The Trans Movement Just Hit Home.......

[*Nately120*]

(05-12-2023, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: There's a reason that our military budget is astronomical, and that reason is because the US is "expected" to be the protectors of the free world.  We are now in a period where the armed forces are struggling and in some instances failing to meet recruiting numbers.  We live in a country so comfortable that our young are not willing to sign up to defend, that is a warning signal.  That in itself isn't the barometer of failure that I'm leaning toward as much as our youth are more caught up in social issues that they no longer care about being a part of keeping those rights to do so sovereign.

There is a lot to unpack here.  So we are in free-fall into destruction but young people are too comfortable and young people are too wrapped up social issues to care about protecting the freedom of the world?  Anyways, the issues leading to the falling recruitment numbers have many causes, not the least of which is our inability to provide the army with a population of qualified young people.

We raised a crop of kids who are too uneducated and too out of shape to meet our prior standards for military service.  We're the adults here, so this is on us, not them.  Unfortunately, I see our country continuing to defund education and continuing to subsidize food industries that are making us all fat and unhealthy to the point where anyone with a pulse will be admitted to the army.  Lower the bar, we're not preparing our youth to uphold prior standards.  If someone who is 18 isn't fit to join the army it seems a bit unfair to say "Hey, you've been an adult for 15 seconds, this is on you, not us!"

(05-12-2023, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Your failure to recognize that the US is currently in a parallel situation as Rome under the rule of Caligula, is just baffling to me.

Interesting.  I figured if I compared the USA to the fall of Rome most people would say that I was overreacting to Trump's first term and the impending shadow of us crawling back to him.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-12-2023, 09:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: There is a lot to unpack here.  So we are in free-fall into destruction but young people are too comfortable and young people are too wrapped up social issues to care about protecting the freedom of the world?  Anyways, the issues leading to the falling recruitment numbers have many causes, not the least of which is our inability to provide the army with a population of qualified young people.

We raised a crop of kids who are too uneducated and too out of shape to meet our prior standards for military service.  We're the adults here, so this is on us, not them.  Unfortunately, I see our country continuing to defund education and continuing to subsidize food industries that are making us all fat and unhealthy to the point where anyone with a pulse will be admitted to the army.  Lower the bar, we're not preparing our youth to uphold prior standards.  If someone who is 18 isn't fit to join the army it seems a bit unfair to say "Hey, you've been an adult for 15 seconds, this is on you, not us!"



Interesting.  I figured if I compared the USA to the fall of Rome most people would say that I was overreacting to Trump's first term and the impending shadow of us crawling back to him.

To first bolded.  When I first met my (at that time) to be son in law, he was about to graduate HS and join the Marines.  We were on family vacation and our daughter thought that it would be nice if he helped me split wood for the evening campfires.  At that time he was a very doughy 215, and tired after a few swings on the splitting maul.  Me, near 50 at the time just kept swinging and swinging.  He says, "how do you do that?", I say "I don't know, I just want the wood to be cut for the fire".  Long story short, he made it through basic, graduated at 168, and is now an Aviation electronics specialist.  When his enlistment is completed, he'll likely start out at 1.5x what I currently make.  I'm proud of him, but he is the anomaly, compared to most in his generation.

Second bolded, I don't see Trump getting re-elected, or Biden getting a second term.  America is indeed at a crossroads.

[*Nately120*]

(05-12-2023, 09:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To first bolded.  When I first met my (at that time) to be son in law, he was about to graduate HS and join the Marines.  We were on family vacation and our daughter thought that it would be nice if he helped me split wood for the evening campfires.  At that time he was a very doughy 215, and tired after a few swings on the splitting maul.  Me, near 50 at the time just kept swinging and swinging.  He says, "how do you do that?", I say "I don't know, I just want the wood to be cut for the fire".  Long story short, he made it through basic, graduated at 168, and is now an Aviation electronics specialist.  When his enlistment is completed, he'll likely start out at 1.5x what I currently make.  I'm proud of him, but he is the anomaly, compared to most in his generation.

Second bolded, I don't see Trump getting re-elected, or Biden getting a second term.  America is indeed at a crossroads.

You may be right, but the only thing more american than apple pie is declaring the generation to come after it to be absolute crap.  The proud boomers of today were absolutely savaged in comparison to the WWII generation, but here they are looking down their noses at the endless declaration of "trouble ahead."  Maybe they're right, what do I know?

And Biden may be out tomorrow or he may be elected again, I can't say.  I think the next crop of democrats look fairly promising, though. Trump?  Lordy, at this point I'd say the GOP may still be trying to shake him going into the 2028 election.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-12-2023, 07:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And your response to Lucidus still just ignored what I said. It ignores the differences between sex and gender. Genitals don't define a person's biological sex as that is an outward expression. Genetics is how a person's sex is really defined, and even then it isn't strictly male/female. When a person goes through surgical procedures to affirm their gender it is about their gender, not their sex. You keep ignoring that.

I didn't ignore it. You're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Im not saying your genitals define your biological sex, im saying its part of the sum that helps define it. There isnt one thing, its a collaboration of things. Genitals are part of your biological sex. If you change that you're changing part of your biological sex, regardless of whatever reason you're changing it for. 

[*pally*]

(05-12-2023, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: There's a reason that our military budget is astronomical, and that reason is because the US is "expected" to be the protectors of the free world.  We are now in a period where the armed forces are struggling and in some instances failing to meet recruiting numbers.  We live in a country so comfortable that our young are not willing to sign up to defend, that is a warning signal.  That in itself isn't the barometer of failure that I'm leaning toward as much as our youth are more caught up in social issues that they no longer care about being a part of keeping those rights to do so sovereign.  

Your failure to recognize that the US is currently in a parallel situation as Rome under the rule of Caligula, is just baffling to me.

The reason our military budget is astronomical is that their military dollars provide a windfall to far too many congressional districts and every state. This is done directly through military bases and facilities as well as contractor spending or As Eisenhower called it the military industrial complex. Shoot even. In this latest budget battle, Republicans refuse to touch the DOD budget despite the fact it’s wasteful spending is legendary. Program cost overruns are ignored and obsolete programs continue while are low ranking enlisted guys need food stamps to feed their family.

There are far more practical reasons than simply being out of shape or social issues affecting recruiting. The economy has been good and good paying jobs available. Civilian wages are much better than military wages. Military housing is inadequate, old and moldy. Congress has not allocated the money to fix this. The US has been involved in long standing going no where wars and then playing games with Vet benefits. Even now, military promotions are being held up for 1 Senator’s political reasons. That affects every officer down the chain of command who can’t get promoted because his boss hasn’t. TV commercials like the always running Camp LeJeune poisoned water lawsuits don’t help.

My nephew just got out of the marines. He planned to be there for his career. He lasted 2 enlistments. One of the reasons he got out, and you won’t like this, wasn’t the “woke” military but the evangelical, right wing, extreme conservative turn of the military. Call it thr Fox News mentality. It has become prevalent among officers and senior enlisted people. If you don’t follow their beliefs you don’t have much of a future. And my nephew comes from a multi generational conservative military family. He wanted to serve his entire life. If asked he advises others to avoid military service, esp the marines, at all costs.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-12-2023, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:
There's a reason that our military budget is astronomical, and that reason is because the US is "expected" to be the protectors of the free world. We are now in a period where the armed forces are struggling and in some instances failing to meet recruiting numbers.  We live in a country so comfortable that our young are not willing to sign up to defend, that is a warning signal.  That in itself isn't the barometer of failure that I'm leaning toward as much as our youth are more caught up in social issues that they no longer care about being a part of keeping those rights to do so sovereign.  

Your failure to recognize that the US is currently in a parallel situation as Rome under the rule of Caligula, is just baffling to me.

Eh no. The reason the defense budget is so bloated is because the US is paying so many weapons developers WAY too much money for R&D, which of course yields results that the companies make the US pay a massive premium for.

It's basically the same reason hospitals charge $50 for some basic ass Tylenol; if the person paying you gives you a blank check, you might as well milk it.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-12-2023, 06:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I haven't read the entire, branching conversation and debate that you've had in this thread (you've had a lot of them and they're very long), but one thing I've noticed consistently in the posts I have read is that you seem to be very preoccupied with what you "have to accept" or do in regards to trans people. Like, socially.

I'm struggling with this because, I don't mean this in a rude way but, I don't understand what relevance that has for you. If you met a person and they looked kind of like a man (broad shoulders, lack of curves, maybe some minor 5 o clock shadow on their face, who knows. Whatever comes to your mind in this hypothetical) but were wearing a dress and maybe had long hair and they introduced themselves as Jane, what is your reaction to this person?

Would you say "clearly you are biologically a man based on some external physical features I have noticed about you, so what is your real name, sir?"

Based on your posts so far, I don't think you would. You seem to be fairly grounded in at least an attempt at understanding and tolerating trans people. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you would call this person Jane and use feminine pronouns when addressing her, right?

My reaction would be to call them by the name that they want to be called.  The name part doesn't bother me. If someone wants to be called Jane, I will call them Jane. If someone wants to be called John, I will call them John. However, when it comes to using pronouns that refer to the two sexes, that's where I get defensive, because those terms have far more meaning to them than someone wanting to just be called a specific name. 

So, I would call this individual Jane (or whatever name they prefer) but I would stear clear of the pronouns "he/she" and would just say "they/them" because that in my opinion is not only respectful but neutral ground. I shouldn't have to pick sides in that regard. 

Quote:For me, I am not all that interested in the social aspects of trans people's existence (which will continue whether people "agree" with it or not. Trans people have been around forever and they aren't going to just disappear).

People seem to have this idea that I think trans people don't exist. 

I do believe they exist. It's just I believe they exist in a way that differs from the way in which other people think they exist.

Quote:If so, how else does it affect you if a person who you suspect maaaaaaay be a biological man prefers to be identified as a woman?

Looking at this from the perspective of how it affects me personally is the wrong way to go about this. It's about how it affects society.

I believe it is important to distinguish what you are vs what you feel like and those two things must remain separate. Failure to do so blurs the lines between the two sexes and changes the social landscape in ways where the consequences outweigh the benefits to a point where it is not a good reason to accept the change on the basis of "It doesn't affect me personally".

Quote:It's mostly regarding how people address other people 
and, like all othe rthings, if you address a person in a manner by which they would prefer you did not, that's rude.

Whether it's their name, their pronouns, their job, whatever. Being dismissive of someone's preferences makes a person an asshole whether or not the person's preferences are "based in objective fact" or not. So there isn't a whole lot to discuss in that realm.

I both agree and disagree here. 

I agree that it's inconsiderate to deliberately call someone the opposite of what they want to be called. However, I also believe I shouldn't have to use the pronouns people want me to use as long as I'm using neutral terms such as "they/them".

Those terms are acceptable and doesn't require that I change my reality to fit their own. If someone wants me to specifically refer to them as their desired pronouns, I'm sorry but I would tell that person in a nice way to kick rocks. As long as I am using neutral terms when addressing them then I'm not being an asshole. I'm not going oblige them just to make them happy, but I will use neutral terms to be respectful.

Quote:It's like how that Right Wing kook Michael Knowles said at CPAC, he wants to "eradicate transgenderism" in public life. He was very clear that he didn't mean eradicate transgender people, just the ideology (whatever that means). When pressed further he said in order to eradicate transgenderism you need to tell trans people "...that they need to get psychological help, that they probably need to get a little bit of spiritual help" and that they "need to be normal." (Again, whatever that means).


The problem is that's basically not possible without using the legal system to punish trans people for existing as trans people. In order to enact that right wing view of "transgenderism eradication," you would need to do essentially make it illegal for men to purchase and wear women's clothes and vice versa. You'd have to make it illegal to buy and use hormone therapies, get elective surgeries, purchase make up or wigs or whatever else society associates with one sex or another.


This creates a lot of problems

.
I don't agree with the idea of punishing trans people in a way that prevents them from affirming their own identity, but that's up to a certain point. I do agree that trans people should be able to get whatever surgeries, therapies or clothes that they want. Trying to make it illegal for them to do this is a bad way to address transgenderism.

From my perspective, I believe there has to be rules/laws in place that prevent trans people from using their prefered pronouns/identity in a way in which they gain advantages over the opposite sex or just other people in general. Whatever they want to do to themselves is completely up to them, but when it gets to the point where their identity is creating unfair consequences for the rest of society, that's where I draw the line and say "Okay, we need to create some kind of rules around this to prevent this from happening".

Quote:Like...what is women's clothes? is it just dresses? Or are low rise jeans also women's clothes? What about high heels? Are those women's clothes?

Not that I think this is a big part of the conversation but I wanted to respond to this. I think that depends on who they were made for. If they were made for women, then they're women's clothing. If they're made for men, then they're mens clothing. People are of course free to wear whatever they want though.

Think of it in terms of cars. You can use a car to run over cans and crush them, but that doesn'tmean the car loses it's meaning of being made with the intention of being a means for getting from point A to point B. It just means you can also use the car to crush cans. Regardless, I think people should be able to wear whatever cliothes they want to wear.

Quote:Also, How do you identify a person as a "man" before they go out into public in women's clothes? Do police need to start stopping women that they think look "manly" and ID them? What if it's just a more "manly" biological women? And, if they do start "stop and frisking" manly women, do they need to get a DNA test in order to get this ID? What about the trans women that pass really well, by society's standards? Do they just fly under the radar? Or is the government going to track trans people to ensure they can't "fly under the radar?" 

I don't disagree here and your points are valid. Eradicating transgenderism isn't that simple and way more complicated to accomplish than people who wish to eradicate it may realize. But it's also just not the correct way to go about things in general. Trans people don't need to be eradicated. They should be able to live their lives the way they want BUT, again I think there's a limit to what "Living their life the way they want" should mean for the rest of society.

Quote:If you, in your own brain, see a trans woman and think "nah, that's not really a woman..." that's your right to think that and I don't think you're being a bad person for having that thought. But once you take that thought and turn it into a vote for a person who wants to pass laws that take away trans people's rights based on their existence as trans people, that's where I begin to become concerned.


Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. To be clear, I would never vote in favor of trans eradication. That's just not right to me.
I completely get why people get so defensive about the things that I say in regards to trans people. People are naturally afraid that if someone isn't in full support of one side, then the other side will be able to exist more promoinitely than their side and may eventually even lead to their extinction, or in this case eradication. It's the mentality of "If you don't support me, they will win". 

My argument is, I do support trans people, it's just I don't support them in the way they would like me to support them, which is to affirm their beliefs about themselves. I'm expected to lean all the way to the trans side because, "It doesn't affect me personally, so just accept it". But I'm just not going to do that.

People will claim that because I think this way, I am "part of the problem" and that I'm "hurting trans people". That's because, as I just said a little bit ago, people equate disagreement as support for the other side, but that's just not the case.

Both the right and the left do this without even really realizing it. As you brought up in your post, "But once they start trying to legislate it, things get really fascist-y, really fast.". It's no mistake that you brought fascism into this, because this is eventually what all arguments like this lead to. For the left, it's "we need to stop facism". For the right it's, "We need to stop communism". And so, when you talk about touchy topics like this, people let these fears permeate the argument and dimiinish it to the point of "If you aren't with me, then you're with them".

I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, I'm just saying this is how a lot of people think and what a lot of arguments eventually turn into. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[Dill]

(05-12-2023, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: There's a reason that our military budget is astronomical, and that reason is because the US is "expected" to be the protectors of the free world.  We are now in a period where the armed forces are struggling and in some instances failing to meet recruiting numbers.  We live in a country so comfortable that our young are not willing to sign up to defend, that is a warning signal.  That in itself isn't the barometer of failure that I'm leaning toward as much as our youth are more caught up in social issues that they no longer care about being a part of keeping those rights to do so sovereign.  

Your failure to recognize that the US is currently in a parallel situation as Rome under the rule of Caligula, is just baffling to me.

Our military budget is far and away the largest in the world--triple China's. 

Pally is correct about military "pork" expanding our military budget. 

But you are also right that our budget is large because the U.S. is "expected" to be protectors of the free world.

Ideally the goal is to protect the liberal international order, in part for our own and our allies prosperity, and in part to prevent another world war.  People should expect this of the U.S. if they want social and economic progress to continue, though "lead policeman" is probably a better term than "protector."

But we are also an advanced capitalist country, whose economy is driven by expanding consumption. That's why we have so many young people interested in i-phones and video games, with little idea of the world beyond their immediate community if it falls outside pop music and movies and sports. We are also a LIBERAL democracy which means people have a lot of leeway for exploring ("consuming"?) desires, identities and sexual orientations. And because our government has functioned so well by historical standards, people assume their prosperity is just natural, not a consequence of good government, so their political choices don't matter all that much. And democracy needs no defending from INTERNAL as well as external threats. We are long ways from WWII when the population shared the burden of rationing and finally understood the danger of "America first" isolationism. Now a temporary mask mandate during a pandemic is received as an attack on our "freedom" and a major step towards dictatorship, while some think re-electing an autocrat will restore "freedom." That means our conception of "freedom" and what actually threatens it has changed. 

Is there a fall-of-Rome analogy here? Caligula was actually an effective and well liked emperor for his first few years; but the empire had no effective legal way of removing bad emperors, in this case one whose malignant narcissism eventually dominated his behavior. Maybe there is a comparison between some emperors and some of our politicians, though probably not with the Rome as a state.

The Republic was dead 70 years before Caligula, and the Western empire continued for another four centuries after him. One could make an analogy between Trump and Caligula, as both were quite unhinged and played to cheering crowds as they publicly humiliated people in their own government.*  I admit it does not bode well for our Republic that Trump's violations of our civic ideals and laws elicit cheers and millions of votes. But unlike Romans under the empire, we still have functioning elections--though, unfortunately, many of our voters have lost interest in the kind of history that might clarify current politics and guide that voting. (I want to say our educators are to blame, but then I remember that in the U.S. public schools and curricula are often controlled by people who have never actually taught the subjects affected by their policies. Curricular choices are removed from teachers.)

The Cincinnatus ideal of the farmer soldier, who went to war for the public good and then returned to his farm with no interest in holding power, was also dead by Caligula's time, killed by the takeover of family farms by large estates and the turn to slave labor to farm it. Also killed by military reforms which left soldiers beholden to rich generals who could afford to buy their loyalty. Maybe that is a comparison to the present, though the actual "fall" didn't come until centuries later. (Not that rich generals buy soldiers loyalty, but that civic duty stopped being a motivation for military service and was replaced by incentives to private gain.)
 
*Lol my favorite--C has his horse, Incitatus, declared a senator and proposed him for a Consulship and eventually deified him. Once he supposedly ordered senators to eat his horse's manure. If they didn't, they were punished for rejecting the horse's divine body. (A history professor told me that, but I've never found the source.) All this was perhaps less craziness than an effort to de-legitimate the Senate in the eyes of the Roman mob. Caligula also gave people around him insulting nicknames, like "Priapus" for the effeminate head of the Praetorian Guard. Easy to imagine him calling senators "crooked Cassius" or "little Lepidus" or "sanctimonious Silva" as he insisted they pay court to Incitatus.   

[Dill]

(05-12-2023, 09:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So cultures have been accepting and providing gender reversing surgeries for thousands of years?  Good to know. 

At least 1,700 years.
A Brief Biography of Elagabalus: the transgender ruler of Rome
https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/tgi-bios/elagabalus

Here's another way to think about biological sex as well.


Is this history's first transgender person? Roman skeleton found with both male and female DNA  
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/historys-first-transgender-person-roman-6926379

The remains of an ancient Roman skeleton with male and female DNA backs up the theory there aren't two neatly defined sexes....
After the Museum of London carried out ground-breaking DNA analysis, they found despite the woman appearing physically female, she had male chromosomes.

This backs up the scientific theory that the idea of two sexes is too simple and everyone is a patchwork of genetically different cells, some of which have a sex that doesn't match the rest of the body.

[CJD]

(05-13-2023, 02:16 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: My reaction would be to call them by the name that they want to be called.  The name part doesn't bother me. If someone wants to be called Jane, I will call them Jane. If someone wants to be called John, I will call them John. However, when it comes to using pronouns that refer to the two sexes, that's where I get defensive, because those terms have far more meaning to them than someone wanting to just be called a specific name. 

So, I would call this individual Jane (or whatever name they prefer) but I would stear clear of the pronouns "he/she" and would just say "they/them" because that in my opinion is not only respectful but neutral ground. I shouldn't have to pick sides in that regard. 

...

I both agree and disagree here. 

I agree that it's inconsiderate to deliberately call someone the opposite of what they want to be called. However, I also believe I shouldn't have to use the pronouns people want me to use as long as I'm using neutral terms such as "they/them".

Those terms are acceptable and doesn't require that I change my reality to fit their own. If someone wants me to specifically refer to them as their desired pronouns, I'm sorry but I would tell that person in a nice way to kick rocks. As long as I am using neutral terms when addressing them then I'm not being an asshole. I'm not going oblige them just to make them happy, but I will use neutral terms to be respectful.

Okay. Using They/them rather than their preferred pronouns sounds a little arbitrary to me (if you aren't going to hard line on their biological pronouns, why draw the line at neutral pronouns?), but calling a trans person they/them is much better than calling them he/him when they prefer she/her or vice versa, so I am glad you feel this way instead of going fully against their wishes. 

I don't mind the singular they/them as a general approach when someone has not announced their pronouns but you suspect they may be trans. 

I have a story from maybe 5 or 10 years ago. My brother and I like playing board games (not like Monopoly, but more like Terra Mystica. It's a nerdy hobby, I don't expect you to be familiar with it) and those games often need more people than your friend group may be available at any given time. One day, we went up to the game shop after a Bengals game and just wanted to play some games. There was a man and his child there and they said they'd like to play some games, so we introduced ourselves. The child introduced themselves as Max but didn't mention any pronouns or anything like that. I'm saying "child" just to keep you in suspense, but this person was like 15 or 16. They had, from what we could tell, majority feminine traits (they had short hair, but a lot of women have short hair), so we assumed their pronouns would be she/her. Anyway, we're playing the game. People's turns in games like this can sometimes be long, so if 6 people are playing it could be 10-20 minutes between your individual turns. So people will occasionally go get snacks or go to the bathroom after they've finished their turn. One person got up, went to the bathroom, came back and asked "okay, who's turn is it now?" My brother gestured to Max and said "It's her turn." Max replied "Who's turn?" and he replied "your turn." Then we'd continue playing. 


This happened once or maybe twice more over the course of the day and then, eventually, Max made an excuse, got up and left. They looked, to some degree, upset. I asked their father if something was wrong and he said "Max is trans and prefers the pronouns he/him, and he's just upset that your brother keeps referring to him as her." He said Max was very early in his transition and obviously still had predominantly feminine physical traits, so he was very sensitive about pronouns and, honestly, wasn't even fully comfortable leading with it when meeting people yet.

After a little while, Max came back to the table, my brother apologized and said he didn't realize that he was using the wrong pronouns and that he meant no offense and then everyone made up and continued playing.

I bring this up because, socially, I believe it could be very difficult to politely tell a person like Max to kick rocks. Chances are, if you did that, you would just stop interacting with that person as they would leave. And, if this was done in a work setting, it would likely be difficult to work with that person. 

I'm not sure if you've taken this approach with any trans people or what their reaction to it would have been, but it could potentially make people around you uncomfortable as well, depending on the setting. I'm not saying you should "bend to the mob" or anything like that, but from a purely utilitarian standpoint, doing what a person prefers is definitely the path of least resistance in your typical social situation.

Quote:Looking at this from the perspective of how it affects me personally is the wrong way to go about this. It's about how it affects society.


I believe it is important to distinguish what you are vs what you feel like and those two things must remain separate. Failure to do so blurs the lines between the two sexes and changes the social landscape in ways where the consequences outweigh the benefits to a point where it is not a good reason to accept the change on the basis of "It doesn't affect me personally".

This is a pretty vague statement so I'm not sure what to take away from it. Are you referring to bathrooms and sports? If so, we could go into more detail about those two topics. Socially, it's one thing to frown upon many of these things, especially bathrooms, but legislating them would be very difficult. Sports are, generally, easier to legislate if you take a hard line biological approach but I'm not sure if that approach would be any more beneficial to society as the approaches that do accept trans people to a degree (limiting participation based on length of time on hormones etc). We like to preach the importance of competitive integrity, but there's a lot of gray areas there that could become big problems once you start trying to legislate it.

Quote:I don't agree with the idea of punishing trans people in a way that prevents them from affirming their own identity, but that's up to a certain point. I do agree that trans people should be able to get whatever surgeries, therapies or clothes that they want. Trying to make it illegal for them to do this is a bad way to address transgenderism.


From my perspective, I believe there has to be rules/laws in place that prevent trans people from using their prefered pronouns/identity in a way in which they gain advantages over the opposite sex or just other people in general. Whatever they want to do to themselves is completely up to them, but when it gets to the point where their identity is creating unfair consequences for the rest of society, that's where I draw the line and say "Okay, we need to create some kind of rules around this to prevent this from happening".

Okay, this is good news. I'm glad you do not believe making transgenderism illegal is a good solution because it really wouldn't work without some form of...barbaric?....practices. 

Gaining advantages over the opposite sex or other people in general I suspect is regarding sports and bathrooms. If you have other examples, I'd be interested in hearing them as well.

Quote:Not that I think this is a big part of the conversation but I wanted to respond to this. I think that depends on who they were made for. If they were made for women, then they're women's clothing. If they're made for men, then they're mens clothing. People are of course free to wear whatever they want though.


Think of it in terms of cars. You can use a car to run over cans and crush them, but that doesn't mean the car loses it's meaning of being made with the intention of being a means for getting from point A to point B. It just means you can also use the car to crush cans. Regardless, I think people should be able to wear whatever cliothes they want to wear.


I don't disagree here and your points are valid. Eradicating transgenderism isn't that simple and way more complicated to accomplish than people who wish to eradicate it may realize. But it's also just not the correct way to go about things in general. Trans people don't need to be eradicated. They should be able to live their lives the way they want BUT, again I think there's a limit to what "Living their life the way they want" should mean for the rest of society.

The clothes topic is only relevant in regards to the whole topic of eradicating transgenderism, as clothes are a big part of how trans people express themselves, so it would require they be made illegal to the other sex if trans eradication were to take place. So if you aren't in favor of trans eradication, then we won't disagree on much in this regard. 

If we were to explore that more, I'd ask how does one define "made for women." Is this something the clothing manufacturer would make explicit? Like, Express would create a pair of jeans and stamp them with an F or M? I know we currently have sections of stores for men and for women, but if we were to make shopping for clothing of the opposite sex illegal, a manufacturer could, theoretically, just label all their clothing unisex, which would get around any law based around the manufacturing intent. Then, would they move to the government identifying what is made for men vs women? And how would they do that. Again, just a ton of complications there that don't seem worth legislating. But you already agree, so no need to fully dive into the mess that would create.

Quote:Yes, that makes sense. To be clear, I would never vote in favor of trans eradication. That's just not right to me.

I completely get why people get so defensive about the things that I say in regards to trans people. People are naturally afraid that if someone isn't in full support of one side, then the other side will be able to exist more promoinitely than their side and may eventually even lead to their extinction, or in this case eradication. It's the mentality of "If you don't support me, they will win". 

My argument is, I do support trans people, it's just I don't support them in the way they would like me to support them, which is to affirm their beliefs about themselves. I'm expected to lean all the way to the trans side because, "It doesn't affect me personally, so just accept it". But I'm just not going to do that.

People will claim that because I think this way, I am "part of the problem" and that I'm "hurting trans people". That's because, as I just said a little bit ago, people equate disagreement as support for the other side, but that's just not the case.

Both the right and the left do this without even really realizing it. As you brought up in your post, "But once they start trying to legislate it, things get really fascist-y, really fast.". It's no mistake that you brought fascism into this, because this is eventually what all arguments like this lead to. For the left, it's "we need to stop facism". For the right it's, "We need to stop communism". And so, when you talk about touchy topics like this, people let these fears permeate the argument and dimiinish it to the point of "If you aren't with me, then you're with them".

I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, I'm just saying this is how a lot of people think and what a lot of arguments eventually turn into. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Godwin's Law is a real thing, that's for sure. But, in my defense, I do not use it wantonly in this regard. On the topic of trans eradication, I truly believe there is no way to do it without making trans people wear a "Star of David" (or, in this case, perhaps the trans flag) on their shirt for easy identification in public or imprisoning them in "concentration camps" (or conversion camps, as Michael Knowles mentioned "they need to get psychological help, that they probably need to get a little bit of spiritual help." There is, literally, no way to force people to get psychological help unless it involves locking them in a facility, or threatening to lock them in a facility, that requires said psychological help to take place before they are released). And, taken to its extreme, yes, does absolutely involve genocide. 

This is not a case where I'm just calling something I don't like fascism (or, in the Right's case, calling something they don't like communism). I'm saying the actions taken to enact such eradication would require measures that are explicitly employed by fascists.

For what it's worth, I don't believe you or people who think like you are "part of the problem" or "hurting trans people." But, at the same time, I think it's fair to say you may not be "part of the solution" either, if that makes sense.

[Dill]

Excellent discussion between C-Dawg and Matt.

Good stories and examples.

[Lucidus]

(05-12-2023, 09:40 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: If you're biologically born a man or a woman and you are doing hormone therapy and reassignment surgery to present yourself as the opposite sex, then you are trying to change your biological self to the opposite of what you were born as. In other words, you're trying to be the opposite sex.

I've seen numerous debates on this where a trans person will say, "I'm not trying to be a man/woman, I am a man/woman, because thats what I identity as and my genitals don't define that". 

I get that. 

There is an obvious issue with terms here. 

Male and female are the biological classifications assigned at birth, not man and woman. The latter terms have two usages; one referencing the adult versions of assigned birth classifications and the other referring to the self-identified gender classification of the individual.

One can't be born a man or women; but rather -- male, female or intersex --- and even those classifications involve extremely complicated and wide-ranging variants that we could create an entirely different and rather fascinating discussion about at some point.

Quote:I completely understand that trans people believe that they "always have been" and that they're not "becoming" and the changes they make to their bodies are just affirming their "inner self" which is their "true self". But at the end of the day, if you are making biological changes to yourself to affirm your identity you are attempting to become something you aren't biologically.

And I'm not saying all trans people are doing this. But even so, those that are simply demanding that I call them by the pronoun of the opposite sex without any of the therapy or reassignment surgeries are still asking me to say that a biological man/woman is actually the opposite and they're just in the wrong body.

Again, confusion with terms seems to be playing a role.

If a biological female is asking you to refer to them as a man, they aren't asking you to call them the opposite sex. They are asking you to respect their gender identification. The lack of clear differentiation between sex and gender makes these conversations rather difficult and frustrating.

Quote:Well no, because the gay man and the cis woman aren't trying to affirm that they're the opposite sex. They're just expressing their masculinity and/or femininity.
 
A gay man may feel extremely feminine but not say "I feel like a woman so you must address me like a woman". That's what trans people are saying.

The gay man and cis women in the example are affirming their inner truths; which in turn makes them comfortable in their own minds and skins. The same holds true for transgender people; whether they have desire physical alterations or not. 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it appears you're attempting to navigate these subjects within a black and white spectrum, while avoiding the myriad of gradients that more aptly describe the transgender reality.

Quote:If the point of trying to get a penis is to show that they are actually a man, then yes they are trying to be the opposite sex. 

Because I garnered respect for your intellect in our past conversations, I'm going to assume that if you examine your response carefully, you'll immediately identify the possible issues and logical counters.

Quote:It's not about what sex I think they're attempting to be or what I think they should identify as. It comes down to their own identity and the way in which they want society to view and treat them. If the trans person with a penis and breats says they're a man and wants society to treat them as such, then they are attempting to be a man. The same goes for the cis gender example.

Notice that I asked what gender you would have them identify as, and you once again went to sex instead, seemingly without being able to differentiate between the two -- which continues a problematic trend in your responses.

Quote:But you can't deny the biological differences between men and women. Start there and work your way down. Whatever category you fit in the most biologically, then that's what you are. How you "feel" doesn't change that.

Yes, there are biological differences between males and females. That is foundational; therefore, you must necessarily work your way upward and outward from there. Being born a biological male or female only speaks to that very specific classification. It tells you nothing about their mind -- the place where the self is derived, formulated and determined; gender, personality, fears, desires, etc.

[GMDino]

Might as well put this here.

Ethan Schmidt is no stranger to controversy. The alt-right MAGA activist was recently sentenced for harassing employees at a wig store that serves cancer patients.https://t.co/cBz9CMXqc3

— Travis Akers (@travisakers) May 29, 2023

 


Every time.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-12-2023, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: There's a reason that our military budget is astronomical, and that reason is because the US is "expected" to be the protectors of the free world.

(05-13-2023, 08:12 AM)pally Wrote: The reason our military budget is astronomical is that their military dollars provide a windfall to far too many congressional districts and every state.

Defense Spending has generally gone down compared as a % of the GDP over the years. We've been under 4% since 2014 and under 3.5% in 6 of the 7 years from 2015-2021. For comparison in the 60s it averaged about 9% and '60-'90 it only went below 6% ten times and below 5% twice. We are currently only a little above pre-9/11 spending as far as % of GDP goes.


Our military budget is astronomical because our economy is astronomical. 

About 1/4th of the entire US defense budget is spent on just retired personnel, including ~$50b on healthcare.


- - - - 

I fully believe that there's plenty of fat that can be trimmed, there's plenty of waste that can be eliminated, and Europe has gotten FAR too comfortable not spending on protecting themselves because they have us as a shield... but the spending as a % of the GDP has already been going down. 

[GMDino]

I think the right/homophobes are gonna run out of places to eat and shop. 

It’s only a matter of time until they start putting ***** semen in the frosted lemonade at this point. https://t.co/x85C5fubZZ

— Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) May 30, 2023

 

[CJD]

(05-30-2023, 04:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think the right/homophobes are gonna run out of places to eat and shop. 

It’s only a matter of time until they start putting ***** semen in the frosted lemonade at this point. https://t.co/x85C5fubZZ

— Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) May 30, 2023

 

Hey, not fair. The left already called dibs on ineffectively boycotting Chick-Fil-A...

[*Nately120*]

(05-30-2023, 04:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think the right/homophobes are gonna run out of places to eat and shop. 

It’s only a matter of time until they start putting ***** semen in the frosted lemonade at this point. https://t.co/x85C5fubZZ

— Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) May 30, 2023

 

This is all part of the plan to make sure conservatives eat nothing but emergency food from those buckets Jim Bakker sells...er, I mean doesn't sell...gives you for giving him a "love gift" for taxation purposes.  Everything that isn't dehydrated "end times" beef stew is woke.

Actually, you know how Rabbi's do some rigamarole to make stuff kosher?  Maybe evangelical prosperity gospel GOP leaders could do some stuff to make food MAGA psuedo Christians want to eat "WOKE FREE."  I can see it now, for a small "love gift" I'll look at your food and scream "TRUMP WON!  WASHINGTON REDSKINS!!!!  THERE ARE TWO GENDERS!!!" and it'll be unwoke.

[GMDino]

Anyone NOT in the cult knows this was just another Trump grift, but...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/donald-trump-s-pride-merchandise-resurfaces-amid-target-bud-light-backlash/ar-AA1bTiWm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=012c9fd7c23842ff97e357685947b994&ei=31

Quote:[color=var(--neutral-foreground-rest)]Donald Trump's Pride Merchandise Resurfaces Amid Target, Bud Light Backlash
[color=var(--neutral-foreground-rest)]Story by Aleks Phillips • 8h ago[/color]
[/color]


[img]http:://thebengalsboard.com/[/img]
[color=var(--neutral-foreground-rest)][/url][url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/donald-trump-s-pride-merchandise-resurfaces-amid-target-bud-light-backlash/ar-AA1bTiWm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=012c9fd7c23842ff97e357685947b994&ei=31&fullscreen=true#image=1]
A Bud Light sign on a beer store is seen on May 16, 2020 in Monterrey, Mexico (L), former President Donald Trump is seen arriving at Trump Tower on May 29, 2023 in New York City © and ® A sign outside of a Target department store on May 17, 2023 in North Miami Beach, Florida. Alfredo Lopez/James Devaney/Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Conservatives calling for boycotts of brands that express support for the LGBTQ+ community have been accused of hypocrisy after Donald Trump's Pride range of merchandise resurfaced on social media.
In 2020, the former president sold rainbow-colored "Make America Great Again" t-shirts and caps in his campaign store so that people could show their "support for the LGBT community and the 45th president."


Its re-emergence follows backlash against several brands in recent months including Bud Light, which partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, and Target, which came under fire for its LGBTQ+ Pride Month merchandise.[/color]

While experts have said such campaigns provide an opportunity for brands to appeal to consumers in new markets, critics have accused those companies of alienating their traditional customer base. The controversies sit at the heart of a culture war and feed into a broader debate about the acceptance of LGBTQ+ people in public life.

Trump has previously appeared supportive of the LGBTQ+ community, writing in May 2019, on the eve of that year's Pride Month, that he recognized "the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great nation," and urged supporters to "stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."



At the time, his detractors described such support as "cynical," with political commentator Michelangelo Signorile writing for NBC News that his LGBTQ+ merchandise was "monumentally hypocritical and insulting."


On Monday evening, Harry Sisson, a politics student and self-described Democrat, who previously contributed to the Institute for Youth in Policy, tweeted: "Hey Republicans, why didn't you care when Donald Trump sold pride merch?"


"Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites. It was never about the merchandise being sold. It's always been about their blatant homophobia and opposition to the LGBTQ+ community," he added, in a post that as of 10 a.m. ET Tuesday has been viewed nearly 840,000 times.

Newsweek reached out to Trump's campaign via email for comment.


However, many on social media rejected the accusation of hypocrisy, claiming that their issue with the recent advertising campaigns was because they were targeted at children.
1 Month $1


Target's pride range included rainbow-colored children's clothes, a T-shirt with the slogan "trans people will always exist," and a onesie with the words "bien proud" in the colors of the LGBTQ+ flag.
In a statement to Newsweek on May 23, Kayla Castaneda, a spokesperson for the retail giant, said it would be removing certain items from the range that had been the focus of "threats" towards staff. "Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community," she said in the statement.
Specifically, the retailer would review a line of swimsuits marketed for its ability to "tuck" genitalia for transgender women, Reuters reported.

"There's nothing wrong with Trump selling pride merchandise," a Twitter user responded to Sisson. "But did he sell 'tuck-friendly' swimwear for children?"

As the Associated Press has noted in a fact-check, the "tuck-friendly" swimsuits were only sold in adult sizes, and so were not marketed for children.

"MAGA has no problem overall with this," another Twitter user said of the MAGA pride merch. "The outrage is over a completely separate issue targeting children. Thanks for trying."

Yeah it's "All about the children".  Especially the Budweiser boycott. 

Morons.

[GMDino]

They make fools of themselves on a regular basis and it is hillarious!

[Eraserhead]

(05-30-2023, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: They make fools of themselves on a regular basis and it is hillarious!

The whole "protect the children" narrative from the right is about as fake and meaningless as it gets. All the outrage and protesting against transgenders, drag queens, "gay" material in schools and libraries because it's all meant to groom kids and even lead to pedophilia is comical as hell because,,

not a peep from the same people when stories come out EVERY single week about clergy members molesting children. 
not a peep about the Boy Scouts and all the disgusting findings that have come out of the past few years.
not a peep about child beauty pageants that sexualize children in a way that should make people sick.

No protesting these things,, no outrage campaigns,, nothing. They completely ignore real grooming, real exploitation,, real abuse. They enable real abusers by ignoring actual cases and creating fake ones that take away where the focus should be.