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.
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
I think BJ just likes to challenge himself by defending the indefensible. He read dogmeat's post and didn't go "holy shit, that's a bad take" like the rest of us did. Instead he went with 'there's a legitimate grievance loosely related in there I can use to extend this meaningless discussion for 5 pages'.
On October 23 2024 01:49 oBlade wrote: How about when they break the law?
"Economic interests" is an interesting invocation. Remember, having economic interests is not a bad thing per se. You have them. In Twitter's case, their economic interests possibly took a huge hit, because their value as a private company is nothing near their value as a publicly traded meme stock that didn't earn a profit in 15 years. So whatever Elon has done at X must be an incredibly selfless and laudable thing, going against their own economic interests like that. But we generally do strive to prosecute companies for wrongdoing - they can't do whatever they want.
For example RTX (Raytheon) just got hit with a billion dollars in fines for corruption. Imagine how much business at usual corruption is still under the hood of the MIC. From the revolving door of government employees and lobbyists giving themselves juicy noncompetitive contracts to deliver bad shit late and over its already inflated budget. The Department Of Government Efficiency should clean this up this pattern.
So when they break the law. But you oppose new laws to regulate them and want to cut down on the agencies that regulate them (I think your word were gut the FDA, but it was definitely something like it). So with no new laws keeping up with technological progress and no agencies to investigate and enforce the existing laws, that sounds like very empty rhetoric.
I didn't say gut the FDA but I accept that's not the only thing you took away from that conversation on purpose, it was someone else's fault not yours.
If you have pharmaceutical executives running the FDA, military industrial complex guys running the Department of Defense, and bankers running the SEC and Commerce and the Fed, then I posit that this isn't regulation, it's corruption, and needs to be broken up at the government level where the problem is. Not building more dysfunctional corrupt government on top of the old dysfunctional corrupt government. You brought it up but this is the same FDA that let half a million Americans die from opioids. Keep the skepticism goggles you have for corporations on when you look at the government too. Don't just defer to them as the schoolteacher authority that handles all the bully corporations.
In terms of speech, yes, I don't support a single new law to regulate the speech of Americans. My logical reason is I hate censorship, because it's controlled by humans, and it assumes that humans are smarter than humans, which precludes the free exchange of ideas. My legal reason is the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." My personal reason is the people who want the power to regulate speech are communists and the CIA.
Okay, I won't go into detail on the second part, although I fear we'll have to get into the weeds on it due to how money and speech are equivocated so much in the US political system, and this has essentially been ruled as a part of your constitution by the SC. But more on that later.
First, I think we can find another bit of common ground! We both want money out of politics! Whether that's a career civil servant or a state congressman. There tend to be strict ethics laws surrounding what constitutes a bribe, and about a million ways around it. Whether that's through financing a congressman's campaign, being wined and dined by a lobbyist, or the offer of a future well-payed "board seat" when their public service career ends, there's a million loopholes that allow Zuckerberg to suggest laws governing online data collection, Buffett draft laws on capital gains tax, or the oil industry to suggest defunding the EPA. I think we might look at different industries as particularly problematic, but we can probably agree that all industry influence should be removed from the processes that write and enforce laws that govern them.
So how do we go about that? I am not a legal or financial expert. I'm sure there are laws that can be written to reduce lobbyist's power. But as long as PACs and Super PACs are legal, it's a drop in the bucket at best. Here is the wikipedia blurb I read on it, sourced from https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united
According to a 2020 report from OpenSecrets, between 2010 and 2020, the ten largest donors and their spouses spent a total of $1.2 billion on federal elections. In the 2018 elections, this group accounted for around 7% of all election-related giving, up from less than 1% a decade prior. Over the decade, election-related spending by non-partisan independent groups jumped to $4.5 billion, whereas from 1990 to 2010 the total spending under that category was just $750 million. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling compared to only 15 in the five election cycles prior. Groups that did not disclose their donors spent $963 million in the decade following the ruling, compared to $129 million in the decade prior. Non-partisan outside spending as a percentage of total election spending increased from 6% in 2008 to nearly 20% in 2018. During the 2016 election cycle, Super PACs spent more than $1 billion, nearly twice that of every other category of contributors combined. In 2018, over 95% of super PAC money came from the top 1% of donors.
And this brings us back to speech, because it was "free speech" rules that ripped open campaign finance rules, with Citizens United obviously being the most famous one. Since then, Congress has failed to pass any meaningful legislation that could close those gaps, with the most serious attempt torpedoed by Republicans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act. because of concerns about free speech. With opposition from almost all free speech advocates, including the ACLU, I'm inclined to accept it was probably a bad bill, but nothing else seems to have been proposed since, and this was 14 years ago. So how do we disentangle money and speech? How do we stop rich people from buying access to politicians? Whether that's the Koch brothers or George Soros.
Harris has stated no interest in it, sure. But Trump's first term not only did nothing about it, he outright appointed the people who had funded his campaign to cabinet positions (Betsy deVos, Linda McMahon, Rex Tillerson, Wilbur Ross). These are the equivalent of pharmaceuticals running the FDA, but in other departments.
On October 22 2024 07:48 Uldridge wrote: The existential threat is there, no matter who wins though. Trump is just a symptom. He's the voice channeling all the conspiratorial, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised people. How do you turn the tide? At the same time: why are these people like this? HOW did this happen? It's time for some really serious root cause analysis, because just brushing it off as "tsk, just impressionable, gullible, stupid, insane people" isn't going to cut it for the third election in a row. There are people thinking the hurricane was manmade to steal lithium. I don't understand reality any more.
We need something better than "they're too far gone". I'm actually starting to feel quite anxious for you guys, no matter the outcome. Let's just hope everything stays more or less calm at the turn of the year.
so >50% are "just impressionable, gullible, stupid, schizo, out of touch, disenfranchised, insane people" and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason? are you sure?
skinner.jpg
Do you also want to have a go at defending that statement?
It is somewhat funny actually. I am not sure what were the issues between Democratic party and Tulsi, but I saw some bits of her and was thinking "if Biden picked her for VP, Trump would be done" he however picked Kamala and lost 2024 election in 2020.
It is somewhat funny actually. I am not sure what were the issues between Democratic party and Tulsi, but I saw some bits of her and was thinking "if Biden picked her for VP, Trump would be done" he however picked Kamala and lost 2024 election in 2020.
Tulsi left the Dems. She saw how easy it was to rise the top by just saying progressively dumber stuff with no substance. Way way easier, she went from after thought to big news for the Reps. She fits in as someone who has none of the Republican values of like 10 years but "pwns" libs, even though you know she grew up and was one until a few years ago.
Basically any dem could become a star for the Reps. They just need to post some really dumb memes about vaccination or immigration and bang super star. It is pretty hilarious from the outside. Just have no actual values and ride the current popular wave of dumb hate, bam you made it!
It is somewhat funny actually. I am not sure what were the issues between Democratic party and Tulsi, but I saw some bits of her and was thinking "if Biden picked her for VP, Trump would be done" he however picked Kamala and lost 2024 election in 2020.
I'm not sure what impact Gabbard would have had on the 2020 or 2024 elections, to be honest. Harris is obviously way more popular in 2024 than Gabbard is in 2024.
And I gotta admit, I didn't have "Tim Walz annihilating MAGA billionaire asshole Elon Musk" on my 2024 Election bingo card, but I'm sooo here for it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fkickhcFCqs
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male.
It is somewhat funny actually. I am not sure what were the issues between Democratic party and Tulsi, but I saw some bits of her and was thinking "if Biden picked her for VP, Trump would be done" he however picked Kamala and lost 2024 election in 2020.
Tulsi left the Dems. She saw how easy it was to rise the top by just saying progressively dumber stuff with no substance.
Examples of which, in order, would be...?
On October 23 2024 21:31 Billyboy wrote: Way way easier, she went from after thought to big news for the Reps. She fits in as someone who has none of the Republican values of like 10 years but "pwns" libs, even though you know she grew up and was one until a few years ago.
Bernie Sanders was the equivalent of a Republican now 10 years ago on immigration. Also, you need to understand that "Democrat" and "Republican" are not ideologies. They do not stand for "liberal" and "conservative." They are DEFINITELY not permanently fixed platforms that never move. They're political parties. Anyone can vote or run who thinks that party's ideas or people appeal to them, or think that they can appeal to others in it. You're missing a historic realignment.
On October 23 2024 21:31 Billyboy wrote: Basically any dem could become a star for the Reps. They just need to post some really dumb memes about vaccination or immigration and bang super star. It is pretty hilarious from the outside. Just have no actual values and ride the current popular wave of dumb hate, bam you made it!
It is not hard to identify the values of Tulsi Gabbard or indeed most public politicians. The fact that they apparently differ from yours doesn't mean they don't have any. Don't let that fact blind what is otherwise an easy exercise in understanding. Also, a cursory glance at any media and even this thread objectively shows you where hate actually originates.
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
If you start out with a strawman like this, it doesn't matter how much you say you're "just asking questions" or trying to have reasonable debate, or whatever, the conversation will always start off on the wrong foot. And then it will proceed to stay on the wrong foot as long as you attribute any pushback to "the woke mob". When it comes to something like gender or race and you are not the minority, you need to listen to how other people define it first. Not how Bill Maher or Joe Rogan define it. How queer or non-white people define it. You're talking about their lived experiences, you can't listen to someone else who's also just talking out of their ass, because then that's all you're going to be doing, too.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male.
In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way.
On October 23 2024 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male.
In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way.
That's also my general understanding of how it's often used, but I don't want to strawman or misunderstand BlackJack, so I'm going to patiently wait for him to answer in his own words
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
You identify as a man, am I right? If so, both our experiences are that of a man. Yet, we're not the same person, so our experiences are different in significant ways. We have different natural tendencies and abilities, weaknesses etc. For example I think and perceive in a way that is very different to the way other men do. We don't share the same experience when we absorb literally the same information. Our mental and emotional response is different, we absorb and use information differently. How is it that, between men (not transgender men), they don't all share the same subjective experience? It's because every brain is unique. That's regardless of things such as upbringing or nutrition etc. We could grow up in the exact same environment, treated the exact same way, and still we'd experience the world differently. Yet somehow we're both considered "men", as if we were equals, which we're not. Every man is different from every other man.
And that's just the mental experience. When exposed to the same exact temperature, I feel a different level of cold/heat than other men. I feel cold when another man feels cozy. I feel cozy when that same man is practically melting in the heat. That's even with the exact same BMI. Same general body type. Many men build muscle much faster than I do despite having the same body type, even without steroid use. I'm highly introverted, while other men are highly extraverted. That's not because of some kind of training, we're inherently different. And yet we're all classified as "men". As if it were that simple and straight forward.
Does that not sound a little arbitrary to you? Why is there no more precise categorization between men? Why are chromosomes and genitals the only distinction? Why are all people of the same sex classified as one gender? That doesn't make sense when we're clearly so different in so many other ways.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
You identify as a man, am I right? If so, both our experiences are that of a man. Yet, we're not the same person, so our experiences are different in significant ways. We have different natural tendencies and abilities, weaknesses etc. For example I think and perceive in a way that is very different to the way other men do. We don't share the same experience when we absorb literally the same information. Our mental and emotional response is different, we absorb and use information differently. How is it that, between men (not transgender men), they don't all share the same subjective experience? It's because every brain is unique. That's regardless of things such as upbringing or nutrition etc. We could grow up in the exact same environment, treated the exact same way, and still we'd experience the world differently. Yet somehow we're both considered "men", as if we were equals, which we're not. Every man is different from every other man.
And that's just the mental experience. When exposed to the same exact temperature, I feel a different level of cold/heat than other men. I feel cold when another man feels cozy. I feel cozy when that same man is practically melting in the heat. That's even with the exact same BMI. Same general body type. Many men build muscle much faster than I do despite having the same body type, even without steroid use. I'm highly introverted, while other men are highly extraverted. That's not because of some kind of training, we're inherently different. And yet we're all classified as "men". As if it were that simple and straight forward.
Does that not sound a little arbitrary to you? Why is there no more precise categorization between men? Why are chromosomes and genitals the only distinction? Why are all people of the same sex classified as one gender? That doesn't make sense when we're clearly so different in so many other ways.
I mean you might as well ask how come being human is a classification. While I don't personally care much about sex or gender and do, indeed, think that I have many more commonalities with many women than I do with many men, because there are a number of other ways one might distinguish people that matters a lot more to me, it's not like there's anything inherently wrong or sexist or anti-trans about acknowledging that there are some natural differences between men and women.
On October 23 2024 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I suppose what I am saying is: Based on this new york post link, I am not concerned with whether or not she truly is trans or truly identifies with the prosthetic breasts. Those breasts are clearly not real and she should clearly not be allowed to teach like that.
Assuming the NYP article is accurate about those breasts being fake and basically just a prop, then yeah I agree with you.
Oh great so we agree they shouldnt be allowed to wear these giant fake bazookas. So I guess my criticism of the school board that allowed this is totally valid and not just an “attack on trans people.” We just needed it to come through Mohdoo’s keyboard.
Maybe if you had posted an article or the full context like we had asked you, or communicated things more clearly, or avoided bringing this up right as you were providing cover for that other poster's anti-trans rhetoric, we would have eventually agreed with you.
I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
On October 23 2024 02:15 BlackJack wrote: I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
Later, in response to DPB, you add
On October 23 2024 02:36 BlackJack wrote:To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying he is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Your ending statement is this:
On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote: I think that if there was consensus here you would have gladly argued the case that there’s nothing wrong with Kayla wearing giant prosthetic tits to school if that’s how they chose to identify.
Mohdoo’s point was the same as mine: it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way. He didn’t offer anything materially different. You already had access to the nypost article when you were questioning me about what exactly I found inappropriate about what that person was wearing. I think Mohdoo just offered another dissent that you couldn’t dismiss as a right-wing bigot so your position came crumbling down like a house of cards.
Where I take issue is specifically with the start being different than the end. You're being critical of the school board, and imo that makes sense. People have a right to identify how they want to identify, to a point. In this particular case, it was a man identifying as a woman with a medical condition. Identifying as a woman? Fine. Identifying as having a medical condition she doesn't actually have? Questionable. The school board accepting the 'identifying as having a medical condition' and allowing size Z prosthetic breasts is the issue.
You opened with "they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits." and are trying to end with "it doesn’t matter if they are trans or a troll, the prosthetic boobs are inappropriate either way.".
You literally state "...believing a man is a woman because..." and later try walk it back to being about the tits. You also stated "The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post", but are now trying to claim the prosthetic breasts ARE the necessary part and are inappropriate either way. You can't be critical of the school board and claim they're delusional for believing a man is a woman, and then say it has nothing to do with gender it's about the tits.
Also, let's not forget that our source is an american conservative tabloid's article about an extreme edge case happening in a different country. That's not a terribly robust footing to make any kind of substantial point from.
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male.
In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way.
Biologically it's gametes. We have either sperm or eggs, there is no third type (it's "binary"). In many animals chromosomes can determine the sex but they don't define it. Famously, in alligators incubation temperature determines sex.
Edit: so chromosomes are a useful shorthand but edge cases don't make the whole exercise arbitrary.
EPT
