Trans women are women.
Trans men are men.
Non-binary people are non-binary.
Now let's see how long this stays civil. 9_9
Okay. I respect your point of view equally.
A promising start! XD
I was trying to ninja this in, but:
1) I'd be curious to know if there are any other trans/non-binary folks here, if anyone's willing to out themselves...
2) I'm also curious how many trans/non-binary folks people here know IRL... well, that you know of.
Also, while I'd be happy to debate anyone who disagrees with the above points, I'm also entirely willing to answer questions, if any. For those who missed the posts that prompted this, I'm non-binary myself, and use they/them pronouns... or owl/owl/owl's, of course. ^_~
Yeah I remember that as well. It was in this thread.
Yup, that was a thing that happened. I mean, I'm capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast when I'm manic, so possibly it isn't that strange that I thought I was a woman? Buuut obviously I wasn't experiencing dysphoria if I was dressing up and posting pics of myself-as-a-woman, so yeah. Kind of weird from my current vantage point. Though, to be clear, not nearly as weird as some of the other shit my brain has done. 9_9
Trying to pinpoint when things shifted back is tricky... my self-perception of my gender was kind of the least of my concerns during that time period. I do recall feeling increasingly unhappy with having long hair after I started to pull out of my post-manic depression. I eventually got it cut again, and felt much more like myself. I also subsequently went through another manic episode without switching genders, so... yeah. Fuck if I know, man.
Definitely for being feminine. I mean, obviously people of any gender can have long hair, buuut it does tend to look more femme. If anything it's more annoying to have to get my hair cut every few weeks, but it's worth it.
Worth noting, long hair on a man is sexy, and I stand by it.
I don't even know where to begin with the. How is it any question that this isn't normal?
Morgan, what are you? Biologically speaking. By biologically (can't believe I have to explain this) I mean based on what genitals you had when you were born.
It's bothering me that it looks like I never answered this, instead of answering snarkily further down the thread when Sicarius got impatient. So: I'm a person. Biologically speaking, a human. And my genitals are none of your business if you aren't going to be interacting with them. Although if you keep reading, you'll probably be able to figure it out.
Edit: Unless you're Mizal, apparently. XD
I'm fine with the entire collection of identity movements, but I am not fine with the grammatically incorrect use of They/Them. You are a singular entity, not a plural one.
"I just got a call from my doctor?"
"What did they say?"
That works well. I'm not going to assume the gender of someone with no evidence, or say "it", so I use "they". We already do it, expanding it to non-binary people is far more logical than making something new that no one can decide on.
Found the TERF!
...not sure how I feel about engaging with a straw(wo)man. I mean, this is TERFy, but I'm pretty sure an actual TERF wouldn't refer to women as a "minority." 9_9
The "OMG male privilege how dare you call yourself a woman" thing is real... which is frankly inane. Even if a trans woman had male privilege pre-transition, she won't afterwards... and regardless, privilege & lack thereof is not actually what defines a woman. There's science to show that trans women have brains more like cis women than cis men, which also negates your last point... there's no absolutely no evidence for (or plausible mechanism for) transracialism.
Pffh, this is weak. The average cockroaches of the site tend to hide their shitty beliefs, your common Temp or Zag hide their evil, anti-Steve beliefs out of cowardice, you need to force them into the light and crush them.
Steve you will address me with I, I'm, I'll, me, my, & mine instead of he, him, you, etc. :)
I'll use someone's pronouns out of respect for them, or common human decency. You don't have the former, don't deserve the latter and can royally fuck off
Lazy owl is lazy. Not that I have any idea what you think I should have posted, but I'm sure it would have taken more effort. Also, the original post stipulated that I just had to state my opinion to generate a 300+ post thread, and I was curious if that was actually true. XD
Burn down the establishment! Gender's bullshit, it doesn't exist! Race clearly doesn't exist, it's a generalization of people with similar characteristics that are passed down that just cuts and hacks out little niches and tries to justify them by biology. Biology doesn't use "race" the same way as we do for human races like black or white.
Uhhh... if gender doesn't exist, why are trans people trans? :P
There's some commonalities with race, insofar as both have layers of societal assumptions overlaying a supposed binary system, which is actually significantly more complex than it appears. But while they both exist, people actually have a self-perception of their gender in a way that they don't for race.
Race only exists in regards to social assumptions that are made, but in regards to practicality, it's unnecessary and means nothing more than "Vague ideas about looks and racist assumptions". It has no biological meaning and is just a way to generalise cultures, thus I'm more than content to decry it. I don't particularly care, but ultimately it's clear that race is bullshit.
The gender not existing is your thing you're supposed to argue to draw the cockroaches out for Steve to crush. I make a point not to argue for things Steve can't argue for.
But I don't actually believe that. And I don't argue for things I don't actually believe.
Pffh, never trust an owl to stir shit up. Fuckers are always just reading books.
I agree with the owl and 1D part completely.
Why would a lesbian decide that her optimal dating strategy was to sprout body hair, bulk up, and have her breasts removed? There's no shortage of women who are attracted to women.
I'm not a unicorn, I'm an owl. Which are definitely not flying otters. Otters have much more of a sense of humor than owls. :P
...you've at least heard of Stonewall, right? Google it. The proto-LGBT community was very much transfemme.
-I'm sorry, was the joke of the first point that socialism doesn't exist? You know, like the socialism in the Nordic countries, or in part in pretty much every country in the world. I mean, I've heard the argument that socialism doesn't work, but that it doesn't happen seems ridicioulous.
-Ha, Endeavour prefers hanging out with gays than straights noted.
Anyhow, fuck all the other points, Steve doesn't give a fuck.
What, like culturally? Uh... I don't know. But socialism is a thing that happens, and it exists.
I believe it exists, I'm just tired of "it wasn't Socialism, because it didn't work".
Do you mean communism? Because it sounds like you mean communism.
All Marxist variations seem to make the claim, though out of the few I've discussed/debated/argued it with, the only one I've committed to memory, is the British twitter account @OfficialSPGB.
The transgender movement is their own, also gives me benefits. If I get caught going into a womens bathroom then I can tell those cis scum to check their privilege.
I don't believe you. As someone who's been using women's bathrooms their entire life, I've literally never seen a guy in one. And I don't expect this to change. You do realize that women pee in stalls rather than being able to just whip it out, right? And if you start trying to peer into occupied stalls instead of using an empty one & moving on, that's going to get you in trouble regardless of your gender.
Oh, this beings into question something I was wondering: what's between your legs, and have you changed it much? Because it's pretty hard to given my current information about you.
That information is available on a need-to-know basis. Since you're not getting into my pants, you don't need to know what's in them. :P
Pffh, lame. Genitals are delightful and thus details about them should always be shared.
Owls are awesome. ^_^
You mean this Monty Python bit?
Transphobia not existing at all? People get beaten and murdered for being trans. That existing is a straightforward fact. Anyhow, it seems incredibly narcissistic that at this point you decide that the march for human rights is finished and a first world problem when only just recently soldiers were faced with being kicked out of the military for being trans. People are discriminated against for it legally, and in some countries if I assault a fucker for being trans, I can identify that as a defender.
If we're going to take the "Fuck it, 1st world problems" on cases of discrimination, assault and endless shit, lets go all the way and explain how Martin Luther King was a whiny nigger for botching about it being too hard to excercise their right to vote when their African cousins starved to death. But, I'll assume you don't think this as in school you were told that mattered, but now that it's you in the position of not having to worry, you wonder why those trannies are getting so uppity.
Preschool aged children are being what? Are you talking about intersex kids being surgically "corrected"? Because as your friendly local SJO, I can assure you that we're not for that. We are, in fact, against it. :P
I think the relevant holiday is the one just passed, honestly... Halloween is a wonderful opportunity for trying on a different gender presentation. I still fondly remember going trick-or-treating with a half-dozen grade school girls, all dressed as witches. I was a wizard, complete with faux beard. ^_^
My actual viewpoint is that I'm not really in favor of genital mutilation and the whole enabling mental illness, however I'm not going to be intolerant and say that they should be this way or the other, it's their body so let them to fuck all with it. That being said there should be a law emplaced that should force those who are transgender to come out to their significant other, because obviously if the other person involved found of for themselves then there would most likely be assault or possibly murder against the transgender as seen in many other cases.
There's also cases of boys or girls being interested in something of the opposite sex in isolated cases yet parents start to openly "inner" sel by buying their children boy clothes if their girls and vice versa when it's fucking obvious that they're children and they don't know what they want yet. There was a barcroft documentary on it and I'll try finding a link.
But anyway that's me, as long as you aren't pushing agendas to harm people then think what you want.
Digit: Banned Until 2227
What would happen if I posted on COG lel
Creation of laws that force trannies to tell people they're trannies is an absurd idea. It's A almost unenforceable, B going to result in just a she said, he said situation, and C against personal liberty. I mean, why not force spouses to tell their significant other if they're having an affair? How about we start forcing them to reveal if they looked at another girl or guy, or forcing them to reveal if they're unsure about being married?
This is why it's absurd that idiots like this have the right to determine governments, and why autocracy is the ultimate path forward under Emperor Steve.
>trans people must disclose
>cis people who learn of trans status will assault/kill
Do you see the problem with this? >_<
And I guarantee that for every non-gender-conforming cis kid whose over-enthusiastic parents push them into opposite-gender clothes, there are hundreds if not thousands of trans kids being forced into opposite-gender clothes. I personally know a woman who lost custody because one of her kids is (probably) trans and she was supportive. Now the kid has to live with a father who's forcing them to conform 100% to their assigned gender. Even if the kid isn't trans, would it be that fucking harmful to let her wear boy's clothes and keep her hair short?
Um. What happened to Digit's follow-up post? o_O
I'm saying before things get intimate or serious that one should come out, when a transgender is assaulted or killed when their lover finds out that they've been deciveded, it's not in their right to do something so heinous as to physically harm the person that could lead to fatal consequences, but to say that you wouldn't see it coming is nonsense. It's like those who have to come out and say that they have HIV, where was that is a larger extreme of this kind of situation, it still garners the same results if the person does not come out. Most transgender people KNOW that their parrtner would probably get pissed if they found out the truth, yet they continue the lie and the consquences are from their own action.
Now about the kids, I have a cousin, his name is Javier. Back when he was about six or five, he used to love Dora the Explora. I mean like really fucking love it where as he would beg for Dora the Explora Merchandise and get into fits when my uncle said no. Fast forward 12 years later and he's still haunted that he would do that, since my uncle had actually taken pictures of some of the fits and bring it up from time to time. Had my uncle enabled his "feminine" desires all because of a stupid kids tv show that most young ones watched back in the day, then things would have turned out much different, in a sense that my uncle and aunt would have "made" him feminine.
Hahah I has copied this somehow
The risk of violence is why (some) trans people don't come out. By (hypothetically) legislating that they must, you'd be forcing them to risk their lives by disclosing to people who may lash out at them, even if they haven't yet had sex.
I feel bad for your cousin. There's no reason why he couldn't have been allowed to have a Dora doll (or whatever), and without being "made" to be feminine. My cousin had a doll as a little boy, and he grew up to be a cis straight dude, and a captain in the Army. Toys don't turn kids trans, or even gender non-conforming. Meanwhile, actual trans/GNC kids are being forced into unwanted gender roles... which isn't going to change them, either.
Deception is Deception, this basically plays into manipulation and the victim card, "He found out I was transgender and hit me, How could this have happened?!!?" My views on such a law are actually hazed, I feel as though a transgender shouldn't exactly be forced to come out to their partner as I said before, but if the partner found out then instead of violence against the Transgender they could instead take legal action against them such as those HIV people who don't come out before hand. That would in a way limit violence against transgenders as they would know they could just take them into court instead of going to jail thrmselvles for assault charges.
Toys don't turn someone trans yes, but manipulation can have a heavy influence, I'm not saying that children shouldn't be able to play expiremement with hobbies from the opposite sex and be restricted only to theirs, but for parents not to take a liking to Dora or a doll as a sign to avidly buy their children toys of the opposite sex and try to in a way transform them as if they're child knows what they want in their life with such a important decision.
Fuck if only I could find this documentary my below statement would have easier explanation.
Well clearly, you agree with manipulation of children. Your cousin wanted to play with Dora toys, your uncle was a piece of shit and restricted him.
I'm not saying that's what I would have done but just gave a example of my uncle and cousin. What I would have done is asked the child why he would want it, and if he gave a good excuse then yes I would buy him a Dora doll. That dosent fucking mean I'm now going to buy him a Dora backpack and a Dora Watch with a Dora dollhouse just because. That would lead to a whole other set of unrelated progems. If he only wants Dora shit then Id say no, if say he wanted Barbie, little pony, and other femiene toys then at that point you would already see what there is to see and just start giving in.
Well no, you said that letting a kid play with Dora toys would've meant your uncle "made" him feminine. It seems you're going back on what you said, and are taking it from "Don't let kids play with girl toys" to "Don't buy a kid a shit ton of girl toys if he likes one girl toy." Then you say if he only wants Dora Shit then you'd say no, because... what? You just said you'd buy him the doll if he gave you a good excuse.
Yeah my mistake I was too broad on my earlier statment about Dora toys. I Said I'd only buy him the Dora doll since his reason for acting feminine would just be from being a cult fanatic of Dora, and I wouldn't buy him any more of that brand because he would most likely regret that shit when he gets older, because everyone knows they were into dumb or weird shit as a child that they cringe looking back on. However if he was into all sorts of different kinds of girls stuff then that means he's probably not going to be Cis when he gets older and at that point just accept it.
I would assume your cousin only regretted it because he had a shitty dad who made him feel bad about it teaching the son that it was bad to like feminine things and brings up their innocent love of a pretty good kids TV show to tease them, or just in the way kids regret enjoying any kids show. Tiny Steve used to watch Dora, Kim Possible, iCarly and all that shit, I don't feel regret about it, and I'll tell you this much, I'm cis as fuck.
Hell, Dora's not even a feminine show, it's about an explorer who teaches Spanish and goes on adventures. The only girly thing about it is that the protagonist is a girl. The fact that there's people who literally think if a show has a girl as the protagonist makes it girly or feminine is the reason we have a generation of faggots who are too much of a little bitch to do or watch things they enjoy because, ugh, girls are bad.
Wait, so you'd actually accept a trans kid as trans? But when they grow up and transition, you want their partners to be able to sue them if they fail to disclose their status? Because I feel like the only plausible reason for that is if you actually think trans people are really their assigned gender -- there shouldn't be any question of a guy feeling "tricked" if a trans woman is in fact a woman, and not a man in absurdly elaborate drag.
I'd support it but no way in hell I'd enable it or pay for the surgery myself. She/He can do it when they're on their own after moving out. I hope my child will value honesty and know the dangerous consequences of deceiving someone especially during sex or if they're far ahead in a relationship. It matters not if its "morally" right to accept someone as the gender they prefer, it matters of them knowing that people can snap and do things that they regret, especially if it's at some drunk frat party or a random stranger from a bar.
So... you'd support it, but fuck it if you're buying that kid girl clothes rather than boy clothes because they're telling you a girl, and fuck enabling it. You're a twat, either accept the trans kid, or have the balls to tell Morgan to fuck off and you're not raising a tranny. Don't tiptoe between two answers like a bitch.
Oh yeah Id buy her girl clothes, by enabling I meant with surgery and those sort of processes, she can make those life changing Decisions herellf, I'm not about to make the decision to cut someone's dick and balls off, they can do that when their a adult.
So in other words, even though your daughter really wants, if not needs this surgery to be comfortable with herself and so she doesn't have to deal with all the shit trans girls who are bad at passing have to, fuck her, that's not your issue, she can deal with trying to get a job while facing endless discrimination?
Not to rain on your parade, but one can transition hormonally without surgery, or even just go on hormone blockers. Parents can absolutely support trans kids in meaningful ways without needing to make the call on surgery.
Which I imagine would fall under "those sort of processes".
If a person isn't patient enough to wait until their a legal adult to make such a extreme life altering decision that pretty much changes who and what they are, then they aren't in the mental capacity to be making such decisions to begin with, I'll apply her at hot topic or forever 21 if she dosent want to face "endless" discrimination.
So at this point, you've went from "If my uncle had let my cousin play with Dora, they'd be feminine" to "I'd wait until my kid's legal to support their sex change."
The main thing for trans girls is access to hormone blockers, which prevent male puberty (as long as they're taken, it's not a one-time deal) and therefore prevent masculinization. If you'd sign off on those, you're an a-okay hypothetical-future-parent in my book. Going on estrogen at 18 obviously makes for a late female puberty, but it's still earlier than most trans women do it.
It's interesting that you consider masculinity so weak and vapid that being allowed play with Dora shit will destroy it, and even stranger that you think for someone to grow up to be masculine you actively need to suppress their desires. It's people like your uncle who enable an entire generation of faggots too pathetic to do what they want.
Oh don't mind me, I simply want to observe if this controversial potential 100+ thread of yours will be entertaining. :)
I'll match your 5 points. I don't think this thread will pass 400 posts.
Edit: Little did I know, I would contribute to your possible success.
I'll give the thread a couple days (End of Saturday) before applying the losses/rewards for the bets. Should be more than enough time.
Bah, stupid glitch shit. I was cleaning up Digit's triple post and some of the argument between him and Morgan got eaten for some reason.
Digit: Trans people should disclose before sex.
Morgan: That could still get them beat up. >_<
Digit: My cousin wanted Dora merch as a kid. If my uncle had let him, he'd have been feminized!
Morgan: My cousin played with dolls as a kid, and he grew up to be a straight cis Army captain. 9_9
There you go, argument restored. XD
Maybe just like... don't try and seduce random people, then. Sex with cis people isn't some divine right, and lying to your partner to get laid is pretty damn immoral
You're right, sex with cis people isn't a divine right. Sometimes you think you're having sex with a cis person, but they're actually trans! ;P
Also, a trans woman presenting as a woman isn't a lie. Want to avoid accidentally having sex with a trans woman? Disclose your transphobe status and ask your date if she's cis. :P
To be clear, I think disclosing is the most ethical path. But I absolutely understand why some people don't... and given that being trans isn't contagious, I think it's far less unethical than having sex without disclosing your STD status.
Wrong on all points. If you're born a man, there is nothing you can do to change that - yes, that includes mutilating your genitalia. If you're born a woman, there is nothing you can do to change that. Facts don't care about your feelings. The freedom to engage in your personal lunacy ends where you try to force others to accept it.
Scientifically, you are correct. (Genetics!) America-wise, prepare to get persecuted and probably physically attacked.
Wrong. There's a reason there's a word "Sex" and a word "Gender". Sexologist (Ooh, why did I decide to study law instead of that?) John Money (Oh, the money, I remember) created gender to explain . As humans, we've evolved the gender roles into entirely new things that don't exist in nature, so gender was created to deal with all the cultural aspects of being masculine or feminine. The word doesn't correlate to sex, which is why there's entire cultures that have a third gender, as they created a new gender identity not based off sex like Boy or Girl is.
You're very correct, Steve. I admit to my mistake. (Nice research)
Is there a reason you took away that "Nice research"? Because you were so close to the perfect reply to my argument.
I actually didn't mean to strike that through. My stupid IPad has a mind of its own sometimes.
Well researched, Steve.
Well then, thank you, and glad to educate.
Are there more than two genders?
No, that's a nationality. Good try though, let me go again. Fa'afafine.
Are you going to answer my question?
The foreplay one? No. The third gender one? Answered twice, dollface, keep up.
So, trannies: Better or worse than bisexuals?
Worse. I have very little problems with either. But when it comes to the point where they're trying to get with me, prepare to knocked flat.
So... you don't fuck bisexuals, and will assault trannies who hit on you?
I won't hit a transgender unless they're physically touching me in a way I definitely would never agree with. I could never sleep with a transgender person. Bisexuals are fine.
Yes. I have no problem with bisexuals.
Significantly worse. Bisexuals are at least consistent with their crap. A tranny could switch genders on you in the middle of sex. I've even heard of some switching when they get stressed out. I mean, what in the actual fuck?
I've explained this many times, but fine, I'll do it again. Stop fucking girls who get stressed out when you try to stick your dick in them, and it won't be an issue you have to deal with it, you rapist fuck.
I've never raped anyone, Steve. Anyway, you never answered any of my questions about foreplay. But I digress. How can you not see how that's not right?
Oh, I'm a man right now. Oop, now I'm a woman. Now I'm nothing. Now I'm both. Now I'm something I just made up. It's all a load of crap.
Oh yeah, and creepily stumbling up to people and asking about foreplay is super rapey, and again, you're not my type, doll.
It wasn't like that, Steve and you're ignoring the question.
Sweetheart, you're not my type, take no for an answer, would you? I get that my rogueish charm has taken you away, but I've a type, and you ain't it.
I’m very disappointed that you didn’t at least humor my questions. I really wanted answers. Again, what does this have to do with anything?
Humor is the quickest way into someone's pants besides your various methods of drawing a gun, and I'm not letting you use it.
Not letting me use humor or a gun? Also, what?
Neither. I'm not going to fuck you, stop trying to find loopholes.
This is getting out of hand.
Yeah, so stop asking about foreplay and fuck off.
I’d say the same to you but you might actually do it.
Either way doll, I'm going to head to bed, and you're not coming with me, so I'll call this an end for the day.
Good night, Steve.
So, I'm deducting that you'd never sleep with a transgender?
Or a cisgender, really. Lad's getting laid about as often as Mizal.
What exactly is a "cisgender"?
Not transgender. Like you or me, I presume.
What if they're gay or bisexual? Does that effect being a cisgender?
If you're comfortable with the gender you were assigned at birth, you're cisgender. You can be cis gay, straight, bi or whatever the fuck, or trans bi, gay, straight or whatever the fuck.
Well I'm cis straight. The cis is kinda pointless though, it would be simpler to just keep the label of gay, straight, bi, or whatever else and leave the trans with the rest.
What if you're trans and gay?
That's where I said leave the trans. Trans gay. Being just gay would mean that you kept your gender, instead of adding the cis.
Well the idea of having a descriptor for one of two options but not the other seems ridiculous. I wouldn't say you need to use cis as a descriptor in most contexts, and it's rarely used to my knowledge in the grand scheme of things, but it's better to have a word to describe something or not. That's why we don't just have "Gay", but also "Straight".
Well that's true. I don't really like to involve myself in such controversial topics anyway, so it doesn't bother me that much. I just have my basic principle. You can be whatever you want around me, but just don't try to force it on me and we're cool.
So in regards to paeodophiles, white supremacists and rapists... as long as it ain't you, right bud?
Technically, none of those things are wrong. Pedophilia is as normal as being attracted to a particular thing. Still illegal if they act on it.
I knew it. Edit lock.
Knew what? What I said is supported by science and law! It can’t be refuted.
What, that none of those things are wrong? Well morality's subjective, so no, it's not. Something not being wrong isn't supported by science, as science has nothing to say on the matter.
Also, I can't stress this enough, rape is illegal, so yeah, by law, rapist's are in trouble.
Completely on accident. I missed that part where you mentioned rapists.
So Danaos is wrong and Steve is right? Who ever thought that would happ... hang on, everyone. Everyone did.
I meant gender-wise. Pedophiles and rapists disgust me. White supremacists are just stupid. I'm white, so I wouldn't really be affected, but I would defend a colored person from a white supremacist, because it's very rude how some of them act.
Have you ever seen Chappelle Show? There's this episode about "the black white supremacist", and it's hilarious. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it,
I have, he's a funny fucker, and noted.
You know what? You're not so bad, Steve. I think you're just very misunderstood due to your love of insulting and arguing.
Don't be a faggot, would you?
Oh, of course not. Just throwing out a compliment.
Technically, it's "a cisgender person" -- cis/trans are adjectives, not nouns.
And one can be cis and also gay/bi, cis/trans is about your actual gender & your assigned gender, not which gender(s) you prefer.
A term made up by deranged people. It means "Comfortable in Skin". Aka "normal".
Stop wearing women's skin, you sick fuck! End this "It puts the lotion on its skin!" shit and fuck off.
...that's not the origin of the term "cis." I mean, I guess it's not that important, as long as you're not claiming it's a slur, but yeah. It's a Latin prefix, not an acronym.
Then what does it mean? That’s the definition I’ve been given by the crazies that buy into the delusion.
I believe the technical definition for the prefix in general is "on the same side as." In this context, the idea is that your assigned gender and the gender you identify as match up.
Look at you, dropping knowledge on these peasants. :)
There's at least one study that shows that trans people's brains are more structurally similar to the gender they identify as, vs. their assigned gender. Shall I find you some links, or are you only interested in facts that match your current beliefs?
I could ask the same of you. I would not doubt that you would reject anything I said in contrary to yours. If anyone here holds the capacity to be beyond reason, it’s you. Also, you never answered my above question.
Alright, go on, find us some facts and links, love.
The love of science and facts vanishes. Fine, I won't push it, because I understand that no means no.
Uh huh. You just framed the debate as "facts" vs. "feelings," then declined to actually address the facts in any way whatsoever.
If Steve isn't getting in my pants, you damn well aren't.
The only one who isn’t facing the facts is you. I asked once and I’ll ask again: what were you born as?
A baby. ^_^
You haven't provided any evidence for your "facts."
Would I need to provide evidence that if you hold a rock in the air and let go it will fall? Use your brain.
You know what I mean, Morgan. The fact that you dance around such a simple question shows how bought in you are to the delusion. Why can’t you answer a simple question?
Are you incapable of using logic to make your case or do you have to let others argue for you?
Yes. I'd go with the theory of gravity, explaining how in practice we've always seen it happen, the reason it will happen, and everything like that. Every statement of fact requires evidence.
I'm sure your beliefs do seem self-evidently factual to you... just as mine do to me. Unlike you, I've actually offered to provide links to studies that back me up. As far as I can tell, you've got nothing but your certainty, aka, feelings.
I'm non-binary. And the only reason someone like you wants to know what I 'am,' is so you can label me a 'man' or a 'woman.' Since you'd be incorrect in either case, I see no reason to assist you in making that choice.
Nope, I just know how this goes with you people and it's a waste of energy. You provide your links, I take the time to read and consider them, I provide my own (and take the step to actually include it in my response versus simply regurgitating shit like a troglodyte with a book), then you proceed to not consider anything I've presented and Steve jumps in to talk about fucking me in the ass. I'm too civil to engage in a pissing contest in a discussion I'm trying to take seriously and this is how these discussions typically go when debating with people on the left (minus Steve wanting my ass).
Wrong. You don't know my intentions. I'm actually trying to put something together and understand something and that's how I'm leading it. You're not letting the discussion move forward because you're being stubborn. Again, it's a simple question. Don't act like you're open for discussion when you're clearly not looking for that.
So you're not going to look at my evidence, and you're not going to provide any evidence of your own, but I'm the one not letting the discussion move forward, because I'm not interested in discussing my genitals? 9_9
That said, I am curious where you're going with this, if I'm actually wrong about your intentions and you're not going to instantly slap a binary label on me. So: I'm AFAB. Which, if you're not familiar with the term, means that the doctor looked at my genitals and checked the box marked 'F.'
Let's see what you put together. I'll be surprised if you don't immediately misgender me, but I'd be pleased to be wrong.
Please point out when I said I wouldn't look at your evidence. You offered and added that I only look for confirmation bias to which I pretty much said that's not true. I'm more than willing to look at any evidence but why bother doing such with someone that won't follow suit? I've rightfully come to expect that from you people (leftists).
AFAB? Why is that even a thing, first off? You can't be assigned a sex, it's what you’re born as. Unless your also challenging that as well. I thought we were going to discuss gender. Is female not different from woman or are you now saying you’re not a female either? There would be much less confusion if people like you didn’t throw these terms around and use them interchangeably to the point that members in your own community don’t even know what’s what.
Well, that's the impression I got from your first paragraph... "it's a waste of energy." You weren't going to look at anything I provided, because you were assuming that I wouldn't give due consideration to anything you provided in turn... and while I'd have offered for you to go first, Steve already asked you for links, and you refused.
AFAB/AMAB are the preferred terms at this point. I believe they originated with intersex people, who have to be 'assigned' to either 'M' or 'F' despite ambiguous genitalia. That resonated with trans people, who get stuck in gendered boxes based on that initial assessment by a doctor. Also, while male/female technically refer to sex rather than gender, people do tend to conflate them.
That said, I don't personally object to "female," if we're clear that it doesn't automatically imply "woman."
Anyway, there are probably a few studies that show the contrary. I’m aware of the people that have shit wrong with their brains, but it still doesn’t make it normal or something that society should accept. I’m sure if you checked the brain of someone with other mental illnesses (can’t remember the specific illness) you’d find that they really believe the nonsense they spew. But does that mean we should tell them they’re right and that the toaster really is talking to them? No. That would be cruel.
Eh, probably, right? Fuck facts, I like assumptions, bitches.
Due to the nature of gender, as it is social, I can agree with the first two statements.
I don't know how I feel about non-binary people, however. They're people who feel, or wish to be recognized as neither male or female, correct?
Pretty much! Personally, my assumption is that whatever process makes binary trans folk trans, happens only partially in non-binary people.
(I also think gender has some significant biological components, rather than being purely social.)
>(I also think gender has some significant biological components rather than being purely social.)
Definitely! but from what I understand, it serves as a social marker.
I like how Steve has painted you as some evil LGBT basher in two threads now, and your first interaction with Morgan is completely civilized. Lol.
(Yes, yes, I know. Zag is obviously still hiding his evil ways)
I think Steve just likes to slander outwardly religious people. I'm pretty sure Morgan and I have interacted in the past, however.
You can't slander someone through a text-based forum, you twat. Anyhow, I don't slander you, at best and I mock and deride you because of your evil beliefs, the same way I would a Stalinist. Ultimately, the amount of cultural acceptance for a Stalinist is far lower than a Prod, but both ideologies are ultimately fucked up beyond measure. Hell, they both tortured those who didn't back their rule, both authoritarian, and to my knowledge, both are fronts for Reptilians.
I'd have to say that you're incorrect. To slander someone is to make false and damaging statements to their reputation, or to speak falsely and maliciously.
You have been slandering me through a text-based forum, making false claims about my religion, and my disposition.
Incorrect. Slander is verbal. I've said nothing, so I couldn't have slandered you. In regards to false claims, I'm not sure what false claims I made about your religion, so please explain them. And if you have time, what's the false claims I made about you?
I would like you to expand your claim that my religion is evil.
Oh, I saw that. I just hoped he could expand that thought.
Well if you want me to be completely factual, I can't prove your religion is evil, as evil is subjective. Your religion is evil in the same way the Nazis are evil. Subjectively. I find that the idea that it everyone in the world should be tortured because they deserve it to be one of the most evil ideas there's ever been.
At least with Nazis, I can find there's a degree of ignorance there, as if you hang around only whites, you can think blacks deserve to be killed (which isn't even as bad as tortured infinitely) by assuming they're shitty people without ever getting to know them. Christians can't really pull that card.
Okay, I see where you are coming from. But I don't believe that people should be tortured. Jesus and the salvation that he offers is a thong for a reason. God wants all of his children to return to him.
Well that's ridiculous, because A. You've said before you believed everyone, including your mother, was deserving of hell, and B. Then you're disagreeing with a core tenant of Christianity. God sends (or allows people to go, whatever) to Hell because they deserve it, and it's only through his mercy and putting off of justice that he saves us. If you don't believe people deserve to be tortured, you have to admit God is evil for creating a place that people go to to be tortured.
God created Hell for Satan and his demons, never for humans. Just because people deserve Hell, does not mean that they should.
A. God knew that humans would go to hell when he created it, he didn't change that system.
B. The question of why God created a place to torture the angels he created still stands.
C. So yeah, in confirmation, Christianity is evil for being an ideology that says that everyone deserves to be tortured forever. I find that any ideology that leads to people who believe that their friends, family and loved ones deserve to be tortured is incredibly evil.
Okay, but it's not like we want them to be tortured. Christians should share their faith with everyone they know, seeking deep relationships with those around them, as Jesus says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20).
Well you've skipped A and B, so I'll assume you're giving me those, but in regards to everything else, so? You still think my close friends, my family and my loved ones deserve to be tortured. I'm supposed to find decency in that you're offering a way out?
"Hi there, Sir, we think you, your children and your wife all deserve to be burnt alive, have the fire extuinguished, allow you to heal and burn you again, but we won't if you join us."
Yeah, any ideology that says my loved ones, all good, decent people, are so despicable that they deserve torture is an evil ideology, and one of the first I've literally ever heard of.
Assuming isn't the best idea, Steve. God created humans and angels with free will, as God wishes to have a relationship with his creation, moreso humans. God, being infinite, knew that they had the propensity to obey and to disobey.
There are consequences for people's actions, Steve. God is willing to overlook sins if we accept his salvation. Sin is defined in the bible, and that it leads to death.
Yes, humans do not deserve God's forgiveness, but is offered anyway. Can you say that forgiveness is evil?
1. Well as before, the question of free will doesn't stand, as God created Lucifer with pride that he knew would lead to him betraying him, and then punished him for that pride God imbued in him. So no free will there.
2. I don't care if God's willing to forgive me. And again, any ideology that says my loved ones who are all decent, loving people deserves to be tortured is evil, even if that ideology's leader is willing to forgive them.
3. Sometimes, yeah. The idea that Hitler, or countless child molestors and pedophiles, can be forgiven without any punishment whatsoever in the afterlife while Gandhi is tortured is definitely terrible. But you know, even that I could forgive (Ha, Irony), it's again the belief that all the good people in the world deserve torture that I find so despicable.
1. Do you have any scriptural basis for this claim?
2-3. You have already said that good is subjective, and in Christianity good is based off of God's standard and his commands. By his standard, humans are not good. "Why do you call me good? No one is good--except God alone" (Mark 10:18).
1. Well, A. God created Lucifer the way he was. B. Lucifer was overly prideful, either from creation, or grew prideful because of the way he was, which is why angels like Gabriel didn't turn. C. Lucifer's pride led to his attempt to usurp God. D. This got him sent to hell. Which of those do you disagree with?
2. Well yeah, but Nazism is good by Nazi's standards. I know in my heart that my loved ones don't deserve to be tortured, and your ideology says that they do, which is what makes it so despicable.
1. Satan is not in hell, he roams the earth and is the source of all evil. Yes, Lucifer was created as an angel, a beautiful and glorious being, and seeing his own splendor, became prideful. This did lead him to rebel against God.
2. Okay, cool. You think Christianity is evil because it states that we are sinners, and either we repent and accept God's forgiveness, or suffer the set consequences.
You also realize that this is the same ideology that commands its followers to forgive those who wrong them, love people who hate them, to be patient, kind, humble, not envious, selfless, not easily angered, and to keep no record of wrong. It has its followers to care for orphans and widows, all in all those in need.
Does that sound evil to you, Steve?
Might be worth making a new thread for this, if it's an argument you actually want to have.
Naw, I'm pretty much done. Steve's opinion doesn't matter to me when it comes down to it.
1. Huh, interesting. Well I suppose the question goes from "Why did God create a creature he made with the traits to send it to hell?" to "Why did God create Lucifer with such vanity that seeing himself would make him prideful?" Because Gabriel saw his own splendor, he didn't become prideful. Those, there must've been a difference between the two, either in the soul (consciousness, spirit, whatever) that God forged and thus would be responsible, or... no, that's the only explanation.
2. Well of sorts. I'd agree we're all "sinners" for lack of a better word, and we should strive to "repent" for that through kindness. Unfortunately, I think anyone who tortures Gandhi, or allows him to be tortured, or worships someone doing the former two, is pretty evil. I knew an old Buddhist at my Chinese restaurant, a lovely, kind old man who was a sinner, because yes, he swore, he no doubt told lies in his life, and did a few immoral things. But he was a lovely man.
If you're telling me you worship someone who let this kindly old saint be tortured for eternity, yeah, you're evil. If you're content that your God doesn't stop that but will let a child molestor get off without the slightest punishment because tomato, tomato, you're evil. I don't care how not angry you are, or not envious you are, or non-grudge holding. You may be very polite, but still evil.
1. So you're saying because God didn't make us all robots, it's his fault that we sin?
2. Being good does not wash away sin. It is the sin in our lives that becomes our downfall. It seems that at least this argument has come to end, as you uphold your claim that Christianity is evil. I'm sad for you, but the choice to accept God's word is all up to you.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight" (Isaiah 5:20-21)
Oh no, it's totally fine. This is a public forum, I have no problem with people hopping in on a discussion.
There's a few things you're talking about but I'll respond to the one that stands out to me:
>Yes it is his fault.
In a way, yes. God gave us free will; he wants to have a relationship with us. God gave humans free will in the hopes that we will choose to love him.
Well, since you said people could jump in...
So, you've got an omnipotent being. He makes humans with free will, hoping they'll choose to love him... and when they fail to do so, he makes them suffer for all eternity.
That is blatantly evil. He's causing the eternal suffering of billions of people, and for what? What could possibly justify that?
Edit: I should probably take my own advice about starting a new thread, if you actually want to debate this.
Do you want to discuss this? End told me via pm try to keep it in one thread, it's easier to keep track of.
Really? Did he realize that there was a complete change of subject involved? 'God is evil' is a statement that is 100% unrelated to gender. Regardless, End didn't say anything to me, and I'd start the thread. Unless you want to make a thread to tell everyone that they're going to hell if they don't repent. But you don't seem like the type.
As for whether I want to discuss this... well, I do strongly believe that the God that you believe in, if he actually existed, would be evil. I could elaborate on this at length, with much the same satisfaction as punching a punching bag. On the other hand, unlike the punching bag, you're an actual person with actual feelings. If you want to throw down, I'd certainly enjoy having the chance to practice my 'verbal judo.' But not everyone enjoys that kind of thing, even though almost everyone feels compelled to defend their beliefs when they're attacked. So, yeah... totally up to you.
Yes, End is aware of the subject change, and haha no I don't believe in telling people that they will go to hell for what they do. That's really not what Christians are supposed to do.
"If i speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).
Actually, the subject is less of a case of gender, religion, etc. and more of an all purpose bitching trainwreck thread now.
In fact, I’ll just change the title so it fits better.
(Yes, yes, I know. 9_9)
Still, if someone REALLY feels the need to go make a new thread to bitch in, well it wouldn’t be the first time.
Absent a clear affirmative, I will refrain from attacking your beliefs.
I mean, if you want to, go ahead.
You're not going to hurt my feelings.
Form what I understand you're saying sin feels good, which it does. But sin is not good. It goes against God's law, and it hurts us and those around us. Sin eventually leads to death. That doesn't feel good.
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things that you are now ashamed? Those things result in death! But now you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and result it eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our lord" (Romans 6:20-23)
You're incorrect in saying
>"you've got free will; just remember, if you sin, you'll burn in hell for all eternity"
God does not want anyone to feel the flames of hell. He created Hell for Satan and his demons, not for humans. It is our sin that drags us down to the same level as Satan. God offers us salvation, as opposed to damnation.
It seems your knowledge of Christianity is very limited and short sighted. I encourage you to read the Bible for yourself, whenever possible. I'd start with the book of John.
EDIT: Also I forgot to respond to your whole thing on some people are taught to do bad things.
God does not just judge our actions, but our hearts and thoughts.
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:12-13)
Is incest even a Biblical sin? I mean, Adam and Eve's kids no doubt had to fuck Eve, Lot was raped by his two daughters and they weren't punished IIRC, and Noah and his lot had to bang the shit out of each other to reproduce. I know there's a few rules on what incest you can't do, but the Bible seems fairly pro-incest.
Well unless I missed something with Zag's list, technically he didn't say anything about Father-daughters but I imagine that falls under “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord."
Boring cousins are still up for grabs though.
But yeah, Old Testament people had a good thing going there for awhile.
Steve, I'd encourage you to read more of the bible.
Yes, incest occurred in the early days of humanity. They did this because they literally had to, and back then humans were much more genetically sound. People literally lived into their hundreds, with the oldest (a man named Methuselah) living up to 969 years of age.
Now, incest causes genetic defects, and is immoral. Literally two books after Genesis is Leviticus, which has twelve verses in succession that state that incest is immoral:
“‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
“‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
“‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
“‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter.Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
Edit: forgot to add the source of the citation: (Levitcus 18:6-17)
I've read loads of the Bible, but all that comes from the Old Testament, which Christians tend to do away with a lot of, like the mixed fabrics thing. Jesus didn't seem to talk about it much, and I've heard it commonly said that Jesus did away with the old rules, except those that he re-stated or re-stated a general idea on. Then again, he can be quoted as saying otherwise, so if you're living by all the old rules (I'm just going to tell you, you're not) I guess you're good to condemn incest. I mean, I don't care which interpretation you're going with, but if you're wearing polyester, it seems incest is about as fair game.
Oh, and incest doesn't necessarily cause genetic defects. If someone's barren, no genetic defects, and thus, there's no real issue with it in regards to your moral justification. It seems to be no worse than when Cain and Abel banged their mum, which I guess was cool.
"By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)
With the salvation Christ offers, he fulfills the old covenant, and brings about a new one. All technical laws like sacrifices, what to wear and eat, and even the harsh judicial manner sin was dealt with have passed away. However, moral laws still stand. Incest is still sin.
"It is actually reported that there is a kind of sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: a man is sleeping with his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you have gone into mourning and put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?" (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
Taking your father's wife is adultery. That's against the commandments, so of course it doesn't fly. It says nothing of an unmarried family member. By what standards do you decide the difference between moral laws and technical laws, other than personal opinion and regard to secular morality? Further down than the bit about mixed fabrics it's stated that if you rape a virgin you must marry her. That seems far more a moral law than a technical one. Shall that one stand?
1. Did God make Gabriel a robot? Creating a creature so that it doesn't become vain and try to overthrow you isn't creating a robot. When a father raises his son, he doesn't create a robot, but he'll try his hardest to make sure the son doesn't become evil, or vain, or whatever.
God knew that Lucifer would betray him, yet he created Lucifer anyway, with the exact features that would make Lucifer betray him. Lucifer had no free will. God DID create a robot, this one just played the part of the villain.
2. Well, you think that, yeah, and that's one of the things that is evil, the idea that if you tell a few lies in your life, all your good deeds are nothing. That seems to be a core difference between your ideology and my disgust.. You're happy serving a being that sentenced a harmless, kind, generous man to eternal torture because he's messed up a few times in life, and happened to be born a Buddhist, and I think that's evil, and he should've been forgiven for his mistakes even though he's a Buddhist. You might be sad for me, but I'm horrified there's no one in your life you love more than an imaginary, genocidal maniac, and that you don't love anyone on this planet enough to think they don't deserve to be tortured.
1. God gives us free will, because he delights in when we choose to do what is right, and when we choose to love him. Sin cannot exist without free will. Animals do not sin, because they literally do not know right from wrong. They live by instinct. God created humans and angels with intelligent minds, and they have the knowledge of right and wrong.
2. What do you think salvation is? To know what people deserve and loving them are two different things.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20)
God commands us to save his children, because he loves them. Because I, as a Christian, and as a fellow human is supposed to love them. Yes, humans deserve eternal torture, but that does not have to be their sentence. They can choose to love God, to serve him, and gain eternal life.
I love you Steve, and God loves you more. Hell does not have to be your final destination.
1. Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, as they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so how did they sin? Anyway, no, Lucifer didn't have free will, as before God created him, God knew that he'd rebel, and God created him with the characteristics or potential for charcteristics to rebel, so God knew Lucifer was going to rebel before he did. Lucifer had no choice. Anyhow, even again, God creates people with differing minds. Some people are born psychopaths, some are born in situations far more likely to result in sin or not being saved, such as a Muslim in Syria, so it doesn't seem like a level playing field. God could've created Lucifer to be more like Gabriel, so they'd both have free will, but neither would've sinned, but he didn't.
So yeah, free will doesn't exist, Adam and Eve couldn't have sinned, and if free will did exist, it'd be unfair for God to Judge us.
2. Well no, Buddhist Old Man is dead. So he has no salvation, and God didn't love him enough to give him a miracle to convince him in his life. God didn't forgive Buddhist Old Man, and didn't save him, condemn him to eternal torture for a few meager sins and a lifetime of love. God's now willing to allow him to suffer forever, and you're content to continue worshipping the God that does so. That isn't love, that's at best an abusive spouse who says "Follow me and receive love, don't believe in me or worship me and I'll leave you to the torment I designed." So perhaps that's worse then what I previously said, not only saying people are deserving of eternal punishment, an evil so great it disgusts me to my core, but visiting such a fate on the truly loving, caring people of the world.
You don't love me enough to think I deserve a fate kinder than torture. You don't love anyone in the world that much, except an imaginary being who has condemned the vast majority of mankind to an eternity of torture, and for that, I can only feel disgust and pity for someone like you.
1. Sin exists in lawlessness, which is disobedience. Adam and Eve disobeyed God; Lucifer disobeyed God. How can someone disobey, if they don't have free will? They can't If God made Lucifer to disobey him, which he didn't, he would have been without free will, and it wouldn't have been sin. But, that's not the case.
I'm going to repeat to you what I said to Mayana and then some:
People who do not know the word will not be judged as if they did.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).
"The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much more will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked" (Luke 12:47-48).
2. As for the Buddhist Old Man, refer to the scriptures in (1).
Say a man murders my friend. I know that he deserves to go to prison for what he has done, but instead forgive him and offer to pay his bail. Is it wrong to know that he deserves to go to prison?
1. I would imagine they can't disobey. Clearly, right before God made Lucifer, he knew he was about to create an angel that would betray him. So he must've planned it, right? He must've knew if he created Lucifer in that way, this would happen. But he did it anyway. So which prat of that do you disagree with? A. God knows he's about to create Lucifer who will rebel. B. God creates Lucifer anyway, knowing he's going to rebel. C. Lucifer rebels, just as God knew would happen. At all points in that, it seems that Lucifer did exactly what could knew he would, and God created a creature that he knew would do this. So God planned out Lucifer's rise and fall, and made him. No free will there.
Our hearts and thoughts, which for a man growing up in South America 1000 AD, means he's pretty much screwed as Christianity isn't around, so he's damned from the start. He doesn't have a chance. Or a Muslim in a country where he's heard of Christianity, but he believes as firmly in his beliefs as you for the exact same reason. Although, perhaps he's the one who's right and you'll be the one to suffer. Unless you're one of those modern Christians who thinks if you never even heard of Christianity you weren't going to hell, in which case, I'd say the spread of your movements would've literally been the first thing to befall man this side of when God drowned babies and puppies, if it were true.
2. See, I notice you keep scampering back to the "forgiveness" angle, but that doesn't exactly apply to Buddhist Old Man. So he doesn't get God's forgiveness, so God's just torturing him infinitely despite claiming to love him. So no, your religion offers no forgiveness or love to him, and simply asks that I stop caring about someone I cared about, or just live with the fact he's being tortured right now, even though he was a good, lovely man. The worship of that being, who is torturing Buddhist Old Man for eternity despite him being a sweetheart, who doesn't forgive or love him enough to save him, is what I call evil. Anyone who can be indifferent to another creature's suffering and still server the torturer is no better than a guard in a Nazi Concentration camp who says "he thinks this is what's best for the Jews".
If you want to pay the man's bail, it might be wrong, depending on what happened. If he's a sex-crazed killer, maybe he shouldn't be on the streets. If he's an ultimately good man who did the wrong thing in an accident, I don't think he deserves a life in prison. But if the murderer gets out, and doesn't believe you paid the bail because he doesn't understand how the legal system works and refuses to believe you, what happens then? How do you react to that?
1. "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and future" (Jeremiah 29:11).
God does not plan for people to go to hell. He plans their prosperity, and his plans are good. God is an infinite God. He knows that we may sin, but always gives us a way out, "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it" (1 Corinthians 10:13). God does not want anyone to sin, but instead wants us to choose to love him. God gives us free will.
Steve, I encourage you to read more of the Bible. A lot of your questions would be answered if you had more knowledge of the word. As to answer your question, yes the man is South America during 1000 AD isn't as screwed as you think, "For Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous and unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits -- to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people eight in all, were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:18-20)
2. God offers everyone salvation, Steve. Who knows how God tried to reach Buddhist Old Man. Also, no one is in Heaven or Hell until judgment day.
That's the thing you have to understand Steve, no one is good.
"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles are all alike under the power of sin. As it is written:
‘There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good not even one.’
‘Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.’
‘The poison of vipers is on their lips.’
‘Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.’
‘Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
And the way of peace they do not know.’
‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight in the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Romans 3:9-20)
Yeah, that analogy only goes so far. Remember Steve, there is a process to salvation. One must hear the word, believe in it, confess their sins, be baptized, and then persevere in the faith. You have to fully accept God’s offering by ultimately living your life for him.
1. So, did God plan for Lucifer's prosperity? Either he didn't, in which case free will doesn't exist and he is an evil God, or he did, in which case he didn't know that Lucifer was going to betray him, and he's a foolish God who is far from all-knowing. So please tell me, is God evil and planned Lucifer's downfall when he created him, or is he not omniscient?
I've read most of the Bible, actually, which I continuously tell you, but you don't seem to hear. Anyhow, I don't see exactly how the quote deals with the issue of the man in South America in the slightest, so that's neither here nor there. Feel free to expand on your interpretation of the words, if you want, although I doubt the answer will be satisfying.
2. See, I'm well aware you believe that no one is good. Perhaps that's where you and I differ, but that is at the root of why I your religion is evil. You don't find anyone to be good, and I find that notion horrifying. At that point, I'm forced to assume one of two things. Either you truly believe the words of your book, and you find all your friends, family, loved ones, to not be good, deserving of hellfire. If that's the case, you truly are one of the most sociopathic individuals I've ever met, and to tell me you're capable of love for any human being would diminish the concept. What I'm almost sure is the case is that you don't, that you really do know your loved ones are good people, that you know they don't deserve torture, but it's the idea that you were brainwashed into following at a young age and you pay lip service, even truly believing you hold those principles, but really being the same as any normal person.
There being a process for salvation is of little regard to me. When a God designs a species as flawed as man and then condemns tens of billions of people, the vast majority of mankind, to death and hellfire and ever-lasting torture, condemning endless loving, caring people, the fact that he's willing to give an escape route to a scant few, not based on how good or moral or decent they are, but whether or not they happened to believe in him rather than be raised in another church or hold a higher requirement for evidence, that's evil. You can continuously tell me about that salvation thing as if it matters, and perhaps you think it should because you've been taught it makes God OK and haven't really grasped the full meaning of it all, but it's not changing the fact that a God who allows for the torture of moral people, of his own children who he loves, is evil. For standing by him, you are either evil, or more likely, simply far too ignorant and brainwashed to understand the positions you speak.
I notice you don't answer what you'd do with the killer and paying his bail. I'd quite like an answer there, if you wouldn't mind. It seems quite essential to seeing whether you're as narcisstic as your god is demanding worship before you forgive someone.
I'd also like to point out that if God is omnibenevolent, why would he create a mechanism for forgiveness that demanded human sacrifice? Why not just offer forgiveness and salvation to people without murdering and zombifying his son?
If God is omniscient, he already knows who will accept salvation from the moment they are created. This means he's intentionally creating people he knows without a doubt would be sent to Hell to be tortured and punished for all eternity. What kind of maniac brings someone into existence knowing that the vast majority of their existence will be spent in unimaginable and infinite torment?
Perhaps I'm getting him confused with someone else, I can never differentiate Zag from whoever the fuck. If so, point rescinded and apologies. If not, fuck him, he's just one of the non-argumentative cockroaches I referred to earlier, so him being civil would be expected due to his cowardly hiding from conflict while continuing to perpetuate cancerosu beliefs.
EDIT: Looking back, I only have confirmation Temp was anti-gay, thus, I'm forced to withold my hatred until my thoughts can be confirmed.
Apology accepted, Steve.
I do my best to be non-argumentative, as one of the first bible scriptures I memorized was, "Do everything without arguing and complaining" (Philippians 2:14).
Well unfortunately, it seems I was right, as yeah, you're against homosexuality, so no apology to be had.
Yes, I do not believe in homosexuality, but homophobia is defined as "having or showing an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".
Yeah, you've an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality, to the point where you refuse to belief it exists.
Can you provide cases in which I demonstrate these traits?
You just admitted you don't believe homosexuality exists. That itself shows a strong aversion to homosexuality to the point you deny its existence. If you're asking why that's irrational I can elaborate, but otherwise, yeah, that's homophobia.
I think you misunderstand. I do not believe in homosexuality in the sense that I do not agree with it. It is apparent that people of the same sex have sexual relations with one another. God says that it is sin, so it must be an actual attainable action.
OK, that still works, you have such an aversion to it that you find that it's an immoral action.
Is finding something to be immoral an extreme aversion? Is that irrational? Is it an extreme notion to believe that stealing is immoral?
Is it an extreme aversion? Yes, if you're saying that all stealing is immoral. Is it irrational? No, finding something immoral is not necessarily irrational, but I've already told you I can explain why.
Alright, I have an aversion towards homosexuality. But, I do not have an aversion towards homosexuals. If I do not have an aversion to homosexuals, then I cannot be homophobic.
Similarly, you consider them all sinners for partaking in homosexuality.
EDIT: Also, to my knowledge, the definition is "Homosexuality OR homosexuals", not "and", although you're homophobic by both.
EDIT TO THE EDIT: Yeah, Mirriam-Webster says or, as does Wikipedia. So you've admitted to being a homophobe. Noice.
I still do not understand how your claim is valid. Can you explain how seeing an action as immoral is extreme?
Bullshit. You just admitted to having an aversion to homophobia, now you're backpedalling because you don't like the label of homophobia.
I don't understand how believing people shouldn't partake in something is extreme.
Well you already admitted you did, so now you're just lying to protect yourself. I have the quotes, your opinion on the word "aversion" only changes when you realize the one we were both happy with would make you transphobic, which shows just how dishonest you're being.
Not that it matters. If I think that breastfeeding your kids is immoral and people shouldn't partake in it, I have an extreme aversion towards breastfeeding. That's obvious.
Okay then, I guess I'm homophobic due to my aversion to homosexuality. But let it be known Steve, this doesn't mean that I hate LGBTQ people.
I never said so. I just said you were homophobic, which now that you're admitting, is satisfying.
Well then, I guess in my case it's okay to be homophobic.
Well no, I've explained why you're a shit head for being anti-homosexuality, and will happily do so again. You're just personally content with your own homophobia, which I'd dare to say almost every homophobe be it the Putinist attack dogs or the Western Baptist Church is.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's all. I have no problem with homosexual people, aside from the fact that I would encourage them to stop sinning.
I am called to be love all people, Steve. I am in no position to judge anyone, but instead correct and teach. Yes, I am content with my homophobia, because it is not hateful or disrespectful.
Yeah, it's definitely disrespectful. "You know the way you're married and raising a kid with the person you love? Please, I'd encourage you to stop doing that, because I've a book that said to stone you for it, so I'll ask you to stop."
Two of the instructors from my dojo are married, with an adorable toddler. They're both wonderful, kind, caring people. It may not be hateful to say that they should 'stop sinning,' but I do think it's disrespectful.
Also, the idea that their relationship is wrong because they're both women is just another strike against the Christian God, as far as I'm concerned. 'Homosexuality is a sin,' but it's only a sin because God said it was a sin. Why would he define it as a sin, make it so some people were orientationally homosexual, and then condemn people who act on their orientation... even though their relationships are good and loving?
Why are you responding to me? Are you mistakenly trying to argue with me, or is this you backing me up in this argument?
Does it sound like I'm arguing with you? In retrospect it would've made more sense to respond to the post immediately before yours. I blame the sleep deprivation. :P
It doesn't sound like you're arguing with the points I made, but the fact you've brought up an additional point of God being wrong for declaring gayness sinning would make me think it was like adding an additional point in an argument rather than the stranger "Just telling me this extra point." Whatever, though, nevermind.
There's a way to speak to people, and the one you illustrated is incorrect. That's definitely not loving, and a pretty inappropriate way to deal with a situation like that. I'd work on getting to know the person first and building a relationship before teaching and correcting. Especially if that person isn't very open to Christianity.
See, there's your issue. The presumption that you know better and they're misguided, and you're "correcting" their sinful behaviour that is marrying someone they love and explaining to them they shouldn't be raising the child they love so dearly as a lesbian couple is incredibly disrespectful. Please, if you knew me well and were trying to explain why I shouldn't be gay when I have a partner and child, explain how you'd try tell that person that the core of their life is immoral because you have an old book they don't necessarily believe in.
You literally can't, if they don't see the Bible as what they should base their lives on.
So you wouldn't bother to encourage them to stop sinning? You wouldn't even try save them from an eternity of pain and torment?
Sounds cruel and callous, there doesn't seem to be much love there. Whatever, seems like a fairly average position for someone like you.
Haha, I definitely would try to, but building relationships comes first.
Makes me laugh to see how quickly you change your position from 'that's disrespectful' to 'that's not loving'. I think this argument is pretty much over. Sure, I'm homophobic because I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that's okay with me, and literally every homosexual friend I have.
I didn't change my position in the slightest. It's still super disrespectful, but respect is more minor in the grand scheme of things. A willingness to leave someone be tortured is far worse, which is what I've switched focus to. Not that they're both terrible. I don't know how your homosexual friends can stay friends with someone who thinks the homosexual part of their lives is evil and doesn't fully accept them, who also, I'd assume, doesn't believe them when they say they're born gay and thinks they're just choosing it. although perhaps you do believe they were born that way, which would be fascinating as it'd raise a shit ton more holes in your position than it closes.
In regards to the homophobic portion where we've been arguing, it's been over for a while, but it hasn't exactly left you in the best position. You're an open homophobe who seems to think you can't convince Atheist lesbians but that you'd definitely try to. You don't hate gays, but you're so incredibly disrespectful that you presume you know better than all gay people about their gayness and you can tell loving couples and families that they're committing great evil by loving each other.
But really, no homophobe ever knows they're terrible, so I didn't expect progress there. I just wanted you to at least acknowledge that you are one, which in this line of conversation, I have taken the cake with, and don't have to apologize you for any libelous insults earlier when this whole thing started.
>but you're so incredibly disrespectful that you presume you know better than all gay people about their gayness and you can tell loving couples and families that they're committing great evil by loving each other.
Actually, I haven't really met any homosexual families, and the couples I did know disbanded on their own. Love is not the problem, Steve. It's homosexuality. You make me out to be something I am not. I am called to instruct and teach, but that comes in due time.
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
"Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous, be strong. Do everything in love" (1 Corinthians 16:13-14).
"Would" instead of "Can", I suppose, and the point stands. The problem is homosexuality, but that includes homosexual love, which you condemn. The quashing of love isn't exactly unexpected, though, seeing as both you and your religion really seems to trample the concept, so whatever.
Your homophobia is entirely hateful and respectful. Nobody chooses to be homosexual, it's an innate attraction. You think if people could simply elect to stop being gay that they would have endured the centuries of abuse they've eaten at the end of religious and societal discrimination? The mere insinuation that your religion is anything but hateful and bigoted towards homosexuals is so surprising I wonder if you've actually read your religious text cover to cover.
If you're asserting that people choose to be homosexuals, then you are disrespecting and undermining the struggles of the LGBTQ community that have tried so hard to gain acceptance for simply being who they are. If you're asserting it's not a choice, then God created homosexuals. That implies that God is either malicious or incompetent. What loving God with his head on straight would create LGBTQ people if he hates the orientation?
I've heard it argued that it's not the people that are hated, it's the "act". Stephen Frye addressed this argument pretty beautifully. God creates people as they are, but then to a very select subset of people he says "Yeah I know I made you to love other men, but you're going to have to live your life doing something opposite. Where everyone else is allowed to find happiness in partnerships and love, you don't get to. You never get to have sex, get married, or do any of that. However, feel free to live in a society where everyone else around you gets to do that and throw it in your face." That's a rather monstrous and hateful edict.
It's nice to see that you're starting to embrace your homophoibia, but please don't pretend like your religion encourages you to see LGBTQ people as anything more than subhuman.
While your overall tone here seems to be "trololol," I can't help but wonder if this is also "ha ha only serious." So maybe you can drop the edgelord act for half a minute, and consider the fact that "trans person killed by transphobic cis person(s) upon discovery of their genitalia" isn't just a hypothetical scenario, it is an actual thing that actually happens to actual people. The most recent case I'm aware of was a 16-year-old. He didn't even identify as trans, he just liked to dress like a girl sometimes. Two men who met him in this mode brought him back to their place to have sex... and then, after discovering that he was male, spent an hour suffocating him, before ultimately shooting him.
Edit: Okay. On rereading, you're not actually saying that lack of disclosure equates to rape, which warrants deadly force. You're just implying that someone dressed as a woman and possessed of a penis might also be intending to rape someone. While that's not impossible, I'd say it's pretty fucking unlikely, compared to "cis dude flips out because OMG PENIS." :P
There are plenty of cis women who femme it up, and plenty of trans women who wear more run-of-the-mill women's clothing.
And just FYI, calling a trans person a "tranny" is like calling a black person a "nigger." You're probably aware of this, but other people reading might not be, so.
Black people took that word and made it there own, Steve has similar aspirations and will continue to use it. RuPaul, Justin Vivian Bond and Kate Bornstein have all argued for its use in a positive sense, and I stand with them.
Soooo, you're coming out as trans now, Stevette? ;P
I refer to the LGBT community as a whole taking it. RuPaul's not trans, he's trying.
When the consensus among actual trans women is that "tranny" is worth trying to reclaim, I'll support it. Until then, no dice. If you're not one of the people affected by a slur, it's not your business to be all "I'll just use that word (but in a non-hostile way!) because if enough people do, it won't be a slur!" Because in the meantime, it's still a slur.
Trans women, you specify. Awfully sexist there. Anyhow, I see no reason not to reclaim it because I'm not one. I like the word, it sounds better than trans person.
"I see no reason not to reclaim the word "chink" just because I'm not one. I like the word, it sounds better than Chinese person."
"Tranny" is a slur mostly used against trans women, so yes, they get to decide if they want to reclaim it. And I have literally never met a trans women who called herself a tranny.
Yeah, I mean, that sounds bad, because no one's tried to do it. But even among the Asian community, it's not like using negative words in a positive manner to take away the punch is unknown. There was the legal case against the Slants, a group that tried to do to "Slants" what I'm trying to do with Faggot.
Well no, not specifically trans women, and not specifically slur. I've already showed you examples of trans women who want to reclaim the word, and in my personal life, the only trans person I know well was perfectly fine with the word. Ultimately, unless the reclaimation of the word begins, it will always hold its negative connotations, and thus trans people will never be fine with saying it about themselves.
The Slants were Asian. If you want to find some musically-inclined gay dudes and start a band called 'Steve and the Faggots,' I will cheer you on 100%. My point isn't against reclamation, it's about who gets to do that reclamation.
You gave me three examples, and none of them actually identify as women... though admittedly any of them could be on the receiving end of tranny-as-slur. But they're all people who are deliberately engaging in gender-fuckery, which is great for them... but it does differentiate them from the average trans woman, who most likely just wants to be called a woman.
And again, I find it ridiculous to say that using words in a non-hateful manner to take away their power has to be confined to group the hate is directed at. I've had a close relationship with trans people, and I've called them it. They knew my feelings so there was no offensive, and it was a step towards reclamation, which apparently you're cool with, so I can't see where your issue arises.
And again, Tranny isn't exclusive used against trans women. And at this point, it seems like you're arguing these people being non-binary or whatever means that it's better, or more accurate, or not as bad, to call them tranny than if it was done to a trans woman.
I think it means they're more likely to be willing to embrace a word that highlights their transness. If they want to call themselves 'tranny,' that's cool. It doesn't make it okay for them to encourage the general use of the word, when the majority of trans women do not want people referring to them as trannies.
That's my issue. You're calling people trannies who don't want to be called trannies. Your friends are cool with using the word for them? Cool. That's between you and your friends. But when you use 'trannies' to mean 'trans people in general,' you're applying the label to people who don't want it applied to them. And that's not cool.
And many gays don't like the term "faggot", I still use it, and you're fine with that. So if I was trans, it'd apparently be cool for me to apply a label to people who don't want it applied, and I'm allowed do that to gays, but as I'm cis, that's become bad?
Pretty much, yeah. It's the difference between "I'm a faggot, and I think we should all call ourselves faggots" and "I'm straight, but I'm not homophobic, so I'm going to call all gay people faggots to help them reclaim the word."
My straight friends use faggot all the time, I'm fine with that.
But you're not actually reclaiming faggot as an identifier, you're trying to divorce it from its original meaning so you can use it as an all-purpose insult. My point is, I'd call out Well-Meaning Straight Person for using 'faggot' to mean 'gay guy' just as fast as I'd call out you for using 'tranny' to mean 'trans person.' Similarly, Utterly Clueless White Person doesn't get to use 'chink.'
So what, I can use tranny as an insult the same way as I use faggot or shithead, but not an identifier? That's even more absurd.
Well, if you want people to think you're a transphobic asshole, you sure can! Freedom of speech (and lack of active moderation) FTW! :P
My point was, your friends aren't calling you a faggot... well. They're not calling you a faggot because you're into guys, anyway. They're not saying 'faggots' when they mean 'gay men.' They are not doing the thing that you're doing with 'tranny,' whereby you're calling people by a word that's still a slur, in the name of a reclamation effort that those people don't actually support.
Not what I asked. If I used tranny as a slur that's seperate from transgenderism, like "That fucker insulted me! What a tranny!" Is that cool? Because it should be, by your logic, even though it's clearly absurd.
What? What part of my logic dictates that?
You've argued that 'faggot' is in the process of divering from its original meaning, and since I've actually seen that happening here, I've agreed that it's possible to use the word as a generic insult (although you obviously still run the risk of someone who isn't aware of your perspective assuming that you're homophobic.)
There is zero precedence for 'tranny' diverging. Again, you can use the word that way, but it would be like saying 'What a chink!' when talking about the black dude who just cut you off in traffic. It makes you sound racist, until the listener backtracks to figure out who you're actually talking about, and then you just sound like you don't actually know the meaning of the word.
Obviously, someone has to be the first one to begin the divergence towards insult from a purely non homophobic/transphobic point, thus, there's nothing wrong with using tranny as a generic insult. Which is absurd, and should clearly show that your logic falls through.
Sure there's something wrong with it. It makes you sound transphobic and/or ignorant. 'Faggot' generalized because people didn't care if people thought they were homophobic. They actually were equating homosexuality and "being a whiny little bitch," or however you'd define the 'current' meaning of faggot.
That said, this is completely tangential to my actual argument, which is that you shouldn't be "reclaiming" a slur on behalf of trans people by using the slur to refer to them. Again: If your trans friends are cool with the statement 'some of my best friends are trannies,' I'm not going to get on your case. Just don't refer to trans people in general using a word that the majority of trans people don't want applied to them. That's just basic decency, which I'm pretty sure you actually do possess.
And as I've said, I don't give a fuck that I'm not trans and see no relevance in using the word, just as if I was straight, it wouldn't take away from my ability to say "Faggot" as an insult. I'm not the one starting this idea, it seems there's a fair few people who have done so, to the point the Transgender Erotica Awards were actually called the Tranny Awards. I'd even say I doubt that majority of trans people are against the use of the word, and in the admittedly small LGBT community that exists in Cork, they're not. So fuck it, if nothing else, I'm reclaiming it for and with the support of my microcosm of the community.
A) that's past tense, and B) sure, porn loves 'trannies.' That doesn't mean trans people want to be referred to as such.
That said, you seem determined to make an ass of yourself, so I'll leave you to it.
So? If anything, the fact that they had to change it speaks to how overeactions is actually taking the word to more negative places, further justifying bringing it to more trans friendly places. And unless you're going to argument that the Trans Erotica Awards is transphobic, or didn't have the support of the trans movement, then you're just blatantly wrong. Since you're backing off, it again seems unlikely that the majority of trans people are against the word being used in a positive manner, and thus, I continue to hold it. I'd say you'd look back at your current behaviour at some point and see you were wrong, but admittedly, I'd doubt it.
I'm sure the trans community supports the 'Tranny Awards' changing their name to something that doesn't include the word 'tranny.' This makes me wrong because...?
It'd probably take me five minutes to find a polling app, create a one-question poll, and post it to a relevant subreddit. Say the word, and I'll do it. To be clear, the word in this case is actually a sentence: "If the majority of trans people from r/AskTransgender say that it's not appropriate for me to use the word 'tranny' to refer to trans people, I'll stop using it."
Alternately, you can admit that you don't actually give a fuck how the people you're talking about actually feel about your choice of words for them.
/r/AskTransgender is a toxic, morality-policing shithole that loves driving out other LGBT people who won't fall into lockstep with the moderators.
Example(s)? I'm not actually familiar, it just seemed appropriate based on the name.
It's one of those weird subs that automatically bans you for posting in certain subreddits, which basically just makes it a big old echo chamber after a while. Also the mods are super power trippy
Which subreddits? On what grounds?
Well no, the majority of the trans community would've supported the tranny awards. I'd imagine they changed it because of hyper-reactionaries. Anyhow, the word was OK, and either it still is, which I agree it is, or it got worse, which only means I'm fighting against a negative change.
Sure, go on. I mean, I've already said I don't give a fuck about the whether the majority of trans people use the word, as I've explained the community in my area is cool with it, but I'd be curious as to the answer. Apparently Klam says it's a shitshow echo chamber, so maybe don't, I've stopped caring.
You know, I think this strict enforcement of words even in regards to super pro-Trans people is an example of one of the more toxic elements of the community that only helps shitheads to make the movement look retarded, or shit like saying no kid's are getting gender surgey in blatant defiance of the facts, so maybe sort out your own shit before the word "Tranny" comes under fire.
Yeah, see, that wasn't the word. That's five minutes of my time that you don't get, if you don't actually give a fuck about the results. I did find a post asking about the word about five years back, and the response was overwhelmingly negative. Click.
Are you serious? Are you seriously playing the 'but I'm an ally!' card? Okay then... so what makes you super pro-Trans? Is that different from regular pro-trans? Because, you know, the regular pro-trans people I know don't call trans people trannies.
No kids are getting surgery because they're trans. That intersex kid isn't getting her undeveloped gonads removed because she identifies as a girl, she's getting them removed because they might otherwise give her cancer.
Huh, the very first person to respond is OK with it and says it should be reclaimed, and this is a chat that Malk tells me is terrible. Sweet, I agree with that person.
Well yeah, I'm not transphobic in any way, and there's no transphobia when I use it. I really don't need to prove that to anyone, and if you think I do, then yeah, that's just another way you're revealing yourself to be toxic in your activism to the point you're one of the people killing the movement as a whole. And again, I call people trannies, and the trans people in my life are cool with that. So it seems talking about the pro-trans or trans people we know goes two ways.
Yes, they are, and you're blatantly lying. Hormone blockers like histrelin require surgery, so almost immediately, you're shown to be wrong.
"The only time I ever use it is with very close friends in a joking manner. Like I have one trans friend who is a car nut and I always call it 'hot, sweaty tranny-on-trannie action' whenever she works on it. That's pretty much the only way that I'm OK with it being used."
And yes, that's a 'positive' response... followed by a fuckton of negative ones:
"I hate it personally" "Hate it." "Nope, nope, nope." "I think it's fucking terrible, and no I don't want to be referred to that way" "Very much against it." "Tranny is a very very very insulting word to me." "Fucking hate it" "I do not like hearing non transwomen using it." "I despise it with every fiber of my being." "I don't refer to people as such, nor do I want people referring to me like that, if someone wants to call themselves that, then fine, but if they call me a tranny, we'll have words."
Seriously, are you listening? Are you capable of listening? Aside from the initial 'positive' (among close friends only) response, and one neutral, those are quotes from the next ten responses in the thread. So, tell me, does this affect your point of view at all? Or do you just not give a fuck how these "trannies" feel about it?
I actually wasn't aware of the histrelin implant. That's very minor and completely reversible surgery, though, and not at all the kind of surgery the scare-mongers want people to infer.
Which was followed by "I think we need to reclaim the word at some point," , which I noticed you left out. Given that they said it wasn't time, and that was five years ago, yeah, I'd say I'm good.
Well yeah, most of them are in response to the idea that it'd be used negatively, which is what is trying to be moved away from. As I've already said, the community I'm in seems fine with it, but apparently, you don't give a fuck about me using a word to reclaim it when interacting with people who are cool with it,
Yeah, quite easily capable. 1st person on my side, 2nd person only seems to be against it as an insult, as they don't care for joking. 3rd doesn't care, 4th says that in their experience it's been used to degrade them, which yeah, it probably has been, that's why they hate it, there's nothing indicating they'd be against the word in a friendly manner, and among the next smatterings include bullshit like "I don't like hearing non-transwoman saying it", because trans men never have this shit said to them, except I've seen it happen in my own personal life, and someone so pathetic that they don't think as a trans man they have any say in the matter. So yeah, a good chunk of them I don't give a fuck about, and they're as cancerous as you in killing the movement.
Huh, so it appears you're uneducated on the subject. Noted.
Ultimately, yeah, the chunks of my argument that you're ignoring seems to be centered around how you're being hyper-reactionary, and this is what creates a shit ton of transphobic behaviour. When someone can point to you as an example of the opposition and use your behavior to knock down the entire movement, you're hurting the movement as a whole. When you're talking about shit you're uninformed on like the surgery so that your opinion can be shown as completely wrong after acting like such a pretentious cunt in stating it never happens rather than having someone who actually knows what they're talking about and can explain why it's OK, you're killing the movement. When you use tranny among people who are OK with using it, or faggot, or any word in a non-offensive manner where it's clear you have no offensive connatations, I think you're pretty golden. So if you're going to try telling me using a word is harmful, maybe driving a movement into the fucking ground.
Even if she agreed that "some point" was "now", that doesn't negate the many, many others who said nothing about eventual reclamation and just plain hated the word. And yes, there is absolutely reason to think they'd be against the "friendly" use of tranny -- a neutral-to-friendly usage was implied by the question. You don't need to ask people how they feel about words that are being used as deliberate insults.
I've already said I don't care what you call your friends if they don't. Though now I'm curious who we're actually talking about... how many trans people do you know, and how many of them have confirmed that they're cool with "tranny"? Like actually asked them, not "I used the word in front of them and they didn't immediately tell me to knock it off." How many of them use it themselves? And what's the gender distribution?
"Tranny is a slur and cis people shouldn't use it" is really not that extreme of a view, nor do I see how it promotes transphobic behavior in any way. I'm pretty sure people who do transphobic shit do so because they're fucking transphobes, not because they've been asked to moderate their language.
I specified sex reassignment surgery in my original statement. Sticking an implant in someone's arm isn't sex reassignment surgery. The fact that I neglected to specify sex reassignment surgery in a subsequent statement, because sex reassignment surgery takes longer to type and I thought it would be clear from context that I meant sex reassignment surgery, doesn't mean that I was wrong to say that nobody was doing sex reassignment surgery on children. Nobody is doing sex reassignment surgery on children. And, yes, apparently some kids are getting implants in their arms to facilitate treatment with hormone blockers, and that incidentally involves some very minor surgery. I am not "killing the movement" because I didn't know that. 9_9
Well no, quite obviously there wasn't, as most people seem to be responding to talk about their experiences being called it, which show where the association comes from. I think it practice, yeah, they could easily be convinced of the term.
No, but you care about the words I use around my friends, such as trannies, when referring on general terms. Because apparently, using a word in a group for the purpose of reclamation . And sorry, do I again need to prove that my friends are what, good enough trannies? The right gender, because trans men can fuck off here? Enough trannies? Please, tell me why at this point, it's cool to give a fuck about this? Not that it matters, but the core group I use it is two men and two girls, although it extends past to quite a few others I don't hang out with much.
"Tranny is a slur and cis people shouldn't' use it, but there's this hierarchy where trans women are allowed to determine its usage more than gender-binary because Kate Bornstein can fuck off, and also, apparently if you argue for using it, I'll bitch and question just how much of an "ally" you really are, and I'll bullshit on the facts if someone opposes me" seems to become far more nonsensical as time goes on,. And no, in regards to this discussion thread, you said "surgery", not gender reassignment surgery, so you were clearly fucking wrong, which apparently you don't have the balls to admit and are going to fuck about. When you talk like a dipshit and blatantly misstate facts, shitheads can see that, and then paint everyone with that brush, so when they do hear the facts, like someone knowing about histrelin surgery rather than someone lying out of their ass, they'll believe them rather than write them off like that stupid fucking owl they talked to earlier. Then, you lose the chance to actually do anything, until you've devolved a once formidable movement into an echo chamber where the three people dumb enough not to question in repeat the same few sentences ad infinitum.
I suppose the CYS "crazy fundamentalist Christian" will say some stuff. I'll first s treating anybody unfairly due to their LGTBQ+ status.
Anyway, do people's self-determined gender determine their real gender? That has two parts. Can people choose their own gender and what is gender?
To the first, people are conscious beings, thus they have the ability to choose which includes their gender whether it the same or different than their sex chromosomes.
To the second, gender is some combination biology and societal roles (nature and nurture). A person who attempts to take biological suppliments and takes the roles of the self-identified gender seems to meet both; however the chromosomes are still unchanged.
I view gender as one's chromesomes due to different gender roles across societies and differing natural hormonal levels (though theey are approximately the same for the same gender). As a result, a trans woman (born with XY chromosomes), by my definition, is still male.
Well you're wrong, then. Gender isn't chromosomes. That's not us disagreeing, that's a fact, which you can see by the usage of the guy who created the word, to help deal with third genders, which no, don't have a third type of chromosomes. Gender was created as a new idea rather than sex. Sex is tied to chromosomes.
I know, but I tied it to chromesomes due to there being no basis for gender other than what society believes. The word is naturally defined as being in terms of societal and cultural terms, but each society has a different interpretation. Our that is the case, then there is no "true" gender meaning it is impossible to change one's gender or even have one when it is subject to change. Incorporating all culture's would make everybody transgender in at least some manner.
Additionally, being transgender can incorporate sex reasignment surgery anyway which would therefore delve into sex anyway making my chromosome argument applicable by strictly definition-terms anyway.
Well no, that'd be wrong. You can't tie words to things that aren't part of them. Gender exists is social and cultural terms, so yeah, you can choose it. The word was invented to not be defined in biology, as we have a word for that, sex. So you'd be wrong to do so. There being no "true" gender doesn't make sense. There's not, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to have a gender. I'm male, because I'm content with the gender of male by the society I live in. That gender might mean different things in other cultures, like India, where they have a third gender, but that doesn't take away from my own male gender.
And transgender people can have sex reassignment surgey if they want, but that doesn't tie sex to gender anymore than transgender people getting their tongue pierced ties tongue piercing to gender.
And again, it's really not. What about the hijra of India? Do you just fail to understand that gender is a new word, and it doesn't mean sex, or...? Or shall we just go with the ignorant American idea of "Other cultures are weird, whatever"?
As humans, we assign cultural values to sex because we form cultures in the first place, thus we create gender, and if it's culturally assigned, it can be changed.
Perhaps a bad example. Please substitute the Native American Two-Spirit people. Which pretty much kills the first two paragraphs of arguments.
And again, no one invented a new definition of gender. It seems you did. Gender has always been separate from sex from its inception. You're again going to hide behind the wall of "facts" when, the fact is, gender isn't sex. Conflating it with thin privilege isn't an argument. You're not going by facts, you're misunderstanding words, and hiding behind an idea that this is something new that's been created, rather than a revelation that you've been misunderstanding gender your whole life, and don't want to learn about how new things work because you conflate other SJW cringe things with this.
Well, after reading pretty much every bit of this thread...I'm really (almost comically so) confused. From what I gathered from this thread, (at least the arguments I've read that had any merit) is that gender is a social construct. And thus has nothing to do with sex which means that you're are justified in calling yourself whatever the heck you want to. Whether that be Non-Binary, Binary, or an Apache Attack Helicopter. Whatever you think you are, you can be.
Now that's cool and all, but when I say 'boy' or 'girl' or 'man' or 'women' I'm not referring to gender. I'm referring to sex. And sex is determined at birth, so y'all can talk about all of this transGENDER stuff, but that's all it is. They're transforming their GENDERS, a social construct (in case y'all haven't caught on yet), therefore gender can change however much you want it to, but that still doesn't change your sex. Putting the parts there does not change something fundamental on a cellular level.
Oh, and before someone says that the words 'boy' and 'girl' etc. are gender specific identification words, so I should use them as such. Uh, no. Perhaps this may be selfish of me, but I'm not sure I want to say male and female the rest of my life because saying otherwise would be socially incorrect.
If this came across as uncivil, then sorry? I suppose it's up to my responders on whether this stays civil the rest of the time.
Well see, in practice, you're not talking about sex. You're talking about gender. If you hold literally any cultural ideas about "boys" or "girls", that its normal for boys not to wear long pink dresses, you're referring to gender, you just don't understand the difference.
And saying that you're going to continue using "boy" and "girl" to refer to sex rather than gender is just factually absurd. You've moved away from facts and what words mean because you're unnerved by this concept and odn't want to deal with it. It's not socially incorrect, it's factually so. So I guess you can do it, but you'd be wrong to do so.
Oh well. I guess I'm factually incorrect then.
I suppose at the point where someone admits they don't care about facts, I'm forced to only have hatred for them rather than trying to convince them, so there goes that.
Eh. If anything I'm surprised you didn't already hate me. So I suppose this newfound hatred won't really affect much of anything at all.
I just got an idea for another unofficial contest.
What would it be?
Are we finally gonna get that tournament contest where everyone duels each other?
Edit: I see my folly.
Even though I'm super pro-sterilization and abortion and just wiping out most of us, this argument reeks of the "Gay is a choice, otherwise they'd have been wiped out due to lack of reproduction" thing.
Weird, as the amount of gay people is still extremely high, when we've been growing more and more accepting of gays, and it's been many, many generations since we've needed kids to deal with the farm.
Or, we can go through how the more kids a woman has, the more likely they are to be gay. Which doesn't make sense with a hereditary nature.
But no, please provide any evidence that the gay gene is hereditary, I'm sure you have lots.
Mizal should have just made the argument that considering that you claim everyone is a closet bisexual anyway, that all people that consider themselves exclusively gay (or exclusively straight) are indeed making a choice to live that way.
See, that I can stand by. Instead, she's going down a strange path of combining attempting to troll Morgan (or perhaps me, but I'd doubt it given that she knows me), combined with what I think are based around a core of beliefs that she holds, but can't actually defend and doesn't want to get around to changing, so she's hiding behind "I'm trolling so I don't need to listen to counter-arguments".
Fascinating,really. I should write a big post about the types of arguers on the site. Maybe I will.
Interesting you argue the brainwashed thing, when you've been blatantly wrong and misunderstanding facts, before moving to saying frankly ridiculous stuff like Trans girls don't look like trans girls, when I can point to endless ones that you couldn't tell the difference.
I presume it's a remainder of your background, where at this point in life you don't like having ideas you've lived with being challenged, like when that old Negro boy kept causing a ruckus. It's not like you're one of the KKK hunting down niggers, but you're one of those good old white boys who doesn't mind the darkies, just thinks they're making a big fuss about nothing now that you're letting them vote. "We gave them "seperate but equal" facilities, they're equal, what are they complaining about?" I'm sure you think I'm being ridiculous by the race analogy, but that's because you've been taught that that was justified and have heard enough shit about how it was, but your general background keeps you ignorant of the same things in the trans community. Don't worry, your kids will understand it and look back sadly at you.
It's OK, dear sweet Mizal, go rest. Soon, it will be time for your family to wheel you hope and don't say all this offensive shit that you were allowed say when you were young in your terrible hick society, and then you'll be hit the bucket, so your ideas can finally die with you.
Before you wander off, can you at least explain what you meant when you mentioned preschoolers having some kind of gender-related surgery done to them? I mean, I assume you're talking about intersex kids, but I'm confused as to why you think 'SJWs' would think this is a good thing.
Innnnteresting. Not what I was expecting, either.
So, the first thing that catches my eye is "a sex-change procedure," which certainly sounds like surgery. Except nobody in their right mind would do sex reassignment surgery on a four-year-old, so let's keep reading. The Yahoo source page just refers to 'transition.' And it would be reasonable to assume that this means social transition, i.e., wearing a dress to school and using the girls' bathroom, assuming the kid is a trans girl.
Back to the original article, scrolling down, there's reference to "alarm at the developing trend in the United States of parents declaring their child to be transgendered and subjecting the child to hormone treatments, behavioral adjustments and surgery." But looking at the actual paper cited... yeah, no. Zero reference to any surgery on children.
This is scare-mongering. Nobody is doing sex reassigment surgery on children.
BBC is pretty top notch, there you go.
Ah yes, I almost said "except intersex kids," but it technically isn't reassignment for them, usually. They decide how to assign the kid in terms of 'check M or F,' and (sometimes) do surgery in line with that assignment.
So! Correction: Nobody is doing sex (re)assignment surgery on children... except intersex kids. Though in this case there seems to be actual medical reasons beyond wanting the kid to look 'normal.'
I think when you need to say "No one's cutting up kids junk... except in a few cases", shit's getting weird. Interestingly enough, there's a relatively high chance my uncle cut out the gonads, given his speciality and the location.
I agree that surgery on intersex kids is generally fucked up. In this case, though, it sounds like she has an increased risk of cancer if they leave the undeveloped gonads in her abdomen, so... yeah. Kinda different from surgically 'correcting' a baby's genitals for cosmetic reasons. Literally no reason most intersex kids couldn't keep whatever they were born with until they're adults, and can decide what they want to do.
Fucked up had too negative connations, "weird as shit" works better. In this case given the information, I have no feelings against it.
Trans men can and do get pregnant, even post-transition. Trans women can and do save sperm before transition. The main thing that's going to change is how negatively being trans affects trans people, as societal understanding and options for transition continue to improve.
Aaaaand after scrolling past several dozen stories on the adorable gay dads, click!
Looking like Ford's going to win his bet with Nycto at this rate.
They'll only admit someone they think is a danger to themselves or others. Mizal is really fucking annoying, but I don't literally want to throttle her. Just figuratively. 9_9
So, just to be clear, Mizal... your modus operandi here is to drop in, say something that is obviously and deliberately inflammatory, and then ignore all the responses? Stir the pot, wander off, come back to stir again?
Un-indenting my current argument with Steve:
"in regards to this discussion thread, you said "surgery", not gender reassignment surgery"
Let's reconstruct this. You brought the subject into this particular thread by saying "shit like saying no kid's are getting gender surgey in blatant defiance of the facts." But in the thread you're referencing, I never said "gender surgery." I said "sex reassignment surgery." So either you misunderstood what I was saying, or you deliberately conflated the two for purposes of proving me wrong. But my original point stands -- nobody is doing sex reassignment surgery on children -- and I sincerely doubt that you've undermined my credibility with anyone here.
"When you talk like a dipshit and blatantly misstate facts, shitheads can see that, and then paint everyone with that brush, so when they do hear the facts, like someone knowing about histrelin surgery rather than someone lying out of their ass."
Pick one: A) I didn't know about 'histrelin surgery' (or more accurately, surgery to place a histrelin implant, nobody calls it 'histrelin surgery'), or B) I was lying out of my ass. Also? False accusations of dishonesty makes you sound like a dipshit who is blatantly misstating facts.
"I think it practice, yeah, they could easily be convinced of the term."
Soooo, you're just going to call those trannies 'trannies' until they learn to like it? 9_9
"Not that it matters, but the core group I use it is two men and two girls, although it extends past to quite a few others I don't hang out with much."
Earlier you mentioned that your friend group included a trans guy. Singular. Where did all these other trans people come from? Also, you didn't answer my question: Have you asked each of these trans people if they're cool with being called trannies?
"there's this hierarchy where trans women are allowed to determine its usage more than gender-binary because Kate Bornstein can fuck off"
Kate Bornstein, and I quote:
TO BE CLEAR: Nothing I've said here or anywhere else should be taken as permission to call another person tranny until you know that's a word they use for their own identity—some people find the word extremely hurtful. So, please err on the side of caution and compassion.
You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to win that bet...
Jesus Christ, let's be realistic here. You said kids weren't getting surgery, immediately I proved you wrong, and you admitted you weren't aware of it. You were clearly absolutely wrong, and anyone can look back and see that. Now, you try to fiddle fuck around as if that wasn't what you said, because you meant something else and said it in other places, which is a bullshit defence. The fact that you're continuing to argue even though it's clear you were bitching at people about something you're uniformed about isn't helping anyone, and is just wasting my time.
Easily done, you didn't know shit about histrein and we're talking out your ass, then you lied and fucked about acting like you didn't mean it. Hell, even if it was only one of those things, is that your defence? "I lied or am retarded, not both" isn't the ideal comeback.
No, I'll talk with them, and explain to them why I use it, and either they'll agree to disagree, agree, or be a cunt and try ban words from my usage. In the first two I continue to use it, third I don't give a fuck what the opinion or feelings of the cunts are because they think a word is terrible without giving a shit about intent.
I'm sorry, it seems earlier you made it clear Bornstein's opinion didn't matter because she's not a trans woman, and you've stood by the hierachy idea that trans women have more say on the topic that trans men than whoever else. So quite frankly, the fact that now after looking into it it you decide you're ok with allowing it only furthers the concept that you're a disengenuous cunt, and backs by argument that it's cancers like you that kill the movement. Anyhow, you're not changing your bullshit hierachy idea of "The most offended has the most say", so I don't see why you're responding if not to change your stance or trying to defend it.
Here's what's going to happen now. I'm going to continue using "tranny" around my friends who don't care about it, and I'll probably use it more on the internet purely out of spite for absolute cunts like you who think that you have a right to tell me what I can or can't say. I'll use it to refer to them as individuals, and as a general term. I'm going to use faggot, not because as I'm a bisexual and I'm allowed to, but because I'm just fucking allowed to. So I'll continue to use the word that several trans activists have promoted using and that is already far enough in the process of reclamation that the trans erotica awards were called it before hyper reactionary faggots like you complained enough to take down the word, in a reminder that you wage an unending crusade of fear mongering about simple words without regard to intent, and you can continue to whine and kill the movement, but quite frankly, that's not my issue.
Or maybe, just maybe, you'll fuck off because you have no right to tell me what I can and can't say, because you're not a trans woman by your own absurd standard and it isn't your word to decide if someone can say it with positive intent, and you're not the Almighty Fucking Osiris descended from the clouds, which you'd sure as shit need to be by my standards before you're capable of declaring words, fucking words of all things, off limit, regardless of the intent they're used with.
Show me where I lied, Steve. Don't paraphrase. Quote me.
So if your friends dare to disagree with you on what they're going to be called, they're the cunts?
Just out of curiosity, are you also going to explain to @SpartacusTheGreat that you're going to be calling him a 'chink' from now on? I mean, if you're going to go around reclaiming words, why stop at 'tranny'?
You're the one who kept citing Bornstein as an authority figure. Funny how you were only interested in her opinion until it became clear that she disagreed with you, and is, in fact, explicitly asking people like you not to use her words to justify calling people 'trannies' when they don't want to be called that.
Ultimately, you're right about one thing: You are free to use whatever words you want, in whatever contexts you want, with whatever intent you want. And hopefully your friends will forgive you... or maybe it genuinely won't bother them. They are presumably young, like yourself, and are living in a world that doesn't shit on trans people quite as much as it did.
However, as long as you use 'tranny' to refer to people who do have strong negative feelings about the word, your 'positive intent' means jack fucking shit. 'I'm going to say something hurtful, that I know hurts you, and I'm not going to stop when you ask me to... but it's okay because I'm sure that eventually it won't hurt you anymore, if I just keep doing it' is shitty. Yes, you can do it... but it's still a shitty thing to do.
Quote you lying? Alright, whatever. "The fact that I neglected to specify sex reassignment surgery in a subsequent statement, because sex reassignment surgery takes longer to type and I thought it would be clear from context that I meant sex reassignment surgery," Quite evidentally, anyone can look at that and see it's a crock of shit and you're lying to cover up the fact that you blatantly mistated facts. If I'm saying that "Planes don't crash because of rainbows hitting them", I don't take out the essential part of it and say "Planes don't crash", and hope that people think I meant something else.
If they agree to disagree, no. If they try to tell me I can't use a word and refuse to understand that no, I'm not transphobic, then yeah, they're cunts. But my friends aren't cunts, so I'm golden.
Sparty's Korean, you racist prick, not Chinese. But nah, Chink doesn't sound good, I see no reason to bring it into use. I don't particularly want to, so I won't.
Yeah, I pointed out Bornstein was for the reclamation of the word, which she is. That's what I pointed out. I'm still happy to show her as an authority figure, my opinion hasn't changed, and I don't call individual people tranny unless I know them, or they're an absolute shithead whose feelings I don't give a fuck about, like you, at this point. It's you, however, who said that she doesn't have a right to talk about this, before seeing her opinion wasn't as bad as you thought, so then you deem it's important. Fuck you, you narcisstic, prententious wanker, for thinking that you have the god given authority to determine not only what words I can say, but when someone's opinion matters. Because you've made a bullshit heirarchy where you can tell people their opinions don't matter, before skipping it when you feel like it. It's that cancer that kills the movement. If I was new to this stuff and saw people like you deaming that one's gender status makes them able to have arguments and others don't, I'd think it was a pretty fucked up movement.
Well no, it won't bother them. I notice you're still talking though, even though you're not a trans woman, so I have no reason to listen to your opinion on this matter, which we seem to agree on. You think that trans woman should pick who and if people can say it, which you're not, and I think you don't have the fucking right to do so, so we both agree you should shut the fuck up.
And again, the reclamation process was happening, being promoted by trans activists and to the point that a whole organization was doing it, and scum like you ruined it, before promoting the idea that we should all be offended by the word. If someone tells me they're offended by my use of the word, I'll talk to them about it. And they'll be convinced and no longer offended, we'll agree to disagree, or again, if they're a cunt and still feel like they have a right to tell me what words I can and can't use, they can fuck off with their precious feelings.
Words aren't these magic knives that jab into souls when they're said. If someone called me a faggot out of hatred towards my sexuality, I'd be angry. If someone called me a faggot because I did something pretty faggy, then yeah, I don't give a fuck. See what happened there? Intent mattered. And if you're going to tell me some people are going to be hurt by a word, not hateful intent, not any emotions or anger or anything like that, but the fucking sounds or letters piled together, those people are the same hyper-reactionary cunts that took "Tranny Awards", bitch at RuPaul for saying tranny, and now are arguing with me on the internet.
So yeah, shut the fuck up as we both agree your opinion doesn't count for jack shit in this case, and go back to convincing shitheads that they're right to hate trannies, because they see the opposition as group of lying, ignorant, hyper-reactionary cunts who think that they have more of a right to speak or have an opinion matter because they're not cis.
"Shut the fuck up."
You first. 9_9
I'm going to assume that the part of the quote you're claiming is a lie is "I neglected to specify sex reassignment surgery." However, that was the kind of surgery that I thought we were talking about, since you'd literally just referenced my earlier statement on that subject. I obviously can't prove that I didn't intend the meaning "surgery of any kind," but since the conversation had previously only covered sex reassignment surgery, and I wasn't aware that there was another form of surgery that could be relevant, I see no reason why any reasonable person would doubt my stated intent.
As for leaving out words... if we were in the middle of a conversation about cosmetic surgery, and I said 'nobody's doing surgery on children,' would you assume that I meant cosmetic surgery? Or would you smugly point out all the life-saving surgeries that are done on children, ignoring the context so you could 'prove me wrong'?
So, just to be clear... if your friend says 'please don't call me a tranny,' and they're unswayed by your argument in favor of the word, and insist that they don't want to be called that, they're a cunt and you're going to do it anyway? Or is that just if they say 'please don't call trans people trannies'?
From that Reddit thread: "Even merely reading that word or "shemale" fills me with so much... Angst and depression and disgust for the human kind. I despise it with every fiber of my being. Even as a joke, it stings like a knife on fire."
So, yes. Words can be like knives. As for intent, well... note the "even as a joke." When you've got a word that's so entangled with negative emotions, non-hostile intent doesn't stop you from flinching.
I never said Bornstein didn't have the right to talk about this. If you recognize her as an authority figure, what do you have to say about the paragraph of hers that I quoted?
Are you going to tell Kate Bornstein to 'fuck off with her precious feelings' because she's telling you what words you can and cannot use?
Well no, I'm allowed to keep talking, because by my standards, I'm allowed to. You disagree with that, but since we both agree you should shut up on this topic, fuck off. You don't seem to acknowledge that you have no right to say what you're saying by both of our standards, so again, fuck off.
Clearly again, if we're talking about "No gun deaths happening due to reversed firing pins", and I start saying "Gun deaths don't happen", that doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? But when you do it, "Ah fuck it, I promise that's what I meant!" If you said nobody's doing surgery on kids in the cosmetic argument, you'd clearly be an absolute retard who doesn't understand how words work, and though that defense may absorb you of the liar charge, it's not particularly helping.
Let's just skip past the bit where you identified Sparty with a Chinese racial slur, despite him being korean. Doesn't matter, I do it all the time, but at least then it's to annoy him rather than again being ignorant on the subject at hand.
My friends wouldn't do that, they understand why I use the word. They can fuck off, the same way I'd tell my gay friend to fuck off if he told me I wasn't allowed to use faggot, or my poor friend I couldn't use villain. I suppose ultimately they can tell me not to refer to them personally as a tranny, but again, if they think they have the right to tell me I can't use the word in a general sense, they're being such a pretentious cunt that I doubt I want to be their friend in the first place.
Ooh, you have an example of another hyper-reactionary like you. Sounds like a twat. Clearly that's obvious, as it's to the point where jokes hurt their precious feelings, so I don't give a fuck. I'll tell all the tranny jokes, dead baby jokes and rape jokes I please, and assholes like that can fuck off.
Well no, first we're going to talk about how you dismissed her in your bullshit hierachy, and then seemed to blame them for being more deserving of the slur with "But they're all people who are deliberately engaging in gender-fuckery, which is great for them... but it does differentiate them from the average trans woman, who most likely just wants to be called a woman." As if, yeah, that makes more sense, they get less of a say because they ask too much. But no, you implemented your hierarchy,
I don't need Bornstein's permission to use the word, but in regards to what she's say, I'll consider individual people's wishes into whether they get the individualized label or not, whatever, but in regards for the generalized sense, they're not being targetted, so they have no reason to complain. But no, let's skip that
So yeah, my word, which trans activists have promoted, which an entire awards used before shitheads like you fucked around whining, is being classified as the same as "faggot" in its reclamation. So continue to fuck around with your hierarchy of who have the power to speak on issues, with your feeling that words devoid of intent or meaning are lethal time bombs and mean jokes are LIKE KNIVES, PLUNGING INTO MY SWEET, SWEET HEART! (I added the last bit), with your pathetic judging of trans people and cis people alike in "Not being pro-Trans enough", in questioning whether a group of trans people is large enough or has the right gender ratio for me to be able to talk about them, in telling trans activists and even trans men that no, the word "tranny" is not to be decided upon by you, because fuck off, that's for trans women, while hypocritically trying to define the word like you're "Regent Morgan, Leader off the Trans Girls" and have an opinion that's worth anything other than jack shit.
Hopefully, you're differentiated from normal trannies who just want people to treat them decently rather than want to dictate the words that can be used, so at least when shitheads on the internet look at you and see such a hypocrical, ignorant, lying fuckwit, they don't spread hate by thinking the same of decent people who can laugh at jokes, let people use words, and let people have ideas whatever the fuck they are gender, orientation or whatever-wise.
I never said you didn't have the right to discuss the subject. You can scroll back three posts and find me saying the exact fucking opposite. Either your reading comprehension is shit, or you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.
"Let's just skip past the bit where you identified Sparty with a Chinese racial slur, despite him being korean."
No, I asked if you were going to call him a slur, because other people have, and I know he has strong feelings about the word. And you said that you wouldn't, because you didn't want to. Not because he finds the slur offensive. Tell me, if you decided you did want to start calling all Asian people 'chinks' (because there's no reason to stop at Chinese people, we've established that the origin of a word doesn't determine its ultimate meaning), would Spartacus be an 'asshole' if he told you to stop doing that shit? Would he be 'hyper-reactionary' if he thought it was inappropriate for you to talking about that Buddhist chink from your local Chinese restaurant? I mean, you're not racist, you're not saying 'you fucking chink, go back to China,' so what's the problem, right?
I didn't dismiss Bornstein. I explained why she held an opinion different from most trans women. She doesn't get 'less of a say' because she 'asks too much' (I don't even know what you mean by that, considering she isn't asking anyone to reclaim 'tranny' if they don't want to), she gets 'less of a say' because she's in a small subgroup of the group of people affected by the slur, and most of the people affected do not want to reclaim the word.
So, if you decide that you're going to use 'chink' to refer to Asian people, and Spartacus says 'don't call me a fucking chink you fucking fag,' and you decide to honor his wishes by not calling him 'chink,' but continue to call Asians in general 'chinks', in front of him... would you say that he has no reason to complain? I mean, you're not targeting him, right? And all those other chinks are probably fine with you calling them chinks, right? It's not like you're racist, you just like the way the word sounds. (Hypothetically. Obviously you don't, or you'd be using it freely at this point.)
"I'll tell all the tranny jokes, dead baby jokes and rape jokes I please, and assholes like that can fuck off."
...you have an interesting definition of 'asshole.'
Well no, I think I have the right to say whatever the fuck I want on this, and you've been arguing that only trans woman should decide how the word is used, before hypocritically deciding how I should or shouldn't use the word. So as your opinion doesn't matter to me as you're a cunt, and doesn't matter to you as you're not a trans woman, fuck off and shut up.
Well yeah, the origins of a word doesn't necessarily matter, but using "Chinks", or "Toasters" to refer to ALL Asian people seems silly and unprecedented, so I won't. That's why I don't use Chink. If I wanted to reclaim a more Asian-centric word, like "Slants", that would similarly be weird and... oh hang on, that's being done, so that's cool.
No, you argued that she's not a trans woman, so that opinion doesn't matter, while agreeing she probably got called a tranny negatively just as much. But then you changed your mind, because you're a disingenuous cunt. You never said "It's because she's not in the majority", you said she's not a trans woman. Do I seriously need to quote it?
Well he can complain that the word is ridiculous, because it doesn't apply to Asians, and I'd agree, because it is. There's not really much need to find a new word, when Asians rolls of the tongue so easily, far better than transgendered people, or transpeople, which just sounds terrible. So yeah, I'd go with slants if I needed one, which is already being reclaimed by the band, sounds better, and applies better. If Sparty wants to whine that then, why should his opinion matter anymore than my poor friends getting uppity when i say Villain? But still, Asians work, so this is all hypothetical.
Oh, are telling jokes now bad? Because jokes that rely on shock, over-the-top offensiveness or anything like that is bad now. Humor's about subverting expectations, that's why those jokes exist. And again, this is why you're cancerous to the movement, because now, jokes AND words can be taken.
I pointed out that Bornstein isn't a trans woman because you claimed that she was. But as far as I can tell, you don't actually give a fuck about how anybody but yourself feels about your choice of words. Bornstein, your own choice of authority figure, literally says not to do the thing you're doing. Oh, and I just looked up Justin Vivian Bond:
"For now, please don't call anyone "tranny" who wishes to be seen only as the man or woman they are, because it really, really upsets them. They are not trannies. They are men and women, and it's our job to respect, honor, and look after their wishes and to care for them as well as for each other."
That's two out of three of the people you cited telling you not to call trans people trannies.
Here's the thing: Bornstein and Bond both appear to be non-binary. They are transfeminine, but they don't identify as women, and they're happy being visibly outside the gender binary. It makes sense that they'd want a noun for themselves, and wouldn't have a problem with a word that emphasizes their transness. And the fact that they're reclaiming this word for themselves doesn't mean that they're saying it should be applied to all trans people... in fact, they're explicitly saying it shouldn't be.
Most trans women are binary. They're women. They don't need another noun. Calling them 'trannies' only highlights the fact they're trans, emphasizing the distinction between them and 'normal' women. Even if you could somehow magically erase the history of the word, even if you could remove the association with hatred and violence and at best pornography, which you can't... it's just not a word that trans women have any reason to want to adopt.
And yes, you can call any group of people any damn thing you want. But if you pick a word they don't want applied to them, and insist on applying it in the name of free speech and euphony and 'reclamation,' you're the fucking asshole.
Never said Bornstein was a trans woman, that seems like yet another dishonest lie you're making up to hide the fact you believe in a bullshit gender hierarchy on who can talk.
Well again, I don't call individual tranny unless they're OK with it or a shithead whose feelings I don't give a shit about. I use the term generally, as I said, or about individuals I know.
Are you really going to argue that Bornstein and Bond are trying to steally "tranny" for non-binary, rather than the whole thing? That seems like a load of shit. And yeah, they're not reclaiming the word for themselves, they're supporting an attempt to reclaim it in general, you fucktard.
And look, Morgan once realizes her stupid opinion is showing and doesn't mention her thinking that making jokes is terrible. Apparently, if you want to tell a joke about a rape, you're a terrible person, but seeing as offensive shit is a huge chunk of humor, they're going to hide away from what you were saying about that?
Bisexuals are just people. We still have a word "Bisexual" instead of just "people", you retarded fuck, so yeah, we have words for concepts and things. That's the very idea of words, you numbskulled retard. You can say "Oh, Lesbians only removes their normal association with hatred and violence and AT BEST pornography," but that's retarded, and that should be clear to you.
And as explained, some of the group is OK with it, shown by those I know and again the fact you keep skipping over, that it was acceptable for many years with the Trans Erotica awards before fuck-head reactionaries like you. But no, dart around your atrocious views like a gender hierarchy determining the value of ideas by who says them, condeming anyone who makes a fucking joke because "Words hurt my feelings, even when they're used in context, you willingness to downright lie to protect your positions, your belief that you can talk about subjects you're ignorant in, and your absolute hypocricy is continuing to talk about this issue when you've made it clear that it's an issue for trans woman to talk an, but apparently, you just don't care because you're the special little exception.
Steve, six hours ago: "Never said Bornstein was a trans woman"
Steve, two days ago: "I've already showed you examples of trans women who want to reclaim the word"
Your list of examples was RuPaul, Justin Vivian Bond, and Kate Bornstein. You subsequently referred to RuPaul as 'he,' indicating that you were at least aware that he wasn't a trans woman. Therefore, your 'examples of trans women' could only be the two remaining names on the list: Justin Vivian Bond and Kate Bornstein.
If our positions were reversed, I'm pretty sure this is the point where you would dial it up to eleven and rant about me being a lying liar. However, I'm going to extend the courtesy that I'd prefer to be shown, and ask you to explain this apparent contradiction.
"Well again, I don't call individual tranny unless they're OK with it or a shithead whose feelings I don't give a shit about."
Can I assume that this is because you actually respect the fact that those people aren't okay with it, and realize that makes it not okay for you to call them that?
"I use the term generally"
Here's the thing: By using the term 'generally,' you're calling every trans person a tranny... including the many trans people who aren't okay with being called trannies. You're already not calling individual people trannies when they're not okay with it, presumably because you realize that isn't cool. Why is it different when the people in question are grouped together?
"Morgan once realizes her stupid opinion is showing"
"Morgan once again chooses to prioritize their limited time, and elects not to be diverted into a completely tangential argument about rape jokes." FTFY. :P
"We still have a word "Bisexual" instead of just "people""
Yes, and there's a reason for that. There isn't a good reason to substitute 'tranny' for 'trans people,' and multiple reasons not to.
"You can say "Oh, Lesbians only removes their normal association with hatred and violence and AT BEST pornography," but that's retarded, and that should be clear to you."
While I'm not going to use the word 'retarded,' I'll agree that this sentence is... special.
"the fact you keep skipping over, that it was acceptable for many years with the Trans Erotica awards before fuck-head reactionaries like you."
I know very little about the porn industry, or the perspectives of its 'tranny' performers. But presumably it was those performers who pushed for the change in terminology, as they had every right to do. And 'it used to be acceptable' really isn't much of an argument, which is why I didn't bother to address that point. As we have established, language evolves. Hell, the United Negro College Fund is still a thing, but nobody's calling black people 'negros' these days.
"Are you really going to argue that Bornstein and Bond are trying to steally "tranny" for non-binary, rather than the whole thing?"
Bond: "If you were born male or female, or if you've transitioned to male or female physically and legally, and are able to live comfortably under one of those rubrics, then there is a box for you to check. But what about the rest of us? If there is no language, do we not exist? FYI, whether there are other words or not: We're here. We're Trannies. Get used to it! Instead of asking the world to banish certain words, we should be fighting for the inclusion of more, so that those of us who don't identify as male or female are no longer forced to lie about ourselves and what we are every time we fill out a form."
Bornstein: "“How I define #tranny: ANYONE who messes around w gender w little or no care as to how tht might effect their standing in mainstream culture.”
While I'm sure neither would exclude anyone from using the term, it seems pretty clear that they're not advocating for the use of 'tranny' to describe all trans people, most of whom do identify as either male or female, and don't consider themselves to be 'messing around with gender.'
'a gender hierarchy determining the value of ideas by who says them'
Again, either you're deliberately misrepresenting my position, or your reading comprehension is shit. Trans people get to determine whether we should reclaim tranny because we're the ones who get called 'tranny'. (I don't really call myself trans, usually, but I technically am... and thanks to this thread I've now been called a 'tranny,' so. 9_9)
I give more weight to the opinions of trans women specifically, because the slur is typically used against transfeminine people, and of that subset of trans people, the ones most likely to find it hurtful are trans women.
"condeming anyone who makes a fucking joke"
Soooooo... that would be any joke, right? You're claiming that I condemn anyone who makes any joke at all? Not a joke about 'trannies'... not an offensive joke... just 'a fucking joke.' I mean, you certainly wouldn't leave off a word or two just because the actual subject of the conversation is clear from context, riight? 9_9
"your belief that you can talk about subjects you're ignorant in"
I was unaware of a specific delivery mechanism for a specific hormone blocker that requires a minor surgical procedure to implant... and when you pointed it out, I immediately admitted that I hadn't known about it. That is, as far as I'm aware, the extent of my 'ignorance' displayed in this debate.
You, on the other hand, appear to have been completely unaware of what the people you tried to cite as authorities actually have to say on the subject. Also, you got their genders wrong, which is kind of a bad look in a thread about gender. 9_9
I would like to state, for the record, that the length of this post is due to insomnia and the fact that I wanted to address all the relevant points. I'm not deliberately trying to drown my opponent in a flood of words. And I'm edit locking this so I'm not tempted to add anything else.
Steve, if you want to respond selectively at this point, I'll certainly understand.
Slip of the tongue, meant "activists", not women. I'd show that through the fact I've shown I know RuPaul wasn't a trans woman and Justin clearly isn't, thus if I meant to say Kate Bornstein was a trans woman, I would've said I showed you "a trans woman".
I suppose I wouldn't call my poor friend a villain if he asked me not to as it hurt his feelings. Does that mean I realize it's OK for be to not call him that?
You've said I can use "faggot" generally, even though there's still individuals who would oppose me using the word. Why's that different, then? Some gay people definitely fall under the faggot label when I use it. I'm going to use a word in general, but if someone wants to be exluded from that as an individual so I don't refer to it, I suppose I will. But if someone wants to exclude me from using a word, be it faggot, tranny, or villain, I don't give a fuck, they don't have the right and their opinion doesn't matter if they think I have to stop using the word because they personally oppose.
Prioritize time? Have you seen the length of this post? I'm calling pure bullshit on that argument, and it's clear you're darting around the shit parts of your opinion anyway. Oh, and I used "her" instead of "their", slip of the tongue there I noticed, my bad, not an attempt to insult you. The constant calling of you "shithead" or "faggot" or whatever is though, so please note that. Seriously, you're a HUGE faggot.
Yeah, so we get words other than just "women" to describe different types of women. She's a bisexual, she's a tranny. I've explained Tranny sounds better, looks better and is less weird than trans person, I prefer it, and I'm more than happy to give a positive spin to a word that is usually used negatively.
Presume makes a pre out... fuck shit, this doesn't work. Anyway, there's not a point here, so much as you guessing what happened.
Tranny isn't an ancient word here. It's what, thirty years old? And "Tranny Awards" is eight years old, so it's not like this word has completely changed its meaning in the time since on any level.
The first person is Bond, not who we're talking about, and yeah, I'd saying changing your gender is definitely messing around with it, so what's your point here? Bornstein seems to be referring to the whole movement. Although Bond does make a good point about the idea of banishing words, so well done to them.
Ah, see, now you say "Trans people", where first you gave more power to "Trans women". ""Tranny" is a slur mostly used against trans women, so yes, they get to decide if they want to reclaim it." So that's a total reversal on your position, I assume one made because while your early argument was in your favor as it dismissed the three activists I mentioned, this one helps against my argument that we've both agreed you should shut the fuck up as this isn't your place to talk.
Hyperbole in the finishing rant, obviously, although fuck it, when we start killing jokes, everything's offensive to someone so fuck it, you might as well be killing all jokes. And you confirming your ignorance doesn't dismiss it when you try to talk about the subject regardless. Don't know who that helps. I didn't get their genders wrong, as explained above, and I knew what they had to say. You've had the balls to complain that Bornstein didn't mean I could use "tranny" generally even though she does all the time, you don't seem to even notice that Bond says we shouldn't ask the world to banish words, and you flitter-fuck around your most egregious positions before entirely reversing some like your trans hierarchy you've had. You're happy to dance around or shed your shitty positions, but for some reason, you're still choosing to die on the hill that is "Words are evil regardless of context", as if every time you said tranny in the context of this debate, a dove dies.
This entire thing has been a shitshow as you're revealed to be worse and worse, telling trans men their opinion matters less than their female counter-parts, questioning whether my trans friends are numerous enough, or feminine enough to have a right to talk. I'd agree most trans women, and trans men, and just trans people in general, just want to get on with their lives, but apparently, you're one of the shitheads that thinks you're able to wipe out entire words regardless of context by just condemning anyone who uses them, be it hatefully, positively or even for a joke and reminds a legion of transphobic shitehads that they're fighting against a wave of joke-killing, word-destroying, bigoted fuckwits. I'd wager to say me saying "tranny" or telling a few jokes is having far less influence on trans people trying to live their lives than idiots like you spewing your bullshit.
'Faggot' is different because you're not actually using the word's original definition. If you talk about 'faggots,' you may be calling specific gay men faggots, but you're not calling all gay men faggots. You're also engaged in a form of reclamation that might actually have a shot at working.
"Prioritize time? Have you seen the length of this post?"
That's what happens when I reply to (almost) everything. You can see why I usually don't. And the subject of offensive jokes is a whole new can of worms, and not one I'm terribly interested in opening. I do find it telling that you jumped from the hypothetical use of the word 'tranny' in a joke, to talking about jokes about dead babies and rape. One might suspect that you subconsciously realize that 'tranny' actually is offensive.
"I used "her" instead of "their", slip of the tongue there I noticed, my bad, not an attempt to insult you."
Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure if it was intentional, but I'm glad to know it wasn't. ^_^
"Seriously, you're a HUGE faggot."
If I ever do a scrapbooky 'quotes from CYS members' on my profile, I'll be sure to include that!
"Yeah, so we get words other than just "women" to describe different types of women. She's a bisexual, she's a tranny."
The words you're looking for are: 'she's trans.'
"I've explained Tranny sounds better, looks better and is less weird than trans person, I prefer it"
And numerous trans women have explained that they fucking hate the word and they hate when people use it. Your 'positive spin' isn't going to change that. You're calling them a slur that they don't want to be called, that isn't actually positive from their perspective.
Steve, 11 hours ago: "The first person is Bond, not who we're talking about"
Steve, yesterday: "Are you really going to argue that Bornstein and Bond are trying to steally "tranny" for non-binary, rather than the whole thing?"
...yes, we were, actually. 9_9
"Bornstein seems to be referring to the whole movement."
Bornstein: "Tranny is still a valid trans identity today, across several generations, class and race — we are the gender outlaws and outcasts who haven’t reached a tipping point yet. No, you should never refer to a trans man or a trans woman as a tranny — that would be mean."
"[you said] Bornstein didn't mean I could use "tranny" generally even though she does all the time"
If you read the article I linked, Bornstein clearly uses 'trans' as the umbrella term for trans people, only using the term 'trannies' for her fellow 'gender outlaws.'
"you're still choosing to die on the hill that is "Words are evil regardless of context""
That's not the hill I'm on.
Don't call people something that those people don't want to be called.
That's it. I really don't think that's unreasonable. Hell, you've already said you don't call individuals 'tranny' unless they say it's cool... but apparently it's different if you're talking about 'trannies' in general. Except that's just a group of individuals, most of whom don't want to be called 'tranny.'
Fine, then queer. That works as a perfect example, given it's pretty much exactly like what I'm doing with tranny.
Well no, I jumped from offensive to some, like you and other twats, to offensive to everyone, like rape and dead babies, to make it known that no matter how offensive, I don't give a fuck if it's for the purpose of a joke.
Bah, nothing to add, but I'd feel weird skipping out a paragraph and I'm not bothering to quote.
Already used that idea, it's mine, you can't have it.
She's trans just doesn't have the same ring to it as she's a tranny. It works well.
Now that I've been reminded of queer, I'll use that as an example. Some gay folks are against me using it, I don't care.
Huh, my mistake on both regards, forgot about Bond. Nevertheless, the point stands that they use tranny generally, the only change is the clarification of which group she uses it generally for. That doesn't change the point that Bornstein uses it to describe all of a group that without a doubt includes some people against it. You, for instance. Anyhow, at this point Bornstein and Born still argue for the reclamation of the word, so that hasn't changed, I've just learned they want it on a different level to I, and again, I wouldn't refer to a trans man or trans woman as tranny if they said they were against it, as they're individuals.
It certainly seems to be the hill you're dying on. "Tranny" is hurtful, "like knives", whether they be used positively, as a joke or however. When you're arguing for that as the basis argument, yeah, it doesn blatantly stand that your argument is against words being used because of someone's feelings. And as this seems to be a set group of hyper-offended individuals to that get upset over even jokes, as your own quote pointed out, I don't give a fuck about their opinions, and I'm not going to change my use of words over them. So yeah, the hill does in fact seem to be your "Words are evil regardless of context".
Nonetheless, again you don't acknowledge that you've slided back on your position, where now, all trans people can decide what happens the word, rather than just trans women. So you're either refusing to acknowledge that you've gotten rid of your shitty belief mid-argument, or you're just hiding it in the background becuase you realize how absolutely absurd it is.
'Queer' has been reclaimed, at this point, by people identifying as queer. I've never claimed that words couldn't be reclaimed. But self-identifying queer people chanting "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is not actually exactly like a cis dude declaring that he's going to call trans people trannies, and if those trannies don't like it, well, they're just oversensitive.
I didn't realize you started that trend... if it's your idea, it's obviously problematic and I want nothing to do with it. ;P
You still haven't explained how you reconcile not calling an individual trans person 'tranny' because they don't want to be called that, but still calling trans people in general 'trannies,' even though most of the individuals in that group don't want to be called that.
Look back to where this argument started, Steve. From the beginning, I've been saying 'trans people.' Yes, I subsequently referenced trans women specifically, as the subset of that group most negatively affected by the slur. At the time, I said that a consensus among them was a prerequisite for reclamation, because we were talking about reclamation of 'tranny' as a word for any and all trans people.
But having now read and reflected on what two self-identified trannies have to say, my position has changed. Trannies don't need trans women's approval to call themselves trannies, and that's what they're actually doing. Neither Bond nor Bornstein nor anyone with any standing in the trans community is saying that all trans people are trannies. Tranny is, in fact, an identity of its own.
As such, I'd say that you can talk about 'trannies' as much as you want... as long as you're actually talking about trannies. Trans women are (mostly) not trannies. Trans men are (mostly) not trannies. And not all non-binary trans people are trannies, either. As such, you shouldn't call trans people in general 'trannies', because most of us aren't.
And again, many LGBT feens still find it to be a slur. Using "queer" generally means you're calling a shit ton of people who don't want to be called queer "queer". And what, when they first started doing it, were they wrong then, because the majority consensus wasn't in their favor?
I'll take my wins where I can find them, I suppose.
The same way I'd imagine people did when they first used "queer", at which point the majority of people would've been against it. Easily done, really.
Well no, you said this was up to trans women, not trans people. Quoting again, ""Tranny" is a slur mostly used against trans women, so yes, they get to decide if they want to reclaim it." So yeah, you said the word was up to them, rather than trans people. Trans men or trans whatever else didn't get a say, because they weren't as high up in your gender totem pole.
Bond doesn't say "I'm a tranny", she uses "We're trannies", which yeah, is generalized and is putting a lot of trans people into that box, people who don't want to be there. Bornstein defines it as anyone who messes with gender, which yeah, doesn't take into account whether you want to be called it. She called you a tranny, whether you want to be labeled it or not, so feel free to target them.
Ah, so at this point, well no, Bond and Bornstein label non-binary trans people as trannies. Bornstein gave us a literal definition. So while this is a success that I'm being granted use of a word that I was and am going to use regardless of your opinion, it seems you're shifting around in regards to Bond and Bornstein. They happily called non-binary people trannies. So really, there's a huge flaw in your reasoning, forcing you to either accept Born and Bornstein's position or reject it, but your current stance really doesn't hold. Your simple "Don't call people what they don't want to be called" rule isn't really being implied to Bond and Bornstein. Rather than continue to go on the offensive, I'll leave this post here, as I'm more curious than anything else to see how you deal with this:
Bornstein: “How I define #tranny: ANYONE who messes around w gender w little or no care as to how that might effect their standing in mainstream culture.”
I sympathize with the LGBT+ people who dislike the word 'queer.' If there are enough of them, and they're sufficiently assertive, maybe the consensus will shift again. As for why the original reclamation effort wasn't wrong, again, it's a question of self-identification. 'Let's call ourselves queer' is different from 'I'm going to call those people trannies.'
It's the people who are part of a group who get to determine what they call themselves. While an outsider can call them something else, because free speech, if they use a word that the majority the group dislikes, that's not the beginning of a reclamation movement. That's just being a dick.
There isn't a 'gender hierarchy,' there's a 'hierarchy of people most affected by the slur,' and that generally correlates with gender. But I don't think it's even relevant at this point, because there's a clear consensus among trans people on the subject of 'tranny' as a word for all trans people.
So, just to restate my current position:
Trans people, as a whole, get to determine what we're called. The majority of us do not want to be called trannies. We don't care if you think it 'sounds better.' We don't. Don't call us trannies.
Trans men, as a group, get to determine what they are called as a group. The majority of trans men do not want to be called 'trannies.' Don't call them trannies.
Trans women, as a group, get to determine what they're called as a group. The overwhelming majority of trans women do not want to be called 'trannies.' Many of them have strong feelings on the subject. Don't call them trannies.
Non-binary people, as a group, get to determine what we're called as a group. Justin Vivian Bond does think that we should call ourselves trannies. I'm pretty sure v is in the minority, though, since I know numerous other non-binary people and have never heard one call themselves a 'tranny.' I would be very, very surprised if the word gained any traction. So, yes. Don't call us trannies.
Finally: Anyone who wants to call themselves a tranny can call themselves a tranny. There is a small group of people who do. Feel free to call them trannies!
Bornstein: “How I define #tranny: ANYONE who messes around w gender w little or no care as to how that might effect their standing in mainstream culture."
Emphasis mine. Most trans people don't consider themselves to be "messing around" with their gender, and most of them do care about how they're perceived by mainstream culture. Bornstein is clearly not talking about trans people as a whole.
That said, Bornstein absolutely was calling a group of people 'trannies,' when many if not most of them would reject that word. She got called on it and ended up saying "Accordingly, if someone fits my definition of tranny and rejects that identity, then I respect their rejection of the identity."
Don't call people shit they don't want to be called.
It's not that fucking hard.
I couldn't give a flying fuck if you sympathize with them. People who use queer loop them in. Either that's something you're willing to condemn people who use queer, or not. They're grouping in people who don't want to be called it, which you seem to condemn when it's my behavior, but refuse to when it's them. The fact that you're willing to destroy the reclamation of that word may be indicative of your "Words are scary" character, but I don't care. In regards to self-identification, A. "queer" isn't exclusively a word used by those who called themselves it. Throughout the reclamation, straight people would've used the word. That's not a bad thing. So are they wrong for using queer when their gay counterparts were fine? B. That's just blatantly not true. If a Jew wants to self-identify Jews as kykes in a negative manner because he finds Jews inferior even though he's in them, that doesn't mean he gets to.
Well I'm glad you're acknowledging the gender hierarchy you created, so let's look at it for a moment. You're saying here that a trans man, even though they can be tranny, doesn't have a right to speak on the usage of the word as trans woman might hear it a bit more, because as you said, it's a word for "trans women". THAT idea is far more degrading to trans people than anything I've done so far, that you're categorizing the various trans group as "who gets to decide it", wiping trans men off that slate, and differentiating non-binary as if calling them that is more justifiable because they're engaging in gender fuckery with this gem. "But they're all people who are deliberately engaging in gender-fuckery, which is great for them... but it does differentiate them from the average trans woman, who most likely just wants to be called a woman."
Hmm... doesn't seem to be a restate of your position, as again, you said trans women decide. So quite frankly, you can shut up, as your opinion is invalid by me in regards to you being a faggot, and invalid to you as you're not a trans woman. You never said if they want to reclaim it for them, but you said if they want to reclaim it at all.
Which yeah, queer was in the minority as some point. So was that bad when people tried to reclaim it? Were they all bad, or only straight people who partook in that?
It sounds like Bornstein gave a petty appeasal to various shitheads, but even then it only appears as if she said individuals don't be called tranny. Unless of course you're going to argue that the whole definition is tossed out, which it may be, but that's entirely because of hyper-reactionary fags like you and anyone else who bitched, to which, while Bornstein might be willing to roll-over at that point, I'm not, because I don't give a fuck about a bunch of hyper-offended cunts. And yeah, if you're really going to argue that non-binary trans people aren't messing around with their gender to around the same degree Bornstein was, your position is shit out of luck there. Bornstein's not having a laugh with her gender identity, so the degree to which she's messing around with gender seems to be at the very least the same degree non-binary people are, so yeah, they're falling under that category.
Bond, who you don't seem to mention, puts it in much stronger terms, where yeah, if you don't tick the male or female box, that's where you're falling.
So really, we have a mismatched freefuck of an opinion here where "Queer can be used, but not really because it hurts some people's feeling, and not my straight people, but maybe straight people now, but definitely not back then when LGBT people used it, because apparently there can be special words where however straight the guy saying it is determines how hurtful it is to me, but tranny is off limits, but Bornstein and Bond can kinda use it, but they're wrong to try to reclaim it for the whole movement, but maybe the LGBT people were right when they tried to reclaim it early when the majority were against it, and they don't get to put a definition on it even though maybe you can for queer, and fuck it, jokes are bad but I don't want to bring that up."
Your opinion is an absolute shitshow that I couldn't give a fuck about even if it wasn't based in notions of gender-based hierarchy for determining words, condemnation of words regardless of intent. So please, make a position on whether "Queer" generally is OK, on whether the first people who tried to reclaim it were bad for doing it, on whether the straights among them are the exception to the former question and are bad, on whether Bornstein and Bond's definitions are awful because they tried defining people to a word they don't like, and get your mismatched, emotional fireworks show of a position in order. At least then, they'll be an actual principled position for me to decimate rather than a mismatch of emotional whining bout people not liking words.
So, here's the thing. If I say 'hey, you're doing a kind of shitty thing, knock it off' and your response is 'well, but you're doing the same kind of thing, what about that, huh?', that's not actually a real defense of the shittiness of the thing that you're doing. I could be a flaming hypocrite who's doing the exact same kind of shitty thing, and still be right that you're doing a shitty thing.
That said: 'Queer' was reclaimed by queer people. I really don't think straight people were using it in solidarity at the time. In my experience, straight people still don't use it. And in a situation where some people in a group are trying to reclaim a word and other people in that group are actively opposed to reclamation, I don't actually think it's appropriate for people outside the group to try to 'help' with the reclamation-in-progress. I'd wait and see if it turns out to be a word that the majority of that group actually wants to use for themselves.
'Queer' also has value to the LGBT+ community, insofar as it's an inclusive umbrella term that isn't five to twelve syllables long, depending on which form of The Acronym you use. 'LGBTQQIP2SAA' is incredibly unwieldy, and I've never heard anyone actually use it IRL. 'LGBT+' doesn't look bad in print, but still, it is five syllables when spoken, and it doesn't function as well as an adjective. (You wouldn't say 'I'm LGBT+.') 'Queer' is also a word that many queer people have strongly positive feelings about, and the majority opinion is neutral-to-positive. (Based on my experience, but you can also take a look at this Reddit thread.)
As you pointed out (and as we can see in that thread), there are still some people who dislike or outright hate the word. Again, I sympathize -- or to put it in terms you'll give a fuck about, I acknowledge that this isn't a good thing. But because the word has been reclaimed, I think the percentage of LGBT+ people who feel that way will diminish over time. And I think that the value of the word to the majority of the community does justify its reclamation and its continued use.
Conversely, the vast majority of trans people don't call themselves 'trannies,' and don't want to be called 'trannies.' To the extent that there was ever a movement for the reclamation of the word for all trans people, it's fizzled out, because that's not what most trans people actually wanted. Similar to the attempted reclamation of 'faggot' (as a reference to orientation, to be clear, not as an insult). And just as straight people should respect the fact that gay/bi men as a group don't want to be called 'faggots,' cis people should respect that trans people as a group don't want to be called 'trannies.'
I'm non-binary. I'm not 'messing around with gender' just because my gender isn't one of the commonest two. Regardless, Bornstein's definition of 'tranny' is their own personal definition, and decidedly not representative of the trans community as a whole. Ditto Justin Vivian Bond. V seems to be arguing that we need the word 'tranny' because whatever else will we call people outside the gender binary? Hmmm... how about 'non-binary'? 9_9
(To be fair, v may not have heard of the term at the point when v said the bit I was rolling my eyes at. 'Non-binary' is pretty new as labels go, but it's gained traction fast. I'd say there's pretty much zero chance of 'tranny' becoming synonymous with 'non-binary,' although v is obviously entitled to keep using it for vself.)
Regardless, Bornstein and Bond were on your list of trans activists, not mine. I never said they were right, I said they weren't saying what you implied they were saying. Which, clearly, they aren't. There is, to the best of my current knowledge, no real movement in the LGBT+ community to reclaim 'tranny' as a word for trans people in general. As such, you shouldn't be citing "reclamation" when you use the word, because reclamation isn't a thing that's actually happening.
Which brings us to the question of how you DO justify your use of the word, when the majority of the people you're referring to don't want you to call them that. Again, if you'd refrain from using the word for an individual who asked you not to, why are you refusing to generalize that to the group?
Well no, the argument hedges on you not thinking the generalized use of queer is bad. If you do, feel free to say. If not, however, tranny stands too.
I've seen plenty of straight people use it. Hell, one dude added the Q to the LGBT thing just on the site recently in another thread. There would've been straight people using it before the majority of gay people shifted in favor of the term. So, answer the question: were they wrong to do so? Fuck it, there are still people opposed to using queer, so are straight people wrong for using queer?
Plus seems to work far better than Q, as it helps to encompass literally everything rather just that that would fall under Q, plus, it has the bonus of not being a word people apparently hate. But no, I do like queer, so I use it. But again, you seem to be avoiding defining your positions. Were the first gay people to try reclaim the word wrong, as they did so against the will of the majority? What about any straight people who did so, or are still doing so today, when while there might be a majority, there are still those who oppose the word.
And again, you're still breaking your bolded principle, the hill you're dying on today:
Using queer is doing this, as there's people who don't like the label. But hang on, you don't seem to give a fuck about those people, as even though you "sympathize" with them, you're willing to break the big old rule you stand. So once again, I'm not debating with a principle here, I'm debating with a pile of uncertainty that cares about feelings, but also knows that to come out against people using LGBTQ would be patently absurd. So I've yet to find the principle you're standing with here, although I doubt there is one.
And again, the majority of LGBT people didn't want to call themselves queer when the reclamation started. I don't think the reclamation has fizzled out, more so its being blocked by dipshits like you, to who I don't care about and aren't going to stop. So, were the guys who tried to reclaim queer wrong as the LGBT people didn't want to call themselves queer? Were they wrong until the majority switched over, or now because you're willing to define the tranny reclamation as a lost cause, is that the signifier of being an asshole for using words?
I already explained why you were messing around with your gender. You might not consider it by the phrasing, but unless you're going to assume that you identifying as non-binary is one thing while clearly when Bornstein did it it was just fucking about, the phrasing they used mightn't have been the best, but it stands for both of you.
Again, I justify my use of the word the same way the guys who first used queer. You've refused to say any straight people who tried to reclaim it at the start would've been wrong, yet you continue to question me. Bornstein and Bond still defined tranny as you fell under both definitions despite your dislike of the words, yet you refuse to condemn them as wrong. The principle you said that you were fighting for here has fallen apart, as you've already said it's OK to use queer even though that's calling people something they don't want to be called. So I'm wondering what I'm even left arguing against, seeing as your principles don't hold. So at that point, it's pretty clear there's not even much left for me to do if you're justifying using words even though some people don't want to be called it.
You can either go out and say that any LGBT people, (or if you want, their straight allies) were wrong for using the word positively when the majority wasn't in their favor, but at that point, you'll have lost all credibility as you'll have become someone who's arguing against a word that people started using to try be more inclusive, and it'll become clear that people like you can't be satisfied and your opinions shouldn't be considered. You can say they weren't wrong, but at that point, your opposition to my ideas will have completely faded away, and all that will be left is you bitching without argument or principle to stand by, the latter of which is already happening. Or I suppose, your can flitterfuck around and neither condemn or not condemn the straight allies, at which point I suppose I'll continue to berate you until we can reach one of the two answers.
So, please answer: Were straight people who used queer before the majority were on their side wrong for doing do?
"Were the first gay people to try reclaim the word wrong, as they did so against the will of the majority?"
I'm not so sure that they did. While the majority would obviously have been opposed to its use as a slur, either they didn't actually oppose its reclamation, or they later reconsidered their position.
And again: People reclaimed 'queer' because they wanted to use the word for themselves, and because it allowed for an inclusivity that was otherwise lacking. That's why it gained traction, that's why reclamation was possible. If people hadn't wanted the word, we wouldn't be using it today.
"Don't call people something that those people don't want to be called." ... "Using queer is doing this, as there's people who don't like the label."
That's true. My justification is that we need an umbrella term, but doing a shitty thing for a good cause still involves doing a shitty thing. But again, me being shitty to the not-actually-queer-identified minority of the LGBT+ community doesn't justify you being shitty to the majority of the trans community.
"Were straight people who used queer before the majority were on their side wrong for doing do?"
Depending on how they were using it, I'd say that they were.
'My best friend is queer' (referring to a specific person who they knew identified as queer), sure, that's okay.
'I don't have anything against queers' ...not so good. I honestly wouldn't be thrilled with this usage today. Queer as a noun is less-used, and I think less-reclaimed, than queer as an adjective. And no, I don't think straight people should be 'helping' reclaim it by using it more. For one thing, it's not necessarily going to be clear from context how they mean it.
But the real problem with an outsider jumping on a reclamation bandwagon is that the attempted reclamation isn't guaranteed to work, in which case they'll just be using a slur.
Consider 'faggot.' I don't think that the straight people who wrote in to Dan Savage with the salutation 'Hey Faggot!' were wrong to do so, since he specifically asked them to. I do think that any straight person who saw that and decided to 'help' reclaim the word by calling all gay/bi men 'faggots' would have been wrong to do so... even more so if they tried it today, after that reclamation attempt has clearly failed.
Hopefully the parallel to a certain cis guy calling all trans people 'trannies' is obvious, but feel free to explain how that's a completely different thing. Or how you'd actually be fine with someone using 'faggot' in the orientational sense of the word. Your choice.
I mean, at this point you're being patently absurd. What, "Queer" was negative slang, and then, as soon as the first person tried to use it positively, the majority of the gay community was immediately for it because of one person? No, that's bullshit. When people first tried to reclaim it, the majority wouldn't have. They've reconsidered their position, sure, but that doesn't change that when it first would've happened, the majority wouldn't have been there. So once again, I really need you to answer the question rather than tap-dancin... hang on, it seems later on you say that even using queer now is a shitty thing to do. Well, tap dancing thing revoked, you've handed me this argument on a silver platter.
People wouldn't have wanted to reclaim queer from the start, and as I've shown there's varying degrees of wanting to reclaim tranny. They mightn't be in the majority, but again, queer wouldn't have been from the start, the fact of which you're arguing against is fucking absurd, but since your argument falls apart with it, I suppose you don't have another choice.
So fuck their emotions? You've disregarded your entire justification for being against tranny, that people are against it, and ruined your principle, when "LGBT+" exists as an alternative that doesn't offend people, which you yourself just fucking used. So if doing a shitty thing for a good cause is still a shitty thing, I'm fairly sure this is you admitting that using "Queer" is a shitty thing. So we have your abandoning of the principles you supposedly held so high at the start of this, and your argument now seems to be "I can do it, but that doesn't you doing it", for reasons you don't even state. Your entire defense has fallen apart, and you're admitting to using shitty words to call LGBT+ people, with only the meek defense of saying "I can do it, but you're not allowed because I'm only being mean to the minority," like a hypocritical dipshit, because apparently, minorities of people are no longer important or needing to be taken account, by which right, I really don't have to give a fuck about the minority of the human race who identifies as trans and doesn't like. All this, because you want an umbrella term, despite one existing and you literally using it in your response, in LGBT+. Fuck you, your principles have fallen so low you're literally going with "I'm being shitty and I will continue to, but you being shitty and continuing to isn't allowed."
Ooh, good. This is a helpful response. So at this point, you're showing a willingness to condemn straight people who trying to help in the reclamation, even though it worked. It can clearly be obvious how they use it from context. "I support queer rights" seems to work pretty well. But apparently, they're bad for it, because they shouldn't be trying, because it might not work. At this point, it's clear just how cancerous people like you are, as even when straight people successfully support the reclaiming of a word alongside queer scholars and activists making an active push for it, they're doing the wrong thing. It's this kind of shitty belief that kills the movement, where it's made painfully clear that people like you can't be satisfied. Anyhow, this'll work to the summary.
Oh, and with faggot, I wouldn't condemn anyone who used it in that way, I'd probably just explain that it's gone the other way, and show my evidence, which seeing as that's something I have, it'd probably convince them. If not, eh, I'd probably not have the brightest opinion of them, but whatever, I wouldn't particularly care.
So in total, while I haven't seemed to convince you, it seems your opinions can be safely dismissed on all regards. The principle you held at the start have been destroyed, with you meekly protesting with "We need an umbrella term for LGBT+", even though in that very sentence you use a safer alternative to queer. You condemn people who used "Queer" even though it was supported in a strong reclamation movement and was an attempt to be far more inclusive. You call using the word "Queer", something that people try to add as the Q to the LGBT in an attempt to be more inclusive, and to not leave anyone out if they don't fall under the other letters, as doing "a shitty thing". I mean, at that point, all I can hope is your voice is minimalized so there's no one thinks you're in a majority when you call using queer in an inclusive manner a shitty thing while pathetically trying to justify it, before hypocritically telling me that "You're allowed to do a shitty thing, but I'm not,", even though the number of people against "queer" could easily be more than the very small amount of trans people and also, how the fuck do you justify breaking your only principle with the justification I'm only being shitty (By my own admission) to minorities, so that's OK".
But no, you've admitted you're using a shitty term for queer and that people trying to be inclusive are doing so before hypocritically trying to justify yourself because the majority approves you can do so, breaking the only principle you had in order to disregard the minority of a group in an act you consider shitty, "Don't call people something that those people don't want to be called." so at this point, I'll happily consider you defeated. From a person who thinks using LGBTQ or Queer is a shitty thing, the condemnation of some other world is pure and utter drivel.
I've explained why queer functions better as an umbrella term than LGBT+... which I'm sure is also problematic to some people for lumping more than half of The Acronym into that one little '+', like they're less important than those represented by the first four letters. I doubt we'll ever have a term that makes everyone happy. As for percentages, I've literally never met someone who objected to 'queer', despite living in a very queer area where you can't turn around without encountering queerness that is specifically labeled as such.
Meanwhile, not only do I not personally know any trans people who use "tranny," I'm not aware of a single trans person who is currently advocating for its reclamation as a general-purpose term for all trans people. That ship has sailed, and nobody wanted to get onboard.
You seem intent on declaring victory, and really, I've got better things to do myself, but still, I have to ask... what "proof" would you have against our Well-Meaning Straight Person who says he "supports faggots getting married, same as anyone else"? Let's say it's circa 1990, when Dan Savage was still answering to "Hey Faggot!" (paralleling Bond & Bornstein's use of "tranny") and "youth culture" hadn't yet begun to turn the word into an all-purpose insult (which obviously hasn't happened with "tranny.")
As far as I can see, this is a pretty good parallel. So what would you say to your ally? He's sincerely pro-gay! He honestly thinks he's helping you reclaim the word! But he refuses to acknowledge that actual gay people should get more of a say in that "reclamation" than he does, or that the majority of them are opposed... and he seems oblivious to the fact that he's only going to alienate the very people he supposedly wants to support, if he insists on using the word anyway.
Oh, are we still doing this? I don't know if you noticed, but I've clearly won. You abandoned your principle, admitted you do a shitty thing, and found "Queer" to be bad, so you really lost this whole thing. Fuck it, this is interesting, let's see your death strokes.
Yeah, but that was a mediocre. Apparently, four syllables for LGBT is fine, but five is so awful we need to use a term people are really opposed to? What happened to "Don't call people what they don't want to be called!" Plus, what else are you going with here? Becuase people haven't been content to stop with LGBTQ. Seriously, I tried looking it up and google automatically turned it to LGBTQIA, which is far more of a mouthful that LGBT+, which eliminates a need to continue with the letters until it's nonsense. Oh, and are you really going to argue it's problematic to use + as people won't want to be lumped in, more so than it is queer, which was used as a literal slur? That's an obvious load of shit you're using to just desperately try to defend queer so you can toe that line, while having no principles that would differentiate Tranny.
And I have never heard of anyone ever who has been opposed to LGBT+ because they don't like being in the plus. Honestly, the fact that someone like that exists should really show that there's one who wants tranny back, but more importantly, why does one matter? You've already made it clear that even if the majority turns they'll always be one against it, making it a shitty thing to do either way, in that it's as bad as queer. No one's feelings matter, as you're disregarded them in favor of an extra syllable, so you have no real opposition anymore.
Against? I explained this. I won't condemn him. I mean, my only real opposition to him was that faggot is going the other way, and I think he's be stupid to take it one way or the other. If he's truly not homophobic, he can try to reclaim faggots, just like good old Dan did, and I won't be offended. I sure as shit won't bitch and whine at him for it. He'd probably be stupid too, though, as it works so much better as an insult. I'd recommend he try with homo, fruit or bum bandit or something. God knows I'd like bum bandit to come back in a big way.
So there, your final question is easily brushed aside. Kind of a pathetic way to go out. Meanwhile, this entire debate has spiraled to you awkwardly talking about how many syllables a word can have.
Once again, wrapping up!
Your principle is abandoned, and you seem fine to not mention a new one you're using, despite how I asked. You use a word that's a shitty thing to do purely for the sake of a few syllables in a desperate attempt to defend it, despite having no real reasons other than knowing you have to. You were scared away by the topic of mean jokes. You showed you were willing to trample on people's emotions for convenance in "Queer" over a better word, like "Non-heterosexual", which reminds me, "Non-gender binary" isn't particularly a good word, as it forces people to define themselves as not being something rather than being their own thing. Doesn't matter, useless aside at this point. You've defended a hierarchy of who can say things. You've dismissed tons of queer people, trans people who aren't women, danced around positions and quickly backtailed while pretending to have always held them and been blatantly ignorant of the facts. You admitted tranny's a word to be defined by trans women, yet changed that position to put you in better standing so you can say something.
You're a cancer sore, really, on the entire movement. Not only are you a hyper-offended little bitch, by you condemnation of straight people who use Queer, or really anyone who says queer including yourself, but hypocritically saying the same can't be said for different words. You've tried so hard to champion for their rights, before quashing them when needs be. So it's this cancer that kills the movement, but thankfully now it's clear you're just a loon. All I really need to point out is that you no longer have any principles to base your argument off, you've shown a willingness to care for people's emotions yet you use them as a shield, you've been ignorant, you've danced around positions and downright lied and pretended you held some all along that you never did, and you think the best way to label LGBT+ is with a shitty thing to do.
Perhaps that best shows how cancerous your type are, that you find the best way to label LGBT+ people is with a term you admit is shitty to use. If that's not the cancer of a movement eating out the rest of the movement as it poisons it to the point it's all shit, I don't know what is. But thankfully, I can dismiss you as easily as anyone else does, as a hyper-offended, hypocritical, back-pedalling, movement killing cancer sore of a tranny.
"I can dismiss you as easily as anyone else does"
...wanna bet? Like, actually bet?
I think we'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to adjudicate here, since that would involve reading a ridiculous number of posts, but if you ever want a rematch with a mutually-agreed on panel of judges, a preset post count limit, and Imaginary Internet Points at stake, I'm game.
And while I'm not going to spend the time it would take to summarize your argument from my perspective, or grandstand for the (currently nonexistent) crowd, I will note one thing: For someone who claimed that "trans people" was too awkward, you sure did use the term a lot. "Tranny," not so much... except in the same way I did, with implied quotes, as the word we were discussing.
Funny how you hardly ever used the word you claim to be reclaiming... except that last line, in which it might not technically qualify as a slur, but it's very clearly not being used with "positive intent."
You lose Ford, better luck next time.
Great, only 7,000 more points until I'm within striking distance of BZ.. :)
Damn. I was looking forward to seeing what kind of shenanigans you'd come up with to try to close the gap. XD
That's it? I'm pretty sure anything that transparent would have gotten your posts deleted... I don't think End would've given you the win on a technicality like that.
Dueling sockpuppets would've been more entertaining, though...
You should have put a little Irish hat on the other fish swearing at her.
*owl. We've been over this. 9_9
D'aww, fishies! I'm a fishy! And your MS Paint style is so charmingly terrible! A+!
Also, I finally got back to aikido today, and at one point I got distracted thinking about how to apply what Sensei was talking about to my argument with Steve. I'm not into Tumblr or warfare, but "forum martial arts" is surely adjacent. XD
Counting myself, there were four non-binary people in a class of ten. I <3 my dojo. ^_^
>"forum martial arts"
I believe it's called verbal judo.
Sure, but I don't actually do judo. XD
Yes, any man trying to access a women-only space is almost certainly doing so for nefarious reasons.
If I get lost, I ask for directions.
Ah, but I'm actually a good driver!
I would love nothing more than to have a elderly lady walk in just as I was about to drop a Tsar Bomba and gas the entire restroom for the next hour.
There was definitely a case a while back about a trans woman using the women's locker room... *Googles* Yup. So, apparently Planet Fitness has trans-inclusive policy for their locker rooms. A cis woman threw a hissy fit about a trans woman using the women's locker room, and they ended up cancelling her membership. The cis woman's membership, to be clear.
I'm a bit late to the party. Wups.
Anyway, vaguely scanned through the thread. Pretty long, wow. Mostly replying to this, and also replying to the OP/what owl was ninjaing in, and then some additional ramble.
Some things should be separated by gender, others by sex. I believe they're two separate things for a reason.
I know people who've been sexually abused, and for the born-female the bathrooms are their safe spots. A no-dick zone. I mean, if someone was going to rape them, they probably wouldn't give a damn about bathroom signs. I imagine it's like being afraid of the dark, even when you're in an area that you know is safe like your house. Just a distinct feeling of fear, or with the bathroom, of safety. For those with multiple bathrooms in their home, they aren't separated by sex because you already feel safe in your own home and there's no need for it. Not entirely sure if it's the same for male bathrooms. Dunno if that can be a safe spot for dudes.
There are those who absolutely loath what they're born as, and the repeated reminder of that in things like bathrooms can be demoralizing. I can see perhaps adding a neutral bathroom in addition to male and female, or perhaps separating it by no-dick, and then dick-or-no-dick for the other.
If it pertains to your genitals, it should be separated by sex. There's several different things that pertain the sex specifically, and doesn't matter what your gender is.
If it's anything else, it shouldn't really matter at all. If you're applying for a job as a clerk or something, the only reason why something asking about gender should be there is so they know what to refer to you as, and it should be a fill-in-the-blank rather than a box to check because that'd be more than just male or female. Otherwise it's as relevant as asking what your favorite genre of music is.
I personally don't care what people call me. He, she, that one person. Whatever you wanna say. If you ask me directly about it, I'll say I'm cis-gender, but that's mostly because it's the easiest answer. I honestly don't give a damn.
They/them pronouns irk me a little in most sentences because of grammar, so most of the time I'll ask if I can call them xe/xir as an alternative gender neutral instead. I'll use they/them if they're adamant about that specifically though. Not that big of a deal.
I know 2 transgender, 3 gender neutral, and a few undecided peeps irl. Pretty cool people.
What about trans women who have been raped?
Do you not already use 'they' in situations where you don't know the subject's gender? If a friend tells me 'I got some bad news from my doctor,' I'd say 'what did they say?' I'm betting you don't use 'xe' in that context... do you say 'he or she' every time you refer to someone of unknown gender, or do you just play the pronoun avoidance game?
Oh, and thanks for answering that question... I don't know if I should assume everyone else (except Steve) knows literally zero trans/non-binary people, or if they just didn't bother to say.
Further elaborate your question? Not sure I understood it right.
I did mention most sentences. There many where using they//them is natural. But if I'm talking about one particular person in a group, they/them can get very confusing rather fast as to whether I'm just talking about that person or the group as a whole. Or talking about a specific singular person, the use of they/them when telling a story may make it confusing as to whether there were other people there or not.
If someone does not introduce themselves as something else, then I will assume it is cis, because that is most common and normally a safe assumption, and when they correct me I'll continue with what they want to be called. And I've met people who get offended that I'd have to ask about their gender when it should be obvious, and people who start ranting at me when using gender neutral pronouns when they haven't told me their pronouns. So yes, I do assume gender, but I'm not doing it to be a jackass, and I'll easily change what I call people if they want me to.
You seem to be saying that a cis woman who has been raped has the right to a 'safe' space, where 'safe' means 'without anyone with a penis allowed in it, because the potential presence of a penis is triggering.' However, to accommodate this need, a trans woman, who could be a rape victim herself, must use the men's bathroom, where she will almost certainly encounter men, and where she may not be physically safe, let alone emotionally safe.
I personally find they/them to be less awkward than neopronouns, but it does take some getting used to. As for deciding which pronoun to use for a specific person you've just met, well... you really can't win. If you guess, you're going to get it wrong some of the time. If you ask, you'll make people unhappy because you couldn't tell. It's unfortunate, but as long as you're doing your best to respect people -- and it sounds like you are -- I think you're good.
A cis man who's been raped also has to use the mens bathroom, there isn't any avoidance of dicks for the people who have them when it comes to bathrooms. In this case, there should be another 'safe' spot. What that would be, I do not know. For a trans woman, if she's undergone surgeries to remove said dick, should be just fine in the womans restroom. You could argue that because a man can't feel safe in a bathroom, women shouldn't have that luxury over men. But honestly, I think there should be as many safe spots for as many people as possible, even if it's something small as restroom. We'll just have to figure out other safe spots to include in buildings for other people that are as common as restrooms.
"For a trans woman, if she's undergone surgeries to remove said dick, should be just fine in the womans restroom."
The issue you've raised is that cis women with a trauma history could find the presence of someone-with-a-dick triggering. But women don't use urinals. Those cis woman would have no way of knowing whether or not any given trans woman has had surgery. Am I misunderstanding your line of reasoning?
I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be able to feel safe because men can't feel safe. I'm saying that you're unfairly prioritizing cis women feeling safe over trans women feeling safe.
In an ideal world, all establishments would have single-occupancy bathrooms, and anyone who felt unsafe sharing a bathroom could use one of those. In the real world, I think that the best thing to do is to let everyone use the bathroom that best matches their gender. Trans women are a small minority, so if a cis woman feels uncomfortable upon encountering a trans woman in the bathroom, she can either find another bathroom, or she can wait outside until the trans woman is done. If the trans woman were required to use the men's bathroom instead, there would be no feasible way for her to avoid men
I hadn't thought of single occupancy. Which is kinda stupid on my part. That does sound ideal.
If under certain circumstances someone with a dick could enter the woman's restroom, that undermines any sense of safety. So while trans women might feel a bit safer, quite a few of the cis woman would feel quite a bit less safe, because it presents the opportunity for some bastard to abuse the loophole. There aren't any security cameras allowed in bathrooms, which presents the opportunity for a lot of not-so-great things to occur. I'm arguing for the feeling of safety for as many people as possible.
"that undermines any sense of safety"
For some women, apparently. The majority of women actually support trans women using the women's restroom. (Click.) It's not a large margin, but it's gone up, and I imagine it will continue to go up, as acceptance of trans people increases.
While it's possible that this acceptance will enable sexual predators to gain unquestioned access to women's restrooms by pretending to be trans (or even by actually being trans, since predatory behavior isn't limited to men), I think it's unlikely to be a widespread problem. Restrooms may not have cameras, but they're likely to have witnesses. And obviously the 'unquestioned' part of that ends as soon as the person in question behaves in an inappropriate way.
People have been raped by people of the same sex as them. Happens a lot. So the safe space idea doesn't really hold. And as you say, they're not really safe places, seeing as people can go in and rape them anyway.
Fucking hell, Morgan and Steve are still going at it. Might as well call this thread the Immovable Tranny vs. the Unstoppable Faggot.
(Don’t worry folks, I make no pretense of attempting to reclaim either word)
They just don't stop.
Like the Energizer Bunny.
Take a note kid. Everything dies out eventually.
It's never really dead, it's just waiting for the right moment to strike again.
Unless it's about something boring, like interactive fiction. :P
I don't want to sound rude. I do respect all these new gender norms. I'm just confused as to the reason pronouns are so important to everyone all of a sudden. It really is only a word and I don't why people can get so offended when they are misgendered. I understand that some people aren't happy with the identities they are born with, and they by all means have the right to change it as they please. But how do words like he/she/them/it etc. change who that person is? Why is that one change in a word so important? Those words are just labels created to distinguish certain things. They don't mean shit about who you really are as a person. I just get sick of it when some people get fed up when people accidentally misgender them, especially in cases where the gender messes with grammar (like them/they). I always try my best to keep up, but the list keeps updating so frequently so it's going to take people time to adapt to these changes in grammar and identity. Any idea why these small words are held to such high importance?
Gender is important to most people. "He" or "she" might be "only" a word, but words have meaning, and a gendered word is an indication of what gender the speaker thinks you are. You're correct that it doesn't affect who you really are, but it certainly highlights the fact that the people around you don't actually recognize that reality.
With regards to "they," there's a clear precedent for pronouns that can be either singular or plural, but use plural verbs regardless: "you." Nobody questions the grammatical correctness of a sentence like "you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." And many people already use singular they, if they're talking about an individual whose gender they don't know. "I talked to my teacher about my grades today." "Really? What did they say?"
Yes, using it for specific, known individuals can feel awkward. But I think the awkwardness is due to unfamiliarity, and will therefore fade if you continue to use it. And people actually using it is the only way it's going to eventually become not-awkward for everyone.
Bloody hell, I've missed you guys! Weird thing is, I wasn't planning on logging into the site today. I stumbled over this thread because of a topic posted on the choice of games forums, complaining about how you guys are all hateful, intolerant bigots!
The best part is that, in the end, they closed the topic, presumably because they were worried that you guys would see it and be offended. >.<
That's why I love it here. You can post more or less whatever you want without worrying that you'll be banned just for making a joke or stating your opinions. Over in COG, I'd be too afraid to say that I don't believe in unicorns, because I'd be worried I'd get permanently banned for discrimination against unicorn-kin.
Oh yeah, we were having a chuckle at it yesterday. Here's that thread if you haven't seen it already.
I'm currently serving a multiple-century ban for asking if it would it would be transphobic to give Otherkin human rights.
Personally, my main case against other-kin is that the majority of them seem to be "cool" animals. Ones that are represented a lot in fiction and get a lot of furry-porn drawn of them. I'm guessing over 90% of the other-kin community are either dog or cat related. Like, you get a lot of wolf-kin or fox-kin or lion-kin or tiger-kin, but you never seem to see any slug-kin or dung beetle-kin or naked mole-rat-kin... Wonder why that is.
Shows what you know mizal, unicorns are fucking badass!
Not quite as fearsome as Briar's example, but seems legit.
Kinda looks like a crooked dagger sticking out of its head.
I don't see what they had against my opinion.
Guess I'll throw in my own opinion while I'm here. Personally, I don't think that transgender women are women, or transgender men are men... Before anyone starts sharpening their pitch-forks, I'll like to add that I don't think it's transgender people's fault that they have this opinion, I think it's the fault of everything society has been teaching us since before the beginning of recorded history.
As far as I'm concerned, a man is someone who's born with a dick and a woman is someone who's born with a vagina and that's all there is to it. What society teaches though, is that gender isn't based on genitals, but more on certain physical or mental characteristics. A lot of physical/mental characteristics are described as "masculine" or "feminine", and people get criticized for displaying traits of the opposite gender, pretty much since the day they're born.
I think that, at least in modern times, this applies much more to men than it does to women, and I also think this is why I see a lot more transgender women than I do transgender men. If you're a little girl and you like watching superhero cartoons and playing football, this is seen as a positive thing, and you're called a tomboy. On the other hand, if you're a little boy and you like watching my little pony and playing with barbies, this is seen as a bad thing and you're called a bitch-ass-pussy-faggot.
It's actually quite sad how strictly and how early on this kind of thinking is enforced. I've seen my nephew's father literally snatch a push-chair from him at nursery when he was two years old and say, "No son, don't play with that, that's a... GIRL'S TOY!" ... As if a boy playing with a toy designed for girls was the most horrific abomination against nature imaginable.
You also hear people say that certain actions or characteristics make someone, or stop someone from being a "Real man/woman." Say, for instance, "A real man doesn't cry!" or "A real woman doesn't sleep around!" That kind of thing... Really not sure where these criteria come from. As far as I see it, the only requirement for being a real man is to be an adult and have a penis.
Basically, I get why people would want to identify as a different gender to the one they were born with. If people are told their whole lives, "Men have personality type A" and "Women have personality type B." They're going to think, "Huh... Well I have personality type B, so that must mean I'm a woman." Or even, "Well, I don't have personality type A or B, so that must mean I'm not a man or a woman." It's society's fault really. Maybe if people were taught from the day they were born that gender is based on genitalia and not on personality, sexuality or hobbies and interests, people wouldn't feel the need to identify with a different gender to the one they were born with.
Mostly their conclusion are that while there is a difference, it's still a new enough field of study that they can't pinpoint the exact locations of that difference. Commonly, there are children who say that they don't feel like their sex, before even being exposed to what transgender is.
I know a trans guy whose primary hobby is sewing. I know a trans woman who has a spreadsheet to keep track of her sex partners. Trans people don't necessarily conform to gender stereotypes any more than their cis counterparts do.
Also, if it were that simple, don't you think that the mental health professionals who work with trans people would have figured it out, and could just use some sort of talk therapy to help people understand that gender stereotypes weren't actually mandatory?