(05-02-2023, 06:49 PM)Millhouse Wrote: For example there is a trend among some of these radical wokesters that would call me a transphobic garbage human being because as a straight man/male, I would refuse to have sexual relations with a trans-female because they have male body parts. Its like jeez what the heck lol.
Interesting. So far in my life I've only had people pull that sort of social extortion on me in regards to failing to believing in their religion at my own peril. I assure you if/when someone tells me I need to have sex with a F to M I will treat it with the same "not my cup o' tea, but knock yourself out" response.
(05-02-2023, 06:26 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: In this theoretical world, no I would not be okay with this. I think there would be room to differentiate between "transdisabled" and "disabled" just like we differentiate between "trans people" and "cis people." In the cases you offered, "disabled" people would have higher priority over "transdisabled" people.
Of course, the ideal solution would involve not having a 4 year waiting list to get disabled people the equipment they need to live their lives, "transdisabled" or otherwise.
See, but you just said you accept trans women as women, meaning that you accept transabled people as disabled, so why would they not get the same opportunities as disabled people?
(05-02-2023, 07:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: See, but you just said you accept trans women as women, meaning that you accept transabled people as disabled, so why would they not get the same opportunities as disabled people?
Trans women are women, but they aren't cis women. You're allowed to have subcategories.
(05-02-2023, 08:18 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then what is a woman?
Woman is a categorization made up of a collection of physical, social, outward and inward perceptions, roles and expectations that have, historically, and typically been associated with people of the female sex, but the vast majority of them are not exclusive to those of the female sex.
Long hair, dresses, delicate features, ability to bear children etc.
Not every woman meets every single categorization (in fact that is most likely impossible as many of these items are not explicitly defined but, rather, more contextual) and the majority of these categorizations shift with the culture and time period.
I know what your definition is, so you don't need to reply if that's the only thing you'll say in return.
(05-02-2023, 08:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Woman is a categorization made up of a collection of physical, social, outward and inward perceptions, roles and expectations that have, historically, and typically been associated with people of the female sex, but the vast majority of them are not exclusive to those of the female sex.
Long hair, dresses, delicate features, ability to bear children etc.
Not every woman meets every single categorization (in fact that is most likely impossible as they are not defined by more contextual) and the majority of these categorizations shift with the culture and time period.
I know what your definition is, so you don't need to reply if that's the only thing you'll say in return.
No, I just find your thoughts hilarious.
For all of human history, you could definitively define what a woman is with objective reality but now it's just some subjective thing that anyone can be.
(05-02-2023, 08:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: No, I just find your thoughts hilarious.
For all of human history, you could definitively define what a woman is with objective reality but now it's just some subjective thing that anyone can be.
Language, by its very nature, evolves to better suit the people who use it.
(05-02-2023, 08:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Woman is a categorization made up of a collection of physical, social, outward and inward perceptions, roles and expectations that have, historically, and typically been associated with people of the female sex, but the vast majority of them are not exclusive to those of the female sex.
Long hair, dresses, delicate features, ability to bear children etc.
Not every woman meets every single categorization (in fact that is most likely impossible as they are not defined by more contextual) and the majority of these categorizations shift with the culture and time period.
I know what your definition is, so you don't need to reply if that's the only thing you'll say in return.
Babies, both sexes, wore dresses as infants. Pink and blue didn't represent girls and boys.
Things change.
But people want to be outraged over something they don't like. That has never changed.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-02-2023, 09:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because people are identifying as transabled now, and I'm crippled, so this hits home, like the title of the thread says................
So you weren't bothered by trans people before you created this thread?
(05-02-2023, 09:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Babies, both sexes, wore dresses as infants. Pink and blue didn't represent girls and boys.
Things change.
But people want to be outraged over something they don't like. That has never changed.
Fun history fact - high heels, makeup, and wigs were made for men. Marlboro Reds - cowboy killers as we called them - were originally made for women. Ford Mustangs - the classic man's muscle car - was made for women. There is a well known picture of FDR as a baby in what is clearly a dress; if I recall correctly the dress is also pink (though the photo is in black and white, so that may be hearsay).
Kind of seems to me that men and women have been swapping products throughout history.
(05-02-2023, 09:46 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you weren't bothered by trans people before you created this thread?
Not really. I didn't agree with the whole idea that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man, which this just further pushes it that being trans doesn't make you what you claim to be.
(05-02-2023, 05:45 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Curious, is “don’t let biological males beat up on biological females in sports and don’t cut the bits off of minors” a reasonable stance around here?
A certain group move to pro-the most extreme. Transgender trumps women. It’s insane that anyone thinks biological males competing against women is ok. It’s one of the reasons why being turned off by the Republicans party the last five years leads me to a third party and not even consider Democrats.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-02-2023, 04:41 PM)pally Wrote: It is interesting to note that in your post you only talked about transgendered women. Nothing about transgendered men. I've also noticed it is by far and away it is men who get all twisted up over the subject as well...but only as it concerns transgendered women. It seems to come down to a penis obsession . I mean, seriously, why are people up in arms about transgendered men. And it itsn't "protecting the women" that is now and has always been a line used by controllers not women.
People, even those considered mentally ill, deserve to be treated with respect...that is the viewpoint of the left. Using them as political punching bags is cruel and based on lies by conservatives. Children aren't being "mutilated", drag queens aren't "grooming" children, and transgendered women aren't molesting women in the locker room.
If a person wants to ride around in a wheelchair...whatever floats their boat. If they want resources devoted to the physically disabled, just we have to, they have to show medical proof of said disability.
No it is not just men far and away who get “all twisted up”. You just made that up.
There is one chart toward the bottom that shows men and women.
And as far as protecting women, a lotta women in those lifeboats on the Titanic, and I doubt many of them gave up their seat. Men have a duty to protect women in certain situations where size and strength matter and has nothing to do with controlling them. Me protecting my wife is not controlling her. So please don’t take one aspect and extrapolate it to all of human history. Oddly, when I was looking up some things about transgender people I saw almost those exact words in one article. So weird. Do you look at protecting women’s rights with the same disdain?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
There is one chart toward the bottom that shows men and women.
I don't think this is the correct interpretation of that graphic. These studies are usually very intentional. That graphic isn't reporting the amount of men and women that are "twisted up" or "bothered" by transgenderism, but is reporting the amount of men & women who believe that societies views are either changing too quickly, not quickly enough, or just right.
This study may get closer to what we are looking for. Men (23%) are more likely to have some level of prejudice towards transgender people than women (13%). The amount of men (5%) who described their feelings towards transgender individuals as "disgust" is five times more than women (1%).
Is there any reason to not think someone that has to identify as the opposite sex as a similar issue to needing to identify as blind?
Just one is a lot more crazy seeming at face value. But if feels like the same core principle of one's brain wanting them to be something they are not.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
![[Image: ketanji-brown-jackson_wide-5b7bad1305089...00-c50.jpg]](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/03/17/ketanji-brown-jackson_wide-5b7bad1305089753eb6cb7609f9ac4d127edd580-s1100-c50.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
