Biden invites Dylan Mulvaney to the White House
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
Who is online
298 visitors
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.
give it up. the preambles to the constitution and DOI are completely lost on most trumpsters.
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.
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.
What has a(ny) transsexual ever done to you, Texan? Your disgust for her is palpable.
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):
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'!
Why do you have social and political feelings of distress over a(ny) transsexual?
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."
It seems you are 'bleeding' feelings out over this transsexual for all to see. Why?
OMG, he brought up Biden on an article that is literally about Biden, The horror!
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!
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.
There it is, your 'incessant' obsession with Biden. See 8.1!
Sometimes people just cannot help themselves in doing things like that./s
Does it really surprise you that a someone who supports the Dems has the ability to read what isn't there.
Do you really expect an answer to your question instead of deflection?
Mulvaney looks uglier as a wannabe "woman" than Caitlin Jenner does. Ugghhhh!/sarc
Why would we think he brought shame to the White House for being tolerant?
Did you look at the film?
I looked at the film. What is there to feel shame about?
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'?
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'?
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.
If you can, then do it. Ands, ors,''buts, are superfluous. Exercise: Try it!
Emphatically.
For the same reason I can't truthfully call you an armadillo. Because words have meaning.
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.
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?
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 [removed] want to force into women’s restrooms where little girls might be inside.
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?
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.
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.
Good. Would you 'like' to share why you don't care for transpeople with this group? You have our undivided attention right now!
Enough! Stop droning and filling this discussion with distraction. I am done responding to your lack of genuine discussion. This is not a schoolyard!
Yes, you do. Tell the truth even when it is inconvenient!
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?
No. He isn't.
Which is very different than insisting you call them whatever he calls them. That's what you're doing.
Much less obnoxious than insisting everyone abandon the meaning of English words because of your feelings.
Not remotely the same thing, and you know it. Try again.
Is calling someone "male" the same as a racial slur? Glad we're finally getting that out in the open.
I don't call them white.
Only an ass insists that other people redefine language that has existed for centuries because of their feelings.
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.
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.
Nobody is telling them anything. YOU are the one telling everyone else how WE have to handle their situation.
Noted.
Well said.
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).
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.
People have the freedom to be an ass.
Shows character...
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.
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.
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.
People with character can face reality.
Mistakenly so, I guess.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Clearly somebody is triggered by transpeople and their attitudes and interests.
"Well now, hmm mmm. Girl, you better gone with that! Call me back when you get a minute."
I don’t understand that. Perhaps you could rephrase or clarify what you mean.
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.
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.”
It is a slur if you know using it is going to be offensive.
Again, nothing has been redefined.
You don’t answer the question either.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
And not be jerks to other people just because they don't agree with their lifestyle.
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.
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.
Well said. Bravo!
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"?
If reality is old-fashioned, I suppose I'll be old-fashioned.
How he 'presents' does not change actual sciences... like biology, biochemistry, and physiology.
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.
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.
“…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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
The words "male" and "man" and the corresponding pronouns have well-established meanings.
Then use expanded vocabulary.
Excellent. Then we'll recognize that Dylan is a man and move on.
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.
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.
What ridiculous, melodramatic bullshit.
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?
Because he is a male. Because biology, chemistry, and physiology are real things.
Then why is everybody so concerned with what I call this man? I've already said repeatedly I don't care what he does.
Why? Because you demand I ignore reality?
What you are ignoring is simple common courtesy. Is that too much to ask?
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.
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.
Thank you for the acknowledgment that you're talking about an alternate reality.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Is that another term for focused people?
Is that a criticism?
Nope.
Nope.
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.
Acceptance of a person does not require the rejection of reality. Quite the opposite.
Yet you have demanded (repeatedly now) that I comply with the wishes of people who agree with you but ignore actual science.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Says the person who thinks people are trying “coerce” his “compliance.” I don’t think treating people decently will ever be “bullshit.”
How do you know? You didn't even ask me about my beliefs. You just started throwing judgemental insults.
Done that. Repeatedly. If you had bothered to read you would have seen it.
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.
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.
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.
Your inability to distinguish does not imply any association
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.
Says the man who demands I "just call people what they want to be called!"
No. You support whatever the prevailing liberal stance is and then you attempt to romanticize it.
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.
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.
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.
Do not confuse refusal with fear. But don't pretend coercion hasn't been attempted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When other people create those categories and impose them, it only serves to stigmatize people - people who already have enough to deal with.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
That's rich. Really.
You don't really need to 'talk' overlong about it, but here you are incessantly doing so. But, I digress. I rest my 'case.'
"Why, because you demand I ignore reality?"
In a word, yes.
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.
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.
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).
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
Of course. Royalty free.
Um, literally, just what the heck do you think he's doing?
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He is imitating what he thinks a girl is.
[deleted]
To clarify, not Mulvaney.
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.
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.
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.
Well said indeed.
That's not the fantasy in question. Kindly do attempt to keep up.
So much for your grand ideas on "tolerance".
*eyeroll* OK, you're clearly to put forth the intellectual effort required to participate meaningfully in the conversation.
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.
It costs me exactly what it would cost to call Donald Trump an honest man....which I'm not doing either. Integrity.
For fuck's sake. Do you really imagine this is on anybody's mind? WTF?
Except there are hundreds of races, and people have blended them for millennia. That's not the case for genders.
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.
Why aren't they aren't creating their own?
Excellent.
And my vocabulary is not something you need to police.
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?
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.
For the same reasons I don't get to tell anyone else who they are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one is saying you don't have the right to be rude - just that it's rude.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Maybe that is it. Some people think trans people are a threat to their masculinity somehow...
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.
No it doesn't. Your Trump example is about judging someone's character and behavior. That's not what's going on with Dylan.
WTF indeed! If not this, then why do you need to concern yourself with the biological details of some other person?
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?
Legally? Sure. Anyone has a right to be a dick to people. Morally? I would say they don't.
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.
They are. You just won't let them. You are gatekeeping manhood.
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.
No one has argued otherwise. Nor do I see the point of this statement in relation to the discussion.
I prefer not to judge him at all, thanks.
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.
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:
Compare:
Moral of the stories: If you don't want to be humbled by your Lord; humble yourself, now in the presence of others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, that's a deep-dive into the character of a trans-woman. A bit shallow, though. What else can you add to that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Really? If you saw me being cruel to someone, you wouldn’t ask me to stop?
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.
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.
Tell yourself what you will. I can’t stop you. But there is nothing “factual” about declaring that people are mad or depraved.
No, it isn’t.
You misuse scripture to be cruel. I’ll take CB’s way, thank you.
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.
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.
Then we agree. I've been saying this for a couple of days now.
It most certainly does.
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?
Hence my suggestion for new terminology, instead of shoe-horning people into clearly incorrect categories.
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.
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.
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.
One with high value on honesty and integrity.
The idea that you imagine reality to be a "fetish" speaks volumes.
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.
Biology, anatomy, and physiology does not lie.
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.
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?
But are you forced to agree with them when they say things that aren't true? No?
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.
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.
Again, you imagine a very different set of events than would ever happen in real life.
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.
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?
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?
I agree.
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.
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.
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.
You have been invited many times now to offer an alternative explanation and you have failed to do so.
Honesty is not a defense for treating people shabbily.
There’s nothing wrong with the existing terminology.
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.
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.
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 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.
Also you: The litany of insults directed toward me in this very seed . . .
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.
Then maybe who you are and what you stand for could use some examination.
How does it apply to me? I’m not trying to tell her who she is. That’s you. Talk about projection!
Because they demand complete adherence to their wishes.
They aren't the ones I think are insane.
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?
I would treat him honestly, as I do everyone.
The fact that you equate honesty with "treating people shabbily" adds further confirmation to how batshit this has become.
OK, then we'll agree Dylan is a man and move forward.
That hardly means society as a whole does not. Or will you demand we all do that differently, as well?
But we have been told. So it is definitely blatant.
It is certainly a falsehood, as you have admitted in other seeds.
We have incredibly well established science on the matter, which you undoubtedly know but want all of us to ignore.
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.
Did chromosomes become fake news because you found them inconvenient?
Neither do you. We know what the article says about him.
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.
Well, I didn’t have to look very far for the quote.
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.
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 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.
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.
Nope. I just suggested that there may be more to living as a man or woman than mere chromosomes.
True. But again, I am not the one trying to argue against her simple desire to be treated in the way that she asks.
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.
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.
I did quote it. I even bolded the important part.
I would also demand that people address you as you wished.
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.
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.
I want human society to be kinder. You are helping to make it meaner.
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.
Why does it matter that you aren’t demanding anything? Are you only nice to people if you get something in return?
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.
Very good, ma’am.
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.
You complain because I treat you the way you've been treating me for days. Thoroughly unsurprising at this point.
Riiiiiight. Anything short of denial of reality constitutes "shitty behavior". That's not batshit or anything.... *eyeroll*
Again with the astounding irony.
She doesn't. But we've been honest with each other for over 30 years.
So you only accept science when it suits you.
It is far more honest to accept established science than reject it merely because it disproves your bias.
So we agree.
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.
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.
Men and women are not socially defined categories. They were created by God.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Lazy deflection and dishonest. Care to try again but actually engage with the comment you’re responding to?
Clearly not.
Unless she encounters you. Then, you’ll be sure to make sure she doesn’t get away with that crap, right?
I never said your position was intolerant, although that’s something you might consider. I said it was mean.
Speaking of "male" and "female" - changing up the subject for just a second. At 2.1.146 I asked this of you:
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.
What an arrogant thing to write. Drakk,' the Lord rebuke you.
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.
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?
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..
Your partly right. Some of humanity is trying to redefine what those things are. Science is not.
Gee, thanks.
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.
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.
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]
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.
As much as some people want it to be, the world is not 100% right or wrong, black or
white, male or female.
Less than two percent of people are intersexed far less than those that believe they need to transition
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!
“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.
It’s about kindness, respect, and support for our fellow human beings. Apparently that’s too much to ask of some people.
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).
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:
What?! Please elaborate.
Where is the reason? Above, that is circular reasoning.
And yet: People like Dylan populate the world's landscape. Here is something just 'popped' up in the news today:
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Your "hypothetical" is merely an attempt to portray my beliefs as hypocritical. And yeah... I think honesty is worth carving in stone.
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.
Thanks for proving my point on militancy.
You appear to have created a very bizarre version of this hypothetical situation in your mind.
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".
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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!
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.
Actually that’s you. I didn’t bring up the word. You did.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Nope. Not remotely the same. It’s not your role to parent Dylan.
Drakk, even your bible informs you differently:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Maybe you should have thought about the question before you asked it.
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.
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?
I didn't address what you cared about. I described what this argument is about.
Aren’t you? If you met Dylan, would you say, “Nice to meet you, Miss?” or “Sir?”
You think not? Here is how that exchange went.
So, yes - you did address what I cared about. You asked me what was the point behind what I had said.
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.
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.
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?
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.
If that were the case, I would accept the lie.
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.
Absolutely. 100%
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.
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.
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?
Another thoughtful response? Why waste the effort?
They're definitely yours, as well. Otherwise you wouldn't try to call people who refused them "dicks".
We've discussed others, and you've rejected those ideas.
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.
Of course I'm not talking about him, and you know that.
Where are we getting these numbers?
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.
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.
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.
I would call him by his name. I would avoid using pronouns to the extent reasonable. If forced, I would refer to him as 'him'.
Actually, I like Jack's answers better.
And:
Just gotta love a guy who can see the solution so clearly. Think I'll just go with this.
(Sigh) And I acknowledged this when I said "Superficially, yes. That's what you've said, but that isn't what the argument is about." But it is really just superficial. What you care about doesn't spring from nothing, hence my saying the following:
Hence, I replied to your later post that I wasn't addressing what you cared about but where that vision of what constitutes caring comes from.
Really? And since you did not bother to write 'down' what it is you label "just rationalizing," can I say you are taking liberties to sweep away a great amount of discussion by simply dismissing it. Prove God-Spirit is "man" and by extension should be called "father" by human terms. Go ahead. . . proceed.
You and many other Christians call God, "father," because it is a social construct and a convenience. But, you have nothing you can point to in or out of scripture that details the nature or physical traits of spirit-beings, including God or as you will call God, your "heavenly Father."
It is something you and others do by 'rote.'
How "convenient" for you that you think God is like "you." And so, you don't have to change either— much . Can you be more rigid, Drakk? I mean really. The God you serve really has no use for a twenty-first century 'world. And that is just weird on so many levels that we are even here having this discussion from a human perspective.
Of course, you won't reply to the spiritual questions because it would require something you can't afford as of right now to give. I understand conservative Christian-think better than you know. Been there. Done that. Got T-shirts. Indeed, I come to realize that I am "progressive" in my beliefs, because of how rigid and ascetic conservative Christians show themselves to be! And don't let me forget to state that I have observed how "flexible" conservative Christians can be when it suits their "purposes."
We've already established that God is not a man. God the Father should be called Father because that is how He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible you apparently don't believe is anything more than a social construct. All you have to do is read it, CB. Pay special attention to the parts where Jesus refers to God as his Father. That is what many would consider a major clue. Just sayin.
Um, no. That's your position, remember? We Christians call Him Father, as I mentioned above, because that is how He revealed Himself to us. We do not believe it is a social construct. You do.
That is correct, again. No one is saying God has a body, with the exception of God the Son. I am speaking as if we are concerned with the Father, though so that is what I'm referring to.
Chuckles.
Come on! We've established many comments ago that transsexuals are not CIS-women. What more do you want from me/us? This convo is about the use of pronouns. Come on, now. Back to the discussion. Adam (Man) established names for the creatures God created. And that is all that is happening with modified human beings-they are being reclassified to be understood in society.
And misuse the Bible? You can say it but you can't prove it. But, I guess I will have to continue to watch you 'try.'
As for your "llama" analogy: Does she have a "team" of sex-change doctors available? Because, oh boy, if that 'boy' llama of yours gets to be a "she" llama—the 'boys' on llama yard might try it and like it! (Okay, that last was indulgent of me.
And I know you don't like my writings generally and my 'jokes' even less!).
Okay. Let's drill down to the absurd: (without the pun okay) A man who does not have a penis, but has a manufactured vagina in a penis' location of the body - what would you call that man. Really. I want to know. Give me your term.
(Fingers crossed: you don't blink out on this.)
"If you hadn't been told she was trans, you'd never know it or care."
Ever heard of that little detail of anatomy called a Adams Apple? Only males have them. Pretty obvious, not to mention the low pitched voice. I've talked to to trans people that have lower voices than mine, and I have a low voice
Really Jack?
2% was Arkpdx's estimate.
Older articles on the internet estimate 3.5%, 5.1 %, 7,1% and higher of people who have come out.
More US adults identify as LGBTQ now than at any time in the past decade, a new poll says | CNN
Americans who identify as LGBT, by generation 2020 | Statista
14% estimates have been around for years.
Many people still haven't come out.
Drakk, let me jog your memory: Did you write this anywhere on this board?
If you did and did not place any 'qualifiers' onto the statement, . . .I rest my case. You said it. Proof provided. "The church is expecting at this very instance to force its will (and in some cases God's but not all cases) upon all peoples of the United States and not just religious peoples! Whether civilians submit to church will (God will) or not. In fact, conservatives are so much invested in changing civilian outcomes in this country that conservatives think-tanks are actively running schemes to install conservative judges and justices in order to thwart a known liberal advantage.
Would you like to try the question again.
Um, how about the nonsense you're attempting to sell that because God is a spirit without a body it is somehow justification for trans to do their thing. We quite obviously have bodies. The idea that this isn't important is not new, CB. The Gnostics went that route in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Basically, what you mean by 'spiritual questions' is that, regardless of what the Bible says, some truths can only be revealed spiritually. This is the basis of your worldview concerning Christianity and why you think Christianity can be progressive. God, you are claiming, reveals things spiritually that aren't in the Bible because He's moving on from all of that old repressive stuff to something new and free.
Of course, those aren't the words you used. This my synopsis of the totality of everything you have to say concerning Christianity. If this is inaccurate, please make corrections.
LOL. I wouldn't get within ten universes of God if He was like me. Fortunately, He isn't, and that's why I seek Him. I have a pretty fair idea of who He is and I see my need for change. I want to be like His son, which will require a LOT of change on my part. But believe what you want to.
Depends on what you mean by rigid. I am determined to learn to be obedient to God with all that I have and follow His Son to the place He leads me, not to the place I might wish for myself. In that way, I am very rigid and hope to become more so. God has a will for my life and I intend to follow it. He has things he wants and doesn't want me to do. He cares about what I think, my motives, what I say and how I act and I intend to please Him with all the strength He gives me, to end up where He wants me to be. This is what is meant by denying oneself for God. You put aside the desires of your own heart, which can't be trusted and go where God leads.
If you knew and believed the Bible revealing the God you claim to serve you would know that, no, God doesn't have a use for this world, in any century. The Bible repeatedly tells us to turn away from the world, which means to reject fallen human thinking and ways of doing things without God, because in that direction lies death. Instead, we are to reject the world and, instead, follow God in obedience.
I'm sure that's true, but probably also why I don't think you're a Christian. You shouldn't be seeing this from a human perspective. You should be seeing it from God's. But instead, you try to fit what you want from God into your human perspective and human desires and discard the rest. You would call it progressive Christianity, an oxymoron.
Sorry, but I've read what you've wrote about conservative Christians and it's quite clear you do not. Rather, you come up with the worst characterization you can think of, as if you were Goebbels writing propaganda for the Nazis or something, and then denounce them as if your characterization were true.
I accept them the same as any other people and don't belong to a religion that would condemn them or treat them as damaged goods.
Where have I ever said that? smh
Why is it any of your business? Just morbid curiosity?
Have you ever noticed that your commentary is often insulting? Why would you be surprised to receive some snark in return?
In the last paragraph it should read" I do not particularly approve..."
You take time out in your writings to pen some of the most ridiculous and shockingly offensive statements. Okay! I am not your Christian brother. Boo-hoo.
Now, God forgive me, I am not your Christian brother anymore, and I will indulge you, if I ever was. Boo-hoo-hoo.
I should not be surprised at how you try to make connections that aren't there. You do it with the Bible so of course you'll do it with everything else. So, let's look at your 'proof'.
Your question was:
The wording, which you chose, speaks of individuals within the church, not the church itself. And you question was concerned with these individuals' participation within the body politic. Such individuals have every right to participate because that's how the Constitution is written. For instance, if my state held a vote on whether or not prostitution should be legalized, Christians have every right to make their voices heard as any other demographic. Pretty simple.
In this statement, I'm not speaking of individuals but rather, the institution of the Church, headed by Christ. The Church is only concerned with what happens within the Church and recognizes that it has no authority over anyone outside it, nor should it try to obtain it. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and all that.
Make up your mind, CB. Are we talking about Christians as individuals or are we talking about the Church? The Church isn't forcing its will on anyone outside the Church. Individuals are taking part in the political process based on their own conscience. And as for forcing their will, how exactly would that be different from all the other factions out there? If that's the way you want to look at it, would that not necessarily mean they also are trying to force their will on all peoples of the United States and not just secular people?
Have no clue as to what you mean here.
Um, yeah. You got me there. The Dems certainly would never ever ever ever do something like that!
That's untrue. You presume I am telling Dylan what God loves. When what I am telling you, not Dylan, is I am a Christian. I 'signed on' to be a Christian. I chose to be held to a "godly standard" and so I work to do it. Dylan is a creature of the world will no "allegiance" to anyone but the State and its guiding principles. Judge her by the rules and principles of this nation!
You, literally, are telling and supporting those who would FORCE Dylan to live to a religious standard-a fundamentalist standard no doubt-you give your allegiance and not the State, its laws, and guiding principles with a caveat: Evangelicals are hard at work scheming and formulating legislation which entraps otherwise good civilians in religiously enhanced societal laws. Insisting civilians of this world follow religious laws especially suited to your 'taste.'
One day, should Dylan become a believer in God, then and only then. will and should religious covenants become something she should work (from that point on) to follow and guide her life by. At that time she will run into the 'thicket' of what religion has become corporate and divided religion.
That is so much different from what you think I am telling. . . the people of this world.
You're mistaken again. I repented-it was part of my religious experience. So, why would I think Dylan should not in coming to God. As to what a transperson shall repent to God about-is not for me to worry or try to describe. It will be between Dylan and God where it should be.
Not everyone has a prominent Adams apple, but since it is a result of testosterone it is possible to diminish over time with hormone treatment or increase if that's the case
So? I was the patient of a Navy Flight Officer who was in the NASA program for several years. For whatever reason, at 19 years in, he changed his name, he was passed over for O6 and they threw him out.
2 years later she opens two new plastic surgery offices
and is drop dead gorgeous, same voice. Totally successful & happy.
There used to be a British man with a terrible voice on the History Chanel that I am pretty sure everyone mocked and thought was gay. Now she's got the same voice and is probably mocked equally....if not more.
Just sayin...
Incidentally, many of the heroes of the Bible committed murders and mayhems and ever persecuted to varying degrees the fledgling churches. Still, they repented and found favor with God such that we know their names and stories to this and future generations. Why should trans-people be any different? After all according to your own words, all sin is on par with sin itself. If God can save Saul/Paul for instance, can save me, can save you, God can save Dylan: the trans-person.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be offensive. I am trying to drive through your stubborn insistence that we serve the same God. This is necessary because if you really do care about what God thinks rather than how you can fit Him into what your heart wants I need to get it through to you that you're on the wrong track.
God tells us in the Bible that He does not change. Ever. The reason why is that, if God is perfect, any move away from where He's always been can only be to imperfection.
Look at all the laws He gave the Israelites. How intricate the laws for Temple worship were. For ceremonial cleanliness and in civil matters. The biggest point for God giving those laws was to communicate that God sets the rules for approaching Him. Not us. Do you recall when David was moving the Arc of the Covenant, the Arc God commanded that no man touch? And remember the guy who thought the Arc was about to tip off the cart, reached out and steadied it and God's anger lashed out and killed him? Do you recall how God exiled the Israelites to Babylon because He could suffer no more of their breaking of the covenant? Again, the point is that God sets the rules by which we approach Him.
And recall the fall? The whole point of Jesus coming to save us was and is that man is a fallen race. We fell because we believed Satan's lie that we could decide for ourselves what constituted good and evil. We cannot. And don't confuse our ability to meet our own standards with God's standard. Christ's forgiveness for our sins was not the end of the road to salvation but, rather, the beginning. It is what allows us to be born again for the purpose of being made into what God intends for us to be, not what we wish to be.
I would be delighted to someday call you a brother in Christ. More than you know. If you would like to read the Bible together to see what it really says I'd be happy to. I'll meet you in your Christian Corner and speak with you there, if you like.
Good question. Write some blog about it in Christian Corner and I will respond there. I'm surprised someone hasn't flagged me already for religious talk.
Meh. And somehow the Church gets to Spirit "father" without benefit of a man's natural processes. How come? It would seem Jesus established a social construct/norm to talk about spiritual beings and relationships in a manner the 'locals' could understand/accept. Spirits are not "fathers" in the human sense. Time we start lessening the 'cords' of some of our religious platitudes. No?
In all your getting, get understanding.
What is "Christian Corner"? Where is it? Since you are familiar with it. . . point me to it. Finally, is it on NT? I will consider it "neutral ground" which is why you want me to meet you there instead of my own 'space': Christian State of Mind ?
The issue likely has not been flagged because we are not proselytizing the room, but seeking to come to grips with some religious details regarding an issue under deep consideration and general interest.
God is not a "He/Him/His" and yet you persist in calling 'after' God as such. It's indoctrination, but it can be let go with reflection and effort. BTW, the capitalization use relative to deity is a social construct/convention, too.
And so, you imply somebody in this discussion does not "deny himself"? Who might you have in mind, Drakk?
I will foolishly ask: To what 'end' do you TREK after God-when according to you, "All your righteousness is as filthy rags" says Isaiah. And God gives grace abundantly and for free. Why do you 'labor' to receive what God is giving freely to all who seek, knock, and ASK? Nothing you do of yourself can effectuate God's saving you, me, or anyone else. It is a gift provided, because humanity can't earn it.
The believer has been resoundingly told to 'rest' and 'cease' from his or her struggles when "in" God. For God takes care of God's own. And none can take any from God's hand.You do not have to abuse or 'dismiss' anybody to be "in" God. Indeed, your/my roles are to be lovely, compassionate, and a friend to all—enemy as much as friend. Leaving judgement of others up to God. How easy is that? Or, is it too hard to be lovely, compassionate, and a friend to all?
Let God be God alone.
I do not counsel anybody to choose to do wrong and call it right. I simply call to your understanding the rules of the faith 'realm' of this earth and the rule of law for the 'world' are distinct and separate and God permits it to be so. Otherwise, God would UNMAKE it all.
Yet, the world remains after myriad centuries. . . . and more besides.
I don't know about that. I just do it for personal reasons. I note that some people do it, others do not.
You keep pushing this whiny fantasy. No one here - including me - has demanded you comply with anything. Your rights are just fine. I am not militant and you are no victim.
HOWEVER, if you want to be an ass to people, deliberately disrespecting them, then there are consequences for that. Those consequences will likely include people honestly calling you out for being mean and trying to convince you that kindness is a better choice.
It could very easily develop with her standing right there, if your conversation evolved to include a third person. It could also arise in conversation about her, where the content would get back to her. Or emails. Basically, avoidance doesn’t get you out of being held accountable for the way you treat people.
It is often explained as such (a writer's convention) in the front of bibles as a sign of respect.
A vote? A vote? Evangelical Christians are a 'wing' of the Church, that is actively pursuing removal of rights and denial of other rights and liberties to/for non-believers no doubt where as you have 'argued' above the church has not interest. That is untrue. Now you allude to it in your quote as true. Of course, Christians can participate in good governance/ment.
BTW, what interest does the church have in prostitution in a civil society as long as those in it remain on the street and not seek to peddle their conduct in churches/places of worship?
You will say to me that believers, "God's own children," have to gaze upon prostitutes and their 'acts' to which I could add, so what? The prostitutes gaze back upon Christians and their acts too! And the prostitutes make no attempt to legislate or deny your 'appeals' to the courts to exist as non-profit organizations in a capitalist nation where money is 'king.' So your money goes to your own interests, same as the prostitutes' on the streets!
Just being honest. Am I supposed to care about your feelings?
Again, you bring a broken analogy to try to justify rude behavior. Dylan is not trying to tell anyone she was born female, or that she has only X chromosomes.
You think that is a complex statement/question. It is not. There are Christian think-tanks, religious social groupings, religious institutions, websites, magazines, radio and tv networks, 'dark money groups,' and a host of conservative non-profits, as well as 'front' groups operating as grass-roots ("of the people" -they 'say') operating for centuries and decades in this country. They write books, articles, propagandize, render 'talking points,' create tactics and short/long-term tactics and strategies, respectively. Too many and much more besides for me to list here. Oh, and if it was for the good of God/Jesus there would not be a need for schemes and "dark-money."
Gasp. I have been at this all day. I am exhausted and starting to drift off (hope my comment carries some relevant and information across) and my 'day' will run over into the night. All for now.
Bye!
That’s a problem for the Catholic Church, then. In 1588, the Church (in the form of a Bull from Pope Sixtus V) decided to call abortion a homicide. This was an important “change.”
Prior to that, (i.e. for almost 1600 years) abortion was permitted before the fetus had a soul. This was considered 40 days after conception, if a boy, and 80 days, if a girl. Before 1588, Catholic priests actually performed abortions.
So if it’s important to get back to the way things were, then the Church needs to support a woman’s right to abortion.
Of course not. You just call people names if they don't.
Kindness does not require dishonesty. Your ridiculous insistence that it does is the source of our disagreement.
Riiiiiight. Nothing short of full compliance with your view will satisfy your militancy.
I am honored to "be held accountable" for my honesty. Out of curiosity, who holds you accountable for discarding yours so easily?
Not at all. You're just showing a lot of determination for somebody who supposedly doesn't hold a view.
It's fascinating to me that you are still continuing to argue that refusing to affirm a falsehood is somehow "rude" or "mean" or otherwise a sign of poor character. That is one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard from an educated person.
While I agree, the point you make here is apples to my oranges. I said God doesn't change, not churches. The church is not God, a fact the RCC doesn't seem to understand. Thus, rather large portions of their theology, especially concerning salvation, is just flat wrong. But that's what you will end up with when one believes the Pope, a mere human, has the authority of Jesus to make theology whatever they want it to be rather than what the Bible says. Anyway, that's a whole different subject. One not connected to the issue of reality vs politeness.
God doesn't change
What a hopelessly dismal thing to say. As if you speak for the thing that is incapable of speaking. If there were a god, it would probably strike you down for such an insult.
I'm always mystified when people say this sort of thing. You take issue with my seeming to speak for God and then proceed to condemn it by speaking for a God you don't believe exists would most likely do, as if that makes sense.
In any case, I'm not speaking for Him. I'm repeating what He said about Himself. If you have a problem with Him being unchangeable, I suggest you take it up with Him.
How can one take up something with a thing that does not exist? That’s the whole problem. Your assumption that god exists makes you believe that your observations carry more weight than mine. How convenient that your god is eternally silent on backing you up.
IMO, you are repeating (with substantial interpretative license) the words of ancient men who pretended to speak for a perfect divinity.
This should not mystify you. The issue is appealing to a divine authority that might not even exist with a certainty and clarity of truth that clearly does not exist.
In consequence, one ascribes to the mores, values, and beliefs of ancient men in dealing with contemporary issues such as transgenders.
You have evidence, then? Why haven't you published yet?
Except He isn't silent. He has spoken to us in various ways. You can read some of it in the Bible.
You missed the point. How logical is it to write something condemning me for saying what God is like by telling me what God is like?
I do not think I missed the point at all. Here is what Hal wrote:
Clearly Hal does not believe a god exists. His 'incapable of speaking' is based on the lack of any evidence that such an entity exists, much less that it is speaking. And his only description of what god might be like is qualified with the very important word 'probably'.
In short, Hal is clearly NOT telling you what a god is like but merely speculated on what a god might do if it existed. And to truly clear up the mystery, ask Hal if he knows anything whatsoever about an extant god. I bet you large that he will state that he does not know anything about such a god and that he does not even believe a god exists.
You are clearly too far gone for conversation on a god.
Yeah. So, let's look at your points. Hal, who clearly doesn't believe God exists, a thing he could not possibly prove and, therefore, has no factual position with which to take me to task on those grounds and then says if God does exist, He'd zap me. And even adding a probably doesn't lessen the irony because he's still describing what he thinks God would be like if he thought He did exist.
So, to recap, he takes issue with what I said about God because:
And he does so by:
This would be an example of non-critical thinking, in my opinion.
What makes you think so? What sort of conversation would you like to have?
Isn't that what most religious people do everyday? Act like they know what God wants.
What sort of conversation would you like to have?
A non-circular one. That is beyond your capabilities.
The word 'probably' makes a profound difference since it transforms what would be a statement of certain truth into admitted speculation. There is nothing strange about speculating what might be. I do not believe there are any Martians, but I could speculate what they might look like if they did exist.
On your points:
All I have done is repeat my position that it’s better to be nice to people than to be mean to them.
Is it fascinating? You don’t see, fascinated. You show little interest in trying to understand or empathize.
Maybe it’s neither as false nor as uneducated as you believe. Open your mind and your heart and you might develop a new understanding.
There is a contrast: A LOSS of liberties, freedoms, AND inclusion vs. a GAIN of liberties, freedoms, AND exclusion
Repubs are working to place limitations on liberals, while dems are working for inclusion for all.
If you have not figured it out yet, repubs are working on negatives outcomes and dems on positive outcomes. Because inclusion is better than exclusion for humanity and community. Do you agree?
Do I? What name did I call you? Or anyone?
Circling back, a little . . . Have you figured out yet why Dylan’s biological sex is any of your business?
Oh don't kid yourself you are offensive. And at this point I have no choice but to agree with you: We do not serve the same God. It remains to be seen if any thing can be done to change that.
I guess no conversation about God for us, then.
Do you remember your last worship service in the Temple? Do you?
Do you remember Jesus statements about David's entering and eating the bread of the presence which was devoted to priests?
Do you remember that all Israel's righteousness was dross, because what is needed is a Savior, not ceremony or 'works.' Because people will always fall short.
So what is the point of bringing up 'rules' which can not save in this discussion?
God does set the rules and we approach by way of a Savior and the Savior by way of faith.
Well, how else would you suggest that people who believe in God act?
But you rely on that church as the most fundamental source to tell you what God thinks and wants. That’s because God didn’t write the Bible. People did. The 40 or so books of the Bible did not magically appear in the middle of the wilderness. They were composed over the centuries by human beings. You can feel that scripture is holy, inerrant, or whatever, but they factually were written by people. Some of the books even tell you straight out who their author was.
The church has considered those books - rejected some, and presented the ones they liked to the people as official canon. Without the church, you don’t have a clue where God stands on any issue.
So, over the centuries, churches change, and our understanding of God evolves. That has been true for Christianity and Judaism. In some cases (like abortion) that change - or “progression” resulted in increased oppression of the people. In other cases, it has meant increased freedom.
But take the idea that God doesn’t change. Assume that is straight from his “lips” to somebody’s ear. You don’t know what that means. It could have been intended as very specific or very broad. Many things about me have changed in my life, but I might also say to someone that I am the same person I have always been. Or I might say that in some limited way, I never change.
Study scripture enough and you will find what seem to be contradictions. Does that mean God does change or might it mean that context matters?
The point is it’s just too simple to say God doesn’t change and then apply that idea to everything you can think of.
It’s also demonstrably not true if you look at scripture. God has made five major covenants with Man. Each time, he has changed the terms of the deal. God definitely changes - in certain ways.
Well at least you admit to using circular reasoning as justification. Baby steps.
Maybe like regular people? And stop acting like their views or ways are superior as in most cases they are not.
You are telling people to "open their minds and hearts" when you are utterly unwilling to do the same. You use "open your hearts and minds" as code for "comply with your views utterly and completely".
How about you open your mind to the fact that we don't have to lie to be nice to people?
My suggestion is to back off from declaring divine truths. If there is a supreme creator entity, nobody has any credibility to tell anyone else what such an entity is thinking or its intentions. And pointing to the Bible as the source of divine truth is both illogical and problematic for the reasons I have stated many times now.
You, in particular, believe you understand what God (as you envision God) wants. But you have no way of knowing that you are correct. And common sense suggests that you are no better informed than any other human being who believes s/he truly knows divine will. Yet your views are different from billions others who are totally convinced that they know the will of their deit(ies). It is simply illogical for anyone to believe that they are so 'blessed' as to have divine truth while this is demonstrably denied to the super-super majority of human beings today and throughout history.
My position is this. I do not believe a god exists based on the fact that there is no credible evidence supporting the existence of a divine sentient creator and myriad indications that such a creator does not exist (the first being that the need for a creator argues that the creator needs a creator, etc.). I recognize that a god might exist and if so, I am honest enough to admit that I know nothing whatsoever about the nature of this god, what it thinks and what it intends. I do not even know if it is sentient.
Thus it continues to impress me that some hold that they actually do know these things. Yet when challenged to explain, they dance.
It‘s disturbing - but not a new tactic - when people engaging in bigotry to use the language of tolerance and acceptance to defend their position. Sorry, but I’m not playing that absurd game.
More code. This time it’s “comply.” No one is forcing your compliance with anything. I’ve said it before and I will say it again: You are not a victim.
You haven’t been asked to lie. You haven’t been asked to stand up and say Dylan is biologically male. She is living as a woman because it makes her life easier. She has issues you don’t. They aren’t moral issues. They are physiological and neurological. She has decided this is the best solution for her. All you are being asked to do - ASKED - is to respect it. Instead, you throw a tantrum about your rights, compliance, and you pat yourself on the back for your “honesty.” Such “honesty” is nothing to take pride in.
Christian Corner? Where is it? When you provide more information I will be happy to meet you there and I will come with the proper amount of humility required of a child of God.
Wait, I just reread the quote above, where you wrote: ". . . your Christian Corner. . . .
I do not have a group or area designated as Christian Corner . I have a group site: Christian State of Mind .
Interesting. We need to 'talk.' Where is this Christian Corner?
That would be incorrect, unless you are speaking of something like Kenneth Copeland's or Joel Osteen's sort of church. The people who attend such churches do get their ideas about God and their faith directly from those pastors rather than the Bible.
As for normal, mainline churches, that's a myth that is perpetuated in order to make the arguments work. A church is a community of believers united in Christ for the purpose of, worshipping God, growing together as Christians and doing the works God has prepared for us to do. There is, of course, a pastor who teaches but if he's worth this title of pastor, he will be constantly harping on reading and studying the Bible for yourself to check and see if what he says is true or not. In short, the Bible is the fundamental source to tell us what God thinks and what God wants from us. We don't have to agree with the pastor or change our understanding unless by sound reasoning he can convince us to do so.
So, if you recognize that the Bible is the actual source, why did you say it was the church? But in any case, you are correct, in a sense. The Bible was written by people. Of course, our view is that God moved them, through the Holy Spirit, to write what they did so we would know what God was like and what He wanted. In our view, it isn't the case that 66 books of the Protestant Bible were written in the manner Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, which is a product of his imagination. No one is arguing, however, that they were not written down by the hand of men.
If you are speaking of an organized church with a distinct hierarchy then this is not correct. An organized church did not establish the Canon. Instead, they recognized it as official several centuries after widely scattered and individual communities reached a consensus about what should and shouldn't be included. Generally, what happened was that the letters of the Apostles were circulated around and, over time, a consensus was reached. It definitely wasn't the RCC.
I might agree with this, depending on exactly what you mean. I do believe the church has changed. That's obvious, since most of the Christian world was either RCC or Eastern Orthodox. That isn't the case now. I do believe our understanding of God evolves, but I do not think that means God has changed at all or what the Bible means has changed at all.
Put another way, who God is and what the Bible says are set in stone. That doesn't change, but what has changed over time is our understanding of what it says. This is due not to reinventing anything but, rather, the fact that it takes time to change people and cultures. For instance, it was a common practice to practice a thing called exposure. It means to discard an unwanted child because it was the wrong sex, perhaps, or was born with a defect of some sort. They would take the baby out into the wilderness or perhaps the city dump and leave it there. It was actually required by Roman law if the child had a defect. But Rome wasn't the only civilization to have practiced some version of it.
Now, today, we don't see that. Anyone would be horrified by the idea. It's not that the Bible specifically states that "thou shall not practice exposure" but as people and society evolved into Christian principles, such things became apparent.
Actually, I can know exactly what it means because the Bible tells us what it means. But let's set the Bible aside for a moment. Anyone can logically deduce what it must mean. If we go by TiG's phrasing and mean the "highest possible entity" it necessarily implies certain things. One of those things would be that God would be perfect in every way. If He were not, then some other entity could conceivably be more perfect and that would be God.
So, if God is perfect, then any change at all would have to be from perfection to something less than perfect. That is why God is unchanging. There is nothing better for Him to change into.
Yes, you can find seeming contradictions, however, most of them concern things like names and numbers, things that do not change meaning and are due to copy errors. Of course, there's a whole list of contradictions atheists put forth that are solved by context but they usually cling to them anyway because they need them.
I'm not sure what you mean here but, at a guess, I think you mean my applying it to how we should live, think and act? In my opinion, that God doesn't change has to be one of the best things about Him. You never have to wonder where He stands on an issue (once you know what it is, you always know). You don't have to worry about what kind of mood He's in. You don't have to worry about Him not being dependable because He's arbitrarily changed His mind. It is why He's so often referred to as an immovable rock. Rather than floating around in this sea of human madness where we sometimes do beautiful things and then do horrible things to make up for it I have Someone who knows what's what and where I should go.
That is not how we see it. That is, this is not an example of God changing. Rather, this is God carrying out the plan He intended before anything even existed. Each covenant was intended to be enacted once the time was right and supplanted by something else at a later time. For those of us who believe the Bible is God's word we know this because God tells us this in the Bible. He even foretells the covenant Jesus enacted right in the Garden of Eden and through the Prophets.
You mean, stop believing in God?
Hmmm. So, someone who believes in God and that His ways are the best way should not act on that?
Maybe if you expanded on the sort of actions you object to? That might be helpful.
Simple. Stop forcing ones beliefs on others.
Yeah, that.
Gosh. That would have to mean I need to start doing that so that I can stop doing that. Does that make sense to you?
[deleted]
Is it as benign as your 'view' or is it a considered fact as you see reality?
If this is simply a view —a belief— then you can never speak about what God thinks, intends or any other attribute of God. You can of course always opine on what you believe God thinks, intends, etc. but there is a profound difference between articulating a belief vs. actual knowledge of what God thinks, intends, etc.
In short, the best 'knowledge' we have of a sentient creator, if one exists, is speculation. The 'knowledge' of God is simply the result of human beings engaging in imaginative musings (and, of course, producing very different, contradictory results).
Then what is any problem?
Now what might that possibly mean, Drakk? To state that God does not change, but is the same yesterday, today, and forever - is not to say that humanity has taken the measure of God or God's character. We've already determined that God has not shared much of the totality of the spirit world with humanity. What is lacking in our understanding? Paul, acknowledged he saw through a glass 'darkly.' Signifying all has not been made 'clear.'
God's character is revealed across millenniums.
Israel for centuries thought God was their Lord alone , only to have it revealed in Yeshua- God has other tribes and lands who call God Lord. Ancient Jewish religious leaders taught God had no equal. . . only to encounter Jesus. Jesus came, and lo and behold he was not like the Jewish religious leaders but walked amongst the people UPBRAIDING and rebuking the leaders and teachers of the Jewish people for there insincerity, greed, hypocrisy, and faithlessness.
And this :
( Matthew 13:35:
“I will open my mouth in parables,I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”)
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘ Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him , ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”Therein, 'nested' inside this parable is a change (or is it a 'revealing'?) being instituted. A move away from a traditional perception in religious orthodoxy, and its activities of throwing out/cutting off all corrupting influences (people) to a compassionate understanding that some who are engaged in (religious) sin may be delivered from (religious) sin at a time and choosing of God. ( Let them grow together for the 'wheat' will be revealed.)
This, only God can know about and bring about. Man has no role in it. Exception: To teach correctly the Christian view, and love all together, while leaving judgement and 'reckoning' to God. That is, only God can determined who is worthy of God's kingdom.
And when assuming God does not change; then has revealed how "multifaceted" God is. That is, it is foolish for humans to try to encapsulate/summarize God. Better to speak to what has been written down and leave scriptural/biblical silence alone for another 'day.'
The idea that refusing to affirm something you yourself have admitted to be false is "bigotry" is utterly fucking insane. There is no game more absurd than the one you've been attempting to play since the start of this conversation.
Asked, exhorted, cajoled, and then when I refuse I've been referred to as "a dick" and "an ass", the irony of which is still comical.
Issues I have acknowledged, to which I am not unsympathetic, and about which I have offered several ideas for compromise and respectful coexistence. But that isn't good enough for you.
Bullshit. That is a million metric tons of bullshit.
"Respect" is nowhere near good enough for you. You have said repeatedly that failure to affirm him as female and comply with your beliefs makes someone "mean" or "an ass" or "a dick" or now "a bigot". That's not an "ask", that's a demand.
Let's also make no mistake that this isn't about Dylan. It's about you, and the other people who utterly reject any partial alignment with their ideology. Your insistence upon doctrinal purity is actually making Southern Baptists look tolerant by comparison.
You have zero willingness to tolerate any deviation from your particular militant views. You even accused me of lying when I said I wish Dylan well. Because in your twisted perspective, there is no room for the idea of general decency from anyone who refuses to swear full allegiance.
I have said in this very seed that I have no objection to how he dresses or how he conducts his life. I have also, in this very seed, defended his invitation to the WH. But in your mind, that's not enough to escape condemnation as a bigot.... which.... in comparison to several other people who post on this forum regularly... is astoundingly moronic. What the actual fuck?
You refused to even consider the possibility that I could be polite and respectful to trans people without violating my own beliefs, despite detailed explanations of how easy that would actually be. No no... nothing less than full compliance will suffice. Any deviation of any kind must be denounced as a character flaw.
You then have the outrageous gall to try to lecture other people on open-mindedness while you're still actively insulting anybody who dares hold a different view.
So do you accept pedophiles? Do you accept militia members? Do you accept bulimics and anorexics or do you think they need treatment? What about alcoholics and other addicts. Should the be treated also?
We were talking about gender identification.
Thanks for weak attempt at a "gotchya".
I have never said anything about treating LGBTQ as if they were sick,
that seems to be your own personal deflection.
Too funny. Still using your phone to participate?
So you were lying when you said
it don't you consider the people I mentioned other people.
Well IMHO they should be because they are sick. Especial those who believe they are something that they are not and can never be
And yes I do still use my phone. I can't afford anything else. Want to purchase a real computer for me?
You have repeatedly whined like a little girl about how you're being coerced and compelled to do this or that thing against your will. I'd be embarrassed to sound that frail especially if my whole purpose was to defend treating people in a way that offends them.
That's a joke, right? It's hard to imgaine you being less sympathetic.
No, you haven't. You want Dylan to put up with being called something she doesn't want to be called. You want the rest of us to stand by in silence while you treat people with disrespect. There's no compromise there and the only coexistence is you get 100% of what you want with no regard for what might benefit another human being.
There's more of the whiny ("you're so militant") BS. I have a point of view and you're soooo threatened by it. Get a tissue and get over it.
And we're not talking about "views." We're talking about one simple thing. There isn't a lot of room for deviation. You're either going to treat a person with dignity or you aren't. There isn't an in-between setting on that.
Oh look. More name-calling, and a new one this time. It's turning into quite a tantrum, all because you can't have your way.
You won't need to look very far on this page to find a comment about how trans people "sterilize and mutilate themselves". So by all means count me chief among the unsympathetic villains. *eyeroll*
Of course I have. You're just not interested in compromise. You've been demonstrating that for days now.
Yeah. We're talking about your demand that everybody else adopt your values and your character assaults on anyone who doesn't.
No, we're either going to accept YOUR definition of "treating a person with dignity" or you're going to insult everybody.
That's not militant or anything....../s For fuck's sake.
At least you finally admitted it.
That is correct. They are two different things.
Actually, I thought we agreed that God, the Father, is spirit and does not have any physical component but I don't object to what you state here. We don't know much of anything about the heavenly realms, if that is what you mean by the spirit world. I think this is for two reasons.
First, because it probably isn't very relevant to what we're supposed to be doing here, which I believe is why God doesn't give much detail about it.
Second, everyone God has brought there in a vision always relies on metaphor to describe it, which tells me we aren't likely to understand it even if we could see it.
True. However, clarity wasn't the point Paul was going after in saying this. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul is speaking about spiritual gifts and why we have them. The Corinthians apparently were arguing over which were the most important gifts and which were less, distinguishing between members based on perceived worth. Paul was telling them that all gifts were needed in the body of Christ just like our bodies need all it's constituent parts to function.
But then, In chapter 13 he tells them of something more important. Love. That without love, it didn't matter which spiritual gift or how strong you were in it, it was wasted effort. The verse you are referring to explains why.
The point Paul is making isn't that we need to seek more understanding of the heavenly realms. The point is that gifts are only a temporary, transient thing that will be left behind when God makes all things new and shouldn't be thought of as the end all be all of their faith. The only thing that would go with them into the coming new world is love.
The figures of speech, child/man, seeing a reflection (glass darkly)/ seeing face to face and knowing in part/knowing fully are meant to describe the contrast between this life and the next, not something that can be achieved in this life.
While it is true that the Israelites thought God was theirs alone, I don't know where you got the idea that other lands and tribes worshipped Israel's God. You'll have to show me to what you are referring. I know that foreigners did worship Israel's God, but they were individuals, not entire tribes and lands. Not that I'm aware of.
Agreed. This was indeed a revelation.
Agreed.
I'm afraid that isn't what the parable is about. Jesus explains the parables in Matthew 36-40.
Jesus is explaining his will for the people of the kingdom in this age. As stated in the parable, the world is the field. The harvesters, God's angels, ask if they should pull the weeds, a euphemism for destroying all the evil people. Jesus says no, the plan is to let them grow together and, by implication, not even the angels can tell who is good and who is bad, as only God knows people's heart.
What we're supposed to take away from that is that if Jesus is telling his harvesters they aren't qualified to distinguish who's good and who's bad, we humans certainly aren't and we should never set ourselves up in such a manner as to judge people to destruction. Basically, we should never do something like the Inquisition.
If you disagree, if you think it is about change, then please explain how you get that out of the parable.
Agreed. Where you and I are not in agreement is who's teaching what correctly or incorrectly. This isn't about Dylan.
Ironic that I don't consider the other people you mentioned to be the topic
of the article?
First you imply that I am lying and then you ask for a computer?
I thought your issue involved a modem?
Anyway, I would if I could remain anonymous or if you had a go fund me
account. I just searched on cheapest notebooks, a bunch are Chromebooks
under $100 at Walmart, Target and Best Buy.
I said
You replied
Where in that comment did imply you lied about anything.? My not using a computer seems to bother you so I thought you might want to do something to correct that unfortunate fact.
Your comment at 2.1.333
maybe if you had an 11 inch computer screen instead of a phone
you could see your own comments.
Wow. So Fragile. You don’t mind calling people like Dylan or those who support her “insane.” You don’t mind falsely accusing others of coercing you into something when all they are doing - indeed, all we can do - is try to persuade you. In short, you don’t mind judging others, but God forbid anyone should judge your behavior or words.
And that’s the whole thing. I and others have described your words and their import. We haven’t called you names.
Even more pathetic and sad is that that’s all you care about here. Your dignity. But Dylan’s dignity and others like her? Fuck those people, right?
I haven’t assaulted your character. All I have done is acknowledge it.
Oh no. Not my definition. Dylan’s definition. The one who would see that dignity offended by people who think like you.
I have no clue as to why you feel it needful to be antagonistic or feel challenged by this. The essences of our comments are nearly the same. It appears what is focused on and where emphasis is placed is 'up.' That can't be helped. Nor can it be elaborated on at-length (here). We are guest here-so it behooves us to keep 'play' with one 'eye' on the site rules-if brushing against them. Else we carelessly will land 'out of bounds.'
Save some for. . . the other 'place.'
I have what I have and it will have to do.
Not him. Just his militant defenders.
Riiiiiiight.
Hold on.... you intend to assert that Dylan's dignity is somehow compromised by acknowledging that he's actually a man? A fact you've already confirmed, BTW. And you're trying to call me fragile? You really don't see how your points get more ridiculous with every post, do you?
You're really quite good at this passive-aggressive thing you do. But here's the thing... If my refusal to fully, 100% agree with your admittedly false descriptions makes me an "ass" or "a dick" or "a bigot" or whatever other insult you want to cast and then claim you didn't, the character flaws in question aren't mine.
Riiiiight. Four days refusing to accept anything less than total compliance with that definition and somehow it's not something you believe.
Out of curiosity, are you even aware how your and your other militant's determination to die on Pronoun Hill makes it 1000 times more difficult for people like Dylan to find any acceptance at all? Do you realize how many average people you alienate who might otherwise be at least partially sympathetic? When you find yourself frustrated at your lack of centrist allies in the fight for trans rights, remember that you drove them away.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply responded to your post. There was nothing antagonistic about it. Your response does illustrate why I so seldom speak to you, however. You practically beg me to engage you in discussion about these things and when I take the time and effort to do so, this is what I get for my troubles. Nothing.
Yeah, sorry. It sort of bothers me when someone distorts God's word in order to suit their own desires. Can't figure out why that would bother me. Can you?
This is one of the factors of concern with biblical exegesis. It is fascinating that an individual would hold that their interpretation of scripture is necessarily correct and that the meaning they have derived is divine truth. And thus, any alternate interpretation of scripture is necessarily wrong.
Beg? Why would I have to beg you for something? Are you worth the process of being 'begged.' I want to talk to you, and I even took the added step recently of sharing with you that I don't need to be 'patted on the head' by you or anyone on NT. No, I don't beg you for anything and it is arrogant for you to suggest such a thing.
You are right about one thing. What I consider to be 'reaching out ' to another brother in the faith continues to blow-up in my face, because for some un-brotherly faithless set of reasons you see me as an adversary. BTW, I see you as a conservative Christian. One for which I wish to see where we can 'talk' and share the 'milk and meat' of our biblical understanding. In hope of something mutually beneficial.
But do not ever get this one thing twisted in your heart and mind: Drakkonis - I have need of nothing from you in regards to my faith journey. I am well along on its path already.
Now then, you can stay behind, come along beside, or pass by me or any combination of the three. In any case, we will meet and interact as equals. Or, the exercise shall be one of futility.
I don't know about the distortion part you speak. However, as you have visited Christian State of Min already for I have seen you in there - Yay! - we can 'chew on' the Bible and its meanings to our hearts, plural, desire. Mostly unabridged (whole).
Ultimately, you may discover that I am not a 'reprobate' but someone who seeks the deep things of God. That is important, because this faith can be a great amount of 'work' if one is waking up everyday to 'ordeal' at and through it. Otherwise, the good news of the Gospel is this: The 'work' has been done already- 'rest' in God and understand what has been supplied.
More on that, but this is not the best time or place for it.
they all agree on having a theocracy, but hashing out the hierarchy will get a bit messy. somehow I don't think the catholics, mormons, and fringe evangelicials will be seeing eye to eye on a lot of things, except for their common internal process' of remediating clergy/membership participation in sex crimes.
The point on 'they' all wanting a theocracy might get some objections although it would be interesting to see what changes to our system that a religious person would like to see. Certainly we see abortion as something that would be outlawed by many religions. I wonder if they would outlaw homosexuality. Interesting question you have raised.
Evidently to talk about Biden's support for " trans rights" and to endorse the operations performed on the young to permanently alter their bodies.
Kids can't get tattoos, but Biden now believes 14 year olds have a "right" to sterilize and mutilate themselves.
That's not true. Why make shit up?
I'm afraid it is:
"President Biden's administration has released a series of documents encouraging gender-reassignment surgery and hormone treatments for minors."
you think facts are going to matter?
It's not true.
What facts?
You can't believe anything from Faux 'news'
I'm not afraid, it's not true.
Try again.
Children who are not old enough to vote, drink, or get a tattoo are deemed mentally and emotionally competent enough by Brandon to go through something as complicated and life altering as gender reassignment. Some who get gender reassignment surgery have regrets. And we all know children never make mistakes./S
If they really want to change genders they can wait until they are adults; and are responsible for their own decisions. It shouldn't matter if it is really what they want. If not it will give them time to change their minds and not suffer the consequences.
Evidently not.
Why would I read any of your links? 100 times out of 100 they don't support your claims son.
When have you or Vic ever provided them?
I'm pretty cynical and therefore tend to expect sub-optimal outcomes.
Yet I find it astonishing that our society has come to this point.
Sure they can. I think every state has a law restricting tattoos for minors, but that’s more about contract law and laws about consent than the tattoo itself. Basically a kid can’t get a tattoo on their own for the same reasons they can’t buy a car or have sex. However, most states allow that a minor can get a tattoo with parental consent.
So far as I know, there is no federal law preventing minors from getting tats.
Good luck finding a doctor or hospital that would perform surgery on a kid without parental consent. I imagine that anybody in this situation has a lot of parental and family involvement. These cases can be so unique to the individual, I’m not going to tell a parent what they should or shouldn’t do. However, I do think these kids need as much positive support as can possibly be given.
Yes.
Yes. The penny is not dropping here, is it?
A 14 year old can not order a drink in a bar with parental consent..... because as a society, we recognize that parents do not always make good decisions on behalf of their children.
I get that... to a degree. But we literally have hundreds of years of legal precedent telling parents what they must do and what they must not do because we understand the need to protect children from bad parenting.
So, should we support bans on gay conversion therapy for minors?
Edit to say...
Yes we should support bans on conversion therapy. (misread your question originally)
The same shit in a different wrapper still stinks.
Ok, but you just said,
So are we going to trust the parents to deal with their kids' sexuality issues? Or not?
I really feel like these movements are all about what strangers judge from afar and that's a terrible way to make medical decisions. I don't agree with the concept of conversion therapy, and I think it has been shown to do more harm than good, but I'm still uncomfortable with banning it.
Likewise, I think surgical or hormonal intervention for kids is - generally speaking - a bad idea. But I have an open mind that it could be useful for somebody in the right circumstance.
Ultimately, we have other remedies for when parents or doctors behave in a way that reflects irresponsible judgment and inflicts harm. The existence of those remedies should, in theory - along with basic humanity and compassion - result in doctors and families making the best choices available for the kids.
Unfortunately, that's not foolproof, but neither is any other aspect of parenting.
Again, I misread the question originally. I think you're responding to what was there before I corrected it. My mistake, apologize for the confusion.
So to be clear, no... I absolutely do NOT think we should be doing conversion therapy on kids.
This is the larger question, and I think it's valid.
In every other area of life, we trust parents to deal with their kids within certain parameters that we establish.
For example.... In Texas it is legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. It is NOT legal for a child to do it, even if they're riding with a parent. The idea being that if you're dumb enough to endanger your own life, that's up to you. But we're not going to let you endanger your kid's life because you happen to be an idiot.
We don't allow kids to do things that could permanently ruin their lives, even with parental approval.
This is especially significant when we see parents talking about their preschool "transgender" kids. No... your 4 year old is not transgender, any more than he's "a stud with the ladies". You're going to have to find your Instagram followers some other way.
Well, it is more personal, as only one individual is involved in the activity at a time versus x number of victims when constitutionally approved and conservatively accepted guns are 'okayed' to mow down kindergartners, elementary, junior high, and high schoolers.
Why are MAGA conservatives triggered by trans-youth and not gun-shot mutilated kids suffering what will soon be lifelong PSTD from gun violence?
NOTE: I was intending to put an image in the box, but looking at AR-15 gunshot victims can be sickening to some. . . maybe next time around. Just use your imagination.
It goes to show that the pretense of caring about these kids, any of there well-being and post-tragic factors is a political lie conservatives pull out every two and four years for election cycle fake outrage and posturing.
What! That's outrageous. We got to fight, for the right, for kids to get ink.
Do some states forbid kids from getting genital piercings as well? What's with this governmental control over their own bodies?
Why is this a blog? It is a seed.
The original article was not offensive enough. The author didn't slur Dylan Mulvaney as a "Trans Goon".
Not even a good try.
This should be taken down for that.
"The original article was not offensive enough. The author didn't slur Dylan Mulvaney as a [deleted.]
Isn't that disgusting? How intolerant.
I agree it's so offensive and intolerant.'
Seems to be all they have.
Maybe he should have used Transturd .......
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
I only use turd when it fits - like trumpturd.
it probably means he developed a painful blister while reading this "article"...
Lol .... like you’re the arbiter of truth but thx for proving my point.
I've never proven your point [Deleted]
A turd by any other name like TT is still a steaming pile of shit.
Stop projecting. It’s very unseemly.
A liberal is only liberal but a good cigar is a smoke.
[This entire thread was deleted for meta]
I am not in favor of inviting eccentric narcissists to the White House, whatever race or gender.
OFF TOPIC
So its not ok to invite a trans narcissist to the White House, but its ok to invite an anti-semitic one?
I really dont care if this person is trans. Doesnt effect me in the least. It does irritate me that they are an obvious eccentric narcissist, and I dont think we need to promote such behavior in the White House.
Hey, GREAT post--------IF THE TOPIC WAS WHAT YOU WANT TO YAK ABOUT.
But--and correct me if I am wrong------the article was NOT about all that shit now was it?
Two deranged morons!
Just another example of the left's priorities. Their support of the indoctrination, grooming, and sexualization of young children is shameful
The more schools that pass school choice, the better.
More education, less indoctrination.
That's a whole lot of ignorance and dumbshittery and stupidity right their [removed]
whoops - there
no need to correct that here...
Lol ..... yeah, fuck with parents some more and you’ll see who the dumbass is but don’t take my word for it. Nov 8th will speak for me. Hope you’re prepared for it.
You’re gonna have a bad dream that day ..... bad dream!
Yep, like capitalization.
No need to correct that here either.
We have been indoctrinating our youth since we started having schools. We teach them glorious stories of the birth of the Union - how it was discovered by Columbus who helped to save it from the savages living here. We tell them our first president could not tell a lie. We teach them about manifest destiny. We push them to say a pledge to the flag every day. We’re constantly telling them that America is the “leader of the free world.” We indoctrinate the daylights out of our kids and have for a long time.
What is that supposed to mean? What is it mean to you? Are you saying that adults in government or schools are trying to get kids to accept being sexually abused? People love to toss around this grooming word without any apparent sense of responsibility for what they are saying. Did people learn nothing from Pizzagate?
You want grooming? Check out a Catholic Church.
Again, what does this mean? How do you sexualize a kid? By talking to them about adult relationships? If so, then why isn’t it sexualizing to talk about mom/dad relationships? Boyfriends and girlfriends? Is it sexualizing to teach the significance of a virgin giving birth to Jesus?
Do we sexualize them by trying to understand and support them when they feel different? Or do they learn that they’re loved?
Emphatically.
Wow. What a shameful, bigoted tirade. The entire thing is a personal attack and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything substantive or of public interest.
WTF do you care how much a person weighs?
He’s not “imitating” anything. She is living her life in a way that makes her comfortable and happy. But because it’s apparently fashionable on the Right these days to be mean and cold hearted, you can’t let her have that. So much for “don’t tread on me.” You have to crap on this person because of your own personal hangups.
I really don’t think you have such an argument - certainly not one that is rational or not based on hate, anyway.
You should be ashamed. Honestly. How much hate has to be inside a person to talk about someone else this way?
Not I. But the bigotry I have quoted here brings shame on this site, and on you for writing it.
Emphatically.
Instead of inviting a deviation from the norm to the White House, should he be inviting the Rail Union instead? Didn't this lying Piece of crap already tell us he solved this problem?
A month ago from the Biden Sycophants in the media.
How Biden helped avert a rail strike – and another economic crisis
And now after the human fuck-up claimed success.
Union rail workers unhappy with the new contract proposals from major freight railroads brokered by the Biden administration say their voices are not being heard, arguing that the deal struck in September granted unfair leverage to their employers in a dispute that could very well result in a nationwide strike.
George, ever heard of walking and chewing gum at the same time? Or, pat head and rub tummy while standing on one foot? Yes, it is humanly possible. How great is being able to be multidirectional while human?
The agreement was first reached between management and union leaders and brokered by the feds then has to go to the union membership to be accepted. They rejected it, if they choose to strike congress has the power to end the strike by forcing each side to accept the last offer made. This was done in the railroad strike 1992 when the house and senate passed a bill making the strike illegal and any lock-out illegal. Then congress gave them the last best offer the strike was over.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
How many girls or women here think that TikTok video was demeaning to girls/women?
girls or women?
Apparently only you.
How do you find it demeaning to girls and women? Yes, you owe the room more than a question!
Excuse me, did Vic ask you to intercede on his behalf? I am curious. Because if you don't mind I would LIKE to wait for Vic. If you don't mind, that is.
Given you answered a question with a question I have to ask - What part of Vic's question did you not understand?
And then they freak out when their question is ignored.
I'll wait for Vic. And you don't have to get UPSET about it. It is not a make or break moment!
I'll wait for Vic. Thank you very much.
You may not know this by now but I am not a girl. For that reason alone, I get to ask Vic about his views as his question was not addressed to me.
Didn't know. Didn't (and still don't) care.
pretty sexist point of view. I bet you expect to be taken seriously as well.
And your 'lips' are still incessantly moving where not wanted. Damn somebody needs a 'filter'!
The question was not to me, what part of that reasoning is weird to you? (Yay! Finally Vic is in the "Who is online?" window below the line. Well, he was anyway for a moment.)
YOU chose to "answer" it. Failing but you tried nonetheless. Then Texan and I both ask you questions, of which you bitched and whined about. Were our questions to hard for you? Do you need us to simplify them for you?
First of all, do not address me about what Texan gives a 'hit about as I have been dealing with Texan 'all along' you don't have a place to come from on that!
Secondly, I have told you I directed my conversation on this to Vic. What is your problem with respecting my wishes to have VIC address me?
Thirdly, you don't get to tell me a damn thing about what I NEED to do or find 'hard' to do, because you really don't show your own self to be a 'hell of a great guy" when you try to 'read' me. I don't have to and so I won't take ANY of that from you.
Now, what?!
Get over yourself.
On a public forum. You don't want anybody else involved, DM him. So, again, get over yourself.
I'm merely attempting to help you understand Vic's Question. Now quit with your little temper tantrum and act like the adult you think you are.
You can't help me, Jeremy. So now what?
There is so much outright hatred towards trans people. One would think that the amount of hatred that they face would serve as evidence that the condition is physiologically and psychologically valid, regardless of how hard it is to understand by those who refuse to accept it. Why would anyone opt to suffer through that kind of hate? I don’t begin to understand it myself, but I do realize that they aren’t doing it for attention or popularity. Imagine how sick you’d have to feel about your existence to choose to enter one of the most controversial and universally loathed life choices a human can experience.
Yes, it is a life-long interest in trying to live in the body one is given-despite the inconvenience or discomforts to mind, body, and spirit. Persons who are comfortable in their bodies, minds, and spirits have no reference point of what it is to 'overcome' self-hatred, self-lack, and self-denial. Those who deal with such tendencies do know about the aforementioned. And many succeed financially, emotionally, spiritually, professionally, and even sexually. On the other end of the spectrum some suffer horrible self disfigurements, 'poor' quality surgeries, suicide, and murders.
It takes a strong person to deal with all that ignorance and hate for just being who they want to be/are. Someone that doesn't affect/effect anyone else in any way, shape, or form. So many folks just for being different are terrorized and killed all the time, just like any other minority, just for being who they are.
Emphatically. These so-called, "freedom and liberty lovers" are self-interested liars! As you can see from this article, these people drive a stake deep into a point of view and refuse to be moved. Then put on display audacity to say others affected by their attitudes and harsh points of view (about others' ways of life) should not/must not express any feelings or emotions about what they are doing!
It's an outrage. And I, for one, will get in their 'faces' every time. What these people are doing with their mocking, derisions, demonizing, and hatreds is disgusting and contemptible.
Unless he was invited to a masquerade party at the white house he should have dressed in a nice suit and tie and left the make up at home. Of course it may have been a costume party seeing how he was meeting a pretend president it may be ok to come as a pretend woman
I just re watched the video attached to this article and it is interesting to watch a young trans-person be so unapologetically herself. Yes, the language she is using, her conduct, her synchronization of movement/s, and her 'promise' for more to come-can be shocking and disarming at first. But, so was the unpredictable successes of Rue Paul. The absolutely amazing positive reinforcement she has garnered from being chosen to be a 'first' of a type to visit a sitting president speaks to the change that is this nation's greatest asset. A sign of progress and movement.
All people of goodwill in this country should have the opportunity to avail themselves of this nation's highest echelons of society; each according to need, service, and presentation.
This may be true for him. For others, there are other things that make this election more important.
I don't know about shame but the transgender issue does seem to have a unique ability to back people into paradoxical corners.
The libertarian in me says we should tolerate people and lifestyles that cause no harm to other people.
The person in me that did not just land on this planet yesterday is very concerned about society's sudden embrace of body altering procedures for (very) young people. The common wisdom on the left is starting to be something like, "it's better to block puberty before it is too late," as opposed to, "maybe blocking puberty will have side effects that we should not be taking lightly."
That's the part that of me that is concerned with doing irreparable damage to people under the pretense of helping them.
Then there is the issue where actual biological women are a protected class in this society and they are starting to be told that they can't exclude men who consider themselves to be women from their organizations and sports teams. I guess being a protected class ain't what it used to be.
Rachel Dolezal (a white woman) felt like she was a black woman and decided to head up the local chapter of the NAACP while passing as a black woman. It didn't end well for her. Are we all what we self-identify as being or aren't we?
Do stick with this philosophy for it is a good guiding principle. As for the areas where you feel the need to differentiate between details—do so with ample explanation and qualifiers. That is, when you encounter harmful or questionable acts and actions that need further investigation, critical review, or rejection take it on, ask questions; get answers. That way you inform your conclusion/s whatsoever it is! Even if it is just because you 'want to' think one way or another about an issue.