Forum
>
Announcements
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
How about covering one of the other missed points here? What makes a muscular woman unique is that she's muscled. Or even large/big boned if that's your thing. That's like a 90th percentile woman.
A man who's closely shaved wearing women's clothing? Not really all that unique, rare or exotic.
I am not generally a conservative person but this leftist ideology of accepting all living choices or be sent to the gulag is highly destructive.
Who is being sent to the gulag? How do people write such dumb shit? It's like one we're just one page away from people complaining, "i cum 2 this cite to see hot chix, not transformers." There are some reprobates on here who complain when a white woman dating a black guy.
As for chromosomes, the logic is not borne out by experience. We've observed transphobes on this very site praise a body until learning the model had a Y chromosome. Transwomen are not common, and I see little reason to believe they would be broadly popular, so the images would not be highly rated/in-your-face. There could be an issue with a small segment of the community boosting such pictures, which would trigger predictable blow-back, and that's why I sympathize with Chainer and mods. As I recall, there was a picture of a woman full-on praising Trump, and a moderator pre-emptively banned comments. That could possibly work, especially in the short run.
I'm LGTB. I'm a trans girl. Society and common sense is in our side. The proof is in the English language.
We (people in general) say "Trans girls" to talk about "girls with XY DNA". First, because it is simpler, and a universally understood term. Second, because it's CORRECT and TRUE. Saying "Paige is a girl but..." is accepting that she is a girl. End of discussion. "Trans girls" are a group of girls who have a certain characteristic. Same happens with "blond girls" and "girls with tattoos".
I love this web page. There is not another one alike, and everything it does, is pretty much well done. This is the first time I've noticed there were pics of trans girls in it. Probably it's the same for many people. The uploading rules are clear. Any whining for reasons outside those rules is as forgettable as complaints about tattoos.
Just think about whom do you wanna cater to, and the moral of the choice. The original arrangement is transfriendly. The new arrangement is transphobic. Each one makes happy one of the sides. If in 1963 fashion shows discriminated black models, we know that was wrong, but it was a choice made to keep racist people happy. Nowadays, you guys make the decision.
And if the one you make is segregating the pictures due to transphobia, change the name to CIS GIRLS WITH MUSCLE. Because the technicality of a separate, non-main section for trans girls as an excuse for inclusion is simply laughable.
PS. Maybe if you change the picture flagging form into a "checkbox" style one, that can help with complaints.
Honestly, it's kind of perfect fact that Mr. Awesome keeps posting the same things over and over in this thread. It's just such an obvious example of what is wrong with the handling of this issue on this site. This is someone displaying blatant transphobia/homophobia, but at the end of the day it's just one random user that could very easily be silenced at the click of a button by the site-runners. And yet the mod team is just sitting back and allowing it. Sure, delete the odd comment saying it's "low quality" and that you don't have time to deal with it lol. Maybe delete another couple, I'm sure that will teach him.
I sometimes wish I could get into a time machine and land in a state Senate that was adopting a post-reconstruction Jim Crow law. Then I would announce "behold, not only is this immoral on its own, but in about 150 years, you're never going to believe what this is going to be compared to..."
And BTW, to compare what happened in the south to "trans discrimination" is about as offensive as a holocaust analogy. Not accepting a re-write of society's mores for the sake of .03% the population being offended; and comparing that to people treated as less than human is a bridge too far.
I sometimes wish I could get into a time machine and land in a state Senate that was adopting a post-reconstruction Jim Crow law. Then I would announce "behold, not only is this immoral on its own, but in about 150 years, you're never going to believe what this is going to be compared to..."
And BTW, to compare what happened in the south to "trans discrimination" is about as offensive as a holocaust analogy. Not accepting a re-write of society's mores for the sake of .03% the population being offended; and comparing that to people treated as less than human is a bridge too far.
Do you think it's possible that multiple different groups can face persecution/prejudice? Lol at talking about the percentage like that means something. What quota does a certain group have to hit to get recognized as a human being? Does double digits for % do the trick, or what are we talking here?
Scythian
It’s not about politics, it’s about science. Women are born with XX chromosomes. Even women who are roided up the whazoo have XX. And this site is about women with muscles. Men are born with XY chromosomes. Men and women who artificially transition to another sex still retain their original biological genes.
"Science" says it's not as simple as you wish it to be, as I previously pointed out:
Do you think it's possible that multiple different groups can face persecution/prejudice? Lol at talking about the percentage like that means something. What quota does a certain group have to hit to get recognized as a human being? Does double digits for % do the trick, or what are we talking here?
1) there are degrees of persecution ranging from being lynched, stoned, etc to suffering "offence" that others won't accept you for a behavior.
2) percentages of course play a role in how we set rules in society. A standard door opening in 6'8, yet there are entire basketball teams who risk injury each time they walk through a door. Airbags are unsafe for 2% of the female population, but as a whole we install them in everything. Should we create infrastructure to accommodate less than a percentile of any group?
1) there are degrees of persecution ranging from being lynched, stoned, etc to suffering "offence" that others won't accept you for a behavior.
2) percentages of course play a role in how we set rules in society. A standard door opening in 6'8, yet there are entire basketball teams who risk injury each time they walk through a door. Airbags are unsafe for 2% of the female population, but as a whole we install them in everything. Should we create infrastructure to accommodate less than a percentile of any group?
First off, what comparison are you even talking about?
Second, what the fuck does it even matter? Minority groups being persecuted against isn't an OK or acceptable thing. It doesn't have to be a "who has it worse off" competition.
Do you not think trans people are persecuted against? There is such a fucked up history. Just in terms of the sexual attraction angle from a male point of view, do some research on the gay/trans panic defense.
Also, you say "Not accepting a re-write of society's morals for the sake of .03% the population being offended". Can you tell me how your life has been impacted negatively by the transgender population? What morals of yours are being attacked, other than bigotry?
Maybe this issue can be broken down into two parts. I wonder if the people supporting the separation do so because they don't want to include trans women on the site, or just because they don't want to see them.
The question to include trans people on the site or not, as I see it, has different aspects to consider. For one, the moral aspect I think is clearly defined: including them is morally right, not including them is morally wrong. But as I understand it the admin/mod team also has a practical aspect to consider: not including trans women, or separating them, probably generates volumetrically less backlash to deal with.
I saw an earlier comment from a mod mentioning that choosing either option will inevitably end up upsetting people. I think it's important to stop here for a moment and realise that one person getting upset is not equal to another person getting upset. On one side some people are upset because they saw a picture of someone that they don't consider a woman, which is ignorant at best, and transphobic at worst. On the other side, some people are getting upset because they are being segregated.
But maybe there is a way to both include trans women on the main site wihout everyone having to see their pictures. I can't estimate the effort/result ratio, but my proposal would be to implement a system that allows users to filter out pictures based on tags. Tags are already a part of the site so adding a "trans" one doesn't seem like a problem. How to implement the filtering is still to be figured out though. As I understand currently no user has a personalised feed of their own, so the site appears to everyone the same "global" way - so maybe making it so that not all pictures appear for all people would be too much effort. But to me it seems feasible to have different thumbnails for a given picture based on its tags. What I have in mind is that people who would opt out of seeing pictures of trans women would have some sort of template image as a thumbnail for pictures having the "trans" tag, as opposed to the thumbnail being a small version of the picture.
This way only those get to see trans women who either opt in or who purposefully click on the picture, while also including trans women on the main site. Maybe this system would also prove to be generic enough that it could support filtering other kinds of images as well (referring to earlier comments here, some regarding Paige Dumars for example).
I think this would solve almost all problems except the people who outright don't want to include trans women on the main site. Having to deal with them only hopefully would result in minimal backlash out of this whole situation, and not catering to them is the right thing to do.
@asianfitnessfan, I appreciate your articles. Non are from scientific journals that call the current knowledge of biological sex heredity into question. Any new discovery that did this would be big news. Front page of the NYT: XX and XY No Longer Define Your Gender! Please don’t go down the rabbit hole of political correctness. No number of temper tantrums can change the facts of science. Here’s a perfect example of science denial by the left. Actually when it threatens your core beliefs right or wrong, people will deny science to avoid cognitive dissonance. And to reply to an earlier poster, yes, I can say that XX is a woman and an XY is a man at work. So your only hope is to persecute and cancel those who stand up to this and all science denial in order to advance some social agenda.
Something like this is a great example of how slippery this slope could be:
How many people on this website do you think have an armpit hair fetish? Some arm muscle there, but nothing crazy. If someone were to report this because they didn't like it, I'm genuinely curious what the protocol would be, and how that would compare to when someone complains about a trans woman being posted.
And that's besides the point that trans women isn't even a fetish (can be for some), just an acknowledgement of trans women being women.
@flipshift Hi, I agree with your premises. You described the problem well; which is that the mods get too much work (due to transphobic comments and reportings). But the idea of a "trans" tag maybe is not that good. Because used for filtering is fine, but some people here are glad to waste time criticizing a picture just because it exists. So streamlining access to pics like those seems to be more problematic.
Scythian
@asianfitnessfan, I appreciate your articles. Non are from scientific journals that call the current knowledge of biological sex heredity into question. Any new discovery that did this would be big news. Front page of the NYT: XX and XY No Longer Define Your Gender!
This isn't really a scientific thread, but XX and XY is not all there is.
So your only hope is to persecute and cancel those who stand up to this and all science denial in order to advance some social agenda.
"Persecute and cancel"? If you think that's what's happening here, then you've had a very easy life.
flipshift
Maybe this issue can be broken down into two parts. I wonder if the people supporting the separation do so because they don't want to include trans women on the site, or just because they don't want to see them.
This is an excellent question.
I don't know why the existing site rules and functions can't apply to trans women just as well as they do to anyone else. No nudity and sexual acts on the main site. Report button for image issues. No hateful comments. Lock comments on images with trolls.
Introducing "trans" as a disqualifying factor creates a major attribution problem that the mods might be overlooking.
Unless a particular trans woman self identifies, then deciding whether she is "trans" or not is based on rumor or accusation.
Would you feel comfortable saying any of this at your place of work? Pretty obvious which way society is going on transgender issues.