|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2024 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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 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.
I’m happy with Introverts definition
|
On October 24 2024 01:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2024 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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 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.
There’s thousands of ways we classify ourselves. You even mentioned a few yourself. There’s introverted people and extroverted people. There’s obese people and skinny people. Of course not all introverted people are the same. Not all obese people are the same. But you still accept these classifications. I guess the question it begs is why do you accept all these other classifications but then declare the classification between man and woman is arbitrary. How is classifying people based on gametes any more or less arbitrary than classifying people based on adipose tissue?
|
On October 24 2024 01:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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.
Species is a much more objective classification. Sex likewise is more objective. Gender is far more subjective. That's why it can be argued that sex and gender are not the same thing.
The human experience is subjective mixed with objective distinctions. An issue arises when objective distinctions affect the subjective experience. For example when being born male or female feels wrong, as in the case of transgender people. Why would it feel wrong? Because gender is subjective, and the objective reality contradicts the gender.
On October 24 2024 01:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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. There’s thousands of ways we classify ourselves. You even mentioned a few yourself. There’s introverted people and extroverted people. There’s obese people and skinny people. Of course not all introverted people are the same. Not all obese people are the same. But you still accept these classifications. I guess the question it begs is why do you accept all these other classifications but then declare the classification between man and woman is arbitrary. How is classifying people based on gametes any more or less arbitrary than classifying people based on adipose tissue?
I believe in my response to Drone I explained why the gender distinction is more arbitrary. Not all men are born male because to be a man is far more subjective than to be born male which is objective. The overlap between man and male is a psycho-social phenomenon, not an objective truth.
|
On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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. I’m happy with Introverts definition
Okay thanks  Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)?
|
On October 24 2024 01:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2024 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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 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.
It's not the job of "men" to account for personality or metabolism any more than it's the job of "green eyes" to account for wealth or height. We do have more precise categorization by combining categories, we could of course come up with a single word that describes "left-handed Australian women between the ages of 30-49 with bad eyesight", the reason we don't is because it's not linguistically useful.
|
On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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 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. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)?
Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us.
Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes.
|
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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 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.
I’m unsure what the term is, it does exist. Where it’s by population de facto binary, but isn’t quite strictly binary. There are at least some outliers
More broadly, I personally agree with the Blackest of Jacks post up the thread. On the other hand I don’t think some of his framing or rhetoric isn’t exactly denotative of great respect to that community
Was actually having this exact conversation with my partner last night, possibly too many drinks were had in belated birthday celebration but I was bemoaning why folks just can’t go with what I was calling the ‘trans Copenhagen Interpretation’. Ya got your brain’s conception of gender, you’ve got your other physical biology and they’re not always going to be in alignment.
Obviously some people do make those distinctions, it’s not some unique idea but it doesn’t always permeate into the discourse. You got a ‘female brain’ while being born in a male shell? So fuck? It’s fine why worry about it? Outside of some very edge niche circumstances where maybe there are issues. Woman’s sport is one, for example.
This absolutely goes in both directions for me for the record. I find much of the right’s approach to these issues as hysterical, hyperbolic and frankly morally repugnant.
But the left can be fucking idiots on it as well. 'Trans women are women' isn't some axiom that always stands up to all scrutiny whenever it's invoked. For example.
It precludes actual discussion, understanding and sensible policy, be it a more informal cultural convention level or at an actual legislative one
For example I mean, I’ll absolutely respect their current identity, but if you’re a trans man you likely have extremely different formative experiences than I have as a cis male. Even if you transitioned relatively early, I’ve had a decade+ of my formative years being a dude, and subject to the various cultural expectations and interactions that that brings.
I’ve had pretty angry pushback on this, IMO pretty reasonable observation. I’d go as far as to say, correct observation. Just one example
To my mind the only reason trans people exist is because of genderised cultural and social expectations. Or if not the only reason, a huge reason. But if you point out your formative years were very different, in the main, for that reason some may call you transphobic
It can become very incoherent, very quickly and indeed I think can be actively harmful to the trans community itself IMO. Enough bad, vitriolic pushback on earnest discussion is one way to lose allies
Gender is a topic I really find fascinating, I’ve put a lot of time into it over the moons. Outside of like, StarCraft, alcohol, the flaws of capitalism and computer science it’s right up there with things that fascinate me.
I think it’s also the only topic I ever engage with where I have zero issues on various forums or subreddits, unless I reveal I’m actually a cis bloke
Hm, post went a bit more rambly than I’d have liked, very unlike me
|
On October 24 2024 02:01 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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. It's not the job of "men" to account for personality or metabolism any more than it's the job of "green eyes" to account for wealth or height. We do have more precise categorization by combining categories, we could of course come up with a single word that describes "left-handed Australian women between the ages of 30-49 with bad eyesight", the reason we don't is because it's not linguistically useful.
I'm not asking for more categorizations. I'm explaining why being a man is detached from the objective fact of being born male. Transgender women know that they were born male, they're not rejecting that objective reality. Yet it doesn't feel right to them because their body feels wrong to them. They're therefore either women or something other than man/woman, because prioritizing the subjective experience for the sake of sanity makes more sense than prioritizing objective reality against all reason. You wouldn't tell someone they're wrong for liking vanilla ice cream more than apples. That would be weird. The fact that apples are healthier changes nothing about our individually unique taste buds that may tell us vanilla ice cream is better. Instead we try to find a way to give the person a good life who doesn't want to eat apples.
|
On October 24 2024 00:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2024 21:31 Billyboy wrote:On October 23 2024 19:49 Razyda wrote: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...? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Of course there are Republican's who have values, many of them are voting for Harris this year though because the Republicnas have changed so much since Trump. Now it is just grievance politics. Take immigration, both runs he was real mad about it, but when he had a chance he deported less people than Obama or Biden. He was real mad about Obama not working hard like a hard working American should and showed this with his gold than managed to golf what 10x as much? Trump "hates" immigrants but can't even come up with a plan to deal with it, and blocks actual plans to do so. In reality he loves that they are a problem he can be "real mad" about.
Tariffs are another hilarious one, because they are totally a tax on the American people, just the people voting for Trump don't seem to understand that. They are also mad about inflation and do not realize that Tariffs are guaranteed to raise prices on shit. If they were willing to pay more to have things manufactured in America than it would at least have a sniff of sanity.
The people who want abortion banned would have policy reasons to vote for Trump, it is because of him that those have become possible, but then he says he does not want that.
Christian values.... I mean Trump is basically the opposite.
Tulsi just leaned into all the nutty conspiracies and there is no market for that with the mainstream Dem voters, and the far left is way to small for it to profitable for her. Pure self interest move, and it has made her lots of money and fame. Had she stayed a Dem, absolutely no one would be talking about her.
|
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
On October 23 2024 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2024 10:36 WombaT wrote:On October 23 2024 10:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:12 WombaT wrote:On October 23 2024 08:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 07:43 RenSC2 wrote:On October 23 2024 07:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 07:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 06:27 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote. You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left... I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30. To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!" Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op. I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like "Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"You want the retelling to be "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true. Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true. Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it. It's a New York Post article (so heavily biased), but they generally will tell the story at least as a starting point https://nypost.com/article/who-is-kayla-lemieux-trans-teacher-with-prosthetic-breasts/Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it. Thanks for the source! If that article about the Canadian teacher is indeed true and is actually what people are using as ammunition against the trans community, then this topic is even less serious than I thought lol. Maybe TDS should stand for Trump Trans Derangement Syndrome, because of how far conservatives will go to hate on that marginalized group. Seems fair to me Proportion wise, trans people are close to the most irrelevant political topic to me possible. I’ve met 3 in my life, 2 of whom I liked, one of whom I disliked, on a purely personality level They’re not rampantly sexually assaulting people. The issue of women’s sports IMO is an area for debate, but most of the people who want trans athletes excluded also frequently denigrate woman’s sport ‘WNBA players can’t dunk who cares?’ juxtaposed with the exact same folks going ‘trans people are ruining woman’s sports doesn’t really track. I can’t recall whose wisdom it was but ‘don’t be a cunt’ as a maxim to live one’s life seems OK to me I’m not some savant with access to all human history, I genuinely can’t recall from my readings many times when such a small, largely inconsequential subset of a population gets so much hate and approbrium for no particularly good reason Yeah it's pretty easy to vilify small groups that aren't well-known or well-understood, and the doubling down of saying that trans people are a threat - when they're actually the ones constantly being threatened - is definitely a move at odds with the maxim you mentioned. I think I've gotten to know about 20 trans people (friends, or friends of friends, or students), and all of them have been completely innocuous and just looking to be treated like a human being. I very much appreciate that my students treat each other with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I've had plenty of LGBTQ+ students, and I've seen Gen Z be way more validating and open-minded than my middle/high school years as a Millennial (when the biggest insult one guy could call another guy was gay/f*ggot). I have failed to prevent Minibat being one of the saltiest gamers I’ve ever encountered, granted I can’t complain given I’m in my top 5. Albeit most of my salt was self-directed But it is interesting playing with him and his buddies on the regular. Any kind of homophobic insult just doesn’t come up. At all When I was a kid, very much not so, wasn’t that long ago. I used faggot way longer than I should have with the justification that contextually it wasn’t homophobic. Which it wasn’t, but not a justification. I haven’t suffered one iota from scrubbing it from my vernacular Feels good man I can get pretty salty too, depending on the game! How old is Minibat now? It's interesting to hear how insults/comments change from generation to generation, and how some people are capable of scrubbing certain derogatory language from their vernacular as they grow up, while others can't/won't.
He’s 11 now, time very much does fly. Ohio seems to feature frequently in insults him and his buddies throw around, for reasons I can’t quite fathom. A lot of insults about hairlines, but I think that’s more a specific one he uses for his friend haha
Things do move rather rapidly, at least these days. I graduated from our high school equivalent in 2008 and while we had obviously gay classmates, nobody came out until they got to college.
My mum still works there and Minibat just started, never mind openly gay students you’ve trans students who are living their true lives from a pretty early age. It’s quite the change in a pretty short order
|
On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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 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. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes.
A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic. I'm not trying to win an argument against you; I'm just asking for clarification and whether or not you agree that "bimodal" is technically a more accurate representation for the classification of sex than "binary", because not every human is either a man or a woman. Or do you believe that every human falls into one of two sex categories (man or woman), and that humans can't fall into a category of "neither man nor woman" based on sex chromosomes and gametes?
Either there are exactly two categories that everyone fits into ("binary") or there are some rare exceptions to the two incredibly common and typical sexes ("bimodal"). The latter is true if we're going by sex chromosomes and gametes, which was what you just said you were using as a reference for sex classification. And you also just used the word "intersex", which makes me think you realize that the correct situation is "bimodal" but are worried that agreeing with me there is you admitting or conceding something negative. I'm not trying to set you up.
|
On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
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 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. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic..
I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies.
|
On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 00:52 oBlade wrote:On October 23 2024 21:31 Billyboy wrote:On October 23 2024 19:49 Razyda wrote: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. Now it is just grievance politics.
Wrong.
On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:
Take immigration, both runs he was real mad about it, but when he had a chance he deported less people than Obama or Biden.
All three runs, my brother. And as an avowed anti-racist, that makes you proud to support him more than the xenophobic Democrats, right? Or did it not occur to you you plug a leak before pumping the water out and illegal immigration was down under Drumpf.
Harris just today reiterated her support for amnesty and pathway to citizenship for her future voters.
On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:
Tariffs are another hilarious one, because they are totally a tax on the American people, just the people voting for Trump don't seem to understand that. They are also mad about inflation and do not realize that Tariffs are guaranteed to raise prices on shit. If they were willing to pay more to have things manufactured in America than it would at least have a sniff of sanity.
The Biden/Harris administration just 3 days ago added more tariffs to Chinese goods.
On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:
Tulsi just leaned into all the nutty conspiracies and there is no market for that with the mainstream Dem voters, and the far left is way to small for it to profitable for her. Pure self interest move, and it has made her lots of money and fame. Had she stayed a Dem, absolutely no one would be talking about her.
Yeah and your grandmother makes chocolate chip cookies just out of self interest because people pay her at the bake sale and it increases her reputation. The cookies themselves couldn't actually be delicious also. Her recipe must also be some kind of nutty conspiracy in reality.
Name three "progressively dumber" things she said with "no substance."
|
On October 24 2024 02:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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 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. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic.. I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies.
I'm being unbelievably patient with you. Please stay on topic.
|
On October 24 2024 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
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 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. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic.. I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies. I'm being unbelievably patient with you. Please stay on topic.
He stayed on-topic, answered your question quite exhaustively. He agreed with a pretty satisfactory definition of sex, and I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the idea that sex does not determine a person's gender. This isn't the first time this argument has come up, and it won't be the last. If you don't really have much more to add, you can just bow out, BJ will still be transphobic the next time he brings the topic up.
|
On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2024 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 09:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 23 2024 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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 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.
I think we've got a similar mindset. I'd add that, personally, I don't care what their biological gender is because it wouldn't change how I interact with them.
As for having a debate about "woke ideology applied in the real world", I would strongly prefer the world where Kayla Lemieux is allowed to exist as a woman without fear of violence, retribution, or discrimination. The board may have taken that too far by accepting lies about gigantomastia and the associated prosthetic, but we're not exactly getting the full story anyways. The story that the board welcomed her and her Z-size tits with open arms, unquestioning, is only one you could tell yourself, and not one you could know.
In any case, I prefer this story, where we can see multiple schools and school boards (Kayla Lemieux was hired at a different school later, sans Z-size tits) are still willing to hire this person despite ACTIVE VIOLENCE AND BOMB THREATS being made in response to their existence. Even if this person is a troll, the shame is then on them for being a troll, and not school boards for trying to allow trans people a space in the world. One canadian doofus pushing on the limits of what woke ideology accepts is not evidence that woke ideology is broke ideology, especially considering it's relatively new. Adjustments can be made to limit bad faith actors without damaging the space made for those who use it genuinely.
|
On October 24 2024 03:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:56 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 02:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 02:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 01:36 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]
Just to recenter ourselves, let's run the discussion back:
[quote]
This prompted Manifesto to respond, and you to respond to Manifesto with
[quote]
Later, in response to DPB, you add
[quote]
Eventually, RenSC2 posts an actual source for the story you're referencing
[quote]
Your ending statement is this:
[quote]
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. I’m happy with Introverts definition Okay thanks Would you agree that sex is bimodal, based on chromosomes and gametes (most people have either XX or XY; most people produce either sperm or eggs; there are rare exceptions where an individual falls into neither category, so it's not "binary" but it's actually "bimodal", because XX and XY are much more common than any third/other options, and being able to produce sperm or eggs are much more common than any third/other options, but there do exist third/other options such as XYY or an inability to produce any sperm/eggs at all)? Having a genetic anomaly that causes someone to be born in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into the binary of sexes doesn’t negate the binary of sexes any more than someone being born with no legs negates that humans are bipedal. I never see anyone arguing that there must be some 2nd/“other option” of humans that have a different amount of legs than the rest of us. Honestly it sounds dehumanizing to refer to intersex people as a “3rd option” of human just so you can try to win the argument that there’s not a binary of sexes. A person without two legs is obviously not bipedal (yet they are still a human), but let's stay on topic.. I didn’t say that person was bipedal. I said humans are bipedal. I said the existence of a person with no legs does not disprove that humans are bipedal any more than an intersex person disproves the binary of sexes. My point about bipedal people is not off-topic if you understood how it relates to the conversation. You’re just choosing to ignore it because it’s not convenient for you to have to explain why you want to invent more sexes to account for genetic anomalies but you don’t want to create more classifications for people born with other types of genetic anomalies. I'm being unbelievably patient with you. Please stay on topic. He stayed on-topic, answered your question quite exhaustively. He agreed with a pretty satisfactory definition of sex, and I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the idea that sex does not determine a person's gender. This isn't the first time this argument has come up, and it won't be the last. If you don't really have much more to add, you can just bow out, BJ will still be transphobic the next time he brings the topic up.
We didn't talk about whether or not sex determines gender, and I suspect that if we eventually got to gender, he would change the subject to arms instead of legs, or something else that distracts from the actual topic. I asked for additional clarification because now he's willing to acknowledge intersex people, yet he still apparently maintains that everyone's sex can be described in one of two ways - man or woman (XY or XX, producing sperm or producing egg). He can't have it both ways. A binary necessarily has two options, and not a third option. If we're writing code in binary, there are only 0s and 1s, but BlackJack apparently thinks that it's still binary if a 2 appears every once in a while, as long as most of the numbers are 0s and 1s. But that's no longer binary; that's bimodal.
I don't even think his position loses any ground by agreeing that sex is technically bimodal instead of binary. I'm not attempting to trap him, yet he's still super defensive and changes the subject immediately. He's just unwilling to engage in good faith about sex classification, and that's fine, but then he wonders why everyone somehow misunderstands him or ridicules him. I'm happy to leave it alone for now, but holy crap did he fail at an exercise in basic conversation.
|
On October 24 2024 02:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:On October 24 2024 01:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 24 2024 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2024 00:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 14:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 23 2024 13:11 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2024 10:08 BlackJack wrote:On October 23 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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 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. I’m unsure what the term is, it does exist. Where it’s by population de facto binary, but isn’t quite strictly binary. There are at least some outliers More broadly, I personally agree with the Blackest of Jacks post up the thread. On the other hand I don’t think some of his framing or rhetoric isn’t exactly denotative of great respect to that community Was actually having this exact conversation with my partner last night, possibly too many drinks were had in belated birthday celebration but I was bemoaning why folks just can’t go with what I was calling the ‘trans Copenhagen Interpretation’. Ya got your brain’s conception of gender, you’ve got your other physical biology and they’re not always going to be in alignment. Obviously some people do make those distinctions, it’s not some unique idea but it doesn’t always permeate into the discourse. You got a ‘female brain’ while being born in a male shell? So fuck? It’s fine why worry about it? Outside of some very edge niche circumstances where maybe there are issues. Woman’s sport is one, for example. This absolutely goes in both directions for me for the record. I find much of the right’s approach to these issues as hysterical, hyperbolic and frankly morally repugnant. But the left can be fucking idiots on it as well. 'Trans women are women' isn't some axiom that always stands up to all scrutiny whenever it's invoked. For example. It precludes actual discussion, understanding and sensible policy, be it a more informal cultural convention level or at an actual legislative one For example I mean, I’ll absolutely respect their current identity, but if you’re a trans man you likely have extremely different formative experiences than I have as a cis male. Even if you transitioned relatively early, I’ve had a decade+ of my formative years being a dude, and subject to the various cultural expectations and interactions that that brings. I’ve had pretty angry pushback on this, IMO pretty reasonable observation. I’d go as far as to say, correct observation. Just one example To my mind the only reason trans people exist is because of genderised cultural and social expectations. Or if not the only reason, a huge reason. But if you point out your formative years were very different, in the main, for that reason some may call you transphobic It can become very incoherent, very quickly and indeed I think can be actively harmful to the trans community itself IMO. Enough bad, vitriolic pushback on earnest discussion is one way to lose allies Gender is a topic I really find fascinating, I’ve put a lot of time into it over the moons. Outside of like, StarCraft, alcohol, the flaws of capitalism and computer science it’s right up there with things that fascinate me. I think it’s also the only topic I ever engage with where I have zero issues on various forums or subreddits, unless I reveal I’m actually a cis bloke Hm, post went a bit more rambly than I’d have liked, very unlike me
I hate to write a short post in repsonse but I didn't intend to get into the larger discussion taking place, I mostly wanted to clarify. Sex is, in humans, determined all or almost entirely by chromosomes (hedging because I'm not super well studied here), but it IS binary. There are only two gamate types, and even so far as I'm aware we know of no human who has ever produced both. I do agree with BlackJack that hard-to-classify anomalies don't (and wouldn't) disprove the rule. There's probably a good reason what we now call "gender expression" so closely tracks biological sex, often probably evolutionary reasons. On the one hand looking at this way is entirely unhelpful, since some people are de-linking sex entirely from gender. But given human history and the overwhelming overlap seen today I would say the burden on those making that argument, rather than calling someone a bigot and walking away. Imo the human body is a complicated and interlinked organism, I don't see how it's possible to escape. On this topic, there was a story in the NYT about how the authors of a study showing puberty blockers had no helpful effects suppressed their own study due to politics. This whole topic I hesitate to say is a proxy fight over other things, not about what's best for people suffering from dysphoria.
|
I think there is just way to much talk and anger about the Trans issue when in almost every part of society it really doesn't or shouldn't matter what gender you are. It feels like a distraction from all the issues that effect way larger sections of the population and really when it comes down to it if you are not hurting anyone else than why does it matter? So I'm pretty left on the issue in general.
That being said I'll weigh in because there is a lot about it I don't really understand. First it seems almost separate from sexuality because when I see trans people (which is very infrequently) they can be with whatever gender, I've seen a transwoman with another transwoman, with a cis man and with a cis woman. And that makes it very hard for me to wrap my head around it because I feel like I get gay men, they are sexually attracted to men and not women, great I get it. But when you remove the sexuality it gets very confusing for me because most of the things I hear and see about wanting to be a woman or man have more to do with marketing and cultural choices than something innate in being a "man" or "woman". Like make up, clothing, hair styles and so on. And quite frankly now a days as a gay or straight man you can do and wear all those things. Like Machine Gun Kelly or whatever. So I have no problem with it, I just don't get it. The surgeries worry me because they don't exactly "work" (Like you get a vagina, but its not the same and even vasectomy's have a fair bit of risk and are way simpler). But I'm not against them for adults because the regret from people who get them are low, so who really cares that it does not make sense to me? Either do nose jobs or a 1000 other surgeries people take by choice.
The issues I think are "real" (subjective) that I'm very conflicted on is puberty blockers for kids as well as surgeries for them. Just because it is so permanent not because I think it is bad just a big freaking decision that permanently alters your body and whole life. That being said I cringe at people young getting tattoo's young because of the permeance. I also get why someone looking to transition would not want to go through puberty because transitioning is way harder afterwards. And then I understand the counterpoint that making a decision that big when you are young enough to have not hit puberty is pretty damn scary as well.
So far where I currently fall on the issue is the government should not be involved. If the child, doctor and parent all on board than why is it my or the governments business. I think the real hard call is if the parent disagrees with the doctor and the child. At what age should a child have autonomy over their body? I really don't know a good answer and I'm not sure there is the volume of data I would like on the "success" or "failure" of these operations (physically, psychologically and so on) to make some sort of data driven decision.
The one part of the Trans issue where I would be center right on is when it comes to competitive sports. Born males just have too much of an advantage in most sports, for me it comes down to fairness to the majority, even if it could be seen as unfair to the small minority. My not super well thought out solutions would be to have male sports be changed to "open" and have women's sports be just cis-female, with perhaps the egg/sperm definition mentioned. Or a third trans category if you could get enough participation. This is one of the "loop" holes that bad actors could definitely abuse with how competitive people are and the money at stake, even scholarship's are a huge deal to a lot of people.
The last one is pronouns and this is probably more of a queer issue than a trans one but pronouns are always talked about. I really don't like "they" as an option. I get not going with he or her, but I want a new one that is not plural. I find it so confusing in general conversation because I'm always thinking that a group has done something when sometimes it is a individual. I have no good replacement word, and I'm definitely not the person to pick it. It is also clearly not a big deal.
Overall I think it is new enough in the main stream that there a lot of things to iron out. The trouble is that having a good faith discussion without attack is very hard because there is a lot of people who hate "trans" just because. And I very much differ with BlackJack on whether worth for closing the loop holes in most things at the cost of punishing the good actors (like I could care less if some asshole wants to dress like woman or exaggerate to make some stupid angry point. I figure go for it, you would assholing in some other way anyhow. Just ignore those angry fucks they do not deserve attention), but I do agree with him that there are some actual issues that need to be thought through well so we are not accidently hurting another group.
Overall I'm pretty confused. I think that lots of people are and are scared to say it because they will either be attacked for being too woke or for being a fascist depending on the group they are with. It is a confusing, ever changing subject that it should be possible to have a good faith discussion about. I know that WIll Ferrel is making a movie about his best friend who transitioned and I look forward to watching it because I heard they do a good job of explaining a bunch of the stuff I don't understand and I do not have a friend like that.
|
On October 24 2024 02:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:On October 24 2024 00:52 oBlade wrote:On October 23 2024 21:31 Billyboy wrote:On October 23 2024 19:49 Razyda wrote: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. Now it is just grievance politics. Wrong. Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:
Take immigration, both runs he was real mad about it, but when he had a chance he deported less people than Obama or Biden. All three runs, my brother. And as an avowed anti-racist, that makes you proud to support him more than the xenophobic Democrats, right? Or did it not occur to you you plug a leak before pumping the water out and illegal immigration was down under Drumpf. Harris just today reiterated her support for amnesty and pathway to citizenship for her future voters. Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:
Tariffs are another hilarious one, because they are totally a tax on the American people, just the people voting for Trump don't seem to understand that. They are also mad about inflation and do not realize that Tariffs are guaranteed to raise prices on shit. If they were willing to pay more to have things manufactured in America than it would at least have a sniff of sanity. The Biden/Harris administration just 3 days ago added more tariffs to Chinese goods. Show nested quote +On October 24 2024 02:40 Billyboy wrote:
Tulsi just leaned into all the nutty conspiracies and there is no market for that with the mainstream Dem voters, and the far left is way to small for it to profitable for her. Pure self interest move, and it has made her lots of money and fame. Had she stayed a Dem, absolutely no one would be talking about her. Yeah and your grandmother makes chocolate chip cookies just out of self interest because people pay her at the bake sale and it increases her reputation. The cookies themselves couldn't actually be delicious also. Her recipe must also be some kind of nutty conspiracy in reality. Name three "progressively dumber" things she said with "no substance."
Biden and Harris putting on Tariffs makes a lot more sense with their values, whether I agree with it or not. They believe in government intervention in the article.
Can you source that Illegal immigration was down in Trumps compared to Obama? Are you sure this is not just like the deficit that rises?
US based biological labs in Ukraine. Republican Senator Mitt Romney gave some of the harshest condemnation of the former Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman, tweeting that she is "parroting false Russian propaganda" and that her "treasonous lies may well cost lives."
Here is another quote from her “I’ve been thinking about how infinitely greater the death and suffering will be if we allow the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, self-serving politicians – if we allow them to lead us now into the apocalypse of World War III,” Gabbard said. “So, now is the time for anyone who cares for their loved ones, who cares for our fellow Americans, who cares for all human beings and wildlife; now is the time to be reminded of the grim reality that we all face if we don’t stop them.”
No info on "how" or who exactly the "them" is.
That Russia's invasion is Ukraine's fault. “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border.”
I mean is there a Russia propaganda point she doesn't love?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
