Biden invites Dylan Mulvaney to the White House

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  486 comments

By:    Jenny Goldsberry

Biden invites Dylan Mulvaney to the White House
"I get to sit down with Joe Biden with Now This News, and I get to ask him a few questions surrounding trans issues in the United States," Mulvaney said in a TikTok marking the 222nd day of Mulvaney's gender transition.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Who is Dylan Mulvaney?

He is an emaciated male who wants to be a female. He has posted some films of himself imitating a girl on TikTok. The films are arguably demeaning to women. In the meantime the ever confused Joe Biden found time to invite the [deleted] over to the White House. Evidently to talk about Biden's support for " trans rights" and to endorse the operations performed on the young to permanently alter their bodies.


"Mulvaney, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, said the purpose behind the interview was to represent the transgender community and wore the transgender flag colors, white, blue, and pink, to honor the community. The post included behind-the-scenes footage of Mulvaney traveling and arriving at the White House in Washington, D.C., and the immediate reaction afterward with the song "Presidential Honors" playing throughout the background."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/transgender-tiktok-influencer-dylan-mulvaney-interviews-biden


Does anybody think Biden brought shame to the White House?




The interview that Joe Biden found time for will be aired on Sunday


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Just one more thing for voters to think about

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Looks like Democrats still are ignoring the economy, crime, the border, immigration and are going all in on transgenderism.

What a relief!

/s

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Just one more thing for voters to think about

What is there to think about? The president does interviews and has conversations with all sorts of people. Every variety of person. Not just the people you like.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    one month ago

give it up. the preambles to the constitution and DOI are completely lost on most trumpsters.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Just one more thing for voters to think about

It's his office, he can invite whomever he wants. 

At the end of the day, Americans vote with their wallet first.   Stuff like this is just another shiny object for the feely people.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

So the 'party' of logic, reason, and no regards for 'feelings' is, wait for it,. . . having feelings of outrage and shame of a boy who dresses up 'trans'. I guess y'all can stop lying about reason and logic being the only thing that matters. jrSmiley_104_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4    one month ago
So the 'party' of logic, reason, and no regards for 'feelings' is, wait for it,. . . having feelings of outrage and shame of a boy who dresses up 'trans'.

The party of logic and reason are outraged that we are experiencing near-record inflation, a border that is as porous as a sponge, illegal aliens coming by the thousands, rising crime, a national fixation on someone out of office, and an Administration that does jack-shit about ANY of it, but lo and behold, it has time to pander to transexuals.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.2  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.1    one month ago

What has a(ny) transsexual ever done to you, Texan?  Your disgust for her is palpable.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.2    one month ago

Thanks for spectacularly missing the point.

The clown show of an Administration has done virtually nothing to solve the real problems Americans are facing.

Your disgust for her is palpable.

Your ability to read what isn't there is truly amazing.

Why do you insist on telling ME what I feel?

Do you know me like that--even though we have never met and never probably will?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.4  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.3    one month ago

The Biden Administration owes you nothing, Texan. Trump was your 'president' and is maddeningly gallivanting across the country (maybe up to his next attempt to take over America with shady election practices and processes) and he is the one who left you feeling lost and in despair of not having a complete border wall with nice aesthetics to boot!

Illegals/aliens are being rerouted to blue states by red state governors and still you feel worried and anxious, inflation is a world-class problem in need of a fix so being stimulated by it is not going to make it end, and finally Bakerfield, Calfornia - home of wannabe house speake r : Kevin McCarthy (R-CA):

Bakersfield, CA Crime Statistics For 2022

 Crime
Updated: 2022-04-07

Violent Crime Rates In Bakersfield

2,007  Violent Crimes
516.9  Violent Crimes / 100k People
33.29%  Above National Average
  • You have a 1 in 193.5 chance of being the victim of a violent crime in Bakersfield each year. That compares to a 1 in 226.2 chance statewide.
  • The violent crime rate in Bakersfield is 516.9 per 100,000 people.
  • That's 33.29% higher than the national rate of 387.8 per 100,000 people.
  • 16.94% higher than the California violent crime rate of 442.0 per 100,000 people.
Source:

Where is your 'red alert' and feeling of discontent on account of a republican failure to lower/slow/decrease crime in a single locale under McCarthy's direct leadership. The man who would be next Speaker if he can be.

Let that sink in and hit closer to 'home'!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.5  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.3    one month ago

Why do you have social and political feelings of distress over a(ny) transsexual?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.4    one month ago
The Biden Administration owes you nothing, Texan.

That is completely false, of course.

The Biden/Harris clown show of an Administration owes each and every American an honest attempt at solving our problems.  That is why they were elected--to lead.

Trump was your 'president' and is maddeningly gallivanting across the country (maybe up to his next attempt to take over America with shady election practices and processes) who left youfeeling lost and in despairof not border wall.

Trump was your President like Biden is mine. And I get your overwhelming need to bring him up to deflect away from any criticisms of Biden.  Maybe you should seed your own article about Trump, there seems to be a whole lot of folk here who seemingly need to talk about Trump as much as you do, so you should have company.

Nice deflection to yet another Republican because even you can not logically defend Biden and Harris.

I hope one day you come to the realization that a US Congressman really has no control of cities in his district. Kind of like US Senators don't really have any control over their states.

failure to lower/slow/decrease crime in a single locale under McCarthy's direct leadership.

That statement leads me to believe that you really don't know what Congress' duties are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.7  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.5    one month ago
Why do you have social and political feelings of distress over a(ny) transsexual?

Why do you work so hard to miss any points?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.8  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.6    one month ago

It is you that needs a dodge, after all it is you that brought up Biden in the first place. And so I handed you back, "the Donald" and "the McCarthy."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.7    one month ago

It seems you are 'bleeding' feelings out over this transsexual for all to see. Why?

 
 
 
George
Freshman Participates
1.4.10  George  replied to  CB @1.4.8    one month ago
after all it is you that brought up Biden in the first place

OMG, he brought up Biden on an article that is literally about Biden, The horror!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.8    one month ago
It is you that needs a dodge, after all it is you that brought up Biden in the first place.

Oh, FFS.

Dude, LOOK at the TITLE. Do you SEE the word "BIDEN" there or not? Did you READ the article?

Do you even have clue one what the ARTICLE is about?

Do you understand the article is about BIDEN inviting the person to the WH???????????

And so I handed you back, "the Donald" and "the McCarthy."

What you 'handed' to me was a load of manure that deflects from Biden. As usual. I can't recall a conversation with you where you have not managed to drag Trump into no matter the subject matter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.12  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.9    one month ago
It seems you are 'bleeding' feelings out over this transsexual for all to see. Why?

Have you read my posts?????

Here is a refresher for you:

The party of logic and reason are outraged that we are experiencing near-record inflation, a border that is as porous as a sponge, illegal aliens coming by the thousands, rising crime, a national fixation on someone out of office, and an Administration that does jack-shit about ANY of it, but lo and behold, it has time to pander to transexuals.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.13  Texan1211  replied to  George @1.4.10    one month ago
OMG, he brought up Biden on an article that is literally about Biden, The horror!

The seeded article apparently doesn't matter any longer here.

The need for a select few to talk about nothing but Trump takes precedent over the actual topic.

Maybe we should just post a blank article so they can get their Trump fix on!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.14  CB   replied to  George @1.4.10    one month ago

The article is about an invitation to the White House and a 'meet' at the White House. And yes, the administration has successfully demonstrated for all their critics to see that while dealing with a mountain of complex situations, lighthearted moments are easier to complete in mere hours or days.

George, there is nothing to criticize. So why are you feeling distress over a transsexual interview in the White House? Could it be you have strong negative feelings about a transsexual setting her feet on those grounds and dwelling?

Dylan Mulvaney made a 'first' and the history books will carry it for all time. Yay, Mulvaney!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.15  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.14    one month ago
The article is about an invitation to the White House and a 'meet' at the White House

With Biden.

Which was exactly my point in post 1.4.11 in response to you dragging Trump into it yet again.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.16  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.11    one month ago

I really don't give a flaming piss about your dodge and you got slammed for attempting it. This article was not about republican talking points until you tried to wedge some into it: sideways. It is your obsession with Biden that can go fly a kite in October.

Now back to the focus of the article Vic posted about a transsexual in the White House: What is it about this transsexual that you feel is unbearable, upsetting, and unworthy?  Because subtlety has failed you and your attitude towards her is seeping into this discussion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.4.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.12    one month ago

There it is, your 'incessant' obsession with Biden. See 8.1!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.16    one month ago
I really don't give a flaming piss about your dodge and you got slammed for attempting it.

That sentence shows remarkable delusion.

This article was not aboutrepublican talking pointsuntil you tried to wedge some into it: sideways. It is your obsession with Biden that can go fly a kite in October.

Okay, once again, what exactly are you reading here? Quote me doing what you claim, and when you can not, please stop doing that!

What is it about this transsexual that you feel is unbearable, upsetting, and unworthy?

Not a thing, and WHY do you insist on making stuff up?

Please stick to debating what I actually write, not stuff you invent.  You don't need me to debate what you invent.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.19  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.17    one month ago
There it is, your 'incessant' obsession with Biden. See 8.1!

Well, excuse the hell out of me for being on topic and not wanting to talk about Trump 24/7/365!

You DO understand the article is about Biden, right?

Right?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.4.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.15    one month ago

Sometimes people just cannot help themselves in doing things like that./s

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
1.4.21  dennissmith  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.3    one month ago

Does it really surprise you that a someone who supports the Dems has the ability to read what isn't there. 

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
1.4.22  dennissmith  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.18    one month ago

Do you really expect an answer to your question instead of deflection?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.23  Texan1211  replied to  dennissmith @1.4.22    4 weeks ago
Do you really expect an answer to your question instead of deflection?

Never.

Do you even remember what the world was like pre-Trump?

What in the hell were these folks talking about incessantly back then?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Mulvaney looks uglier as a wannabe "woman" than Caitlin Jenner does. Ugghhhh!/sarc

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    one month ago

Why would we think he brought shame to the White House for being tolerant?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

Did you look at the film?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

I looked at the film. What is there to feel shame about?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Is she talking about 'grabbing boys by their crotches' or some other indecent activity that is unproductive, Vic?  Has she caused anybody to be shot, knifed, poisoned, or riot at capitol building in a state or federal setting? What is she doing wrong, just being 'trans'?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.2    one month ago
Is she talking about 'g

Who is 'she"?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.4  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    one month ago

Whom you are referring to, no doubt. Why can't you call people what they want to be called?  What is she doing wrong, just being 'trans'?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.4    one month ago
Why can't you call people what they want to be called?  

I can, but why call someone what they aren't?

No one said she or he was doing anything wrong, what did YOU read in that regard?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    one month ago
why call someone what they aren't?

Who are you to say what they are? A lot of people make claims about what they are, but I look at them and I don't agree. They claim they are brave, or conservative, or Christian, but I can't see it. They act cowardly. They support authoritative government. They are mean.

They might think they are pretty, but I don't. They might think they are tall, but I look down at them. They might say they are fit, but I am more fit. 

They claim ethnic heritage. They claim to be black, hispanic, asian, german, russian, english. But I don't see it. They claim to be native American but have never been anywhere near a native community and no tribe recognizes them. They claim to be poor but have more money than I do.

Unless, it directly affects me, I don't really have the right to make declarations about what other people are. And neither does anyone else.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    one month ago

If you can, then do it.  Ands, ors,''buts, are superfluous. Exercise: Try it!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.8  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.1.6    one month ago

Emphatically.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.4    one month ago
Why can't you call people what they want to be called?

For the same reason I can't truthfully call you an armadillo.  Because words have meaning.  

 What is she doing wrong, just being 'trans'?

This person is not doing anything wrong.  The wrong is done by the people who demand the rest of us alter our language to suit their emotions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.6    one month ago
Who are you to say what they are?

 Me, I am just me.

I don't call apples bananas, I don't call t-shirts pants, and I don't call men women or women men.

Others may choose differently, and I am not asking anyone to do what I do.

Participating in lunacy should be a strictly personal choice.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.7    one month ago
If you can, then do it.  Ands, ors,''buts, are superfluous

See post 2.1.10.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    one month ago
I am not asking anyone to do what I do.

Yes, you are. You are insisting that someone put up with you calling them whatever you want to call them. That's obnoxious.

Suppose your friend Susie Smith married Fred Farnsworth and started calling herself Susie Farnsworth? Or Susie Smith-Farnsworth? Would you insist on calling her Susie Smith just because it's the name she was born with?

Do you insist on addressing or referring to Tigua or Kickapoo people as Injins or Redskins? What do you call African Americans? What you want to call them? Or what they want to be called?

It doesn't affect you. It's not your business. Only an ass calls someone something other than what they want to be called.

"But wait," you might say. "We're talking about sex. That's different from changing your name." But is it?

Will you be fucking Susie? Are you her doctor? Unless the answer to either question is "yes," then Susie's sex and gender identity are not your business.

Meanwhile, if someone you know is experiencing some gender identity issues, they might be going through some tough times. And you want to make it harder for them by arguing with them about what they should be called? Who are you to tell them how to handle their situation? What kind of a person does that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    one month ago
Yes, you are.

Quote me then.

You are insisting that someone put up with you calling them whatever you want to call them. That's obnoxious.

I am not insisting anyone else do anything at all. In fact, I did the opposite: 

Others may choose differently, and I am not asking anyone to do what I do. Participating in lunacy should be a strictly personal choice.

Some of the rest of your post is inane 'examples' and personal attacks.

I haven't told anyone to do anything. I told you what I do.

Now, you can either like that or not like it, but I mean what I say, and am pretty clear, so climb down off your moral high horse.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.14  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    one month ago

Trust me, if you met my step son you would be referring to him as “he”, since he has a low voice and a thick beard and you would have no reason to even think that he was born with female anatomy.  It’s quite funny that he is the type of person that [removedwant to force into women’s restrooms where little girls might be inside.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.14    one month ago
Trust me,

Not even a little.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.16  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    one month ago

Please. You can't call me an armadillo because I won't stand for it. Let's get that straight up front! However, what is it to you if she wants to present as a girl in public? Do you have any ideas the pressure she is under in doing so? Would it matter to you, that it is harmless, but satisfying to her to be free in her mind?

What is all this loud, brassy, talk about freedoms being free if she can't even dress and appear as she wishes? Do you watch the conservative mind at work in Iran and the trouble it is incurring, and rightly so, because it won't let girls and women dress and "present" themselves freely in public?

What 'DEMAND' do you need over Dylan Mulvaney's life. Can she make demands in your life-were she to even care that you exist?

Freedom ought to mean something tangible and I have been told until I am "blue" in the face that conservatives are champions of it!  Are you a champion of freedom, or just a big talker about ideology that tilts in your direction?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    one month ago

And commenting on other people's direction in life is a choice. You choose to comment. You could easily not comment and just take a pass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.16    one month ago
You can't call me an armadillo because I won't stand for it. Let's get that straight up front!

Way to miss the point--again. Is it deliberate?

What is all this loud, brassy, talk about freedoms being free if she can't even dress and appear as she wishes?

Who said that? Can you QUOTE someone saying that or are you just inventing things?

What 'DEMAND' do you need over Dylan Mulvaney's life. Can she make demands in your life-were she to even care that you exist?

List and link this imagined demand you claim, I don't think you can.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.17    one month ago
And commenting on other people's direction in life is a choice. You choose to comment. You could easily not comment and just take a pass

I will comment as I like, and you can either read it or ignore it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.20  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.18    one month ago

Stop sputtering. Talk coherently. Freedom is not expressly a standard in your worldview?  Please explain this change to me. Try not to be long-winded. We need to get back to the transperson invited to sit down in the White House. The reason for the article.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.21  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.19    one month ago

Good. Would you 'like' to share why you don't care for transpeople with this group? You have our undivided attention right now!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.20    one month ago
Stop sputtering. Talk coherently.

Do you not recognize plain English when you read it?

What do you IMAGINE I have 'sputtered' about now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.21    one month ago
Good. Would you 'like' to share why you don't care for transpeople with this group?

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass who is a transexual and who isn't.

Would you care to share why you choose to 'debate' by putting imaginary words in my posts?

You have our undivided attention right now!

I would much rather prefer to have your comprehension on what exactly I write.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.24  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.22    one month ago

Enough! Stop droning and filling this discussion with distraction. I am done responding to your lack of genuine discussion. This is not a schoolyard!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.25  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.23    one month ago
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass who is a transexual (sic) and who isn't.

Yes, you do. Tell the truth even when it is inconvenient!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.24    one month ago
Enough! Stop droning and filling this discussion with distraction. I am done responding to your lack of genuine discussion.

I will write what I choose. Either ignore it or not, but you don't get to dictate what I do.

Maybe if you would learn to stick to the topic, stop putting words in others' mouths, and stop yakking about Trump nonstop, you would see a 'discussion'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.25    one month ago
Yes, you do.

Truly amazing!

Are you Kreskin?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.28  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.26    one month ago

I will write what I choose. Either ignore it or not, but you don't get to dictate what I do. The focus of this article is not Joe Biden and a setup for republican talking points. That is your usual obsession. Let Dylan Mulvaney have her 'moment' all to herself with Biden (The president did after all). Your 'fighting' issues can take a back seat for now! No?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.28    one month ago
I will write what I choose. Either ignore it or not, but you don't get to dictate what I do.

I admire your cut and paste abilities.

Let Dylan Mulvaney have her 'moment' all to herself with Biden.

Who is taking the 'moment'?????

Your 'fighting' issues can take a back seat for now! No?

I made myself pretty clear in my first two posts.

I am sorry you don't like it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.30  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    one month ago
Yes, you are.

No.  He isn't.

 You are insisting that someone put up with you calling them whatever you want to call them.

Which is very different than insisting you call them whatever he calls them.  That's what you're doing.

That's obnoxious.

Much less obnoxious than insisting everyone abandon the meaning of English words because of your feelings.

Suppose your friend Susie Smith married Fred Farnsworth and started calling herself Susie Farnsworth? Or Susie Smith-Farnsworth? Would you insist on calling her Susie Smith just because it's the name she was born with?

Not remotely the same thing, and you know it.  Try again.

Do you insist on addressing or referring to Tigua or Kickapoo people as Injins or Redskins?

Is calling someone "male" the same as a racial slur?  Glad we're finally getting that out in the open.

What do you call African Americans? What you want to call them? Or what they want to be called?

I don't call them white. 

It doesn't affect you. It's not your business. Only an ass calls someone something other than what they want to be called.

Only an ass insists that other people redefine language that has existed for centuries because of their feelings.

Meanwhile, if someone you know is experiencing some gender identity issues, they might be going through some tough times.

They are definitely going through some hard times.  They are so unhappy in their own skin that major surgery and massive drug ingestion looks like a better alternative.

And you want to make it harder for them by arguing with them about what they should be called?

I'm not abandoning reality, and even if I did, that doesn't help them.  Pretending we live in an alternate reality where chromosomes are made up, skeletal and muscular structure are fake news and all the gender-specific socialization a person missed as a child is just a "construct" is not helping anybody.  

Who are you to tell them how to handle their situation? What kind of a person does that?

Nobody is telling them anything.  YOU are the one telling everyone else how WE have to handle their situation.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.31  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.16    one month ago
Please. You can't call me an armadillo because I won't stand for it.  Let's get that straight up front!

Noted. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif   Well said.

However, what is it to you if she wants to present as a girl in public? Do you have any ideas the pressure she is under in doing so? Would it matter to you, that it is harmless, but satisfying to her to be free in her mind?

Let me explain exactly how I see this.  I have no problem with Dylan dressing however he wants, behaving however he wants, visiting the WH, going to work, church, living his life how he wants or doing whatever other people do, as long as it's legal. Further, I would oppose any law that restricts him from doing whatever other people do.

My objection is to those people who demand that I comply with their practice of ignoring reality.  BTW, those people tend not to be transgender themselves, which is odd.  The reality is that he's not a female.  He has a body full of xy chromosomes.  He has the skeletal structure of a man.  Further, he's never been through most of the social experiences that shape female culture in America.

Now, I have nothing against this young man.  At all.  But that doesn't mean I have to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary biology and social structures.  It doesn't mean I have to assign alternate meaning to words in my native language that are over a thousand years old.

So I'm not going to refer to him as "her" or female, just like I'm not going to refer to you as 7' tall. (unless of course you are actually 7' tall).

Freedom ought to mean something tangible and I have been told until I am "blue" in the face that conservatives are champions of it!  Are you a champion of freedom, or just a big talker about ideology that tilts in your direction?

This is all about freedom.  Dylan has the freedom to behave how he wants and I have the freedom to keep using pronouns accurately.  That's how it's supposed to work.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.31    one month ago

People have the freedom to be an ass.

Shows character...

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
2.1.33  Veronica  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.31    one month ago
So I'm not going to refer to him as "her" or female, j

And if you did not know that she was trans, but ran into her on the street?  What would you call her?  You would have no clue if she was trans or not so most likely would say "she" in referring to her.  Right?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.34  Jack_TX  replied to  Veronica @2.1.33    one month ago
And if you did not know that she was trans, but ran into her on the street?  What would you call her?  You would have no clue if she was trans or not so most likely would say "she" in referring to her.  Right?  

Probably.  Sure. 

Still doesn't make him female.  Which still doesn't mean I have anything against him.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
2.1.35  Veronica  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.34    one month ago
It doesn't mean I have to assign alternate meaning to words in my native language that are over a thousand years old.

So you will be assigning alternate meaning to words...  cuz if you don't know then you will be assigning alternate meanings.  You may not know you are, but you are.

Which still doesn't mean I have anything against him.

Uh huh - sure...  if you didn't you would defend her right to be what she wants & be called what she wants.  But it's ok you are who you are just like HER.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2.1.32    one month ago
Shows character...

People with character can face reality.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.37  Jack_TX  replied to  Veronica @2.1.35    one month ago
So you will be assigning alternate meaning to words...  cuz if you don't know then you will be assigning alternate meanings.  You may not know you are, but you are.

Mistakenly so, I guess.

Uh huh - sure...  if you didn't you would defend her right to be what she wants & be called what she wants.

That's just comically ridiculous.  

Look, you may be fine living in a fantasy alternate reality.  I don't need to.  

Acceptance of a person does not actually require the abandonment of reality.  If you believe it does, the problem is with you, not me or him.

But it's ok you are who you are just like HER.

I realize this is probably lost on you, but I don't care at all how you refer to people.  If it makes you feel better to call him HER in all caps, knock yourself out.  See how that works?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.38  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.31    one month ago
This is all about freedom.  Dylan has the freedom to behave how he wants and I have the freedom to keep using pronouns accurately.  That's how it's supposed to work.

More to the point, you have the freedom to pass in discussion what is irrelevant to you if you choose. Evidently, you choose NOT to pass by this one. So here you are weighing in with your opinion. Thus, you get the push-back you should expect.

Transpeople are a new 'thing' in the lexicon and in medical science. Thus, our society will/should/shall have to come to deal with it accordingly or fall into the recesses of time when it can't cope with change.

Do you want to be 'old-fashioned,' out-of-touch, and 'obsolete' - keep trying to drag the youthful minds of the present and future now into the 'age-hole' you transit.

Look at Dylan. She is well on here way to physical change and alteration of her body, mind, and spirit. It shows respect for her if you let her make determination of what she will be be called. That is, she definitely does not present as "he."

You do not have to understand it. BTW, social categories are constructs anyway. All you need do to avail yourself of respect for others is widen the aperture of your mind and not insist that it is "hundreds of years of evolution" —or bust.

I am a man. I am a homosexual. We, homosexuals, mess around with the word, "girl" and "woman" between ourselves too. Did you know this, even when we are wearing beards. Trans folks are closer to being a woman than I ever intended to be in this life.

Besides, you can look at her pictures and video and see that it does the meaning of the word, 'boy' a disservice to call somebody so 'trans' by that descriptor.

So just stop defending mediocrity. Get with the 'times' you live in. Let people live.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.38    one month ago
This is all about freedom.  Dylan has the freedom to behave how he wants and I have the freedom to keep using pronouns accurately.  That's how it's supposed to work.

Here is what he ACTUALLY stated.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.40  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.34    one month ago

A word about Dylan Mulvaney being a female. She is not a female. She will never be female. Even if she gets a sex-change, she will be at best some version of a person of 'trans'. As her bodily cavities will need constant attention to mimic shapes and sizes and textures of what is female.

Dylan has been made aware of all the precautions, limitations, and side-effects as the case may be.

So you don't need to worry about what is going on in her panties or her sex life! She, Dylan, won't be bearing any child vaginally or "caesarean "

However, she will be free in a country that claims freedom is what it is about to enjoy her 'state of mind' because it is harmless to others in society.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.41  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    one month ago

I’m a little saddened, but ultimately not surprised at your angry reaction. Often I find when people have such a strong emotional position on a topic, they aren’t interested in being reasoned with. I never attacked you and my examples were not inane. It is unfortunate that you dismiss them so out of hand. There is an opportunity here for you to have better relationships with people you might encounter. But I can only show you the door. You have to choose to walk through.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.40    one month ago
A word about Dylan Mulvaney being a female. She is not a female. She will never be female. Even if she gets a sex-change,

Exactly!

Probably why we don't call a female a male. Because they aren't the same!

We won't suspend reality so some folks can feel good.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.41    one month ago
I’m a little saddened

I'm touched by your concern.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.44  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.36    one month ago

Dylan Mulvaney is facing reality. It is opiners like you who choose to render judgment on her decision to be real. You have no glue what it takes to aspire to live as a girl/woman in a body of a male. No clue. As I presume it never crosses your mind as a real thing to do. No?

It takes a great amount of character to face the world in Dylan's shirts and 'high heels'!  Because inescapably Dylan is aware people are watching and unfortunately judging her. For what exactly? Just the act of "being" Dylan!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.45  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.39    one month ago

Clearly somebody is triggered by transpeople and their attitudes and interests.

LMCHATTERBOXCANVAS_afd83e03-729e-4765-8622-efb9dc5aabb6_1024x.jpg?v=1569159231

"Well now, hmm mmm. Girl, you better gone with that! Call me back when you get a minute."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.45    one month ago
Clearly somebody is triggered by transpeople and their attitudes and interests.

Yes indeedy!

Have you noticed how riled up some folks are getting because some of us choose to use the proper words for people?

And how they attack the folks who use the proper terms?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.47  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.30    one month ago
Which is very different than insisting you call them whatever he calls them.  That's what you're doing.

I don’t understand that. Perhaps you could rephrase or clarify what you mean.

Much less obnoxious than insisting everyone abandon the meaning of English words because of your feelings.

No one is suggesting that anyone abandon the meaning of anything. We are expanding our understanding of human sexuality and sexual identity. The approach doesn’t reject knowledge. It increases knowledge.

Not remotely the same thing, and you know it.

Analogies can always be picked at, unless you want to try to use them for learning. It requires an open mind, though. I stand by my analogies, especially in the absence of any criticism beyond an unsupported declaration that they’re “not remotely the same.”

Is calling someone "male" the same as a racial slur?

It is a slur if you know using it is going to be offensive.

Only an ass insists that other people redefine language that has existed for centuries because of their feelings.

Again, nothing has been redefined.

I don't call them white. 

You don’t answer the question either.

I'm not abandoning reality, and even if I did, that doesn't help them.

So, you get to tell them what they need? And no one is asking you to abandon reality. They’re just asking you to not be disrespectful. Decent, gentle treatment of other human beings who aren’t harming you should cost you nothing.

Pretending

It’s not about pretending. It’s frankly hard to believe that at this point, any adult who cares to be even a little educated about this still accuses people of “pretending.” It’s really very dismissive and condescending.

Nobody is telling them anything.

You just got through saying that you know best what they need and accusing them of pretending or changing words, when none of that is happening. You also tell them what form of address they must tolerate. So you’re telling them plenty.

YOU are the one telling everyone else how WE have to handle their situation.

No, I’m telling you how a considerate, compassionate human being should deal with someone in need of those qualities. I’m not telling you that you “have to” do anything. You want to be mean and insensitive to people? I can’t stop you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.48  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.42    one month ago

Ah, but that is where you are in error. Dylan Mulvaney can be a 'she' for it is a word descriptor. Female is a category designator. Distinctions matter. Only a fool would conclude Dylan Mulvaney is a designated female. The term "she" can be and is transitory. Transpeople are fully aware of the nuances in being them.

The issue with you and others of your mindset is, why do you care what goes she calls herself, as you feign it does not matter to how you feel and your overall well-being anyway. Or, does it?

Stay in the straight-lane of life all you wish and you won't even notice trans-people navigating the courses of their lanes.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.49  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.36    one month ago

And not be jerks to other people just because they don't agree with their lifestyle.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.50  afrayedknot  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.47    one month ago

Great response that explores what it is to be understanding of those differences among us, even though some may have an issue with simply acknowledging those differences. Well said. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.51  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.46    one month ago

Texan, it is clear you are just 'old-fashioned.' Can we just leave it at that. I tried to help you get with the times the youth are approaching. Evidently, Texan can't cope. And I think I am older than you, so age has little to do with state of mind on the issues.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.52  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.1.47    one month ago

Well said. Bravo!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.53  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.38    one month ago
Transpeople are a new 'thing' in the lexicon and in medical science. Thus, our society will/should/shall have to come to deal with it accordingly or fall into the recesses of time when it can't cope with change.

Fair point.

If they're a "new thing", why are we trying to use old words to define them?  Why aren't we developing new terms that better reflect this "new thing"?

Do you want to be 'old-fashioned,' out-of-touch, and 'obsolete' - keep trying to drag the youthful minds of the present and future now into the 'age-hole' you transit.

If reality is old-fashioned, I suppose I'll be old-fashioned.

That is, she definitely does not present as "he."

How he 'presents' does not change actual sciences... like biology, biochemistry, and physiology.

You do not have to understand it.

The problem is that I do understand it.  I understand completely that a small group of vocal people are trying to coerce the rest of us into accepting their insanity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.54  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.46    one month ago

How is "he" a proper word for Dylan Mulvaney when he is manifesting feminine aspects on a continuum?  How come you can be content to allow her this one aspect of life that makes her happy? After all, she is not doing this to make you happy! This is not about-you!

Call people what they want to be called. Then, you both can be happy—especially when she call back to you what you want to be! And don't give me that 'hit about you being comfortable being whatever society wants you to be: We all, every last one of us, got "baggage" we are required and forced to live with for the duration.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.55  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.53    one month ago

“…to coerce the rest of us into accepting their insanity.”

Perhaps if you can grasp that it is not an attempt at coercion, but rather the attempt for simply accepting their reality.

A reality that does not affect you in any meaningful way no less. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.56  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.53    one month ago
If they're a "new thing", why are we trying to use old words to define them?  Why aren't we developing new terms that better reflect this "new thing"?

LOL! First let's get people like you in agreement with calling her what she wants to be called.

Second, once that is done, you can wait to see if another new word is developed by the trans community for transpeople. No?

Third, our roles, yours and mine, in this is easy; we can just call transpeople whatsoever they wish as long as it is and remains harmless. We don't have to confront, struggle, or feel anything about it that way. :)

If reality is old-fashioned, I suppose I'll be old-fashioned.

Reality is what we, humans, say about it in this case. Again this is not hard. It just takes an open-mind. Moreover, Biden is certainly old in age by any definition and yet he gets it enough to not be scared or offended by this 'curious' person sitting and talking to him in his 'home.'  Open up your mind. Explore change. It's a brave new world where you don't have to hold onto the reins so tightly. The world will do find if/when we move on from it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.57  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.53    one month ago
How he 'presents' does not change actual sciences... like biology, biochemistry, and physiology.

Just call people what they want to be called! It's the grown-up thing to do. It's the nice thing to do, when you wish to make others comfortable around you.

Do you wish to make people comfortable in your presence? If you don't want people to be comfortable around you, you may find they will call you 'tired,''musty,' and 'limp,' or some such thing to boot!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.58  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @2.1.54    one month ago
is "he" a proper word for Dylan Mulvaney when he is manifesting feminine aspects on a continuum? 

Some people aren't bound by rigid gender stereotypes.  Now a boy manifests some feminine aspects and he's told he has to chop his dick off because he's not a "real man"

Progressives  have gone from boys can play with dolls to boys who play with dolls are actually girls.  Sad. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.59  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.58    one month ago

Well Sean, she does not really have to "chop dick off," because another possibility is interplay between boy/girl (cross-over) sexuality. She is fine enjoying her liberty and freedom conservatives just like you 'SWORE' she could have. What is your issue with her in light of that?

How come freedom does not really mean FREEDOM to be trans in your worldview?

Sean, why do you get to place caps on freedoms for people outside your 'country club' and tribe? Why are your feelings about how she lives her life relevant to how she lives her life?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.60  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.47    one month ago
I don’t understand that. Perhaps you could rephrase or clarify what you mean.

You claimed that "demanding someone put up" with being called something is the same as compelling other people to say what you want them to say.  You know very well that isn't the case.

No one is suggesting that anyone abandon the meaning of anything.

The words "male" and "man" and the corresponding pronouns have well-established meanings.

We are expanding our understanding of human sexuality and sexual identity. The approach doesn’t reject knowledge. It increases knowledge.

Then use expanded vocabulary.

Again, nothing has been redefined.

Excellent.  Then we'll recognize that Dylan is a man and move on.

It’s not about pretending. It’s frankly hard to believe that at this point, any adult who cares to be even a little educated about this still accuses people of “pretending.” It’s really very dismissive and condescending.

You are attempting to pretend that things like biology, chemistry, and physiology somehow don't matter in the face of emotion.  And the idea that people who disagree with your views are not "even a little educated" on a topic is "condescending" is hilarious.  Are you intentionally being ironic or are you just not "even a little educated".  

You are developing a pattern here of accusing others of your own flaws.  

You just got through saying that you know best what they need and accusing them of pretending or changing words, when none of that is happening. You also tell them what form of address they must tolerate. So you’re telling them plenty.

Nonsense.  I'm telling you that I will continue to reject your attempts to coerce my compliance with your desire to use gender specific English words erroneously.

No, I’m telling you how a considerate, compassionate human being should deal with someone in need of those qualities. I’m not telling you that you “have to” do anything. You want to be mean and insensitive to people? I can’t stop you.

What ridiculous, melodramatic bullshit. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.61  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.60    one month ago
Excellent.  Then we'll recognize that Dylan is a man and move on.

May I jump in here?

No. We won't be moving on. Dylan is not manifesting as any male model you want to be associated with is she?  I assume you won't be inviting her to the White House, country club, or church social functions as your guest anytime soon. Why not? You insist she is a 'standard issue male.'

I will answer that one: You will not be inviting Dylan anywhere near you because you intuitively know she is not emanating 'boy' or 'man' in her heart, mind, or body sufficiently enough to serve purposes suitable to your group!

This is some academic 'hit you are pulling to impress the 'natives' that you can hold Dylan's and any other transpeoples' feet to the fire of your stubbornless because of what exactly: A damn socially constructed pronoun: "he."

Well Jack, dictionary words can be revised and meaning of words and terms shift with the times. So you will lose the debate according to the dictionary which will change (if it has not already to incorporate: "transpeople" and their accompanying pronouns). It will be like everything else you ought to get to know about the modern and postmodern world you live in.

It is tired, old, tripe boys, girls, women and men who will be left behind because of they could not/would not keep up with science and medicine changing the reality they thought they understood once and for all.

Nothing about this world is 'settled,' Jack. Not a damn thing. By now, the thinking man, woman, boy, or girl knows this!

No. In the past, people like Dylan would get nowhere near the White House and its media 'powerhouse' or the politics that could take down a president because of someone like her. But, this ain't your father's generation anymore. No?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.62  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.54    one month ago
How is "he" a proper word for Dylan Mulvaney when he is manifesting feminine aspects on a continuum?

Because he is a male.  Because biology, chemistry, and physiology are real things.

This is not about-you!

Then why is everybody so concerned with what I call this man?  I've already said repeatedly I don't care what he does.  

Call people what they want to be called.

Why?  Because you demand I ignore reality?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.63  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.62    one month ago

What you are ignoring is simple common courtesy. Is that too much to ask?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.64  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.62    one month ago

Because trans-people ARE this world's reality, too. Just like you. Just like me.

Where is it definitively stated that a "he" can not/must not manifest as a "she"? These are social constructs. So 'relax' them so people like you can find others acceptable and others can breathe when you are in the vicinity.

And for the record, as a homosexual, I don't fully get transpeople myself because I am not interested in appearing feminine in public. But I can be open enough to accept they have to live, breath, eat, piss, and 'hit right alongside the rest of us with our 'baggage.'

That is the real world aspect. You are being stubborn and willful to want to see people through your prism as if people can be seen that way. Well, clearly people no longer fit in their 'boxes' constructed for them and they probably never did but could do nothing about it! So let the 'schoolyard' attitude go and get with the reality you are facing with people here and now.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.65  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.55    one month ago
Perhaps if you can grasp that it is not an attempt at coercion, but rather the attempt for simply accepting their reality.

Perhaps if you can grasp that several people only seem willing to acknowledge "acceptance" if it involves complete adherence to their beliefs.

I've said repeatedly that I don't wish him ill.  I don't care what he does.  I would oppose any efforts to keep him from doing the things everyone else gets to do.  I am perfectly content for him to live his life in whatever way he wants.

But this is insufficient for the zealots.  They demand full compliance, regardless of how much science must be ignored to get there.

A reality that does not affect you in any meaningful way no less. 

Thank you for the acknowledgment that you're talking about an alternate reality.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.66  CB   replied to  Ender @2.1.63    one month ago

Agreed. No one is demanding or suggesting the Jack_Tx's of the world sit, eat, or sleep with the Dylan Mulvaney's of this world. Respect for persons and what they wish to be when harmless to others is all.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.67  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.62    one month ago

“I've already said repeatedly I don't care…”

Then just let it go, sir.

With every subsequent post reiterating the same objections, it seems you have trouble in caring so passionately about something that has so very little to do with your day to day life. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.68  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.56    one month ago
LOL! First let's get people like you in agreement with calling her what she wants to be called.

Why?  That's actually the opposite of what we should be doing.

If you had a completely different term to describe a person like Dylan (male trans to female), you wouldn't be demanding everybody comply with your redefinition of the English language.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.69  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.67    one month ago
Then just let it go, sir.

I said I don't care what Dylan does.

I do care about the demands made by other people that we all accept their particular brand of insanity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.70  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.65    one month ago

Some of your 'associates,' loosely defined here tried to mock Dylan Mulvaney for his choice of self-determination and gender association. That mocking is harmful on social media and can migrate into reality. Therefore it is not a game to be allowed in here either. People need to accept people for who they are, specifically, when it is harmless to society as a whole.

I am not a 'zealot' on this matter. What I am is an advocate for true diversity and real, tangible, freedoms and liberties for people. Even those like you and those not like you and me. I continue to practice expanding my mind around policies and positions that improve life for all, while rejecting negative and mean-spirited policies which hinder one group or another just for cause.

Dylan Mulvaney was given a platform by a president who is doing the same thing. Joe Biden evidently finds no harm/offense in Dylan Mulvaney coming into his proximity and thus, neither leader or transpeople should be mocked, ridiculed, or judged simply because a 'meet' occurred.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.71  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.69    one month ago

Narrow-minded people exist. That much is evident. Wow, is that implication you really think the president would have a 'sit-down' interview with an insane person and air it to the public? How low you think about. .  .us.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.72  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.69    one month ago

“I do care about the demands made by other people that we all accept their particular brand of insanity.”

Wow, if that is the bar that determines your level of  concern you are either living a very comfortable life or you are in need of a good night’s sleep, a long book and a full bottle of bourbon, for otherwise you are tilting at windmills.

I hope it’s the former. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.73  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.1.71    one month ago
Narrow-minded people exist.

Is that another term for focused people?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.74  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.72    one month ago
you are either living a very comfortable life

Is that a criticism?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.75  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.73    one month ago

Nope.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.76  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.74    one month ago

Nope. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.77  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.70    one month ago
Some of your 'associates,' loosely defined here tried to mock Dylan Mulvaney for his choice of self-determination and gender association.

I don't have "associates", defined loosely or otherwise.  I prefer to think for myself rather than delegate it.

But this illustrates the danger of identity politics, where those who resist zealotry are demonized.

People need to accept people for who they are, specifically, when it is harmless to society as a whole.

Acceptance of a person does not require the rejection of reality.  Quite the opposite.

I am not a 'zealot' on this matter.

Yet you have demanded (repeatedly now) that I comply with the wishes of people who agree with you but ignore actual science.

Dylan Mulvaney was given a platform by a president who is doing the same thing. Joe Biden evidently finds no harm/offense in Dylan Mulvaney coming into his proximity and thus, neither leader or transpeople should be mocked, ridiculed, or judged simply because a 'meet' occurred.

As I've already said, I don't have a problem with him.  I don't have a problem with him going to the WH, and I don't begrudge Joe the right to invite whomever he wants.  

My objection is to the zealots who demand I comply with their practices and condemn me as a lesser person when I refuse to abandon science and reality.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.78  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.77    one month ago

The thing is, nobody is asking you to change your beliefs, just acknowledge that people can live and let live and treat others with dignity instead of calling them insane.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.79  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.77    one month ago

You do have associates on this platform, and you demonstrate it every time they assent to your expressed and similar points of view.  It is an innocuous term, "associate" anyway. No need to be defensive and renounce it. We all have people in here we associate with because of our views.

I am no zealot for transpeople, I support equality, equity, in treatment of people-inclusive of trans-people and conservatives. If this rubs you the wrong way, then try taking less freedoms and liberties from others, while 'stacking' your own liberties and freedoms without bounds.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.80  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.60    one month ago
You claimed that "demanding someone put up" with being called something is the same as compelling other people to say what you want them to say.  You know very well that isn't the case.

Actually I think what you want to do is worse. I believe people have a basic human expectation to be addressed - or referred to - by others in the way that they choose. Anything else is like calling them names. You want them to give up that expectation, but you would never tolerate it if it were done to you.

Then use expanded vocabulary.

Did you have something in mind? There actually is a lot of language specific to the topic if you want to approach it academically. But if we’re just talking about basic living and social interactions, I don’t think what you have in mind is necessary.

Then we'll recognize that Dylan is a man

Why? Is it important to any relationship we have with Dylan that you or I are the ones who need to define what he is? I have said this elsewhere here, but I’ll repeat it. Unless you are planning on having sex with Dylan or you are her doctor, the specifics of her biological sex are not your business and are irrelevant to how she should be treated socially.

You are attempting to pretend that things like biology, chemistry, and physiology somehow don't matter in the face of emotion.

Not at all. I haven’t said a word about biology, chemistry, or physiology, and no relationship I would ever have with Dylan would depend on any of those things. Same for you.

I'm telling you that I will continue to reject your attempts to coerce my compliance with your desire to use gender specific English words erroneously.

Your fear of being coerced is not rational. Neither I nor anyone else here has tried to coerce your compliance with anything. This has been said repeatedly by more than one person, yet you persist in playing the victim. Instead, we are all trying to appeal to both your reason and your compassion.

What ridiculous, melodramatic bullshit. 

Says the person who thinks people are trying “coerce” his “compliance.” I don’t think treating people decently will ever be “bullshit.”

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.81  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2.1.78    one month ago
The thing is, nobody is asking you to change your beliefs,

How do you know?  You didn't even ask me about my beliefs.  You just started throwing judgemental insults.

just acknowledge that people can live and let live and treat others with dignity instead of calling them insane.

Done that.  Repeatedly.  If you had bothered to read you would have seen it.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.82  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.81    one month ago

I have been specifically trying to be nice and gentle about this. I never insulted you.

Just don't understand why it is such a big deal. Whether it is or not, it is very simple just to avoid pronouns around people.

Just call them by their name.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.83  Drakkonis  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.55    one month ago
A reality that does not affect you in any meaningful way no less.

Heard that tune before. What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom isn't anyone's business. Except now they're using the public education system to indoctrinate/groom children while claiming parents have no say in the matter. Children are being encouraged to make life changing choices on issues they cannot possibly understand. Drag shows and x rated books in the library. 

In actuality, they are doing their damnedest to totally destroy the idea that there is a definable right and wrong upon which society can be built and replace it with some really messed up hedonism. Every person their own god. 

Perhaps if you can grasp that it is not an attempt at coercion, but rather the attempt for simply accepting their reality.

Exactly!!! Why can't we just be nice, like the LGTBQ community, and just accept other people's reality, just as they do? Like when a baker refuses to make a cake for a same sex wedding or something. The LGTBQ would totally respect that person's.... uh... wait. Never mind. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.84  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.79    one month ago
You do have associates on this platform, and you demonstrate it every time they assent to your expressed and similar points of view.

Your inability to distinguish does not imply any association

  It is an innocuous term, "associate" anyway. No need to be defensive and renounce it. We all have people in here we associate with because of our views.

Possibly.  But it won't be long until some nitwit comes along with "people like you" or some other intellectually lazy assessment.  

That doesn't even discuss the irony of forcing people into groups on a seed about people who don't fit into traditional groups.

I am no zealot for transpeople,

Says the man who demands I "just call people what they want to be called!"  

I support equality, equity, in treatment of people-inclusive of trans-people and conservatives. If this rubs you the wrong way, then try taking less freedoms and liberties from others, while 'stacking' your own liberties and freedoms without bounds.

No.  You support whatever the prevailing liberal stance is and then you attempt to romanticize it.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.85  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.70    one month ago
Some of your 'associates,' loosely defined here tried to mock Dylan Mulvaney for his choice of self-determination and gender association.

Thing is, CB, is that he isn't self determined to be a female. No one gets to do that, with the possible exception of an exceedingly rare few individuals whose biology is recognizably different from most people. But, even so, I wonder what most women think of his portrayal of what a woman apparently is to him? Because to me, it seems like his goal is an overdone caricature of a woman. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.86  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.80    one month ago
Actually I think what you want to do is worse. I believe people have a basic human expectation to be addressed - or referred to - by others in the way that they choose. Anything else is like calling them names. You want them to give up that expectation, but you would never tolerate it if it were done to you.

As with everything, there are parameters that define reasonable expectations.  One of those parameters is factual accuracy.  For example, if I took offense every time someone refused to address me as "your lordship", I would be outside of those parameters and unjustified in my offense.

Did you have something in mind?

As an example, what if we called male => female trans people "Trans-Alphas"? (just an idea)  I'm not aware of that usage anywhere else in English, so you're not asking me to call somebody a term we already use for something they're not.  

One of the really, really bizarrely ironic things about this entire discussion is the people who use the term "non-binary" and simultaneously seem to force everything into one of two existing choices.  I don't think they know what "binary" means.

If we accept, as you have said on other seeds, that transgender people do not actually fit well into either traditional gender mold, then it seems preposterous to demand that everyone pretend that they do.  What we should be doing is creating space for them to be the unique individuals they are.  

Creating new categories with new names frees them from both sets of existing gender stereotypes that they will never be able to fully meet.

Your fear of being coerced is not rational.

Do not confuse refusal with fear.  But don't pretend coercion hasn't been attempted.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.87  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.84    one month ago

Now you're just being combative and wasteful. First of all, defending the right of a person to be called what he or she is especially when it does not affect me one way or the other is not 'zeal.' The term, "zealot" is reserved for those who have an intensity on an issue. I do not behave toward this as any partisan as I wrote somewhere -oh- here it is:  2.1.79 I support equality, equity, in treatment of people-inclusive of trans-people and conservatives.

Ahem, conservatives on this board time and time again do not support equity in any sense of the word generally and inclusion for LGBTQ people in mainline society forget that too!

So to make short what could be at-length I conclude your comment is full of it.

I am a liberal and I will remain one if it means I treat people with better respect than MAGA conservatives who don't want to change one iota of their ideology to let people enjoy their liberals and freedoms the same as they.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.88  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.85    one month ago

Yours is a judgement call. What does it matter what you or I see him as? It is highly likely that women feel empathy and sympathy for somebody's child who is trying to make the best of a life she has found herself engaged, or 'trapped' in. Depending on where you stand on her well-being.

Let's get to the nitty-gritty of this. Transsexuals are not at present ever going to rival a girl or woman for the affection of someone who can not love their 'embellishments,' which are different from enhancements and 'gifts' girls and especially women manifest and are blessed to possess.

So yes, I have observed there are 'bold' trans-persons who take it too far as transitioning male or female types with their pride of accomplishment if you will.

Back to the narrative.

Dylan Mulvaney is trying to live her best life. I say good for her! Some of us, good "h" - the majority of us never get invited to the White House atknown to visit and chat about matters of 'state' and possible law. That is a feat all its own.

Dylan is not a girl or woman. That is not what the use of the term, "her" means in the context of a trans-female. She is referred to as "she" because of her presentation as such.

It really is simple and easy to do once the self-righteous crimination is halted.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.89  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.86    one month ago

Jack the 'solution' for you is simple. Don't worry about it. It is harmless for you to call transpeople whatever they call themselves. That way you don't have to worry about the religious implications, the sin factor, or the politics of the day.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.90  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.89    one month ago
That way you don't have to worry about the religious implications, the sin factor, or the politics of the day.

Pretty sure Jack doesn't care about the religious implications or the sin factor. He's repeatedly told everyone in here that, for him, it is about reality and being asked to depart from it in order to satisfy someone else's delusions. Why can't you guys recognize that?

Speaking for myself, that's what's so infuriating about all of this. It's as if you guys are incapable of even holding the concept in your heads that, for some of us, we prefer to go with reality. For us, words have meaning, while you guys seem to change what words mean to suit a given desire. . The Left's argument is so unrealistic that in order to give them a semblance of working, they redefine words to mean what they need them to mean, rather than what they always have. Like what constitutes a woman or a man. Rather than what it's always been, you now want to change it to mean "how a person presents themselves". That's pretty stupid because, once you've untethered the word from its obvious meaning, what constitutes a woman is not based on anything. It actually becomes meaningless. 

Which the Left recognizes and the reason they are trying to change the language so much. Now there aren't "mothers", there are birthing humans or some such nonsense. And men can have babies, which completely destroys the meaning of 'man'. For goodness sakes, all you have to do is go on YouTube and watch these sad individuals trying to invent new realities by redefining words and then having kittens because the cis community, i.e. normal people, aren't playing along. 

But the worst part of all of this, and why I don't agree with a portion of what Jack says, is that a lot of these people seem to be teachers in the public education system. This is why I care. These people aren't just trying to make a life for themselves. They are proselytizing children who have no defense against the unreality being forced on them. They are teaching kids that there is no such thing as reality. Instead, not only can they make the world be what they want it to be but the world exists expressly for them. Not in those words, but that is the effect. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.91  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.85    one month ago

BTW, President Biden by having an event with a trans-person illustrates an acceptance of a class of the citizenry which suffers from lack of support. That is, this president is a deeply spiritual man and has a deeply spiritual wife in Jim Biden and apparently neither considered it offensive to consent to have a young trans-person come for a 'greet and meet' sit-down on the topic of trans issues. This activity denotes what I have been speaking about on NT indefinitely: The multi-faceted gem 'theory' of America.

That is, a place where we all exist, can exist in close proximity and do so with care and concern for each other while we grow the country—together. In harmonious fashion.

Biden express no sign of being threatened, risking harm, or being assaulted by one of his constituent population. Nor was Biden concerned that the mere presence of a transperson would alter the path of the rest of his religious 'journey' through life!

That last sentence is significant.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.92  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.90    one month ago
Pretty sure Jack doesn't care about the religious implications or the sin factor. He's repeatedly told everyone in here that, for him, it is about reality and being asked to depart from it in order to satisfy someone else's delusions. Why can't you guys recognize that?

Since you are not a transperson how do you feel you are qualified to call their reality, delusional? No! Really. I would like for you to not let this 'one' pass unaddressed. I am asking you directly: What qualifies you to call out transpeople as delusional people?

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
2.1.93  Veronica  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.37    one month ago

Reality is that trans people are here - this is not a fantasy world - YOU live in a fantasy world if you believe you disrespecting people is going to change that fact.  And you saying that you are not a transphobe and/or homophobe is totally ridiculous since every word you type says you are.

And if this was my fantasy alternate world YOU and your ilk would not reside here and this conversation would thankfully not be happening..., BUT I live in REALITY and here you are in 2022 thinking if you call her a him, she will go away.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.94  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.90    one month ago
That's pretty stupid because, once you've untethered the word from its obvious meaning, what constitutes a woman is not based on anything. It actually becomes meaningless. 

You do realize that language is a communication construct, no? That is, the words are created for human communication and not humans for the words? Do you agree? Next, do you realize that looking at a 'he' who is presenting as a "she" and you persist in calling her a "he" gives you confusing information? After-all, it won't take long to get greater information about her if one needs it.

Finally, transpeople are not females, per se. There is no confusion there. What is happening here is social conservatives (another construct) is trying to hold this new class of citizens to a conservative standard.

Yet, I see social conservatives have no problem with trading away their moral construct on abortion to bring in a Georgia senate candidate who is accused by his former girlfriends of asking and having them both give up babies to abortion when power if involved. 

So Drake, you can't have it both ways. Which way is the 'tethered and untethered' conservative way of looking at "the conservative outlook on life"?

Laid side by side, calling a transperson "she" is harmless to everybody.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.95  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.90    one month ago
And men can have babies, which completely destroys the meaning of 'man'. For goodness sakes, all you have to do is go on YouTube and watch these sad individuals trying to invent new realities by redefining words and then having kittens because the cis community, i.e. normal people, aren't playing along. 

Where on Youtube do you find men giving birth to babies?  These are women who have not completed a transformation having babies according to the rules of their original nature. As such: they are factually mothers and definitely not fathers as they secrete no semen of their own.

It really is not that hard to understand. Except you really don't want to understand it, do you. You don't want to make any allowances for the truth of what is transpiring. And, you allow transpeople who 'exploit' themselves to flow the zone with their own poorly crafted statements.

It is not hard for a reasonable person to get 'clear' on what is happening there, and to be factually honest about it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.96  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.90    one month ago
They are proselytizing children who have no defense against the unreality being forced on them. They are teaching kids that there is no such thing as reality. Instead, not only can they make the world be what they want it to be but the world exists expressly for them. Not in those words, but that is the effect.

You 'went' there didn't you? You proselytize for your faith and you discriminate against people who are trying to find community and acceptance for themselves in a hostile 'world' which they find themselves. Acceptance is a big deal if you are unfortunate to never experience it.

Do not harshly judge transpeople for wanting what yourself have in abundant in the dominant culture. Whether you agree to it or not, you have been 'acceptable' all your days compared to transpeople who have to fight for every right people like yourself strive to see they never 'prosper' or succeed in living and definitely not in enjoying.

Shoe on the other foot. You would feel totally different about what you are saying if heterosexuals were the "odd" duck in a transworld setting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.97  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.48    one month ago

Dylan is a male.

No amount of spin changes that fact

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.98  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.51    one month ago

I am sorry calling males males and females females is considered old fashioned.

oh, well!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.99  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.86    one month ago
What we should be doing is creating space for them to be the unique individuals they are.  

But it’s not your right to define what that space is.

Again, it costs you nothing to just call them whatever they want to be called. Nothing more is asked of you. You don’t have to have sex with this person, and you don’t have to perform medical procedures on them, so their actual biological makeup is not relevant to your happiness.

A biological man identifying as a woman hurts no one and it’s a choice she has made for herself. If that choice helps her deal with the complexities of her life, than I say God bless her! I hope it helps. I can’t imagine being so cruel as to fight her over it.

I’ll give you another analogy that is about race, not sex, but it’s still a kind of an immutable quality: Tiger Woods does not identify as African American, although many people would prefer that he did. He actually thinks of himself more as Asian than African. Dark-skinned though he is, is mother is mostly Thai, and his father is African American, Chinese, and Native American.

It pisses off a lot of African American activists who wish he would be a voice supporting their activism.

Anyway, it’s his choice. Other people don’t have the right to say what he is, no matter how accurate or truthful they think their opinion is.

Creating new categories with new names frees them

When other people create those categories and impose them, it only serves to stigmatize people - people who already have enough to deal with.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.100  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.54    one month ago

Dylan can manifest or whatever, but a male is a male is a male.

I don't give a rat's ass what people think of it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.101  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.97    one month ago
Dylan is a male.

And therefore, what? He has to behave in a certain way? He has to dress in a certain way? I just don’t see why Dylan’s sexual biology is something you need to police.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.102  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.99    one month ago
But it’s not your right to define what that space is.

Why not? Are you not arguing the space should be a certain thing? If you can do so, why not anyone? After all, what space are we talking about? It seems to be society as a whole. So, are you arguing that only they get to decide? 

Again, it costs you nothing to just call them whatever they want to be called. Nothing more is asked of you. You don’t have to have sex with this person, and you don’t have to perform medical procedures on them, so their actual biological makeup is not relevant to your happiness.

This is obviously untrue. The evidence is the pushback Jack is taking from all of you when he states what he himself will do, regardless of what anyone else does. In this case, he will not pretend a man is a woman. Rather than let him live his own life by his own values, you insist the correct course of action is to not be true to himself and, instead, bend to the will of others. That road has a pretty steep price tag in my opinion. 

A biological man identifying as a woman hurts no one and it’s a choice she has made for herself. If that choice helps her deal with the complexities of her life, than I say God bless her! I hope it helps. I can’t imagine being so cruel as to fight her over it. 

Again, untrue. A heterosexual man must now wonder if the 'woman' he is thinking of approaching is in fact a woman. Biological women are, in places, being forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males, whether they want to or not. Women who have worked hard their whole life to get to the top of their sport are suddenly robbed of all their effort. 

I’ll give you another analogy that is about race, not sex, but it’s still a kind of an immutable quality: Tiger Woods does not identify as African American, although many people would prefer that he did. He actually thinks of himself more as Asian than African. Dark-skinned though he is, is mother is mostly Thai, and his father is African American, Chinese, and Native American.

Apples and oranges. Thing is, Woods is biologically of those listed heredities. He can't not be those things. Woods preferring to emphasize a portion of what he biologically is doesn't deny the rest of it, nor is he trying to. 

Anyway, it’s his choice. Other people don’t have the right to say what he is, no matter how accurate or truthful they think their opinion is.

Again, apples and oranges. If Woods identified as an Eskimo, people would most certainly have a right to say something against it if it is clear he is not. Just like people did with Rachel Dolezal attempting to identify as black. 

When other people create those categories and impose them, it only serves to stigmatize people - people who already have enough to deal with.

I agree there is a stigma being attached but I don't agree with who's doing the attaching. Categories are not, in and of themselves, unfair. If you are a liar, thief, child molester, psychopath or an endless list of other negative things, it isn't those who label those who do such things doing the stigmatizing. Society does because society needs rules in order to function. The thief stigmatizes themselves by being a thief. 

In the case of the Trans person, they stigmatize themselves, to the extent that it is either acceptable or unacceptable to society. As sharp as I know you to be, I know you are not unaware that this is a part of the battle between the Left and the Right is about. Determining what society should be and why. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.103  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.101    one month ago
And therefore, what? He has to behave in a certain way? He has to dress in a certain way? I just don’t see why Dylan’s sexual biology is something you need to police.

And I don't see why you keep trying to say I think any of those things.

I have never said he needed to act or dress in any way. I am not policing anything.

It is fine to debate what I write, but you don't need me to debate what you invent and debate yourself.

He may do whatever he wishes, and you can call him whatever you like.

That certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.104  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.98    one month ago

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling people what they want to be called, even when you know they are males or females. And it costs you little to nothing. Whereas mocking others is always a harmful, damnable, activity.  Sometimes deadly!

But, you can be stuck up if you want. We can call that what it is too: Smug!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.105  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.54    one month ago
How is "he" a proper word for Dylan Mulvaney when he is manifesting feminine aspects on a continuum? 

A male is a male. You may choose to call males whatever you want. I will stick to the facts.

How come you can be content to allow her this one aspect of life that makes her happy? After all, she is not doing this to make you happy! This is not about-you!

I'm not denying him anything. What makes you think I am? Is it something you can quote from some of my posts?

My happiness isn't dependent on people I don't even know.

Call people what they want to be called

I will call them as I see fit. Don't you?

Then, you both can be happy—especially when she call back to you what you want to be!

I know what I am. Again, my happiness isn't dependent on others. Especially what someone chooses to call someone else.

And don't give me that 'hit about you being comfortable being whatever society wants you to be

I understand that not everyone is as comfortable as I am with who I am. I don't let anonymous people dictate to me, especially society in general. I just don't feel the need to be approved.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.106  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.102    one month ago
This is obviously untrue. The evidence is the pushback Jack is taking from all of you when he states what he himself will do, regardless of what anyone else does. In this case, he will not pretend a man is a woman. Rather than let him live his own life by his own values, you insist the correct course of action is to not be true to himself and, instead, bend to the will of others. That road has a pretty steep price tag in my opinion. 

This is a discussion media platform. We 'talk' stuff out in here as you certainly know and participate in doing yourself. So if facts and opinions are shaped in here that is a good thing for everybody that comes here to get and share insights. So do not confuse the medium. We don't just come here to 'stare back' or glare at each other or exchange barbs. When these rooms work best. . . ideals and new ways of looking at the issues of the day are hammered out. Such that many times any one of us can leave here better off than when we arrived.

Drakk, you 'position' in the quote above would be better served if we just shut down all discussions and locked the forum doors. But, we can't do that. Because this is for better or worse, a place for exchange of ideas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.107  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.104    one month ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling people what they want to be called, even when you know they are males or females.

Nope, sure isn't. Just like there is nothing wrong with calling people what they are.

And it costs you little to nothing.

No, lying doesn't cost me.

Whereas mocking others is always a harmful, damnable, activity. 

Good thing I didn't mock him then, isn't it?

But, you can be stuck up if you want.

Just can't help making it personal, can you?

We can call that what it is too: Smug!

Call it whatever you wish. Why would I care about your poor attempts at insults?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.108  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.102    one month ago
A heterosexual man must now wonder if the 'woman' he is thinking of approaching is in fact a woman. Biological women are, in places, being forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males, whether they want to or not. Women who have worked hard their whole life to get to the top of their sport are suddenly robbed of all their effort. 

Make room for others, Drakk. It is expected. In is arguable that room for others should have been made eons ago. Instead of the oppression you fail to recognize in your comment about privileges and rights of heterosexuals. Let's clear up one thing. Any transperson who is committing mortal harm to another person is doing so because of criminal tendencies and not trans characteristics and conduct. That is, a transperson is not inherently violent or dangerous. No?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.109  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.107    one month ago
No, lying doesn't cost me.

That's rich. Really.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.110  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.105    one month ago

You don't really need to 'talk' overlong about it, but here you are incessantly doing so. But, I digress. I rest my 'case.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.111  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.109    one month ago
That's rich. Really.

Look, for the last time, call anyone whatever you wish to call them. Don't expect me to ignore science, biology, and facts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.112  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.110    one month ago
You don't really need to 'talk' overlong about it, but here you are incessantly doing so.

Skip on by then.

But, I digress. I rest my 'case.'

The whole sum of your particular case is to coerce or force people to say what YOU want them to.

See the difference? I call someone what I want and give you the freedom to do the same without judging you or your intentions. Why can't you offer the same courtesy?

You have no real case.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.113  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.62    one month ago

"Why, because you demand I ignore reality?"

In a word, yes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.114  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.113    one month ago
"Why, because you demand I ignore reality?"

And that is what really galls me.

From what I can see in Jack's posts, he and I think that we will call people what they are. We don't care what others call someone. We aren't asking anyone to do anything different and we don't care if someone is a transsexual or not.

If you look at the posts, some folks aren't willing to give us the freedom to stick to reality and facts. They demand we submit to THEIR will.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.115  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.106    one month ago

Your post, specifically the one I am replying to at this time, is a good example of why truth and reality matter. In spite of the fact that anyone can read what I and others have written here, you post completely disconnected and totally irrelevant things such as this as if it represents the reality of what is being talked about. In my opinion, this is a result of what I have been talking about concerning reality. Since you seem to think reality is malleable, you can write nonsense such as this and think you've addressed something under discussion. It makes trying to have a discussion with you frustrating and pointless since, no matter what is said, you just reply to some imaginary conversation that isn't taking place. 

Since you are presumably responding to the quote you put in your response, please allow me the futility of trying to get you to understand what was said. In order to do that, we need to see what I was responding to.

Again, it costs you nothing to just call them whatever they want to be called. Nothing more is asked of you. You don’t have to have sex with this person, and you don’t have to perform medical procedures on them, so their actual biological makeup is not relevant to your happiness.

This was said by Tacos! My response had nothing to do, even tangentially, with whether or not this discussion should be taking place. It had to do with Tacos! claim that it costs Jack nothing to deny his own value system and submit to someone else's. 

I await your undoubtedly bizarre and likely irrelevant response. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.116  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.115    one month ago
It makes trying to have a discussion with you frustrating and pointless since, no matter what is said, you just reply to some imaginary conversation that isn't taking place. 

I can understand your frustration.

please allow me the futility of trying to get you to understand what was said.

I like that. May I borrow it?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.117  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.115    one month ago
The evidence is the pushback Jack is taking from all of you when he states what he himself will do, regardless of what anyone else does. In this case, he will not pretend a man is a woman. Rather than let him live his own life by his own values, you insist the correct course of action is to not be true to himself and, instead, bend to the will of others

My reply to you is that Jack, like the rest of us should come here for an exchange of ideas.

If you or Jack or whosoever is just here to push your  opinion on others without an opening for such exchanges, it is you (all) who continue to arrive in the wrong 'rooms.'

You come in here a dime late and a nickel short talking trash about 'finer' points of discussion when you can't or won't possibly clarify what it is you think you know about being anything other than what you display yourself to be:  A self-righteous fundamentalist Christian apparently with a big amount of pride you think others should bow down under your short forays into long, deep undertakings.

Since neither you or Jack pretend to know what trans-people are feeling, indeed, you conservatives pretend feelings don't matter to your way of living life anyway (and that's bull 'hit for sure).  Then, your actual roles here would be better served to listen up and stop talking about people you won't bother to investigate beyond your religious fundamentals and Jack's economy interests.

I, we, know, and have repeatedly explained to the conservatives here that "Dylan" (the name is a 'giveaway' which he has not bothered to change while he dresses up as a "she" do you think she is too stupid to notice her name?) is a male who will transition possibly at some point into a "she." That being said, she won't be privy to all the capabilities of a cis female-woman even then and we don't need to go into those specifics here.

Jumping ahead because it is late and I have been at this all day long. The decent thing to do is to let people who do not give a damn about your fundamentalist upbringing, the principles you devote yourself to, or the economics interest of Jack, because they have their own 'body' issues to contend with: And people like you persist with staying in the way of their happiness. Even as the lies fly by of how you really don't care.

Being here opining on the subject means you care. A demonstrated lack of interest in a boy who dresses up like a girl and expressly calls herself "she" - an oh by the way is not appearing on any campus 'nearby' either of you that we know of, means you don't have to opine at all.

If you can't say something positive ever, then what is the point of just being a negative commenter all the damn time?

One last thing. You have not been addressing me for several months now. I am glad you have 'entered' my frame, but let me greet you with this. You will not 'pat me on my head' when you engage me in discussion. I am not going to accept your slights or putdowns. In return, I will address you with respect and honesty.

If you think you will disrespect me. Trust me, you have been warned (already).

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.1.118  dennissmith  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.69    one month ago

I care about what Biden does not what Dylan does. 

Biden refuses to admit fault or do anything about:

Afghanistan withdrawal mess

Southern border mess

Highest gas prices ever

Highest inflation in 40 years

Begging for oil from countries who produce it less efficiency then the US 

Supporting those who let criminals out without bail

Suporting those who want to defund the police

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.119  Drakkonis  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.116    one month ago
I like that. May I borrow it?

Of course. Royalty free.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.120  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.117    one month ago
My reply to you is that Jack, like the rest of us should come here for an exchange of ideas.

Um, literally, just what the heck do you think he's doing? 

If you or Jack or whosoever is just here to push your opinion on others without an opening for such exchanges, it is you (all) who continue to arrive in the wrong 'rooms.

Can you not see the irrationality of your position? You say this is a place for an exchange of ideas but when someone posts something that disagrees with your view you simply dismiss it as just pushing their opinions. Can you not see that you are the one guilty of what you accuse us of? 

You come in here a dime late and a nickel short talking trash about 'finer' points of discussion when you can't or won't possibly clarify what it is you think you know about being anything other than what you display yourself to be:  A self-righteous fundamentalist Christian apparently with a big amount of pride you think others should bow down under your short forays into long, deep undertakings.

And yet, you are the one who calls me a brother in Christ, something I don't believe is true. We are not brothers. Whatever thing you serve certainly isn't Christ. 

Since neither you or Jack pretend to know what trans-people are feeling, indeed, you conservatives pretend feelings don't matter to your way of living life anyway(and that's bull 'hit for sure). Then, your actual roles here would be better served to listen up and stop talking about people you won't bother to investigate beyond your religious fundamentals and Jack's economy interests.

And this would be the best evidence you don't know the Christ that I do but, rather, an imposter. The center of your 'faith' is the desires of the human heart, even though you must know God says the desires of the human heart are corrupt and beyond understanding. Yet you celebrate the depravity of the human heart and claim God approves. 

More, you claim we don't understand. Typical. As if the depravity of the LGTBQ community is some special human condition that has no relation to the rest of the human experience. As if they were some other species to which we cannot relate, requiring special consideration. It isn't true. It's just a different flavor of the sin that we all suffer. 

Jumping ahead because it is late and I have been at this all day long. The decent thing to do is to let people who do not give a damn about your fundamentalist upbringing, the principles you devote yourself to, or the economics interest of Jack, because they have their own 'body' issues to contend with: And people like you persist with staying in the way of their happiness. Even as the lies fly by of how you really don't care.

Another statement based on unreality. Neither Jack or I have attempted to stop them from doing what they want. Rather the opposite, really. We are saying we will not be forced into their madness. They can live their lives any way they want to. That doesn't mean we have to support it or that we have no say in what society will be. You're just going to have to find some way to deal with that. 

If you can't say something positive ever, then what is the point of just being a negative commenter all the damn time?

Whether what I or Jack says is positive or not is a point of view, humanly speaking. It is my belief that truth is always better than deception.

One last thing. You have not been addressing me for several months now. I am glad you have 'entered' my frame, but let me greet you with this. You will not 'pat me on my head' when you engage me in discussion. I am not going to accept your slights or putdowns. In return, I will address you with respect and honesty.

I don't usually address you because you are about as irrational as Tessylo. I'm not really addressing you now. I'm actually addressing everyone else who is reading this. I don't feel very good about that but you are begging me to do so. What else can I do? Nothing you say actually addresses what I say? My ignoring you is actually a kindness. 

But, since I have chosen not to ignore you at this time, you simply prove why ignoring you is the better option. You don't address what I say but, rather, change it into something other than what I've said for the purpose of going on your rants. 

If you think you will disrespect me. Trust me, you have been warned (already).

It isn't a matter of disrespecting you. It is a matter of disrespecting your point of view. It is disrespect of your claim of Christianity. In my understanding of God, you twist His word to suit your own desires. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.121  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.1    one month ago
What is there to feel shame about?

He is imitating what he thinks a girl is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.122  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.121    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.123  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.122    one month ago

To clarify, not Mulvaney.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.124  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.119    one month ago

Thanks!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.125  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
Can you not see the irrationality of your position? You say this is a place for an exchange of ideas but when someone posts something that disagrees with your view you simply dismiss it as just pushing their opinions. Can you not see that you are the one guilty of what you accuse us of?

I can be persuaded by others and when that is accomplished I thank the person publicly or inform them of having done so by moving on to something other. On the other-hand, discussion exchange is not supposed to be fatalistic. I, you, nor anyone else here should hold a wrong view and expect that others should "intake" it or its "combat" discussion from both 'camps.' Truth is a thing.

In this case, because I can see what you might say to the above. A boy or man traditionally  is a male and has been assigned in the language the pronoun: "he."  A girl or woman is a female and by tradition uses the pronoun, "she."  There is no pronoun for a trans-girl or trans-woman designated. As a result, trans-persons knowing that it matters fill-in the pronoun through the act of borrowing from the other two sexes. The outcome being it decreases the likelihood of confusion.

What is wrong with that? What is so hard to understand? What is complicated in doing so? Nothing at all. And it has been done so between homosexuals and transpeople for the longest of times now.

With that understanding, why should this practice end?  It should not.

Heterosexuals, or more to the point, conservatives should broaden their thinking and accept this pronoun practice that helps decrease and mitigate confusion when speaking or writing about transpersons.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.126  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
And yet, you are the one who calls me a brother in Christ, something I don't believe is true. We are not brothers. Whatever thing you serve certainly isn't Christ.

And, there it is! You are my brother in Christ whether you accept the 'position' or not if you are a member of the Faith. The question at this point becomes: Are you in the Faith?

I will leave my Christian liberties and faith together on display to speak for themselves.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.127  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
And this would be the best evidence you don't know the Christ that I do but, rather, an imposter. The center of your 'faith' is the desires of the human heart, even though you must know God says the desires of the human heart are corrupt and beyond understanding. Yet you celebrate the depravity of the human heart and claim God approves. 

Does Dylan Mulvaney confess your faith? Is Dylan confessing to be a citizen of Heaven or the United States? Answer, please.

What is my, your, role in offering others respect for their (civil) positions, because we want respect for our (religious) positions? Answer, please.

Dylan Mulvaney is in the community of this 'world' outside the bounds and constrains of my or your beliefs about God, Faith, and Kingdom living.  Judge him by civil standards, even as you judge yourself (and possibly me) by 'Kingdom' standards. Subsequently, you will find that it does not hurt to be nice to people unlike yourself.

Incidentally, President Joe Biden, a life-long Catholic, did not find it licentious or wrong, to greet, meet, and sat-down with a civil constituent, who is likely not a member of a religious community. Why? Because it is not Joe's role to judge Dylan Mulvaney for his civil conduct by Catholic religious standards for which even within same denominations there are differences. Dylan, operates under a standard: The Constitution of the United States.

More later. I will be out most of the day, Friday.

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.1.128  dennissmith  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago

Well said indeed. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.129  Jack_TX  replied to  Veronica @2.1.93    one month ago
Reality is that trans people are here - this is not a fantasy world

That's not the fantasy in question.  Kindly do attempt to keep up.

 And you saying that you are not a transphobe and/or homophobe is totally ridiculous since every word you type says you are.

So much for your grand ideas on "tolerance".  

your ilk

*eyeroll* OK, you're clearly to put forth the intellectual effort required to participate meaningfully in the conversation. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.130  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.99    one month ago
But it’s not your right to define what that space is.

I'm just saying there should be one.  Currently there isn't.  The current situation is simply an escalating series of angry demands that we all accept things that are simply not true, eventually leading to brainless personal abuse.  That's not from trans people, BTW. 

Again, it costs you nothing to just call them whatever they want to be called.

It costs me exactly what it would cost to call Donald Trump an honest man....which I'm not doing either.  Integrity.  

You don’t have to have sex with this person,

For fuck's sake.  Do you really imagine this is on anybody's mind?  WTF?

I’ll give you another analogy that is about race, not sex, but it’s still a kind of an immutable quality:

Except there are hundreds of races, and people have blended them for millennia.  That's not the case for genders.  

Anyway, it’s his choice. Other people don’t have the right to say what he is, no matter how accurate or truthful they think their opinion is.

They have the right to say whatever they want.  

But you also raise another issue.  Tiger identifies as more Asian because that's how he was raised.  He learned the social norms and values of Asian culture. He shares common experiences with that group of people.

Trans people do not have that shared socialization.  Dylan Mulvaney was not raised female.  Elliot Page has no idea what growing up as a very small, very weak male is like.  

They have their own struggles, to be sure, but they are not the same struggles of the groups they want to join.  Militant trans-defenders demanding everybody ignore that makes acceptance that much more difficult.

When other people create those categories and impose them

Why aren't they aren't creating their own?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.131  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.101    one month ago
I just don’t see why Dylan’s sexual biology is something you need to police.

Excellent.

And my vocabulary is not something you need to police.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.132  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.104    one month ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling people what they want to be called,

Let's see you call Donald Trump "a good man".

Still think there isn't anything wrong with calling people what you know they are not?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.133  Jack_TX  replied to  dennissmith @2.1.118    one month ago
I care about what Biden does not what Dylan does. 

I don't care who he invites to the WH.  It's his office and his house. 

I invite who I want to my office and my house without scrutiny.  He should have the same respect.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.134  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.102    one month ago
Why not?

For the same reasons I don't get to tell anyone else who they are.

Are you not arguing the space should be a certain thing?

No. I'm arguing that a person be addressed or referred to in the way that they wish based on nothing more than good manners. The impact of that is only positive for the person being addressed and virtually nil for the person doing the addressing.

At minimum, no one needs to go out of their way to try to get them to change their minds about being trans, which is kind of what you do when you insist at someone how you think they should be identified.

If you can do so, why not anyone?

Anyone else already does. People already insist they be addressed by first name, last name, maiden name, married name, doctor, sir, Internet pseudonym (e.g., Drakkonis, Tacos!) etc. and so forth.

The evidence is the pushback Jack is taking from all of you when he states what he himself will do, regardless of what anyone else does.

No it isn't. That's evidence that if you are rude to someone, your behavior will inspire a response from other people who have respect and compassion for the target of your hate.

In this case, he will not pretend a man is a woman.

I still haven't heard how another person's sex is his concern. Or yours. Right this minute, as you debate with me, is it relevant to our interaction that I am a man or a woman? I don't think so. If I told you I was female, you would just be expected to go with it. You wouldn't demand my birth certificate, or pictures of my genitals, or a DNA scan.

It's. Not. Relevant. To. You.

Rather than let him live his own life by his own values, you insist the correct course of action is to not be true to himself and, instead, bend to the will of others.

If you mean that I have an opinion that it's wrong to be disrespectful to others, then you are correct. There is, thank God, some societal pressure to be decent to other people. I won't apologize for that.

A heterosexual man must now wonder if the 'woman' he is thinking of approaching is in fact a woman.

What are you? Some kid of animal in mating season? Maybe try getting to know a person before worrying about mounting them. There's more to be being a man or woman (or any variety of human being) than just procreation.

Biological women are, in places, being forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males, whether they want to or not.

I don't know how you pee or poop, but I don't "share it" with anyone. I go to a place set aside for that activity, engage in it, and mind my own fucking business. Women, in particular, tend to utilize bathroom spaces that are isolated from the other people in the room, making it even less likely that there will be sharing (eww!) going on in the bathroom.

Women who have worked hard their whole life to get to the top of their sport are suddenly robbed of all their effort. 

That is an entirely separate issue, and one where I think we are more likely to find common ground. Because it is so specialized, I would appreciate you saving that for a different conversation.

Woods preferring to emphasize a portion of what he biologically is doesn't deny the rest of it, nor is he trying to. 

Actually he is. He will not call himself African American, even though someone else might wish for him to do so. That's the point.

If Woods identified as an Eskimo, people would most certainly have a right to say something against it if it is clear he is not.

No one is saying you don't have the right to be rude - just that it's rude.

The thief stigmatizes themselves by being a thief. . . In the case of the Trans person, they stigmatize themselves

Talk about "apples and oranges!" The thief chooses to be a thief. A trans person doesn't choose to have gender dysphoria. They are born with it, and these identity choices are a way of dealing with it. Rather than have compassion for such people, you and others are trying to justify giving them a hard time for it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.135  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.103    one month ago

I would think you would want to weigh the positive and negative results of your actions. 

If you insist on calling Dylan a man, what does that benefit anyone? How is anyone served by that? It should be plain to you by now, that it would hurt Dylan. So why do it?

On the other hand, you can make a small sacrifice that helps someone else. So, why not do it?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.136  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.121    one month ago
He is imitating what he thinks a girl is.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept your description. So, where is the shame in that?

Also, aren't you imitating what you think a man is? 

Testosterone, alone, does not compel you to dress a certain way, style your hair a certain way, choose to wear makeup or not, or any of the other social conventions we have related to gender.

See this pretty little girl? Adorable, right?

pink-and-blue-Franklin-Roosevelt-2.jpg

Well, that's not a little girl. It's Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The picture was taken in 1884. I actually have an old picture of my dad from the 1920s that is very similar. Styles change, and they are social constructs. There is nothing inherently male or female in them. And if it were some kind of mandate from God, I don't think fashions would change as much as they do.

You dress the way you do, not because you are man, but because you think that's how men are supposed to dress.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.137  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.136    one month ago
you think that's how men are supposed to dress

Maybe that is it. Some people think trans people are a threat to their masculinity somehow...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.138  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.130    one month ago
I'm just saying there should be one.

I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to carve out their own place in society. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want other people telling you how to be you.

It costs me exactly what it would cost to call Donald Trump an honest man....which I'm not doing either.  Integrity. 

No it doesn't. Your Trump example is about judging someone's character and behavior. That's not what's going on with Dylan.

For fuck's sake.  Do you really imagine this is on anybody's mind?  WTF?

WTF indeed! If not this, then why do you need to concern yourself with the biological details of some other person?

Except there are hundreds of races, and people have blended them for millennia.  That's not the case for genders. 

Our understanding of how the brain and sex interact is evolving through science. We are finding that there is more than one way to be a man or woman. We are finding that brain structure exists on a broad spectrum from typically male extremes to female extremes, and there is an infinite variety in between. Some people with male chromosomes and body parts have brains that read as very female (and vice versa), and it can make their lives difficult. These identity changes are a way of coping with that.

Why get in the way of a happier, healthier life by insisting that they conform to society's expectations based on their body?

They have the right to say whatever they want. 

Legally? Sure. Anyone has a right to be a dick to people. Morally? I would say they don't.

They have their own struggles, to be sure, but they are not the same struggles of the groups they want to join.

The sexes do not share all their struggles. My experience as a man is not identical to that of every other man. You're relying on a standard that doesn't exist.

Why aren't they aren't creating their own?

They are. You just won't let them. You are gatekeeping manhood.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.139  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.131    one month ago
And my vocabulary is not something you need to police.

It's not vocabulary I am policing. It's good manners. It's about how people treat other people. I am trying to encourage compassion and charity. You are trying to defend bullying.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.140  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.127    one month ago
Dylan Mulvaney is in the community of this 'world' outside the bounds and constrains of my or your beliefs about God, Faith, and Kingdom living.

No one has argued otherwise. Nor do I see the point of this statement in relation to the discussion. 

Judge him by civil standards

I prefer not to judge him at all, thanks. 

Subsequently, you will find that it does not hurt to be nice to people unlike yourself.

Correct. However, being nice to people does not require me to give up my values, who I am, what I stand for and reality itself. 

Here's the thing you and the rest on the other side of this argument can't seem to grasp. No one on this side of the argument has said anything judgmental of Mulvaney. No one has said or suggested that he doesn't have the right to live his life the way he wishes to in this country. No one demanded that he change.

Yet we do not get the same courtesy. Your side is demanding that we change who we are in order to satisfy your emotional ideology concerning something that isn't even reality. "No, we're not!" you'll claim. "You just need to wear this mask and pretend. Is that so hard?" We have no desire and even less intention of joining your collective. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.141  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
And yet, you are the one who calls me a brother in Christ, something I don't believe is true. We are not brothers. Whatever thing you serve certainly isn't Christ. 

This stuck with me during the time I have been away. You should be wary of this one thing: Self-righteousness. It is a 'beast' and many thought to themselves they could best it by 'struggling' and afflicting themselves in the service of God:

 ISAIAH 55:8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

Compare:

Luke 18:9  Now He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the [e]temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

11 The Pharisee stood and began praying this in regard to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, crooked, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to raise his eyes toward heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’

14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other one; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” 

Moral of the stories: If you don't want to be humbled by your Lord; humble yourself, now in the presence of others.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.142  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.115    one month ago
Tacos! claim that it costs Jack nothing to deny his own value system and submit to someone else's. 

What value system? 

My values tell me that I should try to support people in need, especially those marginalized by larger society. My values tell me that the good I do by supporting such people is more valuable than disingenuously cleaving to some “reality” fetish. My values tell me that great harm is done by needlessly combatting the life such people have chosen for themselves and I should not be part of that.

In short, my values tell me that I do good by supporting people like Dylan, and I would do evil by not supporting them.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.143  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.140    one month ago
No one on this side of the argument has said anything judgmental of Mulvaney.

Have you read through this seed? We have people saying that shame has been brought upon the White House just by inviting Dylan to an interview.

You yourself have accused people like Dylan of “indoctrinating” kids in a way that sounds like you think is dangerous. Although I can only guess at what you mean when you dangle the word about like that.

You called the whole LGBTQ community “depraved” and “mad.” You told CB that he doesn’t serve Christ because he supports Dylan and people like her. 

I’ve only looked at a few comments, but just that small sampling reveals you to be about as judgmental as you could possibly be.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.144  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
More, you claim we don't understand. Typical. As if the depravity of the LGTBQ community is some special human condition that has no relation to the rest of the human experience. As if they were some other species to which we cannot relate, requiring special consideration. It isn't true. It's just a different flavor of the sin that we all suffer. 

So. All of a sudden we are discussing sin?  By the way, sin means something to religious people like me and you. What do you offer to prove "sin" is a concern of civil society? Are you suggesting that sin is a universally known commodity?  Because, in my understanding, the term sin, literally has religious connotations only.

Civil society has no specific usage for the word, sin. No?

Dylan Mulvaney has not (yet) indicated she or the LGBTQ community have "inked" any contract with any Church. Therefore, she has committed no known sin.

I am fully aware you will find it shocking that I would approach this area this way, but it is time we bring some order to the chaos churches are spreading when they try to lasso people who as yet have no 'calling' on their individual lives.

Trust God.

If/when God calls and it is accepted. Then, you can speak of sin and the like to someone inside the Faith.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.145  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
I don't usually address you because you are about as irrational as Tessylo. I'm not really addressing you now. I'm actually addressing everyone else who is reading this. I don't feel very good about that but you are begging me to do so. What else can I do? Nothing you say actually addresses what I say? My ignoring you is actually a kindness. 

Oh you are addressing me alright. It is delusional to think otherwise. We'll just have to see what is reasonable in the end. No? Now, let me be clear you will address me with respect or you will get back what you give.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.146  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    one month ago
It isn't a matter of disrespecting you. It is a matter of disrespecting your point of view. It is disrespect of your claim of Christianity. In my understanding of God, you twist His word to suit your own desires. 

All I can say to that is, I have an open door policy in a group: Christian State of Mind. You are welcome to stop by and test your theory of my points of view anytime. But, you haven't and you won't. 

Lastly, I leave you with a basic challenge: Explain to me, us, how God, the Spirit, is according to the meaning of the word: "man." (His.) 

Christian State of Mind is open and would (you will likely balk 'out') accept your God/Spirit/Man presentation/article.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.147  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.121    one month ago

Wow, that's a deep-dive into the character of a trans-woman.  A bit shallow, though. What else can you add to that?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.148  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.132    one month ago

Yeah. Context matters, no? When Donald Trump combines his evil ways with the reality of a trans-person I will articulate why his evil ways have got to 'depart.' And, he can keep the new pronoun.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.149  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.140    one month ago

Then don't 'join.'

Technically, Dylan Mulvaney's attitude and appearance and appropriation of pronoun "she" should not offend you at all. Why? Because she is not seen in your worldview. That is, you can consider her 'worldly' and let that be the end of it. Simply pass on by. However, you stopped, looked in, and decided to enter. . . .  And that is when you passed judgment.

A boy or man in this world is a social construct first and foremost, to you. A he. And nary shall you consider him, Dylan, anything more.

Now, let's cut through the noise, okay? Your attitude will get another transperson threatened, injured, and 'damaged' simply because some people are too selfish and lacking in empathy for the suffering of others. Thus, when conservatives 'go' on their way making slurs, taking about "depravity," and the inevitable threatenings about sin, pointing fingers, sneering, jeering, counter policy-making and inevitably some will pull, pinch, stick, shove, stab, cut, and shoot to kill. . .your conscience can continue to be clean, no?

Because you want the benefits of standing on a social construct, because constructs are important, and a segment of the populations lives are in your estimation: not worth the time it takes for them to live them.

Again, you will accuse me (falsely) of going too 'deep' with my statements, but that would be wrong. I don't go nearly deep enough! It is just you want to skim along the surface as if on a wave, while ignoring the 'bumps' beneath your attitude are the pains people you otherize experience nonstop.

So, go on now. Accuse me.

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
2.1.150  dennissmith  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.133    one month ago

I agree that Biden can do what you said. His time woud be better spent this close to the mid terms by campaigning for Dems running for office. Unfortunately many do not want him to do that. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.151  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.143    one month ago

Look, Tacos! I don't expect you to see the world the way I do, nor do I demand it. I don't ask you to respect me or my values, either.  You have your view of reality and of course you think it is the correct one, or at least more correct. I, of course, feel the same way about my view. You think my views cause harm but I feel yours do the same thing. How are you going to prove yours right and mine wrong? By applying your standards to us both? Then why can't I also do the same? 

You seem to think I'm part of some campaign bent on hunting down those who don't live the way I think they should. This isn't the case. You, CB, Dylan and anyone else are free to live whatever way you want to within the laws of the land. I wouldn't dream of stopping you or anyone else. It's your life, not mine, and I have no ill will toward you. This doesn't mean I don't get to express my views in this place simply because you don't like them. 

As far as judgment, I understand why you think I am being judgmental. But it isn't my judgment. It's simply a recognition of the facts on some of this, like calling a man a woman doesn't make him a man, no matter how much you wish it true. And for the rest my use of words like 'depraved' is what God says about such things. I am pointing out the reality in which I believe we all exist, same as you do in your arguments. 

You told CB that he doesn’t serve Christ because he supports Dylan and people like her. 

This is misleading as it portrays Dylan and those like him as the cause of my opposition to CB. This is not the case. The reason I said he doesn't serve the Christ I serve, or try to, is that he misuses scripture in order to justify the desires of his own heart. He remakes God in his image rather than accept what God says about Himself. Basically, he worships a Social Justice Jesus that's all for empowering people doing the very things God told us not to do, calling it freedom when it's just continued enslavement to sin. This is not a judgment of CB the person, but rather, what he does and says. Does it agree with what the Bible actually says. Not that this has any relevance to what you and I are talking about but I mention it because you did, and got it wrong. 

I think I'm about done with this conversation/argument. I think we all know how each other feels about this subject by now. Thanks for your time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.152  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.125    one month ago
I, you, nor anyone else here should hold a wrong view

And I suppose YOU are the sole arbiter of what is a wrong view.

Whoo Boy, the hubris necessary to think that way!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.153  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.151    one month ago
This is misleading as it portrays Dylan and those like him as the cause of my opposition to CB. This is not the case. The reason I said he doesn't serve the Christ I serve, or try to, is that he misuses scripture in order to justify the desires of his own heart. He remakes God in his image rather than accept what God says about Himself. Basically, he worships a Social Justice Jesus that's all for empowering people doing the very things God told us not to do, calling it freedom when it's just continued enslavement to sin. This is not a judgment of CB the person, but rather, what he does and says. Does it agree with what the Bible actually says. Not that this has any relevance to what you and I are talking about but I mention it because you did, and got it wrong.

Oh, we're only just begun. You're not the first person to think. . . the way you do about God. . . and you won't be the last, I'm sure. You wrote, and I quote:

"he worships a Social Justice Jesus that's all for empowering people doing the very things God told us not to do, calling it freedom when it's just continued enslavement to sin."

You 'dropped' your persistent grief word, "Social Justice Jesus" (for free) in there without stating that you don't really 'hold' any discussion whatsoever about Jesus. Leaving me to think such statements are due to arrogance. A thing Christians should loathe in themselves.  I could ask you "how" you know such a thing about me, and "why" -to you- it is a pejorative, but you never are open to discussing Jesus with me beyond throwing out the name.

That quote in bold above from you: Is a judgment of me and what I have written without doubt. You do not know what I 'do' in any way shape or fashion sufficient enough to judge.

But, I digress.

And so we continue on on our two separate tracks of spirituality.

At some point, you may come to a decision that God wants us to be humble and bold at the same time and in the 'right' proportions in God's presence. At another point, you will come to ask yourself what good is a 'warrior' God/Jesus who goes through all the trouble of dying by crucifixion to absolve us of sin when if a fighting Spirit is what God/Jesus is this all could be over with a 'snap' of the proverbial divine so-called,  'divine finger.'

After which at some time you may come to ask, "Where is the love in doing that?"  Oh, there is that word again: Love. Maybe God wants people to choose to come and has set times for those people and so God patiently waits since time is not limited for an infinite God.

But enough of this "lecturing" for now. I need coffee!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.154  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.152    one month ago

I, you, nor anyone else here should hold a wrong view and expect that others should "intake" it or its "combat" discussion from both 'camps.' Truth is a thing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.155  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.154    one month ago

Like I said, you get to decide what views are acceptable, just gotta love that stellar display of the infamous liberal "tolerance"!

It's laughable nonsense, of course.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.156  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.151    one month ago
I don't expect you to see the world the way I do, nor do I demand it.

Really? If you saw me being cruel to someone, you wouldn’t ask me to stop?

I don't ask you to respect me or my values, either.

You do. The main argument we hear from you or the others on your side is that it’s your values that underpin the way you approach these issues, and that we should respect that. Of course, what those specific values are, and how they justify your cruelty, remain a mystery. Just saying “But the Bible!” won’t cut it.

You think my views cause harm but I feel yours do the same thing . . . This doesn't mean I don't get to express my views in this place simply because you don't like them.

Do you not understand that even words can do harm? But regardless, no one said you couldn’t express your views - particularly “in this place.”

Once again, people who already occupy a privileged place in society want to imagine themselves as victims.

But it isn't my judgment. It's simply a recognition of the facts on some of this

Tell yourself what you will. I can’t stop you. But there is nothing “factual” about declaring that people are mad or depraved.

is what God says about such things

No, it isn’t.

he misuses scripture in order to justify the desires of his own heart

You misuse scripture to be cruel. I’ll take CB’s way, thank you.

Does it agree with what the Bible actually says.

A lot of people think they know what the Bible says, but they don’t. They have not considered the fact that they are reading the translation of a translation of a translation of a translation, stretched across evolving languages and traditions over millennia, and they don’t care. They also ignore context. They are obsessed with using the Bible as a rule book for cruelty - just as much as any Pharisee.

If there is one thing in scripture that is consistent, it is that God wants us to be kind, loving, and charitable to each other. Nothing in your approach to LGBTQ people is any of those things.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.157  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.154    one month ago
I, you, nor anyone else here should hold a wrong view and expect that others should "intake" it or its "combat" discussion from both 'camps.'

What????

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.158  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.1.156    one month ago
A lot of people think they know what the Bible says, but they don’t. They have not considered the fact that they are reading the translation of a translation of a translation of a translation, stretched across evolving languages and traditions over millennia, and they don’t care.

Yes, they have considered it. It seems their takeaway from reading the Bible is this: God is a tyrant who has love for some and not all. And yet, these people have no answer for why the "God-Tyrant" does not simply UNMAKE the hedons of any "present" age, but instead patiently permits them to come to God of their own volition.

Biblical life application is wasted on biblical ascetics too frightened of their God/Master to realize that God has "indefinitely" explained to them what love God will accept and what love will permit, and yes—what love will suffer.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.159  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.138    one month ago
I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to carve out their own place in society. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want other people telling you how to be you.

Then we agree.  I've been saying this for a couple of days now.

No it doesn't. 

It most certainly does.  

If not this, then why do you need to concern yourself with the biological details of some other person?

So your theory here .... is that my refusal to call a man a woman must be related to my concerns about "having to have sex" with them?  Are you listening to yourself?  Is the basic concept of honesty that unfamiliar to you?  Or is this just some sort of feeble passive-aggressive dig?

Our understanding of how the brain and sex interact is evolving through science. We are finding that there is more than one way to be a man or woman. We are finding that brain structure exists on a broad spectrum from typically male extremes to female extremes, and there is an infinite variety in between. Some people with male chromosomes and body parts have brains that read as very female (and vice versa), and it can make their lives difficult. These identity changes are a way of coping with that.

Hence my suggestion for new terminology, instead of shoe-horning people into clearly incorrect categories.

Why get in the way of a happier, healthier life by insisting that they conform to society's expectations based on their body?

How do you not understand that you are doing exactly this?  When you demand we all call Dylan female, you simply trade one set of societal expectations for another, ignoring the fact that he struggles to conform to either.

Anyone has a right to be a dick to people.

You're demanding that people participate in a blatant falsehood, and when anyone refuses, you claim they're being a dick....  The irony there is immeasurable.

It's not vocabulary I am policing. It's good manners. It's about how people treat other people. I am trying to encourage compassion and charity. You are trying to defend bullying.

Refusing to corroborate your lie has nothing to do with "manners".  And when you claim that anybody who refuses to go along with what you want is "a dick", the bully here is you.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.160  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.142    one month ago
What value system? 

One with high value on honesty and integrity.

My values tell me that I should try to support people in need, especially those marginalized by larger society. My values tell me that the good I do by supporting such people is more valuable than disingenuously cleaving to some “reality” fetish. My values tell me that great harm is done by needlessly combatting the life such people have chosen for themselves and I should not be part of that.

The idea that you imagine reality to be a "fetish" speaks volumes.

In short, my values tell me that I do good by supporting people like Dylan, and I would do evil by not supporting them.

To paraphrase a very well-worded idea ... supporting people does not require me to give up my values, who I am, what I stand for and reality itself. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.161  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.97    one month ago

Biology, anatomy, and physiology does not lie.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.162  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.160    one month ago

Why are you fighting tooth and nail just for a bigots position? I think better of you than that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.163  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2.1.162    one month ago
Why are you fighting tooth and nail just for a bigots position? I think better of you than that.

The idea that being truthful is "a bigot's position" IS the issue.  That's incredibly fucked up.  I don't understand how you don't see that as a problem.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.164  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.163    one month ago

I could be truthful about some people around here yet I would get a ticket.

Is it your truth that you would run up to a trans person and call them a man? Is that what you are wanting to do? Just walk up to trans people and insult them?

What is your goal with trying to tell trans people they are nuts?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.165  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2.1.164    one month ago
I could be truthful about some people around here yet I would get a ticket.

But are you forced to agree with them when they say things that aren't true?  No?

Is it your truth

See... if you haven't figured this out about me yet, I don't participate in bullshit like the idea that everyone has their own personal truth.

that you would run up to a trans person and call them a man?

I don't run up to people.  Not sure how you imagine such an interaction might take place, but let's start with that clarification.  

Is that what you are wanting to do? Just walk up to trans people and insult them?

Again, you imagine a very different set of events than would ever happen in real life.  

What is your goal with trying to tell trans people they are nuts?

I've already said repeatedly that the issue is not actually with trans people themselves, but rather with their militant defenders.  But I do think those people are nuts.  Complete batshit.  They are yet another group of angry lunatics demanding we all comply with their orders like they're some sort of modern-day Inquisition attempting to stamp out doctrinal impurity.  The litany of insults directed toward me in this very seed is copious evidence of their enthusiasm for trying to bully anyone who dares defy them with the introduction of inconvenient facts.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.166  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.165    one month ago

Why are people that stick up for trans people militant?

Well, I can see some people being that way as they may have a loved one that get told constantly the things you are saying.

They don't want special treatment any more than gay people do. They just want to be able to live their lives without people telling them they are insane,

Why is that so hard to do? What is it that you are forced to do against your will? Be nice?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.167  CB   replied to  Ender @2.1.166    one month ago

Because it is all faux outrage, Ender.  This is not a case of conservatives not understanding. It is all a game of ideology scheming and strategy for them.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends  on his not understanding it.

—UPTON SINCLAIR.

If they concede a simple point, it may (possibly will) lead them to concede to another point and points. . . and so where will those long-term 'plans' they wish for this country end up?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.168  arkpdx  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.165    one month ago
But I do think those people are nuts. Complete batshit. They are yet another group of angry lunatics.

I agree. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.169  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @2.1.166    one month ago
They just want to be able to live their lives without people telling them they are insane,

What do you call people that think they are something they are not, never were and never could be? I would say they are insane. 

Trans men are men and trans women are not women. They are just women and men respectively engage in  pretend and went to elaborate lengths and expense to get their costumes. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.170  CB   replied to  arkpdx @2.1.169    one month ago

Wow. Somebody is feeling 'muscular' to be able to jab a finger in the chest of somebody else's joy. Well, there is no getting around it. If a man, woman, boy, or girl - hell, even a member of the LGBTQ community wishes to demoralize a trans-person by never letting them forget how they are 'made' it can be done.

To what end? Only the man, woman, boy, or girl will know for sure.  Bit crude, for sure no doubt.

It is kind of reminiscent of those dark 'days' of the past when: the rich would not let the poor forget their poverty; the healthy would not allow the leper to forget those disgusting sores, the strong would mock the cripple, the whole would not welcome the disabled to become 'livable,' so as to enter mainstream society. 

Myriads of people living day in and day out in horrible psychological states of existence and mind brought on not directly by their circumstance, but by those who simply could not/would not permit themselves to be kind to a hurting, suppressed human being.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.171  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.159    one month ago
Then we agree.  I've been saying this for a couple of days now.

The difference is with Dylan, we’re talking about how she will live, but with you, we’re talking about how you treat her. No one cares how you live or how you identify. You want to dispute how she lives and defend treating her in a way that you know will offend her.

So your theory here .... is that my refusal to call a man a woman must be related to my concerns about "having to have sex" with them?

You have been invited many times now to offer an alternative explanation and you have failed to do so.

Is the basic concept of honesty that unfamiliar to you? 

Honesty is not a defense for treating people shabbily.

Hence my suggestion for new terminology, instead of shoe-horning people into clearly incorrect categories.

There’s nothing wrong with the existing terminology. 

When you demand we all call Dylan female, you simply trade one set of societal expectations for another, ignoring the fact that he struggles to conform to either.

I am not imposing any expectations on Dylan. She wants to be treated as female and I am happy to do it. How she lives out her life is not my concern. You are the one imposing expectations.

You're demanding that people participate in a blatant falsehood

That’s two things. 1) blatant. 2) a falsehood.

First, it’s not blatant. If you hadn’t been told she was trans, you’d never know it or care.

Second, it’s not a falsehood. What makes a woman? Just chromosomes? What about her brain? What about her behavior? What about her priorities? Do you even know? Are you an expert? 

I have referenced brain studies already. If you dismiss that, it tells me you aren’t interested in scientific learning. If Dylan’s brain developed as typically female, her body may seem completely alien to her. Maybe male parts (if she had them) were the problem. Who are you to say? 

If a person loses sexual organs, do they cease to be that sex? What if there is an accident? What if they never developed properly? When a woman reaches menopause and can no longer produce eggs, does she cease to be a woman? If procreation is irrelevant, what makes a woman a woman? Maybe it’s her mind. In the afterlife, we may face the same questions.

You talk about truth and honesty, but the truth is you don’t really know what Dylan’s physiological situation is. You don’t know why she is trans. You therefore have no grounds to go about declaring “the truth” about her.

Again, unless you are planning on having sex with her, or doing some doctoring, there is no reason for you to care.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.172  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.171    one month ago
There’s nothing wrong with the existing terminology. 

Sure are a whole mess of folks here going apeshit over the existing terminology.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.173  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.165    one month ago

You: I've already said repeatedly that the issue is not actually with trans people themselves, but rather with their militant defenders.  But I do think those people are nutsComplete batshit.  They are yet another group of angry lunatics demanding we all comply with their orders like they're some sort of modern-day Inquisition attempting to stamp out doctrinal impurity. 

Also you: The litany of insults directed toward me in this very seed . . .

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.174  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.160    one month ago
The idea that you imagine reality to be a "fetish" speaks volumes.

Not as much as the way you misunderstand it. Intentionally, I’m guessing. You rationalize shitty behavior by claiming that what you do is out of adherence to some loyalty to reality. That’s BS.

supporting people does not require me to give up my values, who I am, what I stand for and reality itself. 

Then maybe who you are and what you stand for could use some examination.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.175  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.171    one month ago
Again, unless you are planning on having sex with her, or doing some doctoring, there is no reason for you to care.

And wouldn't that also apply to you?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.176  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.175    one month ago
And wouldn't that also apply to you?

How does it apply to me? I’m not trying to tell her who she is. That’s you. Talk about projection!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.177  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.176    one month ago
How does it apply to me?

Well, you seem to care, so according to you, that must mean you are going to have sex with him or do some doctoring.

I’m not trying to tell her who she is. That’s you.

Quote me doing so or stop lying.

I have never told him who he is. I don't give a rat's ass.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.178  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2.1.166    one month ago
Why are people that stick up for trans people militant?

Because they demand complete adherence to their wishes.  

They don't want special treatment any more than gay people do. They just want to be able to live their lives without people telling them they are insane,

They aren't the ones I think are insane.

Why is that so hard to do? What is it that you are forced to do against your will? Be nice?

You would have me participate in a lie.  You would prefer I affirm that which we all know to be false.  You want me to pretend the emporer is actually wearing clothes.  You think I should compromise my integrity and go along with your group in order to protect trans people's feelings.  

That means there is something in your value system that outranks honesty.  That may be pity, or a sense of the need to protect those you believe are weak, or fear of hurting someone's feelings, or maybe just tribal loyalty.  Only you know what that is.

Whatever it is, it's important enough to you that not only will you participate in this falsehood, but you also attempt to persuade others to participate, and denounce those who refuse as "bigots".  

We all know this won't stop there, so what will you want me to lie about next?   And then what names can I expect to be called when I don't? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.179  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.171    one month ago
we’re talking about how you treat her

I would treat him honestly, as I do everyone.

Honesty is not a defense for treating people shabbily.

The fact that you equate honesty with "treating people shabbily" adds further confirmation to how batshit this has become.

There’s nothing wrong with the existing terminology. 

OK, then we'll agree Dylan is a man and move forward.

I am not imposing any expectations on Dylan.

That hardly means society as a whole does not. Or will you demand we all do that differently, as well?

First, it’s not blatant. If you hadn’t been told she was trans, you’d never know it or care.

But we have been told.  So it is definitely blatant.

Second, it’s not a falsehood. 

It is certainly a falsehood, as you have admitted in other seeds.  

What makes a woman?

We have incredibly well established science on the matter, which you undoubtedly know but want all of us to ignore. 

I have referenced brain studies already. If you dismiss that, it tells me you aren’t interested in scientific learning. If Dylan’s brain developed as typically female, her body may seem completely alien to her. Maybe male parts (if she had them) were the problem. Who are you to say? 

Yes.  It's fascinating research.  But his brain being different shape and body seeming alien to him does not make him female, and the research does not claim it does. 

If a person loses sexual organs, do they cease to be that sex?

Did chromosomes become fake news because you found them inconvenient?

You talk about truth and honesty, but the truth is you don’t really know what Dylan’s physiological situation is.

Neither do you.  We know what the article says about him.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.180  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.177    one month ago
Well, you seem to care, so according to you, that must mean you are going to have sex with him or do some doctoring.

No I don’t. I haven’t said anything that indicates I care. Quote me if you disagree. 

I think I have been very clear. I care about how we treat others, not what their biological sex is.

Quote me doing so or stop lying. I have never told him who he is.

Well, I didn’t have to look very far for the quote.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.181  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.180    one month ago
No I don’t. I haven’t said anything that indicates I care. Quote me if you disagree. 

If you don't care, why all the posts berating others who don't think as you do?

Well, I didn’t have to look very far for the quote.

but, not surprisingly, you failed to quote what you claim to have found.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.182  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.180    one month ago
I think I have been very clear. I care about how we treat others, not what their biological sex is.

Really? And how does me calling anyone exactly what they ARE treating anyone badly?

What difference can it possibly make to you if I call a man a man? I am not asking you to do anything at all, unlike you, who wishes me to conform to your liking.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.183  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.179    one month ago
I would treat him honestly, as I do everyone.

Uh huh. So when the wife asks, “Does this dress make me look fat?” you respond with “No, it’s your fat ass that makes you look fat.” I bet that works great.

The fact that you equate honesty with "treating people shabbily" adds further confirmation to how batshit this has become.

It can be, as you see above. Another example is defamation cases, where if someone is damaged by expression about a private matter - even if true - the truth is not always a defense.

If your goal in life was to be as honest as you say, your name here wouldn’t be “Jack_TX.” We’d have your full name, address and phone number, so everyone could know the honest truth about you. Same for everyone else here.

We have incredibly well established science on the matter, which you undoubtedly know but want all of us to ignore.

We also have pretty well established science that tells us there is nothing perverted or depraved about being gay - that it’s a natural variation in human sexuality. And yet, it doesn’t keep people on this site from treating anyone in the LGBTQ community like they’re child molesters.

Anyway, if you understand how science works, then you understand that knowledge and understanding evolve. It’s not honest to just say it’s “established” and close your mind to all new information.

But his brain being different shape and body seeming alien to him does not make him female

I don’t think I have called her female - at least not in a biological sense. I think I have said over and over that people like Dylan are biologically male, but living and identifying as a woman. She identifies as a woman and I am content to treat her as such. I think it’s the nice thing to support that and the mean thing to fight it.

Did chromosomes become fake news because you found them inconvenient?

Nope. I just suggested that there may be more to living as a man or woman than mere chromosomes.

Neither do you.  We know what the article says about him.  

True. But again, I am not the one trying to argue against her simple desire to be treated in the way that she asks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.184  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.183    one month ago
But again, I am not the one trying to argue against her simple desire to be treated in the way that she asks.

You are also the one demanding we call him what you want us to call him.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.185  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.178    one month ago

Lie? why would you be lying just by being polite to the person?

Jesus Christ.

For being so 'moral' I guess you have never lied about anything? Never went along with a lie?

There is not one person alive that has never lied about something.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.186  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.181    one month ago
If you don't care, why all the posts berating others who don't think as you do?

I have said it multiple times now and I don’t see why it is confusing for you. Are you deliberately ignoring what I tell you? I don’t care about Dylan’s biology. I do care about how people like Dylan are treated in society.

And I haven’t berated anyone. It’s interesting, though, that you say that. I find it simultaneously absurd and comical that people, who insist on being mean to others, play the victim when the rest of us call them out for it.

but, not surprisingly, you failed to quote what you claim to have found.

I did quote it. I even bolded the important part.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.187  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.184    one month ago
You are also the one demanding we call him what you want us to call him.

I would also demand that people address you as you wished.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.188  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.179    one month ago

I agree with you. Mr Mulvaney is free to dress and identify however he wishes. It's a free country. I have zero problem with equal and equitable treatment of gays, LGBT+ and other people. Where I personally draw the line is some people in those communities demanding special treatment based on orientation or identity. And nobody can tell me that does not happen because I have seen it. A few months ago I had a friend threatened with a lawsuit because he did not address a trans male in a dress and makeup as Miss instead of Mr that he was when that person ran into his car.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.189  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.187    one month ago
I would also demand that people address you as you wished.

Okay.

The difference here is that I don't demand anyone call anyone anything at all, I let adults make their own decisions.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.190  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.182    one month ago
And how does me calling anyone exactly what they ARE treating anyone badly?

It has been explained to you many times that for the person in question, addressing them, or referring to them as they ask, is a kindness to them. Fighting them over it hurts them. 

What difference can it possibly make to you if I call a man a man?

I want human society to be kinder. You are helping to make it meaner.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.191  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.184    one month ago
You are also the one demanding we call him what you want us to call him.

No, I am trying to convince you to call her what she wants to be called. It’s not about what I want her to be called.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.192  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.190    one month ago
It has been explained to you many times that for the person in question, addressing them, or referring to them as they ask, is a kindness to them. Fighting them over it hurts them. 

Well, since I never addressed him, I guess your 'point' is rather moot.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.193  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.191    one month ago
No, I am trying to convince you to call her what she wants to be called.

I remain committed to calling males males and females females. You do as you wish personally.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.194  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.189    one month ago
The difference here is that I don't demand anyone call anyone anything at all,

Why does it matter that you aren’t demanding anything? Are you only nice to people if you get something in return?

I let adults make their own decisions.

No one is preventing you from making any decisions. Again, we see that those who want to be mean play the victim. You are totally free to be mean. And the rest of us are free to try to persuade you to be nicer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.195  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.193    one month ago
I remain committed to calling males males and females females. You do as you wish personally.

Very good, ma’am.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.196  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.192    one month ago
Well, since I never addressed him, I guess your 'point' is rather moot.

That doesn’t matter. First of all, you don’t know Dylan isn’t on this site. You also don’t know that people like Dylan are not on this site. The words you write here will be read by others. They may be read by trans people, or people who love trans people. You needlessly discourage and ostracize them.

Additionally, your words encourage hate - and possibly violence - in others. We all have the power to encourage the kind of society we would want.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.197  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.196    one month ago
Additionally, your words encourage hate - and possibly violence - in others. We all have the power to encourage the kind of society we would want.

That's a load of crap.

If anyone is offended by being a male and being called a male, that is their own problem. 

I have told you what I am going to call him, and you may continue to call him whatever you wish.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.198  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.195    one month ago
Very good, ma’am.

Haha!

Childish but funny as hell!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.199  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.173    4 weeks ago

You complain because I treat you the way you've been treating me for days.  Thoroughly unsurprising at this point.  

 You rationalize shitty behavior by claiming that what you do is out of adherence to some loyalty to reality.

Riiiiiight.  Anything short of denial of reality constitutes "shitty behavior".  That's not batshit or anything.... *eyeroll*

Then maybe who you are and what you stand for could use some examination.

Again with the astounding irony.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.200  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.183    4 weeks ago
Uh huh. So when the wife asks, “Does this dress make me look fat?”

She doesn't.  But we've been honest with each other for over 30 years.

We also have pretty well established science that tells us there is nothing perverted or depraved about being gay

So you only accept science when it suits you. 

Anyway, if you understand how science works, then you understand that knowledge and understanding evolve. It’s not honest to just say it’s “established” and close your mind to all new information.

It is far more honest to accept established science than reject it merely because it disproves your bias. 

I don’t think I have called her female

So we agree.

- at least not in a biological sense. I think I have said over and over that people like Dylan are biologically male, but living and identifying as a woman. She identifies as a woman and I am content to treat her as such. I think it’s the nice thing to support that and the mean thing to fight it.

I wish him well.  If he wants to live as a woman, that's up to him.

My objection... over and over again.. is your insistence that anything less than complete affirmation of something you know to be false constitutes intolerance. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.201  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.149    4 weeks ago
A boy or man in this world is a social construct first and foremost, to you. A he. And nary shall you consider him, Dylan, anything more.
Because you want the benefits of standing on a social construct, because constructs are important, and a segment of the populations lives are in your estimation: not worth the time it takes for them to live them.

I don't know where you get the idea that I think men and women are social constructs. I don't have any idea what could possibly be a benefit of standing on such a claim. 

The truth is that I am as far from such a view as it is possible to get. 

Gen 1:27  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 

Men and women are not socially defined categories. They were created by God. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.202  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.153    4 weeks ago
I could ask you "how" you know such a thing about me, and "why" -to you- it is a pejorative, but you never are open to discussing Jesus with me beyond throwing out the name.

I tried. Once, although reluctantly. What I got for my trouble was you not addressing a single thing I said. Instead you just replied with incoherent speeches that didn't address any point I brought up. Won't be doing that again. You have only yourself to blame for it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.203  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.196    4 weeks ago
Additionally, your words encourage hate - and possibly violence - in others.

My God, man, what else can you make up out of thin air?

How does me calling a male a male encourage any hate or  violence from anyone?

That is astoundingly silly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.204  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.194    4 weeks ago
Why does it matter that you aren’t demanding anything?

Mainly to show the difference between us. I am perfectly content to let you or anyone else call people whatever you think is appropriate. You, on the other hand, are demanding I speak a certain way to suit you or others.

No one is preventing you from making any decisions. Again, we see that those who want to be mean play the victim.

Never claimed they were. In fact, I stated pretty specifically that I let adults make their own decisions. Why don't you?

Victim? LMFAO! There is no victim here. Where do you GET this stuff from?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.205  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.48    4 weeks ago
Distinctions matter. Only a fool would conclude Dylan Mulvaney is a designated female. The term "she" can be and is transitory. Transpeople are fully aware of the nuances in being them.

True. And he is a male, you said so yourself, that he would never be a woman.  But you may call him whatever you wish and makes you feel good. He may identify as whatever he wants. He is free to live how he wants, and I am free to call him a male.

The issue with you and others of your mindset is, why do you care what goes she calls herself, as you feign it does not matter to how you feel and your overall well-being anyway. Or, does it?

Another of your endless stream of questions. I don't think I'll answer any more of the until you start answering some of mine once in a while.

Stay in the straight-lane of life all you wish and you won't even notice trans-people navigatingthe coursesof their lanes.

Thanks ever so much for your approval of me living life as I choose.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.206  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.183    4 weeks ago
I don’t think I have called her female - at least not in a biological sense. I think I have said over and over that people like Dylan are biologically male, but living and identifying as a woman.

I wonder then, for the same reasons, if you would politely support Miss Littlefeather in identifying as an Apache Native American? After all, she's doing the same thing, right? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.207  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.171    4 weeks ago
The difference is with Dylan, we’re talking about how she will live, but with you, we’re talking about how you treat her. No one cares how you live or how you identify.

The irony here is so thick its about to manifest as something physical, like a new elementary particle or something. If you don't care how he lives or identifies then what has been the point behind all you have said to Jack? Why are you still taking issue with what he says? 

I think you meant to say no one cares how he lives or identifies as long as those things meet your approval. That's what you've been arguing the whole time. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.208  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.199    4 weeks ago
You complain because I treat you the way you've been treating me for days.

That’s delusional. I haven’t complained about the way you treat me at all. We haven’t even been discussing that.

The rest of your comment is equal delusional in that you completely misstate what has been said.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.209  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.200    4 weeks ago
She doesn't.

You can’t just go along with it as a hypothetical for the sake of actually having a conversation? Of considering a different point of view? Of examining your own carved in stone beliefs?

So you only accept science when it suits you. 

Lazy deflection and dishonest. Care to try again but actually engage with the comment you’re responding to?

I wish him well. 

Clearly not.

If he wants to live as a woman, that's up to him.

Unless she encounters you. Then, you’ll be sure to make sure she doesn’t get away with that crap, right?

My objection... over and over again.. is your insistence that anything less than complete affirmation of something you know to be false constitutes intolerance

I never said your position was intolerant, although that’s something you might consider. I said it was mean.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.210  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.201    4 weeks ago

Speaking of "male" and "female" - changing up the subject for just a second. At 2.1.146 I asked this of you:

Lastly, I leave you with a basic challenge: Explain to me, us, how God, the Spirit, is according to the meaning of the word: "man." (His.) 

The question stands unresponded to by you as far as I know. Why?

It is a social construct. Spirits don't have gender as far as we know. For as near as we can carry it forward, Spirit, can manifest as it sees fit to do.

We created the categories; we penned the language in the Bible using terms which list human characteristics and traits. Human versions.

Well, a trans-person is transcending the state of the definitions assigned at birth to them. Dylan is no longer just a man, she is 'becoming.'  She is transitioning into someone more and in doing so is leaving her born gender behind.

Not all of us will ever do such a thing. Some take the 'step.' It is customary to allow people the peace of their convictions when they are harmless, right. But. You see something morally wrong with males and females transitioning. No? Let's drill down into the 'meat' of this discussion now!

They can not be classified by the term, "he" because they no longer apply it to who they are becoming (and wish to be).

Again, I get the stoic treatment of not participating in progressivism, liberalism, and the whole 'bees-wax' - that is why I said you could just miss this article, because it serves no good purpose to come here and hold the line on why some of you will insist that a boy is male, a he, has a penis (or had one anyway), and for you will always IDENTIFY by the standard definition. Because you don't have to be nice, you can be clinical, and you can be caustic and rigid over it.

I get it.

It won't help you understand anything that is going on with Dylan Mulvaney and his demeanor, attitudes, and 'condition' if you treat him as just another 'dude' because he is far from being 'dude-ish' and factually is working to leave that 'guy' behind.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.211  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.202    4 weeks ago

What an arrogant thing to write. Drakk,' the Lord rebuke you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.212  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.201    4 weeks ago
Gen 1:27  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 

And, humanity/science is altering and modifying what it means to be "man" and "female."

I'm going to put forward your reason for posting this scripture reference is the church-at-large expects an individual, should live, whether in or out of the Church, 'afflicted' with a body which brings him or her more confusion and difficulties than joy; a body that strains his or her proper function of  mental capacities; a body that gives him or her less peace for a lifetime. I repeat, a lifetime. Instead of a body science can yield to him or her which brings a decent measure of joy, peace, healthy minds, and increased productivity. No?

Tell me what makes you think God wants this? I mean I could consider (the possibility) God does not want trans-people in the Church-at-Large. Arguments to follow! But. Is it clear to you God and science are not fulfilling the prayers of suffering "people" outside of the Church by 'quieting' their sufferings?

I feel these questions are pushing you to think outside the 'box' of your 'upbringing' -as the case may be. And you will likely balk at doing so. However Drakk, I caution you that you do a disservice to people when you suppress empathy and go all in with ideology. There is daily life application involved in holding to biblical wisdom and understanding.

And for the record. I am not now and have never been in the past a trans-person.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.213  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.210    4 weeks ago

Yep, about as progressive an answer as one could hope to find. 

So, let me make sure I'm getting this right. Your argument is that because God is a spirit and has no body and is therefore neither male or female and that God only appears male in the Bible as a social construct we invented, it means that we, being made in His image can ignore the fact He made us male and female and just be whatever we want to be, presumably because it's the spirit that counts, not the body? Does that about sum it up? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.214  arkpdx  replied to  CB @2.1.210    4 weeks ago
definitions assigned at birth to them

You are not assigned anything at birth. You come out and if you have a oenis you are a bit if you don't you are a girl. No one decides in the delivery room what you are. That is determined at the time of conception.  If a sperm with a "Y" chromosome fertilizes the egg you are going to be male. If it has an "X" you will be a girl. That is basic biology and genetics. I am surprised you don't know this.. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.215  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.212    4 weeks ago
And, humanity/science is altering and modifying what it means to be "man" and "female."

Your partly right. Some of humanity is trying to redefine what those things are. Science is not. 

I'm going to put forward your reason for posting this scripture reference...

Gee, thanks. 

is the church-at-large expects an individual, should live, whether in or out of the Church,'afflicted' with a body which brings him or her more confusion and difficulties than joy; a body that strains his or her proper function of  mental capacities; a body that gives him or her less peace for a lifetime. I repeat, a lifetime. Instead of a body science can yield to him or her which brings a decent measure of joy, peace, healthy minds, and increased productivity. No?

No. This 'reason' is simply a cartoonish motive you're ascribing to me and then arguing against. 

Now, let me tell you why I posted it, for what good it will do, as you will just keep on going with the caricatures you invent for others. The reason I posted the scripture reference is that you ascribed to me a position I do not hold.

A boy or man in this world is a social construct first and foremost, to you. A he. And nary shall you consider him, Dylan, anything more.
Because you want the benefits of standing on a social construct, because constructs are important, and a segment of the populations lives are in your estimation: not worth the time it takes for them to live them.

You said I think Dylan is male because that's what social constructs label him as, which is about as far from the actual position I hold. First and foremost, because it literally states that God created them male and female. Second, anyone who prefers truth over wants, desires and feelings knows the science is pretty solid on what constitutes a male and a female. 

But let's revisit your abysmally ridiculous 'reason' that you ascribed to me and, presumably, conservative believers as a whole. It is a loaded question with assumptions to the true state of affairs for those who deal with such issues. First, the church doesn't expect anything from anyone outside the church. Why would we expect such people to submit to the will of God? 

Second, it assumes the root of the problem is the body in which these people live and present the only solution as one of enabling and support as you view it. If you actually knew the real Jesus, you would know the problem isn't with people's bodies. The problem is with people's hearts. We desire what is evil all the time. The Jesus I know came to give us a new life and a new heart to those who will follow him. 

For your jesus, the solution is to take them deeper into what is broken in them. Your jesus is all about making what you want, rather that what God wants, okay. After all, isn't you being happy what jesus is all about? Wouldn't jesus want you to be happy, as you understand happy? 

Sounds more like the Serpent to me. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.216  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.214    4 weeks ago

You come out and if you have a oenis you are a bit if you don't you are a girl.

I guess you must be a girl since you certainly weren’t born with a “oenis” and thus can’t be a “bit”.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.217  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.214    4 weeks ago
You are not assigned anything at birth...
No one decides in the delivery room what you are.

Of course they do, that's part of their job and 99% of the time one of the easiest parts

but some infants are androgenous.

When androgyny refers to mixed biological sex characteristics in humans, it often refers to intersex people, who are born with congenital variations that complicate assigning their sex at birth.

As much as some people want it to be, the world is not 100% right or wrong, black or

white, male or female.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.218  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.217    4 weeks ago

Less than two percent of people are intersexed far less than those that believe they need to transition   

It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.Oct 26, 2021

In about 1% of all births, babies have some form of ambiguous genitalia, such as a very large clitoris or very small penis. In more rare cases—between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births—genitalia is so ambiguous that medical specialists are brought in for a consultation.

Of course they do, that's part of their job and 99% of the time one of the easiest parts 

Do they have a little book in the delivery room or a computer program that tells them how many bits and girls they had that day and either glue in a penis and scrotum of a female baby if too many girls were born that week or cut the off if too many boys were born. Who is deciding if there are too many of one and not enough of another!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.219  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.218    4 weeks ago

“Who is deciding if there are too many of one and not enough of another!”

So in your mind it comes down to the simple quantifying of gender equity?  

The real question is when and how will we begin to acknowledge those with the courage to challenge the established morality? A morality that is fractured, hypocritical, and thus way overdue for introspection and change. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.220  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.207    4 weeks ago
what has been the point behind all you have said to Jack?

It’s about kindness, respect, and support for our fellow human beings. Apparently that’s too much to ask of some people.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.221  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.213    4 weeks ago

No. The "God" portion simply means at the time of the biblical writings, and continuing into now, language is a social construct. One for which, God can-not possibly be "gendered" in the larger scheme.  Think!

God, Spirit, is not a man, father, by definition.  Churches (ought to) know this, but still use human terms ("He," "His," "Him") to communicate what God is. They do this because it makes communication and description easier. Though, it is not (spirit). . . reality.

(Prior comment repeated.)

Well, a trans-person is transcending the state of the definitions assigned at birth to them. Dylan is no longer just a man, she is 'becoming.'  She is transitioning into someone more and in doing so is leaving her born gender behind.

Not all of us will ever do such a thing. Some take the 'step.' It is customary to allow people the peace of their convictions when they are harmless, right. But. You see something morally wrong with males and females transitioning. No? Let's drill down into the 'meat' of this discussion now!

They can not be classified by the term, "he" because they no longer apply it to who they are becoming (and wish to be).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.222  CB   replied to  arkpdx @2.1.214    4 weeks ago

I am surprised you feel what you 'delivered' is what this discussion is considering. Below, is the paragraph you 'chopped' the "h" out of to make a vague point:

Well, a trans-person is transcending the state of the definitions assigned at birth to them. Dylan is no longer just a man, she is 'becoming.'  She is transitioning into someone more and in doing so is leaving her born gender behind.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.223  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.215    4 weeks ago
Some of humanity is trying to redefine what those things are. Science is not. 

What?! Please elaborate.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.224  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.215    4 weeks ago
Now, let me tell you why I posted it, for what good it will do, as you will just keep on going with the caricatures you invent for others. The reason I posted the scripture reference is that you ascribed to me a position I do not hold.

Where is the reason? Above, that is circular reasoning.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.225  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.215    4 weeks ago
First and foremost, because it literally states that God created them male and female. Second, anyone who prefers truth over wants, desires and feelings knows the science is pretty solid on what constitutes a male and a female. 

And yet: People like Dylan populate the world's landscape. Here is something just 'popped' up in the news today:

miss-universe-feature.jpg
Trans woman buys Miss Universe beauty pageant

Trans activist and Thai celebrity, Anne Jakapong Jakrajutatip, is officially the first woman to own the Miss Universe beauty pageant. She purchased the company that owns the global contest for €20 million.

An established business executive, Jakrajutatip owns the JKN Global Group and produces popular television shows in Thailand. She is a well-known celebrity who has previously starred in reality television shows similar to Project Runway and Shark Tank . Jakrajutatip is also a Trans woman and LGBTQ+ activist who manages a Trans rights nonprofit organisation called Life Inspired for Transsexual Foundation which advocates for Trans visibility and equality.

The Miss Universe pageant was previously co-owned by Donald Trump who sold the company during his 2016 presidential campaign after multiple television partners refused to broadcast the pageant in protest over his comments regarding Mexican immigrants. As a Trans woman, Jakrajutatip’s ownership of the organisation is sure to make the beauty pageant more inclusive, . . . .

Entertainment 27 October, 2022. Written by Nicole Lee .

Drakk, undoubtedly you will label this transperson with a male pronoun, no? Though, you clearly see a visible characteristics of maleness have been stripped away. I presume you would call her 'out' as male, or having been male, once before and so that is all that matters to your rigid conservative way of seeing her .  Moreover, if she is sex-change (details!) there is science happening between her legs!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.226  CB   replied to  CB @2.1.225    4 weeks ago

Of course, transsexuality is a medical construct meant to make life more livable for males and females who are 'challenged' and unhappy with their birth bodies. No one is or should be denying this. It is not a hard concept to process and understand!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.227  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.221    4 weeks ago

Aaaaand here we go. What's next? Truth is a social construct? Are you going to make everything a social construct? 

Language is not a social construct. It definitely exists regardless of society or we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Language is communication of meaning from one individual to another. What is being communicated, how we communicate it and the rules governing it may or may not be a social construct but the act of communicating is not a social construct. If one person communicates to another that the bridge is out so they should not drive across it, it is either true or false, not something that depends on socially constructed communication. 

As for the rest of your post, you're just rationalizing what you want the Bible to say rather than what it does. In doing so, you are either putting God on mans level or man on God's. In other words, you take something that is true of God, a Being who is not under the same obligations we are, and use it to justify what you want to be true of human desires. 

So, what you're doing is completely progressive. Progressive Christianity is not Christianity. It is postmodernism saying Christianity is a social construct and, therefore, can mean whatever we need it to mean. To that I say, you're playing with something you do not understand. God is not progressive. He tells us over and over again He does not change, nor has He ever changed. If anyone actually listens to you, you will have to answer to God for leading people away from Him rather than to Him. 

I did not intend to turn this into a religious discussion. This has nothing to do with the topic so I will not reply to religious questions further in this place.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.228  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.220    4 weeks ago
what has been the point behind all you have said to Jack?
It’s about kindness, respect, and support for our fellow human beings. Apparently that’s too much to ask of some people.

Superficially, yes. That's what you've said, but that isn't what the argument is about. 

The argument is about whether truth and reality are real things in themselves that should inform how we live or are they just social constructs that should be subject to wants, desires and emotions with the goal of making people happy. 

I, and others, believe that truth and reality as the only workable way to live shouldn't need be explained. 

Yours is that truth and reality should be discarded for the sake of politeness, kindness, respect, support and other related concepts. It should not need to be explained that there are tons of examples out there where those who did such things for the sake of what they wanted went horribly wrong. Extreme examples would be the Communist entities of the 20th century. Because they put what they wanted to be true ahead of what was true, millions of people died needlessly and millions more suffered horribly. 

In your philosophy, where truth and reality takes a back seat to emotions and desires, it will necessarily and be easily foreseeable that the world will suffer more because we will subject ourselves to around seven billion emotional beings, all trying to make reality what they want it to be. Whereas if everyone understood that we don't create truth and reality but, instead, accepted it for what it is, you now have around seven billion people trying to get on the same page. 

This is what we've been arguing about.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.229  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.228    4 weeks ago
Superficially, yes. That's what you've said, but that isn't what the argument is about. 

I think I know what I care about. I have said what I care about. You and others want to justify not being kind, respectful, or supportive by hiding behind some claim to honesty. Sorry, but that doesn’t hold water. I could walk up to random people on the street and tell them they’re fat or ugly. It might be my honest opinion, but that wouldn’t change the fact that I was being a monumental asshole.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.230  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.209    4 weeks ago
You can’t just go along with it as a hypothetical for the sake of actually having a conversation? Of considering a different point of view? Of examining your own carved in stone beliefs?

Your "hypothetical" is merely an attempt to portray my beliefs as hypocritical.   And yeah... I think honesty is worth carving in stone.  

Lazy deflection and dishonest. Care to try again but actually engage with the comment you’re responding to?

OK... since you're all about hypocrisy....  You hold up "science" when it suits you, but deny it when it doesn't.  That's hypocritical.  You also do it in a nonsensical way, claiming science has anything to do with concepts like "perversion" or "depravity", which are subjective moral judgments made completely outside the realm of actual science.

Clearly not.

Thanks for proving my point on militancy.

Unless she encounters you. Then, you’ll be sure to make sure she doesn’t get away with that crap, right?

You appear to have created a very bizarre version of this hypothetical situation in your mind.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.231  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.220    4 weeks ago
It’s about kindness, respect, and support for our fellow human beings. Apparently that’s too much to ask of some people.

The fact that you believe the ONLY way someone can show kindness or respect is by following your wishes to the letter is the problem. 

It's the same logic a spoiled child uses with a parent... "if you loved me you'd buy me ice cream".

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.232  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.215    4 weeks ago
First, the church doesn't expect anything from anyone outside the church. Why would we expect such people to submit to the will of God? 

So, evangelical Christians support Donald Trump and conservative ideology-led courts because of a desperate 'thirst' for religious expression inside churches and religious institutions alone?

You really want to go on record as stating EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS ARE NOT WORKING TO UNIVERSALLY CHANGE PUBLIC POLICY/IES AND AMERICAN CULTURE AND LAW?

Think about your answer before you respond.

Why do religious people have expectations of civil society serving God? Could be that for many people, they 'opt' or are 'called' into the faith from the 'world.' Or, these people were children who grew to leave and someday return to a religious 'setting.'  But, in either case, while they are 'away' some religious traditions seek after them.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.233  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.215    4 weeks ago
The problem is with people's hearts. We desire what is evil all the time. The Jesus I know came to give us a new life and a new heart to those who will follow him. 

What?! No really: WHAT?!

Let me put this in terms away from trans-people that you might,. . .might can empathize with and 'comfortably' associate:  A person who has a physical deformity or a mental health disease- polio or varying cancers - and for which there are vital medicinal vaccines and research projects afoot to arrest and end their lifelong crises in the flesh—you would say something to the effect of 'get over themselves'?!

Are you after better people and better lives or ascetic religious devotion, Drakk?

And no! It did not escape me that you call it "evil" to want liberty and freedom (such as some others have in such abundant; they 'wear out' others for their 'lack' even as they are the suppressors).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.234  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.215    4 weeks ago
For your jesus, the solution is to take them deeper into what is broken in them. Your jesus is all about making what you want, rather that what God wants, okay. After all, isn't you being happy what jesus is all about? Wouldn't jesus want you to be happy, as you understand happy? 

"jesus". . .no capitalization. That's interesting. Or is it meant to be some form of slight. Anyway, that is on you, as you did it repeatedly so it can not be an error in typing.

What means the snark on happiness in Christ. I don't see Christians-at-Large going around on a diet of 'sackcloth and ashes' in the mega-churches. For that matter, I don't see pastors and faith teachers doing so in any mainstream denomination. Where is this lack of joy you are experiencing and 'expressing' happening.

Got a web link for me to peruse?

Jesus is Love. Jesus is Life. Jesus is our friend, indeed. Jesus is not a mean, slave-master who whips his slaves mercilessly over the course of their lives. I don't know where you are getting this notion, as Jesus actually criticized the religious leaders for their judgemental, merciless, "authority" over the people they were sent and expected to serve.

That said, these are 'finer points' of Christianity and will take 'many words' to flesh out. It won't happen in a 'blurt' comment.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.235  CB   replied to  arkpdx @2.1.218    4 weeks ago
Less than two percent of people are intersexed far less than those that believe they need to transition.

Obviously, you know what male and female "transitioning" is which belies your attempt at wasting time with 'basic biology' at  2.1.214! Some people are just mean, obstinate, "bunker-ish" folks who wish to give other people a hard time. :(

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.236  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.227    4 weeks ago
Aaaaand here we go. What's next? Truth is a social construct? Are you going to make everything a social construct? 

Rhetoric. Deflection. Truth is truth. Like boys who go through the scientific and medical processes and 'states' of transitioning into "she." They 'become' what they were not! Your questions are wide afield of this ongoing discussion. Come back!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.237  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.230    4 weeks ago
Your "hypothetical" is merely an attempt to portray my beliefs as hypocritical.

Merely? As if being a hypocrite wouldn’t be very important? Anyway, I don’t think I mentioned hypocrisy, but since you see hypocrisy in a discussion of your position, maybe that should give you something to reflect on.

OK... since you're all about hypocrisy

Actually that’s you. I didn’t bring up the word. You did.

You hold up "science" when it suits you, but deny it when it doesn't.  That's hypocritical. 

It might be hypocritical if I had done something like that, but I haven’t. This discussion has been about the way you would treat trans people, not my relationship with science.

Additionally, you haven’t given me any science to consider. I, on the other hand, have provided links in my various comments on this seed and referenced actual scientific work being done. I’m glad you at least acknowledge that I “hold up science.”

Thanks for proving my point on militancy.

If I disagree with you, I’m being “militant?” You sure do worry a lot about what people say or think about you. Sadly, you don’t seem to give a shit about the impact of your words on someone like Dylan.

You appear to have created a very bizarre version of this hypothetical situation in your mind. 

Is it bizarre? Or are you telling me that if you met Dylan, you would actually treat her as a woman? Because that would a wonderful change.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.238  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.231    4 weeks ago
The fact that you believe the ONLY way someone can show kindness or respect is by following your wishes to the letter is the problem.

They aren’t my wishes. They’re Dylan’s wishes.

Also, I didn’t say it was the ONLY way. It is the only way we have been discussing though. If you think you can be kind, respectful, and supportive some other way, by all means let’s hear it. Also, include why we should disregard your unwillingness to affirm Dylan.

It's the same logic a spoiled child uses with a parent... "if you loved me you'd buy me ice cream".

Nope. Not remotely the same. It’s not your role to parent Dylan.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.239  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.227    4 weeks ago
Language is not a social construct. It definitely exists regardless of society or we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Language is communication of meaning from one individual to another. What is being communicated, how we communicate it and the rules governing it may or may not be a social construct but the act of communicating is not a social construct. If one person communicates to another that the bridge is out so they should not drive across it, it is either true or false, not something that depends on socially constructed communication. 

Drakk, even your bible informs you differently:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them ; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name . 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animal s.

But for Adam f no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs g and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman ,’ for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife , and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

All descriptors in this biblical accounting were rendered by "man" as social constructs: 1. Names of animals. 2. Woman.  3. Wife.

Calling a boy who modifies himself to identify as a "she" is a simple additional language (social) construct.

Of course Drakk', you won't like it: the new construct or the body modifications, but the issue of naming and calling beasts and humanity is really beyond just what you like or how you feel about it, no?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.240  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.229    4 weeks ago
I could walk up to random people on the street and tell them they’re fat or ugly. It might be my honest opinion, but that wouldn’t change the fact that I was being a monumental asshole.

Agreed. Problem is, no on my side of the argument advocates for doing such things. We've repeatedly stated they are free to do what they please, therefore, walking up to someone and doing that isn't on the menu. You just keep adding it so you have some point you can argue against, even though it isn't real. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.241  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.239    4 weeks ago
All descriptors in this biblical accounting were rendered by "man" as social constructs: 1. Names of animals. 2. Woman.  3. Wife.

Completely wrong and a perfect example of how you misuse the Bible for your own purposes. Names are an identifier for a concrete fact. A woman is not a woman because of the name. She is a woman because of her physical and, probably, psychological attributes. We could all agree to now change the identifier to "llama". Is she now the animal previously known as a llama? Hardly. Absolutely nothing about her has changed. The facts of her existence are exactly the same as they were before. All we did was change the sound and associated written forms of a concrete fact that hasn't changed at all. No matter what sound a given culture gives to identify a woman, we all mean exactly the same thing. 

So, no. the Bible isn't saying what you claim it is saying concerning the issue. You are mangling the context and basic common sense to warp it into what you want it to say. 

Calling a boy who modifies himself to identify as a "she" is a simple additional language (social) construct.

No, it's simply fairytale pretending, based on nothing but personal desire and completely devoid of fact. If every person on the planet agreed to call him "she" it wouldn't change the fact that he is still a he. The only thing that would be accomplished is that "she" would lose any and all objective meaning. 

Of course Drakk', you won't like it: the new constructorthe body modifications, but the issue of naming and calling beasts and humanity is really beyond just what you like or how you feel about it, no?

I could care less about what we decide to name a thing. If I did, I'd insist that all people everywhere use the same language. I'd be getting in fights with the French for using a different sound for woman. What I do care about are those who want to destroy reality by eliminating factual distinctions between what is a man and a woman. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.242  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.232    4 weeks ago
You really want to go on record as stating EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS ARE NOT WORKING TO UNIVERSALLY CHANGE PUBLIC POLICY/IES AND AMERICAN CULTURE AND LAW?

Why would I state such a thing? Of course, they are. It is a right of citizenship and of paying taxes. Do you think Christians do not get a say about what our country should be? Are you suggesting that Christians should not be allowed to participate because they are Christians? Does the Constitution state that only secular people have a right to participate? To vote and decide who we are or should be? 

Think about your answer before you respond.

Maybe you should have thought about the question before you asked it. 

Why do religious people have expectations of civil society serving God?

Why do you ask leading questions? Most religious people don't have expectations of civil society serving God. Most Christians are for the separation of church and state. That doesn't mean we don't have an opinion of what makes a civil and just society or we shouldn't participate simply because our morals are informed by something other than whatever informs the non-religious. The fact that I have to explain this to you just further shows you and I are not brothers in Christ. 

Could be that for many people, they 'opt' or are 'called' into the faith from the 'world.' Or, these people were children who grew to leave and someday return to a religious 'setting.'  But, in either case, while they are 'away' some religious traditions seek after them.

Not sure what this has to do with the question but yes, this sort of thing happens all the time. My problem with you is, you claim Christ but actually work to prevent people being called, or called back to, the faith. Rather than recognize that Dylan's problem is his heart, you want to say God made some sort of mistake or that God intends for him to transition. In other words, a Christian telling him God's cool with what he's doing. Now, why would Dylan go back to God when you're taking him deeper into his sin? 

But that's the thing, isn't it? For you, it doesn't matter if he stays in his sin, as long as he makes noises about turning to God. You think he can just accept Christ without repenting, don't you? But without repentance, just what is a person being saved from? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.243  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.229    4 weeks ago
I think I know what I care about.

I didn't address what you cared about. I described what this argument is about. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.244  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.240    4 weeks ago
walking up to someone and doing that isn't on the menu

Aren’t you? If you met Dylan, would you say, “Nice to meet you, Miss?” or “Sir?”

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.245  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.243    4 weeks ago
I didn't address what you cared about. I described what this argument is about. 

You think not? Here is how that exchange went.

You: what has been the point behind all you have said to Jack?
Me: It’s about kindness, respect, and support for our fellow human beings. Apparently that’s too much to ask of some people.

So, yes - you did address what I cared about. You asked me what was the point behind what I had said.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.246  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.237    4 weeks ago
Merely? As if being a hypocrite wouldn’t be very important? Anyway, I don’t think I mentioned hypocrisy, but since you see hypocrisy in a discussion of your position, maybe that should give you something to reflect on.

Nice try.  Actually, come to think of it, nah, it's a bit sad, really.

I realize it would be helpful for you and your feelings if you could find some sort of hypocrisy in my statements, which is why you made the feeble attempt to provoke it.  But I've been really consistent throughout this whole conversation.

I don't tell falsehoods, nor do I affirm them.  If a person's emotional state relies upon my doing so, I'm not the one who needs to be reflecting.

It might be hypocritical if I had done something like that, but I haven’t.

But of course you just did.  Science is all groovy and wonderful when it confirms things you want to be true, but somehow unimportant when it doesn't.

Additionally, you haven’t given me any science to consider.

So these chromosomes we've been talking about are just... what?  Interpretive dance?  Muscular and skeletal systems are modern art?  Or are have you so lost grip on reality that you're now denying that those things are scientific subjects?  

If I disagree with you, I’m being “militant?”

You're militant because you demand compliance with your views and your wishes.  You're militant because you cannot accept the idea that somebody might have a different view than yours and still be a good person.

You sure do worry a lot about what people say or think about you.

If that were the case, I would accept the lie.

Sadly, you don’t seem to give a shit about the impact of your words on someone like Dylan.

Anybody who depends on me affirming a falsehood is out of luck.   I do find it startling that a guy with a graduate degree cannot imagine a scenario in between hurling abuse at someone and accepting something we all know to be untrue.

Is it bizarre?

Absolutely.  100%

Or are you telling me that if you met Dylan, you would actually treat her as a woman? Because that would a wonderful change.  

I'm not sure how your day to day conversations go, but I don't actually treat men and women that differently.  

Chances are very good that he and I could talk very politely for several minutes without ever mentioning his gender issues.  If I were speaking with him directly, the only pronoun in use would be "you".  Recognizing that I would eventually be put in a position to affirm or contradict his assertions about his gender, I would undoubtedly figure out a way to excuse myself politely before we ever got anywhere near that point.

The problem would only arise talking with somebody else where third-person pronouns enter the conversation, and some militant trans-defender loses their shit over my refusal to go along with what we all know to be nonsense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.247  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.242    4 weeks ago
In other words, a Christian telling him God's cool with what he's doing. Now, why would Dylan go back to God when you're taking him deeper into his sin? 

In all, you are offering a proxy argument for God (a moniker for the deity described by the Bible as interpreted through the lens of Christianity and further by your own personal interpretation system).    The Bible is (at least) a collection of books written and edited by ancient men but it has not been established as divine based on solid grounds;  it is deemed as such and believed as such by mere faith.   

Therefore your argument is a proxy argument for what ancient men claim as the position of the grandest possible entity.  Further, there is no single interpretation so your argument comes from an interpretation that rings most true to you.   It is you, Drakk, arguing what you believe is "God"'s position ... not "God"'s position.


We are going through a very strange period in our society where we now struggling to deal with concepts which challenge the semantics of our language.   Our language, as with all languages, has evolved over time.   It reflects historical mores and customs and, of course, beliefs.    It has long been the belief that gender, sexual identity, etc. are ultimately binary concepts.   We saw our colloquial language express homosexuality decades ago by repurposing words such as 'gay'.   We are now dealing with an explosion of variations which defy our traditional binary thinking.   We are trying to deal with the many variations in sexual identity, sexual orientation and, as in this article, transgender and its direct impact on our well-known, comfortable, gender pronouns.

This is awkward, to say the least.   And there is good reason to debate the degree and pace at which society needs to evolve our language to accommodate the various flavors of human beings.   It is unreasonable to expect that this will take place at anything faster than a generational pace.   Older generations who grew up and lived in an almost strictly binary world will simply need to die off since most will simply not be able to adapt.

In the meantime, we (society) should do our best to be tolerant of the various flavors of human sexuality.   We will continue to find (based on merits) some of these variations as bad for society (e.g. pedophilia) and others as neutral to society (e.g. homosexuality, gender identity, etc.).   This is something for modern society to work out and I do not think it is helpful to bring in the mores & values of ancient men and present these as ultimate morality and truth.

Until we gain evidence that we have even the slightest clue as to the mind of our creator (if there is even sentience involved), those who argue "God's intent" are speaking out of turn in the most profound manner possible:  speaking for the grandest possible entity.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.1.248  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.218    4 weeks ago
Less than two percent of people are intersexed far less than those that believe they need to transition 

2% is 6.64 million American citizens

Add to that number 23.6 million LBGTQ Americans

So almost 10% of the population doesn't meet your approval?

Do they have a little book in the delivery room...

Another thoughtful response?  Why waste the effort?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.249  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.238    4 weeks ago
They aren’t my wishes. They’re Dylan’s wishes.

They're definitely yours, as well.  Otherwise you wouldn't try to call people who refused them "dicks".

Also, I didn’t say it was the ONLY way. It is the only way we have been discussing though.

We've discussed others, and you've rejected those ideas.

If you think you can be kind, respectful, and supportive some other way, by all means let’s hear it. Also, include why we should disregard your unwillingness to affirm Dylan.

Why do you imagine I think you should disregard anything?  

I would probably interact with this man similarly to how I interact with very fat people.  I don't need to tell them they're fat.  Everybody knows what's going on, so we can just avoid the subject.  They're smart enough not to force the issue and everybody else is smart enough to let it go unmentioned.

Now, if one of my really fat friends comes to me and says "Jack, I told everybody I weigh 115 pounds, and I need to confirm that when you talk to everybody", they are going to be terribly disappointed.   I'm not going to tell everybody they weigh 280, but I'm also not affirming the 115.  If their mental health or self-esteem depends on me doing that, they have far bigger problems than my lies are going to solve.

Nope. Not remotely the same. It’s not your role to parent Dylan.

Of course I'm not talking about him, and you know that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.1.250  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.248    4 weeks ago
2% is 6.64 million American citizens Add to that number 23.6 million LBGTQ Americans

Where are we getting these numbers?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.251  Sean Treacy  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.250    4 weeks ago

Where are we getting these numbers?

apparently, every gay or intersex person wants to transition.

They want to wipe out homosexuality I guess.  Can't be a man and be gay anymore. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.252  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.248    4 weeks ago
Do they have a little book in the delivery room... Another thoughtful response?  Why waste the effort?

You and others that support tranies àre the ones that keep claiming they were assigned to the wrong sec at birth. I am just trying to find out how they were assigned. If you can't answer that just say so. You don't have to get insulting. 

So almost 10% of the population doesn't meet your approval?

I will trust your math but yeah that is about the size of it. There are 2000000 people in prison right now and there are over 13000000 illegal aliens in this country and I don't approve of them either. There are many people I don't approve of

What is your point. I don't have to approve of everybody or their actions of lifestyles just because you do. I do particularly approve of liberals, progressives, democrats, communists, Nazis, klansmen, antifamembers or BLM either for that matter.  So what. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.253  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.244    4