Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar

View Single Post
Old 04-23-2017, 07:56 AM   #11
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Venom- I agree about Brooks being quasi conservative, and lately he has said some things that defy any categorization aside from bizarre, which is why I put the "?" there. Yes, he and the Times seem to be pretending he is the conservative columnist, but I think they need to do better and find somebody who is articulate, intelligent, and actually a conservative. I'm not sure why they can't do that, but my guess is that the right has better paying gigs for any conservative who can put two sentences together these days. I don't really think Douthat does much better at the Times.
I think it's as simple as the NYT being uninterested in having an actual conservative. It seems to work well when they want to paint anyone who isn't in agreement with them as an extremist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
In terms of being transgender, I don't really agree with you that the issue boils down to what one person is or isn't willing to pretend, judge, determine etc about somebody else's gender identity but rather it is about whether we feel that gender identity is up to the individual to determine or society. I'd say that liberals are quick to side with the individual on this point, and there certainly is stigma for transgender people, so perhaps they are the little guy in this scenario. Having said that, where we get into problems is when either or both sides refuse to listen, acknowledge, compromise, accommodate each other specifically when there are differences of opinion. Quick example. I don't know how many school districts my state has, but let's say hypothetically it is 25. When Obama made that statement about all schools having to accommodate transgender students, our Governor- a republican in a red state- made a big deal of opposing it and saying no way. However, 24 of 25 school districts were already in compliance. There was no controversy, there was no need for mandates or protests or any of that. The local communities had already addressed it just to address a problem, but once it was seen as a liberal versus conservative, it became an issue fro protest, offence, resistance, etc. It is absolutely idiotic. I feel like there are many liberals right now who are acting Trump crazy. They just want to be opposing and protesting and resisting the hell out of everything without solving a single problem. I'm absolutely frustrated.
Ultimately, transgenderism is about pretending. The science behind the chromosomes which determine this is far more "settled" than other "settled science" that the Left will not question -- Global Warming Climate Change. Speaking of Climate Change, which there was just a bit march for scientific "facts," many of the people chanting seemed unaware that a perceived consensus, which is usually established by faulty claims, doesn't prove anything in science beyond there being a perceived consensus. Many of those marchers appeared to think that consensus equals fact, when that goes against the very thing they claimed to be marching for.

The transgender piece from Obama did lead to a response, and I could certainly see that appearing to be along party lines. However, without knowing the details of the particular response, was it over transgenders, federal overreach, or a combination? Lets say that 24 of the 25 school districts were already in compliance, if that compliance means that any person, regardless of their chromosomal makeup, can simply declare that they're a woman or a man and the institution must pretend that is true, then that's forcing people to pretend through policy.

Is Caitlin Jenner a man or a woman? Does changing one's name make them a woman? Does getting breast implants (I don't know if he did or not) convert someone? Or, perhaps, getting one's penis lopped off makes them a woman (which, again, I don't know if he did or not)? How is saying Caitlin Jenner is a woman not pretending? I know liberals have been trying to divorce the idea that gender has any objective basis, but that requires trying to change - while insisting it's the same - meaning of gender in modern Western society. With many of the Left wishing to maintain that gender is purely a social construct, how do they possibly square that with different standards based upon gender? I don't see those people rushing to get rid of gender segregated sports, scholarships, and other situations in which it's usually perceived that women would lose as a result.

If a 5ft 8inch woman is 90lbs soaking wet, comes up and tells you she's fat, are you going to pretend she is and recommend that she curb her diet in order to lose weight? What if someone obviously over 30 years old insisted that they're 12 years old, would you pretend they were?

If a person wishes to pretend they're a man or a woman when they're not, that's fine. However, I don't believe pretending that they are actually helps them. I certainly don't want these people bullied, as their suicide rates are astronomical -- I think this whole playing pretend deal not only hurts the individual transgender person and is further causing issues by forcing this view onto children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Personally, I don't really concern myself with the gender of people using the restroom. I have been in public restrooms that are for both genders, families, one gender, etc. Even with that being my personal stance, is there a problem with providing gender neutral public restrooms for transgender people? Would that still force you into something that you don't like?
Gender neutral restrooms are not the same as saying that a man who claims he is a woman can use a woman-only restroom. If gender is merely a social construct, how can any restroom be gender segregated? How can anything be segregated by gender?

A huge part of the problem for me, as Pacer hit on, was there does not seem to be any compromise from the Left. Looking at another issue, guns in the case, there always seem to be these grand compromises promised; ban the private sale of machine guns after 1986, and we're good on the 2A. Did that happen? No. In fact, many of the same people who made this compromise used that compromise as a means to continue the march down the very same path that they promised was solved -- towards banning more and more firearms, usually due to simply the look of it. With the LGBTQA community, it wasn't long ago that it was essentially sold as "once gay marriage is passed, we're happy." Okay, but did that happen? No. Then it quickly morphed into demanding that people pretend there is no issue with those suffering and believing themselves to be transgender. What seems to have become a grand social experiment, the military, now allows people whom believe they're transgender to join -- knowing that they'll likely elect to receive major surgery which many studies show does little to improve their life -- if not actually further degrading it. How are you going to let someone into the military that has all of the medical issues related to transgenderism, but you won't let other people in with less severe medical issues join?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
 

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM.