Total posts: 5,890
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Read, literally one sentence down.
I did. You didn't walk back your comment, all you did was proclaim yourself to be in favor of the principal you seem to be contradicting which is why I asked the question in the first place.
Does denying the right to own a gun to any member of the trans community on the basis that they are trans fit into your conception of the 2nd amendment? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I can believe a country that arrests you for reading a book or puts you in concentration camps for being the wrong religion would also take away children if their parents didn't believe correctly
So no, you have no evidence that what you're describing actually happened. But someone said it, so rather than utilize critical thinking, you apeal to the claims believability because you know, Hitler back in 1930, which has no resemblance to Germany in 2023.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Is there any evidence that this narrative is accurate besides a Twitter post?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nothing says freedom like giving the mentally ill, gender confused, testosterone filled guys the guns.
Isn't that exactly the freedom you and your 2A advocate cohorts preach?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Doesnt mean that we should teach kids to be gay.
Sexual attraction is a physiological reaction. It's not a choice and it's certainly not something that can be taught. The idea that kids can be taught to be gay is biologically incoherent nonsense.
Irrelevant to the idea that being gay is wrong.
Can you provide a single argument to support the notion that being gay is wrong? Preferably something other than "because God says so"...
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Glad we agree, fellow fascist.
Uh, no.
Recognizing the flaws with self governance does not = being unsupportive of it, and it certainly does not = embracing fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
If the issue with transgender people was merely that they were bullied/harassed, we would expect 100%, not sub-50%.
We would never expect 100% of anything.
The claim was never that bullying is the only difference, the point is that there's nothing odd about the fact that a group which has been largely ostracized by society (which the bullying statistics support) would have a higher suicide rate. It would be absurd to expect any other result.
I'm not interested in appeals to authority. Authority used to think that the Earth was flat.I'm interested in data and interpretation of it. That's how good, logically valid arguments are constructed.
If it's not an appeal to authority fallacy (appealing to something that's not an authority) then dismissing it out of hand is the opposite of being rational.
If you go to a doctor and he tells you that you need surgery to live, then unless you have expertise in the field yourself you are being irrational to dismiss his assessment. If you go to 9 other doctors and they all tell you that you will live without it, you are on clear solid grounds to reject the first doctor's assessment.
Appeal to authority is not about validity, it's about strength. When you disagree with the majority of experts in a field, that weakens your case.
I'm certainly not an expert on schizophrenia, but from what I'm reading, a lot of schizophrenics seem to be able to live normal lives 10 Facts You Should Know About Schizophrenia | Mental Floss . Would you not consider that dignified?
I don't see how any of this matters with regards to the topic we are addressing.
You asked me if we should treat trans people liked schizophrenics, now you're showing me extremely mild cases that have no harmful impact. If there's no harm involved or not enough harm to warrant intervention then I fail to see your point.
We only had some data to establish that they were the most bullied in post #287. You were making a lot of unsupported claims until then.
Have you never heard of hyperboli?
While I do think they are the most ostracized group, whether there is another group more ostracized or whether we could even define ostracized well enough to study it is all beside the point. I was speaking from personal observation and pointing out something that is quite frankly pretty obvious. I mean seriously, just look at the threads on this site. I find it odd that someone who is spending so much time and effort to make the case that trans people are mentally ill is also going to put all this time and effort into arguing that this same group is not excessively ostracized.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It should always be the best person for the job.
That's the fundamental flaw with self governance, the voters rarely reward competence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucifer
Banning guns sales will "let" people have access to illegal guns? What are you talking about?
Yes I'm aware guns can be made. If we were a sane country we would outlaw that and regulate the tools used to make them. But we're not a sane country, so we'll do nothing.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Biden was like "fuck meritocracy, I am definitely picking a woman."Most people prior to picking a VP say "I am picking somebody that will challenge me who is different than me politically, etc "
Bullshit.
Every VP over the past generation has been picked for political reasons.
In the world of picking a VP, there are three classifications: an August, a November, and a January. The classification is a clear indicator of the strength of that person's candidacy.
An August is the weakest of them all. It's a candidate who will give you a boost in August when you receive your party's nomination. The idea is to boost your candidacy within your own party, normally a sign that you don't even have their full backing.
A November is the middle ground and most common. It's a candidate that will appeal to the voters you need to win the election.
A January is the strongest, that's a candidate whose purpose is to help them govern after taking office.
Kamala Harris was a November. She was never popular within the democratic party, Biden chose her to appeal to suburban women tired of Trump's antics and masochony.
Biden was also a November, Obama needed him to appeal to the working class white people who might feel uneasy about a black man in the white house.
Mike pence was an August. Trump did not have the entire GOP at that time so he needed someone to appeal to the conservative base.
I don't know who would be considered the last January and wouldn't be surprised if we never had one. Every VP is picked for political reasons. That's not surprising, because it's politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucifer
So in other words; our gun policies are so bad that the country is beyond repair, therefore we should just do nothing. Not a very convincing argument.
No one is talking about going door to door and taking everyone's guns, that's just a tired strawman the right invented because it cannot address real, actual gun safety arguments.
Plus, if law abiding gun owners are so hell bent on holding onto their guns, then they won't be giving the guns they have to the "bad guys".
Your premise here is also just plain false. Banning or severely limiting gun sales will make guns harder to get. Making things harder to get means the next would-be perpetrator will be that much less likely to have a gun. This is basic common sense.
But worst is your point that no one's right are being taken away *when* a gun is used in self defense. First of all, your cherry picked conditional "when" statement is only a small piece of the debate. Guns are very often used for more than self defense. The potential for this impacts the safety of everyone around the person carrying it. That's a fact.
Second, even when it's used for self defense others still get hit. A few years ago there was a shooting at the Empire State Building. It was first reported as a mass shooting because there were multiple injuries. After things calmed down and we learned more, it turns out a man pull a gun out in front of the police and they pulled their guns out at him and fired multiple rounds each. The man never fired a shot, every injury suffered was from a police bullet fired in self defense.
This is the reality guns and only guns bring to the table, there are no innocent bystanders resulting from a knife. The idea that we shouldn't treat guns the same way we treat every other product out there which regularly become key enabling factors in unnecessary deaths is ludacris.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucifer
so when the bad guys have guns, it makes sense for the good guys to have some tooalso a weapon is a form of self defensealso a firearm does not kill someone 100% of the timealso thank you this website seems very fun
You didn't tag me so I just saw this.
Correct, *when* the bad guys have guns. If our laws regarding guns weren't so ridiculously laxxed this would be the case far less frequently
I never denied that guns provide self defense, I pointed out that it's capabilities expand far beyond that to a point where it absolutely encroaches on the rights of others
No one is claiming guns work 100% of the time.
You're welcome
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Which study?
(3) Suicidal transgender people also typically don't cite bullying as a reason for their attempts at suicide A systematic review and meta-analysis of victimisation and mental health prevalence among LGBTQ+ young people with experiences of self-harm and suicide | PLOS ONE
Incorrect.You were the one who failed to respond to my defense of the source The transgenderism debate (debateart.com) (people can see that you never responded after that).
Correct, I missed that. My apologies.
Dude, if you can't address the arguments I'm making, instead of saying 'too many source', just concede so we can be done with this.
Spamming studies is not an argument, especially when you don't even appear to be reading them. You also don't seem to understand that correlation is not causation. The studies you cite to make your point don't even agree with you.
You're claiming we should treat trans people as mentally ill and one of the studies you cite in support of this claim is the one concluding that trans people are more likely to bully others than to be bullied. But here is an excerpt taken from its conclusion:
Programs that promote gender diversity should be implemented in schools and in larger context in the society with the aim of reducing heteronormativity and promoting the acceptance of gender diversity.
If the people you are getting your information from conclude the opposite of what you're arguing you've got a pretty weak case.
The studies don't explicitly say what should be done. They are there to construct the necessary premises and arguments needed to reach my conclusion. None of them by themselves reach the conclusion that transgenderism is a mental illness.
And you don't find it odd that with all these professionals out there studying this stuff there is no serious movement within the medication community who agrees with you?
Much as we treat schizophrenics with dignity and respect, we should treat transgender people the same way, despite both of them having mental illnesses.
We don't treat schizophrenics with dignity and respect, we treat them like children incapable of making their own decisions. Dignity and compassion are not the same thing.
you've claimed that they're the most socially ostracized group. That was unsupported by any data.
It's supported by your own studies. We've been talking for days about how they get bullied more than any other group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We know that transgender people have an increased suicide risk for some reason. We know that this reason is not caused by bullying
Serious question; are you reading the studies you are citing? Here is what your own study said about that:
Results
Victimisation and mental health were key risk factors across the dimension self-harm and suicide identified through all analyses.
You also reposted a study you claim shows that transpeople are disproportionately purveyors of bullying despite that I showed you a study from the same source saying that they were both bullying and being bullied. You never addressed that yet here you are repeating the same claim with no adjustment.
Spamming a bunch of studies to make yourself appear well informed is nice little tactic but if you don't understand what you're posting it just makes you look dishonest.
I think transgenderism is a mental illness which causes trans people to feel certain ways. They think those feelings means they are a different gender/biological sex. I don't think we should enable mental illness.
Even if I granted you that transgenderism is a mental illness, you have made no attempt to argue what we should do about it. All you've provided is that we shouldn't treat these people with the dignity and respect they are asking for, which is a head scratching response to acknowledging someone as mentally ill.
So what is your solution? What have all of your dozens of studies concluded on that?
