a stranger tweeted something out into the void while simultaneously supporting the idea of sending pointed death and rape threats to people.

If someone's knee-jerk reaction to something that makes them even slightly uncomfortable is to say "you deserve to go to jail and get raped and eat dick and die", then what's the point of trying to reply to their lengthy post in detail? 

I think you're the one deflecting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2020)

Wonder what the response will be when an unscrupulous CEO gets his top executives to do the expected when challenged on diversity quotas.


----------



## Oddjutsu (Jun 12, 2020)

It's leviosa not leviosa


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 12, 2020)

But what does Ja Rule think about all this?


----------



## Worm Juice (Jun 13, 2020)

The transphobic propaganda is working out well it seems. Every time these topics come up you see tons of extreme examples of things said against the transphobic  person. The more mellow reactions are ignored and the focus gets shifted to how a person told the transphobic person to be raped instead of understanding why the statements of the transphobic person are hurtful.


----------



## Natty (Jun 13, 2020)

Gunners said:


> People do see the problem with bullying and punching down on people. The issue you have is that a universal approach is being displayed which is to say that it is not being overlooked when done by the marginalized group and exaggerated when done by someone in a _position of power_.



Yeah? And where is it? Anytime I see any sort of conversation regarding trans people, is met with the same vitriolic hateful comments. God forbid if it's concerning trans kids, or something just as controversial. These things only get brought up when a cis person gets pissy about transies getting either antsy or in the process of getting shit on.

Most comments here on NF concerning the topic are extremely transphobic (including yours thanks), I've been a direct fucking target of it. There's several and I mean several hate subreddits on reddit concerning trans people (and not even under the guise of "biological reality"). Let alone all the harassment and abuse on Twitter that are much worse than just "suck my dick". Someone in the LGBT conversation thread in Perceptions talked about their bf frequenting the subreddit called /r/postopdisasters. A subreddit dedicated to ridiculing post op surgeries, and more importantly, directly harassing and doxxing them, this subreddit is now banned. There's still several others subs similar to it. This is not accounting for a place like twitter, where's there's not many large trans related accounts as big as Rowling

*Spoiler*: __ 









and I can go on... and on... Because this happens ALL THE TIME.

or fuck, look at the comments here: 



There's no stories about this, no widespread information about how fucking awful and constant it is. It never gets the limelight. But Rowling getting told to suck a dick? That photo of which was JUST that, in response to the empowerment of transphobes wanting to erode trans rights. Damn, that's just too fucking much to handle for cissies now. Boohoo.

Here's the thing, I'm not even advocating for what these people are saying, nor advocating for threats, or harassment. I just said it's understandable. Y'all fuck off with your strawmen. It's legitimately crocodile tears. There's no call to civility when I'm called a man, or confused with my identity, those comments aren't civil. If I tell that person to fuck off, I'M the uncivil one. Yeah, ok.

People crying crocodile tears about this are discrediting the movement and dismissing the things said as well as the general state of "trans discourse". Likewise with people equating BLM protests with rioters and looters. It's a means to discredit the movement, because angry people are angry in unhelpful ways.

And someone like you, Gunners, who only speaks up when there's a story like this poking around, tend to ignore or is unaware of the reality that trans people face online all the time. You're not invested, you're not part of it, how are you able to assess the depth of it? How do you know that Trans Advocates are the instigators, or are the ones in bigger numbers harassing transphobes or accused transphobes? You simply don't know. It's what I partially complained about in my first post of my thread.



Gunners said:


> How did J K Rowling's comments challenge the rights of trans people? I see what you are doing as a form of cowardice. You're forcing one person to be responsible for all of the struggles in your life when you disagree on certain points.



Jk Rowling is supporting people and the ideology of those who want to erode the rights of trans women. She advocating for trans women not to be able to be in the women's spaces (likewise with trans men and men's spaces). I'm not attributing it all to her, but when she supports people like Maya Forstater or Magdalen Berns, she's empowering those types of people. The big problem is that, while accounts like Maya, and Magdalen are generally relegated to their TERF bubbles, Rowling has HUGE reach. Magdalen is an infamous figure with 14k followers on twitter, Rowling has 14M. And she's spreading that same rhetoric that they've used, and spreading it to her fans, it's not solely relegated to a small community. It's to the entire fucking world. While Rowling isn't the one solely to blame, she's to blame for empowering all the disgusting transphobic gremlins who harass and work towards fucking over trans people systematically.

Every trans related person I know over on that hell site who expressed their disappointment about Rowling, got replies from Rowling fans. The thing is, Jane Trans Doe with 100 followers isn't going to get the same attention when she points out that Rowling transphobe fans are telling her "41%" "kys tranny" "p*d*p****".



Gunners said:


> Thank you for proving my point. Some people, shit bags in my eyes, feel that having a hard time removes the expectation of common decency. Did J K Rowling do those things to the people throwing abuse her way? The answer is no.



Nor did I ever say that. Rowling is empowering those people who do, do that. She's absolutely irresponsible with her platform, she spreads falsities, lies and misinformation to help perpetrate this idea that trans people aren't who they say they are, that their arguments are absolutist and ridiculous, discrediting trans people and their autonomy, asserting that self-id laws would make it more dangerous. It takes one look into her trans related tweets to see the fucking hate and more lies spreading from them. It's a knock down effect that makes things worse. It's not much different from Trump claiming that the press is the enemy of the people.

"Oh but he's not the one doing the violence"

Yeah but he's empowering the people who would enact violence. It's the same fucking thing, dressed up in more colourful language.

A more accurate comparison imo is comparing trans "biological reality" arguments to "race realism" arguments. Many of which have been debunked, many of which are missing vital context, or are deeply flawed. Arguments to spread hate around like "trans people are just as violent as their cis counterparts", "black people are inherently violent", " black people are poor", "trans people suffer from suicidal thoughts" "a high percentage detransition" etc. Spreading these lies around promotes more hate, more misinformation, more concern trolling.



Gunners said:


> Expand on these racist caricatures please. I am familiar with the series inside out and cannot think of an example.



The goblins who run the wizard's banks and essentially their economy. She writes foreign characters always as "exotic", The Striker series has even more bizarre depictions of foreign people. Is it even worth going through it at this point? It's not like I'm going to be convincing anyone anyways. Nor do I give enough shits to even try.



Gunners said:


> Sad that you had to go through that. Don't see how it applies to what J K Rowling said. When voicing her concerns, did she direct those mean terminology towards the trans community or even condone that level of abuse?
> 
> As I said before, I view it as cowardice to pin all of your woes on a soft target. You could actually focus on the people who do those things but you know that they will actually have zero fucks to give.



She's helping empower all those people who've done this to me and the people I know. She backs several prominent TERF figures that belong in anti-trans groups that work to reverse trans rights. That is the fucking problem. She's spreading their propaganda, in a way that makes them seem even more legitimate than usual.

I do focus on those that do, do you see any Cafe threads about those people? no. Do you pay any attention to the things I say outside of this site? Of course not. Though I do post in other trans related threads that are more focused on things like the US government for example. You're trying to discredit me by making it seem like I'm pinning it all on Rowling. Nope, it's not the case. But don't be surprised that I'm pointing the finger at JK Rowling, in a thread concerning JK Rowling's spread of transphobic rhetoric. Jesus.



Gunners said:


> When did focusing on biology and expressing concerns that core differences, and identifiers for many, are being overlooked become a hateful rhetoric.



Overlooked, mhm. Who are you listening to exactly regarding any of your thoughts?

It's a strawman created by Terf groups. Many trans advocates actually do recognize biological differences between afab and amab people. Transphobes like to take a small number of people who use absolutists arguments to paint the entirety trans community as silly.



Gunners said:


> I am pretty sure that people care about discrimination and abuse. The problem is that people like you are starting to conflate valid concerns with hatred as a means of shutting down all conversations. You are behaving like bullies because that is what you have become.



Fuck off, calling those that are systemically silenced and bullied and calling them bullies? Which people are the ones being oppressed here? Which group here are the ones getting their rights removed? Which ones are the ones being harassed, killed, assaulted, placed into poverty, abused, thrown out from families and friends and their work in large numbers on the basis of them existing? Cause it's definitely not people like Rowling, Maya, Magdalen, or anyone on NF who constantly vomits the same lies and misinformation.

I wish me calling someone else a transphobe shut down conversations, because those people should shut the fuck up.

By the by, the US has now ruled that trans people can be denied from hospital care for the basis of being trans. Donald Trump can eat shit and suck a dick. The SCOTUS decision against discrimination against LGBT workers is said to be made sometime this month, it's not looking good.

Liz Truss is the Minister for Women and Equalities in the UK. A notorious transphobe, and someone who's voted against gay marriage. She's constantly talking about reneging things in the UK that have upheld trans rights, as well as spreading the same rhetoric as Rowling. And supporting the same people and groups.

So.. how are these people not the fucking bullies? Do you chastise the victims that fight back?



Gunners said:


> I read her essay and there was not anything to "debunk". She effectively talked about what created her interest in the topic, the response she received towards showing support for Maya (positive and negative), and her concerns (shared by many). You can't debunk calling for a wider consideration to a complex issue.



Her whole fucking concern is based on falsehoods. Her ""concerns"" are the things to debunk. Her support for Maya and why she supports is, is something to expose, as well as her adoration for Magdalen. When she talks about percentages, those are things to debunk. Her concerns are just as valid as the racist who doesn't feel safe around brown people, it's not justified, nor should they be entertained.

In a previous post somewhere, I think in this thread. I talked about perceived risk and real risk. Those with concerns aren't experiencing real risk. When they build up this idea that trans people are going to rape them in the bathroom, the changeroom, the domestic abuse shelter, no fucking wonder they're "concerned". The thing is, is that this is a distortion that they themselves have created, it's not a credible risk. The stats do not support it, at all. Not even close.



PikaCheeka said:


> Lost me before you got started by suggesting that death and rape threats are just impolite.



Fuck off. This is what I mean by impolite. I don't have to treat someone nicely for wanting my friends' rights removed. Death and rape threats aren't justified. It's not something I even advocated in my initial post. So thank you for putting that in my mouth.

I hear the suck my dick thing all the fucking time, and it's said here all the time. There's several people lining up to laugh in your face concerning how credible a "suck my dick" comment is. Equating it with a rape threat is a fucking joke. Especially considering it's used all the time as means to tell someone off regardless of what genitals that the person who says it has.

Reactions: Like 2 | Winner 1


----------



## pat pat (Jun 13, 2020)

Jk is being assaulted for literally stating that WOMEN EXISTS 
Holy fucking shit what is this world going on about?


----------



## T-Pein™ (Jun 13, 2020)

pat pat said:


> Jk is being assaulted for literally stating that WOMEN EXISTS
> Holy fucking shit what is this world going on about?



Can you simplify the outrage for me?
Like, why is that a bad thing? 
Are we the bad guys?


----------



## pat pat (Jun 13, 2020)

T-Pein™ said:


> Can you simplify the outrage for me?
> Like, why is that a bad thing?
> Are we the bad guys?


Jk Rowling literally said that women exist, and "sex" ( the organ) is actually real and a biological organ that defines women. She then stood for her friend a doctor who lost her job for saying that transgenderism isnt all white and can cause actual issues to women. Particularly in sport, since then Jk has been designed as an awful devil for standing up for a transphobic person and saying that women are real.

As a man my GREATEST regret is that those demented retarded psychologically challenged people called "woke" have been associated with the left. To my death bed I will always feel bad for this absolute punishment that we leftist received with woke people. These people need HELP

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Worm Juice (Jun 13, 2020)

A view from the other side


----------



## TasteTheDifference (Jun 13, 2020)

I wouldn't be surprised if she posts as an anon on Mumsnet, that's the epicenter of terfism/gender critical feminism


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jun 13, 2020)

@pat pat Here's what you seem to be missing (if not intentionally ignoring for the sake of outrage): she has recently taken offense to an opinion piece title talking about "people who menstruate", by saying the following and I quote: 

_"‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"_

It comes off as mocking the article for including non-binary individuals (transgender men, as an example) in its discussion, and by extension mocking the individuals the article seeks to include - transgender men and non-binary individuals.

She has also doubled down on that, and then _made it about herself by using herself _as an example for her own argument. 

It's a biological function of the body, but Rowling's statement comes off as _*defining*_ a person's identity and gender by whether or not they have it. That's what people have a problem with, made worse with the tone her initial post used.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 13, 2020)

Catalyst75 said:


> @pat pat Here's what you seem to be missing (if not intentionally ignoring for the sake of outrage): she has recently taken offense to an opinion piece title talking about "people who menstruate", by saying the following and I quote:
> 
> _"‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"_
> 
> ...


Women who are past menopause don’t menstruate.

Some conditions and medications cause you not to menstruate.

Rowling herself probably doesn’t...yet this is the hill she decided to die on


----------



## pat pat (Jun 13, 2020)

Catalyst75 said:


> @pat pat Here's what you seem to be missing (if not intentionally ignoring for the sake of outrage): she has recently taken offense to an opinion piece title talking about "people who menstruate", by saying the following and I quote:
> 
> _"‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"_
> 
> ...


"People who menstruate" ? Really? 
I mean if they want to offend anyone but if they want to be Inclusive so bad then maybe they can find another fucking way? 
How does saying "people who menstruate" allows them to include others? It just deprives all those people of their identity and reduce them to their menstruation. The worse I can accuse her of is to have expressed herself in a bad way. But she is expressing the fact that in an attempt to "include" everyone else they are literally and entirely ignoring Women. Yes the wording is bad but that's what she tried to express. Not only is the expression ridiculous and sound trivial ( people who menstruate) but I can understand why women still want to be called Women. They are around half of the human population, and JK's frustration isnt something personal, I have seen many and I mean a shit lot of women Express the same anger toward this modern tendency of ignoring them for the sake of inclusivity. 
And even if one disagree with her view, raging BITCHING and moaning on twitter while trying to delete her isnt going to change shit. At worse one of those outraged people can reach her and have an actual Intellectual convo about all this. But I guess "CanCelLiNg" is the way

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gunners (Jun 13, 2020)

Natty said:


> Yeah? And where is it? Anytime I see any sort of conversation regarding trans people, is met with the same vitriolic hateful comments. God forbid if it's concerning trans kids, or something just as controversial. These things only get brought up when a cis person gets pissy about transies getting either antsy or in the process of getting shit on.
> 
> Most comments here on NF concerning the topic are extremely transphobic (including yours thanks), I've been a direct fucking target of it. There's several and I mean several hate subreddits on reddit concerning trans people (and not even under the guise of "biological reality"). Let alone all the harassment and abuse on Twitter that are much worse than just "suck my dick". Someone in the LGBT conversation thread in Perceptions talked about their bf frequenting the subreddit called /r/postopdisasters. A subreddit dedicated to ridiculing post op surgeries, and more importantly, directly harassing and doxxing them, this subreddit is now banned. There's still several others subs similar to it. This is not accounting for a place like twitter, where's there's not many large trans related accounts as big as Rowling
> 
> ...



I was going to response to you paragraph but I sense that you are doing the following:


Flaming in an attempt to get the topic closed. 

Bringing up your personal experiences in attempt to make this conversation emotionally charged.
Move the topic away from the starting point.

The topic is centred on J K Rowling's comments and, I guess, the responses towards her views. If you have been mistreated by people, that isn't on J K Rowling. If Trans people have been mistreated, that is not an excuse to behave like a piece of shit when someone voices their concerns. If you have been mistreated, you have my deepest sympathies but I believe you should leave it out of the conversation unless you are prepared to get caught up in the criticism that will follow if you continue past this point.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Women who are past menopause don’t menstruate.
> 
> Some conditions and medications cause you not to menstruate.
> 
> Rowling herself probably doesn’t...yet this is the hill she decided to die on



It isn't the hill she is going to die. It is kind of clear at this point that she is voicing the concerns many people harbour in silence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jun 13, 2020)

pat pat said:


> The worse I can accuse her of is to have expressed herself in a bad way. But she is expressing the fact that in an attempt to "include" everyone else they are literally and entirely ignoring Women.



To quote from the first few paragraphs of the opinion piece part of the recent controversy is over:

"_Importantly, advocates are calling attention to the many gendered aspects of the pandemic, including increased vulnerabilities to gender-based violence during lockdowns, and the risks faced by primary caretakers — *particularly women in the household and health care workers, approximately 75% of which are women.*

*An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons*.._."

The article names all the parties whom the matter pertains to. It implies she didn't even bother to read the article, and just mocked it based on its name.

There are more potentially problematic viewpoints in the essay she wrote defending herself, but that's for another time.


----------



## T-Pein™ (Jun 13, 2020)

Catalyst75 said:


> To quote from the first few paragraphs of the opinion piece part of the recent controversy is over:
> 
> "_Importantly, advocates are calling attention to the many gendered aspects of the pandemic, including increased vulnerabilities to gender-based violence during lockdowns, and the risks faced by primary caretakers — *particularly women in the household and health care workers, approximately 75% of which are women.*
> 
> ...



Looks to me like she just wanted the article to be called women or maybe women who menstruate.
I just read her tweet and that's it.
She was making a joke on the title.

Some People just want to be outraged


----------



## The Supreme Being (Jun 14, 2020)

Wonder how people who use HP as their worldview feel?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 14, 2020)

Gunners said:


> It isn't the hill she is going to die. It is kind of clear at this point that she is voicing the concerns many people harbour in silence.


That doesn’t necessarily make them right or good.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 14, 2020)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I actually think that it would be great if all public restrooms were unisex, to avoid any problems.
> 
> Also, some women's restrooms do have urinals, but I am not certain how prevalent they are.


The restroom issue is kind of a made up. They claim that it's to keep rape from happening, but women can rape other women, men can rape other men and rapists can just walk into a restroom if they want and rape someone so long as they know no one is looking. A rule about it isn't going to stop it and this idea that a rapist is going to go through elaborate trans cosplay to gain access to public women's restrooms assumes a lot and it criminalizes a whole group for an outlier.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Trinity (Jun 14, 2020)

jk rowling more like jk fouling


----------



## Gunners (Jun 14, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That doesn’t necessarily make them right or good.



You are shifting the goal post. You insinuated that this will be the hill she will die on. Evidently that isn't the case because it has opened up the avenue for numerous people who agree with what she is saying but were too frightened to voice their opinion.

Whether or not she is right is up for debate.


----------



## Trinity (Jun 14, 2020)

*Want to read about a secret nobody knows about? Read this post to find out!*


*Spoiler*: __ 



_On J.K. Rowling’s Name_
*Written by Vodka Genie *
June, 4th, 4:50 CST

J.K.Rowling, the author of the famous best-selling Harry Plopper books, originally wanted to to remove the punctuation in her alias but decided against it at the last moment.

“I realized if I removed the punctuation and simply used “JK”, it would be interpreted as the popular abbreviation for _joke_. I didn’t want to risk soiling my name if trolls ever decided to use it and flood my twitter with it.” Rowling says to NF journalist Vodka Genie.

“Gotta say, Miss Rowling, your abbreviation may not be a joke among the trolls.” Vodka Genie replies.

“Thank you. I appreciate that.”

Five solid minutes of silence fills the stale air. This is not a magical interview at all, and the tea offered to Vodka Genie gradually gets colder. After the fifth minute passes, Vodka Genie finally continues the conversation:
“You are the joke.”


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 14, 2020)

Gunners said:


> You are shifting the goal post. You insinuated that this will be the hill she will die on. Evidently that isn't the case because it has opened up the avenue for numerous people who agree with what she is saying but were too frightened to voice their opinion.
> 
> Whether or not she is right is up for debate.


I mean that remains to be seen. We don't know if Warner Brothers will continue making the movies, especially since one actor was out choking people in front of bars and now this. 

She's lost a lot of fan favor over the last several years due to her antics and trying to piggyback onto movements that were popular at the time, I don't think there's much room left for her personally. Harry Potter will still be a thing of course, but there's already effort to downplay her in the whole thing.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 14, 2020)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I mean that remains to be seen. We don't know if Warner Brothers will continue making the movies, especially since one actor was out choking people in front of bars and now this.
> 
> She's lost a lot of fan favor over the last several years due to her antics and trying to piggyback onto movements that were popular at the time, I don't think there's much room left for her personally. Harry Potter will still be a thing of course, but there's already effort to downplay her in the whole thing.




I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

They will continue making movies so long as they can turn a profit. They will continue to make money because people are not going to cancel Harry Potter over this shit.

Why I said you should wake up and smell the coffee is because it becoming clear that there is a split between what the common feels (what makes makes money) and what people on twitter bitch about. 

You're starting to see a snap back as people question why a small segment of society is speaking on their behalf.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 14, 2020)

Gunners said:


> I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
> 
> They will continue making movies so long as they can turn a profit. They will continue to make money because people are not going to cancel Harry Potter over this shit.
> 
> ...



Are those movies really doing that well, I liked the first one, but it was not well received from what I recall and the second one is a rat king of convoluted bullshit. Killing those movies would be the best thing that could happen right now since Rowling hasn't done HP any favors really since like Half Blood Prince. 

And you can't just act like the people on Twitter aren't people too. Is the march going on right now for trans people also a figment of my imagination?

People online need to realize that other people online aren't just kids because they have an opinion you don't like. It's not just kids that care about these issues and the arguments against them don't really hold water. Either this is such a small group of people we're worried about that they can't hurt anything, so what's the point in stopping them or it's a large enough group that we do need to actually take notice.


----------



## Toph (Jun 14, 2020)

Now that we're all criticizing J.K. Rowling, can we have a heart-to-heart discussion about Harry Potter and the dangerously skewed ideals and messages it promotes? One of the main themes of the Harry Potter series is the prejudice Muggle-borns face from Pure or Half-bloods, because of their blood purity and how it tries to take a stand against discrimination, an allegory to racism... But aside from taking a stand against prejudice via Muggle-borns by proxy, Harry Potter's messages if anything, sounds very pro-segregation and racism, whether it's intentional or not...

- Wizards are genetically superior to Muggles on the basis that their genetics grants them the ability to perform tasks that Muggles are incapable of performing. As a result, they segregate themselves from Muggles. On Rowling's defense, it wasn't within her intentions to make an allegory to segregation, but her story essentially feeds the same narrative that the alt-right does in the US, to wit: a population with superior status and ability simultaneously rejects its obligations to the larger world and claims to be the victims of those it hates. It's been a while since I last read Harry Potter, but from what I recall, this view was never challenged by anyone; the narrative just accepts that the genetically superior Wizards needs to segregate themselves from the filthy Muggles. Furthermore, pretty much all Muggles are  presented as complete morons; Jacob from Fantastic Beasts is an exception, but he's portrayed as the fat comic relief.

- Goblins are short, run the banks, incredibly greedy and cynical, and have hooked noses. I don't think I need to go into detail here. They are Jewish coded, and even ignoring that, they are pretty much all portrayed as untrustworthy and deceitful. Which again, defeats the point of the racism aesop. They also lack basic civil rights such as the right to legally carry wands, something that is never brought up or outed as wrong or racist. On Rowling's defense, she never wrote them that way to be an antisemitic reflection of Jewish people, she was just influenced by years of fantasy literature that was written before her, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue.

- The House Elves. A sentient, sapient race of creatures who are enslaved by the Wizards and they like being slaves. Hermione has an issue with it and tries to fight slavery of House Elves, but it's by and large played for laughs with her being dismissed as crazy because they're not, in Ron's words, human. The only reason Dobby was having a bad time was because Malfoy was just a particularly bad slave owner. The message of the House Elf subplot is uncomfortably close to "it's okay to own slaves if you don't mistreat them", intentional or not.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 14, 2020)

Horo said:


> Now that we're all criticizing J.K. Rowling, can we have a heart-to-heart discussion about Harry Potter and the dangerously skewed ideals and messages it promotes? One of the main themes of the Harry Potter series is the prejudice Muggle-borns face from Pure or Half-bloods, because of their blood purity and how it tries to take a stand against discrimination, an allegory to racism... But aside from taking a stand against prejudice via Muggle-borns by proxy, Harry Potter's messages if anything, sounds very pro-segregation and racism, whether it's intentional or not...
> 
> - Wizards are genetically superior to Muggles on the basis that their genetics grants them the ability to perform tasks that Muggles are incapable of performing. As a result, they segregate themselves from Muggles. On Rowling's defense, it wasn't within her intentions to make an allegory to segregation, but her story essentially feeds the same narrative that the alt-right does in the US, to wit: a population with superior status and ability simultaneously rejects its obligations to the larger world and claims to be the victims of those it hates. It's been a while since I last read Harry Potter, but from what I recall, this view was never challenged by anyone; the narrative just accepts that the genetically superior Wizards needs to segregate themselves from the filthy Muggles. Furthermore, pretty much all Muggles are  presented as complete morons; Jacob from Fantastic Beasts is an exception, but he's portrayed as the fat comic relief.


To be fair, Muggles and Wizards used to co-exist and then Muggles started hunting Wizards and killing them. You could say that Salazar Slytherin wanted to not allow Muggle-Born students into the school was that the fear that it would open up their students to persecution


----------



## hcheng02 (Jun 14, 2020)

Has anyone read or posted J.K. Rowling's essay in response to all these accusations of transphobia? It's actually a bit more measured and nuanced than what people are saying.





> *J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues*
> 
> *Warning: This piece contains inappropriate language for children. *
> This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.
> ...

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 14, 2020)

hcheng02 said:


> Has anyone read or posted J.K. Rowling's essay in response to all these accusations of transphobia? It's actually a bit more measured and nuanced than what people are saying.



 I was actually waiting to see how long it was before anybody bothered to link it. 

It's significantly more nuanced and I find it funny that the same crowd who is always taling about "trigger warnings" and "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" would say the shit they are saying to her despite her writing an entire essay about the sexual assault she's experienced and how it has affected her. Then again, I doubt even 1% of the people attacking her bothered to read it.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 15, 2020)

PikaCheeka said:


> I was actually waiting to see how long it was before anybody bothered to link it.
> 
> It's significantly more nuanced and I find it funny that the same crowd who is always taling about "trigger warnings" and "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" would say the shit they are saying to her despite her writing an entire essay about the sexual assault she's experienced and how it has affected her. Then again, I doubt even 1% of the people attacking her bothered to read it.


But that sounds like a justification instead of her seeking help for her hatred.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 16, 2020)




----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

JK Rowling shows support for Macy Gray following singer’s ‘transphobic’ comments
					

Rowling has repeatedly been criticised and accused of transphobia for her past comments about transgender people




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

When you're a public figure whose fortune rests on the continued good will of the public why would you continually go out of your way to aggravate members of the public?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## stream (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> When you're a public figure whose fortune rests on the continued good will of the public why would you continually go out of your way to aggravate members of the public?


Rowling has enough money for multiple lifetimes, so I guess she doesn't care too much. If I agreed with her I'd be praising her for sticking to her guns in the face of morons on the internet — unfortunately I disagree, so I can only regret that she is so bloody thick-minded.

I've come to the conclusion that for women like her, the logic is to ask what is causing the more problems in the world — discrimination against women or against transgender people. They think that the discrimination against women is causing more problems, as there are a lot more women, and that transgender people are just a distraction from the real issue, and this is even to some extent making things worse for women. Of course, by fighting the other way, they are making things worse for transgender people, but they think the priority is lower — if they even believe in transgender rights, some certainly think that it's all bogus anyway.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Arles Celes (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> When you're a public figure whose fortune rests on the continued good will of the public why would you continually go out of your way to aggravate members of the public?


She is so rich that at this point she hardly needs more. Its not like she will ever spend it lol.

Whether she is loved or hated matters little to her. Or at least matters less than expressing her beliefs without sugarcoating them...

If she cared so much about earning more and more cash then she would have wrote more and more Harry Potter novels till the public started to grow tired of those.

Maybe she dislikes or hates trans people THAT much or simply isn't one to try to hide her beliefs no matter how much controversy or hate it might earn her.

Or maybe she is simply hardcore about everyone being able to express themselves. And so supports folks who say politically toxic stuff because she admires their courage or something.

Though why its mostly about supporting those who are anti trans? Perhaps she does not have the guts to express hatred towards them herself so she is doing it sorta via proxy?  

She won't go to court for being friendly with haters so in a way its a smart thing to do for someone who might be a hater but does not want to risk jail/huge fines.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 5, 2022)

It depends on the aspirations of said celebrity.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 5, 2022)

stream said:


> Rowling has enough money for multiple lifetimes, so I guess she doesn't care too much. If I agreed with her I'd be praising her for sticking to her guns in the face of morons on the internet — unfortunately I disagree, so I can only regret that she is so bloody thick-minded.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that for women like her, the logic is to ask what is causing the more problems in the world — discrimination against women or against transgender people. They think that the discrimination against women is causing more problems, as there are a lot more women, and that transgender people are just a distraction from the real issue, and this is even to some extent making things worse for women. Of course, by fighting the other way, they are making things worse for transgender people, but they think the priority is lower — if they even believe in transgender rights, some certainly think that it's all bogus anyway.


That can be said of almost any celebrities.  JK always gets on the news when she makes these comments so she's keeping herself relevant


----------



## stream (Jul 5, 2022)

Subarashii said:


> That can be said of almost any celebrities.  JK always gets on the news when she makes these comments so she's keeping herself relevant


There are celebrities who need the publicity to make more money. Rowling has made gazillions already, and whatever she'll make in the future is probably a rounding error in comparison.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Mider T said:


> JK Rowling shows support for Macy Gray following singer’s ‘transphobic’ comments
> 
> 
> Rowling has repeatedly been criticised and accused of transphobia for her past comments about transgender people
> ...


Like literally a one-hit wonder from the 90's. Like who cares?


----------



## Alwaysmind (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Like literally a one-hit wonder from the 90's. Like who cares?


MiderT just wanted to necro a thread

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Alwaysmind said:


> MiderT just wanted to necro a thread


This is the song just for the sake of posterity. 


It's from 1999, the last year of the 20th Century. I was in high school.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 5, 2022)

Rowling is one of those feminists that make their movement more about hating men than fighting for equality and against patriarchy. I mean I remember people were chastising her for still whinging about trans people while saying nothing about the Roe decision in the US for like days. She is driven more by a warped form of feminism and bigotry. Kind of goes to show her priorities. It's like she wants to be more of a representation for more old school feminism which was really only about certain women and not all women. Feminism as we see and know it online is largely run by white women even to this day. Still not a lot of intersectionality, even when the movement began. Like when the suffrage movement was a thing they only wanted rights for white women. That exclusionary attitude has pretty much evolved into different forms in some of the feminist movements throughout the past century - from black women, disabled women, indigenous women, and now - trans women. Not all forms of feminism are like this, but damn she represents pretty much one of the worst ones.


----------



## Arles Celes (Jul 5, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Rowling is one of those feminists that make their movement more about hating men than fighting for equality and against patriarchy. I mean I remember people were chastising her for still whinging about trans people while saying nothing about the Roe decision in the US for like days. She is driven more by a warped form of feminism and bigotry. Kind of goes to show her priorities. It's like she wants to be more of a representation for more old school feminism which was really only about certain women and not all women. Feminism as we see and know it online is largely run by white women even to this day. Still not a lot of intersectionality, even when the movement began. Like when the suffrage movement was a thing they only wanted rights for white women. That exclusionary attitude has pretty much evolved into different forms in some of the feminist movements throughout the past century - from black women, disabled women, indigenous women, and now - trans women. Not all forms of feminism are like this, but damn she represents pretty much one of the worst ones.


There all of kinds of people with countless levels of priorities.

Like one can be a racist but defend gay people rights furiously.

Or defend gay rights while being anti feminist.

Or be for defending bisexuals while hating gay people (sometimes just gay males or just gay females).

Or defend gay people in general but hating trans people.

There may also be people who defend all those groups but are full of hatred or trolling towards political or religious people/groups that differ from them in the internet.

There are countless combinations out there and countless people might be having some sort of bigotry/serious flaw while displaying admirable traits elsewhere.

People who are truly flawless or pure evil are extremely rare.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Arles Celes said:


> There all of kinds of people with countless levels of priorities.
> 
> Like one can be a racist but defend gay people rights furiously.
> 
> ...


Biphobic and transphobic gays really piss me off.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Like literally a one-hit wonder from the 90's. Like who cares?


One hit wonder? Lol no.


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 5, 2022)

Rowling is dumb 

she had all the fame in the world 

all the money in the world 

all the love and support in the world 

And she woke up one day and decided to be transphobic and ruin her reputation forever

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Jul 5, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> Rowling is dumb
> 
> she had all the fame in the world
> 
> ...



She probably always was, what's baffling is her insistence on promoting it on the internet when she should be by now well aware of the repercussions, extra baffling when you know how the core Harry Potter fandom have always been full of the "weird" people, so going out of their way to alienate the people giving her money is even more extra baffling.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 5, 2022)

Mider T said:


> One hit wonder? Lol no.



She is in the UK where all this stuff is being talked about right now in regards to Joanne and Macey.  All most people here knew about Macey is "I try" and she was in the first Raimi Spider-man movie.

Not everything is about murrica.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Mider T said:


> One hit wonder? Lol no.


I suppose she's had listings on other charts outside the US, but you're pushing it just a bit. She's not exactly as relevant as Alicia Keys or especially Beyoncé.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> She is in the UK where all this stuff is being talked about right now in regards to Joanne and Macey.  All most people here knew about Macey is "I try" and she was in the first Raimi Spider-man movie.
> 
> Not everything is about murrica.


Nobody said anything about everything being about America, but calling her a one-hit wonder from the 90s is disingenuous. 

She has range in projects




Eros said:


> I suppose she's had listings on other charts outside the US, but you're pushing it just a bit. She's not exactly as relevant as Alicia Keys or especially Beyoncé.


Lol this is hilarious, if you aren't one of the most successful superstars in the industry you must be a one hit wonder.

She's had charters in the US...she's American.


----------



## Arles Celes (Jul 5, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> Rowling is dumb
> 
> she had all the fame in the world
> 
> ...


Maybe hiding this side of her was too painful. 

Like...she had to express herself in some form no matter what damn the consequences. 

Since she does not state her dislike/hate for trans people outright but "only" praises people who display such behavior its doubtful she can ever face any law related consequences. Or be forced to pay anything as an apology.

So she can sign autographs for transphobic people and give them hugs with impunity.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 5, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Rowling is one of those feminists that make their movement more about hating men than fighting for equality and against patriarchy. I mean I remember people were chastising her for still whinging about trans people while saying nothing about the Roe decision in the US for like days. She is driven more by a warped form of feminism and bigotry. Kind of goes to show her priorities. It's like she wants to be more of a representation for more old school feminism which was really only about certain women and not all women. Feminism as we see and know it online is largely run by white women even to this day. Still not a lot of intersectionality, even when the movement began. Like when the suffrage movement was a thing they only wanted rights for white women. That exclusionary attitude has pretty much evolved into different forms in some of the feminist movements throughout the past century - from black women, disabled women, indigenous women, and now - trans women. Not all forms of feminism are like this, but damn she represents pretty much one of the worst ones.


Where do you get the impression that J K Rowling's feminism is about hating men then fighting against patriarchy or whatever? She keeps talking about trans issues because people keep dragging her over the coals over it. Besides, she isn't American so I don't know what the point is over her talking about Roe vs Wade. 

If anything the current emphasis on intersectionality has been a huge distraction for the US feminist movement.  They all keep attacking each other in this crab bucket struggle of identity politics that it allows the right to waltz in and take away their rights.

Reactions: Agree 3 | Winner 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> Rowling is dumb
> 
> she had all the fame in the world
> 
> ...


