The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
I think people who are wrong on some matters have brains that work differently than mine. I don't want to address their pathetic concerns both because I look down on them and don't want to show them respect, but also because I can't really speak their language and having a conversation with them would make me so angry I would probably try to bite them in the eyeballs. I actually feel physical pain when I am around stupid, insensitive, crude or noisy people. Hearing people speak Swedish or English poorly within earshot makes me wince. I don't want to expose myself to dumb, low-quality people at all.
I think all this about listening to others and trying to understand their arguments is only something you do if you are too weak to beat them in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way. For example, no one listens to racists because we beat them, largely. But back then it was difficult to know whether we actually had to convince the scum of society to vote for civil rights rather than force it on them. Luckily, the president spared us the humiliation of having to mollify the racists and have arguments with them, by just signing off on the civil rights. That's the kind of judgment and dismissal I would happily see emulated more.
Were this approach universalized, discourse between opposing bodies would quickly become impossible. The power granted by elections is purely virtual; The sovereign only commands respect if the masses are willing to obey. If you win the throne you have only won one round out of infinity, and even then you have a large minority of people who only obey the law when it can be enforced. If you win over society, you have destroyed your enemy. Getting people to believe something is more desirable than getting them to act as if they believe it out of fear of the law (and then do it anyhow when outside of its reach).
This is just on the political front. The damage to the sciences would be immense if opposing theories were not constantly pitted against one another. If each scientific community closed itself down to dissenting opinions research would grind to a halt.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
I think people who are wrong on some matters have brains that work differently than mine. I don't want to address their pathetic concerns both because I look down on them and don't want to show them respect, but also because I can't really speak their language and having a conversation with them would make me so angry I would probably try to bite them in the eyeballs. I actually feel physical pain when I am around stupid, insensitive, crude or noisy people. Hearing people speak Swedish or English poorly within earshot makes me wince. I don't want to expose myself to dumb, low-quality people at all.
I think all this about listening to others and trying to understand their arguments is only something you do if you are too weak to beat them in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way. For example, no one listens to racists because we beat them, largely. But back then it was difficult to know whether we actually had to convince the scum of society to vote for civil rights rather than force it on them. Luckily, the president spared us the humiliation of having to mollify the racists and have arguments with them, by just signing off on the civil rights. That's the kind of judgment and dismissal I would happily see emulated more.
I would advise you to rethink your position, as I assure you, not using the cheaper, more effective and efficient way is not weakness. And people do listen to racists all the time, large swaths of people.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
I think people who are wrong on some matters have brains that work differently than mine. I don't want to address their pathetic concerns both because I look down on them and don't want to show them respect, but also because I can't really speak their language and having a conversation with them would make me so angry I would probably try to bite them in the eyeballs. I actually feel physical pain when I am around stupid, insensitive, crude or noisy people. Hearing people speak Swedish or English poorly within earshot makes me wince. I don't want to expose myself to dumb, low-quality people at all.
I think all this about listening to others and trying to understand their arguments is only something you do if you are too weak to beat them in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way. For example, no one listens to racists because we beat them, largely. But back then it was difficult to know whether we actually had to convince the scum of society to vote for civil rights rather than force it on them. Luckily, the president spared us the humiliation of having to mollify the racists and have arguments with them, by just signing off on the civil rights. That's the kind of judgment and dismissal I would happily see emulated more.
So you are saying that you would literarily refuse to engage me on the subject of transgenders, despite my having professed that my opinion may be subject to change given further thought and information? If you only want to talk to people who automatically agree with you, why are you even here?
Yeah but we're not talking about some mild prejudice everyone's got. Space provided an example of shit that we in the industry call "hella racist bullshit" and I'm with Regina in that I've never seen someone saying that shit in earnest(that wasn't also a huge dick an impervious to reason).
I see it on occasion. Not often, but occasionally.
What I see pretty frequently is casual sexism. "Of course women are less likely to be business executives. Their bodies produce less testosterone, which means they're less ambitious and less suited to the cutthroat competition of the business world. They have natural nurturing instincts which makes them better at jobs like human resources manager."
And don't even get me started on transphobia or gender panic.
Ha, I miss the days when people were unapologetic about their bigotry being ignorant, now people have the rough idea that having these ideas for no reason makes you a moron, so they try to drag science into it. Some of the explanations you hear for a persons fucked up views are genuinely cringe worthy. I mean for fucks sake, show me the study that shows "ambition" is linked to testosterone production before you start trying to pretend your views have some basis in fact.
This is tangental but oh well. I think I was really lucky, because when I was a young dumb teenager one of my friends invited me over to hang out. We watched a Twilight Zone marathon, I played with her families three dogs, and met her stepdad, who was a really cool dude. Then a few days later she told me that he was a female to male transexual. Whatever preconceptions I had about transgendered people died right there.
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
I think people who are wrong on some matters have brains that work differently than mine. I don't want to address their pathetic concerns both because I look down on them and don't want to show them respect, but also because I can't really speak their language and having a conversation with them would make me so angry I would probably try to bite them in the eyeballs. I actually feel physical pain when I am around stupid, insensitive, crude or noisy people. Hearing people speak Swedish or English poorly within earshot makes me wince. I don't want to expose myself to dumb, low-quality people at all.
I think all this about listening to others and trying to understand their arguments is only something you do if you are too weak to beat them in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way. For example, no one listens to racists because we beat them, largely. But back then it was difficult to know whether we actually had to convince the scum of society to vote for civil rights rather than force it on them. Luckily, the president spared us the humiliation of having to mollify the racists and have arguments with them, by just signing off on the civil rights. That's the kind of judgment and dismissal I would happily see emulated more.
So you are saying that you would literarily refuse to engage me on the subject of transgenders, despite my having professed that my opinion may be subject to change given further thought and information? If you only want to talk to people who automatically agree with you, why are you even here?
I'll leave the talking to people with more patience. Me, I'm not transgendered, so I don't want to hurt their case by saying what I truly feel about people who are socially or politically hostile to LGBTQ-rights.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
I think people who are wrong on some matters have brains that work differently than mine. I don't want to address their pathetic concerns both because I look down on them and don't want to show them respect, but also because I can't really speak their language and having a conversation with them would make me so angry I would probably try to bite them in the eyeballs. I actually feel physical pain when I am around stupid, insensitive, crude or noisy people. Hearing people speak Swedish or English poorly within earshot makes me wince. I don't want to expose myself to dumb, low-quality people at all.
I think all this about listening to others and trying to understand their arguments is only something you do if you are too weak to beat them in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way. For example, no one listens to racists because we beat them, largely. But back then it was difficult to know whether we actually had to convince the scum of society to vote for civil rights rather than force it on them. Luckily, the president spared us the humiliation of having to mollify the racists and have arguments with them, by just signing off on the civil rights. That's the kind of judgment and dismissal I would happily see emulated more.
So you are saying that you would literarily refuse to engage me on the subject of transgenders, despite my having professed that my opinion may be subject to change given further thought and information? If you only want to talk to people who automatically agree with you, why are you even here?
I'll leave the talking to people with more patience. Me, I'm not transgendered, so I don't want to hurt their case by saying what I truly feel about people who are socially or politically hostile to LGBTQ-rights.
What is the Q?
FWIW, your attitude, if expressed by enough people, would probably mean noone would ever change their view, so you'd never have the public support needed to enact trans friendly laws.
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Apart from simply being a bigot, I can only think of a transgendered person being problematic in the context of (potentially unwanted) advances. It weirds out some people, or many people simply don't quite know how to react because they aren't certain what their stance on the matter is.
But really, that's a private matter, and a decent person wouldn't make a big deal of it, and just get over the acceptance/rejection and the awkwardness. The position on transgendered people(I wish there was a nice, short word for this that wasn't perceived as offensive, it's such a chore to write/say every time) tends to be either one of equality(with the unrelated personal preferences), or bigotry. But then again, I think everyone should have equal rights and opportunities(as far as being mentally capable of handling them goes).
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I guess the restroom thing can be tricky, it's hard to tell the difference between a transgender person and someone in drag sometimes. Do we really want guys deciding they can use the ladies room as long as they're wearing a dress? Naturally transgendered people should be allowed to use the toilet of their chosen gender but you can understand why it would make some people uncomfortable. It's unfortunate but there it is.
As for marriage and adoption, we already let gay couples marry and adopt, whats the difference between two men or a man and a woman who used to be a man doing either?
Even though I've had zero exposure to transgender people my attitude is the same as its always been, live and let live. I can't see why anyone would be offended at their existence just because they've never met one.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't really understand why we need separate bathrooms if there are stalls. Do people wander around public restrooms naked or something?
It's not like the little stick figure on the door is going to keep rapists and creepbags out now.
I don't really understand why we need separate bathrooms if there are stalls. Do people wander around public restrooms naked or something?
It's not like the little stick figure on the door is going to keep rapists and creepbags out now.
I was once in a bar with a friend, we went into the unisex toilet they had there, the poor bastard has the misfortune to leave his stall before I did and some chick in there lost her shit and started screaming at him for being in there. I've kinda been iffy on the unisex toilet thing ever since.
I always assumed we keep it separate because women do things in there men don't.
I don't really understand why we need separate bathrooms if there are stalls. Do people wander around public restrooms naked or something?
It's not like the little stick figure on the door is going to keep rapists and creepbags out now.
This. Separate bathrooms are a relic of puritanism.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't really understand why we need separate bathrooms if there are stalls. Do people wander around public restrooms naked or something?
It's not like the little stick figure on the door is going to keep rapists and creepbags out now.
I was once in a bar with a friend, we went into the unisex toilet they had there, the poor bastard has the misfortune to leave his stall before I did and some chick in there lost her shit and started screaming at him for being in there. I've kinda been iffy on the unisex toilet thing ever since.
I always assumed it was because women do things in there men don't.
Why would she freak out about the unisex bathroom? That sounds like an unobservant person.
But they're pretty ingrained into our psyche. The odd thing is that a woman will freak out if a man is in the girl's room and vice versa, but literally any person you don't know could be a homosexual but that thought doesn't bother people. I don't think it should, but it's an interesting thing about our society.
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about. Unlike homosexuality, which is not a mental illness, there is actual pathology for transgendered people. Their genitals don't match the brain that they were given. The case for their legal protection should be completely clear cut under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people dealing with these issues who would take offense at being considered disabled, or whatever. That's all well and fine, but the fact of the matter is there are actual bona fide medical and psychological treatments (ranging from hormones, to surgery to good old talk therapy) which can help them and improve the quality of their lives. Not nearly so much for gay people.
So in that sense, yes it is a disability. Because very few transgendered people will achieve the best quality of life possible for them without some sort of treatment, even if it's minimal such as just seeing a therapist for a few years to deal with what is probably, in every case, an especially shitty puberty.
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about. Unlike homosexuality, which is not a mental illness, there is actual pathology for transgendered people. Their genitals don't match the brain that they were given. The case for their legal protection should be completely clear cut under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people dealing with these issues who would take offense at being considered disabled, or whatever. That's all well and fine, but the fact of the matter is there are actual bona fide medical and psychological treatments (ranging from hormones, to surgery to good old talk therapy) which can help them and improve the quality of their lives. Not nearly so much for gay people.
So in that sense, yes it is a disability. Because very few transgendered people will achieve the best quality of life possible for them without some sort of treatment, even if it's minimal such as just seeing a therapist for a few years to deal with what is probably, in every case, an especially shitty puberty.
I thought there was differences in brain chemistry between gay people and straight people, hence the whole "it's not a choice" thing.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about. Unlike homosexuality, which is not a mental illness, there is actual pathology for transgendered people. Their genitals don't match the brain that they were given. The case for their legal protection should be completely clear cut under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people dealing with these issues who would take offense at being considered disabled, or whatever. That's all well and fine, but the fact of the matter is there are actual bona fide medical and psychological treatments (ranging from hormones, to surgery to good old talk therapy) which can help them and improve the quality of their lives. Not nearly so much for gay people.
So in that sense, yes it is a disability. Because very few transgendered people will achieve the best quality of life possible for them without some sort of treatment, even if it's minimal such as just seeing a therapist for a few years to deal with what is probably, in every case, an especially shitty puberty.
I thought there was differences in brain chemistry between gay people and straight people, hence the whole "it's not a choice" thing.
There's a difference in brain chemistry between people who prefer chocolate over vanilla. Your entire brain runs on chemistry, electricity, and magic.
In saying that, transgendered people are born in the wrong body, what Regina was talking about was medication, therapy and surgery to correct the body, not the mind.
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about. Unlike homosexuality, which is not a mental illness, there is actual pathology for transgendered people. Their genitals don't match the brain that they were given. The case for their legal protection should be completely clear cut under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people dealing with these issues who would take offense at being considered disabled, or whatever. That's all well and fine, but the fact of the matter is there are actual bona fide medical and psychological treatments (ranging from hormones, to surgery to good old talk therapy) which can help them and improve the quality of their lives. Not nearly so much for gay people.
So in that sense, yes it is a disability. Because very few transgendered people will achieve the best quality of life possible for them without some sort of treatment, even if it's minimal such as just seeing a therapist for a few years to deal with what is probably, in every case, an especially shitty puberty.
I thought there was differences in brain chemistry between gay people and straight people, hence the whole "it's not a choice" thing.
There are interesting studies along those lines but nothing concrete or conclusive. But this isn't really a transgender or sexual orientation thread. We should probably all just agree that transgender issues are misunderstood enough that it's always something that should be broached reasonably because minds can very often be changed in that area, and then move back to discussing civility.
There are interesting studies along those lines but nothing concrete or conclusive. But this isn't really a transgender or sexual orientation thread. We should probably all just agree that transgender issues are misunderstood enough that it's always something that should be broached reasonably because minds can very often be changed in that area, and then move back to discussing civility.
That was kind of my intent for bringing it up. I didn't mean to start a tangent.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician can apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician go apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
Technically it was a rich dude supporting Santorum.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician go apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
Technically it was a rich dude supporting Santorum.
Granted, but he was still expressing views Santorum himself has publicly expressed. This is a guy running for president.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician go apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
This, by the way, is why I'm perfectly comfortable refusing to engage with racists in any way that recognizes their views as a legitimate opinion. Out of habit, we've become vigilant about racism in America to the point where overtly racist sentiments are marginalized outside of mainstream thought and can't by itself be the grounds for public policy. I suppose that sucks for modern day racists, but the effect is a net positive for society at large in my view.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician go apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
This, by the way, is why I'm perfectly comfortable refusing to engage with racists in any way that recognizes their views as a legitimate opinion. Out of habit, we've become vigilant about racism in America to the point where overtly racist sentiments are marginalized outside of mainstream thought and can't by itself be the grounds for public policy. I suppose that sucks for modern day racists, but the effect is a net positive for society at large in my view.
This was exactly what the Southern Strategy was about, because you couldn't be overtly racist anymore.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician go apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
This, by the way, is why I'm perfectly comfortable refusing to engage with racists in any way that recognizes their views as a legitimate opinion. Out of habit, we've become vigilant about racism in America to the point where overtly racist sentiments are marginalized outside of mainstream thought and can't by itself be the grounds for public policy. I suppose that sucks for modern day racists, but the effect is a net positive for society at large in my view.
This was exactly what the Southern Strategy was about, because you couldn't be overtly racist anymore.
*Is* about. You could be overtly racist when it debuted. George Wallace did depressingly well that year.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Southern Strategy was bad. Separate but Equal was worse. Jim Crow was worse still. If things are gradually getting better by degrees, they are still getting better.
I believe the Q is Questioning - as in people who aren't sure if they're gay but are open to the possibility. It is sort of a broadening of the scope, yes.
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.
I don't believe that we've(who?) 'beaten' racists, or- and I'm using your language here, that nobody listens to them.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician can apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
That wasn't a politician - it was a donor. But your general point is still correct.
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.
Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.
I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.
0
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
you know what's awesome about unisex bathrooms? Not having to wait in line.
I did a 6k all women walk/run last december and the ladies bathroom was, of course, backed up to the middle of forever. Now there were men around, supporters and things, but we finally broke down and started going into the men's room, it had stalls. And none of the guys that showed up freaked out.
Seriously. Unisex bathrooms are the best.
I've been reading the thread and especially reading @Absalon's posts and thinking about how I would react to somebody behaving that way towards me. The rude, arrogant, at times even cruel statements that he's making. I'm a religious person, I'm a spiritual person. And if somebody were to come after me in the manner that Absalon is suggesting that he deals with religious people, nothing would get done. I would shut the conversation down, back away, and then make a point to never talk to that person again.
Which is crazy beyond crazy. Being that aggressive an asshole is just uncalled for. You can disagree with somebody, and you can even say so, but to be that coarse about it? You get lumped into the category with the Racist old man that doesn't know better and the stupid young kid that thinks he does.
If you don't have the patience to deal with 'people below you' or whatever, then don't. But being that abrasive is just, it's as rude as somebody who's had too much to drink and then thinks that they're superman or something.
Also, they're much more likely to be the victims of various violent crimes than just about any other group. Whether this is because of the prejudice directly, or whether it's the prejudice which drives them frequently to the margins of society where they then become those victims I can't answer.
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I'm not sure I understand what positions one can have about transgendered people.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about. Unlike homosexuality, which is not a mental illness, there is actual pathology for transgendered people. Their genitals don't match the brain that they were given. The case for their legal protection should be completely clear cut under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people dealing with these issues who would take offense at being considered disabled, or whatever. That's all well and fine, but the fact of the matter is there are actual bona fide medical and psychological treatments (ranging from hormones, to surgery to good old talk therapy) which can help them and improve the quality of their lives. Not nearly so much for gay people.
So in that sense, yes it is a disability. Because very few transgendered people will achieve the best quality of life possible for them without some sort of treatment, even if it's minimal such as just seeing a therapist for a few years to deal with what is probably, in every case, an especially shitty puberty.
I thought there was differences in brain chemistry between gay people and straight people, hence the whole "it's not a choice" thing.
There are interesting studies along those lines but nothing concrete or conclusive. But this isn't really a transgender or sexual orientation thread. We should probably all just agree that transgender issues are misunderstood enough that it's always something that should be broached reasonably because minds can very often be changed in that area, and then move back to discussing civility.
If someone wants to make the thread, I'll be happy to participate. Suffice to say that I think there are more issues in play then have been mentioned so far.
The problem is, I don't want to talk with homophobes and old people who don't understand matters like transgenderism like my equals. I can't pretend that they are. I'd much rather slander, belittle and disenfranchise them until they are toxic and looked down upon. Bigots deserve bigotry, not arguments.
See, I do have to admit that posts like this sometimes strain my resolve for civil discourse. I find this astonishingly judgemental and dismissive.
Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.
Well discussions can have scope. Certain arguments can be set aside from the conversation at hand. But that doesn't mean those arguments shouldn't ever be discussed.
Posts
I think people who are wrong on some matters have brains that work differently than mine. I don't want to address their pathetic concerns both because I look down on them and don't want to show them respect, but also because I can't really speak their language and having a conversation with them would make me so angry I would probably try to bite them in the eyeballs. I actually feel physical pain when I am around stupid, insensitive, crude or noisy people. Hearing people speak Swedish or English poorly within earshot makes me wince. I don't want to expose myself to dumb, low-quality people at all.
I think all this about listening to others and trying to understand their arguments is only something you do if you are too weak to beat them in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way. For example, no one listens to racists because we beat them, largely. But back then it was difficult to know whether we actually had to convince the scum of society to vote for civil rights rather than force it on them. Luckily, the president spared us the humiliation of having to mollify the racists and have arguments with them, by just signing off on the civil rights. That's the kind of judgment and dismissal I would happily see emulated more.
This is just on the political front. The damage to the sciences would be immense if opposing theories were not constantly pitted against one another. If each scientific community closed itself down to dissenting opinions research would grind to a halt.
I would advise you to rethink your position, as I assure you, not using the cheaper, more effective and efficient way is not weakness. And people do listen to racists all the time, large swaths of people.
So you are saying that you would literarily refuse to engage me on the subject of transgenders, despite my having professed that my opinion may be subject to change given further thought and information? If you only want to talk to people who automatically agree with you, why are you even here?
Ha, I miss the days when people were unapologetic about their bigotry being ignorant, now people have the rough idea that having these ideas for no reason makes you a moron, so they try to drag science into it. Some of the explanations you hear for a persons fucked up views are genuinely cringe worthy. I mean for fucks sake, show me the study that shows "ambition" is linked to testosterone production before you start trying to pretend your views have some basis in fact.
I'll leave the talking to people with more patience. Me, I'm not transgendered, so I don't want to hurt their case by saying what I truly feel about people who are socially or politically hostile to LGBTQ-rights.
What is the Q?
FWIW, your attitude, if expressed by enough people, would probably mean noone would ever change their view, so you'd never have the public support needed to enact trans friendly laws.
Like
What situation would you be in where a person being transgendered would make any difference?
Lots of people do not feel like they should be allowed to use public restrooms, adopt, marry or in any legal way be treated as the gender that they prefer.
Apart from simply being a bigot, I can only think of a transgendered person being problematic in the context of (potentially unwanted) advances. It weirds out some people, or many people simply don't quite know how to react because they aren't certain what their stance on the matter is.
But really, that's a private matter, and a decent person wouldn't make a big deal of it, and just get over the acceptance/rejection and the awkwardness. The position on transgendered people(I wish there was a nice, short word for this that wasn't perceived as offensive, it's such a chore to write/say every time) tends to be either one of equality(with the unrelated personal preferences), or bigotry. But then again, I think everyone should have equal rights and opportunities(as far as being mentally capable of handling them goes).
How about we go with the potstickers from column A and the pork fried rice from column B?
I have to say, I'm still somewhat skeptical of transgenderism to some degree. Not because I could give two shits how they're presenting themselves socially, but there's clearly psychological hubbub going on there. Which may or may not be a good idea on an individual level. It's such a politically volition issue it can be tough to get decent info.
--LeVar Burton
I guess the restroom thing can be tricky, it's hard to tell the difference between a transgender person and someone in drag sometimes. Do we really want guys deciding they can use the ladies room as long as they're wearing a dress? Naturally transgendered people should be allowed to use the toilet of their chosen gender but you can understand why it would make some people uncomfortable. It's unfortunate but there it is.
As for marriage and adoption, we already let gay couples marry and adopt, whats the difference between two men or a man and a woman who used to be a man doing either?
Even though I've had zero exposure to transgender people my attitude is the same as its always been, live and let live. I can't see why anyone would be offended at their existence just because they've never met one.
It's not like the little stick figure on the door is going to keep rapists and creepbags out now.
I was once in a bar with a friend, we went into the unisex toilet they had there, the poor bastard has the misfortune to leave his stall before I did and some chick in there lost her shit and started screaming at him for being in there. I've kinda been iffy on the unisex toilet thing ever since.
I always assumed we keep it separate because women do things in there men don't.
Why would she freak out about the unisex bathroom? That sounds like an unobservant person.
But they're pretty ingrained into our psyche. The odd thing is that a woman will freak out if a man is in the girl's room and vice versa, but literally any person you don't know could be a homosexual but that thought doesn't bother people. I don't think it should, but it's an interesting thing about our society.
I'm not sure what there is to be skeptical about. Unlike homosexuality, which is not a mental illness, there is actual pathology for transgendered people. Their genitals don't match the brain that they were given. The case for their legal protection should be completely clear cut under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people dealing with these issues who would take offense at being considered disabled, or whatever. That's all well and fine, but the fact of the matter is there are actual bona fide medical and psychological treatments (ranging from hormones, to surgery to good old talk therapy) which can help them and improve the quality of their lives. Not nearly so much for gay people.
So in that sense, yes it is a disability. Because very few transgendered people will achieve the best quality of life possible for them without some sort of treatment, even if it's minimal such as just seeing a therapist for a few years to deal with what is probably, in every case, an especially shitty puberty.
I thought there was differences in brain chemistry between gay people and straight people, hence the whole "it's not a choice" thing.
There's a difference in brain chemistry between people who prefer chocolate over vanilla. Your entire brain runs on chemistry, electricity, and magic.
In saying that, transgendered people are born in the wrong body, what Regina was talking about was medication, therapy and surgery to correct the body, not the mind.
There are interesting studies along those lines but nothing concrete or conclusive. But this isn't really a transgender or sexual orientation thread. We should probably all just agree that transgender issues are misunderstood enough that it's always something that should be broached reasonably because minds can very often be changed in that area, and then move back to discussing civility.
Yeah, racism is absolutely alive and well.
That was kind of my intent for bringing it up. I didn't mean to start a tangent.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's still here but it's certainly become the worst of the various forms of bigotry. For example an American politician can apparently go on TV today and say "women don't need to be able to have abortions, in my day they just kept their legs shut", and he's still golden. Now if he went on TV and said "we don't need to do anything about the massively disproportionate numbers of black men in prison, in my day we just lynched them" even the far right would have a hard time supporting him.
Technically it was a rich dude supporting Santorum.
Racism is alive, but certainly not well.
She's a wounded beast compared to her previous state.
Granted, but he was still expressing views Santorum himself has publicly expressed. This is a guy running for president.
This, by the way, is why I'm perfectly comfortable refusing to engage with racists in any way that recognizes their views as a legitimate opinion. Out of habit, we've become vigilant about racism in America to the point where overtly racist sentiments are marginalized outside of mainstream thought and can't by itself be the grounds for public policy. I suppose that sucks for modern day racists, but the effect is a net positive for society at large in my view.
This was exactly what the Southern Strategy was about, because you couldn't be overtly racist anymore.
*Is* about. You could be overtly racist when it debuted. George Wallace did depressingly well that year.
I believe the Q is Questioning - as in people who aren't sure if they're gay but are open to the possibility. It is sort of a broadening of the scope, yes.
Frankly, some arguments don't deserve discussion. And letting them in corrupts the discussion.
That wasn't a politician - it was a donor. But your general point is still correct.
Despite my real wish for a more civil discourse, it does seem like Absalon is successfully corrupting the discussion. I hope you don't take this as condescending, Absalon, but are you still in high school? Mostly, when I encounter people who claim to feel physical pain when they're around someone noisy, they're very young, very wealthy, or both.
I should note that it's probably better to admit youth in this case, as there's really no other way to defend an attitude like this and still count yourself a member of society.
I did a 6k all women walk/run last december and the ladies bathroom was, of course, backed up to the middle of forever. Now there were men around, supporters and things, but we finally broke down and started going into the men's room, it had stalls. And none of the guys that showed up freaked out.
Seriously. Unisex bathrooms are the best.
I've been reading the thread and especially reading @Absalon's posts and thinking about how I would react to somebody behaving that way towards me. The rude, arrogant, at times even cruel statements that he's making. I'm a religious person, I'm a spiritual person. And if somebody were to come after me in the manner that Absalon is suggesting that he deals with religious people, nothing would get done. I would shut the conversation down, back away, and then make a point to never talk to that person again.
Which is crazy beyond crazy. Being that aggressive an asshole is just uncalled for. You can disagree with somebody, and you can even say so, but to be that coarse about it? You get lumped into the category with the Racist old man that doesn't know better and the stupid young kid that thinks he does.
If you don't have the patience to deal with 'people below you' or whatever, then don't. But being that abrasive is just, it's as rude as somebody who's had too much to drink and then thinks that they're superman or something.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
If someone wants to make the thread, I'll be happy to participate. Suffice to say that I think there are more issues in play then have been mentioned so far.
Well discussions can have scope. Certain arguments can be set aside from the conversation at hand. But that doesn't mean those arguments shouldn't ever be discussed.
--LeVar Burton