You are not logged in. Please register or login.

misterID
 Rep: 474 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
Axl S wrote:

Rowling was criticised because of her overall history on this issue up to that point, she's someone who claims she is a big ally of trans people but then endorses explicitly transphobic merch online.

Also, many in this thread only seem to talk about trans people as if they are people who were born as a biological male who later identified as a woman. It happens the other way around too. Id, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging someone's born biological sex. Someone who was formerly a man or woman and now identifies the other way around, their sex is still whatever they were born as. That definition is inherently important for two obvious areas: medicine and sport. (And there's probably others where it's relevant). Their gender is just how the identify and choose to present.


Flagg, if that word is insulting but not homophobic, ask yourself why is it considered insulting in the first place. It's a word that either means bundle of sticks, meatball or is  an offensive slur for gay man.

It's homophobic in the exact same way as using the word gay in place of "lame" when describing something by saying "that's so gay".

JK is a feminist who believes that biological women have a life experience and health issues trans people dont, and vice versa. I don't know why it's difficult to point out the ugliness of these groups/movement. She's said nothing wrong, other than saying something some people don't want to hear, said allowed or agreed with. That's life. It's not okay for biological men to participate in women's sports, for example, simply because they identity as female.

Can we have a discussion about this that doesn't involved sports? Seems impossible...I honestly don't care enough to make a stand about sports.

It's a pretty big deal to that whole subject, records are being broken, scholarships are being taken, etc. It matters. You don't have to respond.

mitchejw
 Rep: 130 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

"You guys"

Did you miss that?

You saying we are using strawmen is ignoring who actually is as I pointed out.

You said, "These middle aged, straight white men know what's offensive to Black people, what's offensive to Gay or trans people."

And Mitch made his typical insightful generalization opinion. If you weren't talking about me, then I apologize.

Well I mean is it wrong? This board is filled with middle aged white men some of whom sound like the grandpa shaking his fist and yelling at the wind.

Being in that demo comes with some pretty accurate stereotypes.

IRISH OS1R1S
 Rep: 59 

Re: Current Events Thread

IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

Exactly, what's wrong with that statement.

I don't get personal, with one exception.

misterID
 Rep: 474 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

"You guys"

Did you miss that?

You saying we are using strawmen is ignoring who actually is as I pointed out.

You said, "These middle aged, straight white men know what's offensive to Black people, what's offensive to Gay or trans people."

And Mitch made his typical insightful generalization opinion. If you weren't talking about me, then I apologize.

Well I mean is it wrong? This board is filled with middle aged white men some of whom sound like the grandpa shaking his fist and yelling at the wind.

Being in that demo comes with some pretty accurate stereotypes.

Sure, some stereotypes are accurate, just like they are for SJW, trans people, and everything else you're shaking your fist at.

mitchejw
 Rep: 130 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

JK is a feminist who believes that biological women have a life experience and health issues trans people dont, and vice versa. I don't know why it's difficult to point out the ugliness of these groups/movement. She's said nothing wrong, other than saying something some people don't want to hear, said allowed or agreed with. That's life. It's not okay for biological men to participate in women's sports, for example, simply because they identity as female.

Can we have a discussion about this that doesn't involved sports? Seems impossible...I honestly don't care enough to make a stand about sports.

It's a pretty big deal to that whole subject, records are being broken, scholarships are being taken, etc. It matters. You don't have to respond.

Yea I just...I care so little that I have no opinion. I guess for now trans people are men in certain situations and women in others.

misterID
 Rep: 474 

Re: Current Events Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

Can we have a discussion about this that doesn't involved sports? Seems impossible...I honestly don't care enough to make a stand about sports.

It's a pretty big deal to that whole subject, records are being broken, scholarships are being taken, etc. It matters. You don't have to respond.

Yea I just...I care so little that I have no opinion. I guess for now trans people are men in certain situations and women in others.

There are things I don't respond to just because of that reason. I mentioned this because I watched an interview with a feminist on trans people who made some interesting points that made me think.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 138 

Re: Current Events Thread

I’ve yet to have someone explain the distinction of gender if it can’t be quantified. No one can define “male” and “female”.  Something that can’t be defined shouldn’t something left for each person to decide and ostracize others for not playing along.

Humans are either male or female, as defined by the presence of a XY or XX chromosome. Only genetic mutations deviate from this, and they’re almost always sterile. If Catelyn Jenner wants to use female pronouns, dress as a woman, and pretend to be a woman, more power to her. I certainly won’t offend her by pronouncing she’s not a woman to her face.

But that’s not the discussion being had. The movement wants you to believe it’s not only transphobic to make any distinction, it’s also transphobic if you’re not sexually attracted to that. In the extremes they believe a man sucking the penis of a trans woman isn’t a homosexual act, but a heterosexual one. I’d wager someone here will make that argument.

And that’s to say nothing of the snowflakes who wants infinite genders so they can finally have an identity that resolves the uncertainty of society and life. A woman doesn’t have a beard and a penis, no matter how much you want to pretend gender is this aether that can’t be defined or quantified, but must be accepted as presented on demand. You can’t separate sports from it, because they don’t want them separated. Biological men are competing in and dominating women’s sports. Anyone who knows anything about biology and testosterone knows what kind of advantage that provides. The fastest and strongest person in the world will always be a man. The NFL may see a female kicker eventually, but they’ll never have a female all-pro player in any other position. That’s just biology.

Gender is a meaningless construct that can only be defined by its sexual associations, so arguing for its undefined existence goes beyond the academic or intellectual. This isn’t something science will one day uncover. Gender Dysphoria is a real affliction that affects a fraction of a percent of people. It’s not this social movement the left has embraced.

monkeychow
 Rep: 657 

Re: Current Events Thread

monkeychow wrote:
misterID wrote:

I mentioned this because I watched an interview with a feminist on trans people who made some interesting points that made me think.

I think one of the issues around this stuff is that many LGBTIQ  people are somewhat allied in their dissatisfaction of their historical treatment in society, however, underneath that as individual groups some of the things they believe are not so closely aligned with each other.

They are often grouped together as one people - basically everyone who is non-hetrosexual and non-cisgender as if it's a unified movement but in places it can be logically inconsistent to believe EVERY single one of their individual beliefs together.

It's a bit like atheists vs religious people. Religious people will be allied against the atheists...but when you go deeper than that it's an awkward alliance as everyone religious doesn't believe in the same things.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 330 

Re: Current Events Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:


Smoking Guns
 Rep: 330 

Re: Current Events Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB