|
On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 15:13 IgnE wrote:On February 04 2019 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 12:12 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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? Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there. On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?".
I'll make it easy. I don't like "transphobia" as currently applied as a concept because it obliges straight guys to be attracted to and/or like chicks with dicks, otherwise they are transphobes.
|
On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 15:13 IgnE wrote:On February 04 2019 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 12:12 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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? Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there. On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?".
You're not even close. The past three answers I gave all on the subject address what I think transphobia can mean (and the multiple forums, articles, and people that have explained such to me) and why I think that's a problem. You're just running from the answer. I restate: Offer an apology to why you aren't taking answers to the question restated here. I'm not in the mood to humor trolls that keep asking after they have their answer. Go find another poster to annoy or take out the fingers plugging up your ears and the blindfold from your eyes. Maybe understanding views on transphobia is beyond your scope of understanding, period, and I have a great deal of empathy of learning difficulties of all kinds.
|
On February 05 2019 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 15:13 IgnE wrote:On February 04 2019 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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? Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there. On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?". I'll make it easy. I don't like "transphobia" as currently applied as a concept because it obliges straight guys to be attracted to and/or like chicks with dicks, otherwise they are transphobes.
Currently applied by who though?
I don't remember being invited to that meeting where left decided this.
Its honestly the kind of thing where everyone has different opinions, the last transgender person I heard talking about exactly this subject said nothing of the sort and implied the opposite.
There are, however, things that everyone (almost) agrees are transphobic.
Beating up a trans woman because someone didn't realize they were trans and told their friends they thought she was hot.
Campaigning against charities designed to help transgender people and their families. Using slurs like 'trap'.
|
On February 05 2019 03:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 15:13 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Really? Is there a duty to be attracted to everyone? Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there. On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?". I'll make it easy. I don't like "transphobia" as currently applied as a concept because it obliges straight guys to be attracted to and/or like chicks with dicks, otherwise they are transphobes. Currently applied by who though? I don't remember being invited to that meeting where left decided this. Its honestly the kind of thing where everyone has different opinions, the last transgender person I heard talking about exactly this subject said nothing of the sort and implied the opposite.
By the pro-trans community. This is the whole point of the Andrew Sullivan piece that I cited earlier. The left is fractured on this very issue.
|
On February 05 2019 03:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 15:13 IgnE wrote:On February 04 2019 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
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? Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there. On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?". You're not even close. The past three answers I gave all on the subject address what I think transphobia can mean (and the multiple forums, articles, and people that have explained such to me) and why I think that's a problem. You're just running from the answer. I restate: Offer an apology to why you aren't taking answers to the question restated here. I'm not in the mood to humor trolls that keep asking after they have their answer. Go find another poster to annoy or take out the fingers plugging up your ears and the blindfold from your eyes. Maybe understanding views on transphobia is beyond your scope of understanding, period, and I have a great deal of empathy of learning difficulties of all kinds.
It's not that I don't accept the answer. You aren't understanding the question, and neither is xDaunt.
If you agree with 100% of things a transphobe would say, but don't like being called a transphobe because of the stigma and the other reasons you've developed there, then why would I care what you like? You agree with 100% of things a transphobe would say, it is therefore accurate to call you a transphobe, facts don't care about your feelings.
That's why I'm asking you: what is it about transphobia that you don't like?
|
On February 05 2019 03:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 05 2019 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there.
[quote]
This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?". I'll make it easy. I don't like "transphobia" as currently applied as a concept because it obliges straight guys to be attracted to and/or like chicks with dicks, otherwise they are transphobes. Currently applied by who though? I don't remember being invited to that meeting where left decided this. Its honestly the kind of thing where everyone has different opinions, the last transgender person I heard talking about exactly this subject said nothing of the sort and implied the opposite. By the pro-trans community. This is the whole point of the Andrew Sullivan piece that I cited earlier. The left is fractured on this very issue.
I would say that people on the left disagree about this particular thing,but aren't 'fractured' on it.
Its not really a massive point of contention on the left because there are much more important areas to talk about like the assault in the media on transgender people, and like right wing christian evangelical groups funding 'feminists' (lol) to fight against pro trans legislation.
I have never seen anyone on the left fall out over the issue of whether or not someone's sexual preference can make them a transphobe.
|
On February 05 2019 03:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:44 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 15:13 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Really? Is there a duty to be attracted to everyone? Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there. On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?". You're not even close. The past three answers I gave all on the subject address what I think transphobia can mean (and the multiple forums, articles, and people that have explained such to me) and why I think that's a problem. You're just running from the answer. I restate: Offer an apology to why you aren't taking answers to the question restated here. I'm not in the mood to humor trolls that keep asking after they have their answer. Go find another poster to annoy or take out the fingers plugging up your ears and the blindfold from your eyes. Maybe understanding views on transphobia is beyond your scope of understanding, period, and I have a great deal of empathy of learning difficulties of all kinds. It's not that I don't accept the answer. You aren't understanding the question, and neither is xDaunt. If you agree with 100% of things a transphobe would say, but don't like being called a transphobe because of the stigma and the other reasons you've developed there, then why would I care what you like? You agree with 100% of things a transphobe would say, it is therefore accurate to call you a transphobe, facts don't care about your feelings. That's why I'm asking you: what is it about transphobia that you don't like?
Yeah, sorry, I already answered that question in what I think transphobia includes and why I think it's an unfair imputation of bigoted moral character. Further discussion on my part is unwarranted, and I don't think you have the capacity to understand nuanced views on the subject. Happy days to you, hopefully with less trolling.
|
On February 05 2019 03:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:49 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:44 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:35 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2019 03:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2019 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2019 15:32 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Of course not. But there are trans women who look like basically every type of cis women I can think of, so unless you get extremely specific, attraction isn't going to be the defining factor there.
[quote]
This describes what you don't like about trans activism and some stuff that you feel is described as transphobic and shouldn't be. This is not what I'm asking you; I'm asking you what it is about transphobia that you don't like. Who are you to define what should and shouldn't be transphobic? You didn't ask me who I think gets to define what fits under the umbrella. You asked me what problem I have with it. The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia ( You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. I'm no one, that's why the first thing I said was literally I'm cis so my opinion matters 0%. We should defer to trans people on this topic, and that's one where they are divided (presumably because the question is not worded very well, and could have different answers depending on specifics). I'm not going to get you to answer my question am I? That's annoying, I think it's interesting. You asked: On February 04 2019 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What is it about transphobia that you don't like? And I answered three times now, cited: On February 04 2019 15:26 Danglars wrote:
IgnE beat me to it. I have a problem with transphobia so far as it means I have a duty to be attracted to women with penises. As you elucidate here, my exclusion of that category of human in women I would date would fall under a transphobic attitude. That’s a problem I have with the term, and one primary hurdle.
The rest of your post deals with the problem of phobias being overbroad in application. I also don’t like how modern terms like transphobia are broadly applied or narrowly applied, or who can and can’t speak on behalf of an entire community. On February 04 2019 23:59 Danglars wrote:
The first major one is I've read articles and heard trans people say that dating exclusion is transphobia (You said "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.") There's my problem. Transphobia is a term with negative connotations that imply a character defect in the bigotry category, and shouldn't be used to describe the aforementioned. It's a specific thing I've heard called transphobia (in articles, spoken about by trans people, discussed) that I think is not a bigoted attitude. You have a great deal left to learn about not liking someone's answer, and pretending they never really answered you. So kindly proceed to ask questions you want answers on, and cease toddling around with the childish behavior. If you are indeed a child, and need further instruction in dealing with answers you don't like, inquire of your parents. Here is this dude named DudeB. You don't know him, he is not connected to you, you care 0% about stigmas attached to his person, that doesn't impact your life in any way. He is transphobic. Can you give me some examples of things you don't like about what he says, and why you don't like those things? I have trouble justifying further answers given how recently you chose not to acknowledge any from me. I don't know if this is a flaw in your understanding, some kind of weird debate strategy, or you're just trolling. So read the two things I quoted a second time in answer to your first question, and give what form of apology you want to show me future replies will be understood (Sorry for ignoring the previous ones, here's my new ones). I will not feed trolls or trolly activists. It's a flaw in your understanding. You are answering the question "What is it about being called a transphobe that you don't like?". I'm asking you "What is it about transphobia that you don't like?". You're not even close. The past three answers I gave all on the subject address what I think transphobia can mean (and the multiple forums, articles, and people that have explained such to me) and why I think that's a problem. You're just running from the answer. I restate: Offer an apology to why you aren't taking answers to the question restated here. I'm not in the mood to humor trolls that keep asking after they have their answer. Go find another poster to annoy or take out the fingers plugging up your ears and the blindfold from your eyes. Maybe understanding views on transphobia is beyond your scope of understanding, period, and I have a great deal of empathy of learning difficulties of all kinds. It's not that I don't accept the answer. You aren't understanding the question, and neither is xDaunt. If you agree with 100% of things a transphobe would say, but don't like being called a transphobe because of the stigma and the other reasons you've developed there, then why would I care what you like? You agree with 100% of things a transphobe would say, it is therefore accurate to call you a transphobe, facts don't care about your feelings. That's why I'm asking you: what is it about transphobia that you don't like? Yeah, sorry, I already answered that question in what I think transphobia includes and why I think it's an unfair imputation of bigoted moral character. Further discussion on my part is unwarranted, and I don't think you have the capacity to understand nuanced views on the subject. Happy days to you, hopefully with less trolling.
Ok, here's my last try at reformulating this question in an attempt to get an answer from you. Can you give me an example of something someone would say that would be included in transphobia and would be a fair imputation of bigoted moral character?
|
On February 05 2019 02:08 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 00:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 04 2019 12:43 GoTuNk! wrote: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. 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. Interesting that you say he was working hard "when it counted." Does that mean he's no longer working hard, because it no longer counts? The evidence is right in front of your eyes - "executive time" is not work. No, I mean as working hard in stark contrast with Hillary who was doing nothing when she should have been campaigning.
"Working hard" is not spending 156 days at golf in ~700 days. Working hard at rallies is not working, it is getting your energy from crowds that favor you. Working hard is running the f***ing country, filling your administration (ie. at least appointing people to positions, complaining about democrats stalling is fine as long as you at least tried to get people there, which is not always the case) with personnel, so that the government can do its job. Working hard is attending meetings to be properly informed of the world you have to deal with, instead of doing whatever the heck you think is your gut instinct after being mentally absent all along these information sessions, as boring as they are. Being a president IS a boring job. Managing things is hard and tiring. If you've done a proper job, you should have no energy left after these 4 years given from your life in service of the country. Not exactly what I'm seeing.
Having "very important phone calls with world leaders" where you don't usually know the details of what you are telling or asking, is also not very difficult. Some people have become masters of trying to look knowledgeable, but it's been really easy to see that he has no mastery of the topics discussed, only a very broad and often wrong overview.
I could also be in the White House and navigate at will, things will probably hold on for a while, but after 4years, it's gonna be ugly.
"When it counts" is when you are actually a president, presiding over your country and trying to care over the livelihood of your citizens, not your ratings. Not running around raising money for your reelection campaign 4 years early. (and yes, I hate it as well when the other side does it, we have very different election funding laws over here, I find yours crazy overall, the money could be much better spent on a lot of other ways, but that's another topic)
I get that the only things he craves are rallies, but that's not what being a president is, only a small part of.
There are so many things to do to properly run a country, a day is not enough, and a president's schedule should be filled throughout, except when you're here on accident and haven't planned what the heck you were going to do and don't actually want the job and have vague ideas of what you want to do (apart from the crowds and attention part of it, and a few ideas you're dead set on, at the expense of everything else, like lowering your own taxes and hating illegal immigrants though you and your family employ them cause it's cheaper)
I mean, for all the shit Macron is eating, he has been spending a lot of time listening to local mayors and answering them. And by that, I mean 7-8h long sessions standing alone in the middle of ~400 often hostile mayors, taking input and questions and answering with detailed policies and explanations. One may not like him or his policies, but at least he is putting in the work. Now compare to Trump.
( example in the video : 6h58, beware... http://video.lefigaro.fr/figaro/video/grand-debat-national-suivez-en-direct-son-lancement-par-emmanuel-macron-a-grand-bourgtheroulde/5989623607001/ )
|
What are the odds that a democrat leaked the Northam yearbook stuff? I find it unlikely that someone just randomly started looking into his past immediately after the election. It's more likely that someone dug it up during the campaign. If a republican had it, I can't imagine that the photos wouldn't have surfaced during the campaign. And democrats certainly had reason to change the narrative as it pertains to Northam following his disastrous radio interview talking about infanticide. He dealt more damage to the pro-choice movement than any pro-life advocate could have.
|
I just assumed somebody that knew Ralph Northam in medical school got pissed off after he came out in favor of infanticide. The two controversies followed so closely after one another.
|
On February 05 2019 08:12 xDaunt wrote:
What are the odds that a democrat leaked the Northam yearbook stuff? I find it unlikely that someone just randomly started looking into his past immediately after the election. It's more likely that someone dug it up during the campaign. If a republican had it, I can't imagine that the photos wouldn't have surfaced during the campaign. And democrats certainly had reason to change the narrative as it pertains to Northam following his disastrous radio interview talking about infanticide. He dealt more damage to the pro-choice movement than any pro-life advocate could have.
I'd say 90%, the guy is on a roll. He turned the democrat party from the abortion party into the infanticide party. With the yearbook stuff, they also moved the conversation away from what many democrat politicians want, but is very unpopular with the general population (3rd trimester abortions)
|
So remember when everyone objected to me pointing out the obvious likelihood that someone in Mueller's office tipped off CNN about the Roger Stone arrest? About that....
Documents obtained exclusively by The Gateway Pundit show a copy of the draft indictment without the PACER filing number or official stamps of the court, with metadata on the document identifying it as being authored by “AAW”, who is suspected to be lead Special Counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
CNN’s camera crew allegedly arrived at Stone’s residence a whole hour before the raid and CNN’s Sara Murray provided Stone’s attorney with a draft copy of the indictment in an early morning communique to confirm the FBI raid and arrest.
CNN was the only camera crew on the scene of the FBI raid on Roger Stone’s home.
While CNN has spent an entire week claiming their presence at the FBI raid on Stone’s South Florida home was a combination of luck and hard work, this evidence proves that their “source” was indeed the Office of the Special Counsel, who colluded with the notoriously anti-Trump news network to produce a propaganda broadcast of the arrest that is reminiscent of the Nazi era tactics of the Gestapo and propaganda ministry lead by Joseph Goebbels.
Source.
The article contains a copy of the letter that Stone's attorney sent to Congress detailing the claim. Needless to say, AAW (in all likelihood Andy Weissman) has some serious explaining to do regarding why he is leaking stuff that is supposed to be under seal.
And to everyone here accusing me of being unfair and biased when it comes to reviewing the record in this Russia gate stuff, it's about time for y'all to reconsider. That someone leaked the impending arrest to CNN was fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain. But beyond that, all of the stuff that I have been citing here has been reliable, and the recent stuff directly cites and quotes testimonial transcripts. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the inherent reliability of that kind of article and the NYT reporting something based upon an anonymous source needs to seriously reassess their contributions to the topic.
|
Whenever I hear "Russian collusion" now, I think of Bernie partying shirtless.
CNN claim looks pretty false,to compliment your comment, their reporter was laughing his ass off when asked why he was there, while saying "journalistic instinct".
|
If infanticide was good enough for the Greeks it’s Western enough for me
|
On February 05 2019 09:20 IgnE wrote:
If infanticide was good enough for the Greeks it’s Western enough for me
huh should we start having slaves again?
|
On February 05 2019 09:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 09:20 IgnE wrote:
If infanticide was good enough for the Greeks it’s Western enough for me huh should we start having slaves again?
0 Hour contracts, working poor and sweatshop employees would like to have a word with you.
We don't call it slavery but the bottom rung of our working class is very, very close to it.
|
On February 05 2019 08:52 xDaunt wrote:So remember when everyone objected to me pointing out the obvious likelihood that someone in Mueller's office tipped off CNN about the Roger Stone arrest? About that.... Show nested quote +Documents obtained exclusively by The Gateway Pundit show a copy of the draft indictment without the PACER filing number or official stamps of the court, with metadata on the document identifying it as being authored by “AAW”, who is suspected to be lead Special Counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
CNN’s camera crew allegedly arrived at Stone’s residence a whole hour before the raid and CNN’s Sara Murray provided Stone’s attorney with a draft copy of the indictment in an early morning communique to confirm the FBI raid and arrest.
CNN was the only camera crew on the scene of the FBI raid on Roger Stone’s home.
While CNN has spent an entire week claiming their presence at the FBI raid on Stone’s South Florida home was a combination of luck and hard work, this evidence proves that their “source” was indeed the Office of the Special Counsel, who colluded with the notoriously anti-Trump news network to produce a propaganda broadcast of the arrest that is reminiscent of the Nazi era tactics of the Gestapo and propaganda ministry lead by Joseph Goebbels. Source. The article contains a copy of the letter that Stone's attorney sent to Congress detailing the claim. Needless to say, AAW (in all likelihood Andy Weissman) has some serious explaining to do regarding why he is leaking stuff that is supposed to be under seal. And to everyone here accusing me of being unfair and biased when it comes to reviewing the record in this Russia gate stuff, it's about time for y'all to reconsider. That someone leaked the impending arrest to CNN was fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain. But beyond that, all of the stuff that I have been citing here has been reliable, and the recent stuff directly cites and quotes testimonial transcripts. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the inherent reliability of that kind of article and the NYT reporting something based upon an anonymous source needs to seriously reassess their contributions to the topic.
That does look to be proof of a leak to CNN. One could argue that Stone "deserved it," since he had been calling Mueller's team crooked for a while. Also, recall the Starr investigation which engaged in what was more or less a leak war with the Clinton administration (as an aside, Kavanaugh was likely one of the leakers). This isn't something Weismann should do but I would still say that your recent citations to John Solomon and others have been far from ironclad. The contention that the Russia probe is corrupt from the outset is far from proven at this point (of course, so is the contention that Trump colluded with Russia, although I would argue that we have proof that he attempted to collude, even if that attempt was in response to an elaborate sting operation by team Fusion GPS).
|
Kind of strange that the Trump Org would start purging their illegals this late in the game. It's not like they are erasing the hypocrisy of Trump having employed illegals for his whole career. He loves illegals.
Maybe they didn't want the embarassment of having ICE knocking on teh door.
|
On February 05 2019 10:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 09:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 05 2019 09:20 IgnE wrote:
If infanticide was good enough for the Greeks it’s Western enough for me huh should we start having slaves again? 0 Hour contracts, working poor and sweatshop employees would like to have a word with you. We don't call it slavery but the bottom rung of our working class is very, very close to it.
I sometimes wonder if you are a pre-programmed bot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
