|
Flint doesn't have safe drinking water along with a lot of the country, people dying at work, home, and school from the cold, and of course whatever twisted level of hell this inhumane torture is.
Many inmates at the federal detention center in the New York borough of Brooklyn were still sitting in their cold and dark cells Saturday because of a partial power outage, the director of Federal Defenders of New York David Patton and a representative for the union representing the facility's workers said.
Federal officials said work to fix the power situation at the Metropolitan Detention Center will not be finished until Monday.
One US representative who visited the facility Saturday told CNN affiliate WPIX that the temperature was as low as 49 degrees in the detention center.
"The heat is sporadic and it's uneven," Nydia Velázquez told the station.
It's been a trying situation for more than a day, Patton said.
"Lighting is down. No light in the cells. All locked down since Thursday night. That's going on for at least 36 hours. When the sun goes down it's pitch dark. Inmates who have medical conditions can't read the instructions on the medications," Patton said.
Protesters gathered outside the building Saturday. Some carried signs with the words, "Shut it down," "Torture at the MDC," and other sayings.
Gabriel Pedreira, an organizer for the local branch of the American Federation of Government Employees, said they are concerned for the health and safety of the employees, who are being "forced to work in freezing temperatures."
Pedreira said federal prison officers are working while wearing hats, coats and scarves.
If only the prisoners had a union, I mean they are often put to work for pennies.
"It is unacceptable, illegal, and inhumane to detain people without basic amenities, access to counsel, or medical care," New York Attorney General Letitia A. James said in a statement. "The reported conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center are appalling. Prisoners and detainees have rights and those rights must be enforced. My office is in touch with legal service providers and inmates' attorneys, and closely monitoring this deeply disturbing situation."
www.cnn.com
|
On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective.
Says the open Trump supporter who believes a wall across the southern border will achieve any of its stated goals despite everyone who can reasonably be called knowledgeable on the subject saying it won't achieve any of them and will largely be a waste of time and money.
What you've failed to realise is that objectivism is impossible. That, in fact, was the problem with Rand's attempt at Objectivism. Humans are subjective creatures, and we tend to ascribe objective truth to our own subjective reality.
As a second point, you've consistently demonstrated that you're willing to dismiss out of hand any sources quoted that disagree with your biases on several topics, which again demonstrates that you're basing your viewpoint far more on subjective rather than objective truth. Your standpoint on trans rights pretty solidly proves this, as you clearly make very few attempts to understand the issue from the trans side (and therefore you make little effort to understand the argument itself; you're only interested in arguments that shut it down).
To wit; you're not interested in the truth unless the truth corresponds to what you already think it is.
To tie this point into the discussion you're having with GH somewhat, the whole reason that oppressor/oppressed dynamics matter in this sense is that the oppressor denies the oppressed a voice because it lets them define the truth. It becomes 'truth' that you can't raise the tax rate above the level they're willing to tolerate, it becomes 'truth' that you can't do anything about this or that or whatever. You seem oddly naive on this matter of 'truth'.
|
Most rightwing ideologies end up putting something above truth and reason. Be it the far right ones where it's nation, race, ethnicity, culture, or the more standard conservative ones where it's tradition, God, order, the market...
|
I have a confession to make....
I'm actually Jeremy Scahill
(This is basically the AV version of the argument I've been making since the situation in Venezuela escalated).
There's mixed reports on the protests and clearly propaganda coming from everywhere but here are some images/video from the streets of Venezuela
+ Show Spoiler +
AFP is French media and not pro-Maduro by any stretch.
It appears the momentum for regime change is slowing and if the defections are following previous regime changes they are likely spurred by promises of wealth and/or power from the US. It's no coincidence in my view the first and only ambassador to turn was the one for Iraq (where they would have witnessed first hand the aftermath of US supported regime change).
|
I think it's remarkable only one general has turned on Maduro given the level of international pressure. Didn't it say they have about 500 generals in total?
I'm not sure if the issue will end up being forced or not when all's said and done. The US is obviously going ahead with the whole 'Juan is the President because he said so' thing, and if the US really wants it they can just invade and properly destroy Venezuala (then lament how unfortunate it all is).
But it does seem like the internal pressure is evening out.
It still bothers me a bit that there's so little being said about Juan Gaido. I don't think I've seen a single fluff piece in the media I regularly consume that discusses the guy, his policies and such. Though that might be just because he's meant to be an interim president who doesn't actually do anything.
|
On February 03 2019 14:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 11:16 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not. What kinds of things are knowable? A lot of things. The mathematical and the empirical are just a couple examples. So who are some "subjectivists" (postmodern neomarxists?) that deny mathematical and empirical truths?
