|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 18 2024 01:02 SEB2610 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 00:37 MJG wrote:On July 17 2024 23:33 SEB2610 wrote:On July 17 2024 16:14 WombaT wrote:On July 17 2024 14:54 Simberto wrote:On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence. I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant. I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion. I feel we just lack the language here, or at least the widespread adoption of language and concepts, so we end up in various daft scenarios like ‘define a woman’ thrown out as some kinda gotcha. Oddly enough rarely ‘define a man’, for whatever reason. On one far end of the scale no matter the evidence to the contrary some just refuse to recognise the biology/gender split, and thus the legitimacy of trans folk. On the other, people almost entirely discount the whole biological part of the equation. One can of course add specifiers such as biological or cis/trans to better clarify. I’m not the world’s foremost expert on the topic, I’ve read a bit around the place and some cultures have more fluid language for such things, and perhaps in a way that helps shape attitudes. Although sadly many of those cultures either don’t, or borderline don’t really exist anymore, certainly not enough to move the zeitgeist much. I imagine ‘define a woman’ is asked more commonly than ‘define a man’ because there isn’t much concern that women go into men’s bathrooms/compete in men’s sports etc whereas men claiming to be women have been causing trouble. Citation needed. I do in fact believe I can provide for you numerous examples of this: men claiming to be women wanting to and being allowed to enter the women’s sport category or convicted men claiming to be women wanting to and being allowed to serve time in women’s prisons etc But first, if you don’t mind, why don’t you clarify your own position here: do you believe there is a grand total of zero such cases or is your contention that such cases do occur but there’s nothing inappropriate going on?
I think more along the lines of having a direct source for the incident(s) cited, so that one could make their own judgement based directly on the information. It helps a debate if we're all working from the same reading material
|
On July 17 2024 22:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 17 2024 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 17 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 19:46 KT_Elwood wrote:
I honestly don't get why people are so offended by trans persons, or gay people.
The only explanation I have, is basicly incels that are worried about falling for a guy in drag.
I get that people can get obnoxious in their ways of "progressive is my whole personality" but you can just ignore those people - you don't have to get from conservative to regressive. Everyone's got a little bit of a gay hiding somewhere in their personality and they are all terrified of acknowledging it. That and they think the point of the existence of gays is to turn their kids gay. Also someone 2000+ years ago wrote a book about how gays are against god's will and half the world population (approx) believes that was indeed the will of god and refuse to accept anything other than some bigoted dude who wrote a book 2000+ years ago. Funny how they've mostly grown out of the Biblical support of slavery, but many still struggle with growing out of the Biblical condemning of homosexuality and support of misogyny. The early abolitionist movement relied heavily on the Bible, you might be thinking of a (thankfully) shorter in time Biblical justification used by some southern thinkers trying to respond. It was never dominant outside of its niche. Edit:again talking about a particularly American context
The Southern Baptist denomination was literally formed to support slavery: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/07/7-facts-about-southern-baptists/#:~:text=Southern Baptists are the largest,their northern counterparts over slavery.
Southern Baptism even regards slavery as "an institution of heaven".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention
You might note that Southern Baptism is also still the largest protestant denomination in the US today. Religion as a justification for slavery was not short-lived and it was not niche. My racist family members are all Southern Baptists. I wonder why.
|
On July 18 2024 03:20 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 22:06 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2024 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 17 2024 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 17 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 19:46 KT_Elwood wrote:
I honestly don't get why people are so offended by trans persons, or gay people.
The only explanation I have, is basicly incels that are worried about falling for a guy in drag.
I get that people can get obnoxious in their ways of "progressive is my whole personality" but you can just ignore those people - you don't have to get from conservative to regressive. Everyone's got a little bit of a gay hiding somewhere in their personality and they are all terrified of acknowledging it. That and they think the point of the existence of gays is to turn their kids gay. Also someone 2000+ years ago wrote a book about how gays are against god's will and half the world population (approx) believes that was indeed the will of god and refuse to accept anything other than some bigoted dude who wrote a book 2000+ years ago. Funny how they've mostly grown out of the Biblical support of slavery, but many still struggle with growing out of the Biblical condemning of homosexuality and support of misogyny. The early abolitionist movement relied heavily on the Bible, you might be thinking of a (thankfully) shorter in time Biblical justification used by some southern thinkers trying to respond. It was never dominant outside of its niche. Edit:again talking about a particularly American context The Southern Baptist denomination was literally formed to support slavery: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/07/7-facts-about-southern-baptists/#:~:text=Southern Baptists are the largest,their northern counterparts over slavery. Southern Baptism even regards slavery as "an institution of heaven". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_ConventionYou might note that Southern Baptism is also still the largest protestant denomination in the US today. Religion as a justification for slavery was not short-lived and it was not niche. My racist family members are all Southern Baptists. I wonder why.