That remains to be seen tbh.

The whole "trans" craze, only really picked up steam over the passed decade. I suspect it'll be a trend that ends in another few years once the Oligarchy decides it's time for the axe.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Dislike 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

If she cared as much about women's rights as she claimed it shouldn't matter if she's not personally affected by the fall of Roe vs Wade, she should still be condemning it. Instead she keeps attacking trans people, because apparently there's no such thing as intersectionality, nor anything like the fall of the rights of one group affecting the rights of related groups.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Mider T said:


> Lol this is hilarious, if you aren't one of the most successful superstars in the industry you must be a one hit wonder.


I can list many others who I find more relevant, women of color from the United States of America from decades as far back as the 1930's or so if you like.


----------



## stream (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> If she cared as much about women's rights as she claimed it shouldn't matter if she's not personally affected by the fall of Roe vs Wade, she should still be condemning it. Instead she keeps attacking trans people, because apparently there's no such thing as intersectionality, nor anything like the fall of the rights of one group affecting the rights of related groups.


To be fair, she could condemn Roe vs Wade a hundred times without being retweeted — by this point people only quote her when she does something that vaguely looks anti-trans.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

stream said:


> To be fair, she could condemn Roe vs Wade a hundred times without being retweeted — by this point people only quote her when she does something that vaguely looks anti-trans.


That's the risk of being a TERF.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 5, 2022)

stream said:


> To be fair, she could condemn Roe vs Wade a hundred times without being retweeted — by this point people only quote her when she does something that vaguely looks anti-trans.



Isn't this basically how modern day politics work?


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> I can list many others who I find more relevant, women of color from the United States of America from decades as far back as the 1930's or so if you like.


That's cool.  I never said she was the biggest star.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> If she cared as much about women's rights as she claimed it shouldn't matter if she's not personally affected by the fall of Roe vs Wade, she should still be condemning it. Instead she keeps attacking trans people, because apparently there's no such thing as intersectionality, nor anything like the fall of the rights of one group affecting the rights of related groups.


Why does every single thing have to drag trans rights to the front and center? People here keep dissing the 2nd wave feminists for being all white women who didn't get intersectionality but they managed to win lots of practical benefits for women that had a positive material effect on their lives like not having to get a husband's approval to sign up for credit cards and abortion rights. Meanwhile the woke current generation of feminists who can't talk about anything without intersectionality completely dropped the ball in the 2016 election and lost over 50 years of achievements in reproductive rights in one fell swoop. It's like that song "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie where the mothers are kicking up a fuss to deflect blame and attention from their own failures. Only replace mothers with feminists and swearing with abortion rights.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Friendly 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 5, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> Why does every single thing have to drag trans rights to the front and center? People here keep dissing the 2nd wave feminists for being all white women who didn't get intersectionality but they managed to win lots of practical benefits for women that had a positive material effect on their lives like not having to get a husband's approval to sign up for credit cards and abortion rights. Meanwhile the woke current generation of feminists who can't talk about anything without intersectionality completely dropped the ball in the 2016 election and lost over 50 years of achievements in reproductive rights in one fell swoop. It's like that song "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie where the mothers are kicking up a fuss to deflect blame and attention from their own failures. Only replace mothers with feminists and swearing with abortion rights.



I don't get where you're going with this.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 5, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> Where do you get the impression that J K Rowling's feminism is about hating men then fighting against patriarchy or whatever? She keeps talking about trans issues because people keep dragging her over the coals over it. Besides, she isn't American so I don't know what the point is over her talking about Roe vs Wade.
> 
> If anything the current emphasis on intersectionality has been a huge distraction for the US feminist movement.  They all keep attacking each other in this crab bucket struggle of identity politics that it allows the right to waltz in and take away their rights.



Her rhetoric and the fact she has been outspoken on feminism beyond the borders of the UK.

I think it speaks volumes that she thinks men are infiltrating feminism under the guise of trans women. I also thinks it speaks volumes that one of the biggest attacks on women was just accomplished under the overturning of Roe in the largest free country on Earth, yet she still didn't have much to say on it but instead hyperfocuses on trans women. A lot of the times she speaks on trans issues without prompt.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> I don't get where you're going with this.


Basically, he's trying to suggest that feminists of today have themselves to blame for Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Basically, he's trying to suggest that feminists of today have themselves to blame for Roe v. Wade being overturned.



So the old:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

stream said:


> Rowling has enough money for multiple lifetimes, so I guess she doesn't care too much. If I agreed with her I'd be praising her for sticking to her guns in the face of morons on the internet — unfortunately I disagree, so I can only regret that she is so bloody thick-minded.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that for women like her, the logic is to ask what is causing the more problems in the world — discrimination against women or against transgender people. They think that the discrimination against women is causing more problems, as there are a lot more women, and that transgender people are just a distraction from the real issue, and this is even to some extent making things worse for women. Of course, by fighting the other way, they are making things worse for transgender people, but they think the priority is lower — if they even believe in transgender rights, some certainly think that it's all bogus anyway.



Has rowling ever said anything against trans people? I kept hearing she is transphobic. But to my awareness, she has only stated trans people shouldn't compete in women's sports, for obvious reasons and is against them being inside women's bathrooms. While I guess the latter of these claims is ignorant (not to mention in a way sexist against men) the former one is completely reaosnable and I honestly don't see how she is the regressive republican she is made out to be.

In fact, I think she has sided with trans people on other stuff. I don't know, I really feel in those groups there is that sort of thinking like "either you support us all the way in 100% or none at all".

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## afg (Jul 5, 2022)

Gotta love the people here blaming "wokism" for rollbacks on women's rights, when they themselves have been having rabid sexual orgies with the right over their mutual hatred of trans people and progressives the past couple years. The same people they bonded with in their brigade against the "woke mob" have been rolling back civil rights under their feet, and rather than re evaluating their priorities they have the tonedeaf asininity to point the finger at others for creating distractions. These useful idiots willingly gave up their energy for majin buu, then when he's summoned, cry about how the radical left summoned majin buu by forcing them to write tl;drs about how a gay character in a cartoon is the downfall of western civilization because that's somehow the pressing issue of our time.  Project more you clowns.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Winner 2


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> That remains to be seen tbh.
> 
> The whole "trans" craze, only really picked up steam over the passed decade. I suspect it'll be a trend that ends in another few years once the Oligarchy decides it's time for the axe.



The "women wanting to vote" trend will end soon too. Anytime now. Anytime...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 5, 2022)

@hcheng02 , can you go into detail about your earlier post? 

I have tagged you so if you don't respond you are being a little coward boy.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Charlotte D. Kurisu said:


> So the old:


Yeah. The thing is there are many factors at play.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

afg said:


> Gotta love the people here blaming "wokism" for rollbacks on women's rights, when they themselves have been having rabid sexual orgies with the right over their mutual hatred of trans people and progressives the past couple years. The same people they bonded with in their brigade against the "woke mob" have been rolling back civil rights under their feet, and rather than re evaluating their priorities they have the tonedeaf asininity to point the finger at others for creating distractions. These useful idiots willingly gave up their energy for majin buu, then when he's summoned, cry about how the radical left summoned majin buu by forcing them to write tl;drs about how a gay character in a cartoon is the downfall of western civilization because that's somehow the pressing issue of our time.  Project more you clowns.



I have no issue in gay cartoon chracters in newly made cartoons. I do have an issue with "wokes" however BANNING stuff, like when they successfully lobbied Pepe Le Pew from appearing for being "a harasser".


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> The "women wanting to vote" trend will end soon too. Anytime now. Anytime...


Define what a woman is.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Rowling is one of those feminists that make their movement more about hating men than fighting for equality and against patriarchy. I mean I remember people were chastising her for still whinging about trans people while saying nothing about the Roe decision in the US for like days. She is driven more by a warped form of feminism and bigotry. Kind of goes to show her priorities. It's like she wants to be more of a representation for more old school feminism which was really only about certain women and not all women. Feminism as we see and know it online is largely run by white women even to this day. Still not a lot of intersectionality, even when the movement began. Like when the suffrage movement was a thing they only wanted rights for white women. That exclusionary attitude has pretty much evolved into different forms in some of the feminist movements throughout the past century - from black women, disabled women, indigenous women, and now - trans women. Not all forms of feminism are like this, but damn she represents pretty much one of the worst ones.


She doesn't hate men even, she hates men who transition. Like she is fine to ally herself with sexist assholes who will say transphobic things. Pretty much done with Rowling at this point, glad I never got as into HP as some other people. 



Mider T said:


> One hit wonder? Lol no.


Bro, I've never heard of any of these fucking songs. She's a one hit wonder. It doesn't mean she doesn't have other songs. Nine Days has other songs, but Story of a Girl is all they're remembered for. 

You're gonna come in here and post the whole fucking Macey Gray discography and shit


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

Orochibuto said:


> I have no issue in gay cartoon chracters in newly made cartoons. I do have an issue with "wokes" however BANNING stuff, like when they successfully lobbied Pepe Le Pew from appearing for being "a harasser".


Why? He is a fucking harasser. Like that shit was not okay and it isn't okay to show kids that's cute or funny. friend needed to be in jail. Moreover it's kind of fucked that they made him French like all French men are sex pests or some shit.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> She doesn't hate men even, she hates men who transition. Like she is fine to ally herself with sexist assholes who will say transphobic things. Pretty much done with Rowling at this point, glad I never got as into HP as some other people.
> 
> 
> Bro, I've never heard of any of these fucking songs. She's a one hit wonder. It doesn't mean she doesn't have other songs. Nine Days has other songs, but Story of a Girl is all they're remembered for.
> ...


Don't have to, she has multiple hits.  She isn't remembered for just one song and she's had more than one song on the charts.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why? He is a fucking harasser. Like that shit was not okay and it isn't okay to show kids that's cute or funny. friend needed to be in jail. Moreover it's kind of fucked that they made him French like all French men are sex pests or some shit.


You're being offended by a cartoon. Saying Pepe Le Pew will influence kids to be sexual harassers is the same argument Republicans make about violent video games and mass shooters.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why? He is a fucking harasser. Like that shit was not okay and it isn't okay to show kids that's cute or funny. friend needed to be in jail. Moreover it's kind of fucked that they made him French like all French men are sex pests or some shit.


Yeah. He when you think about it, he was extra AF about it. What would most women do IRL if a man got on top of them and started kissing their face and neck and started saying inappropriate things to them in English and French? They would not be impressed. They would be offended and repulsed to say the least.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

5 Grammy Award Nominations, 1 win.

I posted some songs that she was nominated for.  If you don't know them you probably just don't listen to her.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Define what a woman is.


A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. It's really that simple.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Mider T said:


> 5 Grammy Award Nominations, 1 win.
> 
> I posted some songs that she was nominated for.  If you don't know them you probably just don't listen to her.


Was the win for "I Try"?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. It's really that simple.


So whats a woman?


----------



## stream (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. It's really that simple.


If only it were that simple... For sports competition, there are apparently hormone level checks... And people with penises are usually often not welcome on the women side of spas, etc... etc... The world is always more complicated than we want it to be


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> You're being offended by a cartoon. Saying Pepe Le Pew will influence kids to be sexual harassers is the same argument Republicans make about violent video games and mass shooters.


No it's not, for one children aren't supposed to play violent video games. Pepe Le Pew isn't a Family Guy character. He's in a cartoon made for children. The shit is fucked up in how it portrays the French and it's fucked up for what it's portraying this character do to someone else who clearly doesn't want it. Sure that might have not been looked at as bad when we were kids, but look how many of us grew up to feel entitled to women's bodies because media from basically the time we couldn't walk until we were adults told us that. 

It won't affect anything to remove a character like this and you're a fucking adult, you can go look at Pepe Le Pew cartoons online if you want I guess. It's not like your kids would be missing the height of fucking comedy.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. It's really that simple.


If I'm a man, how would I know I'm not a woman?

You literally can't define what Woman is.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it's not, for one children aren't supposed to play violent video games.


Who tf are you to say that? I play fortnite with my son all the time.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Pepe Le Pew isn't a Family Guy character. He's in a cartoon made for children. The shit is fucked up in how it portrays the French and it's fucked up for what it's portraying this character do to someone else who clearly doesn't want it.


So harassers dont exist in real life? How would a kid know if he's being a harasser?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sure that might have not been looked at as bad when we were kids, but look how many of us grew up to feel entitled to women's bodies because media from basically the time we couldn't walk until we were adults told us that.


Don't put that on men. Women destroyed other women. The entire field of Plastic Surgery is funded by women who want to feel more powerful than other women, it has nothing to do with men


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It won't affect anything to remove a character like this and you're a fucking adult, you can go look at Pepe Le Pew cartoons online if you want I guess. It's not like your kids would be missing the height of fucking comedy.


Right, and you can just as easily be a good parent and worry about what your kid watches, and stop trying to police other peoples parenting.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Was the win for "I Try"?


Yes.


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it's not, for one children aren't supposed to play violent video games. Pepe Le Pew isn't a Family Guy character. He's in a cartoon made for children. The shit is fucked up in how it portrays the French and it's fucked up for what it's portraying this character do to someone else who clearly doesn't want it. Sure that might have not been looked at as bad when we were kids, but look how many of us grew up to feel entitled to women's bodies because media from basically the time we couldn't walk until we were adults told us that.
> 
> It won't affect anything to remove a character like this and you're a fucking adult, you can go look at Pepe Le Pew cartoons online if you want I guess. It's not like your kids would be missing the height of fucking comedy.


Exactly. You shouldn't let your kids watch Seinen anime either obviously. It's for adults. Looney Tunes is for children. There was also an extremely racist cartoon back then called Inki. I wonder if @Orochibuto thinks Inki is acceptable for children. When I was growing up, they still had Inki cartoons on TV. Now they don't obviously.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Exactly. You shouldn't let your kids watch Seinen anime either obviously. It's for adults.



So you never touched Berserk until after you were 18? These arguments are fucking stupid. 

You sound like those nuclear parents, that wont let their kids play outside because they might get dirty. A generation of pussies who fold at the thought of being slightly inconvenienced.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why? He is a fucking harasser. Like that shit was not okay and it isn't okay to show kids that's cute or funny. friend needed to be in jail. Moreover it's kind of fucked that they made him French like all French men are sex pests or some shit.



Because he is a fucking fictional character and fiction shouldn't be censored. And you are making the same argument of 90s conservatives "videogames will teach children to be violent".

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> I wonder if @Orochibuto thinks Inki is acceptable for children. When I was growing up, they still had Inki cartoons on TV. Now they don't obviously.



Who?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> that might have not been looked at as bad when we were kids, but look how many of us grew up to feel entitled to women's bodies because media from basically the time we couldn't walk until we were adults told us that.



Ya know, if you want to blame FICTION for real life troubles, I am pretty sure you are way way waaaaaaaaaay more likely to get a correlation with what you said and movies-cartoons showing all that "get the girl" ending where the hero is rewarded at the end of a long journey/defeating the bad guy with a 10/10 bombshell or all those shows where a 10/10 bombshell ends up dating an ugly or broke as shit guy just because she liked the way he talks or some bullshit like that.

I am pretty sure this is leagues and bounds more related with what you say that a cartoon of a fox being rejected over and over again and, I think, often facing physical violence due his antics.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> If I'm a man, how would I know I'm not a woman?


What's a man?


----------



## LesExit (Jul 5, 2022)

I forgot about this thread.

I see people have seen the latest and the greatest that is more people waking up to the vile abuse, misogyny, and homophobia the trans movement is run on under the fake ass guise of _~kindness and inclusivity~  ._

Can't wait for the empire of regressive gender ideology to collapse and for all the people currently calling others bigots for acknowledging sex is real to claim they never supported the fiction of this clown era.

Reactions: Winner 2 | Dislike 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> What's a man?


Whats a Moose?


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> So you never touched Berserk until after you were 18? These arguments are fucking stupid.


Berserk itself? No. Violent and sexual content deemed inappropriate for minors including pornography... certainly.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Whats a Moose?


What's a goose? What's a gander? What's a Flanders? What's a Wales? What's a Tails? What's a Sonic?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

LesExit said:


> I forgot about this thread.
> 
> I see people have seen the latest and the greatest that is more people waking up to the vile abuse, misogyny, and homophobia the trans movement is run on under the fake ass guise of _~kindness and inclusivity~  ._
> 
> Can't wait for the empire of regressive gender ideology to collapse and for all the people currently calling others bigots for acknowledging sex is real to claim they never supported the fiction of this clown era.


They'd rather die than admit their own hypocrisy.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Berserk itself? No. Violent and sexual content deemed inappropriate for minors including pornography... certainly.


Exactly my point.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

If someone said to you, hypothetically, "You're an annoying douchebag. You were born an annoying douchebag, you'll die an annoying douchebag and no one can ever dispute the axiom that you are, in fact, an annoying douchebag."


Would you accept that? If not, why, when you clearly are - hypothetically - an annoying douchebag?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> If someone said to you, hypothetically, "You're an annoying douchebag. You were born an annoying douchebag, you'll die an annoying douchebag and no one can ever dispute the axiom that you are, in fact, an annoying douchebag."
> 
> 
> Would you accept that? If not, why, when you clearly are - hypothetically - an annoying douchebag?


I'm intelligent enough to know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

There is a subjective reality of discourse where opinions can be expressed and an objective reality from which those opinions are dependent upon in order to exist in the first place.

What you're doing is placing the subject in front of the object, and it doesn't fucking work that way.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> If someone said to you, hypothetically, "You're an annoying douchebag. You were born an annoying douchebag, you'll die an annoying douchebag and no one can ever dispute the axiom that you are, in fact, an annoying douchebag."
> 
> 
> Would you accept that? If not, why, when you clearly are - hypothetically - an annoying douchebag?



Its logically inconsistent to attribute permanency to personality which is by its nature malleable, as opposed to physical stuff. I mean, aside from that making me get pissed off (and suicidally depressed if told by someone close to me) it would just be a wrong fact.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

Orochibuto said:


> Because he is a fucking fictional character and fiction shouldn't be censored.


This is a bullshit take and it's the reason why stupid shit stays in the public consciousness so long. Fiction is censored all of the time for the audience it pertains to. Kids don't just watch fucking porn or murder, there's regulation and censorship in place to keep those things out of their hands. We don't allow people to just sell hentai of little kids getting fucked because even if the kids aren't real, there is a real issue with what the material does to society at large and the effect that it can have on certain members in it. 

This "we can never censor anything market place of ideas" bullshit is how we got in the fucking position we're in right now. And it's exactly why this country is as fucked as it is. 

You can keep drinking that bullshit Kool-Aid, my ass isn't sticking around to see the end result though.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

LesExit said:


> I forgot about this thread.
> 
> I see people have seen the latest and the greatest that is more people waking up to the vile abuse, misogyny, and homophobia the trans movement is run on under the fake ass guise of _~kindness and inclusivity~  ._
> 
> Can't wait for the empire of regressive gender ideology to collapse and for all the people currently calling others bigots for acknowledging sex is real to claim they never supported the fiction of this clown era.


You, uh, do realise that trans people have existed for thousands of years right? Lile Elbe transitioned in 1930 but trans people existed for millenia before that and they predate the modern concept of gender entirely. They used to just wear the clothes that reflected their true gender and it wasn't seen as that big of a deal.

The amusing thing is that most people really had no issues with transgender people at all until the last decade or so, when bigots realised they couldn't go after gay people any more so they went after a different target. It's only a matter of time before they can't go after transgender people either and when that day comes they'll just vilify some other marginalised group, because that sort of person simply cannot exist without hating _something_.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I'm intelligent enough to know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
> 
> There is a subjective reality of discourse where opinions can be expressed and an objective reality from which those opinions are dependent upon in order to exist in the first place.
> 
> What you're doing is placing the subject in front of the object, and it doesn't fucking work that way.



But you've got all the objective identifiers that society associates with annoying douchebags. Stubbornness, self-righteousness, unwarranted attitude of superiority, belief that you are qualified to dictate to other people what they are and how they should feel based on...what? I'm guessing, a half-hearted scan of wikipedia and a lengthy twitter thread about how transpeople are literally worse than literally Hitler?

You are, by any reasonable measure, an annoying douchebag.  Hypothetically. You cannot dispute this.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This is a bullshit take and it's the reason why stupid shit stays in the public consciousness so long.



Jesus the hypocrisy on you is astounding. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fiction is censored all of the time for the audience it pertains to. Kids don't just watch fucking porn or murder, there's regulation and censorship in place to keep those things out of their hands. We don't allow people to just sell hentai of little kids getting fucked because even if the kids aren't real, there is a real issue with what the material does to society at large and the effect that it can have on certain members in it.


And I disagree with all of that censorship. I dont need some unelected body to decide for me what is best for my children. They're my children and I will raised them how I fucking please. You're welcome to change the channel if you disagree, no one is stopping, so stop trying to stop others. Your "safety and inclusivity" sounds remarkably similar to tyranny.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This "we can never censor anything market place of ideas" bullshit is how we got in the fucking position we're in right now. And it's exactly why this country is as fucked as it is.



No the fuck its not. This is a gross misinterpretation of history. 


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can keep drinking that bullshit Kool-Aid, my ass isn't sticking around to see the end result though.


So then don't fucking stick around.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

Fiction shouldn't be censored. Is it your assertion that Mein Kampf should be available to schoolchildren? Or do you even think Mein Kampf is fiction?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> If not, why, when you clearly are - hypothetically - an annoying douchebag?


There are limits to how far you can stretch a hypothetical!


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> But you've got all the objective identifiers that society associates with annoying douchebags. Stubbornness, self-righteousness, unwarranted attitude of superiority, belief that you are qualified to dictate to other people what they are and how they should feel based on...what? I'm guessing, a half-hearted scan of wikipedia and a lengthy twitter thread about how transpeople are literally worse than literally Hitler?



I love trans-people, just like I love all people. I personally think it's a form of mental health disease and your enabling only makes things worse. Should there be a space for trans people to feel safe and included? Absolutely. 

Does a man "feeling" like he's a woman, make him an woman? Fuck no.


Onomatopoeia said:


> You are, by any reasonable measure, an annoying douchebag.  Hypothetically. You cannot dispute this.


Are there douchbag genes I've never heard of? Or is it all just opinion? One person's villains is anothers hero. You see how stupid you sound? Passive aggressively calling me a doughbag because your feelings are hurt wont change the objective reality.

Now tell me how you define what a woman is.

Reactions: Like 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> If I'm a man, how would I know I'm not a woman?
> 
> You literally can't define what Woman is.


If you identify as a man, what a man is is entirely up to you. As long as you aren't hurting anyone and you're serious about it, it doesn't really matter what you identity as. The only person it should matter to is you. People don't need to agree with it or even understand it, but they should respect it regardless.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Solar (Jul 5, 2022)

Another intellectually stimulating Cafe discussion.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> You, uh, do realise that trans people have existed for thousands of years right?


So has mental health disorders.


Velocity said:


> Lile Elbe transitioned in 1930 but trans people existed for millenia before that and they predate the modern concept of gender entirely. They used to just wear the clothes that reflected their true gender and it wasn't seen as that big of a deal.



Words that dont mean anything



Velocity said:


> The amusing thing


Theres nothing amusing about it.



Velocity said:


> is that most people really had no issues with transgender people at all until the last decade or so, when bigots realised they couldn't go after gay people any more so they went after a different target.


Thats literally not how that happenened. Stop with the perpetual victimhood mentality.



Velocity said:


> It's only a matter of time before they can't go after transgender people either and when that day comes they'll just vilify some other marginalised group, because that sort of person simply cannot exist without hating _something_.


They're coming after the gays again if you haven't heard.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This is a bullshit take and it's the reason why stupid shit stays in the public consciousness so long. Fiction is censored all of the time for the audience it pertains to. Kids don't just watch fucking porn or murder, there's regulation and censorship in place to keep those things out of their hands. We don't allow people to just sell hentai of little kids getting fucked because even if the kids aren't real, there is a real issue with what the material does to society at large and the effect that it can have on certain members in it.



First of all, educating children pertains to their parents, not tv/comics,etc. You shouldn't shift the responsibility of educating kids to entretainment, neither should they be obligated to facilitate that task.

Second, you would need to make an objective analysis to justify censorship. I think we all can agree that since censorship is bad and can at best only be described as a necessary evil and never as a good thing, the reason to censor should be fully justified. I have never seen any relationship between Pepe Le Pew and harassment/"entitlement" (whatever that means). If let's say, you had a cartoon about a macho guy living in the woods and literally forcing the forest nymphs to sleep with him and saying "remember kids, if you want something, you gonna take it by force" then yeah, I could see it. 

As I told you before, there are stuff that are infinitely more related (if they are related at all) to the issues you said, than a skunk getting rejected all the times and paying consequences for it. You want to go to war with "entitlement" cartoons? Then go to war with all of those where the hero at the end of the journey ends up dating a cute girl. Go to war with all those where a poor as shit guy or ugly guy ends up having a cute girl because "she just likes the way he treats her!". I wouldn't agree with censoring that either, I am just saying that if you want to censor fictional content on the grounds that "it is teaching children to be entitled about women's bodies" then you are throwing stones at the wrong tree, but of course, the most superficially obvious one.

Third, I can agree by limiting the age audience that can be shown this content, but that is not censorship or at least full censorship in by books, censorship is about outright banning and prohibiting certain topics and content to be made.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This "we can never censor anything market place of ideas" bullshit is how we got in the fucking position we're in right now. And it's exactly why this country is as fucked as it is.
> 
> You can keep drinking that bullshit Kool-Aid, my ass isn't sticking around to see the end result though.



I would argue censoring fiction is even worse than censoring "the market place of ideas" something that of course, I am also completely against. While I will completely disagree, I can at the very least intelectually empathize with the reasoning behind banning inflamatory speeches.

Outright creating forbidden literature or jailing people for what fictional characters do (no matter how gross, like people who literally want loli to be a prosecutable prison offence)? Yeah, that shit belongs to the inquisition.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I personally think it's a form of mental health disease and your enabling only makes things worse.


Unfortunately without qualified credentials your "opinion" here is not only wrong, it can be dangerous.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> If you identify as a man, what a man is is entirely up to you.



Right until you have to reconcile that with the rest of reality. If what I think a man is, is a pedophilic, murderer, why should you stop me from being my best self?


Velocity said:


> As long as you aren't hurting anyone and you're serious about it, it doesn't really matter what you identity as. The only person it should matter to is you. People don't need to agree with it or even understand it, but they should respect it regardless.


The egocentric thinking needed to do these logic gymnastics is amazing.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> There are limits to how far you can stretch a hypothetical!





~Avant~ said:


> I love trans-people, just like I love all people. I personally think it's a form of mental health disease and your enabling only makes things worse.


And who are you to decide what is and isn't a mental illness?



~Avant~ said:


> Should there be a space for trans people to feel safe and included? Absolutely.


On this we concur.


~Avant~ said:


> Does a man "feeling" like he's a woman, make him an woman? Fuck no.


This is correct. A man "feeling" like he's a woman does not make him a woman. A woman feeling like she's a woman makes her a woman. This includes women who were told they were men prior to realizing that they were, in fact, women.



~Avant~ said:


> Are there douchbag genes I've never heard of?


So what you're saying is, someone doesn't have to be born a certain way in order to identify as a certain way. In a world where being an annoying douchebag is only determined  by society's opinions, you can decide for yourself whether or not you are an annoying douchebag. Is this not so?



~Avant~ said:


> Or is it all just opinion? One person's villains is anothers hero. You see how stupid you sound? Passive aggressively calling me a doughbag because your feelings are hurt wont change the objective reality.


I didn't call you a douchebag. I simply suggested a hypothetical scenario in which you were an annoying douchebag according to how society views  annoying douchebags.

Your objection to this hypothetical scenario indicates that you think people should not be allowed to inform you how you should self-identify. Is this not so?



~Avant~ said:


> Now tell me how you define what a woman is.


A woman is a person who identifies as a woman.

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Unfortunately without qualified credentials your "opinion" here is not only wrong, it can be dangerous.


Dangerous to who? If what I say hurts or dissuades someone, then they never really meant what they were thinking in the first place.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Dangerous to who?


Whom*


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 5, 2022)

Sure people who are transgender just do so for funsies. Nevermind the physical, sexual, and emotional abuse that they sit through. The constant persecution and malice they experience. As well as the threat to their lives and jobs all for a decision that they must easily be able to change their mind about.

Nevermind the actual science and research that supports the condition as well as the proven fact that ignoring and forbidding those from transitioning often ends in suicide.

Most don't wake up and decide on a whim that they want to suffer from a condition that garners them unwanted hate and danger. Trans people don't wake up and say that it's their goal to be beaten to death by someone who mistakes them for being biologically different from their presenting gender.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Dangerous to who? If what I say hurts or dissuades someone, then they never really meant what they were thinking in the first place.


Making unqualified psychiatric diagnosis is dangerous.  Just like any unqualified medical diagnosis.

If you truly believe they are suffering from a "mental health disorder" you must also believe you're not qualified to diagnosis it, certainly not in the case of people you don't know.

So, either way your position in this thread is untenable.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> And who are you to decide what is and isn't a mental illness?


And who are you to decide that gender and sex are different? 


Onomatopoeia said:


> On this we concur.
> 
> This is correct. A man "feeling" like he's a woman does not make him a woman. A woman feeling like she's a woman makes her a woman. This includes women who were told they were men prior to realizing that they were, in fact, women.



What?


Onomatopoeia said:


> So what you're saying is, someone doesn't have to be born a certain way in order to identify as a certain way. In a world where being an annoying douchebag is only determined  by society's opinions, you can decide for yourself whether or not you are an annoying douchebag. Is this not so?


No what I'm saying is that being born with XY and XX chromosomes determines your sex and gender. Everything else on that matter is subjective. 

I don't have a problem with a man who wants to cross dress of is into his femininity, that perfectly fine. But don't expect me to call you a woman, when you clearly have a dick and balls.  


Onomatopoeia said:


> I didn't call you a douchebag. I simply suggested a hypothetical scenario in which you were an annoying douchebag according to how society views  annoying douchebags.
> 
> Your objection to this hypothetical scenario indicates that you think people should not be allowed to inform you how you should self-identify. Is this not so?


Doughbag doesn't have a root in reality, its a perspective. Gender however has a root in reality through our genetics.


Onomatopoeia said:


> A woman is a person who identifies as a woman.


Okay so what does that mean? This circular logic leads nowhere. Can a 16 year old identify as a 32 year old, because they feel like they "have an old soul"?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Making unqualified psychiatric diagnosis is dangerous.  Just like any unqualified medical diagnosis.
> 
> If you truly believe they are suffering from a "mental health disorder" you must also believe you're not qualified to diagnosis it, certainly not in the case of people you don't know.
> 
> So, either way your position in this thread is untenable.


I'm actually a Professor in Real life at one of the oldest Medical schools in the country, so I'd like to think I'm a bit more qualified in the literature than the average joe, not that I'm trying to twirl a degree around like it's some kind of indication to my intelligence, which is why I haven't brought it up. But there are a lot of medical professionals that have the same opinion.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Right until you have to reconcile that with the rest of reality. If what I think a man is, is a pedophilic, murderer, why should you stop me from being my best self?
> 
> The egocentric thinking needed to do these logic gymnastics is amazing.


It's not egocentric to accommodate people's identities, it's called compassion. You should try it sometime. If you identify as a man and believe that means being a p*d*p**** and a murderer, however, then the accomodation you deserve is a prison cell because the only thing you're identifying as is a serial killer.



~Avant~ said:


> Dangerous to who? If what I say hurts or dissuades someone, then they never really meant what they were thinking in the first place.


If what you say hurts someone and you insist on continuing to say it knowing the harm you're causing, that just makes you a cunt.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Orochibuto said:


> Because he is a fucking fictional character and fiction shouldn't be censored. And you are making the same argument of 90s conservatives "videogames will teach children to be violent".


Cool. Perhaps you should watch The Birth of a Nation. Its from 1915. Enjoy every single moment of the film in its glory.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I'm actually a Professor in Real life at one of the oldest Medical schools in the country, so I'd like to think I'm a bit more qualified in the literature than the average joe, not that I'm trying to twirl a degree around like it's some kind of indication to my intelligence, which is why I haven't brought it up. But there are a lot of medical professionals that have the same opinion.



Are you a professor of psychology in real life at one of the oldest medical schools in the country? And if so, as a professional professor of psychology in real life at one of the oldest medical schools in the country, do you feel that you have ability to diagnose a person you have never met?

Could I - as a person who is also a professor in real life at one of the oldest medical schools in the country - similarly diagnose you - a professor in real life at one of the oldest medical schools in the country - as a sociopath based on my limited understanding of your world views and opinions?

And if I could, would you accept that diagnosis out of hand based purely on my claims of being a professor in real life at one of the oldest medical schools in the country?

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 5, 2022)

JK Rowling is only stating that biological sex is real.  The west in the stage of insanity where we think sex is also a social construct.  The human traffickers don't tracffick your feelings, they don't traffick women with dicks, they traffick biological women for a reason.  If a pre-op / non-op transwomen go to an onsen in Japan, the women will call cops on that person.  The over-prioritization of the trans minority's comfort over the safety of half of the population is madness, only westerners call this progressive.  China can't take over soon enough.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 5, 2022)

If that's all J.K Rowling stated then she would have just been ignored.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> JK Rowling is only stating that biological sex is real.  The west in the stage of insanity where we think sex is also a social construct.


Sex is not a social construct. Gender is a social construct. One may be biologically male but identify as female. In such a scenario, that person should - ideally - be treated as female.



IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> If a pre-op / non-op transwomen go to an onsen in Japan, the women will call cops on that person.  The over-prioritization of the trans minority's comfort over the safety of half of the population is madness



So it is your contention that trans-people simply existing in certain places is harmful to people who are not trans? 

I must say you have a very interesting name, my friend.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> JK Rowling is only stating that biological sex is real.  The west in the stage of insanity where we think sex is also a social construct.  The human traffickers don't tracffick your feelings, they don't traffick women with dicks, they traffick biological women for a reason.  If a pre-op / non-op transwomen go to an onsen in Japan, the women will call cops on that person.  The over-prioritization of the trans minority's comfort over the safety of half of the population is madness, only westerners call this progressive.  China can't take over soon enough.


Speaking of annoying jerks, there isn't a lot more annoying than someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about and insists on piping up anyway.

Rowling isn't "only stating that biological sex is real". She is vilifying transwomen and promoting and encouraging violence against them. She is portraying transwomen and encouraging others to portray them as nothing more than men who want vaginas so they can be fucked by other men in-between what she apparently believes are long stakeouts in public bathrooms where they masturbate to children. She also spends vast amounts of her wealth funding hate groups and lobbying to limit or outright remove transgender rights, all while using social media to foster a community that mocks, attacks and spreads hate towards anyone openly transgender.

She's kind of a monster.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Are you a professor of psychology in real life at one of the oldest medical schools in the country?



no, so I’m not going to bother responding to the rest


----------



## LesExit (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> They'd rather die than admit their own hypocrisy.


You're not wrong. It honestly just baffles me how people can exist with so much cognitive dissonance at once and for so long. As someone who grew up as a teen in the great era of tumblr and entered college passionately supporting trans activism, once my brain got the tiniest funny feeling at some of the straight up reality denying nonsense...the whole house of cards collapsed for me within weeks.

I mostly tend to view trans activists as having a similar mentality to the religious. Many humans just don't want to acknowledge reality. Fine. But society needs to operate on a foundation that does acknowledge it otherwise it's just a fucking clownhouse. 

This will be a _very_ interesting time to look back on in history .

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Sex is not a social construct. Gender is a social construct. One may be biologically male but identify as female. In such a scenario, that person should - ideally - be treated as female.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are wokies argue that there are more than 2 sex and sex is a social construct.  

The west allows transwomen to compete in women's sports.  This would be considered insanity by rest of the world.  Why would we focus so much on a tiny minority over half of the population?  I would rather benefit the majority over a minority.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> Speaking of annoying jerks, there isn't a lot more annoying than someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about and insists on piping up anyway.
> 
> Rowling isn't "only stating that biological sex is real". She is vilifying transwomen and promoting and encouraging violence against them. She is portraying transwomen and encouraging others to portray them as nothing more than men who want vaginas so they can be fucked by other men in-between what she apparently believes are long stakeouts in public bathrooms where they masturbate to children. She also spends vast amounts of her wealth funding hate groups and lobbying to limit or outright remove transgender rights, all while using social media to foster a community that mocks, attacks and spreads hate towards anyone openly transgender.
> 
> She's kind of a monster.



She's not denying the existence of transwomen.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

If I thought Elliot Page was still fuckable, would that make me gay?


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> If I thought Elliot Page was still fuckable, would that make me gay?


No, as someone that desires children, biological reality matters, I would bang a transman over a transwoman anyday.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> no, so I’m not going to bother responding to the rest


I accept your concession. Thank you and have a nice day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 5, 2022)

For those that keep snidely asking "what is a woman?", how about you define that for the class then?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> I accept your concession. Thank you and have a nice day.


Not a concession but explaining myself to you is clearly an exercise in futility because you live in a different reality


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> For those that keep snidely asking "what is a woman?", how about you define that for the class then?


That’s not how burden of proof works.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> That’s not how burden of proof works.


Yet you keep asking. I'm asking you now.

Define it. 

What is a woman? 

Or are you not gonna answer and keep asking instead?


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> If I thought Elliot Page was still fuckable, would that make me gay?


Yeah, 'cause Elliot Page is a dude. I thought you were s'posed to be a professor?


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> If I thought Elliot Page was still fuckable, would that make me gay?


Elliot Page doesn't have sex with men. You can give it a try though. I figured you might be more interested in trans women so you can play with some tits and have a dick to suck on and that you have a stick up your ass, because you are struggling with these desires.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Lewd 1


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> Speaking of annoying jerks, there isn't a lot more annoying than someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about and insists on piping up anyway.
> 
> Rowling isn't "only stating that biological sex is real". She is vilifying transwomen and promoting and encouraging violence against them. She is portraying transwomen and encouraging others to portray them as nothing more than men who want vaginas so they can be fucked by other men in-between what she apparently believes are long stakeouts in public bathrooms where they masturbate to children. She also spends vast amounts of her wealth funding hate groups and lobbying to limit or outright remove transgender rights, all while using social media to foster a community that mocks, attacks and spreads hate towards anyone openly transgender.
> 
> She's kind of a monster.



Do you have any source for that? Because I haven't heard any of this. As far as I know, Rowling's posture all summarize in "I agree with trans people and its rights completely, I just don't think trans women should use women's only bathrooms *and compete in women's physical competitions*"

Because, I think we can all agree in the bolded part being reasonable, then it seems all of the contention with Rowling's posturse is "I don't think trans women should be allowed in women only bathrooms"

Is this correct or is there something I am missing? Because this seem to be far from the monster you are describing.


----------



## Yuji (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> It's not egocentric to accommodate people's identities, it's called compassion.



That's your problem, one side is advocating for compassion, the other is advocating for the truth.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

Orochibuto said:


> Do you have any source for that? Because I haven't heard any of this. As far as I know, Rowling's posture all summarize in "I agree with trans people and its rights completely, I just don't think trans women should use women's only bathrooms *and compete in women's physical competitions*"
> 
> Because, I think we can all agree in the bolded part being reasonable, then it seems all of the contention with Rowling's posturse is "I don't think trans women should be allowed in women only bathrooms"
> 
> Is this correct or is there something I am missing? Because this seem to be far from the monster you are describing.


You can start here:


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Jesus the hypocrisy on you is astounding.
> 
> 
> And I disagree with all of that censorship. I dont need some unelected body to decide for me what is best for my children. They're my children and I will raised them how I fucking please. You're welcome to change the channel if you disagree, no one is stopping, so stop trying to stop others. Your "safety and inclusivity" sounds remarkably similar to tyranny.
> ...


Tell me the last time bad ideas were actually sorted out by letting them run rampant? It doesn't happen. Sometimes you'll get a person canceled or something for spouting the wrong thing and it will work out for the best. But truly awful shit is handled through things not being made readily available and by them being pushed down and shouted out whenever they come up at best. At worse they're handled by you taking them and the people saying them down to the pavement. That's what history has taught us.


----------



## Jackalinthebox (Jul 5, 2022)

I see we have some Jordan Peterson listeners lol


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

Orochibuto said:


> First of all, educating children pertains to their parents, not tv/comics,etc. You shouldn't shift the responsibility of educating kids to entretainment, neither should they be obligated to facilitate that task.
> 
> Second, you would need to make an objective analysis to justify censorship.


If bad ideas were put out to pasture by good ideas existing and competing then we wouldn't have zealots or conservatism the way we do now. We certainly wouldn't have libertarianism a thing that as literally never worked anywhere outside of fiction.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 5, 2022)

Yuji said:


> That's your problem, one side is advocating for compassion, the other is advocating for the truth.


The only truth that matters is the identity these people want to be accepted as. That's all. They're not asking a lot. They just want to be called the name they ask you to use. They just want certain pronouns used when talking about them. They just want to be able to live their lives free from persecution and hatred for being different. That really isn't asking a lot at all.

If these bigots actually cared about the truth they'd care about the physical and mental abuse transgender people suffer daily, they'd care about the suicide rates and the difficulty transgender people have accessing the right help.

Bigots don't care about the truth. They care about their narrow-minded preconceptions of how the world works and they refuse to accept anything that challenges that perception. If they don't understand it or don't agree with it, it cannot be allowed to exist. They've done this same song and dance ever since Copernicus said the Earth orbited the Sun. It's nothing more than wilful ignorance and the refusal to acknowledge that our concept of truth is limited by our understanding of the subject at hand.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Jackalinthebox said:


> I see we have some Jordan Peterson listeners lol


I am not even sure how he got tenure at a Canadian university. I thought they had standards.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> I am not even sure how he got tenure at a Canadian university. I thought they had standards.


Someone as a Muppet Babies fan


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jul 5, 2022)

At this point, I honestly have nothing but respect for J.K Rowling to stand for her conviction despite the hateful attacks from progressives who can't stand that an individual has his own opinions and belief that not always align with their superficial views.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Yuji (Jul 5, 2022)

Velocity said:


> Bigots don't care about the truth. They care about their narrow-minded preconceptions of how the world works and they refuse to accept anything that challenges that perception.



vs



Velocity said:


> The only truth that matters is the identity these people want to be accepted as. That's all.



You really don't hear yourself do you?

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I'm actually a Professor in Real life at one of the oldest Medical schools in the country, so I'd like to think I'm a bit more qualified in the literature than the average joe, not that I'm trying to twirl a degree around like it's some kind of indication to my intelligence, which is why I haven't brought it up. But there are a lot of medical professionals that have the same opinion.


If you were a licensed and trained psychologist you'd know better than to attempt to diagnose others without having actually observed or talked to them.

If you were a medical professional you'd know about all the training that has been going on in this area.

So, basically yeah, you're about as qualified as an average Joe when it comes to making medical statements.  You're entitled to your opinion, but not a medical one.


----------



## Jackalinthebox (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> I am not even sure how he got tenure at a Canadian university. I thought they had standards.


Maybe they were trying to take advantage of all the incels he excels at attracting.


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 5, 2022)

Men are women; women are men

2+2=5

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Men are women; women are men
> 
> 2+2=5
> 
> War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength


Men or women, no one's touching you.

Is that why you're so bitter?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Men or women, no one's touching you.
> 
> Is that why you're so bitter?


Sick bastard is using Justice Ruckus as his avatar, and he's not even an American. That says all you need to know and far, far more.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Sick bastard is using Justice Ruckus as his avatar, and he's not even an American. That says all you need to know and far, far more.


Fascists don't have a lot of successful heroes, gotta take who they can get especially when some of them would land you a ban.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Men or women, no one's touching you.
> 
> Is that why you're so bitter?


Damn, how'd you realise


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 5, 2022)

Eros said:


> Justice Ruckus


Bit racist?


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fascists don't have a lot of successful heroes, gotta take who they can get especially when some of them would land you a ban.


Like Robert Mugabe?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Bit racist?


Uncle Thomas then?

Reactions: Creative 1


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Uncle Thomas then?


As a black man of African descent, it's deeply hurtful to hear a borderline, if not outright, slur directed at a black Justice of the SCOTUS. Daily micro-aggressions are hard enough to deal with, but this really took the cake. Well done, bravo.

I suppose blacks only matter if they're on the left. I'm hurt; I'm speechless. You know what, I'll say it, I'm damn near triggered.

Martin Luther King once said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will *not be judged by the color* of their *skin* but by the *content *of their *character*.”

Justice Thomas has significantly contributed to breaking the glass ceiling. His very presence makes white supremacists seethe. Let's not give them ammo, and celebrate this brave man

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 5, 2022)

Get it back on topic guys. These childish back and forth are still distracting from the real question that has still to be answered.

Can you define what a Woman is? Can you define what a Man is? If a straight man still feels sexually attracted to a FTM Trans, does that then change his sexuality to homosexual?


----------



## Eros (Jul 5, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Get it back on topic guys. These childish back and forth are still distracting from the real question that has still to be answered.
> 
> Can you define what a Woman is? Can you define what a Man is? If a straight man still feels sexually attracted to a FTM Trans, does that then change his sexuality to homosexual?


Have sex with one and figure it out for yourself what it means for your sexuality.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2022)

CrownedEagle said:


> At this point, I honestly have nothing but respect for J.K Rowling to stand for her conviction despite the hateful attacks from progressives who can't stand that an individual has his own opinions and belief that not always align with their superficial views.


Must be hard being a white billionaire out there on TERF island. I'm sure she's really in danger from trans chicks who call her a bitch on Twitter. So brave. 

If getting called names on Twitter is brave, some of us do that shit without a lot of money. 



GiantForehead said:


> As a black man of African descent, it's deeply hurtful to hear a borderline, if not outright, slur directed at a black Justice of the SCOTUS. Daily micro-aggressions are hard enough to deal with, but this really took the cake. Well done, bravo.


Then this is black on black crime. I'll call Thomas whatever the fuck I want. To his face even. Nobody's scared of him or you. 



~Avant~ said:


> Get it back on topic guys. These childish back and forth are still distracting from the real question that has still to be answered.
> 
> Can you define what a Woman is? Can you define what a Man is? If a straight man still feels sexually attracted to a FTM Trans, does that then change his sexuality to homosexual?



No, because there's a thing called bisexual? Or Pansexual? People aren't just straight or gay. Come on, we all know this. 

A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Full stop. You think you're going to trip someone up with this?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If bad ideas were put out to pasture by good ideas existing and competing then we wouldn't have zealots or conservatism the way we do now. We certainly wouldn't have libertarianism a thing that as literally never worked anywhere outside of fiction.



There is no problem with bad ideas being on pasture, they are ideas after all and like V would say, you can't kill an idea, and tought policing is a no no, which is what you are advocating if you want IDEAS to be cancelled. Now, the problem is the CONSEQUENCES of people holding said ideas.

For your posture of CENSORING those ideas being the best way to deal with them being meritorious you would need to establish that there is NO OTHER WAY of avoiding the worst consequences of said bad ideas than by censoring them, and also that censoring them will not create worse problems than those consequences, remember that censorship is a bad thing by itself.

In the case you mention, good ideas countering the worse of the bad ideas is demonstrated by the fact that people holding those ideas are a minority. The problem you have, is with the US political system which allows the minority (SCOTUS, Senate, Electoral College) to force into society the consequences of their ideas. As such, there are ways to deal with these problems without invoking censorship.


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 6, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then this is black on black crime. I'll call Thomas whatever the fuck I want. To his face even. Nobody's scared of him or you.


Bit racist, mate. Justice Thomas has uplifted the black community. Dunno why that angers you


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 6, 2022)

Ah Rowling. The biggest fall from grace in recent memory. At least fuckin Cosby was a known asshole for decades before his shit hit the fan, Rowling was low key pretending to be progressive with her poorly written stories centered on fake progressiveness.

 And then bam, just like how Trump somehow pulled all the Bigots out of the wood works in America, Boris pulled all of them out in the UK

it’s amazing how bigotry is shown to be right there in society the moment it’s given “permission” to express itself

My only wish is that the Harry Potter franchise dies too. All the games, all the films, all the merch, all of it should die so that in 20 years when Rowling goes on another bigoted tirade, people from this generation will be telling their kids, “she’s some crusty old woman that wrote bad books decades ago and no one gives a fuck now”

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Must be hard being a white billionaire out there on TERF island. I'm sure she's really in danger from trans chicks who call her a bitch on Twitter. So brave.
> 
> If getting called names on Twitter is brave, some of us do that shit without a lot of money.
> 
> ...



Yes but you’re missing the point. If a man considers himself to be heterosexual, then has to redefine his heterosexuality to homosexual, in order to accommodate to a FTM trans self image.

So one persons self identity is attained by forcing another’s self identify to be discarded. This is why it’s self defeating because the moment it comes into the stratum of others, others must misshapen themselves in order to accommodate. Your sexuality is an aspect of your identity amongst many others, the gender dysphhoria makes the gender the entire crux of the person’s identity, hollowing out their other aspects.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Full stop. You think you're going to trip someone up with this?


You still haven’t defined what a woman is tho, what’s a person who identifies as a woman identifying with? What makes the things that make a woman different from a man? If what you’re saying is that there’s a sort of spectrum, then where are the poles? If it’s so subjective why bother identifying with one or the other in the first place? Why would surgery or hormone enhancements be needed at all? It either all means something or it all means nothing.


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Justice Thomas has uplifted the black community


Hilarious. Because MORE conservatism is what uplifts the black community. Not welfare or police reform or prison reform. No, it’s more conservatism


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> So one persons self identity is attained by forcing another’s self identify


“Forcing” what? Are you saying there are men who are being FORCED to get into relationships with Trans people? Who are these men?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

CoopoNitro7 said:


> “Forcing” what? Are you saying there are men who are being FORCED to get into relationships with Trans people? Who are these men?


No you idiot, learn how to read.

If you have defined yourself as a straight man your entire life, and you fell in love with a woman who then decided to transition into a man. You would then have to reconsider your entire sexuality in order to accommodate his self image. Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine yourself as homosexual.

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine yourself as homosexual.


Or you can break up with that person if for whatever reason you just “have to be heterosexual”

my guy, what is this argument? People have free will dude

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No you idiot, learn how to read.
> 
> If you have defined yourself as a straight man your entire life, and you fell in love with a woman who then decided to transition into a man. You would then have to reconsider your entire sexuality in order to accommodate his self image. Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine yourself as homosexual.


No, you don't. At best, that would make you bisexual or maybe pansexual or heteroflexible. Also, the way you are so fixated on this is rather insulting to gay, bi, and pan men in case you haven't taken time to consider it.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

CoopoNitro7 said:


> Or you can break up with that person if for whatever reason you just “have to be heterosexual”
> 
> my guy, what is this argument? People have free will dude


How easily you discard and disregard people the moment it’s convenient for your self righteous preaching.

“He can always just break his own heart and fuck off.” Why should he have to destroy his own self image, why should anyone have to sacrifice their understanding of truth in order to accommodate a delusion.

One that you fucking cowards have yet to define. Jesus you lowhanging fruit bait eater.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> No, you don't. At best, that would make you bisexual or maybe pansexual or heteroflexible.



But what if the heterosexual doesn’t agree with being defined that way because it’s suggests something that isn’t true. He isn’t all of a sudden going to be interested in FTM Trans, he’s interested in the woman he fell in love with, who just so happened to Transition from Female to Male.

You’re carelessly discarding the heart of the matter. Why must a man sacrifice his life long, true to self identity to his own sexuality and must now use a different label? Don’t you see how that’s corrosive to his self identity? It’s no more different than what Trans are claiming to want, an unwavering demand to self identity. Except one is rooted in biological and genetic truths, truths inherited from Mother Nature, and from the star dust that makes her. You discard the forces of nature to accommodate what? Hormone boosting pills and serious body surgery? Who benefits from this other than Plastic Surgeons and Big Pharma? It’s quite clear that if the stratum that you claim to exists is real then it makes any necessity  for sexual identification obsolete in the first place. Which then renders the sexualization of the forces of nature trivial. Male and Female don’t exist, theirs just balloons floating in air.


Eros said:


> Also, the way you are so fixated on this is rather insulting to gay, bi, and pan men in case you haven't taken time to consider it.


I am not a man who is afraid of looking into the abyss. I love gay people, Harvey Milk is one of my heroes, I have friends and family who died at Pulse. I have been to all kinds of Protests all over the country for Black Rights, Latino Rights, Native Rights, and Gay Rights. I’ve been shot with rubber bullets and pepper sprayed. I don’t just talk the talk, I walk it.

I care about Trans people, because I view them as the absolute most vulnerable people in society, if the thin vinear that currently protects them were to pop, it might spell calamity. Unless we take the steps now that we are in a safer bubble, to move the conversation forward.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Define Delusion.


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> But what if the heterosexual doesn’t agree with being defined that way because it’s suggests something that isn’t true. He isn’t all of a sudden going to be interested in FTM Trans, he’s interested in the woman he fell in love with, who just so happened to Transition from Female to Male.
> 
> You’re carelessly discarding the heart of the matter. Why must a man sacrifice his life long, true to self identity to his own sexuality and must now use a different label? Don’t you see how that’s corrosive to his self identity? It’s no more different than what Trans are claiming to want, an unwavering demand to self identity. Except one is rooted in biological and genetic truths, truths inherited from Mother Nature, and from the star dust that makes her. You discard the forces of nature to accommodate what? Hormone boosting pills and serious body surgery? Who benefits from this other than Plastic Surgeons and Big Pharma? It’s quite clear that if the stratum that you claim to exists is real then it makes any necessity  for sexual identification obsolete in the first place. Which then renders the sexualization of the forces of nature trivial. Male and Female don’t exist, theirs just balloons floating in air.
> 
> ...


They are vulnerable, and I don't think your position is helpful for them. They're not pretending that their biological sex and the gender in their minds do not align. They try things like reparative therapy, and it fails, and it often ends in suicide. Also, even with transitioning, they are still emotionally vulnerable because of how they see themselves and how others see them. Self harm behavior, addiction, and eating disorders are common, and so is sex addiction.  Obviously, there is more. Life for trans people is so damn hard. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it is.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> They are vulnerable, and I don't think your position is helpful for them. They're not pretending that their biological sex and the gender in their minds do not align. They try things like reparative therapy, and it fails, and it often ends in suicide.


Hold that statistic. Most suicides are performed by MTF trans, which is indicative to the relativity to their Male biology, because while more women attempt suicide than men, more men are successful at committing suicide because they use more lethal methods.

The leading cause of suicide is mental health. Which means that Transexuality might fit the description of a broader substratum of mental he


Eros said:


> Also, even with transitioning, they are still emotionally vulnerable because of how they see themselves and how others see them.



Join the rest of the world. This isn’t a plight that is exclusive to Trans people. People everywhere all over experience the same thing, boys who feel too short or too skinny, men who feel emasculated because of erectile dysfunction, or being sterile, women who get BBLs and plastic surgery to accommodate some idea of Beauty which only corporations profit from. 


Eros said:


> Self harm behavior, addiction, and eating disorders are common, and so is sex addiction.


Again not exclusive to trans people


Eros said:


> Obviously, there is more. Life for trans people is so damn hard. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it is.


You need not imagine hard. Less pity and crocodile tears and more self awareness would  do you some good. The whole world is suffering friend, and this is another delusion to divide us on imagined differences.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Creative 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## stream (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No you idiot, learn how to read.
> 
> If you have defined yourself as a straight man your entire life, and you fell in love with a woman who then decided to transition into a man. You would then have to reconsider your entire sexuality in order to accommodate his self image. Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine yourself as homosexual.


Wow, it's actually the first time I see this argument... But if I was you, I wouldn't reuse it ever again, because it's pretty bad for various reasons. The first reason is that it's incredibly self-centered: It implies other people should not be allowed to change, so that you don't have to reevaluate your own beliefs. Which is of course silly; other people do what they want, they don't have to care what you think about them. The second reason is that if people stop being something you find attractive, you don't have to redefine what you find attractive; you just stop being attracted to them. You don't become a necrophile when people die. You don't have to become homosexual when people change gender.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 5


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

stream said:


> Wow, it's actually the first time I see this argument... But if I was you, I wouldn't reuse it ever again, because it's pretty bad for various reasons. The first reason is that it's incredibly self-centered: It implies other people should not be allowed to change, so that you don't have to reevaluate your own beliefs.


A Hindu is allowed to believe what he wishes, and a Christian can follow his faith, but in no circumstance where they encounter one another does one persons faith yield to another in order to accommodate their sense of propriety

Stop with the whataboutism



stream said:


> Which is of course silly; other people do what they want, they don't have to care what you think about them.



Okay?




stream said:


> The second reason is that if people stop being something you find attractive, you don't have to redefine what you find attractive; you just stop being attracted to them.


What if you still love the person despite their gender change? What if you still want to make the relationship work?



stream said:


> You don't become a necrophile when people die. You don't have to become homosexual when people change gender.


Exactly


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Why should he have to destroy his own self image


And so you want the trans person to force themselves back into the closet to accommodate this cis person?

you would prefer the trans person be unhappy but still be in a “straight relationship” than they both break up and live their lives as they authentically please?

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

CoopoNitro7 said:


> And so you want the trans person to force themselves back into the closet to accommodate this cis person?
> 
> you would prefer the trans person be unhappy but still be in a “straight relationship” than they both break up and live their lives as they authentically please?


There is a middle ground if level heads would prevail and people stopped being so reactionary to hot button issues.

Discarding either argument services no one.


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> There is a middle ground if level heads would prevail and people stopped being so reactionary to hot button issues.
> 
> Discarding either argument services no one.


What is the middle ground? The trans person is trans. The cis straight person is straight. Anha?

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> As a black man of African descent, it's deeply hurtful to hear a borderline, if not outright, slur directed at a black Justice of the SCOTUS. Daily micro-aggressions are hard enough to deal with, but this really took the cake. Well done, bravo.
> 
> I suppose blacks only matter if they're on the left. I'm hurt; I'm speechless. You know what, I'll say it, I'm damn near triggered.
> 
> ...



Calm down you sensitive little weasel.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## stream (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> A Hindu is allowed to believe what he wishes, and a Christian can follow his faith, but in no circumstance where they encounter one another does one persons faith yield to another in order to accommodate their sense of propriety


Not so fast — there are people who convert to Judaism, but you can be sure that other people don't consider this conversion is valid or possible. It's not always possible to keep everybody happy.



~Avant~ said:


> What if you still love the person despite their gender change? What if you still want to make the relationship work?


In that case, I'm sorry to say, _it sucks to be you_. If you are attracted to a "person with a vagina" and that person gets a penis, you do have to either stop being attracted to that person, or accept the fact that you are attracted to a person with a penis. Shit happens. You don't even need transgenders for this; you could have been fooled by a crossdresser. Literature is full of stories like that. Read Shakespeare.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

Good lord like 90% of the posts I've read on this topic are so fucking stupid. Why did I come back to this forum, lol?  



~Avant~ said:


> No you idiot, learn how to read.
> 
> If you have defined yourself as a straight man your entire life, and you fell in love with a woman who then decided to transition into a man. You would then have to reconsider your entire sexuality in order to accommodate his self image. Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine yourself as homosexual.


Uh... no.  Your relationship will probably just not survive.  Every couple I've known who went through this scenario and had their relationship continue after the fact had a bisexual/pansexual partner, not a straight one. *shrug*


~Avant~ said:


> Why must a man sacrifice his life long, true to self identity to his own sexuality


There is no "must."  They don't _have_ to do shit.  What is this absurd hypothetical you're posing?
Even if I pretended for one minute that this nonsense fearmongering has any basis in reality, the solution is to advocate for gender abolition, not whatever the fuck you're suggesting.



~Avant~ said:


> The leading cause of suicide is mental health. Which means that Transexuality might fit the description of a broader substratum of mental he


This is pretzel logic.  Trans people's mental health problems are usually rooted in one of two things:
1. untreated dysphoria, for which the most efficacious treatment that exists is gender affirmation.
2. bigotry.  Suicide rates among trans people can plummet to as much as *one fourteenth* of their rate provided they have ONE supportive parent.


~Avant~ said:


> Join the rest of the world. This isn’t a plight that is exclusive to Trans people. People everywhere all over experience the same thing, boys who feel too short or too skinny, men who feel emasculated because of erectile dysfunction, or being sterile...
> Again not exclusive to trans people


... What exactly is your point?  This is an argument in favor of gender affirmation, AGAIN, because gender affirmation is the most efficacious treatment for gender dysphoria.


~Avant~ said:


> What if you still love the person despite their gender change? What if you still want to make the relationship work?


It's called therapy.  And, btw, relationships are a two-way street.  It just takes one to end a relationship.  This is hilarious coming from someone who had the audacity to say "join the rest of the world," lol.


~Avant~ said:


> Can you define what a Woman is? Can you define what a Man is? If a straight man still feels sexually attracted to a FTM Trans, does that then change his sexuality to homosexual?


Yes.  Yes.  And if you're a man and you're attracted to a man be they trans or cis, you are not straight.  And if you can't come to terms with that, get a fucking therapist; that is neither the problem nor the responsibility of the people you're attracted to.

I'm amazed I even need to spell this out when it's 2022 and everyone knows that straight guys' #1 guilty pleasure is porn with trans women.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 2


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> So whats a woman?



A woman is an adult human female.

According to something called the dictionary which is an outdated source of information apparently as I'm seeing a lot of new definitions for the word woman now .


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No you idiot, learn how to read.
> 
> If you have defined yourself as a straight man your entire life, and you fell in love with a woman who then decided to transition into a man. You would then have to reconsider your entire sexuality in order to accommodate his self image. Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine yourself as homosexual.


See this is the problem when you're obsessed over labels over people. If you love someone, truly love someone, and they transition from one sex to another then you shouldn't care. They're still the person you love, no? Kinda makes you a bit of a jerk if they tell you they're transgender and the first thing you ask is if that makes you gay.

Also, like, people don't just transition out of the blue. They don't just wake up one morning and decide to have a sex change that afternoon. Unless you're a selfish jerk that pays no attention to this person you supposedly love then you'd know long before they transition that they intend to. If you can't handle that, if you feel that the label you've given yourself would have to change and it's too much for you, then the relationship is over and they aren't losing anything by losing you.

Typical of the straight dude to make it all about him, huh?


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jul 6, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Must be hard being a white billionaire out there on TERF island. I'm sure she's really in danger from trans chicks who call her a bitch on Twitter. So brave.
> 
> If getting called names on Twitter is brave, some of us do that shit without a lot of money.



You will call anyone "terf" if they said something that offends you, if someone said that he/she can't have sex with a trans "terf" if someone said that she is uncomfortable sharing bathroom and private part with opossite genital part "terf ". this isn't even only about Twitter, big companies and even some harry potter actors (these ungrateful kids) also humiliates her in other social media.

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

CrownedEagle said:


> this isn't even only about Twitter, big companies and even some harry potter actors (these ungrateful kids) also humiliates her in other social media.


She deserves it. She has gone out of her way to turn her entire online presence into anti-trans central. If all she wants to do is use her platform to spread hate and misinformation, why should anyone put up with that? She even has very public conversations on social media with her new gang of "gender critical" friends where they openly mock and degrade trans people, a group that she vilifies and portrays as perverts and sexual predators, so it's full "mask off" as they say.

So fuck Rowling. Harry Potter is just a super racist, slavery apologist ripoff of The Worst Witch anyway. It probably isn't that surprising that someone so openly transphobic would be pro-slavery and antisemitic, among many other things. She's just spiteful and cruel by nature and neither we nor those "ungrateful kids" need to put up with it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 2 | Neutral 1


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

CrownedEagle said:


> You will call anyone "terf" if they said something that offends you,


"TERF" is too high a compliment to these people- not a shocker considering they came up with the term to describe themselves, and continue to do so even as they disengenuously claim that it's a slur, lol.  You are not radical if you uphold hierarchy, and you're not a feminist if you're a fearmongering bigot.  They're just anti-trans.


CrownedEagle said:


> if someone said that he/she can't have sex with a trans "terf"


There's nothing wrong with having genital preferences in partners.  No one's being pressured into having sex with trans people, which is honestly a bit ironic because society seems hellbent on fetishizing them 24/7.  This incessant fearmongering about trans people pressuring others into sex is just another variation of "LGBT+ people are out to get you" bullshit.


CrownedEagle said:


> if someone said that she is uncomfortable sharing bathroom and private part with opossite genital part "terf "


Yes.  What exactly do you think the term "trans-exclusionary" means?  You don't want to be called trans exclusionary? Don't exclude trans people.
Do you take this same attitude towards intersex people?
If you cared about harm reduction, why are you not advocating for single stall gender neutral facilities instead of shitting on trans people for wanting to use the fucking bathroom?


CrownedEagle said:


> this isn't even only about Twitter, big companies and even some harry potter actors (these ungrateful kids) also humiliates her in other social media.


Oh no, other famous people disagree with her! How humiliating! They shouldn't do that!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

CrownedEagle said:


> You will call anyone "terf" if they said something that offends you, if someone said that he/she can't have sex with a trans "terf" if someone said that she is uncomfortable sharing bathroom and private part with opossite genital part "terf ". this isn't even only about Twitter, big companies and even some harry potter actors (these ungrateful kids) also humiliates her in other social media.


Question. Do you know what a "terf" is?


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Question. Do you know what a "terf" is?


Hey now we're meant to call them "gender critical", y'know like "critical race theory". Weird how, to these folks, being hateful towards something is merely being _critical_ of it.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Thus, to conservatives, is the world defined:
If you're a conservative and spreading hate you're just being critical.
If you're not conservative and you're being critical, you're spreading hate.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 2


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Thus, to conservatives, is the world defined:
> If you're a conservative and spreading hate you're just being critical.
> If you're not conservative and you're being critical, you're spreading hate.


Honestly we should stop calling them conservatives. They're not trying to conserve anything. They are now merely regressives, having refocused their efforts on undoing any progress made in the last seventy years.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 4


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> If you're not conservative and you're being critical, you're spreading hate.


And you're probably a degenerate commie, don't forget that part.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

All these back and forth and still they have yet to Define what a woman is… that tells you everything you need to know.

Reactions: Optimistic 2


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Haven't we already been over this? I seem to recall that we agreed that a woman is a person who identifies as a woman, and then you admitted defeat and begged me to forgive you for your foolishness and offered to name your next child after me.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Haven't we already been over this? I seem to recall that we agreed that a woman is a person who identifies as a woman,


What are they identifying with when they identify as woman or is it subjective to each and every person? 



Onomatopoeia said:


> and then you admitted defeated and begged me to forgive you for your foolishness and offered to name your next child after me.


Ono shut the the fuck up. You were a know nothing loser poster in the OBD and you still are just as empty headed all these years later.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

A know nothing loser poster in the OBD is a tautology, but be that as it may, the dumbest OBDer is still smarter than you. Cheers!


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> See this is the problem when you're obsessed over labels over people.



The irony


Velocity said:


> If you love someone, truly love someone, and they transition from one sex to another then you shouldn't care. They're still the person you love, no? Kinda makes you a bit of a jerk if they tell you they're transgender and the first thing you ask is if that makes you gay.


So you’re not supposed to question, if out of love you’d need to reassess your sexual identity or not.

Again you place one persons pain and prioritize it over anothers



Velocity said:


> Also, like, people don't just transition out of the blue. They don't just wake up one morning and decide to have a sex change that afternoon. Unless you're a selfish jerk that pays no attention to this person you supposedly love then you'd know long before they transition that they intend to. If you can't handle that, if you feel that the label you've given yourself would have to change and it's too much for you, then the relationship is over and they aren't losing anything by losing you.



Right now imagine it’s less of an intimate encounter and you’re just a stranger and someone is telling you to respect their gender pronoun, where in Canada it’s the law. The same would still be true except that would label you a transphobe 


Velocity said:


> Typical of the straight dude to make it all about him, huh?


You mean looking at all sides?


----------



## Parallax (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> As a black man of African descent, it's deeply hurtful to hear a borderline, if not outright, slur directed at a black Justice of the SCOTUS. Daily micro-aggressions are hard enough to deal with, but this really took the cake. Well done, bravo.
> 
> I suppose blacks only matter if they're on the left. I'm hurt; I'm speechless. You know what, I'll say it, I'm damn near triggered.
> 
> ...


Clarence thomas deserves every single negative thing said about him.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> A know nothing loser poster in the OBD is a tautology, but be that as it may, the dumbest OBDer is still smarter than you. Cheers!


Except not. Stop weaseling out, what do woman who identify as women identify with? Is it a particular appearance? What qualities make a man and make a woman?

Again if it’s all subjective why bother with reidentifying in the first place?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Gaawa-chan said:


> Good lord like 90% of the posts I've read on this topic are so fucking stupid. Why did I come back to this forum, lol?
> 
> 
> Uh... no.  Your relationship will probably just not survive.  Every couple I've known who went through this scenario and had their relationship continue after the fact had a bisexual/pansexual partner, not a straight one. *shrug*



What if your trans and now have to identify as gay? 


Gaawa-chan said:


> There is no "must."  They don't _have_ to do shit.  What is this absurd hypothetical you're posing?
> Even if I pretended for one minute that this nonsense fearmongering has any basis in reality, the solution is to advocate for gender abolition, not whatever the fuck you're suggesting.


Gender abolishment seems to be what Trans activists are going for


Gaawa-chan said:


> This is pretzel logic.  Trans people's mental health problems are usually rooted in one of two things:
> 1. untreated dysphoria, for which the most efficacious treatment that exists is gender affirmation.
> 2. bigotry.  Suicide rates among trans people can plummet to as much as *one fourteenth* of their rate provided they have ONE supportive parent.


Who gives a fuck.

The point is MEN commit suicide. The reason behind them is moot. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> ... What exactly is your point?  This is an argument in favor of gender affirmation, AGAIN, because gender affirmation is the most efficacious treatment for gender dysphoria.


My point was to stop treating Trans-people with kid gloves like they’re  the only people who experience suffering, your self righteous pity is insulting


Gaawa-chan said:


> It's called therapy.  And, btw, relationships are a two-way street.  It just takes one to end a relationship.  This is hilarious coming from someone who had the audacity to say "join the rest of the world," lol.






Gaawa-chan said:


> Yes.


Define it 


Gaawa-chan said:


> Yes.


Define it 


Gaawa-chan said:


> And if you're a man and you're attracted to a man be they trans or cis, you are not straight.  And if you can't come to terms with that, get a fucking therapist; that is neither the problem nor the responsibility of the people you're attracted to.


So they’re the ones who need therapy, the world is wrong and the persons own personal take on gender is the only reality


Gaawa-chan said:


> I'm amazed I even need to spell this out when it's 2022 and everyone knows that straight guys' #1 guilty pleasure is porn with trans women.


Not every straight man. What is this stupid stat?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Thus you cease being heterosexual and must now redefine


Sexuality is far more nuanced and complicated than a simple binary.

I think everyone would agree that if you're on a committed relationship and your partner comes out as trans that would be a significant event in the relationship.

I would expect both parties to the relationship to do some self reflection on how that impacts their relationship, and then probably some long discussions with their partner.

Maybe it means you're now gay.  Maybe it means that your bi.  Maybe just "bi for my partner."  Maybe it means that you're no longer compatable.

There are couples that go each way.

Like I said, this stuff is complicated and doesn't fit well into rigid boxes.  I'd probably argue that the love between any two people varies in significant ways.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Everything is subjective to everyone. There is no such thing as objective fact. Words mean things only because we agree they mean things. Refer back to our previous hypothetical about you being an annoying douchebag. And please note, I did say "douchebag" not "doughbag".

People don't walk up to you in the streets and call you  an annoying douchebag, do they?

A person chooses an identify that makes them the happy. I don't imagine being an annoying douchebag would make you happy, if, hypothetically, you were assigned such an identity by those around you.

If they don't like the identity they should be allowed to choose a new identity. Do you have to like it? No. Do you have to agree with it? No. Are they hurting anyone just by existing? I can't imagine they are. Is their existence a threat to anything but your own ideas about a man is? Ditto.

So then what's wrong with identifying someone as a woman who wants to be identified as a woman?

And please, don't respond by asking "What's a woman?" because I think we both know that's a deflection.

Why is your masculinity threatened by the idea that what was previously thought a man might realize she was a woman in her heart of hearts?

Perhaps you have some unexamined issues with your own identity? Maybe you'd rather see the world burn than give someone else a chance to have what you were never allowed to have?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

stream said:


> Not so fast — there are people who convert to Judaism, but you can be sure that other people don't consider this conversion is valid or possible. It's not always possible to keep everybody happy.


If your idiot brain being fucked by stupid? Who is talking about converting? Your example would be like if a Transperson convinced a Man or Woman that they were in fact Trans. Which is stupid. Stupid example. Go back and try again.


stream said:


> In that case, I'm sorry to say, _it sucks to be you_. If you are attracted to a "person with a vagina" and that person gets a penis, you do have to either stop being attracted to that person, or accept the fact that you are attracted to a person with a penis. Shit happens. You don't even need transgenders for this; you could have been fooled by a crossdresser. Literature is full of stories like that. Read Shakespeare.


I have read Shakespeare. You’re talking apples and oranges


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Sexuality is far more nuanced and complicated than a simple binary.



Where are the poles to this stratum of sexuality and what defines them? What makes a woman different from a man?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Everything is subjective to everyone. There is no such thing as objective fact.



And this is where you reveal yourself. You live in a reality that’s separate from objective truth.

If objectivity doesn’t exist “Truth” doesn’t exist

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Truth is what we make of it. Answer my questions or admit you're a bigot.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Define what a woman is


This bullshit again?


> What's your definition of a man? What's your definition of a woman?
> The layman's answer: "An X is someone who identifies themselves as an X."
> This is really *shorthand* for a subject most people really don't know that much about,* because that's what it boils down to in terms of how it functions between people*. It's a social construction that integrates itself into someone's internal identity, and the only impact it has on others is how they express it. I'll give you the more complex explanation as I understand it. Bear in mind that I am not an academic, so this explanation will not really be the best answer you could get.
> ...
> ...





> Addressing some common counterarguments:
> 
> "a man is someone with XY chromosomes, and a woman is someone with XX chromosomes." "a woman is someone with a uterus" etc etc
> A proper definition shouldn't come with a dozen asterisks attached (and yet historically the definition of woman has had just that in order to justify excluding women of color, for example). These are outdated laymen's definitions. Proper definitions do not have exceptions; they are definitive and appropriately encompassing.
> ...





> Additional tangents:
> The only practical use the terms have for the vast majority of our interpersonal interactions are to denote gender identity, which is exclusively a matter of what the individual in question says it is (and even then, that concept only exists because society insists on maintaining gender roles, which are entirely arbitrary and unnecessary). Biology comes into consideration when you're looking to reproduce and in a handful of other cases where sexual dimorphism makes a difference (such as sports, though even then you're better off measuring the actual parameters involved than using sex/gender as a proxy for them and there's very little difference outside of the upper levels of performance), but can be completely ignored outside of those very specific cases.
> 
> These particular ones, though? Not so much. Again, reproduction and sports are basically the only reason to consider them, and there's no reason you can't instead discuss those in terms of fertility and testosterone levels (among other parameters, since unfair genetic advantages can take far more forms than just testosterone levels) for the sake of having a more comprehensive understanding of the issue and not needlessly excluding some people. The labels do nothing except restrict things that don't need to be restricted.





~Avant~ said:


> What if your trans and now have to identify as gay?


Trans people do generally change their purported sexual orientation when they come out as trans, yes. What is your point?  By the way, if you didn't know this, you probably don't have any business chiming in on the topic of trans issues at all.  You seem to need to do some serious googling.  This is kind of pathetic how fixated you are on trans people while simultaneously seeming to know almost nothing about them at all.


~Avant~ said:


> The point is MEN commit suicide. The reason behind them is moot.


My aunt committed suicide.  What exactly is the point you are trying to make? because it just seems to me like you're flailing around making nonsense statements that go nowhere.


~Avant~ said:


> My point was to stop treating Trans-people with kid gloves like they’re  the only people who experience suffering,


No one is doing that.  You're projecting weird bullshit you want to see onto people you know nothing about, which you continue to demonstrate with each successive post.


~Avant~ said:


> So they’re the ones who need therapy, the world is wrong and the persons own personal take on gender is the only reality


Yes, if you can't psychologically handle a breakup, you should probably get therapy.  No one said that about the world except for you.  Yes, only a person's internal sense of identity matters when it comes to... *checks notes* their internal identity.  What a shocker.


~Avant~ said:


> Not every straight man. What is this stupid stat?


A factual one.  I'm sorry it hurts your feelings to find out that straight guys are attracted to trans women and straight women are attracted to trans men.  There are, of course, genital preferences, but attraction exists on a highly variable spectrum. *shrug*



~Avant~ said:


> And this is where you reveal yourself. You live in a reality that’s separate from objective truth.
> If objectivity doesn’t exist “Truth” doesn’t exist


Bro you don't even know how sexual orientation works in relation to trans people.  I really don't think you have any business sniveling about people disagreeing with you on the philosophic nature of truth.  On this subject I will only say one thing- whine all you like about people disagreeing with you on what constitutes truth, but there is no such thing as _scientific_ truth.  Science can only comment on what has _yet to be disproven_, not what is _true_. I suggest therefore that you take care not to conflate the two, for fear of looking like an even bigger idiot than you already do at this point.

Reactions: Winner 3


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Avant is doing a terrible job of getting his point across.


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

@hcheng02 , ran like little boy I see..

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> Avant is doing a terrible job of getting his point across.


Because he doesn't have one and is just spewing word vomit in the hopes of owning the Libs.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

His fixation on "what if a trans person changed their identity while in a relationship" sort of makes me question if the topic hits close to home.

If it were true obviously that's not something to laugh at but it does make me questionable why he's making it a huge part of his argument.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> What are they identifying with when they identify as woman or is it subjective to each and every person?


It's almost like gender roles are a social construct that you can actually just pick and choose what parts you identify with, making you a man or a woman or something in-between entirely according to your own definition and perogative.

Like, I was born female and identify as a woman but my definition of a woman is nothing at all like the definition a man like you would provide because I'm pretty nonjudgmental about it. As long as you're not hurting anyone, I don't see why you can't identify in any way you want to.



~Avant~ said:


> Ono shut the the fuck up. You were a know nothing loser poster in the OBD and you still are just as empty headed all these years later.


Wow he really got under your skin, huh? I guess that means, in your own words, you didn't believe anything you've been saying all this time.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> His fixation on "what if a trans person changed their identity while in a relationship" sort of makes me question if the topic hits close to home.
> 
> Obviously that's not something to laugh at but it does make me questionable why he's making it a huge part of his argument.


You mean he was dating a dude that transitioned into a woman and he spent the next year wondering if that meant he was always straight? Geeze I can't imagine how it must have felt to have to turn in his gay card like that.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Where are the poles to this stratum of sexuality and what defines them? What makes a woman different from a man?


Sexuality and attraction is constantly changing based on a large number of different variables.

Society comes up with terms to define relative positions based on the clues and constructs of the culture.

The traits you use to define sexuality vary largely from the traits used by the Japanese in 1700ad or the Romans in 400ad or the Greeks in 250BC.  And apparently many Americans today.

For that matter if you asked your question to groups in New York, Alabama, Spain, Iran, Brazil, Australia, and China you'll see substantial differences in the answers you get from each group.

So, rather than continuously slam into these barriers an easy solution for you is to simply ask the people how they define themselves and accept the answer you are given.

Counter scenario:

Assume a person, we'll call him Amant, defines himself as a heterosexual man.  He has dated a number of people who define themselves as heterosexual women in the past.

If one of those women were to call him up and tell him they used to have a punishment, does Amant have to now define himself as a homosexual man?  Does he have to start dating men now?

Or can he continue to define himself as he pleases knowing that he was acting consistently based on his observations of the world?

And, most critically, do you, as an anonymous rando on the Internet, have a right to force that label on him?


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> His fixation on "what if a trans person changed their identity while in a relationship" sort of makes me question if the topic hits close to home.
> Obviously that's not something to laugh at but it does make me questionable why he's making it a huge part of his argument.


I have an old friend who experienced just that.  Her spouse came out late as a trans woman after being forced into the closet by her abusive father.  By coincidence, my friend is bisexual, so they managed to make things work out on that front, but eventually got divorced for different reasons.  Relationships end all the time for all sorts of reasons.  I don't understand what point Avant is trying to make; the trans person in the relationship has no obligation to stay closeted in order to shield their partner from a completely hypothetical sexuality crisis that might not even occur.  This is just... extremely bizarre fearmongering.

I've even discussed this with other straight people before, like my mother, for example.  She said she'd be fully supportive of her spouse's hypothetical decision to transition... and that she'd get a divorce because she's not attracted to women, which I guess is some sort of horrific apocalyptic scenario for Avant, lol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Gaawa-chan said:


> I have an old friend who experienced just that.  Her spouse came out late as a trans woman after being forced into the closet by her abusive father.  By coincidence, my friend is bisexual, so they managed to make things work out on that front, but eventually got divorced for different reasons.  Relationships end all the time for all sorts of reasons.  I don't understand what point Avant is trying to make; the trans person in the relationship has no obligation to stay closeted in order to shield their partner from a completely hypothetical sexuality crisis that might not even occur.  This is just... extremely bizarre fearmongering.
> 
> I've even discussed this with other straight people before, like my mother, for example.  She said she'd be fully supportive of her spouse's hypothetical decision to transition... and that she'd get a divorce because she's not attracted to women, which I guess is some sort of horrific apocalyptic scenario for Avant, lol.




Avant bringing up his concern supportd the notion that trans people should receive the help they need and not be shunned by society so situations like that of your friend don't happen.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## CrownedEagle (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Question. Do you know what a "terf" is?


Dunno like women, definitions tend to change depending of the current mood or actual trend these days


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Gaawa-chan said:


> I don't understand what point Avant is trying to make; the trans person in the relationship has no obligation to stay closeted in order to shield their partner from a completely hypothetical sexuality crisis that might not even occur.


It's just typical transphobic rhetoric, trying to portray transgender people as sexual predators or deceivers. It all feeds back into that weird fetish a lot of transphobes have where they'd imagine themselves getting tricked by a transgender person just so they can physically assault or even murder them.



CrownedEagle said:


> Dunno like women, definitions tend to change depending of the current mood or actual trend these days


A TERF is a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", which is short for "I don't believe transwomen are women, I don't believe transwomen belong in women's spaces and I will protest, harass and challenge any attempt to give transwomen the rights or help they need".

These days you don't even need to be a feminist and TERFs freely admit that because they prefer the term "gender critical" now.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> It's just typical transphobic rhetoric, trying to portray transgender people as sexual predators or deceivers. It all feeds back into that weird fetish a lot of transphobes have* where they'd imagine themselves getting tricked by a transgender person just so they can physically assault or even murder them.*


Ah, of course.  Should have figured that was it.


Velocity said:


> A TERF is a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", which is short for "I don't believe transwomen are women, I don't believe transwomen belong in women's spaces and I will protest, harass and challenge any attempt to give transwomen the rights or help they need".
> These days you don't even need to be a feminist and TERFs freely admit that because they prefer the term "gender critical" now.


I learned an interesting bit of history about TERFs yesterday actually... uh, where is it...?:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Gaawa-chan said:


> Ah, of course.  Should have figured that was it.
> 
> I learned an interesting bit of history about TERFs yesterday actually... uh, where is it...?:


I never really liked the term TERF myself because you can't be a feminist if you only support certain kinds of women. It's an all or nothing thing. That's the whole point of standing together against the patriarchy that abuses us all.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Sexuality and attraction is constantly changing based on a large number of different variables.
> 
> Society comes up with terms to define relative positions based on the clues and constructs of the culture.
> 
> ...


Freudian slip if ever there was one

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 6, 2022)

When a black judge doesn't support your cause


This thread has been an eye opener

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

It’s true though. Black people are bought by the dollars of the N word.


----------



## Jim (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> The leading cause of suicide is mental health. Which means that Transexuality might fit the description of a broader substratum of mental he


I'd believe that if experts were successful in treating it. Endless attempts have been made.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Jim said:


> I'd believe that if experts were successful in treating it. Endless attempts have been made.


Conversion therapy is illegal in any civilised country for a very good reason. It's dangerous, ineffective and usually leads to life-long problems or suicide.


----------



## dergeist (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Can a 16 year old identify as a 32 year old, because they feel like they "have an old soul"?



I identify as an OAP, but the government won't pension me off

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## wibisana (Jul 6, 2022)

Can i get tldr version, what Rowling really said, not just nitpick

Nvrmind, just research it myself.


----------



## Parallax (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Even this?


No that white woman is wyling


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Jim said:


> I'd believe that if experts were successful in treating it. Endless attempts have been made.


Because it’s not something that needs to be cured.

Trans people just need to accept that there is an objective truth and an objective reality, we can respect your belief or that your ideology is different, but don’t force me to have to accept it as my own truth. That’s the middle ground. The fact that Trans people get offended from being misgendered speaks to the fact that there is an objective reality with which they take offense with. Don’t get offended and that’s really it and we won’t be disrespectful. That’s it.


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> When a black judge doesn't support your cause
> 
> 
> This thread has been an eye opener



Are you talking about CTK calling the judge an uncle tom? I understand your irritation towards the usage of the word. People are going to always utilize disparaging terms towards politicans/people in power when they make decisions they don't agree with.

He's still a despicable person though.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Because it’s not something that needs to be cured.
> 
> Trans people just need to accept that there is an objective truth and an objective reality, we can respect your belief or that your ideology is different, but don’t force me to have to accept it as my own truth. That’s the middle ground. The fact that Trans people get offended from being misgendered speaks to the fact that there is an objective reality with which they take offense with. Don’t get offended and that’s really it and we won’t be disrespectful. That’s it.


Third time I'm asking you now - what is a woman?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Because it’s not something that needs to be cured.
> 
> Trans people just need to accept that there is an objective truth and an objective reality, we can respect your belief or that your ideology is different, but don’t force me to have to accept it as my own truth. That’s the middle ground. The fact that Trans people get offended from being misgendered speaks to the fact that there is an objective reality with which they take offense with. Don’t get offended and that’s really it and we won’t be disrespectful. That’s it.


People who think the Earth orbits the Sun just need to accept that there is an objective truth and an objective reality. We can respect your belief or that your ideology is different, but don't force us to have to accept it as our own truth. That's the middle ground. The fact that people who think the Earth orbits the Sun get offended when we destroy their lives and make them outcasts and pariahs and sometimes even kill them speaks to the fact that there is an objective reality with which they take offence with. Don't get offended and that's really it and we won't burn you at the stake for heresy. That's it.


----------



## stream (Jul 6, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Third time I'm asking you now - what is a woman?


A woman is whatever he's attracted to. He's decided he's heterosexual so we shouldn't force him to revisit his identity


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> People who think the Sun orbits the Earth just need to accept that there is an objective truth and an objective reality. We can respect your belief or that your ideology is different, but don't force us to have to accept it as our own truth. That's the middle ground. The fact that people who think the Sun orbits the Earth get offended when we destroy their lives and make them outcasts and pariahs and sometimes even kill them speaks to the fact that there is an objective reality with which they take offence with. Don't get offended and that's really it and we won't burn you at the stake for heresy. That's it.


Fixed

No inverted logic necessary

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 6, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> Why does every single thing have to drag trans rights to the front and center? People here keep dissing the 2nd wave feminists for being all white women who didn't get intersectionality but they managed to win lots of practical benefits for women that had a positive material effect on their lives like not having to get a husband's approval to sign up for credit cards and abortion rights. Meanwhile the woke current generation of feminists who can't talk about anything without intersectionality completely dropped the ball in the 2016 election and lost over 50 years of achievements in reproductive rights in one fell swoop. It's like that song "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie where the mothers are kicking up a fuss to deflect blame and attention from their own failures. Only replace mothers with feminists and swearing with abortion rights.


I get where you're coming from, and the in fighting definitely isn't helping but it wasn't feminists who killed RBG and rushed Amy Barrett through to SCOTUS, and it wasn't feminists who elected Trump or stacked the courts in favor of regressive right wing politics, and it certainly wasn't feminists who repealed Roe. We could have been shouting in favor of Roe right into Clarence Thomas's face for years and he still woulda pulled this shit because he has the majority he needs to do it.


Orochibuto said:


> I have no issue in gay cartoon chracters in newly made cartoons. I do have an issue with "wokes" however BANNING stuff, like when they successfully lobbied Pepe Le Pew from appearing for being "a harasser".


Do you really want to get into banning stuff when Republicans are trying to ban kids from learning about slavery and gays and trying to cancel Lightyear because there's a fraction of a second of a gay kiss in it? 
I get that "both sides are bad" shit, but one is trying to rewrite history to make themselves feel better about taking away civil rights and the other doesn't like Pepe.


----------



## Parallax (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Fixed
> 
> No inverted logic necessary


How come you're ignorinc bazuaal


----------



## Jim (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> When a black judge doesn't support your cause
> 
> 
> This thread has been an eye opener


Indeed, conservatives always accuse liberals of simply following whoever is a part of a marginalized group. As demonstrated, being a part of a minority doesn't make you immune from any liberal criticism.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Third time I'm asking you now - what is a woman?


A woman is a person born with XX Chromosomes, who goes through a life journey of girlhood, to adolescent young woman, a woman, and then an old woman. Their life experiences, rooted in their chromosomes, that makes them similar to other people who have XX Chromosomes. They experience the duality that comes with being a woman, in their own individual unique level, but simultaneously part of a greater whole.

Hormone pills and plastic surgery isn’t the Blue Fairy you Pinocchios are claiming it to be.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

The way you guys discard objectivity, riddle me this.

A Man who is impotent, and a Woman who is barren, both share a similar ailment. If gender is subjective, would you treat an impotent man with the same treatment you would a barren woman? Even though they have entirely different reproductive organs?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Freudian slip if ever there was one


So you don't have anything of substance to add?

Noted.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> See this is the problem when you're obsessed over labels over people. If you love someone, truly love someone, and they transition from one sex to another then you shouldn't care. They're still the person you love, no?



Hold the fucking phone.

No, they're not the same person. This isn't your friend transitioning that you want to support, this is your girlfriend/wife, so there was always a physical and sexual attraction no matter how minimal it may be depending on the relationship. This isn't your girl gaining/losing a weight or dying a new hair color. 

The essence of their sexuality that attracted you is completely changing.

Physical appearance is also part of the person. That's why most people wear clean clothes when they go out. 



Velocity said:


> Also, like, people don't just transition out of the blue. They don't just wake up one morning and decide to have a sex change that afternoon. Unless you're a selfish jerk that pays no attention to this person you supposedly love then you'd know long before they transition that they intend to.



How does that change the fact that once your partner tells you they're trans you'll probably start losing sexual interest in them due to you being straight. 

I thought that whole point of the rainbow peeps is that you can't control and decide what your dick and pussy likes. 



Velocity said:


> Typical of the straight dude to make it all about him, huh?



So the idea here is to force a straight person into a relationship that doesn't correspond with their sexuality? And if they do, they're self-centered? 

Again, flip it to a straight chick, see if the perspective changes.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

A good bleeding with leeches is the cure for what ails you. Since science is immutable, perfect and unchanging through the eons, undeniable in its factualness, there is no reason to believe that removing the bad humors from the bloodstream will not cure both impotence and barrenness, so yes, I would absolutely treat them with the same treatment, provided their phrenological scores don't indicate that they might be a threat to society, in which case I will be forced to kill them in the name of God.


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

Charlotte D. Kurisu said:


> So the idea here is to force a straight person into a relationship that doesn't correspond with their sexuality? And if they do, they're self-centered?


Nope. Go be with someone else who satisfies your carnal urges. Simple as that. It's actually quite simple. If you prefer cis women then be with cis women. No one is twisting your arm and telling you to fuck trans people.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Fixed
> 
> No inverted logic necessary


You're just proving my point. Geocentrism was the "objective fact" for thousands of years and people like you destroyed the lives of, and even killed, anyone that said otherwise for nearly two thousand years because you refused to change your way of thinking.

What do I mean by "people like you"? I mean people who refuse to accept that they don't know everything and insist that their current understanding of any subject is "objective fact" when even the brightest minds on the planet freely admit that everything we understand as a species is merely theoretical, a human construct designed to explain things as best we can.

In other words, you don't know shit about transgenderism, let alone how sex and gender intersect and develop in relation to each other, and you certainly don't get to tell transgender people they don't need help or that they do not deserve simple decency.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 6, 2022)

The fuck yall arguing about.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Yeah, I don't agree with @Velocity take.

It's a bad situation to be in in many cases. 

Which goes with what I was saying earlier, I would rather trans people get the help and support they need and not ostracised in society. That way people don't end up in relationships with people are trans but haven't expressed their desire to transition for whatever reason, a lot of times fear.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 6, 2022)

Subarashii said:


> Do you really want to get into banning stuff when Republicans are trying to ban kids from learning about slavery and gays and trying to cancel Lightyear because there's a fraction of a second of a gay kiss in it?
> I get that "both sides are bad" shit, but one is trying to rewrite history to make themselves feel better about taking away civil rights and the other doesn't like Pepe.



What makes you think I like Republicans doing that? I despise censorship, regardless of which side is coming from.


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> *No one is twisting your arm and telling you to fuck trans people.*



This is a little Ignorant.

Because a while ago the left had a huge meltdown crisis and were loudly advocating that straight people have sex with trans people else they're transphobic.

Bullying occurred.

Lesbians too weren't spared of this as even they were said to be transphobic and bullied if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> A woman is a person born with XX Chromosomes, who goes through a life journey of girlhood, to adolescent young woman, a woman, and then an old woman. Their life experiences, rooted in their chromosomes, that makes them similar to other people who have XX Chromosomes. They experience the duality that comes with being a woman, in their own individual unique level, but simultaneously part of a greater whole.
> 
> Hormone pills and plastic surgery isn’t the Blue Fairy you Pinocchios are claiming it to be.



Chromosomes relate to sex, not gender. For someone claiming to be a doctor,  you do realize there are cis women with y chromosomes dont you? And for someone screeching about not using the word in the definition, the second half your paragraph does just that. Additionally your definition is useless in an every day utility sense considering you cant just test everyone's chromosomes if you're unsure if they're outward appearance is not to your expectation. Furthermore the experience of being a woman changes depending on who you ask. 

So it's not what pronouns you use, what clothes you wear, anything else social it's just XX or XY for you? Then what's your issue with trans people? It's all those other things they're changing,  which all falls under gender. No one is arguing sex related stuff. 

I'm sorry that I believe in a free country where everyone has the right to express themselves how they want and have control over their own bodies. If you're uncomfortable with that maybe you'd enjoy living in Saudi Arabia instead.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 6, 2022)

Orochibuto said:


> What makes you think I like Republicans doing that? I despise censorship, regardless of which side is coming from.





Velocity said:


> See this is the problem when you're obsessed over labels over people. If you love someone, truly love someone, and they transition from one sex to another then you shouldn't care. They're still the person you love, no? Kinda makes you a bit of a jerk if they tell you they're transgender and the first thing you ask is if that makes you gay.
> 
> Also, like, people don't just transition out of the blue. They don't just wake up one morning and decide to have a sex change that afternoon. Unless you're a selfish jerk that pays no attention to this person you supposedly love then you'd know long before they transition that they intend to. If you can't handle that, if you feel that the label you've given yourself would have to change and it's too much for you, then the relationship is over and they aren't losing anything by losing you.
> 
> Typical of the straight dude to make it all about him, huh?


I'm gonna stop you right there. You don't *have* to love anyone you don't want to. If you're straight and your partner transitions to your gender, you don't have to love them (sexually), because they're no longer your sexual preference. You shouldn't hate them, and there should still be love between you if your relationship was supportive and healthy but if they decide to get divorced, that shouldn't be an issue.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> This is a little Ignorant.
> 
> Because a while ago the left had a huge meltdown crisis and were loudly advocating that straight people have sex with trans people else they're transphobic.
> 
> ...


When was this?
As a part of "the left" I don't recall telling people who they should have sex with

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

Subarashii said:


> When was this?
> As a part of "the left" I don't recall telling people who they should have sex with



Damn. Perhaps I should I have specified.

The rainbow left/Alphabet people.

Still quite surprising you wouldn't be aware of the meltdown on Twitter and Tik Tok and all that.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> The rainbow left/Alphabet people.
> 
> Still quite surprising you wouldn't be aware of the meltdown on Twitter and Tik Tok and all that.



Why do you think a vocal minority on TikTok represents the left?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

The Left is not a monolith. People can have their own traits, personalities and other unique identifiers independent of what everyone expects of the categories they occupy, and just because everyone thinks people in that category should be a certain way doesn't mean they must be too.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Jim (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> The way you guys discard objectivity, riddle me this.
> 
> A Man who is impotent, and a Woman who is barren, both share a similar ailment. If gender is subjective, would you treat an impotent man with the same treatment you would a barren woman? Even though they have entirely different reproductive organs?


Treatment would depend on the cause and their medical records. Some people may be ineligible for treatment while others could go through a very intensive procedure several times.


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Because a while ago the left had a huge meltdown crisis and were loudly advocating that straight people have sex with trans people else they're transphobic.


I never said I agreed with them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> This is a little Ignorant.
> 
> Because a while ago the left had a huge meltdown crisis and were loudly advocating that straight people have sex with trans people else they're transphobic.
> 
> ...




99.9 percent of people on the left don't do this shit. If you're talking about some fringe group, I'm sure you will find them.


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> If you love someone, truly love someone, and they transition from one sex to another then you shouldn't care. They're still the person you love, no?



There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to end a relationship/marriage with their partner that has decided to transition.

You can remain their friend and be supportive of their transition, but there isn’t obligation to remain in a romantic relationship with them anymore.


----------



## Arles Celes (Jul 6, 2022)

This actually made me wonder...what does Rowling think of women who trans into guys? Does she also look down on them like on trans women, respects them or just ignores them since they hardly matter to her? Or maybe she hates them for rejecting their feminity and embracing manliness instead? Like if they are traitors to other women?


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Basing your political opinions on the left/right based on what you see on TikTok of all apps makes no sense lmao

Reactions: Agree 6 | Funny 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

I also tire of explaining fanatic liberals =/= leftist. People's generalizations with loaded terms regarding politics is annoying to deal with in the US. For example, plenty of LGBTQ advocates are fiscally conservative regarding economic and probably advocate for tweaks of reform to our current capitalist system.

Man sees someone advocating for some crazed take a majority of leftist don't even pay attention to and he goes "look at what the left has become!!!!!!" Its silly.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> See this is the problem when you're obsessed over labels over people. If you love someone, truly love someone, and they transition from one sex to another then you shouldn't care. They're still the person you love, no? Kinda makes you a bit of a jerk if they tell you they're transgender and the first thing you ask is if that makes you gay.
> 
> Also, like, people don't just transition out of the blue. They don't just wake up one morning and decide to have a sex change that afternoon. Unless you're a selfish jerk that pays no attention to this person you supposedly love then you'd know long before they transition that they intend to. If you can't handle that, if you feel that the label you've given yourself would have to change and it's too much for you, then the relationship is over and they aren't losing anything by losing you.
> 
> Typical of the straight dude to make it all about him, huh?


At the same time, if you no longer find them physically attractive, it's not fair to either person to continue the relationship. However, I do think it's nice when people can continue to be friends. That can be difficult, considering all the pain that comes along with the divorce and everything. However, it's the reality of the situation sometimes.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Arles Celes said:


> This actually made me wonder...what does Rowling think of women who trans into guys? Does she also look down on them like on trans women, respects them or just ignores them since they hardly matter to her? Or maybe she hates them for rejecting their feminity and embracing manliness instead? Like if they are traitors to other women?


Rowling has this fantastic trick where instead of stating her own views, she promotes and provides exposure to the views of others that most closely align with her own.

Going by that huge essay she posted, however, she believes transmen are still women and that TERFs like herself still include them in their feminism because they were born female so they're not trans-exclusionary after all. She even goes so far as to insist female-to-male transitioning is only done because being a woman is hard and being a man is easier and she spreads misinformation suggesting that most female-to-male transitions are a mistake that is often regretted and reversed.


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> Why do you think a vocal minority on TikTok represents the left?



Didn't say they do, but they are portrayed as such.

They're the loudest and most powerful, all the rep of the left comes from what the mainstream portrays of this "Vocal Minority"

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to end a relationship/marriage with their partner that has decided to transition.
> 
> You can remain their friend and be supportive of their transition, but there isn’t obligation to remain in a romantic relationship with them anymore.


I agree that if there's no sexual attraction any more then it's totally fine to split up and there shouldn't be any hard feelings, but I just don't think the first thing that would normally come to mind if someone you truly loved told you they were going to transition from one sex to another is "does this make me gay?"

That's the sort of reactionary bullshit that often leads to the deaths of transwomen at the hands of men who believe their masculinity has been violated.


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> I never said I agreed with them.


Never insinuated you did either too.

I was just addressing when you said that no one was forcing anyone to have sex with a Trans person.


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Didn't say they do.
> 
> But they're the loudest and most powerful tho, all the rep of the left comes from what the mainstream portrays of this "Vocal Minority"



Lol

What institutional power does the "fringe left" have?


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Didn't say they do.
> 
> But they're the loudest and most powerful tho, all the rep of the left comes from what the mainstream portrays of this "Vocal Minority"



So your opinion on this subject is based
on one TikTok video that you saw?

You saw one crazy person say something on an app that’s designed for young people to say outlandish stuff to seek attention and based your entire political opinions on it?

Alright.


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> So your opinion on this subject is based
> on one TikTok video that you saw?
> 
> You saw one crazy person say something on an app that’s designed for young people to say outlandish stuff to seek attention and based your entire political opinions on it?
> ...



Huhhh?

What sorta downplay is this?

One tik tok Video?


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Huhhh?
> 
> What sorta downplay is this?
> 
> One tik tok Video?


Okay, two.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> Nope. Go be with someone else who satisfies your carnal urges. Simple as that. It's actually quite simple. If you prefer cis women then be with cis women. No one is twisting your arm and telling you to fuck trans people.



Well, yeah.. Just trying to prove the idea that a person not having their *legal *sexual and emotional desires met doesn't make them self-centered.


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> Lol
> 
> What institutional power does the "fringe left" have?



Emotional power is the most important thing here.

Institutional power doesn't matter in the place of emotions or being a woke social justice warrior.


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> I agree that if there's no sexual attraction any more then it's totally fine to split up and there shouldn't be any hard feelings, but I just don't think the first thing that would normally come to mind if someone you truly loved told you they were going to transition from one sex to another is "does this make me gay?"
> 
> That's the sort of reactionary bullshit that often leads to the deaths of transwomen at the hands of men who believe their masculinity has been violated.




That's a huge leap to insert.

You're heavily downplaying the severeity constraint it can put on a relationship if one partner were to transition. It's not "reactionary bullshit", and you're not fighting on a hill many would want to die on regarding trans issues and their plights.

As opposed to arguing people should just suck it up and deal with it, why not make the advocation that to negate from situations like this, trans people should be accepted within society in order to get the treatnent and help that they need?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Chromosomes relate to sex, not gender.


This is where our opinion is split. I can agree that GENDER ROLES are a societal construct, but that Sex and Gender are completely separate is where I disagree. Sex and Gender are linked and Gender is dependent on Sex, if they weren’t there would be no need to hormone pills or Gender Correction Surgery, however how you express yourself within the context of your sex and gender is entirely up to the individual


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Huhhh?
> 
> What sorta downplay is this?
> 
> One tik tok Video?



How many videos did you see? Tell us.

In fact, link them.

And then explain how an app designed for young people to say outlandish stuff for attention where both people on the left/right say ridiculous things for views actually represents what people on the left/right think in real life.

Again, you watched somewhere from 1-5 videos on TikTok and then came to the conclusion that this was a majority opinion, right?


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> I agree that if there's no sexual attraction any more then it's totally fine to split up and there shouldn't be any hard feelings, but I just don't think the first thing that would normally come to mind if someone you truly loved told you they were going to transition from one sex to another is "does this make me gay?"
> 
> That's the sort of reactionary bullshit that often leads to the deaths of transwomen at the hands of men who believe their masculinity has been violated.



I can agree that would not be my first reaction either. My first reaction would be something along the lines of:



then after I had an hour to process things, I would ask if she would like to get a divorce and remain platonic friends

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

I don't think a fringe movement can have any institutional power, like by definition. If they did, they wouldn't be fringe anymore would they?


----------



## Jackalinthebox (Jul 6, 2022)

Everyone knows Tiktok controls all of our branches of government

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Deleting the rest of your post because it's a bunch of rubbish that further proves you don't know what you're talking about...


~Avant~ said:


> however how you express yourself within the context of your sex and gender is entirely up to the individual


Yet if they asked you to refer to them with certain pronouns or by a name other than the one they were born with, you'd refuse to do it because you think they're just delusional.

Weird that.


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Emotional power is the most important thing here.
> 
> Institutional power doesn't matter in the place of emotions or being a woke social justice warrior.




No, it's not. And it's hilarious that you believe it does. While we live in a country that is currently regressing regarding human-rights for women and wanting to implement policies that actively makes life more difficult for LGBTQ youth, it's hilarious you consider emotional aspects are more powerful than institutional power.

The way you generalize leftist and liberals as being a monolith makes me assume your only association with them are within conversations such as these (arguments) or what you see from your social media outlets that share the most fringe and unpopular takes to push a narrative.


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> I can agree that would not be my first reaction either. My first reaction would be something along the lines of:
> 
> 
> 
> then after I had an hour to process things, I would ask if she would like to get a divorce and remain platonic friends


I just feel like in a long term relationship, unless it is entirely or largely predicated on sexual attraction, you love the person not the sex. They may be changing from male to female or from female to male, but they still say the same cheesy jokes, eat the same foods, watch the same movies, share the same memories. Still loving that person doesn't mean you're going to start crowdsurfing in gay bars, prowling for young studs in leather chaps or whatever.

Maybe everyone should just become pansexual so this isn't a problem.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> I don't think a fringe movement can have any institutional power, like by definition. If they did, they wouldn't be fringe anymore would they?


Tell that to Canada


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> I just feel like in a long term relationship, unless it is entirely or largely predicated on sexual attraction, you love the person not the sex. They may be changing from male to female or from female to male, but they still say the same cheesy jokes, eat the same foods, watch the same movies, share the same memories. Still loving that person doesn't mean you're going to start crowdsurfing in gay bars, prowling for young studs in leather chaps or whatever.
> 
> Maybe everyone should just become pansexual so this isn't a problem.



We can agree to disagree I guess. I can only speak for myself but I have some deal breakers that would end a relationship for me and a partner wanting to transition is one of them. I would still choose to be their friend though and I think that’s whats most important at the end of the day.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Friendly 1


----------



## Arles Celes (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> Rowling has this fantastic trick where instead of stating her own views, she promotes and provides exposure to the views of others that most closely align with her own.
> 
> Going by that huge essay she posted, however, she believes transmen are still women and that TERFs like herself still include them in their feminism because they were born female so they're not trans-exclusionary after all. She even goes so far as to insist female-to-male transitioning is only done because being a woman is hard and being a man is easier and she spreads misinformation suggesting that most female-to-male transitions are a mistake that is often regretted and reversed.


So she is less of anti trans but more of a feminist extremist in the worst sense of the word?  

She is quite clever for using proxies to promote her views. She won't face any law related persecution/paying fines for just shaking hands with people who are haters. Trans folks won't be able to accuse her of hate speech and having bad friends won't be reason enough to challenge her to court.

I wonder how she would feel though if a trans women said that she wanted to be a women because women are superior, smarter, kinder and better overall which is why she always dreamed of being the superior sex and rejecting toxic manliness that poisoned her heart and soul.  

Would Rowling congratulate said trans female...or not?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> This is where our opinion is split. I can agree that GENDER ROLES are a societal construct, but that Sex and Gender are completely separate is where I disagree. Sex and Gender are linked and Gender is dependent on Sex, if they weren’t there would be no need to hormone pills or Gender Correction Surgery, however how you express yourself within the context of your sex and gender is entirely up to the individual


You're putting words in my mouth. Never said they were separated but what we are ultimately talking about is utility,  human happiness, and the reality of the situation. I asked you the definition of a woman and you gave an incomplete biological one which is useless to determine a stranger's gender. And then you continued on where it's more social, and to be frank, that's what trans women seek to be a part of and when you think about it, they already are despite the likes of Rowling thinking it's men invading her space. Additionally,  not all trans women go with bottom surgery.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 6, 2022)




----------



## shieldbounce (Jul 6, 2022)

Been seeing a lot of discussion about MtF people and the controversy surrounding them (especially in this thread) but rarely I ever see the reverse here. I'm talking about FtM people, yea.

If JK Rowling is actually a TERF (or a trans-exclusive radical feminist), would it be so hard to imagine that being a person who was in a situation of being a single mother who struggled with poverty (relying on state benefits anyone?) while simultaneously raising a kid + working as an aspiring movelist at the time, she'd feel some sort of offense that these people who are going MtF people are being celebrated & gaining worldwide attention just because he changed genders and became a "woman".

As if she really thought that these MtF people believed that they can have it easier in life if they just swapped genders and life would suddenly be easier for them without the genuine hardships that came along with it, like...

Living in poverty & being a single mom + aspiring novelist which she succeeded at.

It could also be for appearance & instinctive reasons like women being creeped out since dudes can turn into chicks and suddenly this gives them the right to weasel into women's only spaces.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

shieldbounce said:


> Been seeing a lot of discussion about MtF people and the controversy surrounding them (especially in this thread) but rarely I ever see the reverse here. I'm talking about FtM people, yea.
> 
> If JK Rowling is actually a TERF (or a trans-exclusive radical feminist), would it be so hard to imagine that being a person who was in a situation of being a single mother who struggled with poverty (relying on state benefits anyone?) while simultaneously raising a kid + working as an aspiring movelist at the time, she'd feel some sort of offense that these people who are going MtF people are being celebrated & gaining worldwide attention just because he changed genders and became a "woman".
> 
> ...


This is also the first I've heard of the radical idea of forcing people to have sex with trans people. That ideology, or even the suggestion of that ideology is bothersome. The suggestion involves people having sex against their will. Furthermore, if they refuse, they are bad people. It's an extreme position, and if there are people on the left advocating this position, they're going too far, and they need to stop.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> This is also the first I've heard of the radical idea of forcing people to have sex with trans people. That ideology, or even the suggestion of that ideology is bothersome. The suggestion involves people having sex against their will. Furthermore, if they refuse, they are bad people. It's an extreme position, and if there are people on the left advocating this position, they're going too far, and they need to stop.


I think the reference was to the thread a while ago where a guy got off from a murder charge after being "tricked" by a cross-dressing gay man (who wasn't trans), going home, thinking about this for a month, then returning to kill the guy.


----------



## Masterblack06 (Jul 6, 2022)

Bruh. this thread was fucking 2 years old.

Reactions: Agree 3 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> I think the reference was to the thread a while ago where a guy got off from a murder charge after being "tricked" by a cross-dressing gay man (who wasn't trans), going home, thinking about this for a month, then returning to kill the guy.


Oh. That's not okay in my way of thinking either.


----------



## Jim (Jul 6, 2022)

Masterblack06 said:


> Bruh. this thread was fucking 2 years old.


would that be different from normal 2 years old?

Reactions: Funny 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> This is also the first I've heard of the radical idea of forcing people to have sex with trans people. That ideology, or even the suggestion of that ideology is bothersome. The suggestion involves people having sex against their will. Furthermore, if they refuse, they are bad people. It's an extreme position, and if there are people on the left advocating this position, they're going too far, and they need to stop.



I've heard of it, but every time I spend more than 5 minutes looking it up it is always the same neo nazi far-right talking head bullshitting to attack us.  There's no way I would force anyone into having sex with me, especially not cissy hetty manbabies on the right.

Reactions: Like 5 | Agree 2


----------



## Velocity (Jul 6, 2022)

Masterblack06 said:


> Bruh. this thread was fucking 2 years old.


If we posted a new thread every time Rowling said or did something hateful the Café would be updated with threads almost weekly.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Disagree 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> Oh. That's not okay in my way of thinking either.


Yeah, I don't recall anyone supporting it.

But it was a common strawman for the anti-trans posters to suggest that not supporting this guy was somehow also anti-trans.

It's almost as if a large, cross-section of that group barely understands the subject yet still tries to post like they have some sort of authority.

But then, here we are again


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> I've heard of it, but every time I spend more than 5 minutes looking it up it is always the same neo nazi far-right talking head bullshitting to attack us.  There's no way I would force anyone into having sex with me, especially not cissy hetty manbabies on the right.


I mean, I am gay, so I know for certain that there are men who won't stray from women who were born women and are feminine as can be and that there are gay men who are just as strict in their their attraction to other men. The same goes with straight women and lesbians.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jul 6, 2022)

Arles Celes said:


> This actually made me wonder...what does Rowling think of women who trans into guys?


The thinks that they're sad and misled:
autistic women, or
self-hating lesbians
... who need to be protected from their own desires and choices about their lives by making the ability to transition a crime.  Fun.
Poor wittle babies whose freedom should be restricted for their own good.


Bazu'aal said:


> Chromosomes relate to sex, not gender. For someone claiming to be a doctor,  you do realize there are cis women with y chromosomes dont you?


Yes, chromosomes are just one sex characteristic.  The reason why bigots latch onto them even though they don't even work as some sort of infallible determinant of sex is because we haven't discovered a way to safely alter them yet.

Also, I'm sad.  Avant was practically foaming at the mouth for want of other people's definitions of woman and he didn't even seem to read mine.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Gaawa-chan said:


> The thinks that they're sad and misled:
> autistic women, or
> self-hating lesbians
> ... who need to be protected from their own desires and choices about their lives by making the ability to transition a crime.  Fun.
> ...


I didn't see the post to be entirely honest. Thats a long read, but it looks interesting enough. So I'll give it a read and return with my response later.

I do take insult to being called a bigot by anyone here.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jul 6, 2022)

shieldbounce said:


> If JK Rowling is actually a TERF (or a trans-exclusive radical feminist), would it be so hard to imagine that being a person who was in a situation of being a single mother who struggled with poverty (relying on state benefits anyone?) while simultaneously raising a kid + working as an aspiring movelist at the time, she'd feel some sort of offense that these people who are going MtF people are being celebrated & gaining worldwide attention just because he changed genders and became a "woman".



I mean Naruto villains also have sad backstories that explain how they became villains, but at the end of the day, they are still villains who need to be stopped.

We can understand why JKR is like this and still criticize her for that.

And honestly, she is no longer a poor single mother. She is one of the richest people in the world. She has lost any right to use that as an excuse decades ago. She could literally build a castle where trans people aren't allowed and isolate herself from the world, instead she uses her massive power and influence to attack a group of people who regularly gets murdered or ostracized for who they are.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 4 | Informative 1


----------



## hammer (Jul 6, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> I've heard of it, but every time I spend more than 5 minutes looking it up it is always the same neo nazi far-right talking head bullshitting to attack us.  There's no way I would force anyone into having sex with me, especially not cissy hetty manbabies on the right.


to be fair, I see a lot of breadtubers calling people transphobic if they dont want to have a sexual relationship with a trans person.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parallax (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> I also tire of explaining fanatic liberals =/= leftist. People's generalizations with loaded terms regarding politics is annoying to deal with in the US. For example, plenty of LGBTQ advocates are fiscally conservative regarding economic and probably advocate for tweaks of reform to our current capitalist system.
> 
> Man sees someone advocating for some crazed take a majority of leftist don't even pay attention to and he goes "look at what the left has become!!!!!!" Its silly.


The right do this on purpose to exasparate people.  Or they're dumb as shit


----------



## Parallax (Jul 6, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Didn't say they do, but they are portrayed as such.
> 
> They're the loudest and most powerful, all the rep of the left comes from what the mainstream portrays of this "Vocal Minority"


So you hate a whole group...cause of tik tok?

You need to like go outside irl for a but and do something

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Gaawa-chan said:


> The layman's answer: "An X is someone who identifies themselves as an X."
> This is really *shorthand* for a subject most people really don't know that much about,



It amazing how you need a degree in order to be qualified to know what Sex and Gender is now. Almost like Trans-activists thrive on gate keeping imagined keys. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> *because that's what it boils down to in terms of how it functions between people*. It's a social construction that integrates itself into someone's internal identity, and the only impact it has on others is how they express it. I'll give you the more complex explanation as I understand it. Bear in mind that I am not an academic, so this explanation will not really be the best answer you could get.


Fair enough


Gaawa-chan said:


> Complex accurate definition: *A woman is a human who has developed a gender schema that aligns with traits associated with womanhood specific to the culture in which she occupies *


So literally what I've been saying this whole time. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> (this is also why it has become increasingly difficult to define, as rapid changes in culture take place and the world becomes more interconnected).


I don't think that people becoming interconnected have made it harder to define. I think trans activists have gone out of their way to make it hard to define in order the obfuscate and keep their ideology alive in the grays.  



Gaawa-chan said:


> Example- An intersex *person* in 1950s USA, would be a human with both male and female sex characteristics who possesses a gender schema that aligns with the traits associated with womanhood and femininity of the time and place in which *they* grew up.


Fixed.


Gaawa-chan said:


> It is not uncommon for gender schema to clash with one's body or life and create gender dysphoria. For example, a woman may develop gender dysphoria due to a hormonal condition causing her to grow excess body hair, or a man may experience the opposite.


I went through the same experience when I was younger. Because I was skinny, I felt like my body was more like a woman's body than the idea of what I had a "Man" should be, full of muscles. I had a dysphoria with my body that made me hate it, but I never considered myself to actually BE the other gender. 


Gaawa-chan said:


> Attempting to warp a person's gender schema has been proven to be both ineffective and incredibly psychologically damaging.



You say warping and I say realigning. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> Therefore, the medically ethical position on the topic of alleviating gender dysphoria is gender affirmation. Though gender affirmation mostly is brought up with respect to trans people, it is also used to help cis people experiencing gender dysphoria.


That's enabling self destructive behavior in the long run. 

Imagine you have someone terribly afraid of heights. The ethical position would be to shield them from heights so that they don't live a life constantly enveloped and exposed to their fear. But that's actually counter intuitive, because the Number one remedy to overcoming phobia's is to face them and expose yourself to them, so that you can overcome them. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> It's also worth noting that people who have never experienced dissonance between their gender self-schema and their body will often not notice that the two are not dependent on each other.



Agreed.



Gaawa-chan said:


> Human personalities and identities are intricate owing to the fact that we are the most complex social species on the planet.



Agreed


Gaawa-chan said:


> Now, you might be sitting here wondering what the fuck a gender schema is. I would suggest that you google "schema" and "self-schema" and probably also "gender schema" if you've never heard these terms before, simply because you'll get a better answer that way. Gender schemas seem to start displaying when a person is a toddler and they'll be pretty well set in within a few years, if I recall correctly.


Okay


Gaawa-chan said:


> As a final note, it's also worth pointing out that sex characteristics exist on a bimodal spectrum. People can have a wide variety of combinations of primary and secondary sex characteristics that may or may not align with those typically associated with their gender. As society has advanced, these characteristics have become increasingly malleable, and this is just my personal opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually learn how to change all of them. Arguing that all that matters is what sex characteristics your doctors noticed when you were born is a completely arbitrary line that has clearly only been chosen because people are looking for any way possible to exclude trans people,



I can't speak for the rest of society, but my pursuit on the matter has never been a motion of excluding Trans people. And you can't separate Gender Schema and Sex, but you can separate Gender Roles and Sex. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> and this is why if you ask an anti-trans person if, in the event that we eventually have the means to alter every single sex characteristic of a person, would they then consider a trans woman a woman, they would say no, because they are working backwards from their conclusion.



The only way I would except it, is if it were a biological function developed through evolution, like some animals that can do exactly that. I'm of the opinion that we've become over dependent on Technology as a species, and we're in complete misalignment with the Earth and Mother Nature, which is indicative of our current state of affairs with Climate Change. I am a naturalist, animals do not have gender roles, but they do have Gender Schema (Lioness' hunt, Lions roam etc) sexual identifiers. We need to stop looking at humans as removed from the greater tapestry. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> Trans people do generally change their purported sexual orientation when they come out as trans, yes. What is your point?



My point is that Transitioning makes a person lose more of themselves than they think they're gaining. In making your Gender the Crux of your identity, the other aspects of your identity are hollowed out in order to accommodate.



Gaawa-chan said:


> By the way, if you didn't know this, you probably don't have any business chiming in on the topic of trans issues at all.



Why do you feel like a person who doesn't know something, and is seeking more answers and understanding, has no business expressing their views or opinions? Why do you take offense to discourse?



Gaawa-chan said:


> You seem to need to do some serious googling.  This is kind of pathetic how fixated you are on trans people while simultaneously seeming to know almost nothing about them at all.



Thats your opinion, based off a misinterpretation of my understanding. Again, you're not a gate keeper, so I'll do as I please, and I encourage others to do as they please as well. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> My aunt committed suicide.



First, sorry for you loss. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> What exactly is the point you are trying to make?



Your personal anecdote aside, my point is that STATISTICALLY, more men kill themselves than women, which shows the correlation in Trans suicide rates, because its mostly MTF Trans who kill themselves.



Gaawa-chan said:


> because it just seems to me like you're flailing around making nonsense statements that go nowhere.


Then try lowering your guard and actually attempt to genuinely understand my words rather than dismiss them and berate my perspective on bad faith. 


Gaawa-chan said:


> No one is doing that.


Literally Eros was doing that.


Gaawa-chan said:


> You're projecting weird bullshit you want to see onto people you know nothing about, which you continue to demonstrate with each successive post.


I know more than you accredit to me, because you dont actually want to hear my arguments, its easier to call me a bigot, or idiot than to actually follow along. 

I've been going back and forth with about 5 or 6 of you, and I haven't gone out of my way to insult anyone other than Ono (1. because he was passive aggressively insulting me 2. He was troll in the OBD we all used to laugh at, he's still a fucking troll) I take everything all of you are saying seriously enough for me to lay out my opinions as best as I can with the limited time I have to respond. Some mutual respect would be nice. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> Yes, if you can't psychologically handle a breakup, you should probably get therapy.  No one said that about the world except for you.  Yes, only a person's internal sense of identity matters when it comes to... *checks notes* their internal identity.  What a shocker.



Right, but then projecting the Internal Sense of Identity that is within, to the outside world, is when it becomes a delusion.

de·lu·sion
/dəˈlo͞oZHən/
_noun_
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.




Gaawa-chan said:


> A factual one.


Okay? I wasn't disputing that.



Gaawa-chan said:


> I'm sorry it hurts your feelings


I want people to love each other always, so I'm glad that people can find love even under these circumstances. 



Gaawa-chan said:


> to find out that straight guys are attracted to trans women and straight women are attracted to trans men.



Technically wouldn't that make them gay though? Isn't that what was being argued before? 



Gaawa-chan said:


> There are, of course, genital preferences, but attraction exists on a highly variable spectrum. *shrug*



Right



Gaawa-chan said:


> Bro you don't even know how sexual orientation works in relation to trans people.  I really don't think you have any business sniveling about people disagreeing with you on the philosophic nature of truth.



Now who's being exclusionary? 



Gaawa-chan said:


> On this subject I will only say one thing- whine all you like about people disagreeing with you on what constitutes truth, but there is no such thing as _scientific_ truth.  Science can only comment on what has _yet to be disproven_, not what is _true_. I suggest therefore that you take care not to conflate the two, for fear of looking like an even bigger idiot than you already do at this point.


You're the one who looks like an idiot to me, tbh, you're all so desperate to make us all believe the Emperor has clothes on, when the man is clearly naked. 

You understand that in Criminal Law there are two elements of crime that need to established: 
1. Criminal Act = Objective Truth
2. Criminal Intent  = Subjective Truth

Discarding one, and placing all importance on the other, results in a half truth that can be manipulated to suit whatever agenda the present moments calls for.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jul 6, 2022)

Shame that she’s transphobic she’s got a nice voice

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.


Example: Your unwillingness to accept transgender people in defiance of all the people who do because you think you know better about how people self-identify than they do.


----------



## Yuji (Jul 6, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Example: Your unwillingness to accept transgender people in defiance of all the people who do because you think you know better about how people self-identify than they do.



Not an example because that position has no rational argument to back it up, only emotional pleas.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Yuji said:


> Not an example because that position has no rational argument to back it up, only emotional pleas.


Rational is just a word. Words mean what society agrees they mean. A magic man in the sky who created the world 3000 years ago by waving his hands an saying abra kadabra doesn't seem rational to me, but 2.38 billion people seem pretty convinced that it is rational and we allow them to continue to believe this because it doesn't hurt anyone. Why is it you are okay with the magic man in the sky but not with transgender people?

Reactions: Funny 3 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Masterblack06 (Jul 6, 2022)

Velocity said:


> If we posted a new thread every time Rowling said or did something hateful the Café would be updated with threads almost weekly.


this post

is the newest post in this thread. The post above it was made 2 years ago. you 100% could have made a new thread for this.

Yall are some clowns man


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 6, 2022)

Masterblack06 said:


> Yall are some clowns man


Well, it's not _un_true...


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> I don't get where you're going with this.



It's a matter of maintaining focus and discipline in order to achieve a greater goal. Every organization has it own specific mission and goals - Planned Parenthood is about reproductive rights, Sierra Club is about environmentalism, etc. Sometimes different organizations might ally with one another if they share some goals, but they are never going to agree on everything. Otherwise, they wouldn't be allies but rather be part of same big singular organization that shares that same mission and goals. Intersectionality sounds good in paper, but the way it gets implemented in the messy reality of real life leads to nothing more than rampant internal strife and gridlock since every identity group tries to jockey for more attention and status. It becomes a distraction for these organizations. These groups now spend so much time trying to appease trans activists with whatever politically hip new terminology they found on Twitter that they took their eye off the ball on the Supreme Court. Woke Feminists cared so much about appeasing the 1% of trans people that they have effectively lost the reproductive rights of 50% of the population.

And then we have the useful idiots / political hipsters. You know, like the people who didn't vote for Hillary because they were too good for her and she didn't jump through enough hoops to their liking. This is the worst possible identity politics – people who display their politics like their new arm tattoo, showing it for all the world to see and then saying that anyone not on board with their particular issue is a gigantic sellout who cannot be voted for. This is pure narcissism and total consumerism, which is of course ironic coming from the left. On top of it is a puritanical moralism that suggests that your vote is a strictly moral choice that implicates you in whatever that president does and, more importantly, that withholding your vote from a compromised candidate means that you are not implicated and that you above those sellouts who got their hands dirty. The former part of that construction may be true, but the last is certainly false. All Americans are responsible for their government. Voting is a time when you have no legitimate choice but to pick which of the two major candidates are going to be the best and then organize before the next election to get better candidates. Voting is not how change happens. Voting consolidates the change since the last election cycle. But I know it's falling on deaf ears with people like you.



Eros said:


> Basically, he's trying to suggest that feminists of today have themselves to blame for Roe v. Wade being overturned.



They definitely share a portion of the blame, though obviously it's the GOP who are the main issue.  When Scalia died during the 2016 election, feminists should have gone all hands on deck to elect a Democratic President since they had a once in a lifetime opportunity chance to get a pro-choice Supreme Court. You can certainly place some blame on Obama for not pushing for another Supreme Court appointment or Ginsburg for not retiring earlier, but both of those would be moot points if Hillary won and got to seat two Supreme Court Justices.



Charlotte D. Kurisu said:


> So the old:






afg said:


> Gotta love the people here blaming "wokism" for rollbacks on women's rights, when they themselves have been having rabid sexual orgies with the right over their mutual hatred of trans people and progressives the past couple years. The same people they bonded with in their brigade against the "woke mob" have been rolling back civil rights under their feet, and rather than re evaluating their priorities they have the tonedeaf asininity to point the finger at others for creating distractions. These useful idiots willingly gave up their energy for majin buu, then when he's summoned, cry about how the radical left summoned majin buu by forcing them to write tl;drs about how a gay character in a cartoon is the downfall of western civilization because that's somehow the pressing issue of our time.  Project more you clowns.



Listen, mate. If there is one universal constant I've seen with woke activists is that they care more about moral posturing than they do about doing the jobs that they were hired for and it inevitably leads disaster for whatever organization is stupid enough to give them a chance.

You see it in the private sector with media companies like Marvel Comic Books that stopped writing decent stories and picked constant fights with their fans to the point that the US comic book industry has virtually collapsed. You see it in places like Lucasfilms where they destroyed the Star Wars brand because they couldn't shoving their messages down audiences throats and insulted fans when they dared complained.

You see it in the non-profit sector where woke cancel culture has lead to infighting that has caused the collapse of progressive institutions from Planned Parenthood to Sierra Club. These organizations should be hard at work shaping policy in Congress but instead they are constantly dealing with internal strife and social media meltdowns. It's the woke mob that are the useful idiots here by alienating people who are supposed to be their allies with relentless purity tests and cancelling speech that isn't woke enough for their everchanging standards. Even J Edgar Hoover couldn't have come up with something better to undermine progressive organizations with COINTELPRO.


You see it in the political sector, where woke policies are leading to election losses because normal people can't stand woke scold behavior. Even deep blue areas are getting sick of the woke obsession with censoring others over doing their actual jobs. That's why San Francisco recalled those school board members because they were obsessed with renaming schools and covering up "objectionable" murals during the COVID pandemic rather than trying to get kids back in schools.


And when parents complained that the school board should focus on more important issues, they got called racist as typical of the standard woke playbook. In the end, it lead to a recall of the progressives.



And it's quite possible that this is only going to be a prelude to the thinking process of midterm voters.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Parallax (Jul 6, 2022)

I lost it when he started ranting against marvel comics

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 6, 2022)

Parallax said:


> I lost it when he started ranging against marvel comics


It’s true though. Literally Demon Slayer alone outsold DC and Marvel combined. Just here in the states, alone.


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 6, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> Are you talking about CTK calling the judge an uncle tom? I understand your irritation towards the usage of the word. People are going to always utilize disparaging terms towards politicans/people in power when they make decisions they don't agree with.
> 
> He's still a despicable person though.


Not irritated, just making a point. Idc about racial slurs per se, just demonstrating that neither side can virtue signal. I think the Clarence Thomas debacle has illustrated this rather well


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Not irritated, just making a point. Idc about racial slurs per se, just demonstrating that neither side can virtue signal. I think the Clarence Thomas debacle has illustrated this rather well


You’re fucking virtue signaling right now. You’re in here whining about something that’s happened pages ago that if some white Republican said about some black person you wouldn’t bat an eye. 

Also, if no one here has seen a picture of you they could prove was you no one is going to believe you’re black. That sounds like some bullshit you’re just saying to give your argument weight. I think like four “black” conservatives have turned out not to be. We catch y’all lying about where you’re from and who you are all the time to gain some protection for your bullshit arguments. 

If I’ll call my bootlicking family members Uncle Toms I’ll sure as hell do it to fucking Clarence over here. Or should adopt a new name for him? How about Dishonorable Rapist One, now that we have to differentiate between him and the other rapist up there? No one here has to respect Thomas, so you can quit the bellyaching right now because you’re not making anyone feel guilty. If he was on fire right in front of me begging for me to piss on him to put the fire out, I’d piss myself laughing instead. 

Fuck Clarence Thomas.

Reactions: Like 4 | Winner 2


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 6, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You’re fucking virtue signaling right now. You’re in here whining about something that’s happened pages ago that if some white Republican said about some black person you wouldn’t bat an eye.
> 
> Also, if no one here has seen a picture of you they could prove was you no one is going to believe you’re black. That sounds like some bullshit you’re just saying to give your argument weight. I think like four “black” conservatives have turned out not to be. We catch y’all lying about where you’re from and who you are all the time to gain some protection for your bullshit arguments.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 6, 2022)

Cool. 

Real normal to be on an anime forum with a judge in your avatar.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 6, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Cool.
> 
> Real normal to be on an anime forum with a judge in your avatar.


Maybe we can find a cat girl judge.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 6, 2022)

Eros said:


> Maybe we can find a cat girl judge.


I am not even sure if that is a thing I have ever seen. Karyl is a wizard or sorcerer? I need to watch season two of Princess Connect, but I don’t feel like doing all that reading.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 6, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> As a black man of African descent, it's deeply hurtful to hear a borderline, if not outright, slur directed at a black Justice of the SCOTUS. Daily micro-aggressions are hard enough to deal with, but this really took the cake. Well done, bravo.
> 
> I suppose blacks only matter if they're on the left. I'm hurt; I'm speechless. You know what, I'll say it, I'm damn near triggered.
> 
> ...





GiantForehead said:


> Not irritated, just making a point. Idc about racial slurs per se, just demonstrating that neither side can virtue signal. I think the Clarence Thomas debacle has illustrated this rather well



"Not irritated", yet you made an entire post addressing your irritation earlier. Why attempt a "Not even made bruh" now?

All it does is denounce your credibility.

I don't see the benefit you get out of fabricating an emotional appeal within the thread to make a point towards your irritation of seeing the usage of "Uncle Tom" from another black user. It's very weasley to say the least if true. I don't think most of the users posting within this thread would utilize disparaging terms against him, but it seems to be your goal to spin it as if "One particular side" has this issue. You can see plenty of people across all political spectrums making all kinds of fucked of comments towards individuals they don't agree with plenty of times. I fail to see the point you're trying to prove here; I don't believe most people are oblivious towards that. And I don't think most people would agree with those takes and can call a spade a spade 9/10.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 7, 2022)

Velocity said:


> A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. It's really that simple.



That's self evidently ridiculous. If everyone just gets to define who they are, it opens the door to a lot of cynical and deluded self-definition. Rachel Dolezai self-identifies as black woman despite the fact that she's white but the left doesn't accept that. Elizabeth Warren self identified as Native American and the Native American tribes chewed her out because only they were supposed to be able to define Native American tribal membership. Donald Trump self identifies as a stable genius businessman and the legitimate winner of the 2020 US Presidential Elections, somehow I doubt we should agree to that.



Eros said:


> Cool. Perhaps you should watch The Birth of a Nation. Its from 1915. Enjoy every single moment of the film in its glory.



You do realize that film schools and courses have students watch Birth of a Nation since it's one of the most influential films in history, right? Also, when I was attending public school we watched Triumph of the Will - which is literal Nazi propaganda - in order to better understand the Nazis during WWII as well as it's cultural impact on media. 

This is one of the biggest issues people have with woke ideology these days. It used to be that people understood that you were supposed to try and separate the art from the artist and that even bad people can produce good art. Woke ideology has thrown that all out the window as part of its moralistic posturing, and tellingly it's lead to bad art and entertainment.



Eros said:


> This is also the first I've heard of the radical idea of forcing people to have sex with trans people. That ideology, or even the suggestion of that ideology is bothersome. The suggestion involves people having sex against their will. Furthermore, if they refuse, they are bad people. It's an extreme position, and if there are people on the left advocating this position, they're going too far, and they need to stop.



There's been a good amount of pressure by the trans-community to socially pressure people to have sex with them.









						The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women
					

Some lesbians say they have been called transphobic for not wanting sex and relationships with trans women.



					www.bbc.com
				




Of course, if you can say that lesbians should be obliged to be sexually attracted to penises - since real women can have penises supposedly - or that they can be socially trained to do so, this opens a whole can of worms. Like, say inadvertently legitimizing gay conversion therapy.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 7, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> It's a matter of maintaining focus and discipline in order to achieve a greater goal. Every organization has it own specific mission and goals - Planned Parenthood is about reproductive rights, Sierra Club is about environmentalism, etc. Sometimes different organizations might ally with one another if they share some goals, but they are never going to agree on everything. Otherwise, they wouldn't be allies but rather be part of same big singular organization that shares that same mission and goals. Intersectionality sounds good in paper, but the way it gets implemented in the messy reality of real life leads to nothing more than rampant internal strife and gridlock since every identity group tries to jockey for more attention and status. It becomes a distraction for these organizations. These groups now spend so much time trying to appease trans activists with whatever politically hip new terminology they found on Twitter that they took their eye off the ball on the Supreme Court. Woke Feminists cared so much about appeasing the 1% of trans people that they have effectively lost the reproductive rights of 50% of the population.



What the supreme court has done isn't the fault of feminist. Even the most crazed, fringe, lunatics who claim to be feminist aren't at fault for women being stripped of their reproductive rights. It's such a large stretch to even attempt to make that argument. The supreme court's decision hinges on our government's failure to reflect the will of an interpretation of the constitution, and the different avenues entailing the lives of American citizens.  Yet our country has regressed while also appointing supreme court judges that have no incentive to verbalize their actual positioning regarding matters such as reproductive rights during their hearings.



hcheng02 said:


> You know, like the people who didn't vote for Hillary because they were too good for her and she didn't jump through enough hoops to their liking. This is the worst possible identity politics – people who display their politics like their new arm tattoo, showing it for all the world to see and then saying that anyone not on board with their particular issue is a gigantic sellout who cannot be voted for.



You're making the argument that feminist not rallying together, and foreseeing women's reproductive rights being taken away is directly comparable to the thousands of different reasons of people deciding to check out of the election process within the US?





hcheng02 said:


> This is pure narcissism and total consumerism



It's not. You should learn what narcissism is before throwing it around as if you're a certified psychologist.



hcheng02 said:


> , which is of course ironic coming from the left. On top of it is a puritanical moralism that suggests that your vote is a strictly moral choice that implicates you in whatever that president does and, more importantly, that withholding your vote from a compromised candidate means that you are not implicated and that you above those sellouts who got their hands dirty. The former part of that construction may be true, but the last is certainly false. All Americans are responsible for their government. Voting is a time when you have no legitimate choice but to pick which of the two major candidates are going to be the best and then organize before the next election to get better candidates. Voting is not how change happens. Voting consolidates the change since the last election cycle. But I know it's falling on deaf ears with people like you.



I agree that everyone should be involved with the processes of their government, but I don't place too much scorn towards someone that decides to check out especially among recent years as it has seriously left me jaded as well, so there is a connection I can sympathize with.

Nonetheless, your overreaching arguments aren't landing here.

Reactions: Neutral 1


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 7, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> "Not irritated", yet you made an entire post addressing your irritation earlier. Why attempt a "Not even made bruh" now?


Satire, buddy

Exaggerated it as much as I could. Even put in an MLK quote for good measure


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 7, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> There's been a good amount of pressure by the trans-community to socially pressure people to have sex with them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah yes, the lesbians that are part of a TERF group, that had no evidence to back up their claim AND until it was edited out this article had one of their main contributors someone calling for the mass murder of transgender women, such a great article.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 2


----------



## CoopoNitro7 (Jul 7, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> If everyone just gets to define who they are, it opens the door to a lot of cynical and deluded self-definition


So what is a woman then? Someone with XX chromosomes? Is that how society constructs womanhood? By scanning its population for people with XX chromosomes?

for example misogyny as societal factor, is misogyny only applicable to XX chromosomes? Like society is constructed  to scan for xx chromosomes and that’s when misogyny can apply to a person?

you seem to forget that there’s a difference between sex and gender and society’s construction is around BOTH biological labor and gender division

One thing these arguments seem to not never acknowledge are TransMEN and Non-binary people. if someone actively doesn’t want to be called a woman despite the XX chromosomes and actively exists in society as NOT a woman (from dress to manner to hormones to identity) and then one day that person decides to have a child and gets pregnant and has the child and raises the child as either the child’s father or their genderless parent. If this happens, over the span of like 40 years of this person’s life, will you at the end of the day say “YOU’RE A WOMAN” despite the 40 years of their life?

In this situation what exactly made them a woman? 40 years having gone by having had a child who grew up and to adulthood calling this person their father or NOT their mother. What is the womanhood society has described that automatically makes this person still a woman and the state MUST not even allow their like Death Certificate at the end of their life to NOT say woman?

now take this same person and let them have surgery to remove their breasts and womb and let have the same life as above  having had a child with another person who does have a womb. Are they now more qualified to NOT be a woman? Now that they did not and CAN NOT bear a child?

Do you see what this is going? Are you gonna say that the defining attribute of womanhood is simply having a children? Are you reducing the nature of what a woman is to “has a child”?

The reason your examples about people identifying as different races doesn’t work is because of the difference between sex and gender. Race is more akin to sex and racialization is what can be considered akin to gender. Trans people aren’t changing their sex, they are changing their gender. So that’s simply a false equivalence

Reactions: Like 4 | Dislike 1


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 7, 2022)

Also









						BBC says article on trans women did not meet accuracy standards
					

Article claiming some lesbians feel pressured into sex by trans women found to have fallen beneath standards




					www.theguardian.com
				






> A BBC article claiming some lesbians feel pressured into sex by trans women did not meet the broadcaster’s standards on accuracy, the corporation has concluded.
> 
> The article – titled “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women” – was published in October 2021 and became a lightning rod for attitudes towards trans people at the BBC. The broadcaster faced widespread accusations of transphobia and , while also receiving backing from some gender-critical feminists.
> 
> ...



In other words the article in question failed to be up to standard of what a news article should be.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 7, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Satire, buddy



For what purpose?


----------



## Velocity (Jul 7, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> That's self evidently ridiculous. If everyone just gets to define who they are, it opens the door to a lot of cynical and deluded self-definition. Rachel Dolezai self-identifies as black woman despite the fact that she's white but the left doesn't accept that. Elizabeth Warren self identified as Native American and the Native American tribes chewed her out because only they were supposed to be able to define Native American tribal membership. Donald Trump self identifies as a stable genius businessman and the legitimate winner of the 2020 US Presidential Elections, somehow I doubt we should agree to that.


Wow, the old “if we allow transgenderism then why don’t we allow transracialism too?” ploy. Now that’s how you immediately lose all credibility in an argument.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 7, 2022)

Parallax said:


> So you hate a whole group...cause of tik tok?
> 
> You need to like go outside irl for a but and do something



Huh?

I'm sorry what is this jump in Logic?

Where did this I hate the group come from?

Where was this even suggested in the first place.

Sorta reading comprehension is this.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

Oh look in a trans-related thread we hit the "if trans people can exist why rachel dolezal huehuehue" lolcow rightoid argument. The way some of you use it is just another form of the same tired joke: the helicopter joke. It is a really shallow counter argument to transgender identity. Transracialism was reappropriated by transphobes to be a "criticism" of trans "ideology." Essentially the argument being, if a transperson can identify as "whatever they want", then it should be fine for a white person like Rachel Dolezal to impersonate a black woman for a good chunk of her life.

Transracialism used to be a term used to explain the identities of people of one race adopted by a family of another race. It is technically acceptable, based on that premise, but because it's been used so often as a bludgeon against trans people, it's now almost exclusively defined by Rachel Dolezals.

More or less when we talk about "Transracialism" there are two frameworks that the concept hones in on:

1. “A white person raised by Black parents in a Black community and within Black culture" has been, for all intents and purposes...been raised Black. (Valid)
2. something like the Rachel Dolezal case of "I am actually this now" (not really valid)

Unlike gender and sex, race doesn't really have a biological component. One can attempt to say ethnicity is the parallel (like sex is for gender) but...not really... unless you wanna make the argument that there is no true American but the Anglo-Saxon American (or more accurately, Native American if talking prior to establishing of the United States). Or try to head-canon IQ difference shit that white nationalists love to use to support eugenics and ethno states. More or less there is not a biological signature of race but rather an inter-generational one. Race, like gender is a social construct, but the comparison is not one to one, especially considering the concept of race was primarily created by white people to oppress minorities and even historically, other white people too.

The right/transphobes hijacked the term to be like "lol anyone can change their race" when the term refers to a specific phenomena, and one pretty much more unique to the United States since it is a huge melting pot compared to any other country on the planet. It does exist outside of the right-wing meme, but not in the way they think it does.

Anyway moving mostly away from the red herring known as transracislism... people who argue for Rowling typically insist that there is a single, fixed trait: biological sex. And there argument is basically to lie about biology and that trans are trying to change the definition of sex. It is this biology, this aspect of their arguments, that always has and will determine gender. But the ones that insist on such essentialism have a playground understanding of biology or a predetermined head-cannon to shoe horn biology incorrectly.

Not only have rules for gender classification substantially changed over time, binary categories of biological sex (i.e., _female _and _male_) resist definition in terms of a single and much less fixed trait. We weren't always aware of chromosomes and hormones. And again, and I'm not surprised this got ignored earlier as it debunks the biological argument: As scientists continue to learn more about the complexities of sex, _down to the fact that a single person can have different chromosomal sexes across cells, there are no features that always and without exception are true of only one gender._

An array of human characteristics that inform our ideas of what makes someone a woman or a man have been studied for over a century. For these essentialists, seeking to pin down a single, definitive biological indicator wins the argument in their mind.

And they think they have the answer but....not really. If gonads (an organ that produces gametes; a testis or ovary) were understood as the essence of sex, women who were phenotypically female but who had testes were men. This didn’t make sense in the traditional sense of social categorization based on sex, so scientists proposed yet other traits.

Even as they debated which biological trait signaled its essence, scientists understood sex as biological and involving *multiple, if contested, factors. *Biological trait like having XX chromosomes, having female reproductive organs, producing female gametes have proven to be insufficient as there are people who lack those biological traits, and yet many of us would say that those people are women when not all or any of those traits are present. And to clarify, that's not in reference to trans women either. The fact that such women exist in nature flies in the face of "Buh chromosomes and pregnancy = women is biological fact" arguments.

More so in the last 150 years, concepts of biological sex have fluctuated in response to the discovery of hormones and chromosomes, as well as growing medical knowledge of intersex variations and changing social opinions that split sexuality from sex and moved toward accepting the possibility of altering one’s sex. As such, there is growing support for the idea that gender classification is not simply a matter of biology, but rather is the result of complex and ever-shifting interactions between culture and biology.

So when you ask "what is a woman?" and attempt to point to biology - please understand that is completely insufficient in both the everyday societal aspect and the biological one. So understand that when you spew the words "objective reality points that x is a female" that even the biological science doesn't have your back on that. Additionally, lets say we humor you and say that chromosomes were the determinant - do you have a machine that says "this person in front of you is XX" as you walk down the street? No, you don't have one and never will. So when people say "trans women are women" understand that saying that phrase has far more utility and is far superior morally then your own false head cannon. But I know this wont convince you - The fact that various cultures and communities differ in gender classifications will not deter your unwavering and stubborn mindset, as you will continue to insist that gender and race have hidden indicators - even if they have not been determined yet. Fact of the matter is that such ontological based questions do not have answers that are nice and clean, nor have fixed and natural. So instead of asking "What is a woman?" or "is X really a woman?", it is better to focus on this: s_hould we change the rules for gender classification? _

For me, it is a fairly easy answer in moral terms and in utility: I think that the reasons in favor of trans-inclusive gender classification outweigh the reasons against it. While it is important and good to value a person’s autonomy and respect their identifications, I also think this good must be weighed against the population-level effects of revising our classifications. As such while JK has a tempter tantrum about this, note that her way of thinking regarding trans is infinitely more destructive to both their health and well-being, while also producing a very narrow like view as to what determines one to be a woman. It also massively ignores the forms of misogyny trans-women go through as well.

In cases where revising a classification would have a negative sociopolitical impact that outweighs the good of respecting how an individual identifies, I think that the classification should not be revised and that JK Rowling and her supporters have tried to make this case and for me, failed in their arguments. Hence I have no qualms calling her a TERF or transphobe. Also to call back on the transracialism thing: gender inequality, unlike racial inequality, does not primarily accumulate intergenerationally.

While patriarchy is a thing, and many many many many parents often are responsible for ingraining patriarchal ideas and rigid gender norms in their children, this is not an inheritance of socioeconomic inequality. Rather, this is a socialization that perpetuates gender inequality. Before you get your panties in a twist you bottoms and betas, this is not to say that gender inequality is ahistorical - gender inequality is rooted in historical and still ever evolving manifestations of sexism and misogyny. These can range from politics and government policies which economically exploit women and undermine their reproductive/body autonomy, to more social norms and practices like rape culture. Whether aware of it or not, girls inherit the same sexism and misogyny that their mothers faced regardless of whether they are transgender or cisgender. Women inherit the historical accumulation of societal sexism.

This marks a central difference between transgender-inclusive classification in the category “woman” and transracial-inclusive classification in the category “Black.” Unless you can prove otherwise, transracial individuals like Dolezal avoid much of the weight of anti-Black oppression and white supremacy, while trans women and cis women alike are burdened by patriarchy - both historical and ongoing. I think this is part of the reason why @CoopoNitro7is saying that the comparison is a false equivalence. In a post racial world or in a more equal society, I can see the arguments for it. But as things stand right now, no the arguments don't muster to much.

And before you bottoms get in a twist about how I said misogyny is also faced by trans women - note that misogyny itself takes many forms. There are forms of misogyny that trans women are less likely to face than cis women - for example any jokes or stigmas related to menstruation; however, there are forms of misogyny that cis women are less likely to face than trans women (transmisogyny). Individual experiences of misogyny are influenced not only by sex assigned at birth, but also by socioeconomic class, race, age, body type, geographic location, etc.

Misogyny is ultimately rooted in the social assumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior. Given this, for me the fact that gender classification is used to track the recipients of sexism and misogyny does not provide a population-level reason to exclude trans women from classification as women. In fact, there are both population-level and individual-level reasons to form transgender-inclusive gender classifications: such classification give us conceptual tools for better identifying those targeted by sexism and misogyny while also respecting trans persons’ self-identifications.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 7, 2022)

hammer said:


> to be fair, I see a lot of breadtubers calling people transphobic if they dont want to have a sexual relationship with a trans person.



I mean I get the logic of events.

T: Will you go out with me?
M or F: No, sorry.
T: WHhhyy?
M or F: I'm just not interested, am straight, etc.
T: It's because you don't see me as a real woman/man, you transphobe!

Rejection hurts. Plus combine with whatever insecurity the person has and they will lash out.
The basic nice guy/incel reaction, when they don't get what they want isn't limited just to cis men.

Now calling the actions of this subset of a larger group, that demand to sleep with them or else, representative of all trans is disingenuous.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 7, 2022)

hcheng02 said:


> That's self evidently ridiculous. If everyone just gets to define who they are, it opens the door to a lot of cynical and deluded self-definition. Rachel Dolezai self-identifies as black woman despite the fact that she's white but the left doesn't accept that. Elizabeth Warren self identified as Native American and the Native American tribes chewed her out because only they were supposed to be able to define Native American tribal membership. Donald Trump self identifies as a stable genius businessman and the legitimate winner of the 2020 US Presidential Elections, somehow I doubt we should agree to that.


I really want someone who uses this excuse to explain how someone "feels black". There is science and evidence backing up people feeling like a different gender and years and years of it happening across the world. 

Any other way you define a woman we can find a few cases to break your model. 

One of the things I really don't get about this whole thing is how we're having these arguments and people never even have good hypotheticals to question these things. It's always "what if a trans woman marries a person who was born female, does that make them straight?" 

"Or why can't a person be trans racial?" 

It's never: "What if a woman married a man and then fifteen years in he decides to transition and she stays with themIs the wife now a lesbian or what does that mean for them?"


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2022)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> I mean I get the logic of events.
> 
> T: Will you go out with me?
> M or F: No, sorry.
> ...


I think I have seen all of one trans person complain that the men she dated liked her but didn't want to do sexual relationships because she didn't have bottom surgery. I think there really isn't an issue of trans women trying to force sexual relations with others.  It's not as a big of a deal the right makes it.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Parallax (Jul 7, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> Huh?
> 
> I'm sorry what is this jump in Logic?
> 
> ...


Look who the fuck you fooling. Come on lets be real


----------



## stream (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Oh look in a trans-related thread we hit the ""if trans people can exist why rachel dolezal huehuehue" lol cow rightoid argument. The way some of you use it is just another form of the one trick pony of a joke: the helicopter joke.  It is a really shallow counter argument to transgender identity. Transracialism was reappropriated by transphobes to be a "criticism" of trans "ideology". Essentially the argument being, if a transperson can identify as "whatever they want", then it should be fine for a white person like Rachel Dolezal to impersonate a black woman for a good chunk of her life.
> 
> Transracialism used to be a term used to explain the identities of people of one race adopted by a family of another race. It is technically acceptable, based on that premise, but because it's been used so often as a bludgeon against transpeople, it's now almost exclusively defined by Rachel Dolezals.
> 
> ...


i ain't reading all that
happy for u tho
or sorry that happened

...Sorry, couldn't resist. The problem is that male & female are not fully defined, and even the existing definitions are subtly different depending on the context. This makes the world is complicated, and people hate that, so they try to force everybody to use the definition that they want — and that cannot work.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## stream (Jul 7, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's never: "What if a woman married a man and then fifteen years in he decides to transition and she stays with them Is the wife now a lesbian or what does that mean for them?"


This is the kind of moment where I really think we should stop trying to classify everything into nice clean little boxes. The world is _complicated_, and it will not fit into a simple model. Pretty much every statement related to human beings should come with the mention "for 99.9% of cases, and we shouldn't bother arguing over the rest."

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 7, 2022)

I will never understand why people can sit here and say "feminism ruined everything for democrats" or "trans people made the democratic platform too hard for voters to swallow" is totally accepted and pushed by all of these people including the media. 

But the same isn't said for the rights rampant sexism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, religious zealotry, terrible fiscal policy, distrust of science like climate change, and tendency to fall for conspiracies are never mentioned when it comes to things that should drive voters away from them. 

Like if women wanting equal pay or not wanting to be cat calls drives you to a party that supports all that other stuff you're a piece of shit. Full stop. You can't be a good person if you overlook tons of terrible shit because 'what if I want to say the n word and I'm white!"

Reactions: Like 4 | Winner 1


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 7, 2022)

Parallax said:


> Look who the fuck you fooling. Come on lets be real



I have no time to fool anyone, not my style.

I just wanna know where the ridiculous jump in Logic that I hate the Alphabet people came from.

Like truly, what sorta accusation is that.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 7, 2022)

Asura barracuda said:


> I have no time to fool anyone, not my style.
> 
> I just wanna know where the ridiculous jump in Logic that I hate the Alphabet people came from.
> 
> Like truly, what sorta accusation is that.


Why do you capitalize logic?


----------



## Asura barracuda (Jul 7, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why do you capitalize logic?



Oh i did?

For some reason it seems to appear in capital form from my word suggestions.

Sorta weird.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

stream said:


> i ain't reading all that
> happy for u tho
> or sorry that happened
> 
> ...Sorry, couldn't resist. The problem is that male & female are not fully defined, and even the existing definitions are subtly different depending on the context. This makes the world is complicated, and people hate that, so they try to force everybody to use the definition that they want — and that cannot work.



Lel that's ok I get overboard to make sure I'm clear as possible. 

The TLDR is that accepting transgender identity provides positive utility on both the individual and societal levels. Transracialism does not succeed in the latter half of that equation and the construct of race is more intergenerational dependent than gender. Additionally people who screech that trans women are not women and try to use biology as the crux of their argument dont actually know biology or express that knowledge in an ignorant manner while not understanding how language forms and evolves.


----------



## afg (Jul 7, 2022)

Get this. So there’s a new type of guy. This type of guy responds to bad stuff conservatives do by blaming the left and claiming the left has gone extreme. As abortion rights are pulled back by conservative Supreme Court justices, this guy complains about woke comic books and Anita Sarkesian (subjects the vast majority of regular citizens don’t know or give a shit about). As conservatives blur the lines between church and state, this guy rails against transgender people and BLM. Then when election season rolls around, in protest of the left, this type of guy boycotts woke politicians and votes conservatives down-ticket. Fast forward to the year 2078. Conservatives have turned the country into Handmaid’s Tale. This type of guy is writing a manifesto in his room about how AOC ruined everything.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Winner 5


----------



## Mider T (Jul 7, 2022)

Masterblack06 said:


> this post
> 
> is the newest post in this thread. The post above it was made 2 years ago. you 100% could have made a new thread for this.
> 
> Yall are some clowns man


Nah you're wrong.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 7, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why do you capitalize logic?


Hivemind, you beat me to it though.  I was gonna ask if he really liked the rapper or something.


----------



## Jim (Jul 7, 2022)

afg said:


> Conservatives have turned the country into Handmaid’s Tale.


lol I do wonder though. It said handmaid's tale is to combat low birth rate and environmental disasters. I don't think conservatives would move to combat environmental pollution though.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 7, 2022)

Is a hotdog a sandwich?

Recently we asked this question as an ice breaker at work, and had a spirited (though good natured) debate about it.

While specifics varied, there were two basic camps that people fell into.

Group one said essentially that they knew a sandwich when they saw one (and primarily said hot dogs were not), however they struggled to define specifically why they made their judgement.

Group two provided some sort of specific definition (most using Google's "two pieces of bread with ... filling between"), and then addressing an increasing number of exceptions (a hoagie typically has a split bun not two pieces of bread, what about "open faced" sandwiches, etc).  This group largely felt that a hot dog was a sandwich even if then needed multiple amendments to their definition to reach that conclusion.

Interestingly none really gave much thought as to who has the appropriate authority to make a determination here.  Does Google get to?  Or Merriam Webster?  One guy got a definition from some federal meat department that laughably excludes pb&j as a sandwich. 

Ultimately the question is just one for a laugh and whatever definition you choose to use has little impact on anyone.  But it illustrate the difficulty in attempting to contain an idea within a single word.

(Now attemp this experiment with something more complex than a sandwich)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> (Now attemp this experiment with something more complex than a sandwich)


Like what's a chair.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

stream said:


> The problem is that male & female are not fully defined


pretty sure in biology its just about producing ova or sperm. and isnt a thing only applicable to humans


----------



## Jim (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Like what's a chair.


anything you sit on
j/k


----------



## stream (Jul 7, 2022)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Is a hotdog a sandwich?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 2 | Winner 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> pretty sure in biology its just about producing ova or sperm. and isnt a thing only applicable to humans


This just in, women are no longer women after menopause or if they have to have their ovaries removed. 



afg said:


> Get this. So there’s a new type of guy. This type of guy responds to bad stuff conservatives do by blaming the left and claiming the left has gone extreme. As abortion rights are pulled back by conservative Supreme Court justices, this guy complains about woke comic books and Anita Sarkesian (subjects the vast majority of regular citizens don’t know or give a shit about). As conservatives blur the lines between church and state, this guy rails against transgender people and BLM. Then when election season rolls around, in protest of the left, this type of guy boycotts woke politicians and votes conservatives down-ticket. Fast forward to the year 2078. Conservatives have turned the country into Handmaid’s Tale. This type of guy is writing a manifesto in his room about how AOC ruined everything.


Damn, I am going to copy this and use this somewhere else. It's pretty much exactly what is happening and we can see it in real time.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This just in, women are no longer women after menopause or if they have to have their ovaries removed.


Biology.

of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty.
of, relating to, or being an animal, plant, or plant structure of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction.



get over it, its just reality.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

Gender is not a biological classification. It is a social classification.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Biology.
> 
> of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty.
> of, relating to, or being an animal, plant, or plant structure of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction.
> ...


What do you call it when a girl is unambiguously have female gonads (i.e. a vagina) but still have a Y chromosome? Because those people exist in nature and they aren't labeled intersex.

Just to let you know, these people still get assigned female at birth by doctors.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> What do you call it when a girl is unambiguously have female gonads (i.e. a vagina) but still have a Y chromosome? Because those people exist in nature and they aren't labeled intersex.
> 
> Just to let you know, these people still get assigned female at birth.


do they produce egg cells that can lead to reproduction?



Onomatopoeia said:


> Gender is not a biological classification. It is a social classification.


female has a definition in biology relating to sex.


----------



## Jim (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> female has a definition in biology relating to sex.


Words can change meaning depending on context and field of study and whatnot. For example, one word that had a very big difference would be ritual (psychology) vs ritual (religious).


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> do they produce egg cells that can lead to reproduction?


So the only way one is a woman is if they have eggs ready for reproduction? What do you if and when trans surgery ever gets that advanced? Also not all women can produce eggs - *Some women are born with ovaries that can not produce eggs*. I have an aunt like that.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Jim said:


> Words can change meaning depending on context and field of study and whatnot. For example, one word that had a very big difference would be ritual (psychology) vs ritual (religious).


good thing i was exclusively talking about biology.



Bazu'aal said:


> So the only way one is a woman is if they have eggs ready for reproduction? What do you if and when trans surgery ever gets that advanced? Also not all women can produce eggs - *Some women are born with ovaries that can not produce eggs*. I have an aunt like that.


hmu when trans surgery gets that advanced. i doubt i live to see that day.

and well, nature fucks up sometimes. doesnt mean we cant _generally_ observe criteria for bioligical sex. If you would communicate with an alien, would you tell them the hand of a human being has 5 fingers? Or any other primate for that matter. Cause i definitely would.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> female has a definition in biology relating to sex.



Your mom has a definition in sex relating to my biology. Sex and gender are not the same thing.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Your mom has a definition in sex relating to my biology. Sex and gender are not the same thing.


What a comeback. I am totally humbled by your superior intellect.

Sarcasm aside, i was talking about sex in biology, if you didnt notice.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

I am glad you acknowledge my greatness. So few people are willing to do so.

Sex in biology is irrelevant to the discussion of transgender people. It is a deflection meant to avoid dealing with the subject at hand.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> I am glad you acknowledge my greatness. So few people are willing to do so.
> 
> Sex in biology is irrelevant to the discussion of transgender people. It is a deflection meant to avoid dealing with the subject at hand.


i disagree. couldnt care less about peoples feelings and what they identify as. some crazies go around saying biological sex isnt a thing, or that them being transgender actually makes them a part of the other sex. neither of these things would be true.

but to be somewhat fair, i observe alot of conservatives not minding the sex =/= gender differentiation when talking about this.

in this place i only know of @ShinAkuma who does, i think.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> hmu when trans surgery gets that advanced. i doubt i live to see that day.



I mean what if it does. Are you going to call that person a woman then? Even then, we already established that is not a trait for what a woman is.



> and well, nature fucks up sometimes.



Then nature fucks up quite a lot as that is more often then you may think.



> doesnt mean we cant _generally_ observe criteria for bioligical sex.



I've been over this before but this makes your argument for a strict biological definition weaker if we are talking generalities, as sometimes these traits appear in men. Scientists still haven't pinpointed a singular biological trait strictly for sex. The definition of womanhood is then one that uses both cultural and biological standards. This isn't us saying biology is fake - but biology doesnt even have a concrete conclusion for this either - and they've been trying for the past 150 years.



> If you would communicate with an alien, would you tell them the hand of a human being has 5 fingers? Or any other primate for that matter. Cause i definitely would.



Is a human hand without 5 fingers no longer a human hand? Your definition i completely immaterial as others would define large tits or a vagina as the main characteristics (Things which some trans women actually are able to get via hormones and surgery). How we define what makes a women is dependent on social and physical characteristics. It's not like we knew of chromosomes 200 years ago.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> I mean what if it does. Are you going to call that person a woman then? Even then, we already established that is not a trait for what a woman is.


A woman is an adult human female, as per dictionary.



Bazu'aal said:


> Then nature fucks up quite a lot as that is more often then you may think.


Yes, yes it does. I have fucking asthma which means i suck at breathing. dont have to tell me



Bazu'aal said:


> I've been over this before but this makes your argument for a strict biological definition weaker if we are talking generalities, as sometimes these traits appear in men. Scientists still haven't pinpointed a singular biological trait strictly for sex. The definition of womanhood is then one that uses both cultural and biological standards.


there is no argument. there just is a biological definition for female/male differentiation in species that reproduce sexually with 2 sexes. 

dont care about cultural standards.



Bazu'aal said:


> Is a human hand without 5 fingers no longer a human hand? Your definition i completely immaterial as others would define large tits or a vagina as the main characteristics (Things which some trans women actually are able to get via hormones and surgery).


I feel like you are trying to bait me into googling transgender vaginas, but i aint doing that.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> i disagree. couldnt care less about peoples feelings and what they identify as.


So basically, you're just a bigot and are hiding behind a third grader's understanding of science to support your bigotry.


Asaya7 said:


> some crazies go around saying biological sex isnt a thing,


I don't recall any point at which someone has stated that biological sex isn't a thing? Be a dear and quote someone saying those specific words.



Asaya7 said:


> or that them being transgender actually makes them a part of the other sex



Someone being transgender doesn't make them a part of the other sex, no. It, in actuality, makes them part of the other gender.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> So basically, you're just a bigot and are hiding behind a third grader's understanding of science to support your bigotry.


Nope.



Onomatopoeia said:


> I don't recall any point at which someone has stated that biological sex isn't a thing? Be a dear and quote someone saying those specific words.


im pretty sure i have seen a person on a talk show with jordan peterson saying that shit.

and im also pretty sure it was this one, but i aint watching through that 1 hour video to find you that quote now. 



Onomatopoeia said:


> Someone being transgender doesn't make them a part of the other sex, no. It, in actuality, makes them part of the other gender.


Yes.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

So then we are agreed. Transwomen are women. Transmen are men.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 7, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> So then we are agreed. Transwomen are women. Transmen are men.


Not exactly. Transwomen are Transwomen. Women are adult human females. Transwomen are not adult human females. And this has nothing to do with bigotry.

Gender ideology didnt take over dictionaries yet.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> A woman is an adult human female, as per dictionary.



Which is the argument of even pro-trans people despite it being literally self-referential.



> Yes, yes it does. I have fucking asthma which means i suck at breathing. dont have to tell me



Asthma is a bitch I know. I suffer from it too 



> there is no argument. there just is a biological definition for female/male differentiation in species that reproduce sexually with 2 sexes.
> 
> dont care about cultural standards.



The biological definition has changed multiple times in the past 150 years and even biologists cannot agree to pin it down to a single or subset of traits. And considering the concept of a woman is context dependent, you should probably care about cultural standards.



> I feel like you are trying to bait me into googling transgender vaginas, but i aint doing that.


Well trans porn is one of the most highly watched and their vaginas aren't different. Peepee still go in da hole and da hole gets wets.

Reactions: Lewd 2


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Not exactly. Transwomen are Transwomen. Women are adult human females. Transwomen are not adult human females. And this has nothing to do with bigotry.


The fact that you feel the need to make that distinction rather points to it being all about bigotry.


Asaya7 said:


> Gender ideology didnt take over dictionaries yet.



Gender. Noun.
1: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior: the feminine gender. 
2: a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification and is based on the individual's personal awareness or identity.


Neener neener booboo stick your head in doodoo.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

@Onomatopoeia  was it the peepee goes into the vajajay? Sounds like a Barney song.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Biology.
> 
> of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty.
> of, relating to, or being an animal, plant, or plant structure of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction.
> ...


How about you answer my question instead of just posting some shit you pasted out of a dictionary. What about women who can’t produce eggs.


----------



## Jim (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> good thing i was exclusively talking about biology.


psychology is also a valid science which also defines gender


----------



## Eros (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Which is the argument of even pro-trans people despite it being literally self-referential.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still want to have sex with a post op trans man. I want to take the transformed pee pee for a test run.


----------



## Masterblack06 (Jul 7, 2022)

Mider T said:


> Nah you're wrong.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 7, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Biology.
> 
> of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty.
> of, relating to, or being an animal, plant, or plant structure of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction.
> ...


Where does dictionary.com derive authority in this subject?

How is it, for instance, a better source than a biological or medical text?

Have you done a survey of the subject of the wide variety of historical and contemporary works?

Assuming you've done so How do you rationalize using a definition including the phrase "commonly including" while still maintaining transwomen aren't simply part of the "uncommon?"


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

One thing that boggles my mind is how men hitting women is considered taboo but once you transition and you fight women, then you are stunning and brave, watching transwomen beating the living shit out of natal women in MMA is sad, people were cheering them on too.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Lewd 1


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Example?


Examples of what?  Transwomen in MMA?  That shit is allowed long ago.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

Someone is unable, or just unwilling, to distinguish between misogynistic violence and structured competition? Great scott!

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 3 | Optimistic 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Examples of what?  Transwomen in MMA?  That shit is allowed long ago.


I mean do you have a specific example in mind. Like in the MMA context


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> I mean do you have a specific example in mind. Like in the MMA context



Youtube is generally against trans athletes in women's sports, but Reddit and Tumblr have opposite reactions.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Youtube is generally against trans athletes in women's sports, but Reddit and Tumblr have opposite reactions.


I only see two women of the same weight class fighting in a MMA match, and the trans one passed the medical requirements set forth by the MMA..So is your impression that she changed her whole lifestyle just to win her MMA debut? I've seen more violence and one-sidedness even in ciswoman vs ciswoman fights. This is not the example you think it is.

Additionally, what's the point of your other video? And my dude put that shit in NSFW spoilers due to the parts with nudity.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

Also like in the diner video, that type of violence is nowhere near unique to transwomen so what was the point of that?


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> That's transwomen fighting two men, not - as you previously suggested - men assaulting women, nor transwomen participating in MMA.
> 
> Whether you should be allowed to take a swing at someone who is insulting you is an entirely different - totally unrelated - discussion, but feel free to continue moving the goalposts.


For your original post, transwomen should not participate in women's sport to begin with, cheering them to beat up natal women is just wrong.  This is misogyny without being realized.  Opportunities of natal women are being taken away. 

Yes, hitting people in general is wrong, so beating up dudes because they hurt your fee fee is so unladylike.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> I only see two women of the same weight class fighting in a MMA match, and the trans one passed the medical requirements set forth by the MMA..So is your impression that she changed her whole lifestyle just to win her MMA debut? I've seen more violence and one-sidedness even in ciswoman vs ciswoman fights. This is not the example you think it is.
> 
> Additionally, what's the point of your other video? And my dude put that shit in NSFW spoilers due to the parts with nudity.


Transwoman fighting ciswoman result in more damage because transwoman is stronger, ciswomen themselves are in the same strength class so their fight is more fair.  Cheering on transwomen to beat up women is just wrong, they never belong to women's sports to begin with.  

A man grounding a woman and everyone would freak out, but a transwoman does it and she's stunning and brave.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 7, 2022)

Unladylike is a meaningless designation, because what is "ladylike" is A: totally determined by culture, and B: not exclusive to transwomen.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> For you original post, transwomen should not participate in women's sport to begin with



This is highly dependent on the sport and stage of transition.



> cheering them to beat up natal women is just wrong.



This answer only makes sense if you don't consider them women.




> This is misogyny without being realized.



Just say you dont think they are women. Don't beat around the bush.




> Opportunities of natal women are being taken away.



Not really. And again sports will evolve to handle the differences conducted through puberty. This is highly, highly dependent on the sport.



> Yes, hitting people in general is wrong, so beating up dudes because they hurt your fee fee is so unladylike.



This sentence is much more misogynistic than a transwoman participating in MMA.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> This is highly dependent on the sport and stage of transition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Transwomen are not biological women and they are physically stronger.  You cannot make a transwoman into a biological woman unless you reprogram every cell in the body.  HRT only changes muscle mass, general height, bone structure, and lung capacity advantages are still there.  Allow them to compete is taking opportunities away from women, therefore it's sacrificing half of the population to please a vocal minority. 

In the west, people pretend that transwomen and biological women are the same only out of politeness and don't want to get cancelled, deep down everyone knows it's not the same.  Why do you think people that desire biological children not want to date transwomen?  Because they can't give birth.  Thank god Asian countries like China and India are not following the west's footstep and they will overtake the west in the future, by then, hopefully this insanity will reverse.  The corrupted western culture dominated the world for way too long anyways.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Transwoman fighting ciswoman result in more damage because transwoman is stronger, ciswomen themselves are in the same strength class so their fight is more fair.  Cheering on transwomen to beat up women is just wrong, they never belong to women's sports to begin with.
> 
> A man grounding a woman and everyone would freak out, but a transwoman does it and she's stunning and brave.



This is more something for sports associations/companies type of thing to figure out unless it turns out to prove to be discrimination. Hell a lot of organizations basically set a 2-3 year limit for transwomen to go through hormone therapy so the physical advantages get negated from their previous puberty changes (if they didn't take hormone blockers to stop the amab puberty while growing up). That's because the estrogen therapy basically negates the physical advantages in sports on that front after a certain amount of time. There's a huge caveat to this that I will address later on. Regardless, there is no massive increase of men entering women's sports to dominate (the framing of this is misinformed as well) - and before someone goes like "well here's example x and - " you do realize how fucking rare that is....right?

To break down gender & sports:

Not every trans person experiences puberty the same way. Some trans women do not go through male puberty or as much of it due to hormone blockers administered when they hit pre-adolescence. Some don't get administered hormone blockers because they didn't feel in the wrong body until after puberty, or were socially stigmatized or convinced that they are not worth it when younger. For those trans women that did not experience male puberty due to the blockers, they didn't have the same physical changes that a cis man did during puberty. So it's a fact, in our world, that trans women exist that had hormone blockers before allowing male puberty to hit and have undergone estrogen hormone therapy. As such, they don't have the physiological advantages that cis men had while growing up or even today in sports. So in essence, that trans woman, equally trained, has no distinctive, unfair, physical advantage in sports. There's studies on this shit, I encourage you to look it up when you can if interested. BUT there's another factor that I haven't addressed yet. What about the trans women that went through what we recognize as male puberty? The ones that get the influx of testosterone, the increased bone density, etc?

That is more interesting because even estrogen hormone therapy can wipe out physical advantages. Like fucking annihilate them (like most of the relevant ones, it is also dependent on the sport). This isn't applicable in all cases but it's interesting nonetheless. Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of trans women are practically equal with their cis women counterparts after dedicated estrogen hormone therapy; however, transwomen that were fit and athletic for years BEFORE the transition process negate the physical advantage wipeout when estrogen is introduced. *This means that hey, if you were physically amazing for years before transition, the estrogen therapy will not really decrease that physical advantage from your amab puberty and from your training with those physiological advantages. The physical advantages do not go away in such instances, or at least they are nowhere near as fast as in just 2 years time. The key is what changes via puberty they go through growing up.*

Not all trans women are the same, especially when it comes to transition and exercise. I would prefer a solution that won't unfairly target all trans as the same because otherwise you're only serving to isolate them socially and dumb down the complexity of this topic. That and not all sports are the same in terms of the physical prowess needed to succeed or exceed expectations.

I get being unsure on the sports fairness, as I've said, I don't have an answer. But simply going "eww trans women are too strong" misses a LOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT of nuance and is a grossly misinformed take.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Unladylike is a meaningless designation, because what is "ladylike" is A: totally determined by culture, and B: not exclusive to transwomen.



I take that back, not unladylike, straight-up savagery, here is some child abuse from them.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Transwomen are not biological women.


Oh for fuck's sake here we go again.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> I take that back, not unladylike, straight-up savagery, here is some child abuse from them.


Dude, this behavior is not unique to trans women. At this point you're just being hateful by only highlighting violence by one group.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> This is more something for sports associations/companies type of thing to figure out unless it turns out to prove to be discrimination. Hell a lot of organizations basically set a 2-3 year limit for transwomen to go through hormone therapy so the physical advantages get negated from their previous puberty changes (if they didn't take hormone blockers to stop the amab puberty while growing up). That's because the estrogen therapy basically negates the physical advantages in sports on that front after a certain amount of time. There's a huge caveat to this that I will address later on. Regardless, there is no massive increase of men entering women's sports to dominate (the framing of this is misinformed as well) - and before someone goes like "well here's example x and - " you do realize how fucking rare that is....right?
> 
> To break down gender & sports:
> 
> ...


Alana clearly did go through male puberty.  Do you think I do not know what HRT is?  HRT does not make a transwoman into a biological woman.  Bone structure and different, internal organs are also structured differently.   Like I said, to make a man into a woman, you have to reprogram every cell in the body.  Why the hell do you think there isn't a transman winning male competition?  Because biological women are weaker.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Alana clearly did go through male puberty.  Do you think I do not know what HRT is?  HRT does not make a transwoman into a biological woman.  Bone structure and different, internal organs are also structured differently.   Like I said, to make a man into a woman, you have to reprogram every cell in the body.  Why the hell do you think there isn't a transman winning male competition?  Because biological women are weaker.


Here we go again - what is a biological woman? Because we have been over this and everyone that keeps sayin this has different answers or moves the goalposts. Also define what makes a person a woman?


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Oh for fuck's sake here we go again.


We call transwomen women out of politeness in the west, they are not biological women.  Why the fuck do you think most straight men don't date transwomen?  People want kids and they can't give birth.  Also, no, uterus transplant will never work on transwomen.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> We call transwomen women out of politeness in the west, they are not biological women.  Why the fuck do you think most straight men don't date transwomen?  People want kids and they can't give birth.  Also, no, uterus transplant will never work on transwomen.