You have provided precisely ZERO data to support your idea that we should let transgender people do whatever they want
Because that's a ridiculous interpretation of my position. The only thing I've argued is that we should treat these people with respect and that your claims regarding what they believe are wrong. These are very basic ideas, if you need data to explain empathy and understanding I feel really sorry for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Trans activists claim: Identifying as (ie feeling just as though you are) a woman = you are, in fact, a woman
My god dude, this isn't complicated. You're literally arguing against a taughtology claiming it's factually false.
There is no one definition that everyone on either side of this debate will unanimously accept. But broadly, the main factor most in the trans coming agree on is personal identity.
If one's personal identity is what in trans circles is considered to be the determining factor, then personal identity is the definition. Your argument is then; "identifying as a woman, does not mean you identify as a woman".
That's the reason you find this incoherent, because you seem incapable of analyzing what someone else whom you disagree with is actually saying.
No single individual can identify all the genders… not even remotely. Could two, three, four experts list them all? Such ideology adds needless complexity, which isn’t a logical goal.
Goals are fundamentally an expression of a desired outcome. That has nothing to do with logic. Logic is what we use to determine how to achieve it. The fact that you desire a different outcome does not make the goal illogical, although referring to it like that calls into question your ability to understand basic logic.
I'm sure plenty of individuals out there could identify all genders, but even if no one could that's not relevant to this conversation. Complexity does not = incoherent.
At best you are making the argument that society would be better off sticking to the traditional binary gender construct, an argument I don't necessarily disagree with. But that's entirely different from pretending the idea of more than two genders or basing gender off of something other than biology it's incoherent.
Biological attributes are often visible.
And sometimes they're not. Yet every characteristic you've ever used to determine the gender of anyone you've ever met in real life is.
See, you are conflating society as it has been— one can most often discern gender without ordering for a doctor— with society as activists wish it to be, where one must ask “what’s your gender identity?” or check documents before determining gender.
Yes, I've been places where I had to wear a name tag and specify my pronouns on it. It's a big pain in the ass and I'm always concerned about misidentifying someone. But you know what, who cares? My annoyance pales in comparison to the struggles that these people have dealt with so I don't take any issue with it. It just baffles me that to so many this is seriously a topic they care about and will be motivated to go out and vote based on. That's what I find insane.
the movement places great import on gender identity while simultaneously rendering the concept of gender virtually meaningless with its “non ideological” claim of gender being a non-binary spectrum with infinitely many points of identity along that spectrum.
Ok, and... So what? How exactly is this negatively impacting your life?
The quotes around “transgenderism” mean that you don’t believe that word is used properly by right wingers, so you merely adopt it temporarily for arguments’ sake, but you proceed to describe [what the eff ever you wanna label it] in words coinciding with the definition of “ideology,” as I have explained now for the third time.
The quote around the term means I consider it a made up thing which it's proponents don't even know what it is.
In case you didn't realize, in my "definition" which you quoted, all I said is that it's a collection of ideas. The ideas I'm referring to are the ones that people using this term are concocting in their own minds, almost all of which are a complete strawman. So you're really trying to argue that I am recognizing a word as an ideology as I'm explaining that this ideology doesn't exist. That's absurd.
If there is one central idea to point to in this so called transgenderism it would be to respect your fellow citizens and stop being an asshole. There's nothing about that which is specific to this debate, it's a very basic idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Now, you are getting to the heart of the incoherence. How one sees themself is the true distinguishing feature of gender, allegedly. Transgender activists want us not to ground gender in biology, but in “my feels.” Ergo, feelings essentially determine fact. You think this is coherent, logical, reasonable
No one is claiming feelings determine fact, that’s just a caricature you and much of the political right made up and continue to propagate. It’s wholly dishonest.
Most transgender activists aren’t asking you to change how you define gender, they’re asking for you to respect theirs. That’s really it, this isn’t complicated.
For the umpteenth time in this thread; When you look at other people every day, you make a determination as to what gender you classify them as. I’m pretty sure you’ve never walked around pulling up girls skirts or scanning people with some sort of chromosome detector before using the term “he” or “she”. So this claim that gender must be based on biology is complete nonsense. You’ve never based it on biology before, you’ve always based it on your plain observations.
So when a transperson, especially one who has fully transitioned and appears to be of the sex they identify as, asks you to identify them as the sex they appear… it’s absurd for you to claim that’s somehow incoherent on the basis of a lack of something you never examined in another person before committing to a gender classification, ever.
It makes me shake my head to see people such as yourself with, eh… supposedly much higher “bandwidth” than me and my pea brain, go through various contortions and mental gymnastics to force the square peg into the round hole… to try and claim things akin to “there are circles with corners, and there are squares without corners
"I don't understand, there are so many variables" is not akin to "there are squares without corners". One is just an expression of ignorance and/or intelligence. The other violates the laws of logic. The former is essentially all you've presented.
If you're going to continue pushing this incoherence argument demonstrate the logical contradiction.
Perhaps you simply aren’t aware that you did give your own description, although I clearly showed how you did in post 177.
And I've already pointed out that when I "defined" it I put transgenderism in quotes. I'm sure you know what quotes mean even if you continue pretending you don't.
Once again, I am arguing against the nonsense attacks in this thread as well as others, so I am just accepting your definition for the sake of argument. Do you understand that? Is there any reason this concept is so difficult?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Of course I would agree that in a perfect (in my conception) world, people would speak literally thereby making their message unmistakable. We do not live in that world. Human beings will always use expressions, metaphors, or otherwise imperfect language to communicate their ideas. It is a very basic and very necessary trait to be able to translate what someone is saying into real concepts. Lacking that ability is not something to brag about. It’s both remarkable and detrimental to oneself to be unable to do this.
The mobster boss example is just one reason why. If someone said this to you and you were really as clueless as you are portraying yourself to be, your family would end up dead and you would have no idea why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
we shouldn't tell transgender people that they are the opposite of the biological sex they were born. Enabling people's delusions harms them, ESPECIALLY when it's a mental illness producing those delusions.
It’s not us telling transgender people that they are the opposite of the biological sex they were born into, it’s them telling us. The level of perceived superiority over these people expressed by your statement is remarkable.
You claim they are delusional yet you have made no attempt to show how. It is a tired strawman attack by the political right to pretend that transpeople are making biological claims with regards to their gender but the LGBTQ community’s definitions on gender have almost nothing to do with biology.
To be delusional is to convince oneself of that which is untrue. Explain specifically what it is that transpeople believe that is not true. Be absolutely clear in your definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
What’s the difference between an effeminate man (one who lives in accordance with traits associated with women) and a male who identifies as a woman?
That depends on how deeply you are defining the term. Their genitalia is what most people go by, or at the very least the intention of getting surgery. If we're speaking on a more superficial level then the way they are dressed would have more to do with it.
If you really want to understand this, then think of Mrs. Doubtfire. When speaking about the character, we would refer to it as a she, even knowing that it's a man under there. We do that because when we refer to Mrs Doubtfire we're not talking about Robin Williams or even the person he was playing, we're talking about a character. Female genitalia or not, the character was a woman.
The difference between that and what we're discussing here is that the person these individuals are dressing up and acting as is not a character, this is really how these people identify and how they see themselves.
Now you don't have to care about that nor do you have to agree that this is what makes one a women, but none of that is relevant. You are making the argument that the LGBTQIA community's definitions are incoherent. No, they're not, they're nuanced. Not having the bandwidth to understand it is not incoherence. Incoherence is the result of a logical contradiction. So demonstrate what is logically contradictory here.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I don't understand this tone shit. I don't pick up on it.
Yes, you've made that pretty obvious. The problem is that even as you acknowledge you don't understand it, you take issue with and judge those who do. That's insane.
Damn is used as an expression of frustration. When someone puts the word damn in front of a noun they are expressing frustration with that noun. This alone makes it clear that he is not expressing jubilation of the advancements of black people's rights.
I would explain the rest in even further detail but if you need "damn" explained to you then that's clearly going to be a waste of time. I'll just say that your impediment or insistence on not reading into tone is exactly how people come to believe mob bosses are innocent. After all if we're taking words purely literally then if someone comes to you and says "eh, nice family you got there, would be a shame if something happened to them" you would thank them for being so concerned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I’m talking about how you yourself defined it and how it coincided with the definition of ideology.
I don't define it as anything, this is your guys claim. I'm just responding to the stupidity of the claims being made.
All we're really talking about is how we should handle the fact that there are a lot of people in our society who experience gender dysphoria and many who chose to alter their bodies because if it. I believe we should feel empathy for these people and their struggles, and treat them with basic dignity and respect. If that means addressing a person who was born a man but transitioned as a she then I'm fine with that, who the hell cares? But then I sit here listening to 101 reasons we shouldn't do that. Ok, so go on and explain...
I just had a sneaking suspicion that you would refuse to own up to what is a blatant contradiction in your own claims.
If you could show me one I would, but clearly you won't bother and will instead just pretend you did...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
biological existence is not limited to observable physical traits. Female neurology is discrete. Female hormones are discrete. Female center of gravity is discrete. None of these are "observable characteristics" that are limited to "genetillia and physical traits", yet ALL are distinctly both biologically female AND female gendered.
This point is the intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh!"
I'm explaining how gender and biology differ, yet all you're doing here is claiming they are the same without reconciling the differences.
I agreed with you that behavior is part of the equation as well. Behavior is also observable, so that does nothing to conflict with my point. Whether that behavior is caused by female neurology is irrelevant because you do not scan other people's brains before making a determination as to their gender.
I know that's not complicated. It's just really stupid.
And yet it is how we have all been assessing gender our entire lives.
Your observations are not always reality. The magician's trick performed in front of you is often missed by the naked eye, but does that mean magic exists? There is an underlying reality to the universe and you cannot just make things up and expect them to always be true. Sorry!
Complete (and absurd) strawman.
You've dropped the contention on whether lived experience is a valid form of evidence (that because I'm not transgender, I can't make arguments involving them), so I'll assume that you agree that it is not.
Your point that I responded to had nothing to do with evidence. It had to do with you determining how other people should live their lives, to which I stand by my statement that your lack of experience with their struggles absolutely makes you unqualified to weigh in on it.
I specifically found another study showing trans people are more likely to be the instigators of bullying, rather than the bullied
Funny, because that same source says something else...
Conclusion: Transgender identity, especially non-binary identity, is associated with both being bullied and perpetrating bullying even when a range of variables including internal stress and involvement in bullying in the opposite role are taken into account.
But sure. Make an unfalsifiable hypothesis wherein no study is valid because 'trans people are the most ridiculed and least welcomed people in our society [citation needed]', and thus handwave their horrendous incarceration rate (40%) and their higher likelihood to have a mental disorder
It's not an unfalsifiable hypothesis, is applying basic logic and common sense to a fact. Just as most child rapists turned to be raped themselves, those who are bullied are more likely to bully others. It's human nature, there's nothing surprising about it.
They're not a new gender. They're a bunch of gay people with a mental illness. Neither gays nor mental illness are new.
Irrelevant to my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
*scratching my head* Yet ya’ll claim it is decidedly not this:i·de·ol·o·gy
That's why I put transgenderism in quotes. If you've been reading you would know that I made clear I am accepting the premise that transgenderism is an ideology for the sake of argument. Whether it really is or isn't is a useless conversation, I'm far more interested in addressing the arguments anti-"transgenderism" advocates are making.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Words can absolutely have a tone, it's called context. Let's break it down...
The first clue is his usage of the word "damn", as in "a damn black guy". It is transparent from the start that he's not even pretending to be speaking positively about black people. We could really stop here.
Next, after describing grim details that were way too clear for someone speaking celebratory, notice his usage of the word "you". As in "you can't do that anymore". This gives us clear insight into who's point of view he's expressing. Hint: it's not that of black people.
Finally, the last sentence, "they got more rights than we got". They're is nothing remotely celebratory about one group having more rights than another. Even the most charitable interpretation of this phrase still makes no sense at all.
Put them all together and it is unmistakable to anyone who understands English.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Trans IS a mental illness. Period. And no amount of lying, misinformation, disinformation, or ad hominem attacks by you and the rest of your cronies will ever change that fact.
We don't need to attack you, the conversation about what qualifies as a mental illness is inherently subjective, so you clearly don't even understand what the word fact means. Nothing further needs to be said here.
You're learning quickly who the actual trolls and intellectual cowards are on this site are.
lol got it. So those who defend their positions vehemently are the trolls while those who throw insults and then run away are the serious people. Ok bro...
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It sounds like hyperbole in celebration of black rights. You have to be a sick racist fuck to read anything more into that quote
There was absolutely nothing celebratory of his tone, that's why he resigned as soon as this became public. Even he knew there was no way to spin this.
This is easily the stupidest arument thing I've ever heard you make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I can't agree with the latter part.The ability to give birth is surrounded by many behavioral instincts that are a result of biological ones
None of this is relevant. We are discussing the characteristics associated with our conception of gender. You're going into what causes the behavior for most. The cause is irrelevant to the behavior itself. If one is nurturing, that is considered by most to be a feminine trait. It doesn't become masculine because the individual it turns out is unable to give birth.
Yes, my argument is that gender "must be" based on biology in order to be coherent.Otherwise, you end up being to make up whatever you want about gender, and thus gender becomes fiction.
If gender is based off of all the traits and characteristics we've been discussing, there is nothing incoherent about it. But in order to make it incoherent you invent caricature to attack instead.
The LGBTQIA conception of gender is about how one lives their lives, not about what one feels from one moment to the next.
This isn't complicated, unless you want it to be.
As for only having simple observation in the past, that's true. People based their political opinions of transgenderism off their feelings/implicit knowledge, and I think it's fine to criticize that. Even today, a lot of opposition to transgender people is 'it makes me feel uncomfortable'. But some of us have moved past that onto rigorous studies that show transgenderism is a mental disorder.
The question of whether transgenderism is a mental disorder has nothing to do with the fact that we as humans do, always have, and always will rely simply on our observations to make a determination regarding ones gender and/or biological sex.
I don't need to stick my hand into a fire to know that I will be burnt. Lived experience isn't grounds for argument or dismissal. Otherwise, all the 100,000s of alien sightings are real and you can't say otherwise since you weren't there.
Whether aliens have visited earth is a question about objective reality to which there is an objective answer. Your statement was regarding what trans people should do. They are not analogous.
Those facts don't paint a picture of a stable mind.
Classic correlation/causation fallacy. Trans people are the most ridiculed and least welcomed people in our society. How stable do you think you'd be living in a society where such a large swath of it look at where you draw your most basic sense of self identity and consider you mentally ill because of it?
People like you are the leading cause of the thing you pretend to be so against.
but that doesn't give license to classify or term things however you want.
I can't declare that all colors are green and expect everyone to agree with me.
I can't declare that my transgender identity is a new gender and expect everyone to agree with me.
Correct, you can't. "Transgenderism" isn't one person's idea, it's a collection of ideas advanced by a significant portion of our society that we are now discussing. None of your statements here are relevant to that.
There's an underlying reality to gender that we can socially construct labels for.
Yes, and the reality is that the traits and characteristics we have always used to determine what gender one is has never before came from a biology text book.
Gender is only useful to us in a social sense, so this insistence that it must be based on science/biology is complete nonsense.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The quotes you have seen to be a man claiming that racism used to be worse. I see nowhere where he claims that racism is good.
The part where he said "They got more rights than we got" made it pretty obvious he wasn't hailing society's progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucifer
correction: the right to defend yourself
A gun grants one the potential to end another person's life from a considerable distance with nothing more than a motion of their finger. That's not self defense, and that absolutely encroaches on the rights of everyone else surrounding them.
we cannot simply ignore the other factors causing the violence.
We're not. We make progress on issues by addressing them one at a time. Other factors or forms of violence is a conversation for another day.
By the way, I am new to this website. can anyone give me a short introduction of everything?
Welcome DART.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Not just observable, physical characteristics, but also behavioral ones. That's why we have gendered concepts such as 'mother nature', as nature gives birth and that's one of the essential functions of a mother (i.e. female). That's why nurturing is typically associated with females. There are plenty examples of typical female behavior extending into gendered notions.
Yes, you are correct - behavioral characteristics are part of it as well. However the ability to give birth is irrelevant to ones behavior.
My point of contention isn't that transgender people could never 'pass', despite the biological reality misaligning with their outward physical transformation.
No, but your arguments align with the notion that gender 'must be' based on biology in order to be coherent. I'm pointing out that they have never been. We may have always understood it to be what makes the difference, but in our everyday lives the only tool we have ever had to tell the difference is simple observation.
My point is that transgenderism is a mental illness that shouldn't be indulged in -- just because you can look like the opposite sex doesn't mean you should. By allowing transgender people to engage in their mental illness, you're doing as much harm as telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head are real and should be listened to.
What one should do is entirely subjective. Since you are not transgender you really have no business telling people who've been dealing with these issues what they should be doing.
Calling it a mental illness is nothing but a meaningless subjective opinion.
Classifications of biological sex are a "human construct", sure, but that doesn't give license to classify or term things however you want.
Who decides what classifications and or terms are valid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucifer
Something besides availability to guns and gun technology has changed in the US.
Yes something has, and I have my theories. But regardless, whatever it is that has changed, is a cultural issue. There is no legislative solution to fix our culture, so pointing to that is useless.
The betterment of the society is not taking away peoples rights.
The right to swing your arms end at someone else's nose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Really? Because I go off of transgender people's argument
No, you go off of transgender people's words... After redefining them back into the definitions you accept. That's not communication. And after being explained this over and over again and still doing the same thing it demonstrates a fundamental unseriousness about advancing the conversation.
If someone is born with one arm, even though humans are typically born with two, does that mean that there is now a spectrum of arms?
There are and have always been a spectrum of armed people in our society. We just don't label them because that serves us no practical purpose.
If a third sex were to exist, it would have to have a purpose. Us as humans reproduce with a male and a female, and that's all we need. If another sex were to exist, what would its purpose be, and if it didn't have a purpose, then why didn't evolution take it out?
Purpose is something we as thinking agents invented. It has absolutely no place in any conversation about evolution and biology.
Evolution is about one thing: survival. That which is well suited to survive will. That which is not well speed to survive will not. It's that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
The whole notion of "feminine" is a conscious extrapolation of the biological female
Agreed, except that the concept of "biological female" we are extrapolating from is based entirely on observable characteristics such as genetillia and physical traits like soft facial features or non muscular arms.
No one arguing that biological sex is all about chromosomes has ever wandered around town measuring people's chromosomes before committing to address them as a he or a she. The only reason we know any of this is because we learned it in a text book but now "anti-transgenderism" advocates are pretending like this is what they've always been talking about with regards to gender. That's absurd.
I could show you plenty of naked photos of women right now that you would look at and, absent the context of this conversation, would easily accept is a women. So don't pretend what you learned in a biology text book is what society has always been talking about with regards to these terms.
In other words, people (at birth) not fitting into either the XX or XY category are quite low, and people can be placed into XX or XY after birth with various behavioural observations.
The frequency of occurrence is not relevant to the point. There are only two sexes because we have only defined two sexes. That's a human construct. It is based of off biology but biology includes many other variations, so when one claims there can only be two genders because that's what biology says they are just factually wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Whereas you see it as: “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you guys should get rid of firearms altogether” a pro 2A American will interpret this as “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you should give up your own firearms.”
Exactly. That's the entire problem with the gun debate; gun safety advocates are arguing for the betterment of society. 2A advocates are arguing for the betterment of themselves.
The problem however is that what is better for the self multiplied on a grand scale ultimately creates a worse situation for the self. Think of an individual who works and saves up all their money. Great for the self. Imagine everyone in society doing the same thing... The economy crashes and everyone (including the self) loses.
2A advocates always talk about bad guys getting their hands on guns as reason for them to be able to do the same. Maybe if those guns weren't so easily accessible there would be less bad guys for you to be afraid of in the first place.
This is a particularly tough sell when police are understaffed and demoralized as they are currently.
Maybe their jobs wouldn't be so difficult and dangerous of the populace they are supposed to be the protectors of weren't better armed than they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lucifer
No, it's not. It was actually a very simple question to understand so let me simplify some more; what was the leading factor in the child's death?
A) The other child
B) The gun
C) Other
?
Or, if that still isn't clear enough we can try it this way: Which one of these factors is the simplest to remove from the equation which would have prevented the child's death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It is a good start that you recognize that it is an ideology.
Not really, I'm just accepting your premises in order to move onto the part of the conversation worth having.
When a man identifies as a woman (or vice versa): what does it mean to be a man, what does it mean to be a woman, and what does it mean to identify as a woman?
It means the individual lives in accordance with the traits and characteristics we associate with those terms. We tend to think of women as feminine in the way they dress, act, look, and even think. Women tend to be more sensitive, emotional, and even submissive. And yes, we think of women as having breasts and a vagina.
None of these traits alone makes the gender, it's a collection that we base our full picture on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes Gender and Sex are not entirely the same. This statement is true. But the idea of gender/gender roles is based off of sex.Gender is a social construct. Social constructs must be based off of something, otherwise it is a social construct without construction...Gender is based off of sex. And there are only two sex's theirfore only two gender roles, only two genders. If their are more genders, than where did they come from, what are they based off of, and what is the legitimacy of it?
The fact that you are unable to wrap your head around basing gender off of anything but biological sex because that is all that makes sense to you is not an argument that someone else's ideology is also based off of your construct.
Again, you are the one criticizing the ideology you and others labeled "transgenderism", but you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the ideology you are criticizing is entirely in your own head. The actual people you point to who you claim hold those idea are talking about something entirely different.
Gender throughout relatively recent human history has been associated largely around certain observable traits we consider to be feminine. They include the way one dresses, carries themselves, appears, and the responsibilities they assume. None of this has anything to do with ones genitals or chromosomes because those are not things we see on the outside in any normal setting.
That's what the LGTBQIA community is actually talking about. Your whole argument is one big strawman.
But it's worse because you are also just factually wrong about the idea that there are only two sexes in any objective sense. There are plenty of real world examples of people born who do not fit neatly into one of your two boxes. I'm not going to explain it to you because it has been explained to you multiple times already. If you suddenly become interested in reality Google "intersex".
Because of this, if your argument is really that there are only two genders because gender is based off off biological sex then even your made up construct is objectively wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Because it is an incoherent ideology
What is incoherent about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It goes against science and biology, because science and biology state with empirical evidence that there are men and their are women. Men have a penis and testes, different body structure, and more testosterone in the body than females. Females have a vagina, ovary's, and a different body structure, and more osterigin than males.The transgenderism ideology denies this biological fact.
"Transgenderism" has nothing to do with science and biology.
You know who else agrees? Your own source:
If one thing is "as important as" something else, then by definition, they are two different things.
To regard one thing as another is to treat them as if they are the same. It is not a belief that they are the same.
Your argument against transgenderism is at its core just one big strawman.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Are you seriously trying to equivocate between the lawsuit CNN settled and the dominion suit against Fox?No.
So why would you point out that CNN also settled a lawsuit if you're not equivocating their actions/decisions?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Did you know that Fox news is not the only liberal news station that settles lawsuit, another liberal news station does as well. CNN
Are you seriously trying to equivocate between the lawsuit CNN settled and the dominion suit against Fox?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No gotchas, just discussions.
Appreciate that, but it's difficult to have a discussion without a point.
You're right that it is unconstitutional to ban glocks, but the conversation is what our laws should look like. The constitution can be amended, so it's not an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But plenty of high crime areas like Chicago and Detroit who lead the nation in Glock deaths have citywide bans on all sorts of specific weaponry EXCEPT the Glock. Why does the Glock get a complete pass?
Because 2nd amendment advocates would go nuts and ultimately they'll win the legal battle, so ask them.
I guess this article explains why?
Yes it does, so what's your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
I think that is the position pro gun individuals have. That no law is 100% effective on crime. Therefore restricting something they like (we can be honest on how much of this debate is based on like) creates a bigger cost than benefit because what they do will be impacted, not the crime.
That logic applies just the same to every single thing we have banned/limited in our society.
Drug laws do not prevent people of using and dying of drugs.
Speed limits do not stop people from speeding.
Purjury laws do not stop people from lying on the stand.
Yet in no other instance in life would anyone seriously argue that laws not being 100% effective is a legitimate reason to not have them. Only guns get this pass. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My question is, can you take any gun violence rhetoric seriously if the rhetoric purposely avoids the elephant in the room?
It's not an elephant in the room. When we talk about basic gun safety laws/proposals such as universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, permits, banning extended magazines, etc. - all of those types of proposals would apply to the glock as well. No one is pretending otherwise because it's basic common sense. If guns are dangerous, that means all guns.
The reason assault weapons have gained so much attention is because the case for not having them readily available is painfully obvious to anyone who cares about protecting lives from gun violence. If we can't even agree on that then there is no hope of finding common ground on the glock so any attempt at the latter would be utterly pointless.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I hadn't seen any evidence of transsexuals being attacked or assaulted by a mob. But I have seen many attacks by trannies against others.
What you have seen is irrelevant to determining the size and scale of the problem.
If you're trying to argue that something is a problem worthy of people's consideration, you need to demonstrate that its occurences are statistically significant. Of course what is statistically significant is highly subjective, but we can't even get to that part of the conversation until we know how often it occurs in the first place.
That's where the fallacy of anecdotal evidence comes in. A video of something happening is by itself, statistically meaningless. That why I really don't care about your examples. I can show you dozens of videos of police killing unarmed black people. Does this mean that the police should be regarded as black people killers, or is it that these instances are extremely rare but just feel like they happen so often because every single time it does it becomes a national headline? We don't know until we look at the statistics.
And in today's age of trama porn on social media, the problem is so much worse than ever before. We live in different worlds in large part because our social media feeds shovel whatever narrative we want of it right to our phones. So what people are and are not seeing these days is more of a reflection of what they're looking for then what's actually occurring.
So if you want to make the case these attacks are occurring regularly you need more than your social media feed. Show me the statistics or just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not the most deadly gun, it's the gun most frequently used because it's ready to conceal.
I think if there's a shooter i'd much rather they be armed with a Glock than an AR15. I think there is no reason anyone would need an extended magazine to go with it. I think anyone purchasing one should go through a background check, I think all bullets for it and all guns should be trackable (we currently have this technology), and I definitely don't think anyone should be allowed to just carry out around in public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
I agree that people should be a part of the initial approach to gun violence or gun crimes or gun accidents. How much is in question.
That's the whole point of the thread.
No one is arguing that people should not be looked at as part of the issue, my issue which most on the left agree with is that pointing only to the people and leaving out the guns is not only absurd, it goes against the way we handle any other issue in life.
The fact that gun laws don't prevent murder, crime, etc. is not a valid criticism. As with any law about pretty much anything, a 100% success rate is not the standard.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What we should do about anything is by definition, a matter of opinion.
It's quite obvious by this point that the reason you continue to claim CNN is a propaganda outlet is because you don't know what propaganda is. It's not when someone provides an opinion you don't agree with. And if you can't even figure that out perhaps you should take some time to think about how well informed your opinions are in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No. I can show you anecdotal examples to prove any point I want, including conflicting ones. That's why they do not qualify as evidence.Well that is a matter of opinion. Clips of a young female swimmer being abused and assaulted locked in a cupboard for three hours and held to ransom is very clear evidence. Or was it all staged for camera?
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. That's not an opinion, there's a reason we invented a term for it.
What you're talking about now is completely different. I didn't say video footage is not evidence of anything, it depends on what you're trying to prove. The video clips you describe are evidence of what happened to the swimmer. They're not evidence of a trend, which is what you were trying to argue with regards to trans people before.
I don't give two fks weather or not you see it as a valid point.
You shouldn't. What you should care about is the fact that you're arguments are logically invalid.
Is all I have written is that I haven't seen any evidence of transsexuals being attacked or assaulted by a mob. You are welcome to correct me with some visible proof.
I don't need to prove anything because I haven't made any claims here aside from pointing out your logical fallacies. The fact that you haven't seen evidence of it doesn't mean anything other than that you're probably not looking for it.
And you chose to ignore this;
Yes, because I'm not arguing with ludofl3x, you are. So go ask him.
If you want to ask me for my thoughts on a general issue I'll answer, but I'm not digging through a whole other thread to figure out what you're talking about.
Created: