True, I should have done a comparison with other comments, and built a metric to determine "inanity."
Yours is probably the actual worst.
My, what an AMAZING argument! So much evidence, backed up by citation! So lucid reasoning! What powerful, irrefutable axioms! The Slashdot Culture Warriors must be beating down your basement door with offers of blowjobs and BSD distros.
Think for two seconds. As you say, cis is latin for trans - so how are normal people somehow labeled the equivalent of trans-gendered?
I said no such thing. Read for two seconds. I said exactly the opposite. TRANS is the Latin root for "on the other side of"; "CIS" it its antonym, and means "the same side". It means what it means; who brought it into common usage is irrelevant, and in any event, you have yet to present any evidence that it was gay people who brought the term into wide usage in reference to gender. Also, if you're opposed to the term "cisgender" what to you propose to replace it?
Now we're kicking back. We've always supported their rights, but enough is enough - we're long overdue for a divorce.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You seem to forget that for every homosexual antagonistic asshole, there are a hundred heterosexual antagonistic assholes. HRC may have thrown trans folks under the bus a dozen or so times, but they aren't calling for them to be stoned to death.
The bathroom bills will fail in court.
Care to share your crystal ball? I could use the winning Powerball tickets. You're missing the point. They don't give a fuck if they succeed or fail; their purpose is to drive culture warriors to vote in November. Do you honestly think that anyone in the GOP gives a flying fuck about where trans people pee? Even if I allow that they will fail (which I don't; if the next President is a Republican, the Justice department will refuse to pursue such types of discrimination), how many lives will be ruined in the meantime? How many people will be murdered?
The first trans-male that is forced to enter the girls washroom will get SO many complaints that they really should be in the boy's room.
You think that the average culture warrior thinks past the jerk of their knee! How adorable! No, they will not complain. They will murder. That's what they do. Joe Sixpack will not raise a principled objection to the presence of a Trans Man in the bathroom to his elected representative; he'll get his gun or his bat and kill someone. That's what they do.
That's why many of us are actually laughing at the "bathroom bill" nut cases.
Yea, it's funny alright. Until someone gets killed.
Also, how are they going to enforce this on an adult?
They don't CARE if or how it will get enforced.
And what's going to happen when they try to on a post-op and insist on looking in her panties? Hey, nice lawsuit you got there
Really? You think the average trans person is going to find justice in Bumfuck, Alabama? Jacie Leopold would like a word with you.
And no, the battle isn't being fought over the term cisgender.
Then why the hell did you bring it up? YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
It's because we are not the same as gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transvestites - there's a big difference between sexual activity and gender identity based on brain structure
Granted. But then, there's a big difference between me and the Asian dude who just dropped off my dinner. SO?
But nice try to reframe the question
I "reframed" nothing. I quoted your OWN WORDS. I think your psychological projection is better described as "nice try to evade the point".
They've screwed us over too many times,
Which "they" are you referring to? You seem to think that Teh Gayz are a single hive mind.
and their ways, such as protests, are not our ways.
Really? Check your history; the Stonewall Riots were started by a Transsexual, not a homosexual. And once again, who appointed you to speak for transsexuals?
It's usage as a clinical description of someone who is ineligible for transition services has been certainly debunked. The definition of the word ("a male who gets a sexual thrill from cross-dressing") remains, and this is how I used it. Just because it has lost its clinical value does not mean it has lost its descriptive value, and indeed, this is how derisive words are reclaimed. Also, remember that Dr. Blanchard coined the phrase to replace the infinitely-more-destructive "transvestic fetishism" which was in wide use at the time. The word is fine; his mistake of concluding that it is the one and only possible cause of transsexualism is was caused the damage.
who interpreted other's behavior though the lens of his in-the-closet gayness.
Funny how gay dudes do that to transsexuals. Oh wait... it's not fucking funny at all. Blanchard's "research" single-handedly ruined countless lives and gave biased clinicians the excuse they needed to keep transexualism in the DSM for at least two more revisions. Or maybe not; it's not like they needed much if any excuse anyway. In any event, I do not view Dr. Blanchard as a monster; simply a man who made a big fucking mistake.
Just because they get their thrills from dressing like women doesn't mean they're like us in any way.
I never said transvestites have anything clinical in common with transsexuals; in fact, I've said the opposite. They do however, experience a common oppression.
