Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Is it NYC, or is it businesses in NYC?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
But there is an unstated assumption that Jesus expects us to understand—that what we ask is in accordance with God’s will.First-century Jews knew that not every prayer request is something God wills, and God’s will is the controlling factor.Appears prayer is more about expressing faith in God's will instead of wishing for our will.
Doesn't this raise the question of why bother praying for anything at all? If it's in his will already, then what good does praying for it do? If it isn't in his will, then praying for it is pointless, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Are you REALLY going to mandate something that less than a third of the country has for every job out there and to enter restaurants?
I live in the Northeast, and no restaurant or anyplace else is asking for vaccines to enter anywhere at this point. I'm not sure what mandate you want to end. I've been all over the place over the last six months, too, red state and blue, and again no one is asking for the vaccination status or to see my card. Are you sure this is an actual problem?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You might be right on how it started, but that's not how it's used now. Quit worrying about the dictionary definition of things, bro. Look at how the word is used, that's what a definition is, as demonstrated in this case, in my view. Please understand what follows here is not directed at "you" specifically, I broadly agree with the sentiment of your post, but the usage of the word in its current context is no longer anything to do with being aware of racial / social inequality in society.
People on the left aren't the ones even using this word in the context you're talking about. When was the last time you heard a person you'd describe as a liberal or a democrat going around saying "Let's get more woke!" or "I need more woke amusement parks!"? They aren't, at all. It's become strictly some code word / dog whistle used by conservatives, particularly conservative politicians, that encapsulates vague outrage about anything that's different from what they are, and there's an added level of invective in it because black people brought it into the lexicon, if you ask me. Look at some of the weird outrage around Rhianna's superbowl performance. Why are republican politicians calling that "woke"? Why is a teacher being able to put his or her same sex partner's picture on their desk at a public school "woke"?
But there needs to be a new term to describe the pink haired gender studies major who gets offended at everything right wingers and their supporters say.
Why? Can't this just be someone who disagrees with you? Is it the fact that they take offense that offends you, or the fact that some mealy mouthed condescension doesn't placate them back into their college dorm room? I'm not saying it's not okay to be annoyed by the disagreement, but why the "pink haired gender studies major" qualifier? Because it looks like that just means not only do they disagree with you, they are different from you, they want representation and to be respected as an equal, and therefore they are "woke."
Love your neighbor. It doesn’t matter if they are right wing, left wing, LGBT, unvaccinated, undocumented, pro life, pro choice, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man. As long as they are a good person that doesn’t harm anyone else and that treats others well, you do the same.
A pretty decent way to look at the world. Just remember that people who disagree with you aren't mortal enemies because of it, and they don't need to be extinguished. Until someone threatens one of your liberties, they're allowed to disagree and do so rudely if they are so inclined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
but the left wants the right to call transwomen women
I don't care what Ron DeSantis calls anyone. I care if he is going to start making legislation that tells a person what their name can be and how they can dress and where and when they can be seen. It has literally nothing to do with anyone calling someone something else. Again, that's your free speech and right to be an inconsiderate asshole until someone can tell me how understanding that someone wants to present themselves as a gender other than their birth gender somehow is a specific and measurable problem for someone ELSE.
People can't agree on a definition.
So what happens then? And how is this problem not solved by letting people simply identify with whatever gender they think best represents them? WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE, in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who else is? Should we let the private sector define words?
This is who defines words today: people who use them. Why would we make an exception for these two words?
Because they haven't been able to define woman in a way that the left is fine with.
This is not reality, at all. The definition of man or woman is immaterial: if you want to be called a woman and use female pronouns, I literally do not care at all, it doesn't have any affect on me, and my decision to comply with your wishes or disregard them, on something this personal, depends only on how much I respect your right to decide for yourself. It has absolutely zero impact on my life. I don't think "Wait, what's the dictionary say?" Can you explain what impact you see this having on your life? If this law were to go into effect tomorrow, where men are defined this way and women that way, what exactly, SPECIFICALLY, in your life changes? I don't get the obsession with other people's junk on the conservative side. It makes absolutely zero sense to me. I've asked several of the people on this board to explain the big deal, no one ever has. One idiot was like "HOW WILL WE USE DNA TO SOLVE CRIMES?!?!" as if DNA is currently used to solve most crimes, not interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence.
We can talk gun rights, but I don't want to pollute your topic here any further, so feel free to start one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nothing wrong with having black hair, there is something wrong with having HIV.
On the many levels of ignorance this displays, the one that sticks out most is the difference between hereditary and acquired, and therefore not comparable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@the_viper
Who do you vote for?
Neither, as I believe both to be unAmerican at their core. Also, because I'm dead. I understand what you're trying to say, that yes, we vote to restrict rights ("fire" in a theater, child pornography, etc) but I don't see those as in the same category as your hypothetical. I wouldn't vote for either, and in fact would likely look to relocate because that doesn't sound like a country I want to live in.
If forced to choose between the two, I'd vote for the anti-flag burning guy, because that doesn't inherently infringe on the rights of another human being, then I'd protest and organize against the person I voted for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The definition of a woman and man would change federally.
It's not clear what this means, or why it's important. Are you saying the government is the final authority on what words mean, and would therefore issue some sort of government approved dictionary?
If you disagree with the new definition of a woman that includes cis and trans women, you are free to call Caitlyn Jenner and Blaire White men. That's your freedom of speech. You would just be incorrect by doing so if the definition of a woman changes to include these people.
The bold is the current situation. It's not clear what you're trying to change. And as it's the current situation, somehow tying the status quo to reproductive rights seems like a category error. The whole thing is solved if you start to recognize that anything pertaining to your genitals is no one's business but yours, and laws should reflect that.
Your example is more compelling if you tie it to gun rights instead of free speech. Try it that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@the_viper
Imagine you have to choose between voting for two politicians. One wants to restrict freedom of speech; the other wants to bring back slavery. Who do you vote for?
Probably whoever the Democrat running on the other side of the ticket is :-).
Sorry, you walked me right up to it, I couldn't leave it alone!
I am not sure why free speech and slavery are intertwined in your example. The example on its face seems unimaginably unAmerican to me, I get that it's a hypothetical but I can't make a decision based on what is in front of me. Can you out a little more into this, like what restriction on free speech would lead to the outlawing of slavery, or why slavery would be interdependent on freedom of speech?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@the_viper
Because rights are inalieable, non-negotiable. You have them all, by default. Not to mention the idea of women getting to exercise reproductive freedom and if Ron DeSantis says transgender or cisgender are not even remotely the same societal impact. In my view if you want to call a trans woman a man, you're just an asshole but well within your rights. If you want to tell a woman that she can't make her own medical decisions, different pair of shoes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The deal would be calling transwomen women and trans men men (which the trans community really wants) and coming up with a definition to support that.
Please explain how you would legislate this. It sounds a lot, well, it sounds EXACTLY, like limiting people's free speech. There is no law today that prevents or penalizes anyone for misgendering a person, you want to create one? Then can you make clearer why this "trade" is feasible? If you have a right, it's a RIGHT. As Skep points out, you can't trade rights. You can trade privileges.
Created:
Posted in:
Can you offer any theory as to, if this is the right order in which to read the book, literally every bible ever printed has been printed in the wrong order?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
potential problems associated with pregnancyIt sounds like you wanted to note potential problems with abortion but decided that was too edgy.
If that's what I wanted to say, that's what I'd have said. If you want to respond to me, respond to what I write, and if you need clarification please ask, happy to provide it, but you're not exactly known for your ability to stay on thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.
Most atheists will just say, as I do, "I don't know how the universe started." The idea that the universe is eternal is the counterpoint the theistic argument that basically since (according to the religious) the universe cannot be eternal, because everything has a start, that a god or creator must have started the universe. Naturally, one would then ask well if everything has a start, how did the creator start? The standard response is "the creator is eternal." THIS IS WHERE AN ATHEIST WILL ASK "WHY CAN'T THE UNIVERSE BE ETERNAL THEN?" There's a nonsense answer that is entirely uncompelling.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
Please elaborate on what you mean by 'meaning' so I can engage with this idea.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
why do anything to reduce the rate that zygotes get aborted?
