|
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 |
In truth I believe if it does end up bidden vs Trump, I really don't think the campaigning they are doing will make a difference. There's never been a time when there's 8 years of actual experience to draw upon. Is what they promise to do or some motivating speech really going to outweigh your perception of what they have or have not done in a 4 year span. And which 4 year span you think was better? You also got 4 years of what they would do when they aren't president I guess.
Usually there's some perception or unknown in play, of which there will be none this time around.
|
On July 18 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 23:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Setting aside Biden not masking after he knew he had covid and was in close proximity to people, his campaign's "flood the zone" strategy seems to have hit several roadblocks. Here is Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name:
While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. Meanwhile, here's a clip of Biden seemingly unable to get in his car under his own power.
It's not his physical feebleness that bothers me, but the gaslighting about it. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway. I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's fine, but also, did he actually get any heat for making Austin SoD? It seems he received a little heat for various reasons, one of which may have been the accusation of Austin being a diversity hire: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944528431/biden-criticized-for-pick-of-retired-gen-lloyd-austin-as-pentagon-chief Edit: The main criticism seems to be that Austin wasn't retired for long enough though.
I could have been more clear, but I was specifically asking about "heat" relevant to Austin being Black. The article doesn't give any indication Biden received any notable heat for appointing "a/the Black man" to SoD. He did get a little heat for naming someone legally not allowed to be in the position though.
He went on to get a waiver legalizing it, and Austin was approved by the Senate 93-2 (which is better than anyone else in Biden's cabinet).
So I'd say "No, he didn't."
|
On July 19 2024 02:41 Byo wrote:In truth I believe if it does end up bidden vs Trump + Show Spoiler +, I really don't think the campaigning they are doing will make a difference. There's never been a time when there's 8 years of actual experience to draw upon. Is what they promise to do or some motivating speech really going to outweigh your perception of what they have or have not done in a 4 year span. And which 4 year span you think was better? You also got 4 years of what they would do when they aren't president I guess.
Usually there's some perception or unknown in play, of which there will be none this time around.
Looking less likely every day. People close to Biden are seeing the writing on the wall and bracing for him leaving the race.
Since a disastrous debate in Atlanta upended the trajectory of his campaign three weeks ago, Biden has again and again attempted to dig in, bucking efforts to dislodge him from power.
But there is now a palpable sense that the ground has shifted underneath him, according to five people with knowledge of the situation, even among some of the president’s most defiant backers internally who now believe the writing is on the wall.
“We’re close to the end,” a person close to Biden said.
That person, who previously doubted Biden would ever step aside, acknowledged that it’s still the president’s decision but joined in the array of Biden allies who say he is nearing a point of no return....
A person with knowledge of the projections said the Biden campaign now expects it will raise only 25% of the big donor money it had originally projected to raise in July — that’s a further downgrade from the expectation last week that large-dollar fundraising would be down by as much as 50%. The money has “dried up,” this person said.
One Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday said if Biden didn’t agree to step aside, the cacophony of calls will grow only louder, with more lawmakers expected to urge him to do so. The lawmaker called it a “sad moment” for the party.
A sense of reality is beginning to wash over some of the president’s top campaign lieutenants, who have endured streams of phone calls from donors and one-time supporters flagging that they cannot back Biden.
A person who spoke with a senior campaign official said a sense of a new reality has fallen over the campaign.
“They’re finally realizing; it’s a when, not if,” the person said.
www.nbcnews.com
|
On July 19 2024 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 23:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
While Biden's had a lot of gaffes, I don't think this is one of them. He's talking about getting hate for hiring/appointing black people (since non-white people are all apparently DEI hires, according to Republicans, especially if they're women). He didn't forget the SoD's name; Biden used the SoD (and Brown) as two examples of unjust scrutiny that they (and he) are receiving. He mentioned that the SoD is black because it's relevant to his point. I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway. I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's fine, but also, did he actually get any heat for making Austin SoD? It seems he received a little heat for various reasons, one of which may have been the accusation of Austin being a diversity hire: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944528431/biden-criticized-for-pick-of-retired-gen-lloyd-austin-as-pentagon-chief Edit: The main criticism seems to be that Austin wasn't retired for long enough though. I could have been more clear, but I was specifically asking about "heat" relevant to Austin being Black. The article doesn't give any indication Biden received any notable heat for appointing "a/the Black man" to SoD. He did get a little heat for naming someone legally not allowed to be in the position though. He went on to get a waiver legalizing it, and Austin was approved by the Senate 93-2 ( which is better than anyone else in Biden's cabinet). So I'd say "No, he didn't."