They've been acting like dicks for ages
Actually, I was talking about cisgender folks. It wasn't transvestites that murdered Monica Loera or Nadine Stranse. It was cisgender people, and it was cisgender people who beat Jacie Leopold to within an inch of her life, refused to take a police report or prosecute the offenders and threatened to sue her for defamation for publicizing the event.
and we want a divorce.
I'm sorry, but who appointed you to be spokeswoman for all transsexuals?
Transvestites are sexually excited by their fetish so sure, lump them with the LGB. They're free to do whatever they want, and we should all keep an open mind about it. However, transsexuals and intersexed have zero to do with sexual behavior,
Sure; transvestites have different motivations than transsexuals or intersexed people. Sometimes their kink is "autogynephilia". So? How is that my business? Who are they hurting? Besides, sometimes those "transvestites" are simply transsexuals who haven't figured it out. Their sexual charge comes from the subversiveness of defying gender norms that don't fit them, at least until they transition. Then it's just getting dressed.
I don't "get them", and I "don't care". The last time I checked, they're still covered by the Constitution, and that's where my concern ends. I stand on the side of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; if ANY oppressed people want to come in under the ITQBLG umbrella, I'll welcome them. I don't care about their sexual proclivities and the similarities between any of those two letters are ridiculously arbitrary anyway. I'm here to protect their Constitutional rights, because that's the only thing that gives me moral authority to demand MY Constitutional rights.
They just do't get it.
Of course they don't. Asking a person who isn't trans to try to understand it is like trying to ask a blind guy to understand a rainbow or the Mona Lisa. They simply aren't equipped to understand.
That said, I don't give a shit if they "understand". Just don't be an dick. That's not hard to do; it isn't a big ask.
That's the worst reasoning I've seen on the internet all day long, and that's really saying something.
I wish I could say that's the worst argument I've seen on the Internet all day long, but sadly, it's pretty much like every other one I've seen: a statement of opinion devoid of support, reasoning, fact or citation. Congratulations.
Nobody has ever really explained to me why people like you should be lumped into a sexual orientation group.
They share no sexual orientation; it isn't a "sexual orientation group". The "T" is lumped together with the LGBIQ into a political group, because they do share common oppressions, and politically speaking it is far easier for larger groups to move the needle than smaller groups. (Note that Intersex and Queer folks are not a "sexual orientation" either).
Also, trying to normalize transvestites by lumping them in with transsexuals seems weird to me.
That it seems "weird to you" is the very explanation you seek. That you still use the term "normal" as a synonym for "healthy", (which implies the antonym of "abnormal", with its associated synonyms of "unhealthy"/"icky"/"evil"/etc.) is the explanation you seek. In the USA, those who rebel against cultural norms are generally respected, even revered... except when those cultural norms are gender norms. Then those rebels are "abnormal", or "defective". Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose the majority gives two shits at all?
(Personally, I figure that if I have any business worrying about somebody else's chromosomes and genitalia, I really should be in very close terms with that somebody, and comfortable with talking about such things. In all other cases, I prefer addressing people as they want to be addressed.)
Cool. I wouldn't worry about the other shit too much unless and until such a person comes into your life. Until then, IMO you've just articulated the most important point.
I can understand your surprise, but keep in mind that proper terminology was appropriated from us by the LGBT movement, so that they could "normalize" cross-dressing fetishes and other activities that are not related to transsexualism. So today we have this weird alphabet soup, where transgender can mean anything. The whole "cis" thing never came from us either.
Did Teh Gayz make up Latin as well?
Seriously, your distain for the term "cisgender" comes from the fact that you think Gay People came up with it (Got a cite?), rather than the fact that it is the Latin antonym for "trans"? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm sure not going to disagree that gay people happily throw trans people under the bus, and that the only thing trans folks have in common with the rest of the alphabet soup is the oppression they share, but honestly, "cisgender" is the battle you choose to fight? All those bathroom bills the GOP is lining up to drive their culture warriors to the polls in November don't seem a bit more pressing to you? Do you never have to pee in a public restroom or something?
The purpose of words is to communicate. Using made-up terms that aren't even accurate to describe the reality is like the jargon that computer folks use - it creates a wall, a barrier of understanding. I tried using "cis-gendered" once, and drew a total blank to the people I was explaining things to. I'd rather communicate than obfuscate.
Fair point. I got the same reaction when I made reference to NaCl today. But then, I simply told them that NaCl=table salt. I didn't dumb down the language I used for the sake of a less-educated person. I educated them.
No, it was coined as a way for those people who are trans to hide the lack of normalcy of their condition.
