LGBT Rights and Gender Equality Thread - Page 123

On August 05 2013 09:49 Ghostcom wrote:


Yes because what this thread needs is more pathos and less logos. Keep it up.

On August 05 2013 09:58 Plansix wrote:

What the reality of a 50% suside rate to much for you to deal with? The idea that your statements might do real harm is to real for you?

On August 05 2013 09:58 Plansix wrote:

What the reality of a 50% suside rate to much for you to deal with? The idea that your statements might do real harm is to real for you?

I wonder if people still question the validity of that 50% suicide rate ratio for trans people. Yeah keep fighting over their identity you're doing the world a favor after all, right?

On August 05 2013 09:05 Darkwhite wrote:


Then stop pretending you are qualified translate my posts. I am not at all fine with such rhetorical nonsense. If you want to extrapolate something beyond what I write, then ask a question and I will tell you my opinion myself. Stop pretending people mean completely different things than what they actually write, even if that makes it easier to argue with them.

Your posts in that conversation were continually arguing for your right to say trans people are at best a seperate gender, and thus can be discriminated against in your personal life. This is why I believe you took care to mention in a professional role, rather than any other.

It is in my right to distinguish between natural born women and male to female transsexuals. You cannot strip me of that right by showing to other people who aren't me violating your rights, maybe because of my propping and supporting which are uselessly vague terms which allow you to accuse anybody of anything.

On August 04 2013 22:12 Darkwhite wrote:


There is a difference between being wrong about facts, i.e. people being carrots, and making a distinction some people consider irrelevant, i.e. transsexuality.

This is mostly a repeat of the above. I would defend people's rights to discriminate against people, for the purposes of friendship, on basis of perceived unpleasantness. I would defend people's rights to discriminate against people, for the purposes of playing bridge, on basis of perceived stupidity. I see no reason why I am not allowed to defend people's rights to discriminate against people, for the purposes of sexual contact, on the basis of perceived transsexuality.

I would stand by that statement, however you shifted the different purposes around to different perceived characteristics.

I find it ironic that allowing people to act on whatever preferences they might happen to have in their personal lives, as long as they respect other people's rights, is supposedly bullying, unlike trying to dictate what other people are allowed to do in private and what preferences they need to try to change lest they be indecent.

Your reading comprehension really tried my patience. I talked about your positive right to not have people spread falsehoods about you. The reason you are misinterpreting me is that you very crudely tried to invert a non-exhaustive list about positive rights to pretend everything which didn't show up on the original list is endorsed by me, and that you didn't give me any benefit of doubt when the results were absurd.

Here's an instructive example:
- if Brad Pitt moves in next door, I am allowed to tell my brother That's the guy who starred in Fight Club, even if Brad Pitt is embarrassed about his role in this movie; here, I am passing on public information
- if Brad Pitt visits me and I diagnose him with syphilis, I am not allowed to tell my brother about it; here, I am making confidential information public

I am not sure what the law says about something you tell me in private and instruct me to keep secret, and I suspect this varies based on jurisdiction, but passing it on would regardless be a violation of trust, which I personally don't find acceptable. This is fairly orthogonal to whether I am obligated to call male to female transsexuals women always and in all contexts when doing so does not disclose anything confidential.

I can't see any problem with that, as long as people are individually allowed to decide when they want to make the distinction without being under the scrutiny of the offensiveness police. Furthermore, this isn't a permissible loophole for people to deliberately misinform by hiding under a wider umbrella term or a different interpretation: see Bill Clinton's I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

On August 05 2013 17:28 Ghostcom wrote:


No, this idiocy posting of yours and fugs is what is too much for me to deal with. I am going to call out bullshit posting no matter who presents it, or what viewpoint it is made to further. Randomly posting



in an attempt to shame those who disagree with you in an entirely different discussion is bullshit posting.

But nice ad hominem with loads of substance behind it. Funnily enough I am checking this post whilst sitting in the closed psych ward after having just had a conversation in my capacity as an M.D. with a schizophrenic patient who is currently admitted on red papers due to an attempted suicide - the person is not trans, but I dare say that I after 1 shift have done more for suicidal people than you or fugs have done throughout your entire lives.

I also thought it was quite obvious that whilst I personally would never date a transgender because getting kids are so important to me (I have also left cis women before because she didn't wish for kids). I do however treat them as the gender they identify as in any other aspect of my life. I am in this thread because some try and pass that as transphobic and I am in this thread because I am interested in the discussion - which gets dragged down into the mud with posting like what I just called fugs out on and then amplified by your moronic ad hominems for which I expect an apology.

EDIT: Fixed some typos. Typing whilst infuriated seems to impact my accuracy.

EDIT2: Also if you insist on shitposting you could at least have the decency to use accurate numbers. The suicide ATTEMPT rate is reported in the 40-45% range in almost all studies. The actual suicide rate is approximately 30% - not 50%. This is obviously still ridiculous compared to the background population and an extremely serious thing. Even more disturbing is that there amongst transgenders living in states where intolerance is institutionalized is an 248% increase of anxiety disorders, 41.9% increase in alcohol abuse, 36.3% increase in psychiatric co-morbidities pre and post institutionalized amendments (and thus as intolerance increases).

Source

On August 05 2013 19:41 Plansix wrote:

Well its clear that your intent is good, even if you initial post was snarky. Sorry we dogpiled on you. However, in the future you may want to take more effort to differentiate yourself, since your post can be read is a smart ass comment by a 17 year old kid.

On August 05 2013 19:58 Ghostcom wrote:


Whereas your's and fugs's posts are beacons of brilliance. Perhaps you should take your own advice - this is not exactly the first time for you to go straight to the personal insults - heck even in the Trayvon Martin thread (which apparently is your home turf being a legal aid) you had to resort to petty ad hominems and appeal to authority rather than bringing actual solid arguments.

On August 05 2013 20:17 Ghostcom wrote:
This is off-topic and going to be a complete waste of my time. Enjoy your life.

On August 05 2013 20:11 Plansix wrote:

Well you should take the tone of the thread you are posting into account at all time. This thread has been filled with ad hominems posts or just straight out attacks due to the subject at hand. A lot of them directed at the transgender members in the thread, so it is natural they would be a little defensive. I see the point you were trying to make, but you should have perhaps tried to be more informative in your initial post.

As for the Trayvon Martin thread, almost every discussion degrated down to this exchange:

Person postings: "x" should be illegal and its total BS that is isn't. He should be in jail because that stuff should be illegal.

Me or someone else: Well "x" isn't illegal for good reason and here is why. Also that isn't the crime he is charged with and it is much narrower than you think.

Person posting: Thats fucking bullshit, you mean to tell me its totally ok to do "x" and then shoot someone. WTF!

After you have a discussion similar to that one 10 to 15 times, you just start appealing to authority because its faster. Its like the guy in the SC2 discussions who keeps posting crap about men being 8 times more likely to be a genesis. Sometimes you look at the statement and say "this person isn't here to discuss anything".

On August 05 2013 20:48 Holy_AT wrote:


No, this just means that there are two persons with different views and opinions.
You don't need an authority figure to decide opinions, that's just horrible.

The possible outcomes are, one party takes the point of view of party b and surrenders his previous view or vice versa.
Another outcome is that they both arrive at a new enhanced point of view possibly incorporating both of their views or creating a new opinion overall.

The last possible outcome is that nothing happens and both parties stand on their point of view.
If this happens it is more important how these parties treat each other than what they actually say.

On August 05 2013 17:28 Iyerbeth wrote:


First, I'd like to point out that you agreed with 6 out of 8 (presuming you disagree with the one you don't understand) so it's not like I wasn't saying things you don't agree with in principle, though granted I intentionally placed a negative slant on them in an attempt to show you why advocating for anyone to have the right to say I'm not a woman at any time is harmful. And fine, let's drop the rhetoric.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to differentiate at any time for any reason, I'm saying that supporting a society which does that is morally wrong and extremely harmful. You also appear to be making the argument that people should have the right to call me a man for any reason at any time, something which you would never find acceptable if it was done routinely to your mother/grandmother/sister etc. To be clear, I'm not saying you would do that, merely that you're arguing for it in your argumentation that you would seem content to being free to call me trans at any point, which while better isn't great.

Your posts in that conversation were continually arguing for your right to say trans people are at best a seperate gender, and thus can be discriminated against in your personal life. This is why I believe you took care to mention in a professional role, rather than any other.

By discrimination in private I was refering to your arguing for the right for someone to call me a man at any time they think it's relevant, despite being factually wrong, because you earlier argued that trans isn't a matter of fact in the same way as being a carrot. I have a friend who is quite a lot older than I who transitioned very late in life. She was balding and she's really tall and broad and so doesn't pass at all. As a result of all the non-professional situational discrimination she barely leaves the house anymore and she's seriously depressed. Again, my point isn't that there is any right not to, but that it's immoral and harmful.

These terms aren't vague terms to allow me to accuse you of anything, there needs to be a causal link. In arguing that everyone has the right to differentiate trans women whenever they want you are supporting those who use that right to be more offensive. I'm not saying you don't have that right, but given earlier in the discussion you said (heavily cut but context in tact):



which is extremely difficult to read without seeing "it is a fact you aren't a carrot. It is a distinction you're not a woman".

I think I've already covered this.



I think I've already covered why your posts led me to misinterpret it. Everything on the list I wrote, I intended to be in line with your posts in that discussion as I read them, which I'm trying to explain here.



Unfortuantely I'm out of time so I can't continue responding, but I think I've explained the core of my point. I just wanted to add, that when I tell someone I'm a woman I'm not misinforming them. My birth certificate says female and I'm an adult.

Edit: Literally just about to leave, I didn't mean to dodge the 'offensive' discussion bit, really have to be at college in 23 mins.

I neither want to nor need to dictate what gender a transsexual belongs to, that's a matter of semantics and perceptions which will go nowhere.

On August 05 2013 22:35 Darkwhite wrote:


Your counting is entirely wrong. I am growing very tired of having opinions assigned to me which are nowhere near anything I have ever written. This age old rhetoric nonsense, of assigning opinions to me I don't hold to trick me into defending them instead of my actual opinions such that I can more easily be proved wrong without ever addressing my actual argument isn't going to work.

Your rights don't kick in if I:

- don't violate your personal space false
- Discriminate against you on the basis of whatever I want so long as I can't lose my job false
- Prop up bigotry in society by arguing that you aren't a woman, despite all evidence to the contrary first part vauge catch-all accusation, second part (not a woman, all evidence) both false
- Support bullying in the same regard as above vague catch-all accusation with zero burden of proof
- Spread your medical information to others misinterpretation, though at least a reasonable one
- Support institutionalised transphobia vague catch-all accusation with zero burden of proof
- Ignore your wishes to be treated like anyone else poorly phrased, but mostly true
- 'Accidentally' offend you, say by calling you a man or otherwise working to deny you your identity ambiguous about intentionality, outright false about calling somebody a man, vague gender studies terminology about denial of identity

I did no such thing as agreeing with six out of eight of your libelous interpretations in my last post, and if you really cannot keep yourself from repeatedly putting words into my mouth, I won't waste my time having a threesome with you and your scarecrow debate partner. Consider this a final warning.

I will personally request the following, which I think are good guidelines in general:
- spend your time stating your own opinions, not mine - leave that to me
- argue against what I have written, not what you think might have found written between the lines
- if you think you have found indications that I hold an outrageous opinion, reread and see if there is a more sane interpretation
- if you still think this is the correct interpretation, state it and ask if I agree or disagree

This is your private conjecture, which I disagree with. I think that telling people what distinctions they are allowed to make or what preferences are indecent because they are irrational and need to be changed is what's really harmful. If you follow the context backwards through posts, you will see that I particularly responded to someone thinking his patchwork argument for calling not wanting to have sex with transsexuals irrational was a good enough reason to condemn it.

I have never argued for people's right to call you a man - that is nonsense you pretend I said by quoting it to my name. I have argued for people's right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals. I can use any readily understandable, non-euphemistic term you pick to draw this distinction.

Deleted instead of fixing wrongly formatted quotation.

You are still arguing against something you only pretend I have said. I said that choosing to be more or less specific, i.e. male to female transsexual, woman,person, organism is categorically different from being outright wrong, i.e. calling a person a carrot, calling a Muslim a dog.

You wrap it up with an argument from unpleasantness. I'm sorry to hear your friend is depressed, and I'm sorry for burn victims who can't get laid, and I'm sorry for people whose appearances evoke disgust without belonging to any specific minority. However, if you think this problem is easily solved by labeling terms which refer to these distinctions as offensive, I strongly disagree. If you think the problems homosexuals are facing in Russia today have to do with the language having a word for homosexual, I honestly think you are delusional.

This is ludicrous. I have no obligation to pretend everybody are just women in my private life. Note that I have never said she does not belong to a wider group, women. She also belongs to the wider group people. I don't have any obligation to have sex with all people, men or women, equally. I don't have any obligation to have sex with all women, natural born or transsexual, equally. I don't have any obligation to have sex with all my family members, my daughter or my wife equally.

I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself which distinctions matter to me, and these kindergarten word games do not let a rapist demand that everybody pretend that he's just a man, nor obligate people to subject to a democratic consensus on whether Stephen Fry is handsome.

I have literally never tried to dictate whether a transsexual is man or woman. This is explicitly mentioned in the post you quote:

I have disagreed, at length, with the notion that no distinction can ever be made between a male to female transsexual and a natural born woman and that I have an obligation to view male to female transsexuals as just women in my private life.

I have also argued that it would be prudent to disclose that you are a male to female transsexual to sexual partners who can be expected to care about this distinction.

Doyle has complained in the past that LGBT activists have “shut us out” and that “because of all this homo-fascism and indoctrination in the media, ex-gays aren’t given a fair shake.”

He told Sandy Rios on Tuesday that the reason ex-gay events are so often sparsely attended is because LGBT people are so viciously militant that ex-gays are forced into hiding. “(T)ens of thousands” of ex-gays are out there waiting to tell their stories, he said, but they are “in the closet because of fear, shame and threats from gay activists.”

On August 06 2013 02:28 DoubleReed wrote:
Hopefully this hasn't been posted yet. The ex-gay movement held a rally at the supreme court. Almost got ten supporters!



Source

Here's a picture:
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 06 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:
Homo-fascism is definitely something to fear

On August 06 2013 02:28 DoubleReed wrote:
Hopefully this hasn't been posted yet. The ex-gay movement held a rally at the supreme court. Almost got ten supporters!



Source

Here's a picture:
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 06 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:
Homo-fascism is definitely something to fear