Sure, makes sense to me.
|
On July 19 2024 02:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 23:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I see you're not going to let your realization stop you. That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway. I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's fine, but also, did he actually get any heat for making Austin SoD? It seems he received a little heat for various reasons, one of which may have been the accusation of Austin being a diversity hire: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944528431/biden-criticized-for-pick-of-retired-gen-lloyd-austin-as-pentagon-chief Edit: The main criticism seems to be that Austin wasn't retired for long enough though. I could have been more clear, but I was specifically asking about "heat" relevant to Austin being Black. The article doesn't give any indication Biden received any notable heat for appointing "a/the Black man" to SoD. He did get a little heat for naming someone legally not allowed to be in the position though. He went on to get a waiver legalizing it, and Austin was approved by the Senate 93-2 ( which is better than anyone else in Biden's cabinet). So I'd say "No, he didn't." Sure, makes sense to me.
Do you also see why it's problematic for him to give the example of Austin as unjust scrutiny for naming Black people to positions in his government then?
|
That's tangential to the point, though I won't be surprised if DPB agreed.
DPB was arguing against him having forgotten the name, not the validity of any argument biden was making.
|
On July 19 2024 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 02:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 19 2024 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 23:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 23:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 18 2024 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2024 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
That's an ad hominem. Biden's SoD is a black man: Lloyd Austin. Biden's argument (whether or not you think it's fair) was that he was criticized for his SoD pick being a black person. The name of the SoD isn't the key attribute; his race is. If I said "Republicans dislike that I support the LGBTQ+ community, like how I was in my brother-in-law's bridal party when he married his husband", that doesn't mean I forgot the names of my brother-in-law or his husband. No, it's not? It's saying your realization that the strategy of denial being ineffective isn't going to stop you from trying it like you just did. He didn't say "supreme court justice, the Black woman". It is. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than the substance of the argument. You linking that old post clearly makes the point that you think my perspective is invalid because I'm in denial, as opposed to directly addressing the substance of my response (or my second response about how anyone can analogously reference a person's relevant identity without needing to use real names). Biden naming Brown doesn't mean Biden forgot the name of Austin. And your follow-up here is a pivot to a different clip about a different scene, not a defense of your original point that Biden forgot his SoD's name in that previous clip. I agree that this video provides a convincing case that Biden had trouble getting in/out of the car. I agree that there are plenty of clips showing Biden's physical aging and feebleness, as well as verbal/mental gaffes. None of that automatically grants agreement with every critical clip you show, including the one where Biden references his black SoD as a black person, when giving examples of black people. I think it's obvious that he was struggling and at best wanted to say "Look at the heat I'm getting because I named a Black man as the Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown to the Supreme Court" which would still be a little problematic but not out of pocket for Biden. Instead he garbled out "Look at the heat I'm getting because I, I named a uhh, the uh, Secretary of Defense, the Black man. I named Ketanji Brown, I mean because of the people I've named". I'm saying treating him bumbling through that as anything less than another example of his decline is emblematic of the Democrat strategy of denialism you recognized as ineffective but are employing anyway. I agree that he was bumbling and that his words were not clear. I just disagree with your initial claim of "Biden forgetting his Secretary of Defense's name", which is different than having garbled, mumbled speech. I just think you overreached with your assertion in this specific situation. We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's fine, but also, did he actually get any heat for making Austin SoD? It seems he received a little heat for various reasons, one of which may have been the accusation of Austin being a diversity hire: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944528431/biden-criticized-for-pick-of-retired-gen-lloyd-austin-as-pentagon-chief Edit: The main criticism seems to be that Austin wasn't retired for long enough though. I could have been more clear, but I was specifically asking about "heat" relevant to Austin being Black. The article doesn't give any indication Biden received any notable heat for appointing "a/the Black man" to SoD. He did get a little heat for naming someone legally not allowed to be in the position though. He went on to get a waiver legalizing it, and Austin was approved by the Senate 93-2 ( which is better than anyone else in Biden's cabinet). So I'd say "No, he didn't." Sure, makes sense to me. Do you also see why it's problematic for him to give the example of Austin as unjust scrutiny for naming Black people to positions in his government then?
If Biden legitimately hasn't received any criticism about Austin's race, then yeah obviously. I can't possibly know what Biden has heard from his dissenters. That was never your original point though, nor what my original reply was about. That's a different point from whether or not Biden forgot the SoD's name; I think this new point is a valid one - there are plenty of examples of Republicans publicly dismissing individuals because of their race/sex/DEI/whatever, and so it would be better to cite those individuals instead of others who may not have received such dismissal.
On July 19 2024 03:23 Fleetfeet wrote:That's tangential to the point, though I won't be surprised if DPB agreed. DPB was arguing against him having forgotten the name, not the validity of any argument biden was making.
Yup 
|
Northern Ireland27267 Posts
On July 18 2024 18:41 Gahlo wrote:
I wish Plasmid was still here to weigh in on things.
Same, although I get why they aren’t. I also wish various trans topics weren’t so grotesquely disproportionate in prominence in current political discourse.
|
On July 19 2024 05:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 18:41 Gahlo wrote:
I wish Plasmid was still here to weigh in on things. Same, although I get why they aren’t. I also wish various trans topics weren’t so grotesquely disproportionate in prominence in current political discourse.
The reason for that is that they are the current target of the rights culture wars.
Yes, realistically, trans issues shouldn't be big issues. Most of them are also incredibly easy to solve by just letting people be in peace and not harassing them.
Sadly, because the right relentlessly attack trans people for no apparent reason, sane people have to constantly defend them, which means that we spend a lot of time on trans issues, when really we shouldn't have to.
A suspicious mind would come to the conclusion that maybe that is being done for a reason, so we don't think about stuff people don't want us to think about. Like just how absurdly and obscenely wealthy some people are. I think a lot of current issues are distraction tactics so people don't start thinking too much about the absurd and constantly increasing wealth gap. It is basically impossible to grasp just how absurdly wealthy a billionaire is. And we have people who hoard hundreds of billions, like some kind of dragon.
Sadly, you still cannot ignore these distractions, because if you do, innocent people suffer. Which makes them so good as distractions.
|
On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote: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"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies.
Whose common sense? To a lot of people it’s common sense that a man is not a woman just because they declare themselves so. You seem to maybe kind of agree(?) but if said man goes through the trouble of throwing on a dress and a wig then they definitely are woman…? There’s a reason why “anyone that says they are a woman is a woman” is the widely accepted belief because as soon as you open the door for “common sense” to dictate who is or isn’t a woman then the people applying the common sense might not be the people you want.
|
United States44243 Posts
On July 19 2024 06:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote: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"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. Whose common sense? To a lot of people it’s common sense that a man is not a woman just because they declare themselves so. You seem to maybe kind of agree(?) but if said man goes through the trouble of throwing on a dress and a wig then they definitely are woman…? There’s a reason why “anyone that says they are a woman is a woman” is the widely accepted belief because as soon as you open the door for “common sense” to dictate who is or isn’t a woman then the people applying the common sense might not be the people you want.
My common sense. Someone showing no signs of gender dysphoria and with no history of gender dysphoria and making no effort to transition and showing no interest in transitioning probably isn’t trans simply because they assert it.
|
I think we've had this exact same discussion about 5 times already. If you don't seem to get it by applying common sense, I suggest you read the other 5 times it was discussed in this exact same thread. Either you're dense, or you're a troll. There's no in between with that line of reasoning.
|
On July 19 2024 07:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 06:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote: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"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. Whose common sense? To a lot of people it’s common sense that a man is not a woman just because they declare themselves so. You seem to maybe kind of agree(?) but if said man goes through the trouble of throwing on a dress and a wig then they definitely are woman…? There’s a reason why “anyone that says they are a woman is a woman” is the widely accepted belief because as soon as you open the door for “common sense” to dictate who is or isn’t a woman then the people applying the common sense might not be the people you want. My common sense. Someone showing no signs of gender dysphoria and with no history of gender dysphoria and making no effort to transition and showing no interest in transitioning probably isn’t trans simply because they assert it.
Well hopefully your common sense as a non psychiatric trained layperson is pretty accurate because you wouldn’t want to go around misgendering people on a hunch
|
Northern Ireland27267 Posts
On July 19 2024 06:07 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 05:37 WombaT wrote:On July 18 2024 18:41 Gahlo wrote:
I wish Plasmid was still here to weigh in on things. Same, although I get why they aren’t. I also wish various trans topics weren’t so grotesquely disproportionate in prominence in current political discourse. The reason for that is that they are the current target of the rights culture wars. Yes, realistically, trans issues shouldn't be big issues. Most of them are also incredibly easy to solve by just letting people be in peace and not harassing them. Sadly, because the right relentlessly attack trans people for no apparent reason, sane people have to constantly defend them, which means that we spend a lot of time on trans issues, when really we shouldn't have to. A suspicious mind would come to the conclusion that maybe that is being done for a reason, so we don't think about stuff people don't want us to think about. Like just how absurdly and obscenely wealthy some people are. I think a lot of current issues are distraction tactics so people don't start thinking too much about the absurd and constantly increasing wealth gap. It is basically impossible to grasp just how absurdly wealthy a billionaire is. And we have people who hoard hundreds of billions, like some kind of dragon. Sadly, you still cannot ignore these distractions, because if you do, innocent people suffer. Which makes them so good as distractions.
Aye pretty much this.
I mean I shall be overly generalising here but I don’t really buy the concern for the integrity of woman’s sport, or worries about sexual assault if they’re coming from folks who frequently mock the former, and hand wave the latter.
But as you say, if you don’t push back against it then ground is ceded
|
Northern Ireland27267 Posts
On July 19 2024 07:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 07:20 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2024 06:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote: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"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. Whose common sense? To a lot of people it’s common sense that a man is not a woman just because they declare themselves so. You seem to maybe kind of agree(?) but if said man goes through the trouble of throwing on a dress and a wig then they definitely are woman…? There’s a reason why “anyone that says they are a woman is a woman” is the widely accepted belief because as soon as you open the door for “common sense” to dictate who is or isn’t a woman then the people applying the common sense might not be the people you want. My common sense. Someone showing no signs of gender dysphoria and with no history of gender dysphoria and making no effort to transition and showing no interest in transitioning probably isn’t trans simply because they assert it. Well hopefully your common sense as a non psychiatric trained layperson is pretty accurate because you wouldn’t want to go around misgendering people on a hunch
If being trans is effectively a misalignment between one’s self-perception in terms of gender and norms in that domain, and one’s biological sex, then yeah somebody who claims to be trans, but shows no inclination whatsoever to adopt the norms of their identified gender whatsoever, I think it’s pretty reasonable to ask why that might be.
|
This cycle has been unbelievable.
No words can describe it.
|
On July 19 2024 07:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 07:20 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2024 06:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote: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"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. Whose common sense? To a lot of people it’s common sense that a man is not a woman just because they declare themselves so. You seem to maybe kind of agree(?) but if said man goes through the trouble of throwing on a dress and a wig then they definitely are woman…? There’s a reason why “anyone that says they are a woman is a woman” is the widely accepted belief because as soon as you open the door for “common sense” to dictate who is or isn’t a woman then the people applying the common sense might not be the people you want. My common sense. Someone showing no signs of gender dysphoria and with no history of gender dysphoria and making no effort to transition and showing no interest in transitioning probably isn’t trans simply because they assert it. Well hopefully your common sense as a non psychiatric trained layperson is pretty accurate because you wouldn’t want to go around misgendering people on a hunch
I'm usually FOR you being a centrist shit-disturber for the sake of being a centrist shit-disturber, but the whole conversation is bad faith and shitty.
All it takes for a man to be a woman is them to decide to be a woman. This is typically preceded by them having some struggle with gender dysphoria, and followed by some actual manifestations of transitioning.
It still fits this definition of trans to have a man decide that today is the day, apropos to nothing and with no former history of gender dysphoria, that they are a woman. It is dishonest to suggest that this is a majority of trans people and the lens through which we should assess transhood.
Therefore, I suggest we acknowledge that all it takes for a person to become trans is for them to decide they wish to transition or change their gender identity, and then do so. Like being gay, it doesn't make your life easier or better than 'just being normal', so it's pretty easy to trust that transitioning adults are not making such a decision lightly.
This bullshit "But wat about cishet men entering femme spacez b/c they decided theyr femme" is just a slap in the face to all the normal fucking trans people (like Plasmid) just trying to exist and live happily. Genuinely fuck off with it, and make yourself a part of some trans peoples' lives because the majority of them ARE just normal people, suffering like the rest of us and trying not to.
|
On July 19 2024 08:18 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2024 07:38 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2024 07:20 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2024 06:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 21:00 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2024 20:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2024 17:01 BlackJack wrote:On July 18 2024 16:26 MJG wrote:On July 18 2024 09:42 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
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"? What’s your objective measure of a lecherous look? A wandering glance would probably be interpreted wildly differently in a women’s locker room if it came from a woman vs a man. That’s kind of why women don’t want men there in the first place. If however that person that appears to be a man simply says “but I’m a woman” then the women have to tolerate that persons presence lest they be a transphobe. Again, common sense applies. Whose common sense? To a lot of people it’s common sense that a man is not a woman just because they declare themselves so. You seem to maybe kind of agree(?) but if said man goes through the trouble of throwing on a dress and a wig then they definitely are woman…? There’s a reason why “anyone that says they are a woman is a woman” is the widely accepted belief because as soon as you open the door for “common sense” to dictate who is or isn’t a woman then the people applying the common sense might not be the people you want. My common sense. Someone showing no signs of gender dysphoria and with no history of gender dysphoria and making no effort to transition and showing no interest in transitioning probably isn’t trans simply because they assert it. Well hopefully your common sense as a non psychiatric trained layperson is pretty accurate because you wouldn’t want to go around misgendering people on a hunch I'm usually FOR you being a centrist shit-disturber for the sake of being a centrist shit-disturber, but the whole conversation is bad faith and shitty. All it takes for a man to be a woman is them to decide to be a woman. This is typically preceded by them having some struggle with gender dysphoria, and followed by some actual manifestations of transitioning. It still fits this definition of trans to have a man decide that today is the day, apropos to nothing and with no former history of gender dysphoria, that they are a woman. It is dishonest to suggest that this is a majority of trans people and the lens through which we should assess transhood. Therefore, I suggest we acknowledge that all it takes for a person to become trans is for them to decide they wish to transition or change their gender identity, and then do so. Like being gay, it doesn't make your life easier or better than 'just being normal', so it's pretty easy to trust that transitioning adults are not making such a decision lightly. This bullshit "But wat about cishet men entering femme spacez b/c they decided theyr femme" is just a slap in the face to all the normal fucking trans people (like Plasmid) just trying to exist and live happily. Genuinely fuck off with it, and make yourself a part of some trans peoples' lives because the majority of them ARE just normal people, suffering like the rest of us and trying not to.
If you read the record back you'll see that I'm not the one bringing up restrooms. I believe Kwark was the one that brought them up. I'm pointing out that his solution of "just apply common sense" to determine who should or shouldn't belong in women's spaces is not a very good solution as you're asking lay people to make these "common sense" calls with any knowledge of the other person's medical records or history. By their very nature these common sense calls would need to be made on superficial judgements about appearance.
|
Should Biden drop out, who would be the most likely Democratic nominee?
|
On July 19 2024 08:54 Incognoto wrote:
Should Biden drop out, who would be the most likely Democratic nominee?
I think there would be an expectation for Kamala Harris to take over as the nominee by some of the Democrats, unless there's a completely open last-minute free-for-all for the nomination. I don't think that Harris would win that free-for-all, and I'm not sure if she'd be the best bet against Trump, but I do think there's a decent chance that she might be gifted the nomination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