Who the fuck appointed you to the Normal Police? Since you seem to know so much about the term, perhaps you should define it? Now, tell me how all of the people who aren't "average" are somehow "bad" as your usage implies?
It's a mental defect (gender dysphoria).
Read a dictionary. Dysphoria =/= Defect. There are plenty of dysphorias other than gender dysphoria. Are all of THOSE people defective, also?
That's why therapy is part of the treatment, which may also include SRS
No, therapy is part of the treatment mainly because asshats who know fuckall about what it means to be trans like to hold court with their idiocy and parade their biases all over the internet. THAT shit can drive you to drink, or to a therapist.
That's why it's listed in the DSM as a mental disorder.
Except is isn't listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. It used to be. See my previous comment about asshats who think they know something.
No matter how much you may rail against it, identifying as the sex you're born with does not give you a special title other than "normal".
Once again, who make you Special Inspector Snowflake of the Normal Police?
Prohibition was not a ban on alcohol. Marijuana has never been banned either, merely regulated.
And all the laws in various states aren't banning abortions either.
You will never see so many false equivalencies as when firearms regulations are discussed.
Scientist: "If we just did background checks on all purchases, firearms deaths would drop by 50%"
Ammosexual: "Background checks never stopped abortions!"
Scientist: "??? Uhhh.... background checks have prevented over 2.4 million purchases by felons. How many law-abiding citizens were prevented from purchasing a firearm during that time?
Ammosexual: "See! He wants to confiscate your guns!"
Registration, confiscation, prohibition, oppression, genocide. This cycle happened many times in history.
Really? When was the genocide in England after they took the guns? Australia? Japan? France? Germany? I cannot seem to find any references to the oppression and genocides there no matter how I Google...
Now then, if I look at the genocides that HAVE happened in the last 20 years (Darfur, Bosnia, Rwanda) they ALL happened in places where there were NO restrictions on firearm ownership. How curious!
And I'm sure the women who've been raped, robbed and murdered in their own homes feel that their treatment by law enforcement has been stellar and that their tormentors are all brought to justice.
Not as much as the women who've been robbed and murdered in their own homes by their own firearms. There are 2.7 times more of them. And certainly not as much as the women who have been murdered by people they knew with their own firearms. Thee are 21 TIMES more of them.
Unless you have LOTS of money to bribe^H^H^H^convince politicians and public officials with, you're a fucking non-entity in the US.
The truly funny AND frightening thing is that you actually think your gun is going to make a difference.
"You said "Founding Fathers", as in plural, but let's not let technicalities such as language or, say, being mentioned in the fucking CONSTITUTION get in the way. A simple "I don't have a cite because I pulled this out of my ass" would have sufficed."
I concede.
FTFY
You don't realize that many of the things they 'uttered' puts reason behind why they set things up the way they did.
Waitwaitwait... are you a strict constructionist, or not? Or are you like your hero Scalia, just using the term as cover when convenient i.e. Troy Anthony Davis ("The Constitution doesn't prohibit us from executing innocent people!") and discarding it when it isn't i.e. Obergefell v. Hodges ("They didn't allow Gay marriage when they passed the 14th Amendment, so they must've meant that to be an exception to the actual words in it!") or District of Columbia v. Heller ("The Second Amendment speaks only of well-regulated militias, but militias are made up of unregulated individuals!") or Citizens United v. FEC ("Money isn't a tool like a hammer, it's a PERSON! All those dollar bills have voices! Can't you hear them speak!?! They're PROTECTED by 1A!")?
No. But clearly many weren't based on the Constitution without doing liberal amounts of linguistic gymnastics.
Have you fucking read the Constitution? For someone who tries to quote the Federalist Papers, you sure seem to lack understanding of the ambiguity that was intentionally written into it. Of course, ambiguous passages NEVER require any kind of gymnastics to suss out.
Example: Obergefell v. Hodges. Scalia had it right when he said in his dissent:
Scalia was the worst SCOTUS Justice to serve in my lifetime, forswearing the very concept of "nuance", the most basic job requirement of any Judge. To Scalia, if it wasn't written in the Constitution, well, fuck 'em. If it were up to Scalia we wouldn't have a right to privacy ("Let the Legislatures protect the 4th Amendment!"). In Obergefell he justified using his imaginary friend to ignore a plain text reading of the 14th Amendment (one of the rare opportunities in which a plain text reading is possible). Now then, unless you want to also overturn Loving v Virginia and bring back anti-miscegenation laws, please take your "passions" bullshit somewhere else.
How is this not the direct result of the "passions" we were warned about? "right" or "wrong" of the decision really doesn't enter in to it
You appear to be one of those people who think that the process used to obtain justice is more important than justice obtained. It isn't. "right" and "wrong" are the raison d'etre of Justice -- "right" is in the very fucking definition of the word.
Anyway, you've got it backward; it was Scalia who was using passions (to whit, his imaginary friend); the majority was using reason (to whit, the 14th Amendment). If you read the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You will note that there is no asterisk that amends, "*Unless those persons are homos, or there is a long tradition of being dicks to those persons." Maybe Madison just forgot to include it? Go read the Tea Leaves in the Federalist Papers and get back to me. Owait... you're a strict constructionist. Never mind.
There's a process to allow the Constitution to be amended and it should not be by arbitrary interpretation based on the popula
We DID deal with it... by inventing the concept of "higher purpose". Like God, "higher purpose" is self-reinforcing and not falsifiable, thus providing never-ending fun for we great apes!
Really? I'm not interested in providing a high-school style research paper for lazy folks on material that SHOULD be common knowledge -- but how about Madison in Federalist 10 or 49?
You said "Founding Fathers", as in plural, but let's not let technicalities such as language or, say, being mentioned in the fucking CONSTITUTION get in the way. A simple "I don't have a cite because I pulled this out of my ass" would have sufficed.
Yes. Passions. That's actually the language used by the framers. Again -- look it up and don't be lazy. Franklin wrote a wonderful speech to argue the delegates to sign the Constitution. Look it up.
Your whine was about the Supreme Court, not the Framers. A simple "I don't have a cite because SCOTUS has never passed a ruling based on passion" would have sufficed.
I'd say that if you have income then you should be taxed. Minimum of 1%. And tie that to the highest tax bracket (say 30%).
Cool. Thanks Mr. Economics professor for pulling a whole set of tax brackets out of thin air. Looks good to me. While you're holding court, please cite for me a SINGLE citizen or even non-citizen in this country that makes it an entire year without paying a single dime in any kind of tax? And while you're at it, who mentioned anything about tax brackets that you would feel compelled to share your opinions on proper levels of income taxation?
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." and "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Actually, what you did is add some interesting statements from ONE of the Framers to divert attention from the fact that you conveniently ignored the direct questions put to you. Here, I'll save you some work:
- Do realize that there are many, many, MANY things uttered by the Framers that never actually made it into the Constitution, and that these things are not law?
- Please cite a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"?
- Where it is written in our Constitution that there shall be "no taxation without representation", much less, "no representation without taxation"?
- Why is it you can decry seizing the wealth from the 1% and say nothing about seizing the wealth from the 99%?
Reason.com's Robby Soave criticizes an article published in the journal Progress in Human Geography, for being "utterly incomprehensible," and "the least essential paper ever written."
In the news today, Conservative Writer in Conservative rag complains about something sciency he doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand.
To our founders, democracy was just as if not more scary than monarchy.
This is where a citation would come in really handy. I just LOVE it when people channel their inner Founding Father
the Constitution, which SHOULD be protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms has been nibbled away by rulings not based on reason and the constitution but by passions.
Passions? Really? Hey, here's an idea! How about a FUCKING CITATION so we know that the fuck you're talking about? Please cite for me a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"?
One of our nations rally crys at birth was "no taxation without representation".
*Cries. Great. True. By the way, where was that written in the Constitution?
We have countless examples of the opposite (which I believe to be equally bad) -- representation without taxation.
At least you were kind enough to label this as your opinion. How awful to represent people who aren't paying you anything! Of course, it's hard to tax people working three jobs who have next to nothing, but hey, math is just a technicality and anyway, things were great when only the rich white landowners got a vote! By the way, I don't suppose this "no representation without taxation" mantra of yours is written down anywhere in the Constitution?
We can focus all we want on the 1% -- but the fact is if you seize all their wealth in the US, you wouldn't even be able to cover a few years of deficit spending (never mind paying the debt) -- and in the meantime you've wreaked the economy.
lolwut? Who said anything about "seizing all their wealth"? It's little nuggets like this that scream "Tea Partier". If you want to bring up the 1%, instead of straw men, how about we talk about how the actual, existing extreme inequity in wealth distribution is destroying the economy just as effectively as if we "seized all their wealth"? Why is it you can decry seizing the wealth from the 1% and say nothing about seizing the wealth from the 99%?
So, apparently these guys moored to the warning buoy being interested in what was beneath it.
Perhaps you failed to see/read the rest of the quote:
"I am 100% positive that there were no signs on the buoy," he said. "I know that because my boat was tied to that buoy."
How interesting! A warning buoy without any warnings! I guess it's intended for the telepathic SCUBA divers?
"What a great idea! lets bypass these things intended to keep big stuff out and enter this here pipe!"
Uhhh, if the point of "these things intended to keep big stuff out" is to keep big stuff out, don't you think maybe the holes in the grating should be small enough so that a big thing, like, say, a SCUBA diver, cannot pass through it? That seems like a bit of a design failure. Kind of like using a colander to carry water around...
Get pregnant and see. Oops. You can't. I'm shocked, shocked that you are therefore unaware that pregnancy can be an impediment to career advancement.
It's a choice at least in the modern world.
Leaving aside the obvious retort that many women don't live in the modern world, it's a choice that men never have to make. Go ahead. Tell me about that time you had to delay your career for 9-30 months because your wife wanted to have a family.
Rape has something to do with people ability to enter an engineering competition? With their ability to get an education?
Obviously you have never been raped. When you're afraid to leave your home, it's rather hard to get to your local institution of higher learning. When you are sexually coerced by your Chemistry professor, it's somewhat difficult to trust your other teachers. I don't expect you to understand; your tone deafness speaks volumes about your ability to empathize, but you might at least try to research the things you say before you allow your biases to blithely dismiss them.
What institutional level racism or discrimination would a person of color have to deal with that a white male from appalachia would not have?
Obviously you aren't a person of color. Lower pay. Fewer employment opportunities. Fewer educational opportunities. Grading biases. Selection biases.
The "justice" system comes to mind but not a lot else.
Well! I guess the biases in Justice system can't really do much!
Comparatively they have a lot of programs in their favor.
This is where citations would come in really handy!
Sorry your just a SJW with your check your privilege this or that.
*You're. As in "You're just a privileged while male attempting to mansplain his way through why the world owes him his privilege because everyone else also has access to it. They're just too lazy/stupid/{state character defect of your choice here} to claim it."
I'll give you a hint to check privilege in effect means to pull somebody down from there perceived unfair advantages
*Their. For example, "White people like to lecture socially oppressed people on their problems without understanding what those problems are". Pro Tip: people are far less likely to dismiss you as an uneducated dolt when you use proper spelling and grammar.
Want equality thats enabling people to rise as equals, additive vs subtractive. That's also a much harder sell, to say they are free to earn it that yes their parents are responsible for not giving them a specific advantage etc.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
Pregnancy. Rape. Institutional racism/discrimination. The complete obliviousness of the average white male to their privilege relative to lesser privileged groups to the point where they have to ask such a question as this.
Slashdot Mirror
My, what an AMAZING argument! So much evidence, backed up by citation! So lucid reasoning! What powerful, irrefutable axioms! The Slashdot Culture Warriors must be beating down your basement door with offers of blowjobs and BSD distros.
You might even get a girlfriend.
I said no such thing. Read for two seconds. I said exactly the opposite. TRANS is the Latin root for "on the other side of"; "CIS" it its antonym, and means "the same side". It means what it means; who brought it into common usage is irrelevant, and in any event, you have yet to present any evidence that it was gay people who brought the term into wide usage in reference to gender. Also, if you're opposed to the term "cisgender" what to you propose to replace it?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You seem to forget that for every homosexual antagonistic asshole, there are a hundred heterosexual antagonistic assholes. HRC may have thrown trans folks under the bus a dozen or so times, but they aren't calling for them to be stoned to death.
Care to share your crystal ball? I could use the winning Powerball tickets. You're missing the point. They don't give a fuck if they succeed or fail; their purpose is to drive culture warriors to vote in November. Do you honestly think that anyone in the GOP gives a flying fuck about where trans people pee? Even if I allow that they will fail (which I don't; if the next President is a Republican, the Justice department will refuse to pursue such types of discrimination), how many lives will be ruined in the meantime? How many people will be murdered?
You think that the average culture warrior thinks past the jerk of their knee! How adorable! No, they will not complain. They will murder. That's what they do. Joe Sixpack will not raise a principled objection to the presence of a Trans Man in the bathroom to his elected representative; he'll get his gun or his bat and kill someone. That's what they do.
Yea, it's funny alright. Until someone gets killed.
They don't CARE if or how it will get enforced.
Really? You think the average trans person is going to find justice in Bumfuck, Alabama? Jacie Leopold would like a word with you.
Then why the hell did you bring it up? YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
Granted. But then, there's a big difference between me and the Asian dude who just dropped off my dinner. SO?
I "reframed" nothing. I quoted your OWN WORDS. I think your psychological projection is better described as "nice try to evade the point".
Which "they" are you referring to? You seem to think that Teh Gayz are a single hive mind.
Really? Check your history; the Stonewall Riots were started by a Transsexual, not a homosexual. And once again, who appointed you to speak for transsexuals?
It's usage as a clinical description of someone who is ineligible for transition services has been certainly debunked. The definition of the word ("a male who gets a sexual thrill from cross-dressing") remains, and this is how I used it. Just because it has lost its clinical value does not mean it has lost its descriptive value, and indeed, this is how derisive words are reclaimed. Also, remember that Dr. Blanchard coined the phrase to replace the infinitely-more-destructive "transvestic fetishism" which was in wide use at the time. The word is fine; his mistake of concluding that it is the one and only possible cause of transsexualism is was caused the damage.
Funny how gay dudes do that to transsexuals. Oh wait... it's not fucking funny at all. Blanchard's "research" single-handedly ruined countless lives and gave biased clinicians the excuse they needed to keep transexualism in the DSM for at least two more revisions. Or maybe not; it's not like they needed much if any excuse anyway. In any event, I do not view Dr. Blanchard as a monster; simply a man who made a big fucking mistake.
I never said transvestites have anything clinical in common with transsexuals; in fact, I've said the opposite. They do however, experience a common oppression.
Actually, I was talking about cisgender folks. It wasn't transvestites that murdered Monica Loera or Nadine Stranse. It was cisgender people, and it was cisgender people who beat Jacie Leopold to within an inch of her life, refused to take a police report or prosecute the offenders and threatened to sue her for defamation for publicizing the event.
I'm sorry, but who appointed you to be spokeswoman for all transsexuals?
Sure; transvestites have different motivations than transsexuals or intersexed people. Sometimes their kink is "autogynephilia". So? How is that my business? Who are they hurting? Besides, sometimes those "transvestites" are simply transsexuals who haven't figured it out. Their sexual charge comes from the subversiveness of defying gender norms that don't fit them, at least until they transition. Then it's just getting dressed.
I don't "get them", and I "don't care". The last time I checked, they're still covered by the Constitution, and that's where my concern ends. I stand on the side of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; if ANY oppressed people want to come in under the ITQBLG umbrella, I'll welcome them. I don't care about their sexual proclivities and the similarities between any of those two letters are ridiculously arbitrary anyway. I'm here to protect their Constitutional rights, because that's the only thing that gives me moral authority to demand MY Constitutional rights.
Of course they don't. Asking a person who isn't trans to try to understand it is like trying to ask a blind guy to understand a rainbow or the Mona Lisa. They simply aren't equipped to understand.
That said, I don't give a shit if they "understand". Just don't be an dick. That's not hard to do; it isn't a big ask.
I wish I could say that's the worst argument I've seen on the Internet all day long, but sadly, it's pretty much like every other one I've seen: a statement of opinion devoid of support, reasoning, fact or citation. Congratulations.
They share no sexual orientation; it isn't a "sexual orientation group". The "T" is lumped together with the LGBIQ into a political group, because they do share common oppressions, and politically speaking it is far easier for larger groups to move the needle than smaller groups. (Note that Intersex and Queer folks are not a "sexual orientation" either).
That it seems "weird to you" is the very explanation you seek. That you still use the term "normal" as a synonym for "healthy", (which implies the antonym of "abnormal", with its associated synonyms of "unhealthy"/"icky"/"evil"/etc.) is the explanation you seek. In the USA, those who rebel against cultural norms are generally respected, even revered... except when those cultural norms are gender norms. Then those rebels are "abnormal", or "defective". Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose the majority gives two shits at all?
Cool. I wouldn't worry about the other shit too much unless and until such a person comes into your life. Until then, IMO you've just articulated the most important point.
Did Teh Gayz make up Latin as well?
Seriously, your distain for the term "cisgender" comes from the fact that you think Gay People came up with it (Got a cite?), rather than the fact that it is the Latin antonym for "trans"? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm sure not going to disagree that gay people happily throw trans people under the bus, and that the only thing trans folks have in common with the rest of the alphabet soup is the oppression they share, but honestly, "cisgender" is the battle you choose to fight? All those bathroom bills the GOP is lining up to drive their culture warriors to the polls in November don't seem a bit more pressing to you? Do you never have to pee in a public restroom or something?
Fair point. I got the same reaction when I made reference to NaCl today. But then, I simply told them that NaCl=table salt. I didn't dumb down the language I used for the sake of a less-educated person. I educated them.
Who the fuck appointed you to the Normal Police? Since you seem to know so much about the term, perhaps you should define it? Now, tell me how all of the people who aren't "average" are somehow "bad" as your usage implies?
Read a dictionary. Dysphoria =/= Defect. There are plenty of dysphorias other than gender dysphoria. Are all of THOSE people defective, also?
No, therapy is part of the treatment mainly because asshats who know fuckall about what it means to be trans like to hold court with their idiocy and parade their biases all over the internet. THAT shit can drive you to drink, or to a therapist.
Except is isn't listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. It used to be. See my previous comment about asshats who think they know something.
Once again, who make you Special Inspector Snowflake of the Normal Police?
You will never see so many false equivalencies as when firearms regulations are discussed.
Scientist: "If we just did background checks on all purchases, firearms deaths would drop by 50%"
Ammosexual: "Background checks never stopped abortions!"
Scientist: "??? Uhhh.... background checks have prevented over 2.4 million purchases by felons. How many law-abiding citizens were prevented from purchasing a firearm during that time?
Ammosexual: "See! He wants to confiscate your guns!"
So does that make your statement (which includes absolutely no data at all!) words than a third grader?
Really? When was the genocide in England after they took the guns? Australia? Japan? France? Germany? I cannot seem to find any references to the oppression and genocides there no matter how I Google...
Now then, if I look at the genocides that HAVE happened in the last 20 years (Darfur, Bosnia, Rwanda) they ALL happened in places where there were NO restrictions on firearm ownership. How curious!
My! What a lovely straw man you've painted there! Not to be an art critic, but I feel your insane rationalization needs a citation or ten.
Not as much as the women who've been robbed and murdered in their own homes by their own firearms. There are 2.7 times more of them. And certainly not as much as the women who have been murdered by people they knew with their own firearms. Thee are 21 TIMES more of them.
The truly funny AND frightening thing is that you actually think your gun is going to make a difference.
FTFY
Waitwaitwait... are you a strict constructionist, or not? Or are you like your hero Scalia, just using the term as cover when convenient i.e. Troy Anthony Davis ("The Constitution doesn't prohibit us from executing innocent people!") and discarding it when it isn't i.e. Obergefell v. Hodges ("They didn't allow Gay marriage when they passed the 14th Amendment, so they must've meant that to be an exception to the actual words in it!") or District of Columbia v. Heller ("The Second Amendment speaks only of well-regulated militias, but militias are made up of unregulated individuals!") or Citizens United v. FEC ("Money isn't a tool like a hammer, it's a PERSON! All those dollar bills have voices! Can't you hear them speak!?! They're PROTECTED by 1A!")?
Have you fucking read the Constitution? For someone who tries to quote the Federalist Papers, you sure seem to lack understanding of the ambiguity that was intentionally written into it. Of course, ambiguous passages NEVER require any kind of gymnastics to suss out.
Scalia was the worst SCOTUS Justice to serve in my lifetime, forswearing the very concept of "nuance", the most basic job requirement of any Judge. To Scalia, if it wasn't written in the Constitution, well, fuck 'em. If it were up to Scalia we wouldn't have a right to privacy ("Let the Legislatures protect the 4th Amendment!"). In Obergefell he justified using his imaginary friend to ignore a plain text reading of the 14th Amendment (one of the rare opportunities in which a plain text reading is possible). Now then, unless you want to also overturn Loving v Virginia and bring back anti-miscegenation laws, please take your "passions" bullshit somewhere else.
You appear to be one of those people who think that the process used to obtain justice is more important than justice obtained. It isn't. "right" and "wrong" are the raison d'etre of Justice -- "right" is in the very fucking definition of the word.
Anyway, you've got it backward; it was Scalia who was using passions (to whit, his imaginary friend); the majority was using reason (to whit, the 14th Amendment). If you read the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
You will note that there is no asterisk that amends, "*Unless those persons are homos, or there is a long tradition of being dicks to those persons." Maybe Madison just forgot to include it? Go read the Tea Leaves in the Federalist Papers and get back to me. Owait... you're a strict constructionist. Never mind.
We DID deal with it... by inventing the concept of "higher purpose". Like God, "higher purpose" is self-reinforcing and not falsifiable, thus providing never-ending fun for we great apes!
Goatse-to-the-brain is HOW they would induce seizures...
You said "Founding Fathers", as in plural, but let's not let technicalities such as language or, say, being mentioned in the fucking CONSTITUTION get in the way. A simple "I don't have a cite because I pulled this out of my ass" would have sufficed.
Your whine was about the Supreme Court, not the Framers. A simple "I don't have a cite because SCOTUS has never passed a ruling based on passion" would have sufficed.
Cool. Thanks Mr. Economics professor for pulling a whole set of tax brackets out of thin air. Looks good to me. While you're holding court, please cite for me a SINGLE citizen or even non-citizen in this country that makes it an entire year without paying a single dime in any kind of tax? And while you're at it, who mentioned anything about tax brackets that you would feel compelled to share your opinions on proper levels of income taxation?
Actually, what you did is add some interesting statements from ONE of the Framers to divert attention from the fact that you conveniently ignored the direct questions put to you. Here, I'll save you some work:
Better than being one of the 100% of the morons who think there is ANYONE in this county that pays no taxes...
In the news today, Conservative Writer in Conservative rag complains about something sciency he doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand.
FTFY
This is where a citation would come in really handy. I just LOVE it when people channel their inner Founding Father
Passions? Really? Hey, here's an idea! How about a FUCKING CITATION so we know that the fuck you're talking about? Please cite for me a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"?
*Cries. Great. True. By the way, where was that written in the Constitution?
At least you were kind enough to label this as your opinion. How awful to represent people who aren't paying you anything! Of course, it's hard to tax people working three jobs who have next to nothing, but hey, math is just a technicality and anyway, things were great when only the rich white landowners got a vote! By the way, I don't suppose this "no representation without taxation" mantra of yours is written down anywhere in the Constitution?
lolwut? Who said anything about "seizing all their wealth"? It's little nuggets like this that scream "Tea Partier". If you want to bring up the 1%, instead of straw men, how about we talk about how the actual, existing extreme inequity in wealth distribution is destroying the economy just as effectively as if we "seized all their wealth"? Why is it you can decry seizing the wealth from the 1% and say nothing about seizing the wealth from the 99%?
Perhaps you failed to see/read the rest of the quote:
How interesting! A warning buoy without any warnings! I guess it's intended for the telepathic SCUBA divers?
Uhhh, if the point of "these things intended to keep big stuff out" is to keep big stuff out, don't you think maybe the holes in the grating should be small enough so that a big thing, like, say, a SCUBA diver, cannot pass through it? That seems like a bit of a design failure. Kind of like using a colander to carry water around...
Get pregnant and see. Oops. You can't. I'm shocked, shocked that you are therefore unaware that pregnancy can be an impediment to career advancement.
Leaving aside the obvious retort that many women don't live in the modern world, it's a choice that men never have to make. Go ahead. Tell me about that time you had to delay your career for 9-30 months because your wife wanted to have a family.
Obviously you have never been raped. When you're afraid to leave your home, it's rather hard to get to your local institution of higher learning. When you are sexually coerced by your Chemistry professor, it's somewhat difficult to trust your other teachers. I don't expect you to understand; your tone deafness speaks volumes about your ability to empathize, but you might at least try to research the things you say before you allow your biases to blithely dismiss them.
Obviously you aren't a person of color. Lower pay. Fewer employment opportunities. Fewer educational opportunities. Grading biases. Selection biases.
Well! I guess the biases in Justice system can't really do much!
This is where citations would come in really handy!
*You're. As in "You're just a privileged while male attempting to mansplain his way through why the world owes him his privilege because everyone else also has access to it. They're just too lazy/stupid/{state character defect of your choice here} to claim it."
*Their. For example, "White people like to lecture socially oppressed people on their problems without understanding what those problems are". Pro Tip: people are far less likely to dismiss you as an uneducated dolt when you use proper spelling and grammar.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
-- Stephen Hawking
Pregnancy. Rape. Institutional racism/discrimination. The complete obliviousness of the average white male to their privilege relative to lesser privileged groups to the point where they have to ask such a question as this.
*too
My mom is a 1 Kilogram reference weight you insensitive clod!