Phoenix_person Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: When it comes to radical gender theory, and pronouns, and the TQIA+2Setc end of the rainbow, and all that, I think the civilized world gave y'all a good 4 years to make your case. I don't think you did. Trans people don't need permission from "civilized" society to exist. Heck, most if them don't even carecabout the politics of it all. They just want to exist and chase that American Dream the same as you. And the fact that they're already irreversably intertwined in our society makes the prospect of their eradication smell a lot like fascism, which I was assured by you was impossible under Christian conservative leadership. I think you need to think long and hard about what you mean by "the civilized world". 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Nor was there ever any serious interaction with the numbers of predators taking advantage of changing bathroom policies to gain access to women's spaces. Can you provide those numbers? 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Nor was there ever even a single decent answer to the question "what is a woman". Sure there was. You just didn't like our answer. 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Zero interaction with evidence pointing to the percentage of genderfluid people just being neurodiverse folks going with the peer pressure. This is a new one to me, a neurodiverse person. Feel free to show me the evidence. 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: You've failed to make your case. My case is that queer folks, including those who defy binary gender expectations have always existed and the world has kept in spinning. There are valid conversations to be had about the amount of medical intervention we give to minors, and the prerequisites for doing so (which are currently more strict than a lot of conservatives seem to realize). But the fundamental idea that trans women are women and trans men are men isn't something that I (or they) feel a need to prove to anyone. At this point, I'm not going to change anyone's mind. 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: It's a good goal to try to make things so every human, even the fringe or minority or ill or different, get compassion and understanding in their cultures. "Love thy neighbor" applies to everyone. But no, we're not gonna let you mainstream your varioius radical redesigns of things. Not because we're evil. Not because we're stuck in our ways. Not because we're protective of our privilege. But because you've simply failed to convince us. I don't see how things like increased taxes on the ultra-wealthy to pay for universal healthcare and affordable housing is a radical redesign of anything that doesn't already deserve to be burned to the ground. You have to realize that most leftists embrace at least some tenets of anarchism, but we're under no delusions that we can implement most of it without resorting to fascism, which 99% of us are unwilling to do. What we CAN do is identify progressive, compassionate policies that can work under our capitalist status quo. The status quo will need to make a few concessions because that's how compromise works. Some if my leftist colleagues don't believe that compromise with capitalists is possible. I don't see another choice other than doing nothing, and inaction is not how we got a 40 hour work week and social security. 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Ya know, me too. Maybe weekly. Idle time on discord servers where creative types feed my thirst for eclectic memes. My diverse TikTok algorithm. A few arguing buddies here, a small handful of real life acquaintances there. Some of my kid's friends. I've got a soft spot in my heart for furries, after meeting a few of them and discovering we shared exactly the same sense of humor, and ability to hold down a cloaked conversation about stuff right in front of their clueless family members who thought it was just a haloween costume. I've hung with a gay guy who is doing his best to just live life as a disciple of the Lord. I've hugged a guy in the impossible situation of staying the dad in his Catholic family complete with young kids, or giving up the fight against reality and just taking the meds that would give him his breasts and let him be who he really is. You come to your conclusions, and I come to mine. But the notion that the only reason me and mine think the way we do, is because we're ignorant of how things are, isn't true. Fair enough. I'm just really struggling to see how someone who compassionately interacts with thise communities can stand so staunchly against their interests. Difference of perspective, I guess. The trans people I know are really hurting right now, and it's very hard for me to continue to defend them civilly in the face of some of the rhetoric I've seen and heard about their community. 19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Well, 4. Dude also figured that without people becoming devout and willing to make themselves the expression of their God's will, all their efforts were doomed to fail. I don't think faith in a god is necessary to follow the teachings of Dr King. Or Jesus, for that matter. I feel that the teachings of Christ that were passed on to me as a youth informed my worldview more than Marx or Chomsky. Black Christians in the 60s found a way to make their Christian ideology coexist with Marxist and Anarchist ideas. I'm not saying that's a good blueprint on a federal level (see above), but it's a good mindset to keep in one's personal life and interactions within the community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 57 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: 1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said: Nor was there ever even a single decent answer to the question "what is a woman". Sure there was. You just didn't like our answer. Help me out. What was your answer? Carborendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 58 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: My case is that queer folks, including those who defy binary gender expectations have always existed and the world has kept in spinning. Men who forcibly rape their daughers have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Attempts at genocide have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Condemnation of fornicators (defined as those who engage in illegitimate sexual relations) has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Vivisecting innocent animals for the fun of watching them suffer to death has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Hatred of those stinking bleeding-heart liberal fools has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. People who act like antisocial jerks have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Somehow, your case just isn't very strong. Or else I don't understand what your case is, which I grant is a distinct possibility. Carborendum and mirkwood 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said: But the fundamental idea that trans women are women and trans men are men isn't something that I (or they) feel a need to prove to anyone. Nor do you need to prove it, unless you want to impose that belief on someone else. Want to call your boyfriend "she" and pretend he's having a period? I mean, you do you. Want to pass legislation to normalize that sort of belief? Yeah, no. That's a no-go. You want to pass such a law, you must convince most of the rest of us that you're not just spouting worthless (or much worse than worthless) nonsense. On a strictly societal level, no one cares about either your tender feelings or your preferred perversions. Believe what you will. But don't impose your stupidities on the rest of us. That's the social contract that we maniacal, starry-eyed theists live under, and you get to join us there. mirkwood, zil2 and Carborendum 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 On 1/20/2025 at 12:59 PM, mikbone said: Now the left is going crazy because Trump didn't place his hand on the Bible during the inauguration. People are making some baseless claims" He's the Anti-Christ/Devil. No oath, not really the President. No oath, he can't be impeached. Uhmmm... Since when did the left start caring about the Bible? zil2 and Vort 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Vort said: Help me out. What was your answer? A woman is a person born female. A woman can also be a person born male who chooses to undergo the process of becoming a woman. I have never once struggled with this definition. 56 minutes ago, Vort said: Men who forcibly rape their daughers have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Attempts at genocide have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Condemnation of fornicators (defined as those who engage in illegitimate sexual relations) has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Vivisecting innocent animals for the fun of watching them suffer to death has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Hatred of those stinking bleeding-heart liberal fools has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. People who act like antisocial jerks have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Somehow, your case just isn't very strong. Or else I don't understand what your case is, which I grant is a distinct possibility. Your views towards people I care very much about are duly noted. You could add pedophilic priests and teachers to that list. If the goal is to have access to vulnerable children/victims, those are far easier and more socially-accepted ways of doing it, as opposed to drastically altering your body's hormones, undergoing multiple unpleasant surgeries, and learning how to exist as a new gender. Seems like a lot of work to prey on a little girl in a public restroom. 25 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Now the left is going crazy because Trump didn't place his hand on the Bible during the inauguration. People are making some baseless claims" He's the Anti-Christ/Devil. No oath, not really the President. No oath, he can't be impeached. Must be brainrotted liberals, because I guarantee zero leftists are upset about this. This is literally the first I've heard about it. 25 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Uhmmm... Since when did the left start caring about the Bible? The leftists I organize with locally are almost exclusively Christians. And no, they don't care about this either, from what I can tell. They don't expect him to respect scripture, so why would this disappoint them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Science only gets you so far in understanding the human psyche. There's a lot about our minds that defy current scientific understanding, and that's okay. Science seems to be greatly misunderstood by certain elements in our upcoming generation. For your benefit I will be specific. All preferences are controlled and monitored by and through the cortex areas of the brain – this includes sexual preferences. Much of the brain’s operations have been mapped for decades and yet, despite all the actual science, the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 declared that same sex relations were not an “mental condition”. This was done without a single scientific reference. It was this declaration upon which it was determined that (by congressional) law that sexual preferences were not to be treated. It has long been proven through science research that the cortex oversees learned behaviors – much of this research goes all the way back to Pavlov’s dog and the research done by Skinner. Not only do we know (scientifically) that the cortex behaviors are learned but also that the executive functions of the cortex are not fully developed until age 25. This means that all preferences or any behaviors controlled by the cortex are not innate and learned but also that an individual is incapable of exercising executive functions to determine on their own. Quote There's more to life than breeding. In a world where o̶v̶e̶r̶p̶o̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ resource scarcity is imminent, I think the population curve could use some tempering. The LGBTQ community being an existential threat to their gene pool (which is no one's business but theirs) does not make them an existential threat to the species. Humanity's current problems as a species are the result of a growing population getting smaller and smaller shares of what wealth and resources the ruling class allows us to have. There's eventually going to come a breaking point when the people asking for a more equitable economy will stop asking. I don't want that to happen, but it feels inevitable. Yesterday was MLK day, and it seems many Americans have forgotten that his ideology was rooted in the idea that there are *three* evils in society: racism, militarism, and capitalism. He was assassinated when he started pivoting from #1 to 2 and 3. Race wars are good for The Swamp™️. Class wars are not. I honestly think the above paragraph is a bunch of bunk. There has never been a time on this planet when wealth was more evenly spread and available to the populus than this current modern era – especially here in the USA (Where even the poor on welfare live better – with better amenities and health care than the Pharaohs of Egypt) – and as well in other western cultures. The same is true of racism. The western civilizations are more open to race than any historical civilization or any where else. As far as materialism – that is a construct of all civilization. Eliminate materialism and you will eliminate civilization. As for capitalism – there are no records of any civilization more advanced and freer. This does not mean that there are no quarks or improvements to be incorporated into capitalism. I have posted previously that compound interest is the number 1 division of economic class (all class division?) in today’s society – and compound interest is a left-over construct of something invented long before any experiments in capitalism. I believe we can solve 95% of our your concerns with capitalism by eliminating compound interest. And regardless of what system you may favor as long as there is any employment of compound interest, the result will be just as bad or much worse – there will be no improvement. The Traveler Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 28 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: A woman is a ...person born male who chooses to undergo the process of becoming a woman. Circular definitions are just a bunch of words that don't mean anything worthy of discussion. 28 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: The leftists I organize with locally are almost exclusively Christians. And no, they don't care about this either, from what I can tell. They don't expect him to respect scripture, so why would this disappoint them? Then I applaud you and those with whom you organize. Thus, I was not addressing people like you and yours. So, why did you feel the need to respond? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 41 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: A woman is a person born female. A woman can also be a person born male who chooses to undergo the process of becoming a woman. I have never once struggled with this definition. Your views towards people I care very much about are duly noted. You could add pedophilic priests and teachers to that list. If the goal is to have access to vulnerable children/victims, those are far easier and more socially-accepted ways of doing it, as opposed to drastically altering your body's hormones, undergoing multiple unpleasant surgeries, and learning how to exist as a new gender. Seems like a lot of work to prey on a little girl in a public restroom. Must be brainrotted liberals, because I guarantee zero leftists are upset about this. This is literally the first I've heard about it. The leftists I organize with locally are almost exclusively Christians. And no, they don't care about this either, from what I can tell. They don't expect him to respect scripture, so why would this disappoint them? I do not understand this kind of thinking. Perhaps it may be possible some day but not with current science and technology. One can no more make a woman by altering a man than it is possible to make a human by altering (carving) a tree. We can fiddle with some attributes and change appearances, but the basic genetics will remain. We can pretend anything we want but it does not make it so. By the very definition of reality verses pretense – what we pretend is nothing more than fantasy – reality is beyond pretense. Some may think that they can pretend reality – I believe that kind of thinking is the very definition of mental instability and incompetency. The Traveler zil2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 39 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Then I applaud you and those with whom you organize. Thus, I was not addressing people like you and yours. So, why did you feel the need to respond? I felt the need to respond because I have (rightly) been called out in the past for trying to pass off rage bait as legitimate outrage. You of all people should know better than to assume that we get outraged over everything the mainstream media tries to get us riled up over. And that's all I've seen: media reporting on it. Am I ABC News? Am I the New York Post? You guys spent years telling us to stop listening to mainstream media, and now you and gullible libs are the only ones still listening to it. If you want to mock the gullible libs, go for it. But know that you fell for the same thing they did. If I came in here and said something along the lines of "The right is melting down over the gender ambiguity of a toy potato", you would probably have opinions about the net that I cast. Sure, some conservatives got worked up over it because Fox News or Newsmax told them to, but I felt like most of you were sensible enough to roll your eyes and let that one go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: A woman is a person born female. A woman can also be a person born male who chooses to undergo the process of becoming a woman. I have never once struggled with this definition. What exactly is "the process of becoming a woman", if a woman has only otherwise been defined (as you do above) as "born female"? Because I know of no "process" by which a man can become "born female". You can't define a woman as "someone who has become a woman". That's circular, and thus not meaningful. Also, who determines whether the erstwhile male has truly become a woman, so that we know for sure whether the man who attempted the as-yet-undefined transition to womanhood succeeded? Or does the "can also be" mean something other than I have assumed? 4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Your views towards people I care very much about are duly noted. No need for the histrionics. I gave perfectly reasonable examples, and not all of them tilted against "your side". Or did you just happen to blink at the wrong time and miss the "fornicators" part? In any case, what I stated was obviously saddled with emotionally laden judgmental wording intentionally, to make the contrast as stark as possible. (And for the record, I was seeking to make a stark contrast, not to bad-mouth "your side". I realize my wording together with some incidents in my past responses to you might have suggested otherwise, so I'm clearing the air here. I included at least one parody of "my side" as well as of "your side", and at least one example that was not "sided" at all.) I notice you didn't answer the implicit question: How does your example make or reinforce or in any way even touch on your "case"? That really was all I was trying to ask. 4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: You could add pedophilic priests and teachers to that list. Absolutely. That is the point. I am not sure what the world's continued spin has to do with how we judge these things. Yet you offer the fact of the world's unrelenting rotational inertia as some sort of evidence of the validity of your argument. I'm hoping you'll enlighten us as to how your statement buttresses your position. 4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: They don't expect him to respect scripture, so why would this disappoint them? FTR, that feeling about Trump exists among his supporters as well as his detractors. Many Trump supporters laud him as a far better leader than the alternative offered, while holding no delusion as to his standing as a religious man or an example of sexual probity. Phoenix_person 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 12 minutes ago, Vort said: What exactly is "the process of becoming a woman", if a woman has only otherwise been defined (as you do above) as "born female"? Because I know of no "process" by which a man can become "born female". You can't define a woman as "someone who has become a woman". That's circular, and thus not meaningful. Also, who determines whether the erstwhile male has truly become a woman, so that we know for sure whether the man who attempted the as-yet-undefined transition to womanhood succeeded? Or does the "can also be" mean something other than I have assumed? I'm a cis man, so I don't pretend to grasp all the nuances. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business, but my general understanding is that most trans people don't consider themselves women/men until they have at least one surgery under their belt. Ultimately though, those questions are better answered by trans people. I trust their instincts about their own bodies. 12 minutes ago, Vort said: No need for the histrionics. I gave perfectly reasonable examples, and not all of them tilted against "your side". Or did you just happen to blink at the wrong time and miss the "fornicators" part? In any case, what I stated was obviously saddled with emotionally laden judgmental wording intentionally, to make the contrast as stark as possible. (And for the record, I was seeking to make a stark contrast, not to bad-mouth "your side". I realize my wording together with some incidents in my past responses to you might have suggested otherwise, so I'm clearing the air here. I included at least one parody of "my side" as well as of "your side", and at least one example that was not "sided" at all.) I notice you didn't answer the implicit question: How does your example make or reinforce or in any way even touch on your "case"? That really was all I was trying to ask. Fair enough. I could have picked a better euphamism. What I meant is that the existence of trans people isn't an existential threat to civilized society, because they've always existed in civilized society without significant incident, unlike the other groups you mentioned (none if which are mutually exclusive with the trans community, or any other demographic). Fearing a trans person in a public restroom makes as much sense as fearing a teacher in a public restroom. It reminds me of how people lose their minds when a white woman is murdered by an immigrant, but not when hundreds of American women are killed by their American spouses or domestic partners each year. It's cherry-picking criminals in marginalized communities to perpetuate a narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 11 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: I'm a cis man, so I don't pretend to grasp all the nuances. Even cis men can do basic logic. 11 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business, ??? "What is a woman?" "None of your business!" Really? 12 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: but my general understanding is that most trans people don't consider themselves women/men until they have at least one surgery under their belt. So...an appendectomy? Tonsillectomy? Mole removal? Or does it have to be on the genitalia? If a man is circumcised, does he get to claim legal status as a woman? This is not just a parlor game. We have laws that apply specifically to/for women. We have deeply ingrained societal customs, taboos, and courtesies. If you legally do away with all societal concerns, you emasculate (there's that pesky sex reference) society's ability to reign in less refined impulses, which after all is the whole duty of society. This is open social engineering on a draconic scale—exactly what all those heretofore tagged as "conspiracy nuts" have been claiming for almost two generations. Are you actually openly conceding their point? Because that's what it sounds like. 17 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: Ultimately though, those questions are better answered by trans people. I trust their instincts about their own bodies. Cool. You trust my instincts about my own body, which I assume includes my instincts about my own race. Thus, you will never object, publically or privately, that I call myself African-American (and Cherokee, and Latino/a/x, and Polynesian, etc.) when applying for race-based scholarships or assistance or literally anything else. If I am to be sentenced to prison for a sex-related crime, I can insist that I am a woman and must be housed with other women. I can insist that I am only seven years old, and that therefore I cannot be charged with a felony. Better yet, I can insist that I am seventeen, so whatever punishment you may give me has to be lifted by my next birthday (which, by rights, I also get to choose). This is your vision for a perfect society, or at least the logical extension of your trust in my instincts to define every aspect of what I "am", including such heretofore immutable traits such as sex or race. Right? If not, please carefully explain which things I listed are wrong, why they are wrong, and how that accords with your statement about how you trust people's instincts about their own bodies. zil2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 12 minutes ago, Vort said: Even cis men can do basic logic. ??? "What is a woman?" "None of your business!" Really? Yes, really. You're the one fixated on definitions, not me. I'm sure you have your reasons, hard though they are for me to understand. My basic cis logic leads me to the conclusion I gave you. I don't expect you to understand it. Understanding doesn't need to be a prerequisite for respect. 12 minutes ago, Vort said: Are you actually openly conceding their point? Because that's what it sounds like. No, I'm saying that it's none of my business. I'll concede that the discourse gets messier than it needs to be sometimes, but that's not my arena. I don't feel that I have any more right to pick apart these definitions than I do to nitpick issues of race. I fight for my LGBTQ and BIPOC friends and neighbors on *their* terms, not mine. I have no doubt that one day we'll sort out the fineprint, but first we have to get to a point where half the country isn't pretending that trans people don't exist or that they'll magically disappear over the next 4 years. As I said, there's room for these conversations, but the trans community should have a seat at that table. Is a Trump administration going to meet them halfway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: I fight for my LGBTQ and BIPOC friends and neighbors on *their* terms, not mine. I'm glad to hear that you will fight for my rights on *my* terms, not yours. Because for the purposes of this discussion, I am in fact LGBTQ and BIPOC. I'll let you know what the terms are for which you will be fighting, regardless of your opinion on those terms. Great to have an ally! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 7 minutes ago, Vort said: I'm glad to hear that you will fight for my rights on *my* terms, not yours. Because for the purposes of this discussion, I am in fact LGBTQ and BIPOC. I'll let you know what the terms are for which you will be fighting, regardless of your opinion on those terms. Great to have an ally! What rights do you feel are threatened by trans people? I'll fight for you on your terms if you can make a case for why your rights matter more than theirs. I didn't become a trans ally overnight, though it wasn't exactly a hard sell. Point being, they've already made their case to me. Now it's your turn. What civil liberties are enfringed by the trans community? Your 1a right to call a trans woman a man without backlash? I hate to break it to you, but societal backlash for exercising your free speech doesn’t violate your right to free speech, and the societal definitions can't be changed via EO. Trump effectively signed an EO that only applies to government employees. And in so doing, he's guaranteed that the backlash will get worse, not better. And so we'll keep fighting each other over definitions while Trump repeals protections against price-gouging for insulin and makes his rich friends richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 40 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: What rights do you feel are threatened by trans people? I'll fight for you on your terms if you can make a case for why your rights matter more than theirs. My rights matter more than theirs because I am LGBTQ and BIPOC. I can attach more letters to make it more convincing, if needed. Interesting, though. Why do you suppose that their rights matter more than mine? Because you clearly don't believe I'm LGBTQ or BIPOC, and you're fighting against me. What have I ever done to you? (Besides make snarky and sometimes unkind comments on a discussion board.) Here's an item I can't see that you've ever considered: There is no such thing as homosexual rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or trans rights, or animal rights, or asteroid rights, or protozoa rights. These things are meaningless. Rights, in the sense we are talking about, apply only to human beings. Only. All humans have a given right, or else it is not a right. We may proscribe certain rights in certain circumstances, but the fundamental idea of a "right" is not some mutable thing that attaches only to certain classes. Is there a freedom that applies to a human? Then it's a right, and it applies to all humans. Sex, height, race, preferred sexual perversion, or state of dental hygiene simply does not apply. Example: Freedom of religious belief and practice is a human right. The next question is: Under what circumstances do we proscribe rights? Which is a fascinating area, one I don't pretend to be informed enough on to write an essay at the moment. But it should be kept front and center in our minds that the various _________ Right movements, where the blank is replaced with some word, generally makes sense only when the word is "human". And when the rights of two people appear to be at odds, we stack rank the rights and adjudicate the higher-ranked right as more fundamental in that particular case, and thus more in need of protection. This is why elective-abortion-on-demand is such a contentious topic: One side insists that the protection of innocent life is the more fundamental right, while the other insists that absolute self-determination, even undoing a freely chosen path at the cost of an innocent life, is actually the more fundamental right. (Or the second party avoids the argument by disputing the term "life" as applied to the unborn, which magically makes the argument *poof* go away.) Example: Honor killing your daughter because that's part of your religion is not a human right, because your daughter's right to life in this case is much more fundamental than your right to practice your religion by exercising the behavior that would kill her. As long as you maintain the attitude that a "right" is whatever anyone says it is, and that your role is to hear both sides proclaim why their "rights" are more important than someone else's "rights" and then decide who you find more convincing, the issue can never be settled in a reasonable way, long-term or even short-term. 57 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: Now it's your turn. What civil liberties are enfringed by the trans community? Your 1a right to call a trans woman a man without backlash? I hate to break it to you, but societal backlash for exercising your free speech doesn’t violate your right to free speech, and the societal definitions can't be changed via EO. If "backlash" means that people like yourself get sour expressions on their faces and perhaps even call us nasty names, then I agree. If "backlash" means people seek my employment or try to expose me publically to mob action, then your anarchic roots are showing all too clearly and illustrate why people consider anarchism to be the hideous monster it is. Note also that the basic function of government is to defend rights, that is, to secure the rights. The function of government is never to provide the rights. This is fundamentally why the people who annoyingly proclaim "Health care is a RIGHT!" are ignored by most conservatives. Engaging in exchange, whether educational, social, or financial, is indeed a right, so the possibility to offer or secure health care is protected by right. But to have health care given to you? That's no more a right than sitting in your house and insisting that food be brought to you. There is no such thing as a right to make someone else your slave. SilentOne 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: And so we'll keep fighting each other over definitions while Trump repeals protections against price-gouging for insulin and makes his rich friends richer. Believe it or not, I don't like price-gouging any more than you do, and I have great contempt for those who would put their personal profit above the lives of their fellow beings. But I also realize that our concept of property ownership extends to intellectual property, and in the end the idea of patenting ideas makes us all a lot richer and better off in the long run. Since patents are 20 years long, that means that those who patent a technology or idea get almost a full human generation to profit from it before it goes into the public domain. Now, if you convince me that the last 150 years of technological advancement would have taken place even if patents had not existed, I will gladly rethink my devotion to IP law. The idea of IP makes sense only if it is a net positive for humanity. I believe it is, which is why I support IP. But that means that someone who patents a better, cheaper method to create insulin gets to jack up the price to whatever the market will support. Of course, when the patent expires, competitors can create far cheaper insulin, and the masses will benefit. If instead you take away the right to profit from one's inventions, what makes you think anyone will possibly go to the expense of figuring out how to mass-produce insulin? Who in his right mind will spend five billion dollars to create a new technology with no guarantee that his legally protected ability to make his research/development money back will even exist? There is a much better alternative. That alternative is called Zion, where the pure in heart love each other as they do themselves and gladly spend their lives and time in service of each other. But we're not there yet, and I don't see us ever being there in this life on this sphere. So the profit motive rules in earthly mortal transactions. tl;dr—If Trump has signed an EO to allow greedy pharmeceutical companies to rake in profits from the patents they secured through their own research and development, well, good for Trump. That means that we, the hoi polloi, will always be one generation behind what the rich folks get. But it also guarantees that in a generation, my grandchildren will have inexpensive access to what my own children couldn't get because my wife and I were too poor to afford it. So we step our way up, which may be frustrating and unfair, but is far better than the alternative of not moving up at all. I swear that the curse of the green-eyed monster is a greater evil even than the curse of the selfish, soulless rich man. Edited January 22 by Vort mordorbund and zil2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 13 hours ago, Carborendum said: Now the left is going crazy because Trump didn't place his hand on the Bible during the inauguration. People are making some baseless claims" He's the Anti-Christ I think I beat them all to this idea several months ago, before the election took place. It's about when I said it was highly possible Trump would win. I also added that he was at least an Anti-Christ if not the Anti-Christ (there are many Anti-Christ, one does not have to be THE Anti-Christ to be Anti-Christ. That said, he's probably the closest candidate we have currently for the position of THE Anti-Christ. Quote No oath, not really the President. No oath, he can't be impeached. Uhmmm... Since when did the left start caring about the Bible? There's actually a clause that says one does not have to swear on the Bible. Article VI section 3 (or clause, if you will). Quote The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Phoenix_person 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 7 hours ago, Vort said: My rights matter more than theirs because I am LGBTQ and BIPOC. I can attach more letters to make it more convincing, if needed. Don't be childish. 7 hours ago, Vort said: Interesting, though. Why do you suppose that their rights matter more than mine? Because you clearly don't believe I'm LGBTQ or BIPOC, and you're fighting against me. What have I ever done to you? (Besides make snarky and sometimes unkind comments on a discussion board.) Herein lies the crux of our disagreement. You believe that rights are ranked and that I think LGBTQ rights matter more than yours (or my own) as a cis man. It's interesting that you seem to think I would work so hard against my own self-interest. More rights for one group doesn't mean less for others. And when it comes to trans rights, we're talking about things like being able to use a public restroom without being harassed. Have you ever been chased out of a public restroom because someone didn't like your physical appearance? Have you ever had the cops called on you for walking in the wrong neighborhood? Have you ever had someone insist on calling you "she/her"? Have you ever had trouble finding work because of your gender or skin color? Have you ever been stared at in public because your skin color didn't match that of your wife? You cheekily call yourself LGBTQ and BIPOC with zero understanding of what that actually entails and you're expecting me to take you seriously? 7 hours ago, Vort said: Then it's a right, and it applies to all humans. Sex, height, race, preferred sexual perversion, or state of dental hygiene simply does not apply. You're SO CLOSE to getting it. There are no rights (or privileges, because there's an important distinction) that LGBTQ and BIPOC people are seeking that white cis people don't already enjoy. They're looking for equality/equity, not preferential treatment. I assume you believe that it's your right to not be misgendered at work, yes? But what about the free speech of your coworkers? Don't they have a right to call you a woman behind your back (and also to your face)? 7 hours ago, Vort said: Note also that the basic function of government is to defend rights, that is, to secure the rights. We'll disagree on health care, but nothing I've advocated for in regards to LGBTQ rights constitutes anything other than defending a basic human right to exist free of gender-based discrimination. You just don't like that gender is being redefined to fit a definition that clashes with your religion. That does not mean that trans rights infringe on your religious rights. If religious rights trumped all else, your church would still practice polygamy. Currently, it's religious beliefs that are the greatest barrier to trans people being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve as human beings. 7 hours ago, Vort said: Believe it or not, I don't like price-gouging any more than you do, and I have great contempt for those who would put their personal profit above the lives of their fellow beings. But I also realize that our concept of property ownership extends to intellectual property, and in the end the idea of patenting ideas makes us all a lot richer and better off in the long run. Since patents are 20 years long, that means that those who patent a technology or idea get almost a full human generation to profit from it before it goes into the public domain. Now, if you convince me that the last 150 years of technological advancement would have taken place even if patents had not existed, I will gladly rethink my devotion to IP law. The idea of IP makes sense only if it is a net positive for humanity. I believe it is, which is why I support IP. But that means that someone who patents a better, cheaper method to create insulin gets to jack up the price to whatever the market will support. Of course, when the patent expires, competitors can create far cheaper insulin, and the masses will benefit. If instead you take away the right to profit from one's inventions, what makes you think anyone will possibly go to the expense of figuring out how to mass-produce insulin? Who in his right mind will spend five billion dollars to create a new technology with no guarantee that his legally protected ability to make his research/development money back will even exist? There is a much better alternative. That alternative is called Zion, where the pure in heart love each other as they do themselves and gladly spend their lives and time in service of each other. But we're not there yet, and I don't see us ever being there in this life on this sphere. So the profit motive rules in earthly mortal transactions. tl;dr—If Trump has signed an EO to allow greedy pharmeceutical companies to rake in profits from the patents they secured through their own research and development, well, good for Trump. That means that we, the hoi polloi, will always be one generation behind what the rich folks get. But it also guarantees that in a generation, my grandchildren will have inexpensive access to what my own children couldn't get because my wife and I were too poor to afford it. So we step our way up, which may be frustrating and unfair, but is far better than the alternative of not moving up at all. I mentioned insulin, specifically, for a reason. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/our-research/about-our-research/our-impact/discovery-of-insulin Obviously, it was a choice for the insulin patent-holders to not profit from it. I wouldn't have thought lesser of them if that wasn't the case. The modern-day patent reality of insulin makes a strong case for reexamining our patent standards. https://time.com/6336840/patent-manipulation-insulin-prices/ I respect IP to the extent that it benefits the creators and major innovators of a drug. When was the last time the insulin formula was tweaked sufficiently enough to warrant renewal of patent protection? As for other pharmaceuticals, I understand the cost of developing and researching drugs, and I'm in no way trying to suggest that pharm companies shouldn't be able to recoup those costs and even turn some profit. The EO was put in place because companies like Eli Lilly got greedy with insulin pricing by keeping it in the FDA's Orange Book. In addition to curbing patent abuse, I think it's worth putting a cap on the profitability of medicine, especially unpatented ones, so that people like Martin Shkreli (whose name even the staunchest Republicans were cursing vehemently when he was in the news) can't abuse their distribution rights for obscene profit. The patent for Daraprim is long-expired, and demand isn't high enough to create a need for a cheaper generic version. I don't believe that medicine should be able to pay for a private jet for people who had no hand in the drug's development. Edited January 22 by Phoenix_person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: You believe that rights are ranked and that I think LGBTQ rights matter more than yours (or my own) as a cis man. That is exactly what is happening in girls sports from high school to the Olympics. 46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: It's interesting that you seem to think I would work so hard against my own self-interest. Yes, the left is often prone to self-destructive behavior. Case in point: Trans surgeries and chemical castration. 46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: More rights for one group doesn't mean less for others. It does not necessarily mean less for others. But where DIE is concerned, it has overwhelmingly meant exactly that. 46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: And when it comes to trans rights, we're talking about things like being able to use a public restroom without being harassed. And what about the women being harrassed? They just need to "toughen up"? No. The individual with male genitals should simply "toughen up" and go to the men's room to protect the women. 46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: Have you ever been chased out of a public restroom because someone didn't like your physical appearance? Actually, reverse that. I was at the urinal when a woman came casually walking in there. All the men found a miraculous ability to eliminate very quickly. We all got out of there fast. What was she doing there? The women's room was full and she needed a toilet. Vort and zil2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, Carborendum said: That is exactly what is happening in girls sports from high school to the Olympics. So what does it say when a transgender woman competes in a woman's sport and loses? Because that happens all the time. It's only an issue when they win. Meanwhile, people gloss over the fact that transitioning significantly reduces the physical performance of trans women compared to pre-transition. Having said that, I think there are roads to compromise that both sides are refusing to acknowledge or engage in. There's a reason why some sports separate athletes into weight classes. Expanding that practice could be worth examining. 3 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Yes, the left is often prone to self-destructive behavior. Case in point: Trans surgeries and chemical castration. That's their choice, and it's never one they take lightly. They do it because the reward outweighs the harm in their view. Interesting sidenote: I was recently researching the possibility of fixing a tattoo of mine that was damaged in my suicide attempt (a body mutilation that I did not consent to, but that's a whole other philosophical/psychological conversation). The prospect of tattooing over skin grafts led me down a pretty neat rabbit hole of tatted firefighters and trans men covering up phalloplasty scars. It seems they're coping with their new bodies just fine, and I'm happy for them. 3 minutes ago, Carborendum said: It does not necessarily mean less for others. But where DIE is concerned, it has overwhelmingly meant exactly that. We used to try reform things that were good ideas on paper but had rocky implementation in the real world. We're so quick to give up on things that don't work as intended these days. 3 minutes ago, Carborendum said: And what about the women being harrassed? They just need to "toughen up"? No. The individual with male genitals should simply "toughen up" and go to the men's room to protect the women. Are the women in your life checking the genitals of every woman who goes into a public restroom? A lot of trans women are very good at passing as women even before they have their bottom surgery, and I'll even concede that the ones who aren't should probably use the men's room, for their own safety. Unless you have data to indicate that trans women are "harassing" cis women in public restrooms, I have a hard time taking this narrative seriously. 3 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Actually, reverse that. I was at the urinal when a woman came casually walking in there. All the men found a miraculous ability to eliminate very quickly. We all got out of there fast. What was she doing there? The women's room was full and she needed a toilet. Was she trying to use the urinal? If so, I can understand the need to vacate. Otherwise, so what? Women's toilets are all private stalls. Where's the harm in letting a trans woman use a private stall where no one is going to see her genitals and she can't see anyone else's? Heck, most women I know would recoil if they saw a CIS woman's genitals in a public restroom or if a cis woman saw theirs. When I was 11, my dad got an emergency reassignment from Okinawa back to the states and my infant brother needed better long-term medical care than Camp Lester was able to provide. The DoD ended up flying us commercially out of the Naha airport instead of space A out of Kadena. All this backstory to say that I once got confused and accidentally took a dump in a public Japanese restroom. It was empty when I went in, I just got confused by the signage (remember, I was 11). I heard feminine voices while sitting on the toilet, finished in a panic, ran out of there as fast as I could, and washed my hands in the *actual* men's room. I didn't see anyone's genitals and no one saw mine. It was embarassing, sure. I have no idea how it was perceived by the Japanese/Okinawan women, but I imagine my error and self-realization of it were obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: So what does it say when a transgender woman competes in a woman's sport and loses? Because that happens all the time. It's only an issue when they win. Meanwhile, people gloss over the fact that transitioning significantly reduces the physical performance of trans women compared to pre-transition. Having said that, I think there are roads to compromise that both sides are refusing to acknowledge or engage in. There's a reason why some sports separate athletes into weight classes. Expanding that practice could be worth examining. That's their choice, and it's never one they take lightly. They do it because the reward outweighs the harm in their view. Interesting sidenote: I was recently researching the possibility of fixing a tattoo of mine that was damaged in my suicide attempt (a body mutilation that I did not consent to, but that's a whole other philosophical/psychological conversation). The prospect of tattooing over skin grafts led me down a pretty neat rabbit hole of tatted firefighters and trans men covering up phalloplasty scars. It seems they're coping with their new bodies just fine, and I'm happy for them. We used to try reform things that were good ideas on paper but had rocky implementation in the real world. We're so quick to give up on things that don't work as intended these days. Are the women in your life checking the genitals of every woman who goes into a public restroom? A lot of trans women are very good at passing as women even before they have their bottom surgery, and I'll even concede that the ones who aren't should probably use the men's room, for their own safety. Unless you have data to indicate that trans women are "harassing" cis women in public restrooms, I have a hard time taking this narrative seriously. Was she trying to use the urinal? If so, I can understand the need to vacate. Otherwise, so what? Women's toilets are all private stalls. Where's the harm in letting a trans woman use a private stall where no one is going to see her genitals and she can't see anyone else's? Heck, most women I know would recoil if they saw a CIS woman's genitals in a public restroom or if a cis woman saw theirs. When I was 11, my dad got an emergency reassignment from Okinawa back to the states and my infant brother needed better long-term medical care than Camp Lester was able to provide. The DoD ended up flying us commercially out of the Naha airport instead of space A out of Kadena. All this backstory to say that I once got confused and accidentally took a dump in a public Japanese restroom. It was empty when I went in, I just got confused by the signage (remember, I was 11). I heard feminine voices while sitting on the toilet, finished in a panic, ran out of there as fast as I could, and washed my hands in the *actual* men's room. I didn't see anyone's genitals and no one saw mine. It was embarassing, sure. I have no idea how it was perceived by the Japanese/Okinawan women, but I imagine my error and self-realization of it were obvious. There is a known condition (autogynephilia) where a male becomes sexually aroused and stimulated when dressing and acting as a female. This condition can also extend into watching females dress or use bathroom facilities (the essence of what drives peeping toms and the desire to put cameras in women’s restrooms). For some reason this condition is not so prevalent with same sex driven individuals to place cameras in men’s restrooms. I personally believe that autogyenphilia is driven by pornography – though I have no references to prove it. From my personal experiences with those that are involved in same sex attractions – there is a background of pornography. I believe this has input for all LGBTQ+ behaviors. The point here is that any male that is autogynephilic should never be allowed in a woman’s bathroom, dressing room, woman’s sport or any place exclusively for women. Obviously, women that observe aroused men in private women places are threatened. Men pretending to be women in order to satisfy their autogyenphilia are a threat and until the trans community is willing to report offenders, we must assume complicity. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 16 minutes ago, Traveler said: until the trans community is willing to report offenders Are you under the impression that they're not? Every trans people I know certainly would. Heck, if it's egregious enough, they might even skip the reporting part and go straight to the FAFO part. I don't know where this notion comes from that a considerable number of trans people support sexual deviancy. Maybe it's because you only think of trans people in terms of their sexuality? That makes sense since you seem to be under the impression that breeding is our most worthwhile pursuit as a species. Sometimes I wonder which side of this debate is the one sexualizing everything and everyone. Usually, a man in a dress is just a man in a dress. And while I've asked for data to support the notion that men in dresses are statistically more dangerous to women than men not wearing dresses, I have yet to be shown any. I appreciate you trying to approach this from a scientific standpoint, but you haven't provided data that there is a real, widespread threat to women from autogyenphilia, just that autogyenphilia exists. Did it ever occur to you that cis men and women might also get aroused by dressing in certain gender-normative ways? It's understandable if not, given your spiritual background. That's why it's so important for us to step outside of our echo chambers sometimes. "In the world but not of the world", or something like that. You can't convert people you don't understand. I do agree that porn addiction is a real problem in our society. I believe it's the primary driving force behind what people are calling the "male loneliness epidemic". Some of today's young men learned everything they think they know about interacting with women from porn. It's no wonder why they're single. Pretending it's a problem that only (or even mainly) affects the LGBTQ community is intellectually dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: Are you under the impression that they're not? Every trans people I know certainly would Exactly. Members of the LGBTQ+ community hate abuse in their community as much as LDS hate abuse in ours. We tend to hate it more when it happens in our backyard because it makes all of us look bad. That’s why clean cops hate dirty cops more than civilians do. Edited January 22 by LDSGator Phoenix_person 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.