Birth control methods are not designed to "reduce the rate that zygotes get aborted," it's a side effect of their actual purpose, which is "give women the choice to have sex whenever and with whomever they want without the potential problems associated with pregnancy."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That doesn't make any sense. Do people think long term?
Why do women go on the IUD or birth control, do you think?
ETA that people DO think long term, but the reproductive drive that is at the heart of the 'horny' is powerful down to a genetic level, like your genes WANT TO FUCK. You'll find out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because sex is awesome, short story. Because it feels fucking great to both parties. And because there's a ton of methods to avoid getting pregnant if you don't want to. Women do not think "What if I get pregnant" when they're horny enough to ask you to give it to them in broad daylight in a Parisian parking garage. I married that one. True story.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ask chatbot what medically accurate sex education is. You'll be surprised to find that only 1 in 4 states in the US mandate that sex education in public schools be 'medically accurate.'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My dad said that Mom never asked for sex and that dad was always the iniator.
So a sample size of two people leads to this intractable conclusion: because your dad would never get sued for child support, he fucked your non-horny mom. Is that how you figure it?
I've had a fair number of women initiate sex with me, and I've initiated my fair share, but let me assure you dude, women get just as horny as men. Maybe it's not women you know being less horny than men you know, maybe it's some other 'common denominator' which...well what could it be...
I kid around, but you're entirely off base here. Women literally do get as horny as men.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Is that a real question? It would explain a lot.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Free contraception. The right wants to ban abortions.
What about anatomically accurate sex education in public schools?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Straight women only have sex because of horny men
Is this what you guys really think?
Seems really weird that two people who've never had sex are such experts.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They want to reduce the death rate of zygotes
How do "they" want to accomplish this?
Created:
Oh good, another topic you're making about kids' genitals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Opinions (unless your wearing them) don’t make the company unprofitable.
In and of themselves, they don't. But the minute you're recognized for posting the N word on your Twitter feed, then you've created a potential problem for the business, and the fastest solution is to fire you. Again you're 100% welcome to your opinions, but everyone has to be responsible for what the world can see of them. No one, after all, FORCED someone to say dumb things on the internet that lasts forever.
I don’t, but I’m worried it might happen in the future, even if I don’t mention my views at work. Companies are turning me down for internships despite my 3.2 GPA.
Ok, so this isn't a current issue, but it's something you're concerned about. I'd just post whatever controversial views you have as a different name with no photo, and keep the political, religious or sex discussions at work at a zero.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They can be pro choice; they shouldn’t be allowed to fire someone for being pro life.
Broadly I agree, from a principle perspective, but if a company's management thinks you're damaging their ability to make money, they can and absolutely should fire you. It's probably best not to talk about your pro choice or pro life stance at your place of business, I would think. You can be pro life, but if you work in a deli and wear a shirt that says something like "ABORTION IS MURDER," you're going to get fired. Same if you worked someplace and wore a shirt that said "HANDS OFF MY PUSSY." Everyone's entitled to their positions, but you're not entitled to force a private corporation to pay you when you are damaging their brand.
Things like my political views on issues where huge numbers of people disagree.
Do you get discriminated against based on this today? Are you having trouble finding a job? Have you never heard the maxim to not talk about sex, religion or politics at work? The reason isn't the subject matter itself, it's the human reactions to these discussions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
People would classify being pro life as being worthy of being fired.
Are those people owners of private companies that pay you? Do they not have the same right to their opinion as a pro-lifer? And again, I'm not sure this has ever actually happened, nor am I sure it falls under the "politically incorrect" umbrella (which to me means saying things like "black" instead of african american).
Still, a private company has the right to fire you and not hire you back over it, I'm sorry, that's just the land of the free.Freedom for corporations, but not freedom for we the people.
What freedom of yours do you think this infringes upon?
I have worked with two people fired for saying the N word. Both have jobs today. I don't think this is a real problem.How do you know if they have jobs today? Who is going to hire an adult white person if they said the N word while an adult?
LinkedIn is how I know. And if companies didn't hire anyone who said the N word while an adult, the unemployment rate would be a LOT higher than it is. I mean unless you put it on your resume, companies can't know. Unless, of course, you post it all over your social media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What's something you think is politically incorrect that might get you fired?If I post something pro life on the internet and my female boss has had an abortion and is super left wing, so she fires me over what I posted. Nobody should get fired for being pro life or pro choice.
I agree with this. Is there an example of such a thing happening? I don't think anyone would qualify pro choice or pro life as politically incorrect, though. Still, a private company has the right to fire you and not hire you back over it, I'm sorry, that's just the land of the free.
because this "politically incorrect" fear is a little nebulous. Like let's say I'm at my job and I call a colleague a racial slur, should I be able to be fired?Let’s say hypothetically you get fired for saying the N word to your colleague. What place is going to hire you? No place would hire you. Then taxpayers have to pay for your welfare for the rest of their life. I as a taxpayer don’t want to do that.
I have worked with two people fired for saying the N word. Both have jobs today. I don't think this is a real problem.
Created:
Posted in:
I've never heard of any of those people, so I'll do some cursory research:
Kompothecras was fired by MTV for making racist and white supremacist comments on social media. MTV is a private company with a brand to protect and he's an independent contractor. What exactly is the objection? MTV isn't in violation of their contract.
Mulroney looks like someone who knows Megan Markle, I have no idea what happened to her, so I'll wait for your explanation.
Peter Hunziker I actually knew because I admit to watching this show. Bravo is a private company with a brand to protect, he made racist posts on social media and was not fired, he actually worked the whole season, they just edited him out and didn't bring him back. Again, what's the objection? They should HAVE to bring him back?
Craig Gore returns too many people to sift through.
Hartley Sawyer made misogynist posts and got fired by a private company who clearly didn't think he was good for their brand.
Adam Rapoport resigned after apparently doing blackface in 2004. He resigned. That's his choice.
Taylor Selfridge has the same history as the first guy.
So what we have here are a bunch of people making posts on social media that their private company employers found them potentially damaging to the brand.
I don't think you can make private companies continue to pay those who are potentially harmful to their market. What is the solution you propose? It's not like these people are cast out of society and homeless, after all, and there's no divine right to continue to get paid to be on television.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Lets say in a small village all the families are religious, so I think it's quite typical that the school in that village teaches religious values, because any parent won't oppose it.
So long as it's not a publicly funded school (tax dollars), I have zero objection to this. You have plenty of "parent approvable" options if you like...you can home school, for example, and teach your kids whatever you like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you look it up, a lot of cases of actors, music makers, and employees are fired or "let go" for being politically incorrect to one political party.
Can you name some? Having a negative affect on a business's bottom line or damaging a brand is generally a very fireable offense. You seem to have a number of cases already in mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@YouFound_Lxam
3.) Being politically incorrect.
You both posted something along these lines, and I'm curious, because this "politically incorrect" fear is a little nebulous. Like let's say I'm at my job and I call a colleague a racial slur, should I be able to be fired? Presume I work for a private company. I guess I'm curious as to where you mean the line is between politically correct vs. incorrect, and how such a criteria could ever be written in a sensible way in an employment agreement. What's something you think is politically incorrect that might get you fired?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't click on links from strangers. Distill the part where the government is literally saying "This person doesn't recognize gay marriage, let's persecute them using government resources" and quote it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Their movement is about ideological education in schools starting from kindergarten, media being controlled by single ideology, speech being limited to fit the ideology, where ideology is "LGBT movement" and instead of military parades we get gay parades.
Can you give me an example of the government limiting speech to fit an ideology, specifically whatever you believe the "LGBT movement" is? In other words, where is the government saying "You cannot say this because we want to be gay" or something like that?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So, the answer to my actual is question is "nope, I just want to bitch about it," is that fair to say? If not, what are your SPECIFIC concerns. And don't google someone else's work again to get your answer. I'm sure there's a Chatbot that can help you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
As expected, I suppose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democracy of old where people spoke their minds without fear is a relic of the past and is now labeled as Extreme.
What are you afraid will happen, specifically, if you speak your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nations, and societies have to have at least one thing that unites us all and causes us to come together as one nation.Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have different believes and ideas to ourselves and communities, but what I am saying is that the whole point of America is that we can have differencing opinions about things, yet still get along. Division is not something we should be promoting, and instead we should be uniting as one nation, under the basic believe and right that we all hold dear. Freedom.
Can you explain how you think this isn't what we all believe in today? Does it have anything to do with transgender or gay people? How and where do you think division is being promoted, and by whom?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No one TODAY can force you to use certain pronouns, at all, and in fact no one can ever force you to use or not use certain language. So, problem 1 is entirely imagined.Yes, the whole idea of what it would be a perfect politician, and what they would say is imagined. You asked me, "if".
So your perfect politician would what, outlaw people choosing their pronouns? Or outlaw people thinking you're an asshole? Or would solve problems that don't exist? I'm confused.
As for your confusion on my statement of "whatever decision you want with your body" what makes you think I don't think that?
You aren't pro-choice.
That link is insanely irrelevant. Please post the part that you think supports your "ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID IF YOUR GENDER DOESN'T MATCH YOUR BIRTH ASSIGNED GENDER." This is also a non-problem.
Let's look at it another way: how does society cease to function if we remove any and all gender references on all documentation, legal or otherwise? Can a doctor decide that you have a vagina if you go into an OBGYN, or do they say "I can't help you, I have no idea if you have a vagina without you ticking this box."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"My preferred politician would stand on a stage in front of people and say I swear when I'm elected, transgender people will _____________ ________________________________." I am trying to understand what you're looking for exactly that would be "legislatable."In my opinion, I believe that people should be able to identify as whatever they want, but that they can't force others to use certain pronouns, when taking to, or about them. As far as gender reassignment surgery, I think that it shouldn't be illegal, but the age limit for any kind of chemical castration, or surgery pertaining to this, should have an age limit, and anyone 17 or under shouldn't be allowed to get it. After all, when you're an adult, you can make whatever decision you want with your body.
No one TODAY can force you to use certain pronouns, at all, and in fact no one can ever force you to use or not use certain language. So, problem 1 is entirely imagined.
Gender reassignment surgeries are not routinely performed on minors, but I agree with you that as an elective surgery, you should be an adult to get one. Your "whatever decision you want with your body" probably needs some context as I know you don't actually think that, though.
I have provided the reasons why doing this would affect our community's and nation in a bad way, but your lack of understanding, of how legal documents, work has blinded you from being able to understand any of my points. Legal documents are how people identify who you are, and if the biological aspects of yourself, doesn't line up with the legal identification of yourself, then that poses a big problem, and anyone with a functioning brain could see that.
You have provided literally no evidence in support of those positions. What is the "big problem" legally that you see if your driver's license says M and you don't have a dick, exactly? Can you, for example, be convicted of vehicular manslaughter, or would having this mismatch mean all cases against you would automatically be dismissed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Since most Christians don’t live this (the priests do, so credit to them for sticking to their values) but since most Christians don’t, should I call their bluff?This is one reason why I don’t want to be religious.
I just want to understand, you don't want to be religious because most people don't get rid of all their stuff and live a poor life as laid out in one of the gospels or because you think that many religious people are inherently hypocritical?
What do you mean, "call their bluff"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What do "we the people" have to do to fix the problem of transgender people using pronouns they see fit rather than what some sixteen year old thinks they should use?Use our voices and our constitutional right to fight back against this (not physically).
Excellent...so when you're outvoted nationally, then what? You just accept that you hold a minority position and are free to maintain your personal beliefs, right?
Can you describe to me what sort of platform a politician you'd be comfortable voting for would hold on this matter? What sort of legislation would this politician propose, for example. "My preferred politician would stand on a stage in front of people and say I swear when I'm elected, transgender people will _____________ ________________________________." I am trying to understand what you're looking for exactly that would be "legislatable."
It's not a small issue that I am obsessing over, like you say I am. It's the future of this nation.
I can tell you're super worked up about it, but you've as yet been unable to demonstrate how, in practical terms, a person being able to pick their gender for themselves on legal documents is somehow deleterious to the future of this nation. You've made a bunch of claims:
- If this happens, all communication would be meaningless because definitions!!! (multiple posts)- Unsupported
- The greatest military power the world has ever known would crumble!!!! - Unsupported
- How will we continue to gather resources?!? - Completely abandoned
- If that happens, then thousands of kids (how many thousands, who knows) will immediately get life changing surgery! - Unsupported, and borders on 'raving'
- Less intellectual curiousity!!!!!! - Bald faced assertion with no backup or argument
- WHAT ABOUT THE AFTER EFFECTS OF SURGERIES!!! - Applies to all surgeries and still assumes the "thousands" of kids
- MORE MURDERS WILL HAPPEN! (this one is my favorite because it's easily the worst of the arguments, which is hard to do given the ones you've tried!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If we really want to live a dignified life, then we have to face the fact that facts don't care about your feelings.Some of us are working too hard and too long to improve this dignified society to care about someone's pronouns, or how they identify. So, it pisses us off when they start to become a threat to society, and the government won't do anything, so we the people have to go out of our way just to fix this problem.
What do "we the people" have to do to fix the problem of transgender people using pronouns they see fit rather than what some sixteen year old thinks they should use?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
t does affect our national ability to gather resources and defend ourselves, because this generation of new kids (which this stuff is being pushed on) is going to not be as strong, physically, or mentally, and when that comes to finding good politicians and military personal, that is going to be a major problem.
"Pushed on" how? How does accepting that someone's freedom to choose how they dress is theirs and theirs alone mean that we won't be able to fly a fighter jet? You bolded GOOD politicians, how does someone's decision to go by 'they' instead of 'she' somehow affect the number of people who want to run for office?
you didn't refute any of the data that you asked for.
My request for the data was a little glib perhaps, it's okay, you're young: I thought "that supports your claim" was inherent in the request. You data didn't even bother to try to support your claim. It was generic and in no way "sized" the problem you are complaining about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm aware that such a thing as gender reassignment surgeries exist. I'm unaware of a "push" (by whom?) to be able to change your gender on legal documents, but again not sure how having a dick would be of great import on any of these documents.It's not just "having" a penis. It's a lot more than that.It changes your hormone levels, it takes chunks of meat off of your body, it removes organs, etc.If someone can change, there literal biological sex on paper (not in reality because that it biologically impossible) then thousands of criminals would be getting away with crimes, and if someone comes into the emergency room, and their papers say male, but they are actually female, it's going to give the doctors a harder time to help with them (and doctors are already stressed out enough as it is).So, yea, the truth is pretty important when it comes to your legal documents.
I know what gender reassignment surgery is, I'm just not sure what your objection is to it. I'd make a guess but even for me, it'd be way to straw-y a straw man.
Your concern is that if someone goes into the emergency room, like from a car accident or with a broken arm, that a doctor will not be able to administer care because of a box ticked on the form that doesn't match the person's genitals?
Can you give me an actual example of what is at risk if you decide you want to tick "F" instead of "M" on any form?
Well, if the Trans movement is trying to change their gender surgically, and hormonally, then that would have to change language as well, and as we all know, when you try to twist basic English grammar, or any other languages grammar, it doesn't work out that well. Think about how changing grammar could affect court systems and school systems. It's something that we don't need and would confuse a lot of people even more in their very busy day-to-day lives.
I HAVE been thinking about it and cannot for the life of me come up with an example where society unravels based on this concern. THat's why I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what YOU think will happen. So far, four times now, your only response is "think about it! Wouldn't it be weird!" My point is that language changes all the time, that words have tons of different meanings, and whether or not someone has a dick or a pussy in their pants is really not my business, so it doesn't have any affect on my day. And it doesn't have any on yours either, it's just something to complain about. Unless of course you can point out how your concern is valid, but so far it's like "It'd be confusing!" but no real reason. I'll ask the question again:
If we decide that people can identify their own gender rather than strictly stick with genital configuration, how does that affect your day to day life in a practical way? You started out by saying "language," to which I pointed that there are 7000 different words for "woman" already and we manage to function globally as a species. I also asked what happens if we decide that woman is a word someone applies to themselves, and you say "Look at that woman over there, she's wearing an interesting jacket," would someone in your life suddenly be so confused that they had no idea what you were saying. You didn't answer.
Once you jumped away from language, you went to surgery risks...which has nothing to do with the word woman, and is not in any way distinct from elective surgeries in general, all surgeries have risks. I'm still waiting for how anyone getting a sex change operation somehow compromises national security.
I know your entitled self wouldn't understand, because all you do is sit around and watch CNN all day, so you can afford to change the entire way you live your day to day live, but the rest of us have, jobs, families, school, and futures to look forward to, and we don't have time to sit around all day, worried about misgendering people.
Awful rich for a teenager who still lives with his parents to call anyone they don't know on the internet "entitled." WHAT on earth would require me to change the "entire way" I live my day to day life? This subject literally has never impacted my life other than the two times someone said "It's actually he," to which I said "Oh, sorry, no problem!" and we all went about our lives. You have started almost every topic on the matter here, mister high school student, kinda sounds to me like you are the one sitting around all day worrying about it.
How does what someone else has on their license or on their medical records in ANY WAY affect your personal life at all?Like I said before, it could lead to more murders, and more deaths, so yea that affects my personal life.
So your answer to the "M or F on the drivers license" is really "IT COULD LEAD TO MORE MURDERS AND DEATH"? Really? How?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"The possible risks of transmasculine bottom surgery include, but are not limited to, bleeding, infection, poor healing of incisions, hematoma, nerve injury, failure of the transplanted tissues to survive, unsightly scars, exposure of the prosthesis, injury to the urinary tract, abnormal connections between the urethra"
So surgeries have risks, this is not exclusive to any gender issue. Do you object to all surgery? All ELECTIVE surgeries, maybe?
"Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population."
I mean the data where, as you say in 34, "thousands of kids" are getting this surgery and somehow this affects our national ability to gather resources and undermines national defense. That was your claim, not that some people have considerably higher risk for psychiatric morbidity. You didn't say "AND THINK OF THE PSYCHIATRIC MORBIDITY OF THESE POOR CHILDREN." You said it affects our nation's ability to gather resources and defend ourselves. Please draw this connection as it is your claim, and support with data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So your big concern is that if a transgender person murders someone, and their DNA is present, and they provide a DNA sample while wearing the clothing of the opposite (non-birth) gender, then what, case dismissed? This is why we should tell high school kids if they need to go by he or she? You're just looking out for the victims of murder by transgendered people whose wigs and fake breasts can fool DNA analysis?.......Do you know about gender reassignment surgery, and the push to be able to change your gender on legal documents?
I'm aware that such a thing as gender reassignment surgeries exist. I'm unaware of a "push" (by whom?) to be able to change your gender on legal documents, but again not sure how having a dick would be of great import on any of these documents. For example, it might shock you to learn that when you get pulled over for speeding, the police officer is not going to say "License says male, let me see your dick, otherwise I have to let you go because [whatever you're worried about]." How does what someone else has on their license or on their medical records in ANY WAY affect your personal life at all? Let me help with your response: "I don't want transgender people to be able to choose the gender on their license because if they do, then I _______________ ______________ ____________." What is in the blank space that happens to you?
What does gender reassignment surgery have to do with your concern over precious precious language?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Which part confuses you or are you confused how one is the antithesis of the other?
How they're mutually exclusive isn't clear to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
To me, there is nothing inherently wrong about playing out the gender role attached to a biological sex you were not assigned at birth. The only way to do that coherently is to admit you are against the people who say that we cannot define women and to instead define it as the cookie cutter feminine things that you either want to mimic or wish to avoid.
Yeah, you kinda lost me here. I'm not sure why you think the second sentence is the case, but you're entitled to your opinion. I don't really even understand what it means.
Created: