Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
But that's my point exactly. Sex change surgery has been available since Weimar Germany and people have been cross dressing since Ancient Greece, as you said. And yet, this existential, do-or-die, all-or-nothing winner-takes-all struggle you keep portraying only started in the 2010s...?
Probably because this is the first time it's been publicly visible, so in turn this is the first time they're being actively legislated against. That's the best answer I can give you, I'm not involved in the movement.
I appreciate your elaborating, but those goalposts are ever-so-subtly shifting, aren't they?
No, it's just all dependent on if the opposition is satisfied in perpetually playing defense or wants to actually win the war. Usually, defense isn't enough because the opposition eventually get bored or decide it isn't worth it. Like I did a decade ago.
Enough of subversion of religious institutions. Enough of men barging into women's bathrooms and locker rooms and unfairly competing against them. Enough of child organ butchery. Enough of reverse racism and two-tier rulings. As you see, it goes a little beyond the material.
A lot of people (myself included) don't recognize the existence of a higher power. We don't want religious institutions intertwined with state institutions. In the scope of things that actually matter, who uses what bathroom and who competes in what sport is much lower than do I have food to eat, can I afford rent, do I have a source of income, etc. So for that reason, I don't particularly sympathize. If what we're living through right now is reverse racism, it's still pretty great.
That's an extremely dyscivic mindset.
How do you realistically see this ending? There's no amount of executive orders, legislation, court rulings or even violence that will end the existence of transgender people or their desire to be legally recognized. It's not dyscivic, it's recognizing that there's no practical way to win that fight definitively without taking the most extreme measures possible.
A paid actor has no obligation to support/believe in the product they are promoting.
But while I am a Sydney Sweeney fan, I do wish she was not associated with the subsidized marketing of a product I don’t like. I do like porn, but I wouldn’t want that on TV commercials either solely on the basis of wanting the market to have its say.
it has nothing to do with athletes. it's about betting. sports bets. that's all. women making this about women in sports when it is about a betting site is soooo stupid.
Probably because this is the first time it's been publicly visible, so in turn this is the first time they're being actively legislated against. That's the best answer I can give you, I'm not involved in the movement.
My dude, transexuals were a non-entity up until the 2010s. They pretty much didn't register. And now it becomes an issue that children are being drenched with puberty blockers and getting their reproductive parts chopped, and that women's locker rooms, bathrooms and sports need to be shared? I appreciate that you're not involved and don't have the answers, but I'm asking you rhetorical questions here. This is not the long-running, existential struggle you're portraying it as.
No, it's just all dependent on if the opposition is satisfied in perpetually playing defense or wants to actually win the war. Usually, defense isn't enough because the opposition eventually get bored or decide it isn't worth it. Like I did a decade ago.
That's all well and good, but it wasn't the initial assertion we were discussing.
A lot of people (myself included) don't recognize the existence of a higher power.
And a lot of people (myself included) do. Are you willing to grant us the same benevolent ambivalence?
We don't want religious institutions intertwined with state institutions.
That's not what I was talking about when I mentioned the subversion of religious institutions. But, while we're at it, are you fine with minority institutions intertwined with state institutions?
In the scope of things that actually matter, who uses what bathroom and who competes in what sport is much lower than do I have food to eat, can I afford rent, do I have a source of income, etc. So for that reason, I don't particularly sympathize.
Yes, if I need to take a dump, am thirsty, starving or sleepy, other concerns also take a back seat. But eventually I'll have to think about them, because life is about more than surviving.
If what we're living through right now is reverse racism, it's still pretty great.
I'm sure many South African Blacks would say something similar about Apartheid when compared to how their country is right now.
How do you realistically see this ending? There's no amount of executive orders, legislation, court rulings or even violence that will end the existence of transgender people or their desire to be legally recognized.
One last (hopefully) time: it's not about ending anyone's existence or preventing someone from being legally recognized. Not fomenting and encouraging teenagers to chop up their nether regions isn't preventing someone from being legally recognized. Nor is not allowing biological males to take part in women's sports. Or not forcing people to call a 6'3 cro-magnon with a five o'clock shadow "ma'am". And I'm reasonably sure the vast majority of individuals who performed sex changes are not interested in butchering minors or taking part in sports events from the opposite biological sex.
...
But tell us about Sydney Sweeney, guys. Are we afraid that her Christian upbringing might intertwine with state institutions if she gets invited to some political event? Do we think she's preventing female athletes from being legally recognized? Does her rack match prime Simona Halep's? Inquiring minds wish to know.
My dude, transexuals were a non-entity up until the 2010s. They pretty much didn't register. And now it becomes an issue that children are being drenched with puberty blockers and getting their reproductive parts chopped, and that women's locker rooms, bathrooms and sports need to be shared? I appreciate that you're not involved and don't have the answers, but I'm asking you rhetorical questions here. This is not the long-running, existential struggle you're portraying it as.
The bathroom bill in North Carolina was sort of a jumping off point the same way that Brown vs Board was for Civil Rights and Stonewall was for Gay Rights. A long time private fight for acceptance became an organized public fight. Also, for the first time, exclusion of transgender people went from incidental oversight to active legislation against. The public struggle itself is still in the beginning stages, based on what's happened recently.
And a lot of people (myself included) do. Are you willing to grant us the same benevolent ambivalence?
Sure, as long as it doesn't seep into governance. That's the main issue. I don't want to live in Christian Afghanistan. Also, why are you on here? Isn't lust a sin?
But, while we're at it, are you fine with minority institutions intertwined with state institutions?
What's a minority institution? I don't think that's a thing.
But eventually I'll have to think about them, because life is about more than surviving.
That's it, right there: This fight for transgender people is their version of survival. For the opposition, it's a side quest. That's why they'll win in the long run unless extraordinary measures are taken.
I'm sure many South African Blacks would say something similar about Apartheid when compared to how their country is right now.
You have to elaborate on this, what are you talking about? Do you mean Whites?
One last (hopefully) time: it's not about ending anyone's existence or preventing someone from being legally recognized. Not fomenting and encouraging teenagers to chop up their nether regions isn't preventing someone from being legally recognized. Nor is not allowing biological males to take part in women's sports. Or not forcing people to call a 6'3 cro-magnon with a five o'clock shadow "ma'am". And I'm reasonably sure the vast majority of individuals who performed sex changes are not interested in butchering minors or taking part in sports events from the opposite biological sex.
Well, that's step one: the federal government has effectively banned their existence. Asking them to just accept it and go home is like asking a gun owner to suck it up and turn in their weapon. The world just doesn't work like that. There will probably be concessions on the other things if they are brought to the table to negotiate (something similar happened in Utah, the Mormon Church and LGBT representatives compromised on expanding protections while carving out religious exemptions), but as long as they are kept at arms length and actively legislated against, it'll be a perpetual long term fight with an inevitable conclusion. I'd rather just skip to the end so we can all move on with our lives.
Also, if a 6'3 cro-magnon wants to be called 'ma'am", I would probably comply out of fear for my own safety. But that's just me. Also, it's a reasonable enough request.
But tell us about Sydney Sweeney, guys. Are we afraid that her Christian upbringing might intertwine with state institutions if she gets invited to some political event? Do we think she's preventing female athletes from being legally recognized? Does her rack match prime Simona Halep's? Inquiring minds wish to know.
I feel like if she was really Christian, she wouldn't be naked all the time. Like, either be Christian or don't.
The bathroom bill in North Carolina was sort of a jumping off point the same way that Brown vs Board was for Civil Rights and Stonewall was for Gay Rights. A long time private fight for acceptance became an organized public fight. Also, for the first time, exclusion of transgender people went from incidental oversight to active legislation against. The public struggle itself is still in the beginning stages, based on what's happened recently.
Sure, as long as it doesn't seep into governance. That's the main issue. I don't want to live in Christian Afghanistan. Also, why are you on here? Isn't lust a sin?
What's a minority institution? I don't think that's a thing.
That's it, right there: This fight for transgender people is their version of survival. For the opposition, it's a side quest. That's why they'll win in the long run unless extraordinary measures are taken.
You have to elaborate on this, what are you talking about? Do you mean Whites?
Well, that's step one: the federal government has effectively banned their existence. Asking them to just accept it and go home is like asking a gun owner to suck it up and turn in their weapon. The world just doesn't work like that. There will probably be concessions on the other things if they are brought to the table to negotiate (something similar happened in Utah, the Mormon Church and LGBT representatives compromised on expanding protections while carving out religious exemptions), but as long as they are kept at arms length and actively legislated against, it'll be a perpetual long term fight with an inevitable conclusion. I'd rather just skip to the end so we can all move on with our lives.
Also, if a 6'3 cro-magnon wants to be called 'ma'am", I would probably comply out of fear for my own safety. But that's just me. Also, it's a reasonable enough request.
I feel like if she was really Christian, she wouldn't be naked all the time. Like, either be Christian or don't.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
The bathroom bill in North Carolina was sort of a jumping off point the same way that Brown vs Board was for Civil Rights and Stonewall was for Gay Rights. A long time private fight for acceptance became an organized public fight. Also, for the first time, exclusion of transgender people went from incidental oversight to active legislation against. The public struggle itself is still in the beginning stages, based on what's happened recently.
You do realize there's a world out there beyond the USA, right? And now you're just sophisticating around your overly dramatic initial framing of the situation and shifting the goalposts once again.
Sure, as long as it doesn't seep into governance. That's the main issue. I don't want to live in Christian Afghanistan.
And most people don't want to live in a Transsexual Tajikistan.
Also, why are you on here? Isn't lust a sin?
Among other things, to educate lustful atheists on their misconceptions, like this one.
What's a minority institution? I don't think that's a thing.
You can honestly not think of any organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program centered around minorities?
That's it, right there: This fight for transgender people is their version of survival.
Except it clearly isn't. They survived just fine until the 2010s, after all.
You have to elaborate on this, what are you talking about? Do you mean Whites?
You posited that the current reverse racism situation "we" are living is still pretty great. I countered that South African Blacks might say the same about their lot in life during Apartheid.
Well, that's step one: the federal government has effectively banned their existence.
It hasn't. Why do you persist with these silly assertions?
Also, if a 6'3 cro-magnon wants to be called 'ma'am", I would probably comply out of fear for my own safety. But that's just me. Also, it's a reasonable enough request.
The physical threat isn't the issue here, but the legal case said cro-magnon could have in the aftermath in our current upside-down climate.
I feel like if she was really Christian, she wouldn't be naked all the time. Like, either be Christian or don't.
Perhaps her breasts identify as a rack. Don't be so bigoted.
You do realize there's a world out there beyond the USA, right? And now you're just sophisticating around your overly dramatic initial framing of the situation and shifting the goalposts once again.
I’m not shifting goalposts, I’m trying to explain to you why the fight is happening using parallels to previous movements and why it won’t end without taking the most extreme measures possible. Which is why I accepted it a decade ago and am ready to move on.
And most people don't want to live in a Transsexual Tajikistan.
Tajikistan is Muslim, I don’t think they allow trans people there.
Among other things, to educate lustful atheists on their misconceptions, like this one.
If I was Christian, this website is the very last place I would be.
You can honestly not think of any organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program centered around minorities?
Oh I throught you meant institution in a broad sense. In a perfect world, I would completely agree with you, but were unfortunately paying for the sins of our ancestors, and frankly doing the bare minimum.
Except it clearly isn't. They survived just fine until the 2010s, after all.
Because they went generally unnoticed. Now they are being legislated against. So to them, they’re trying to survive what they consider (and in some cases might rise to the definition of) persecution.
You posited that the current reverse racism situation "we" are living is still pretty great. I countered that South African Blacks might say the same about their lot in life during Apartheid.
You cant possibly think that America now is as bad as Apartheid South Africa. That’s borderline insulting to those who lived through it.
It hasn't. Why do you persist with these silly assertions?
EO 14168 basically makes being transgender legally nonexistent.
The physical threat isn't the issue here, but the legal case said cro-magnon could have in the aftermath in our current upside-down climate.
What legal case would he/she/it have?
I’m not shifting goalposts
You are, because the premise keeps being adjusted.
Tajikistan is Muslim, I don’t think they allow trans people there.
It was a mirror of your "Christian Afghanistan" bit. But better, because it had an alliteration.
If I was Christian, this website is the very last place I would be.
If you were a Christian, you hopefully wouldn't hold those frankenstein notions of what Christianity is.
Oh I throught you meant institution in a broad sense. In a perfect world, I would completely agree with you, but were unfortunately paying for the sins of our ancestors, and frankly doing the bare minimum.
How do you mean?
EO 14168 basically makes being transgender legally nonexistent.
No one identifies as "transgender". Other than prostitutes who prefer to be upfront for their own safety, I guess.
You cant possibly think that America now is as bad as Apartheid South Africa. That’s borderline insulting to those who lived through it.
No. I'm saying you, as a White person, claim you still have it pretty great, despite being legally and socially screwed if you use a certain word or dare defend yourself against a person with a certain level of melanin. Much like South African Blacks during Apartheid were disadvantaged, but still had it pretty great, compared to how their country is right now. At least on the materialistic level you seem to put so much stock in.
What legal case would he/she/it have?
Civil law liability for "misgendering".
...
Sydney Sweeney, though. I'm sure angry female athletes would love to have a legal case against her, right? Maybe if one of their family members has a betting problem.
I don’t know what you want me to say. If you can come up with a way that the transgender fight ends other than eventual capitulation to their demands or total extermination, please enlighten me. I don’t really have an opinion one way or another, I just saw the obvious eventual conclusion a decade ago and accepted it, and wish we could skip past the 50 years of BS to get there.
It was a mirror of your "Christian Afghanistan" bit. But better, because it had an alliteration.
No, I was comparing to how Afghanistan operates under Muslim law to our government potentially operating under strict Biblical standards. You just used alliteration because.
If you were a Christian, you hopefully wouldn't hold those frankenstein notions of what Christianity is.
This type of hypocrisy is exactly why I left the Church.
No one identifies as "transgender". Other than prostitutes who prefer to be upfront for their own safety, I guess.
I mean “a sex you aren’t born as” or nonbinary, not specifically transgender, I think that’s just a catch all term.
No. I'm saying you, as a White person, claim you still have it pretty great, despite being legally and socially screwed if you use a certain word or dare defend yourself against a person with a certain level of melanin. Much like South African Blacks during Apartheid were disadvantaged, but still had it pretty great, compared to how their country is right now. At least on the materialistic level you seem to put so much stock in.
Yeah, talk to a South African sometime, it’s not even close. Materialism is a cornerstone of capitalism. The world is driven by wealth and power, not right or wrong.
Civil law liability for "misgendering".
Pretty sure that only affects businesses, not people. Try it sometime and report back with your findings.
I don’t know what you want me to say. If you can come up with a way that the transgender fight ends other than eventual capitulation to their demands or total extermination, please enlighten me.
You seem fixated on these two extremes. The most likely scenario in the US is:
Trans activists push too far and alienate moderate America (we're at this point currently), resulting in liberal and progressive politicians dropping trans issues from electoral platforms and mainstream culture abandoning trans/gender issues and aesthetics.
The supreme court continues to dismantle federal protections for sexual/gender minorities, allowing individual states to set their own agendas in line with their voting constituencies.
Conservative states and most moderate states ban medical and social transitioning for children and make adult transgender medical care difficult, if not impossible. Sadly, the reddest states may impose more draconian restrictions on trans culture and gender nonconformers (banning of drag shows, etc).
Liberal states continue to support trans care for adults, but public sentiment may result in the end of more extreme stuff like hormone blockers for minors.
So no, this wouldn't be a utopian society for a socially liberal person like myself, but it's a far cry from "extermination". The wider cultural discourse cools down and the status quo hardens again. Trans people would continue living their lives. They may move away from conservative states at a quicker rate, but they won't be sent to death camps...
and Sydney Sweeney has great jeans. fun to watch her piss off modern day puritans.
You seem fixated on these two extremes. The most likely scenario in the US is:
Trans activists push too far and alienate moderate America (we're at this point currently), resulting in liberal and progressive politicians dropping trans issues from electoral platforms and mainstream culture abandoning trans/gender issues and aesthetics.
The supreme court continues to dismantle federal protections for sexual/gender minorities, allowing individual states to set their own agendas in line with their voting constituencies.
Conservative states and most moderate states ban medical and social transitioning for children and make transgender medical care difficult, if not impossible. The reddest states may impose more draconian restrictions on trans culture and gender nonconformers (banning of drag shows, etc).
Liberal states continue to support trans care for adults, but public sentiment may result in the end of more extreme stuff like hormone blockers for minors.
So no, this wouldn't be a utopian society for the socially liberal, but it's a far cry from "extermination". The wider cultural discourse cools down and the status quo hardens again. Trans people would continue living their lives. They may move away from conservative states at a quicker rate, but they won't be sent to death camps...
Obviously they won't be sent to death camps, I'm saying that's the only way the opposition can definitively win the fight. Everything you just listed (court decisions, legislation, referendums, etc.) is just a stall tactic to delay the inevitable. If those things did work, Jim Crow and Sodomy laws would still exist. Californians voted to outlaw gay marriage twice.
It took African Americans almost 100 years, and gay people 50 years, but both eventually got what they wanted, overcoming significantly harder roadblocks than transgender people are currently facing. It's pretty obvious that the transgender fight is going to end the same way, and the opposition is wasting resources on a fight they can't possibly win. It may take 20 years, 50 years, maybe we'll never live to see it, but the end is inevitable.
and Sydney Sweeney has great jeans. fun to watch her piss off modern day puritans.
I love Sydney's jeans and her genes. One great thing about the U.S. is everyone being able to choose his/her/their own cup of tea.
I also like people having the freedom to gamble, but I am surprised the "protect the children!" factions haven't been opposed to the proliferation of gambling culture...though maybe that's more a function of who owns the major platforms than it is actual (claimed) "values" of the proles.
We banned cigarette ads from TV, because we wanted people watching TV, but not being exposed to these types of ads, because "the children". Be that as it may, I always loved Marlboro magazine ads for their artistry and messaging about what it means to be an American.
If Dani doesn't want me looking at her as a sex symbol, she is allowed to want that. The end.
I am surprised the "protect the children!" factions haven't been opposed to the proliferation of gambling culture...
It's coming for sure. Once the data center discourse cools down, sports gambling will be the next bipartisan issue... it's too ruinous to exist without major regulation IMO.
But that's my point exactly. Sex change surgery has been available since Weimar Germany and people have been cross dressing since Ancient Greece, as you said. And yet, this existential, do-or-die, all-or-nothing winner-takes-all struggle you keep portraying only started in the 2010s...?
I appreciate your elaborating, but those goalposts are ever-so-subtly shifting, aren't they? And, once again, this brings us to the myopic timeline point.
Enough of subversion of religious institutions. Enough of men barging into women's bathrooms and locker rooms and unfairly competing against them. Enough of child organ butchery. Enough of reverse racism and two-tier rulings. As you see, it goes a little beyond the material.
You know very well what you're doing with the dishonest verbiage bit. Don't do that.
That's an extremely dyscivic mindset.
...
And what about that Sydney Sweeney ad, guys? I'd say she presents two weighty arguments.