Again, what is a biological woman? What is a woman.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Here we go again - what is a biological woman? Because we have been over this and everyone that keeps sayin this has different answers or moves the goalposts.


No Y chromosome and have bone structure that can carry children.  Most of them can bear children and have periods.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> No Y chromosome and have bone structure that can carry children.  Most of them can bear children and have periods.


1) Not all women are just xx. Some havea y chromosome and still have funcitoning female gonads.

2) So if a person cannot bear children they are not a woman? That covers a lot of cis women.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> 1) Not all women are just xx. Some havea y chromosome and still have funcitoning female gonads.
> 
> 2) So if a person cannot bear children they are not a woman? That covers a lot of cis women.


The absence of Y chromosome makes one biological female, there are mutations but 99.99% of people without Y chromosome are women.  A person that has BONE STRUCTURE that allows them to carry children.  A woman's bone structure is clearly different, archeologists can tell what the skeleton's sex is by glancing at it.  Of course, most women can carry children and have period at one point, until they are too old.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Aduro (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> One thing that boggles my mind is how men hitting women is considered taboo but once you transition and you fight women, then you are stunning and brave, watching transwomen beating the living shit out of natal women in MMA is sad, people were cheering them on too.


Is it equally amoral from your perspective for people who profit from two cisgendered women in MMA? 

Either way, a woman is going to get hurt in exchange for money after giving consent to be in the fight, and other people are enjoying it and making money from it.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Aduro said:


> Is it equally amoral from your perspective for people who profit from two cisgendered women in MMA?
> 
> Either way, a woman is going to get hurt in exchange for money after giving consent to be in the fight, and other people are enjoying it and making money from it.


A natal women won't take as much damage from a transwoman than ciswomen. 

You never see transmen beating men up for a reason, they are weaker.  I've seem transwomen beating even men in a fight.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> The absence of Y chromosome makes one biological female, there are mutations but 99.99% of people without Y chromosome are women.


The fact that Y chromosome exists in some women disproves your point as they sure as shit aren't guys by any standard.



> A person that has BONE STRUCTURE that allows them to carry children.  A woman's bone structure is clearly different, archeologists can tell what the skeleton's sex is by glancing at it.  Of course, most women can carry children and have period at one point, until they are too old.



That "BONE STRUCTURE" is dueto development from puberty. So when that puberty blocked, that bone structure does not develop in that manner. Hence why I said the whole sports thing is wholly dependent on a whole host of factors related to puberty and genetics, as well as the sport itself. Your example was one trans woman that fought in 1 match and a fairly fucking tame one at that compared to the other woman's MMA matches I've seen. You know that photo sites like the NYpost was spreading with a woman having a bloody nose and cuts all over face - that was a match between two cis women that caused that shit.


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> The fact that Y chromosome exists in some women disproves your point as they sure as shit aren't guys by any standard.
> 
> 
> 
> Which develops as a result of puberty. So when that puberty blocked, that bone structure does not develop in that manner. Hence why I said the whole sports thing is wholly dependent on a whole host of factors related to puberty and genetics, as well as the sport itself. Your example was one trans woman that fought in 1 match and a fairly fucking tame one at that compared to the other woman's MMA matches I've seen.



Neither Fallon or Alana go through male puberty and they were allowed to join women's division.

Mutations are not norms, biological women do not have Y chromosome unless it's a mutation.  There are intersex people, just like there are people born with 6 fingers, they exist, norms shouldn't be base on them, it should be base on vast majority of the people.  Do you know how pelvis works?  A woman's pelvis allows her to carry children, puberty blocker can't change that.  Hence, bone structure defines sex as well.

Edit:  OK, I will take a step back and reflect on myself, I think I've gone too far.  I am reaching full transphobia now.  My bad.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Neither Fallon or Alana go through male puberty and they were allowed to join women's division.
> 
> Mutations are not norms, biological women do not have Y chromosome unless it's a mutation.  There are intersex people, just like there are people born with 6 fingers, they exist, norms shouldn't be base on them, it should be base on vast majority of the people.  Do you know how pelvis works?  A woman's pelvis allows her to carry children, puberty blocker can't change that.  Hence, bone structure defines sex as well.
> 
> Edit:  OK, I will take a step back and reflect on myself, I think I've gone too far.  I am reaching full transphobia now.  My bad.


1) fractures are common in the sport and Fallon lost to a cis woman, which is poking a hole in your argument. 

2)
Stop taking your argument from debunked videos and posts which strive on misleading info:


3) those "mutations " occurcenough where it debunks your point. Your whole ladylike comment pretty exhibited that isn't about biology for you, as you don't even know much about that to even understand that biology cant even set these characteristics in a set manner and it keeps evolving over the past 150 years.

4) Again, you refuse to read what I'm saying. That density is largely dependent on genetics and puberty. Tell me, between a typical prepubescent boy and a typical prepubescent, do either one have a physical advantage in sports in school? The answer is no because their bodies didnt go through the changes to make such an impact yet.

5) And let's shoot a hypothetical- if trans surgery was advanced enough to deal with your point about bone density, is a trans woman a woman or fully able to compete in sports with cis women? Because if your answer is yes, then your moral position is at least consistent. If not, then that means no matter how much that body changes, even if indistinguishable from any cis woman body in every way possible, you still refuse to acknowledge that trans women are women. I.e. then your own transphobia should be made that much more apparent to you.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 7, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> Neither Fallon or Alana go through male puberty and they were allowed to join women's division.
> 
> Mutations are not norms, biological women do not have Y chromosome unless it's a mutation.  There are intersex people, just like there are people born with 6 fingers, they exist, norms shouldn't be base on them, it should be base on vast majority of the people.  Do you know how pelvis works?  A woman's pelvis allows her to carry children, puberty blocker can't change that.  Hence, bone structure defines sex as well.
> 
> Edit:  OK, I will take a step back and reflect on myself, I think I've gone too far.  I am reaching full transphobia now.  My bad.



People need to stop saying she broke the skull of an opponent when it was the orbital bone, one of the thinnest bones in a human body and in MMA events you get one broken every other month.

Also, she has a terrible record in MMA.  The loss is against a nobody and wins against nobodies, and of all her wins she never held a record win time.  (Even the sub-minute win someone beat in quicker time)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 7, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> Also, she has a terrible record in MMA. The loss is against a nobody and wins against nobodies, and of all her wins she never held a record win time. (Even the sub-minute win someone beat in quicker time)


Well duh, she's a girl.  Girls can't do MMA!

(See folks, that's a quality troll, offends every position in the thread but is somehow funny at the same time)


----------



## IHateAnnoyingJerks (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> 1) fractures are common in the sport and Fallon lost to a cis woman, which is poking a hole in your argument.
> 
> 2)
> Stop taking your argument from debunked videos and posts which strive on misleading info:
> ...


It's strange to me that non-western societies can easily define sex, we make it so difficult in the west.  Opinions like JK Rowling's would be considered a norm in the global south.  Even Thailand, a place where ladyboy are famed, can easily clarify the difference between male and female.  As in, transwomen, like men, will be inspected and drafted into the Thai military, so they do treat transwomen and women differently.  I wonder if transgenderism will spread to the global south or just continue to be a western trend.  From what I know, countries like China and Japan are not very inclusive, a FTM went under years of hormone treatment and he is still considered female. 


I will try to not be "transphobic", but truth to be told, westerner's ideology, like transgenderism, isn't easily understand for rest of the world.


----------



## Jim (Jul 7, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> 2) So if a person cannot bear children they are not a woman? That covers a lot of cis women.


Nobody seems to answer this


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jul 7, 2022)

So I disagree with accepting transgenders to go into sports that cater to genders opposite of the one they were born into unless they go through sexual reassignment surgery.  I also do not support legally calling them the pronoun they want unless they do the sexual reassignment surgery as well.

But at the same time: I do not support Rowling raging hatred and accusations that trans women are all sexual predators trying to fool born women into sex.  Nor do I support the idea that all trans men are confused or lost women who have sufferered from male cruelty.

And I do not support the mindless legislation criminalizing parents who have transgender kids.  And most definitely do not like  harassment trans go through that could led to suicide or injury….that is not cool.

@IHateAnnoyingJerks: Thai Transwomen who have gone through the sexual reassignment surgery are exempt from the draft but must still go to military office to show proof they went through it as their original birth certificates had them born as male.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> So I disagree with accepting transgenders to go into sports that cater to genders opposite of the one they were born into unless they go through sexual reassignment surgery.  I also do not support legally calling them the pronoun they want unless they do the sexual reassignment surgery as well.
> 
> But at the same time: I do not support Rowling raging hatred and accusations that trans women are all sexual predators trying to fool born women into sex.  Nor do I support the idea that all trans men are confused or lost women who have sufferered from male cruelty.
> 
> ...


You realize surgery costs money, right? 15 to 50k


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jul 8, 2022)

And?  Go to a third world country (Thailand is famous for it) and it can possibly be a fraction of that price.  Sorry, but while I sympathisize with the cruelty they go through: I still will not budge on my view on not legally viewing them the gender they feel they should be unless they go through the surgery. 

Sorry, I just cannot.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Joe Maiafication (Jul 8, 2022)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> And?  Go to a third world country (Thailand is famous for it) and it can possibly be a fraction of that price.  Sorry, but while I sympathisize with the cruelty they go through: I still will not budge on my view on not legally viewing them the gender they feel they should be unless they go through the surgery.
> 
> Sorry, I just cannot.




In Thailand even ladyboy have to serve their mandatory conscription if being called up in case of war.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jul 8, 2022)

They usually make exceptions if they go through the surgery I believe (at least based on what I was told by a Thai classmate).  As their original birth certificates have them labelled as male: they have to report themselves and then show proof they went through the surgery.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 8, 2022)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> And?  Go to a third world country (Thailand is famous for it) and it can possibly be a fraction of that price.  Sorry, but while I sympathisize with the cruelty they go through: I still will not budge on my view on not legally viewing them the gender they feel they should be unless they go through the surgery.
> 
> Sorry, I just cannot.


It being a fraction of the cost still doesn't mean people have adequate capital to take that next step. Also we aren't talking about a simple procedure but a difficult reconstruction. Most would be hesitant because that isn't a decision that is made lightly.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> And?  Go to a third world country (Thailand is famous for it) and it can possibly be a fraction of that price.  Sorry, but while I sympathisize with the cruelty they go through: I still will not budge on my view on not legally viewing them the gender they feel they should be unless they go through the surgery.
> 
> Sorry, I just cannot.


I could maybe understand someone wanting to say hormones are the bare minimum because they're accessible. There are so many women who haven't had bottom surgery yet who if you didn't see their bottom half you'd never know. I'm not a big fan of hers, but I am pretty sure calling her "sir" would make you look pretty fucking weird.


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I could maybe understand someone wanting to say hormones are the bare minimum because they're accessible. There are so many women who haven't had bottom surgery yet who if you didn't see their bottom half you'd never know. I'm not a big fan of hers, but I am pretty sure calling her "sir" would make you look pretty fucking weird.


I like her lol. But why that photo?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

SakuraLover16 said:


> I like her lol. But why that photo?


It was the first one that wasn't a webp file that came up. If it was a webp I'd have to open Photoshop or Preview to resave it as PNG

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It was the first one that wasn't a webp file that came up. If it was a webp I'd have to open Photoshop or Preview to resave it as PNG


To be fair that one is used for memes so I have no doubt that it's one of her most popular. Truly an icon I think she came up with mouthfeel as well. A legend of my time.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

SakuraLover16 said:


> To be fair that one is used for memes so I have no doubt that it's one of her most popular. Truly an icon I think she came up with mouthfeel as well. A legend of my time.


A lot of people here have never seen that. I just think it is a really weird thing to sit there and say "well if their penis is still there I can't call them a woman" as if we all just have x-ray dick vision.


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of people here have never seen that. I just think it is a really weird thing to sit there and say "well if their penis is still there I can't call them a woman" as if we all just have x-ray dick vision.


I completely agree. Some are so triggered at the thought of a transwoman with a punishment but the fact of the matter is you could walk by a transwoman or use the bathroom beside one and you would never know and that's how they prefer things be anyhow.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Which is the argument of even pro-trans people despite it being literally self-referential.


Its not self referential. Th retarded "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is

Reactions: Like 1 | Creative 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> The fact that you feel the need to make that distinction rather points to it being all about bigotry


Whatever helps you sleep at night


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Gender. Noun.
> 1: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior: the feminine gender.
> 2: a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification and is based on the individual's personal awareness or identity.


Almost got the point


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Here we go again - what is a biological woman? Because we have been over this and everyone that keeps sayin this has different answers or moves the goalposts. Also define what makes a person a woman?


Not really.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> . A woman's bone structure is clearly different, archeologists can tell what the skeleton's sex is by glancing at it


With other animal species as well


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I also do not support legally calling them the pronoun they want unless they do the sexual reassignment surgery as well.


Why though?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Its not self referential. Th retarded "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is


My dude, the word female comes from the Latin femella, meaning “young woman, girl,” which in turn is based on femina, meaning “woman.” It's self-referential. Using your own logic, your definition is "retarded."


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Not really.


What sex is a woman with a y chromosome?


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> My dude, the word female comes from the Latin femella, meaning “young woman, girl,” which in turn is based on femina, meaning “woman.” It's self-referential. Using your own logic, your definition is "retarded."


This is insane and you know it. Female is not a latin word. Its an english word thats not the same as woman.

Yall hate reality so much you have to do mental gymnastics around it?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> This is insane and you know it. Female is not a latin word. Its an english word thats not the same as woman.
> 
> Yall hate reality so much you have to do mental gymnastics around it?


You must be having a stroke as I literally said: "the word female comes from the Latin femella." You do realize that a good chunk of our language stems from latin? I see you're not capable of reading but I'll reiterate once again: It comes from the latin word femella. If you want the most modern definition, a female is a woman and that's the way it is commonly used. Literally self-referential. Are you really that incapable of following such simple logic?

So again, I ask the question - what sex is a woman with a Y chromosome?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

I love you how you think a definition being self-referential is retarded. Look up the definition of human. Oh and before you go like "Well homo-sapiens!" no one uses that term in everyday life. Additionally, homo-sapiens refers back to human. One of the definitions is literally "humankind."

Even the damn dictionary has woman as a self-referential definition:


Also to follow up on the earlier question - if surgery is advanced enough, and someone assigned male at birth goes through it and literally fits all your biological parameters for what you consider a woman, are they then considered a woman in your mind? Y/N?

Oh and before you go like "hurr durr see they don't believe in biology" no you dimwit - every time when you yourself are pressed for a definition you leave thousands to millions of women out of the definition and then proceed to move the goalpost when pressed for detail.  Furthermore, woman refers to both cultural and biological aspects. No one has a damn device in their head that reads chromosomes (and as I've explained, even that trait is completely insufficient).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> My dude, the word female comes from the Latin femella, meaning “young woman, girl,” which in turn is based on femina, meaning “woman.” It's self-referential. Using your own logic, your definition is "retarded."


I think it has it's root in fēmina which is Latin and his its root in the earlier languages with a meaning of to suck or to suckle. Which I guess was a kind of thing about breastfeeding (another thing not all women do or can do). The funny thing is that the form of the word you used is like an in-between for grown women and girls, girl is puella? I think that's how it's spelled, so you can see where the double ll came from on the word you used. 



Asaya7 said:


> This is insane and you know it. Female is not a latin word. Its an english word thats not the same as woman.
> 
> Yall hate reality so much you have to do mental gymnastics around it?


It's root is latin, like a good amount of the other words in English. Germanic or Latin are the two big ones. 

And this isn't mental gymnastics. Any other way you have to define women runs into issues where women will be cut out of the group. Even biological women. It's bad enough that society treats women with small breasts, who aren't curvy, or who can't have kids due to health issues as less than women. There's problem more of those groups that benefit from our definition than your stringy one. 

How are you going to describe men? What's the definition there? A penis? Are people who lose their dicks not men? What about testicles, whoops you can lose those to cancer too. Is it a Y chromosome? Some people have that and have their gender at birth decided as female due to other issues with their body. 

You're fighting a battle that has you arguing several different things depending on different situations. Why do all these extra things to avoid calling a woman who happens to have a penis a woman? This shit must be so tiring.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> What sex is a woman with a y chromosome?


Referring to rare abnormalities that occur in like 1 in 100000 is really not an argument against general human biology. People with down syndrome dont suddenly mean humans dont have 46 chromosomes.

The people you are referring to have female reproductive organs that can bear children, though not by natural means. They also dont have puberty by natural means. Guess puberty isnt a thing in general human biology anymore.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Referring to rare abnormalities that occur in like 1 in 100000 is really not an argument against general human biology. People with down syndrome dont suddenly mean humans dont have 46 chromosomes.



Yet people with down symdrome are still considered human. You keep dodging the question. What sex is that person with the Y chromosome, despite having female gonads? Many of you are hellbent on XX being the determinant.



> The people you are referring to have female reproductive organs that can bear children, though not by natural means. They also dont have puberty by natural means. Guess puberty isnt a thing in general human biology anymore.



People who can't have children on their own dont go through puberty through natural means? Damn I gotta let my aunt know about this revelation. My dude, i have an aunt with a y chromosome yet went through puberty no problem and has kids. Stop talking out of your ass.

Millions of women can't produce eggs and I'm not even referring to women that are too old to do so. And for clarity, I'm referring to cis women. If you can't keep up then study this shit. Also puberty blockers and hormone therapy existed prior to widespread knowledge of trans people.

Again, I'll ask the other question: if a person assigned male at birth and with all the hallmarks of a man in terms of biology are present, but then undergoes surgery to change all of that to match every single aspect of biology of that of a woman -are they then a woman? It's a yes or no answer. Why you so scared to answer?

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> I love you how you think a definition being self-referential is retarded. Look up the definition of human. Oh and before you go like "Well homo-sapiens!" no one uses that term in everyday life. Additionally, homo-sapiens refers back to human. One of the definitions is literally "humankind."
> 
> Even the damn dictionary has woman as a self-referential definition:
> 
> ...


Now look up.female in that merriam webster. It actually doesnt leave millions of women out of the definition.

Sure,maybe the initial definition i gave where i didnt refer to any actual dictionary definition did that. But thats it.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> cis women


Whats this?


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> People who can't have children on their own dont go through puberty through natural means?


And im the one that cant read?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Whats this?


You know how to use a dictionary.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> You know how to use a dictionary.


No pls help


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Now look up.female in that merriam webster. It actually doesnt leave millions of women out of the definition.
> 
> Sure,maybe the initial definition i gave where i didnt refer to any actual dictionary definition did that. But thats it.


Psst, scroll down on the female definition in merriam webster: 

: made up of usually adult members of the female sex (self-referential)
: characteristic of girls, women, or the female sex (again, the word is in the definition)


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> And im the one that cant read?


Why you can't answer my questions?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> No pls help


And we're done. I can't help people who refuse to learn and want to be wrong. Not my fault you cant talk in good faith.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Referring to rare abnormalities that occur in like 1 in 100000 is really not an argument against general human biology.


Swing and a miss, 1.7 percent of the population is intersex of some degree so that's more like 1 in 100, so why don't you go ahead and shave three of them zeros off there. Or you can snap them open and straighten them out into a nice 'L' shape. 

Because that's what it looks like you're taking all over this thread.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Swing and a miss, 1.7 percent of the population is intersex of some degree so that's more like 1 in 100, so why don't you go ahead and shave three of them zeros off there. Or you can snap them open and straighten them out into a nice 'L' shape.
> 
> Because that's what it looks like you're taking all over this thread.


If only i wasnt talking about the syndrome that other guy brought up. Oh wait that is what happened.

Who the fuck was talking about pronouns tho? 

And yall can try finding reputable biologists who wouldnt call humans a sexually dimorphic species and hmu when you do find one.though I will probably be dead by then.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> If only i wasnt talking about the syndrome that other guy brought up. Oh wait that is what happened.
> 
> Who the fuck was talking about pronouns tho?
> 
> And yall can try finding reputable biologists who wouldnt call humans a sexually dimorphic species and hmu when you do find one.though I will probably be dead by then.


The picture isn't directed at you, it's just a comment. 

And they brought that up as proof that there are people we call women or men who were born with traits you're saying make them a different gender. You're acting like you don't know why it was brought up, it's obvious why: because you're saying women have to have two x chromosomes or be able to produce and egg or any of the other things claimed in here. 

@Bazu'aal was pointing out the holes in that idea which you then tried to claim "well it's too rare to consider!" 

One in one hundred isn't that rare. And it's closer to two in one hundred. That's over four million people in the US alone.

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

"
Estimates of the number of people who are intersex vary, depending on which conditions are counted as intersex. The now-defunct  stated that:



> If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births _[0.07–0.05%]_. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won't show up until later in life.


 and her co-authors broadly said in 2000 that "[a]dding the estimates of all known causes of nondimorphic sexual development suggests that approximately 1.7% of all live births do not conform to a Platonic ideal of absolute sex chromosome, gonadal, genital, and hormonal dimorphism"; these publications have been widely quoted by intersex activists. Of the 1.7 percent, 1.5 percentage points (88% of those considered "nondimorphic sexual development" in this figure) consist of individuals with  (LOCAH) which may be asymptomatic but can present after puberty and cause infertility.

In response to Fausto-Sterling,  estimated that the prevalence of intersex was about 0.018% of the world's population, after discounting several conditions including LOCAH, Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY), Turner syndrome (45,X), the chromosomal variants of 47,XYY and 47,XXX, and vaginal agenesis. Sax reasons that in these conditions chromosomal sex is consistent with phenotypic sex and phenotype is classifiable as either male or female.

In a 2003 letter to the editor, political scientist Carrie Hull analyzed the data used by Fausto-Sterling and said the estimated intersex rate should instead have been 0.37%, due to many errors. In a response letter published simultaneously, Fausto-Sterling welcomed the additional analysis and said "I am not invested in a particular final estimate, only that there BE an estimate". A 2018 review reported that the number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%.

The figure of 1.7% is still maintained by  "despite its flaws", stating both that the estimate "encapsulates the entire population of people who are stigmatized – or risk stigmatization – due to innate sex characteristics," and that Sax's definitions exclude individuals who experience such stigma and who have helped to establish the intersex movement.

The following summarizes  of traits that have been called intersex:
"





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> pointing out the holes in that idea which you then tried to claim "well it's too rare to consider!"


pointing out holes in general human biology? And well yes, they are rare disorders/syndromes/chromosome irregularities, that at best are at 1.7% if you add them all up, each individually is very rare and not representative of general human biology. Just like my point about down syndrome. That obviously doesnt mean these phenomena dont exist, of course they do. But then again humans arent the only sexually dimorphic species where a female/male distinction can be made.

This also have pretty much nothing to do with transgenderism. A biological male will not become biologically female by transitioning. So "transwomen are women" is just a ridiculous statement.
Using a transgenders preferred pronouns is one thing, denying reality is another. And im not willing to do the latter. Guess i'd be willing to do the first, though legal action against people who arent is also kinda insane to me.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> This also have pretty much nothing to do with transgenderism. A biological male will not become biologically female by transitioning. So "transwomen are women" is just a ridiculous statement.
> Using a transgenders preferred pronouns is one thing, denying reality is another. And im not willing to do the latter. Guess i'd be willing to do the first, though legal action against people who arent is also kinda insane to me.




Holes in human biology? Goddamn that's some ableist shit. You're like trash in its final form. These people are still people and they deserve to be treated as more than mutants or something. 

And this does have something to do with trans people, you're saying men have an XY and chromosome pairing and women have an XX and we're telling you about how that isn't always true even biologically. 

You can't confuse me or get me off topic, the covid is gone and the Adderall is back. I'm focused as fuck now and this little talking in circles shit like you've got the memory of a goldfish and can't follow how the conversation got here isn't fooling anyone.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

biological sex be like:

*Spoiler*: __ 









Crazies in the cafe: BuT WhAt AbOuT RaRe ChRoMoSoMe DiSoRdErs iN HuManS?

Reactions: Funny 1 | Winner 2


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Holes in human biology? Goddamn that's some ableist shit. You're like trash in its final form. These people are still people and they deserve to be treated as more than mutants or something.


well thats some next level strawmanning. guess not being disingenuous isnt an option here?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And this does have something to do with trans people, you're saying men have an XY and chromosome pairing and women have an XX and we're telling you about how that isn't always true even biologically.


so biological sex isnt a thing?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't confuse me or get me off topic, the covid is gone and the Adderall is back. I'm focused as fuck now and this little talking in circles shit like you've got the memory of a goldfish and can't follow how the conversation got here isn't fooling anyone.


you mean how i started by saying in biology the term female is about organisms that can produce ova with then yall going batshit crazy on me?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Yall remember: Trust the science and the experts! Unless the science and the experts are evil bigots saying biological sex is a thing!!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Swing and a miss, 1.7 percent of the population is intersex of some degree so that's more like 1 in 100, so why don't you go ahead and shave three of them zeros off there. Or you can snap them open and straighten them out into a nice 'L' shape.
> 
> Because that's what it looks like you're taking all over this thread.



Languages that are gender specific have no way around this interestingly enough. 

Car (Siyara) is also feminine in Arabic.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)




----------



## stream (Jul 8, 2022)

*In the beginning was biological sex* (mostly about the shape of private parts, which might not correspond perfectly to chromosomes, and even in the shape of private parts there are anomalies which don't classify well into a binary value, but general rules of thumb is applied here).

Then society saw that people with different private parts sometimes required different handling. E.g only people with vaginas were bearing children, during which time they couldn't hunt well, so they were taught to do other things. Because it's inefficient to specialize in hunting when you can't hunt part of the time. And people with vaginas had to nurse babies for a couple of months (again no hunting), so they might as well keep taking care of the children later as well (still no hunting). Sometimes, there could be exceptions, like people with vaginas who hunted so well that they decided not to bear children instead, or people with penises that really did not hunt well, but exceptions don't prevent general rules of thumb from existing.

Because people with different private parts were treated differently in some ways, this leaked out to being treated differently in other ways, sometimes for logical reasons, sometimes not. For instance, people who mostly take care of children develop abilities that are different from people who mostly try to kill animals. Empathy (which is partly learned) is good for the former, not so great for the latter. Whether because of evolutionary reinforcement or just out of jumping to conclusions, people with vaginas became to be looked as more emotional and weaker, and people with penises as less emotional and stronger. Again, there are always exceptions, but because people like simplicity, exceptions became to be considered as abnormalities. Bad to be a weak and emotional man. Bad to be a strong and not emotional woman. And this leaked to unbelievable things, like who should wear dresses and who should wear pants, who should like pink and who should like mathematics, who watches action movies and romantic comedies.

With time, and civilization evolving, the ways in which different private parts required different handling changed. Some differences disappeared (for instance when you work in front of a computer, being pregnant doesn't force you to stop working, though it can still make it difficult), new differences appeared (like there are entire branches of medicine dedicated to health issues that can only happen to one type of private parts). But people don't like change, so some fought these changes bitterly. The idea that women could wear pants, vote, make money, be strong and independent did not happen just by itself, and this is still not accepted everywhere. Similarly, men who want to wear dresses or who even just are emotional can have trouble fitting expectations from others.

*So we end up with two separate gender identities*, which are in very small way vaguely related to biology, and in the vast majority not justified in any logical way. And some people suffer from that, because they feel that this identity forced on them by society in various way is just not related to who they are. There are different ways to solve these issues. One of them is to say "screw the expectations of society, I'll dress how I want and do what I want". This can work some of the time, but not all the time, for various reasons which may make sense or not. Another one is to say "since society insists that men are like this and women are like that, I'm just gonna say that from now on I want be considered as the other kind". Or even, sometimes, as neither of them ("my pronouns are xe, xes"). This also works some of the time, but not all the time, for various reasons which may make sense or not.

Is this ideal? No.
Do we have a perfect solution? No.
Should we insist on everything staying like they used to? No.
Should we force people to live in a way they don't want? No.

And then, it all comes as a tradeoff on how much the majority can accept change in order to give a better life to a minority.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 8, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> The absence of Y chromosome makes one biological female, there are mutations but 99.99% of people without Y chromosome are women.  A person that has BONE STRUCTURE that allows them to carry children.  A woman's bone structure is clearly different, archeologists can tell what the skeleton's sex is by glancing at it.  Of course, most women can carry children and have period at one point, until they are too old.


No they can't  they thought the Lovers Of Valdaro we're a man and a woman for almost 20 years and even that is with 95% confidence
It takes forensic investigation to determine if a skeleton is M or F and if it's a prepubescent child, good luck determining if it was M or F


Fruits Basket Fan said:


> And?  Go to a third world country (Thailand is famous for it) and it can possibly be a fraction of that price.  Sorry, but while I sympathisize with the cruelty they go through: I still will not budge on my view on not legally viewing them the gender they feel they should be unless they go through the surgery.
> 
> Sorry, I just cannot.


If I can't afford reassignment surgery, what makes you think I could afford a ticket to Thailand??

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

stream said:


> which might not correspond perfectly to chromosomes


you mean before people knew what chromosomes were?


stream said:


> Whether because of evolutionary reinforcement or just out of jumping to conclusions, people with vaginas became to be looked as more emotional and weaker, and people with penises as less emotional and stronger. Again, there are always exceptions, but because people like simplicity, exceptions became to be considered as abnormalities.


pretty sure the first half is still true on average.



stream said:


> *So we end up with two separate gender identities*, which are in very small way vaguely related to biology, and in the vast majority not justified in any logical way. And some people suffer from that, because they feel that this identity forced on them by society in various way is just not related to who they are.


Its not just two anymore, but thats beside the point. It is not just vaguely related to biology, it totally is related to neurochemistry (refer to the video i posted above). 



stream said:


> Is this ideal? No.
> Do we have a perfect solution? No.
> Should we insist on everything staying like they used to? No.
> Should we force people to live in a way they don't want? No.
> ...


Your post would have almost been funny if you didnt conflate biological sex with gender roles. If you would have exclusively been talking about gender roles, im totally on board. Giving minorities a better life? Sure, im on board again. 
Doesnt mean im gonna accept ridiculous nonsense like "transwomen are women" that literally goes against reality. Societies evolving and gender roles changing doesnt erase biological sex, as much as the latter gives some people nightmares.


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 8, 2022)

I miss pre-2010 when things were normal. Sigh

Reactions: Funny 3 | Optimistic 1


----------



## stream (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> Your post would have almost been funny if you didn't conflate biological sex with gender roles.


Just explaining how the notions of gender roles evolved out of biology



Asaya7 said:


> If you would have exclusively been talking about gender roles, I'm totally on board. Giving minorities a better life? Sure, I'm on board again.
> Doesn't mean im gonna accept ridiculous nonsense like "transwomen are women" that literally goes against reality.


I legit don't get what your opinion is on the subject by this point. Transwomen want to be treated as women, as in, the female gender role. And in two sentences, you're both saying you're on board, but that you're not gonna accept it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> I miss pre-2010 when things were normal. Sigh


I miss pre January 2021 when you weren’t on the forum.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Eros (Jul 8, 2022)

Subarashii said:


> If I can't afford reassignment surgery, what makes you think I could afford a ticket to Thailand??


I can't afford either one either, and honestly, they can't change it to the extent I would want it anyway, so it's good that I'm cis honestly. I would want them to be able to do the impossible.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

No one replied to me or were all my posts deleted by Nemesis?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Someone is unable, or just unwilling, to distinguish between misogynistic violence and structured competition? Great scott!


God you’re stupid


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 8, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No one replied to me or were all my posts deleted by Nemesis?



I assure you I have not touched any of your posts.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> I assure you I have not touched any of your posts.


I’m not 100% sure, and forgive my ignorance then. But from what I gleaned off of your posts. Are you yourself a Trans person?

If so, we could really open the floor here to reach some real common ground.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 8, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I’m not 100% sure, and forgive my ignorance then. But from what I gleaned off of your posts. Are you yourself a Trans person?
> 
> If so, we could really open the floor here to reach some real common ground.



Yes I am, and because of that I am not actively moderating this thread due to potential conflict of interests (outside of someone posting a video that had a topless woman which is against forum rules).

As for common ground, I don't see any need to compromise on my rights.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> Yes I am, and because of that I am not actively moderating this thread due to potential conflict of interests (outside of someone posting a video that had a topless woman which is against forum rules).
> 
> As for common ground, I don't see any need to compromise on my rights.


You understand that “Rights” don’t exist? They can be taken from you, just like the “right” to abortion. They’re just ideas that change with the times and as a result must inevitably come into conflict and God willing, resolution.

An unwillingness to participate in a conversation that directly affects you, allows the opposition to be the only voice to be heard.

My heart compels me to agree with your world view, but my mind does not. Let our voices bridge the gap and perhaps understanding can be attained.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 8, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I’m not 100% sure, and forgive my ignorance then. But from what I gleaned off of your posts. Are you yourself a Trans person?
> 
> If so, we could really open the floor here to reach some real common ground.


And you think you can find common ground with people who you basically want to deny of their existence? Good luck with that, pal. It's like trying to convince me that I am supposed to be straight. I mean, have you actually ever met a trans person and actually figured out that the person you met is trans without being told? I have. I decided to mind my own business and let her live her life on her terms. I didn't question her about it or anything, because I figure she has dealt with that enough from the religious Bible thumping assholes around here.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 8, 2022)

Eros said:


> the religious Bible thumping assholes around here.


superstars and who?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

Eros said:


> And you think you can find common ground with people who you basically want to deny of their existence? Good luck with that, pal.


Maybe you should reread my posts. I don’t want to deny anyone anything. I am imploring you to make me understand, in my heart of hearts. I want to agree. But not at the expense of dispelling my reason.


Eros said:


> It's like trying to convince me that I am supposed to be straight. I mean, have you actually ever met a trans person and actually figured out that the person you met is trans without being told? I have.



Yes I have, though what relevance that has on the matter is beyond me.



Eros said:


> I decided to mind my own business and let her live her life on her terms. I didn't question her about it or anything, because I figure she has dealt with that enough from the religious Bible thumping assholes around here.



Are you referring to Nemesis?


----------



## Eros (Jul 8, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> superstars and who?


In my actual locality in the real world. I'm not revealing my locality. It's in Missouri close to the largest city in the state and the second largest city in Kansas.


----------



## Eros (Jul 8, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Are you referring to Nemesis?


I have actually met a trans person in real life, as in not on the world wide web. They are real people.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

@Nemesis 

I’ll present to you a limited biography on my life, so you might have a better grasp on me as a person. Use that knowledge to help your argument in any way you can.

1-10: I was physically abused and tortured, by my father. Between 9-10 I started delivering weed for my buildings local drug dealer to help pay rent
11-16: Foster Care: where I was physically abused and tortured 
17-20: AWOL’d from foster care. Traveled the country as a homeless vagabond
20-24: Marine Corps
25-30: Worked as a security analyst for Cartier who happily paid for the rest of my college. (Gave my G.I. bill to my son). Started running a Foster Care Center in Queens and have since become a Medical Professor.

Throughout all of it, I personally witnessed the suffering of all types of people and the absolute horror of violence. I learned of my heritage and ancestry. I learned as much of the world as the world learned of me. Help me to understand this part of the world, that still seems to allude me as you would have it.

We can go talking point for point. At your pace, with all measures of propriety and respect in place.

Reactions: Friendly 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 8, 2022)

Eros said:


> I have actually met a trans person in real life, as in not on the world wide web. They are real people.


Which is why I’m trying to have a real conversation with a real person.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Useful 1


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 8, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> God you’re stupid


Ur mum

Reactions: Funny 1 | Informative 1


----------



## GiantForehead (Jul 8, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I miss pre January 2021 when you weren’t on the forum.


Well, ur in luck. I've been meaning to leave the forum 

@Nemesis please do delete my account

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eros (Jul 8, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Well, ur in luck. I've been meaning to leave the forum
> 
> @Nemesis please do delete my account


You need an admin for that.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 8, 2022)

Joe Maiafication said:


> In Thailand even ladyboy have to serve their mandatory conscription if being called up in case of war.


Are you Eros?  What does that have to do with non-Thais?


----------



## Gunners (Jul 8, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> @Nemesis
> 
> I’ll present to you a limited biography on my life, so you might have a better grasp on me as a person. Use that knowledge to help your argument in any way you can.
> 
> ...



I don't think trying to guilt someone into an argument and then making a show of levelling the playing field is the actions of a sincere man.

You evidently feel it is a sensitive and personal matter. Was there a reason why you couldn't send a PM?

Reactions: Agree 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Well, ur in luck. I've been meaning to leave the forum
> 
> @Nemesis please do delete my account



What is this power the Gods have bestowed upon me?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 8, 2022)

GiantForehead said:


> Well, ur in luck. I've been meaning to leave the forum
> 
> @Nemesis please do delete my account



 ask an admin here


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 8, 2022)

inb4 he makes another account

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Joe Maiafication (Jul 8, 2022)

Mider T said:


> Are you Eros?  What does that have to do with non-Thais?




But i dated a lot of Thai girls.


----------



## Jim (Jul 8, 2022)

Joe Maiafication said:


> But i dated a lot of Thai girls.


Where'd you find them?
j/k


----------



## Eros (Jul 8, 2022)

Jim said:


> Where'd you find them?
> j/k


It's called a whore house.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Mider T (Jul 8, 2022)

Those weren't girls, B.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

Jim said:


> Where'd you find them?
> j/k


A magical place called Thailand. 



Mider T said:


> Those weren't girls, B.


They were, that's kind of the point of the thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Gunners said:


> I don't think trying to guilt someone into an argument and then making a show of levelling the playing field is the actions of a sincere man.


That that’s your take away says more about you than it does about me. Maybe try projecting yourself onto me less next time.


Gunners said:


> You evidently feel it is a sensitive and personal matter. Was there a reason why you couldn't send a PM?


Because it’s a conversation that everyone should be able to see. You want me to proverbially throw them back in the closet?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A magical place called Thailand.
> 
> 
> They were, that's kind of the point of the thread.


They were according to you.

Tell me, if I don’t want to have sex with a woman, purely because she doesn’t fit my conception of a woman, and she takes offense, does that make me a bigot?


----------



## Flowjr (Jul 11, 2022)

Avant, Nemesis didn't want to debate with you. You should just leave it.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> They were according to you.
> 
> Tell me, if I don’t want to have sex with a woman, purely because she doesn’t fit my conception of a woman, and she takes offense, does that make me a bigot?


Oh that's not the thing making you a bigot.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Flowjr said:


> Avant, Nemesis didn't want to debate with you. You should just leave it.


I was responding to Gunners. I have left it.

Everyone else here is lunch food though.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Oh that's not the thing making you a bigot.


Cry more snowflake

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I was responding to Gunners. I have left it.
> 
> Everyone else here is lunch food though.


I have bad news then, you're going to starve. 



~Avant~ said:


> Cry more snowflake


No one is crying. You're not upsetting anyone or making some big splash. You're just in here doing the same weird thing that we've seen so many other people do in here. Like it is kind of odd how you can pick a random liberal or leftist and read their posts and it will be like "Ah, this is X". 

Then you get to the conservatives and the most reasonable ones we had both mysteriously were into women who couldn't yet vote in American elections and the rest of y'all seem to be a hive mind of lunacy and bad takes.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I have bad news then, you're going to starve.
> 
> 
> No one is crying. You're not upsetting anyone or making some big splash. You're just in here doing the same weird thing that we've seen so many other people do in here. Like it is kind of odd how you can pick a random liberal or leftist and read their posts and it will be like "Ah, this is X".


The locked thread where me and the others passed you around like a bag of chips says otherwise.

Im not picking random liberals, I’m a liberal. You’re just far-left and to me your rhetoric is as toxic as the Nazis. By your measure half the country are bigots. News flash, the world is more nuanced than that.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then you get to the conservatives and the most reasonable ones we had both mysteriously were into women who couldn't yet vote in American elections


Okay???


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> and the rest of y'all seem to be a hive mind of lunacy and bad takes.


Coming from you and your echo chamber, a bad take is anything resembling logic. I understand how the truth offends you, but toughen up buttercup. Because if you can’t even come with any good arguments other than “I’m right and you’re wrong”, the country will still go down the drain, despite your moral posturing and you’ll be the only ones to blame.

You’re literally making non-far leftists, move further right. As if the right didn’t have enough lunatics in their ranks. Which is all good by me honestly. If the Republicans took over, I’d be wholly un-effected, my life wouldn’t change in the slightest.

So as long as we’re all being subjective about our experiences, maybe I should be subjective and only worry about the issues as they effect me directly. Shit voting Republican would probably work more in my favor.


----------



## GRIMMM (Jul 11, 2022)

Are people still obsessed with other people's genitals?

Reactions: Lewd 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

GRIMMM said:


> Are people still obsessed with other people's genitals?


No just the imposition of “your perspective” on genitals vs mine


----------



## stream (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> The locked thread where me and the others passed you around like a bag of chips says otherwise.


"I have stupid opinions"
"Me too"
"Wow, we're really schooling these people, aren't we?"
"We sure are!"

Reactions: Funny 9 | Winner 2 | Optimistic 1 | Sad! 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

stream said:


> "I have stupid opinions"
> "Me too"
> "Wow, we're really schooling these people, aren't we?"
> "We sure are!"


Cry moar

Reactions: Funny 2 | Optimistic 2


----------



## GRIMMM (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No just the imposition of “your perspective” on genitals vs mine


Why care about the genitals in the first place though? Never understood that.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

GRIMMM said:


> Why care about the genitals in the first place though? Never understood that.


He believes souls have a masculine and a feminine energy. He's come to this realization after doing Psilocybin and Ayahuasca and following some guru stuff that say the soul has two parts: The Divine Masculine and the Sacred Feminine.


----------



## CursedKitetsu (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No just the imposition of “your perspective” on genitals vs mine


On OTHER people’s genitals. You want to police OTHER people’s bodies as if they affect you in some way


----------



## Eros (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> He believes souls have a masculine and a feminine energy. He's come to this realization after doing Psilocybin and Ayahuasca and following some guru stuff that say the soul has two parts: The Divine Masculine and the Sacred Feminine.


Shrooms are fun.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Tell me, if I don’t want to have sex with a woman, purely because she doesn’t fit my conception of a woman, and she takes offense, does that make me a bigot?


yes it does. welcome to the clown world

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 2


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Cry more snowflake


Hey you asked.

If you are afraid of the answers stop asking the questions.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Velocity (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Cry moar


We would cry for you but...


----------



## Gunners (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> That that’s your take away says more about you than it does about me. Maybe try projecting yourself onto me less next time.
> 
> Because it’s a conversation that everyone should be able to see. You want me to proverbially throw them back in the closet?




Your first response was to accuse her of deleting your posts so that you could jerk off over the idea of a trans person having to abuse their power to end a debate.

When that was put to rest, your next step was to try and guilt her into having an open debate. It is clear to me that you had every intention of making the conversation personal as you took preemptive measures to excuse that by giving permission to use personal, but irrelevant information, you offered up.

And the stated reason for your challenge was to "help me to understand this part of the world, that still seems to allude me as you would have it". How does where she is situated help with that understanding?

The problem is you're not as smart as you think you are. You might think that you're being slick, but it is very clear that you're trying to provoke a response so that you can cackle about how the truth gets them triggered.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 4


----------



## Natty (Jul 11, 2022)

IHateAnnoyingJerks said:


> There are wokies argue that there are more than 2 sex and sex is a social construct.



The definition of sex and how it's defined is actually a social construct believe it or not. Most words and how we define them are social constructs.

Sex as a definition has many different kinds of definitions, and it isn't all about stuff like chromosomes or whatever determines that. If you really doubt what I'm saying, you can ask several people as to what it means and you'll get varying answers like a person's genitals or chromosomes or genotype and you'll get varying amounts of complexities of that definition depending on who you ask. People use whatever suits themselves and how they see it, it's never simple. A good example is many many people think their high school level Bio classes preps them to offer a simple definition as to what is a 'sex', it's not as simple as XX or XY, or cock or vagina. Many actual experts on the field find it more complicated than that, though it is part of the larger picture. Though socially for a long time for many people think that it's just XX or XY, and/or genitals that determines sex, it's not entirely accurate, though part of a larger picture.

Lots of trans argumentation falls into petty games regarding semantics and what means what. When all it really comes down to if you want to be an asshole to other people or not. And there's a ton of people willing to show off how much of an asshole they are to other people, hand over fist if they disagree with your existence, while insisting that actually they aren't an asshole, they're just stating facts*

At no point does stating something as fact* mean someone is impervious to being an asshole.

I put an asterisk because it's not really fact, it's just their own opinion. Or in the words of how a lot of other people say it, "it's stating reality".

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Optimistic 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Natty (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I love trans-people, just like I love all people. I personally think it's a form of mental health disease and your enabling only makes things worse. Should there be a space for trans people to feel safe and included? Absolutely.
> 
> Does a man "feeling" like he's a woman, make him an woman? Fuck no.



Boy, I sure do feel love when someone calls me mentally ill as a pejorative. Your level of compassion must be incredibly low just gazing at your posts and how you define what love is to you.

--

I'm not at all surprised people are still trying to squeak on by with JK not being transphobic, she's only gotten worse after her dumb as bricks essay full of conspiracy and non-truths. She's platformed and associated with lots of people who want to more or less eliminate trans people's right to exist in public life normally. Also is pretty cheery with folks who've outright stated or advocated for violence against anyone who supports trans autonomy.

A good way to explain her/that brand of transphobia is that it's the same as racism being part of race realism. Which is to say it's a very thin veneer of plausible deniability that their proponents fall for hook line and sinker. It's not attractive to call themselves a bigot, so they gotta dress it up with half truths, made up facts, skewed numbers, and shitty reasoning to say that they're simply acknowledging reality, that it's not actually a prejudice or bigotry. Nevermind the fact that when you ask for solutions or follow their rhetoric to it's logical conclusion, it's all about exclusion to the point of them just saying they want things "separate but equal". Or effectively excluding the group in question from overarching society. There was a news story a few days ago about a trans man being told to use the women's, so he did, and he got the shit kicked out of him for it. That sort of reality is the end goal. It's stopping just short of saying outright violence towards those people, but the actions and results of following the said rhetoric still resorts in violence.

Which is almost hilarious that this brand of feminism is/was known as TERFs, who now call themselves Gender Criticals because they hated how people used TERF. So now Gender Critical as a label has become poison in the same way, so now many are resorting to calling themselves Gender/Sex Realists. And no, this isn't a bit.

But hey, you know what, these folks are feminists. True feminists, just ignore that they're willing to defend and advocate for folks like Matt Walsh.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Funny 1 | Winner 2


----------



## Jim (Jul 11, 2022)

stream said:


> "I have stupid opinions"
> "Me too"
> "Wow, we're really schooling these people, aren't we?"
> "We sure are!"


omg, this got so many reactions.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

GRIMMM said:


> Why care about the genitals in the first place though? Never understood that.


Thats where the arguments fundamentally devolve into, as a matter of definition for gender


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> On OTHER people’s genitals. You want to police OTHER people’s bodies as if they affect you in some way


It’s the opposite, it’s Far Leftist and Trans people trying to force their ideologies onto the rest of society. They don’t want push back, well tough luck.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Gunners said:


> Your first response was to accuse her of deleting your posts so that you could jerk off over the idea of a trans person having to abuse their power to end a debate.


Hush child, this matter is bigger than you know. I have a history with the mods here shadow deleting my posts, I’ve been banned already for my views.


Gunners said:


> When that was put to rest, your next step was to try and guilt her into having an open debate.


Guilt? When did I say something was her fault? When did I try to guilt her?


Gunners said:


> It is clear to me that you had every intention of making the conversation personal as you took preemptive measures to excuse that by giving permission to use personal, but irrelevant information, you offered up.


Again, that’s your take away. I never get nasty with my verbage until people begin with me. Look at allllll of my posts and stop using the minority of them to feed your paranoia


Gunners said:


> And the stated reason for your challenge was to "help me to understand this part of the world, that still seems to allude me as you would have it". How does where she is situated help with that understanding?


She’s literally standing in the perspective that I am not. You ever heard the phrase “from the horses mouth”?


Gunners said:


> The problem is you're not as smart as you think you are.


The problem is  “I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”




Gunners said:


> You might think that you're being slick, but it is very clear that you're trying to provoke a response so that you can cackle about how the truth gets them triggered.


I’m not some evil villain my guy. Chill


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> It’s the opposite, it’s Far Leftist and Trans people trying to force their ideologies onto the rest of society. They don’t want push back, well tough luck.


The rest of society.

Don’t speak like you’re part of the majority. If these opinions were commonplace Republicans wouldn’t have to cheat to win elections.

and you’re mostly calling liberals the far left because you’ve moved so far right that you think they’re crazy for not letting someone else’s gender live in their head all day.

We’re not all communists and anarchists or out here yelling for the complete abolishment of work. Some here were in the fucking military or own small businesses. We’re not just sitting around in dimly lit basements smoking jazz cigarettes and bitching about the bourgeoisie.

You’re not some freethinking patriot against a bunch of people being unreasonable. You just look crazy

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> He believes souls have a masculine and a feminine energy. He's come to this realization after doing Psilocybin and Ayahuasca and following some guru stuff that say the soul has two parts: The Divine Masculine and the Sacred Feminine.


Don't you dare forget Viscous Energy.

Yes, _viscous_. Like a thick fluid.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Don't you dare forget Viscous Energy.
> 
> Yes, _viscous_. Like a thick fluid.


Mucilaginous  energy


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Mucilaginous  energy


You know what, I'mma just bring it home.

Masculine Molasses and Feminine Honey


I regret nothing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> You know what, I'mma just bring it home.
> 
> Masculine Molasses and Feminine Honey
> 
> ...


Yo, there’s some feminine honey around here. You got any pictures of that?


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some here were in the fucking military or own small businesses. We’re not just sitting around in dimly lit basements smoking jazz cigarettes and bitching about the bourgeoisie.


Ahem, excuse me.

I post at the business of which that I own.

And the cheap fluorescent bulbs are about to flicker and die. Just gimme a few more weeks.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Ahem, excuse me.
> 
> I post at the business of which that I own.
> 
> And the cheap fluorescent bulbs are about to flicker and die. Just gimme a few more weeks.


What do you sell?

Only the finest snake oil and moustache combs, I presume.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Only the finest snake oil and moustache combs, I presume.


 Of course. We even got t-shirts with the brands!


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Of course. We even got t-shirts with the brands!


Good, good.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yo, there’s some feminine honey around here. You got any pictures of that?


Khajit has wares if you has coin.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

Well at least avant used she/her in referring to nem. Baby steps

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Look at how the flies circle around their own bullshit

I don’t understand how all of your posts haven’t been deleted. Mine have been deleted for less.

I’ll be back later to continue breaking you pussies in. Get the lube ready (something all you cucks have down to muscle memory by now) imma come back and keep fucking y’all raw.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Parallax (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Look at how the flies circle around their own bullshit
> 
> I don’t understand how all of your posts haven’t been deleted. Mine have been deleted for less.
> 
> I’ll be back later to continue breaking you pussies in. Get the lube ready (something all you cucks have down to muscle memory by now) imma come back and keep fucking y’all raw.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The rest of society.
> 
> Don’t speak like you’re part of the majority. If these opinions were commonplace Republicans wouldn’t have to cheat to win elections.


Lmao not the Majority? You understand this is only a topic of conversation in first world countries. But I guess the rest of humanity is too stupid to comprehend your subtle nuanced views.

Go try explaining this bullshit to a tribe in Africa. They’d laugh you out the village. I dare you to say some condescending, bigoted, and racist reply to that one.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

It’s just emotions taking me over. Caught up in sorrow, lost in a song. But if don’t come back, come home to me darling. Don’t you know there’s nobody left in this world to hold me tight? Don’t you know there’s nobody left in this world to kiss goodnight?

Reactions: Funny 1 | Lewd 2


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Maybe your posts wouldn't be deleted if you weren't such a douche. 


inb4 a response lacking in self-awareness, something along the lines of "you're just mad that I'm right, triggered libtard hurrdurrdurr

Reactions: Agree 2 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Lmao not the Majority? You understand this is only a topic of conversation in first world countries. But I guess the rest of humanity is too stupid to comprehend your subtle nuanced views.
> 
> Go try explaining this bullshit to a tribe in Africa. They’d laugh you out the village. I dare you to say some condescending, bigoted, and racist reply to that one.


The US is hardly a first world country. 

You realize that what you consider first world only happened because of progressiveness and new ideas taking root. 

Also, several cultures have had different genders over the years. Just because you want to believe in a white washed Anglo Christian safe version of events doesn't make them true. Just because you want to ignore advanced cultures that existed when most of the europeans were still experimenting with pushing pebbles into their dick holes doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

Well I did say baby steps, not leaps.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The US is hardly a first world country.


Lmfao


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You realize that what you consider first world only happened because of progressiveness and new ideas taking root.


Lmfao


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Also, several cultures have had different genders over the years. Just because you want to believe in a white washed Anglo Christian safe version of events doesn't make them true. Just because you want to ignore advanced cultures that existed when most of the europeans were still experimenting with pushing pebbles into their dick holes doesn't mean they don't exist.


Lmfaooooo

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Lmfao
> 
> Lmfao
> 
> Lmfaooooo


Really great answers there. This is the height of debate right here. You don't present any ideas or reasons for the shit you're saying, like why are you even here if you aren't going to prove the shit you say. Prove me wrong, what does the US do better than anywhere else in the world besides civilian gun deaths and incarceration numbers? 

Enlighten me.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Maybe your posts wouldn't be deleted if you weren't such a douche.


Riddle me this, when have I called anyone here a douchebag or used any pejorative to refer to them (that didn’t first begin with me), have I disrespected anyones gender pronouns?

The only thing that makes me a “douche” is that I don’t agree with you


Yami Munesanzun said:


> inb4 a response lacking in self-awareness, something along the lines of "you're just mad that I'm right, triggered libtard hurrdurrdurr


Look at that, the garbage really can take itself out

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## CursedKitetsu (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> It’s the opposite, it’s Far Leftist and Trans people trying to force their ideologies onto the rest of society. They don’t want push back, well tough luck.


Do you think that trans people want to rape you? As in YOU? Has a trans woman tried to like force herself on you?

A Tran woman saying “Do not tell me what to do with my body” isn’t an attack on you. You know that right. That’s not her telling you to have sex with her or forcing you to like her.

there is no one telling you to even interact with a trans person ever in your entire life. All they are telling you is DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT DO WITH THEIR OWN LIVES


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Really great answers there. This is the height of debate right here. You don't present any ideas or reasons for the shit you're saying, like why are you even here if you aren't going to prove the shit you say. Prove me wrong, what does the US do better than anywhere else in the world besides civilian gun deaths and incarceration numbers?
> 
> Enlighten me.


I’m at work, so that’s why I said I’d be back later with full responses

I’m not here to argue semantics. The fact is, is that currently the US is the big dick in the ocean that prescribes to Capitalism along with 9 other countries.

To the King of cherry picking arguments, i owe nothing. Still waiting on how you’d explain your ideology to a tribe in Africa that doesn’t buy into your bullshit, or the other 100+ countries where this isn’t even a conversation. Your privilege is showing


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Riddle me this, when have I called anyone here a douchebag or used any pejorative to refer to them (that didn’t first begin with me), have I disrespected anyones gender pronouns?
> 
> The only thing that makes me a “douche” is that I don’t agree with you
> 
> Look at that, the garbage really can take itself out


This you?


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> Do you think that trans people want to rape you? As in YOU? Has a trans woman tried to like force herself on you?


No but they’ve tried to make me refer to them by their gender pronoun, and it’s the law in Canada, so… consider it an ideological raping. Since objectivity doesn’t exist and we’re throwing objectivity out the window.

You said something sexual, it made me feel funny, it’s gotta be Sexual Harassment 


CursedKitetsu said:


> A Tran woman saying “Do not tell me what to do with my body” isn’t an attack on you. You know that right. That’s not her telling you to have sex with her or forcing you to like her.


Okay…


CursedKitetsu said:


> there is no one telling you to even interact with a trans person ever in your entire life. All they are telling you is DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT DO WITH THEIR OWN LIVES


And don’t tell me that I have to bow to how your ideology is, in exchange for forsaking mine. Period.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This you?


Damn and here I thought I was being edgy


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 11, 2022)

@~Avant~ I can assure you now looking through this thread that none of your posts since someone necro'd it have been deleted.  I have gone through the logs so you don't have to worry about that.  So please keep stuff on topic.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> The only thing that makes me a “douche” is that I don’t agree with you


yes and how dare you, you bigotted transpobe/homophobe/misogynist/whocaresimthrowingracistinhereaswell


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Well I did say baby steps, not leaps.


Nah, Mama Bird kicks the babies out of the nest so they'll learn to fly.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> I’m at work, so that’s why I said I’d be back later with full responses
> 
> I’m not here to argue semantics. The fact is, is that currently the US is the big dick in the ocean that prescribes to Capitalism along with 9 other countries.
> 
> To the King of cherry picking arguments, i owe nothing. Still waiting on how you’d explain your ideology to a tribe in Africa that doesn’t buy into your bullshit, or the other 100+ countries where this isn’t even a conversation. Your privilege is showing


No you won't. And capitalism isn't an answer.

Let me go ahead and bury your ass right here.















Yeah, I don't think you need to waste you fucking time. Maybe you should stay in the shallow end with the rest of the children. You don't know what you're talking about and that has become the most apparent thing over the last several days.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## CursedKitetsu (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> No but they’ve tried to make me refer to them by their gender pronoun, and it’s the law in Canada, so… consider it an ideological raping.


You realize this entire statement can be made about gay marriage.

“they tried to make me refer to their union as marriage and its law…”

in fact I can bet this is exactly what people say.

I know, you aren’t THAT bigoted. Right? Only A LITTLE bigoted.

it’s always “appeal to objectivity” made by people who don’t even know what they are talking about

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Riddle me this, when have I called anyone here a douchebag or used any pejorative to refer to them (that didn’t first begin with me), have I disrespected anyones gender pronouns?
> 
> The only thing that makes me a “douche” is that I don’t agree with you
> 
> Look at that, the garbage really can take itself out


Sure thing douche, you keep proving my statement just now right.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> there is no one telling you to even interact with a trans person ever in your entire life. All they are telling you is DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT DO WITH THEIR OWN LIVES

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

If some rando on the internet is getting to you with a statement like this, the problem is you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CursedKitetsu (Jul 11, 2022)

Are you a lesbian? Who the fuck are you?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

@Asaya7 yuck it the fuck up. You're in here being an embarrassment too. 

You two really show why the conservatives don't have to work for votes. You present no real arguments. Saying "someone tweeted this isn't an argument". You're not funny or clever and since you're not arguing I don't know why you're really in here.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> @Asaya7 yuck it the fuck up. You're in here being an embarrassment too.
> 
> You two really show why the conservatives don't have to work for votes. You present no real arguments. Saying "someone tweeted this isn't an argument". You're not funny or clever and since you're not arguing I don't know why you're really in here.


1) im no US citizen
2) im not conservative/right wing

you being insane doesnt mean i cant be a liberal.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

We don’t present real arguments?

You still can’t define what makes a man different from a woman

Reactions: Winner 1 | Old 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> If some rando on the internet is getting to you with a statement like this, the problem is you.





CursedKitetsu said:


> Are you a lesbian? Who the fuck are you?


big brain moment here. this was obviously to show that there ARE some people saying you have to interact with them and if you dont you are a transphobe. you can pretend this portion of the lgbt movement doesnt exist, but well thats just pretending.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> 1) im no US citizen
> 2) im not conservative/right wing
> 
> you being insane doesnt mean i cant be a liberal.


If you’re  not on the far left you’re a nazi!

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> We don’t present real arguments?
> 
> You still can’t define what makes a man different from a woman


nothing makes them different its all a social construct hurrdurr.

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> If you’re  not on the far left you’re a nazi!


ironically enough i had people call me nazi and kkk member here before. lmfao

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> big brain moment here. this was obviously to show that there ARE some people saying you have to interact with them and if you dont you are a transphobe. you can pretend this portion of the lgbt movement doesnt exist, but well thats *just pretending.*


Literally the basis for all their arguments

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> yuck it the fuck up.


also no thanks on this

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Nemesis said:


> @~Avant~ I can assure you now looking through this thread that none of your posts since someone necro'd it have been deleted.  I have gone through the logs so you don't have to worry about that.  So please keep stuff on topic.


Thank you


----------



## CursedKitetsu (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> you


You who? Who? You aren’t a lesbian.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No you won't. And capitalism isn't an answer.
> 
> Let me go ahead and bury your ass right here.
> 
> ...


Omg being alive is hard?!

Let me know when cities are burning, the country has been robbed of all its wealth, and the people here experience a genocide rather than just dishing them out.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> You who? Who? You aren’t a lesbian.


lul. do you want me to pull up a screenshot of the equivalent with men being transphobes if they dont want to date transwomen?

well its not that hard to find, takes at worst a couple minutes on google. you can do it!

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> You who? Who? You aren’t a lesbian.


I just decided I’m a woman, and I’m a lesbian.

Nothing changes for me, other than now, you have to refer me me as she/her anything less and you’re a bigot


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> big brain moment here. this was obviously to show that there ARE some people saying you have to interact with them and if you dont you are a transphobe. you can pretend this portion of the lgbt movement doesnt exist, but well thats just pretending.


That's nice, thin-skin.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)



Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> That's nice, thin-skin.


what a comeback, much wow.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

In trying to fight the Nazis, they used the same methodologies, and become Nazis themselves. It’s ironic how we’re the ones who aren’t “self aware”


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Anyways, I think the shitshow of the Angry Incel Troupe has gone on far enough for today, @Nemesis @dr_shadow

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> what a comeback, much wow.


It's about as much effort you're worth.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Anyways, I think the shitshow of the Angry Incel Troupe has gone on far enough for today, @Nemesis @dr_shadow


Calling in the mods to lock the thread because you can’t come up with any good arguments?

How liberal

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Anyways, I think the shitshow of the Angry Incel Troupe has gone on far enough for today, @Nemesis @dr_shadow


"damn i cant actually respond to what he is saying, better call him an incel and call the mods"

makes me think you are the incel.

Reactions: Winner 4


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> It's about as much effort you're worth.


im not worth anything, but then again the person has nothing to do with the argument.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

I'd be so disappointed if my child grows up and is a gender.

Fucking delinquency.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> "damn i cant actually respond to what he is saying, better call him an incel and call the mods"
> 
> makes me think you are the incel.


Remember what I just said?

If some rando on the internet is getting to you, the problem is you. 

Go take a nap or something.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> We don’t present real arguments?
> 
> You still can’t define what makes a man different from a woman


People have told you over and over again, you don't like the answer. Your definition of woman cuts own bio women in some cases, so I guess you should go back to the drawing board.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> I'd be so disappointed if my child grows up and is a gender.
> 
> Fucking delinquency.


did you mean to say agender instead?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> Calling in the mods to lock the thread because you can’t come up with any good arguments?
> 
> How liberal


Okie doke douche.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Remember what I just said?
> 
> If some rando on the internet is getting to you, the problem is you.
> 
> Go take a nap or something.


these randos on the internet arent getting to me. and that wasnt the point. the point was someone in here claiming no one is saying this shit. but there are people saying that shit.

and i mentioned this here before:


Asaya7 said:


> big brain moment here. this was obviously to show that there ARE some people saying you have to interact with them and if you dont you are a transphobe. you can pretend this portion of the lgbt movement doesnt exist, but well thats just pretending.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> these randos on the internet arent getting to me. and that wasnt the point. the point was someone in here claiming no one is saying this shit. but there are.
> 
> and i mentioned this here before:


You know how I know you're lying?

Cuz you keep responding. 

Go nap or something.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People have told you over and over again, you don't like the answer. Your definition of woman cuts own bio women in some cases, so I guess you should go back to the drawing board.


No all those definitions fall short.

A woman is whatever a person decides is a woman, is not a definition of the term woman. Maybe you don’t know how words work?

Words are symbols, meant to symbolize something. So what does the word Woman symbolize exactly? Or for that matter, man?

Reactions: Winner 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> You know how I know you're lying?
> 
> Cuz you keep responding.
> 
> Go nap or something.


No thanks. And well no, you dont know that im lying. you cant read minds. sorry.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> You know how I know you're lying?
> 
> Cuz you keep responding.
> 
> Go nap or something.


Lmfao. You’re lying because you keep responding? Lmfao and I suppose women like getting raped and they’re lying when they fight back.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

I'm just going to come out and say it @Yami Munesanzun @Flowjr @Bazu'aal @Onomatopoeia @stream *stop responding to them. they're just going to wind up getting this thread closed like the other one and then they'll run around gloating about how they won while these discussions have no where to go anymore because the thread is gone. 

They're not interested in honest discussion or even presenting ideas and when presented with answers and ideas over and over they're going to keep asking the same questions, keep not answering anyone, keep just posting responses that amount to lol. 

You're not going to get any honest response out of them and it's just going to end in them realizing they can do this stupid shit in every thread. *

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2 | Disagree 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

We weren’t the ones who got that thread locked it was you sensitive snowflakes

Reactions: Winner 2


----------



## A Optimistic (Jul 11, 2022)

It’s time like this that I’m glad I don’t mod this section.

Reactions: Funny 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They're not interested in honest discussion


me posting the screenshot was in direct response to a claim. you all going batshit crazy on me doesnt mean im not interested in honest discussion. yall could have just said "fair enough, there are some loonies in the lgbt movement" instead of "haha there are randos on the internet getting to you" like fucking toddlers.

Reactions: Winner 4


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> It’s time like this that I’m glad I don’t mod this section.


You’d be a great mod 🥹

Reactions: Agree 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> It’s time like this that I’m glad I don’t mod this section.


cool avatar.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> No thanks. And well no, you dont know that im lying. you cant read minds. sorry.


You don't need to he able to read minds to know when somebody's lying.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

A Optimistic said:


> It’s time like this that I’m glad I don’t mod this section.


Mod? I'm sure the mods would love to ban people for this shit. Other sections have warned me for posting twice in a row hours apart. Conservatives basically get freedom to ruin threads with spamming and asking the same bullshit over and over with little to no consequence.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> You don't need to he able to read minds to know when somebody's lying.


i doubt you can read my body language right now


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm just going to come out and say it @Yami Munesanzun @Flowjr @Bazu'aal @Onomatopoeia @stream *stop responding to them. they're just going to wind up getting this thread closed like the other one and then they'll run around gloating about how they won while these discussions have no where to go anymore because the thread is gone.
> 
> They're not interested in honest discussion or even presenting ideas and when presented with answers and ideas over and over they're going to keep asking the same questions, keep not answering anyone, keep just posting responses that amount to lol.
> 
> You're not going to get any honest response out of them and it's just going to end in them realizing they can do this stupid shit in every thread. *


Ordinarily, sure.

But I just got out of an 8 hour long session of looking at what amounts to wiring blueprints, so I need the laugh.


----------



## CursedKitetsu (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> lul. do you want me to pull up a screenshot of the equivalent with men being transphobes if they dont want to date transwomen?
> 
> well its not that hard to find, takes at worst a couple minutes on google. you can do it!


Are YOU these men? Has a trans woman come up to YOU in real life and told you this? Trans women who live in perpetual fear of men violating them in real life. You they would come up to YOU and FORCE YOU to do something?


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Ordinarily, sure.
> 
> But I just got out of an 8 hour long session of looking at what amounts to wiring blueprints, so I need the laugh.




clearly im getting to you. and if you keep responding that just means you are lying

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Ordinarily, sure.
> 
> But I just got out of an 8 hour long session of looking at what amounts to wiring blueprints, so I need the laugh.





CursedKitetsu said:


> Are YOU these men? Has a trans woman come up to YOU in real life and told you this? Trans women who live in perpetual fear of men violating them in real life. You they would come up to YOU and FORCE YOU to do something?


The thread is about to get locked, just saying. 

And no one told me this, it's just that this is exactly like the other thread that got locked except that thread was much more of an open issue and something that needs to be discussed more. 

I guess if you want to close out this chapter of JK Rowling and Chamber of TERFs be my guest.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> Are YOU these men? Has a trans woman come up to YOU in real life and told you this? Trans women who live in perpetual fear of men violating them in real life. You they would come up to YOU and FORCE YOU to do something?


Again, this isn’t about subjective reality, but the shared objective reality we all have to share.

Are YOU a cat? How do you know a cat is female or male? You’ve never been a cat and a cat has never asked you to refer to it as male or female, or even a cat. You shouldn’t call them cats and refer to them as furry mammals


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

CursedKitetsu said:


> Are YOU these men? Has a trans woman come up to YOU in real life and told you this? Trans women who live in perpetual fear of men violating them in real life. You they would come up to YOU and FORCE YOU to do something?


no the one transgender person that i ever met IRL was actually a very nice person.

fun fact though, i had straight dudes hit on me because they thought i was a woman.


----------



## Bazu'aal (Jul 11, 2022)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm just going to come out and say it @Yami Munesanzun @Flowjr @Bazu'aal @Onomatopoeia @stream *stop responding to them. they're just going to wind up getting this thread closed like the other one and then they'll run around gloating about how they won while these discussions have no where to go anymore because the thread is gone.
> 
> They're not interested in honest discussion or even presenting ideas and when presented with answers and ideas over and over they're going to keep asking the same questions, keep not answering anyone, keep just posting responses that amount to lol.
> 
> You're not going to get any honest response out of them and it's just going to end in them realizing they can do this stupid shit in every thread. *


I'm just observing at this point. Stuck at the hospital right now so I need my soaps.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 11, 2022)

Asaya7 said:


> clearly im getting to you. and if you keep responding that just means you are lying


Translation: "I'm rubber and you're glue, na-na-na-na-nana!!"

I see you've mentally regressed. Go take that nap.


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Jul 11, 2022)

First mistake is using a cesspool like Twitter as evidence to speak for the majority. That's just like that one post about Clarence Thomas that I see popping up everywhere including conservative subs.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

~Avant~ said:


> You shouldn’t call them cats and refer to them as furry mammals


nah thats also too much tbh.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> I'm just observing at this point. Stuck at the hospital right now so I need my soaps.


Feel better


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Translation: "I'm rubber and you're glue, na-na-na-na-nana!!"
> 
> I see you've mentally regressed. Go take that nap.


yep, clearly getting to you. sorry for the emotional damage.


----------



## Asaya7 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bazu'aal said:


> Stuck at the hospital right now so I need my soaps.


wishing you or whoever you are visitting a swift recovery.


----------



## Island (Jul 11, 2022)

Yikes.

Reactions: Funny 2 | Informative 1


----------