What happened in the early mid 1800s was indeed niche, as it was very confined to a particular place and time. I think your use of the present tense betrays the angle you are going for here. The Chrisitian case against slavery in the US was powerful and making progress. Many people at the turn of the century thought it was on its way out anyway, and Congress banned the trade in the first decade of the 1800s. When it didn't die, yet the case against was growing in acceptance, those who had an interest in its perpetuation had to try and defend it. They succeeded in providing cover for a time but ultimately it still failed.
Edit:also interesting is the increasing effort to convert free and enslaved blacks as time went on. Growing Christianity there could be used to "support slavery" a la Uncle Tom's Cabin, but it often had the opposite effect, and the book itself ultimately showed how it was wrong to do so even if Tom is actually thr hero of the story.
|
On July 17 2024 22:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 17 2024 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 17 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 19:46 KT_Elwood wrote:
I honestly don't get why people are so offended by trans persons, or gay people.
The only explanation I have, is basicly incels that are worried about falling for a guy in drag.
I get that people can get obnoxious in their ways of "progressive is my whole personality" but you can just ignore those people - you don't have to get from conservative to regressive. Everyone's got a little bit of a gay hiding somewhere in their personality and they are all terrified of acknowledging it. That and they think the point of the existence of gays is to turn their kids gay. Also someone 2000+ years ago wrote a book about how gays are against god's will and half the world population (approx) believes that was indeed the will of god and refuse to accept anything other than some bigoted dude who wrote a book 2000+ years ago. Funny how they've mostly grown out of the Biblical support of slavery, but many still struggle with growing out of the Biblical condemning of homosexuality and support of misogyny. The early abolitionist movement relied heavily on the Bible, you might be thinking of a (thankfully) shorter in time Biblical justification used by some southern thinkers trying to respond. It was never dominant outside of its niche. Edit:again talking about a particularly American context
Didn't we have slaves since around 1619 over here, even back when Americans were just British colonies? From 1619 to 1865 (the end of the Civil War) is a pretty long time to impose slavery (to say nothing of the residual effects of systemic racism after slavery was abolished). I get that liberal Christians ultimately defeated conservative Christians to end slavery (since almost everyone was a Christian back then), but that was despite the Bible's verses, not because of them.
|
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On July 17 2024 17:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 16:14 WombaT wrote:On July 17 2024 14:54 Simberto wrote:On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence. I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant. I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion. I feel we just lack the language here, or at least the widespread adoption of language and concepts, so we end up in various daft scenarios like ‘define a woman’ thrown out as some kinda gotcha. Oddly enough rarely ‘define a man’, for whatever reason. On one far end of the scale no matter the evidence to the contrary some just refuse to recognise the biology/gender split, and thus the legitimacy of trans folk. On the other, people almost entirely discount the whole biological part of the equation. One can of course add specifiers such as biological or cis/trans to better clarify. I’m not the world’s foremost expert on the topic, I’ve read a bit around the place and some cultures have more fluid language for such things, and perhaps in a way that helps shape attitudes. Although sadly many of those cultures either don’t, or borderline don’t really exist anymore, certainly not enough to move the zeitgeist much. I personally don't see an issue with how this short sample conversation played out, and I think it stayed respectful and open-minded, especially when certain qualifiers and humility appeared. I'm sure that someone could devise a worse scenario that was extremely vitriolic and ignorant and truly did encourage violence against trans people, but that's essentially Matt Walsh's job. As for the other initial claim - "Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people" - the term "wrongthink" is obviously so generic that it could include racist, anti-Asian speech, or it could include other statements that may indeed run contrary to mainstream opinions yet not attack Asians at all. One example of the former might be "I think Chinese-Americans were secretly involved in a plot to destabilize America by spreading their homeland's disease to real Americans". One example of the latter might be "At the beginning of the pandemic, I was telling everyone that my area of the country was closing down our schools and businesses when they probably didn't have to, and were therefore going to take a worse educational and economic hit from the pandemic than was needed, and I think I ended up being proven right". The prevailing wisdom from the experts is that Chinese-Americans were not secretly involved in such a plot, and that taking preemptive measures because of the potential severity of the pandemic is the best play, and so therefore both the former and latter quote could be considered "wrongthink". The former quote I created, I think, is pretty racist. The latter quote, I think, is a risk analysis that has the benefit of hindsight and may or may not be justified, since that individual doesn't know how costly it would have been for their area if they didn't proactively close down schools and businesses. The latter is essentially highlighting where one falls on the "better safe than sorry" approach, which incorporates how worried someone is about the risks and rewards of making the "ideal" call during the chaos and uncertainty of the pandemic.
Aye agreed
|
On July 18 2024 03:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 03:20 StasisField wrote:On July 17 2024 22:06 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2024 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 17 2024 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 17 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 19:46 KT_Elwood wrote:
I honestly don't get why people are so offended by trans persons, or gay people.
The only explanation I have, is basicly incels that are worried about falling for a guy in drag.
I get that people can get obnoxious in their ways of "progressive is my whole personality" but you can just ignore those people - you don't have to get from conservative to regressive. Everyone's got a little bit of a gay hiding somewhere in their personality and they are all terrified of acknowledging it. That and they think the point of the existence of gays is to turn their kids gay. Also someone 2000+ years ago wrote a book about how gays are against god's will and half the world population (approx) believes that was indeed the will of god and refuse to accept anything other than some bigoted dude who wrote a book 2000+ years ago. Funny how they've mostly grown out of the Biblical support of slavery, but many still struggle with growing out of the Biblical condemning of homosexuality and support of misogyny. The early abolitionist movement relied heavily on the Bible, you might be thinking of a (thankfully) shorter in time Biblical justification used by some southern thinkers trying to respond. It was never dominant outside of its niche. Edit:again talking about a particularly American context The Southern Baptist denomination was literally formed to support slavery: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/07/7-facts-about-southern-baptists/#:~:text=Southern Baptists are the largest,their northern counterparts over slavery. Southern Baptism even regards slavery as "an institution of heaven". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_ConventionYou might note that Southern Baptism is also still the largest protestant denomination in the US today. Religion as a justification for slavery was not short-lived and it was not niche. My racist family members are all Southern Baptists. I wonder why. What happened in the early mid 1800s was indeed niche, as it was very confined to a particular place and time. I think your use of the present tense betrays the angle you are going for here. The Chrisitian case against slavery in the US was powerful and making progress. Many people at the turn of the century thought it was on its way out anyway, and Congress banned the trade in the first decade of the 1800s. When it didn't die, yet the case against was growing in acceptance, those who had an interest in its perpetuation had to try and defend it. They succeeded in providing cover for a time but ultimately it still failed.
What makes it niche, exactly? It was a well supported belief in half the country. Also, it wasn't until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention renounced its roots and apologized for supporting slavery. Not 1855. Not 1895. Not even 1955. 1995. It hasn't even been 30 years since they apologized. Most of us posters are older than the Southern Baptist's new stance on slavery. And it's the largest denomination in the US.
EDIT: This is what I hope is understood from this: Religion can, will be, and is still used to support the most heinous of beliefs. It always has been and it always will be. It will also always be used in opposition to those beliefs. These beliefs are also not fringe or niche and are still around today. Christianity and the Bible is no exception to that. Don't believe me? Go to your nearest Klan rally, sundown town, or southern Baptist sermon.
|
Slavery was not supported by half of the country by population, which is one of the factors that led to a war erupting. Even if for the sake of argument you were to count the slaves among the population of the people who supported it in the rough geographical half of the country that supported it, which it's doubtful that they would have supported it, it's not even close.
Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in the US, and it has an even worse recent trend of apologizing for things either it didn't do or nobody was alive for. But it was actually quite brave of those 150-year-old Southern Baptist slaveowners to repent on their deathbed like that in 1995. And I'd just like to sound a note of contrarianism - if you manage to locate a KKK rally today, please don't bother going to it. And there may be better uses of a time machine than visiting a sundown town.
|
On July 18 2024 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2024 22:06 Introvert wrote:On July 17 2024 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 17 2024 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 17 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 19:46 KT_Elwood wrote:
I honestly don't get why people are so offended by trans persons, or gay people.
The only explanation I have, is basicly incels that are worried about falling for a guy in drag.
I get that people can get obnoxious in their ways of "progressive is my whole personality" but you can just ignore those people - you don't have to get from conservative to regressive. Everyone's got a little bit of a gay hiding somewhere in their personality and they are all terrified of acknowledging it. That and they think the point of the existence of gays is to turn their kids gay. Also someone 2000+ years ago wrote a book about how gays are against god's will and half the world population (approx) believes that was indeed the will of god and refuse to accept anything other than some bigoted dude who wrote a book 2000+ years ago. Funny how they've mostly grown out of the Biblical support of slavery, but many still struggle with growing out of the Biblical condemning of homosexuality and support of misogyny. The early abolitionist movement relied heavily on the Bible, you might be thinking of a (thankfully) shorter in time Biblical justification used by some southern thinkers trying to respond. It was never dominant outside of its niche. Edit:again talking about a particularly American context Didn't we have slaves since around 1619 over here, even back when Americans were just British colonies? From 1619 to 1865 (the end of the Civil War) is a pretty long time to impose slavery (to say nothing of the residual effects of systemic racism after slavery was abolished). I get that liberal Christians ultimately defeated conservative Christians to end slavery (since almost everyone was a Christian back then), but that was despite the Bible's verses, not because of them.
I am not saying all Christians always used the Bible to attack slavery rather than defend it. But what I said is also true, one of the central, underpinning parts of the abolitionist movement was religious in nature. The Quakers, though kind of odd ducks in many ways, were early to the cause. And after the Second Great Awakening so were...drumroll...evangelicals. Moreover, the arguments in favor of slavery from a religious standpoint had to become more sophisticated, like I said. I just don't know how you can assign blame on one hand but no credit on the other. "Slavery was for their own good" required more effort, it was an easier case to make for slavery when they were less than human, then you didn't have to apply any Christian principles to them.
I'm surprised this wasn't covered in high school, but then again maybe I'm not. The movement began in the northern states and in the 1780s when PA started phasing it out, I think by the time of the civil war it was banned every non southern state, though the exact number escapes me (I think Vermont also banned it very early?). Lincoln himself appeals to the Bible for his positions. If you are going to say "well everyone was a Christian so of course it had that as undertones" then I don't even see the point of criticism in the initial post. Lots of people knew it was wrong, Jefferson included, but he did it anyway. I don't think that's all that hard to understand.
+ Show Spoiler +"Query XVIII, “Manners: The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state?”
It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. — But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation."
From his notes on the state of Virginia
He wrote that and still kept slaves. People are able to do crazy things and make any excuse (as you could read the first third as being)
|
Earlier today, Biden announced that he would consider dropping out of the presidential race if a medical condition emerged.
Within a few hours, Biden tested positive for covid.
|
On July 18 2024 08:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Earlier today, Biden announced that he would consider dropping out of the presidential race if a medical condition emerged.
Within a few hours, Biden tested positive for covid.
It's pretty clear that Democrats are calling Biden's bluff with Schiff coming out publicly and unambiguously telling him to step aside. They're willing to publicly tank his campaign (if they haven't already with Biden's help) if he refuses.
Basically the only way out of this for Democrats is for Biden to step away from the nomination. Catch is, there is a pretty unambiguous expectation from Democrats that Biden should step away, but they are not nearly as unified on what comes after that.
Basically the party establishment figures trying to push Biden out of the nomination aren't the people that want to replace him with Harris.
|
On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit.
|
On July 18 2024 08:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Earlier today, Biden announced that he would consider dropping out of the presidential race if a medical condition emerged.
Within a few hours, Biden tested positive for covid.
Are you hinting the two might be connected? Calling a viral illness that he will likely recover from in a week a “medical condition” is pretty generous.
|
On July 18 2024 09:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 08:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Earlier today, Biden announced that he would consider dropping out of the presidential race if a medical condition emerged.
Within a few hours, Biden tested positive for covid. Are you hinting the two might be connected? Calling a viral illness that he will likely recover from in a week a “medical condition” is pretty generous.
Not seriously connected, but I found the timing of the two announcements to be extremely unfortunate, especially since Biden had recently doubled-down (tripled-down?) on remaining in the race.
|
United States42518 Posts
On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit.
You’re right to an extent, but attempts to pass are certainly indicative of intent to adopt a new gender identity. A refusal to adopt any of the social markers of femininity would be unusual in a trans woman. I don’t want to speak in absolutes but common sense does apply here. If we’re going to separate biological sex and gender and say that gender is a social construct which people of either sex can choose to adopt then so be it, doesn’t bother me any. But I’m going to get confused if someone says that they’re embracing that social construct by rejecting every part of it.
|
I think it was pretty clear Kwark was using a very easy example of a passing trans person (or does a trans person pass by default?). You can't always include every single item in the set to explain the entire set descriptor, that would be very difficult.
|
On July 18 2024 02:25 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 01:02 SEB2610 wrote:On July 18 2024 00:37 MJG wrote:On July 17 2024 23:33 SEB2610 wrote:On July 17 2024 16:14 WombaT wrote:On July 17 2024 14:54 Simberto wrote:On July 17 2024 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2024 07:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 17 2024 07:08 brian wrote:
oh, I appreciate you sharing, and my mistake, and sorry. Say wrongthink about COVID and you're responsible for hate crimes on Asian people. Deny that a man can get pregnant and you're encouraging violence against trans people etc. It's their favorite argument. Who is making these arguments? The problem with saying that this is an issue with the whole left, and then using the most idiotic examples you can possibly think of, is that those examples don't describe the whole left at all, but a loud but tiny fringe. In fact, let's test your theory: I am saying now, without any second thoughts or doubts, that men can't get pregnant.Right, now let's wait for 'the left' to come and tell me about violence. I am here, as "the left", to inform you that some men are trans men, who may have functional ovaries and a functional uterus, and can thus get pregnant. I assume you feel incredibly threatened by the violence i just did upon your opinion. I feel we just lack the language here, or at least the widespread adoption of language and concepts, so we end up in various daft scenarios like ‘define a woman’ thrown out as some kinda gotcha. Oddly enough rarely ‘define a man’, for whatever reason. On one far end of the scale no matter the evidence to the contrary some just refuse to recognise the biology/gender split, and thus the legitimacy of trans folk. On the other, people almost entirely discount the whole biological part of the equation. One can of course add specifiers such as biological or cis/trans to better clarify. I’m not the world’s foremost expert on the topic, I’ve read a bit around the place and some cultures have more fluid language for such things, and perhaps in a way that helps shape attitudes. Although sadly many of those cultures either don’t, or borderline don’t really exist anymore, certainly not enough to move the zeitgeist much. I imagine ‘define a woman’ is asked more commonly than ‘define a man’ because there isn’t much concern that women go into men’s bathrooms/compete in men’s sports etc whereas men claiming to be women have been causing trouble. Citation needed. I do in fact believe I can provide for you numerous examples of this: men claiming to be women wanting to and being allowed to enter the women’s sport category or convicted men claiming to be women wanting to and being allowed to serve time in women’s prisons etc But first, if you don’t mind, why don’t you clarify your own position here: do you believe there is a grand total of zero such cases or is your contention that such cases do occur but there’s nothing inappropriate going on? I think more along the lines of having a direct source for the incident(s) cited, so that one could make their own judgement based directly on the information. It helps a debate if we're all working from the same reading material
Basically this.
Some people would use "claiming to be women" as a description applicable to people who are legitimately transitioning or have already transitioned. I'm not one of those people.
|
On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit.
I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small.
|
On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small.
As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces.
|
On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 01:37 KwarK wrote:
I guess there’s two approaches. You could institute genital inspections or you could use common sense. If someone claiming to be a trans woman who has made no effort to transition or pass as a woman enters the woman’s bathroom and assaults someone you could treat them as a man. Hell, the refusal to follow the signage isn’t really the issue there, you already got them on assault, the signage thing is someone moot. And if someone with breasts, long hair, wearing a dress enters the woman’s bathroom then it’s probably fine, regardless of their birth certificate. Though the odds are even more likely that when a bearded man enters then their kid just ran in and they’re getting them or that they went into the wrong room by accident. If there are cubicles then who even cares.
Whether someone is “passing” is completely irrelevant to what bathroom they should use. Not every trans woman wants to wear dresses and have breasts and long hair. Clothing and hairstyles don’t have a designated gender. Men can have long hair and women can have a full beard. People shouldn’t have to fulfill certain gender stereotypes just to take a shit. I think that KwarK's more salient point was that someone who is willing to commit sexual assault probably isn't going to care what it says on the door to a restroom, and so the chances of someone faking being transgender just so that they can get into a restroom to sexually assault someone is vanishingly small. As far as I can tell the only requirement to becoming a woman is to declare oneself a woman so it’s not exactly a giant hurdle to “fake being transgender” if someone wanted to use that as a ruse to gain entry to women’s spaces.
Do you think anybody at all will react significantly differently if a person with a lecherous look walks into the bathroom, and when confronted with why they are barging in answers "because I'm a woman" vs "because I wanted to"?
|
Personally, you can tell yourself you're a woman, sure. But socially you also have to kind of present as such, not really, but I think many people want to match gender identity with physical appearance, because there's a social aspect to being trans.
There's an entire transformation one has to go through: from gender dysphoria, to coming to terms with the actual gender identity and then depending on attitude/temperament, changing their appearance to match their gender identity.
However, these 2 statements above here are just how I would assume it goes for people who go through the process of experiencing gender dysphoria en coming to terms with it by changing their identity. I don't reside in "trans circles", nor do I have any trans friends, nor do I deal or have I dealt with gender dysphoria myself.
However however, I also want to add that the "trans community" is not a monolith, so even the social experience is vastly different from person to person, just like for cis people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