Certainly no one worth talking about. But you're asking the wrong question.
|
On February 04 2019 05:14 iamthedave wrote:
I think it's remarkable only one general has turned on Maduro given the level of international pressure. Didn't it say they have about 500 generals in total?
I'm not sure if the issue will end up being forced or not when all's said and done. The US is obviously going ahead with the whole 'Juan is the President because he said so' thing, and if the US really wants it they can just invade and properly destroy Venezuala (then lament how unfortunate it all is).
But it does seem like the internal pressure is evening out.
It still bothers me a bit that there's so little being said about Juan Gaido. I don't think I've seen a single fluff piece in the media I regularly consume that discusses the guy, his policies and such. Though that might be just because he's meant to be an interim president who doesn't actually do anything.
Quite remarkable, though the presentation in media has been pretty misleading on it's significance.
Venezuela has more than 2,000 generals actually, something not usually mentioned when reporting the 1 that defected (there are reports that it might not even be real, but lots of propaganda everywhere) likely giving people a distorted perception of what it means (I'd wager not on accident).
The US already forced the issue, now it's a matter of whether the US and Guaido back down and accept talks or the violence escalates and we get the fascists from Brazil and US trained death squads from Columbia backing Guaido with US support or an outright US military intervention leaving Caracus looking like the rest of the places we "liberated" recently.
+ Show Spoiler +
It's stuff like this (and the post at the top of the page in general) that makes me wonder why there is any support for spending a single dollar on Venezuela whether for democracy and freedom or not by anyone but the bloodthirsty neocons that expect to directly profit from it.
Couldn't get Trump to send supplies to Puerto Rico for desperate US citizens but people just accept the story that Trump is sending humanitarian aid to Venezuela because he cares about the suffering people.
|
On February 04 2019 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 14:49 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 11:16 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not. What kinds of things are knowable? A lot of things. The mathematical and the empirical are just a couple examples. So who are some "subjectivists" (postmodern neomarxists?) that deny mathematical and empirical truths? Certainly no one worth talking about. But you're asking the wrong question.
Well supply the right one for me.
|
Last one for a while but with all the talk about Venezuela there's one aspect that's rarely covered and I think these images demonstrate it plainly.
|
On February 04 2019 05:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2019 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 14:49 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 11:16 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not. What kinds of things are knowable? A lot of things. The mathematical and the empirical are just a couple examples. So who are some "subjectivists" (postmodern neomarxists?) that deny mathematical and empirical truths? Certainly no one worth talking about. But you're asking the wrong question. Well supply the right one for me.
I don't know how far into left field you want to go, but you'd have been better off pushing me on ethics and/or morality. In reality, we don't need to go any further than sex classifications based upon self-identity and self-reporting rather than objective measures are bullshit.
|
On February 03 2019 10:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers. I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming.
What is it about transphobia that you don't like?
|
On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:28 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers. I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming. What is it about transphobia that you don't like?
Do you agree or disagree with the last two sentences? Are those transphobic attitudes or expressions?
|
On February 04 2019 06:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2019 05:49 IgnE wrote:On February 04 2019 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 14:49 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 11:16 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not. What kinds of things are knowable? A lot of things. The mathematical and the empirical are just a couple examples. So who are some "subjectivists" (postmodern neomarxists?) that deny mathematical and empirical truths? Certainly no one worth talking about. But you're asking the wrong question. Well supply the right one for me. I don't know how far into left field you want to go, but you'd have been better off pushing me on ethics and/or morality. In reality, we don't need to go any further than sex classifications based upon self-identity and self-reporting rather than objective measures are bullshit.
I wasn't pushing you anywhere, I was letting you decide where to go. I asked what kinds of truths you think are knowable and you deliberately decided not to talk about ethics and/or morality. Do you think that there are knowable, absolute moral and/or ethical truths?
There's nothing particularly "true" about our categories for sex or gender. Empirically speaking, trans people are not in denial about what their body looks like, what body parts they have, what chromosomes they have, or whether or not they had or have high levels of testosterone coursing through their body. What is in dispute is the categories sex and gender themselves, categories constituting and constituted by interpersonal discourse.
So what are we to make of your suggestion that "sex classifications [should be] based upon … objective measures?" If we agree the dispute is over the categories (i.e. not the scientifically empirical), then this assertion is ultimately a normative, subjective stance concerning what we might call the "meaning" of "woman" or "man." But I am at a loss as to how this dispute concerns something you've called "subjectivism," or how it concerns truth.
If you were really concerned about whether someone had a penis or ovaries (or neither or both), would simply changing the question from "what sex are you?" to "what kind of gonads do you have?" satisfy you? Or are you are invested in the specific question of "what sex are you?" And, if you are, have you thought about what it might mean to compel people to answer that question a certain way?
|
On February 04 2019 07:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2019 10:28 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers. I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming. What is it about transphobia that you don't like? Do you agree or disagree with the last two sentences? Are those transphobic attitudes or expressions?
The trans community doesn't agree that those are transphobic attitudes, you're going to need to be more specific. You added "or homophobic" in your statement which was weird in context and probably says something about you. Would you please answer my question?
|
Some more evidence that Trump is more of a figurehead than other presidents, and that he is a lazy person. Anyone who spends 60% of their 8am - 5pm time not working is lazy.
A White House source has leaked nearly every day of President Trump's private schedule for the past three months.
...
The schedules, which cover nearly every working day since the midterms, show that Trump has spent around 60% of his scheduled time over the past 3 months in unstructured "Executive Time."
www.axios.com
|
On February 04 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2019 07:31 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2019 10:28 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers. I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming. What is it about transphobia that you don't like? Do you agree or disagree with the last two sentences? Are those transphobic attitudes or expressions? The trans community doesn't agree that those are transphobic attitudes, you're going to need to be more specific. You added "or homophobic" in your statement which was weird in context and probably says something about you. Would you please answer my question?
Sorry buddy, I’ve heard the reverse in articles and by activists. I want your answer, not shoving it to others. It’s a good entry point for what I find wrong with transphobia accusations (as the question asks).
|
On February 04 2019 08:19 Doodsmack wrote:Some more evidence that Trump is more of a figurehead than other presidents, and that he is a lazy person. Anyone who spends 60% of their 8am - 5pm time not working is lazy. Show nested quote +A White House source has leaked nearly every day of President Trump's private schedule for the past three months.
...
The schedules, which cover nearly every working day since the midterms, show that Trump has spent around 60% of his scheduled time over the past 3 months in unstructured "Executive Time." www.axios.com
lol that's just Trump derangement syndrome. Maybe he isn't 9-5 in the WH, if you want to make the argument, but lazy? Dude is a work horse at 72 years old.
He was holding 2-3 rallies a day non stop when it counted, both for his election and to save Republicans at midterms. Just follow him on twitter/IG, you can see his schedule.
Acussing political opponents of made up things is a great way to lose all credibility, like the media still refuses to learn.
|
On February 04 2019 12:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 07:31 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2019 10:28 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers. I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming. What is it about transphobia that you don't like? Do you agree or disagree with the last two sentences? Are those transphobic attitudes or expressions? The trans community doesn't agree that those are transphobic attitudes, you're going to need to be more specific. You added "or homophobic" in your statement which was weird in context and probably says something about you. Would you please answer my question? Sorry buddy, I’ve heard the reverse in articles and by activists. I want your answer, not shoving it to others. It’s a good entry point for what I find wrong with transphobia accusations (as the question asks).
I meant that some trans people feel that this is transphobic and some don't, sorry I should have been clearer. My personal opinion matters somewhere around 0% given that I'm cis but I feel the reason why it's not settled is because the question isn't specific enough, which is why I asked you for specificity. If as a straight man you don't want to date trans women because they are trans, which seems to me the most simple assumption, then yeah, probably transphobic.
I don't really care about what you find wrong with transphobia accusations. I want to know what you find wrong with transphobia.
|
when xDaunt can categorically segment XXY in something other than deviant I think it might work but without anything besides "deviant" to refer to XXY individuals it's basically a worthless perspective from my pov.
|
On February 04 2019 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2019 12:12 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 08:09 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 07:31 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2019 10:28 Danglars wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers. I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming. What is it about transphobia that you don't like? Do you agree or disagree with the last two sentences? Are those transphobic attitudes or expressions? The trans community doesn't agree that those are transphobic attitudes, you're going to need to be more specific. You added "or homophobic" in your statement which was weird in context and probably says something about you. Would you please answer my question? If as a straight man you don't want to date trans women because they are trans, which seems to me the most simple assumption, then yeah, probably transphobic.
Really? Is there a duty to be attracted to everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/us-intervention-before-after.jpg)
