Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day.
Elect a man to fish for you, and all of a sudden fishing becomes some mystical function that only a few elite in society can perform, at great expense to the rest of society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments:
1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»Sorry, let me try that again. And who, exactly, elects anybody to fish for them?
Ahhhhhhhh, the "I'm going to take something in an absurdly, woodenly, literal manner" response. Excellent choice. Your stock responses are always amusing.
For someone who repeatedly uses "figurative language" as an way to raise questions about the plain meaning of things, it's always amusing when you try to act as if figurative language is literal.
Sigh. I get that you're using figurative language to make some kind of point. My question is what is your point?
No, Craig. You're wrong. It's a legitimate question with a legitimate answer, which is, "those who vote Democrat". They're not voting for the liberty of fishing for themselves as do conservatives. They're voting for every bribe the Dems offer: paying for health care, higher education, "reparations", etc.
The point is that once you elect someone to do something for you, that person becomes an expert in that function and performance of that function is deemed the province of experts, beyond the capacity of ordinary people.
Art, while that may not be the answer, it’s certainly an answer. The fact that people vote for politicians who promise to provide their basic needs for “free”, is an example.
Craig... "The point is that once you elect someone to do something for you, that person becomes an expert in that function and performance of that function is deemed the province of experts, beyond the capacity of ordinary people."
But who does this in the real world? I don't elect representatives to "do something FOR me..." I elect them to represent my policy positions I believe in. I don't know of anyone who elects representatives to do something FOR them.
For instance, I work in the field of disabilities. When I'm advocating for policies, it's based upon the evidence I've seen in the real world and that I and my colleagues are something of an expert on. I vote for representatives to LISTEN to what we've learned, to do our bidding, not to do something in our stead.
Do you have any examples to illustrate the point you're trying to make?
Or is it just a bad analogy?
Who, the people who vote for the professional politicians decade after decade, and the people who buy the line that serving in an elected office requires some level of expertise beyond "normal" people. Ahhhhhhh, Dan projecting his version of himself on others. Let's look at two policies designed to let government "do" for people. UBI, and across the board student loan forgiveness. Both involve the feds doing for people, rather than allowing people to do for themselves. Further, if you listen to any political campaign, that's all you hear is what government is going to do for the governed. Maybe you live in your ivory tower and really think that your ideal of government exists, I'll grant you that you really believe that.
UBI, artificially high minimum wage, blanket student loan forgiveness.
I do love how you project your idealized, fantasy version of things on to the tawdry reality of politics, and seem to really believe that the idealized, fantasy version is actually real.
How often did we hear that Trump "wasn't qualified" to be president because he wasn't a professional politician?
Trump was not Not Qualified because he wasn't a professional politician. He was not qualified because he was a narcissist and an idiot who didn't understand how gov't works and didn't CARE to understand. His ignorance was supreme, matched only by his arrogance.
As to the rest, I don't think your analogy holds up as it doesn't seem to have a real world analog. Which is sort of the point of an analogy.
Craig... "Let's look at two policies designed to let government "do" for people. UBI, and across the board student loan forgiveness. "
Well, this is NOT because we can't "do" for ourselves, when it comes to jobs and education. It's that these policies are enacted at the gov't level. That's not the same as saying, "I can't fish because it's too hard..." It's, "It's the role of someone fishing to catch fish and I don't fish..."
It's about roles, not ability. An individual can't decide, "You know what? As a high school graduate, I want the minimum wage to be $15/hour. Make it so..." They get elected representatives to make it happen if they support that policy.
It's about roles, not ability.
Sorry, I just don't think your analogy holds up.
Two comments, and two opinions. Two opinions presented as if they are fact.
Guess what, I don't really care what you think about the illustration. I certainly don't care that you have some hunches that you want to present as if they were facts.
It's interesting that you decided that this post is worth your time, while questions remain unanswered from the most recent post you engaged with, and black voices are saying inflammatory things.
I understand that the notion of a government that isn't dominated by professional politicians and that leaves as much as possible to the states and to individuals might not be one that you agree with. The fact that you don't agree with something, don't like something, or don't understand something, doesn't determine it's truth, validity, or worth.
Craig... " understand that the notion of a government that isn't dominated by professional politicians and that leaves as much as possible to the states and to individuals might not be one that you agree with."
Of course, the reality is, as generally is true with you, not as you understand it.
I PREFER local decisions. The more local decisions and policies, the better, generally speaking. I prefer families, for instance, making their own medical decisions or decisions about who to marry or what flipping BATHROOM they use! The GOP has traditionally been opposed to people making these decisions for themselves and have tried to implement local and state and national rules to prevent these personal decisions being made by the people involved.
For instance.
It's why I counsel you to ask questions when you don't understand what a liberal's position actually is (which seems to be pretty regular) and when you THINK you understand a liberal's position, ask them nonetheless, because historically, you've shown an inability to rightly state our positions.
As to the post, I was just trying to make sense of it and now I see, as it turns out, there was no sense to be made. It was just an irrational and pointless analogy with no real world analog.
"I don't elect representatives to "do something FOR me..." I elect them to represent my policy positions I believe in."
A difference without a distinction.
No one votes without expectations of receiving. No one. Lefties want handouts of one kind or another. Dan provides his examples above.
Conservatives want government to operate within the strictly defined parameters of the US Constitution, and to leave us the hell alone to live our lives.
"He was not qualified because he was a narcissist and an idiot who didn't understand how gov't works and didn't CARE to understand. His ignorance was supreme..."
Pure, unadulterated, fact-free hatred by a fake Christian. Obama proved all that applied to him. Biden is everything Dan says about Trump, and then some. Dan's hatred clearly runs in one direction, along political/ideological lines.
As a sidebar, I posted at Dan's blog of lies and censorship last night a voluminous list of actions taken by the Trump administration to improve life for the disabled. He deleted the entire thing, because it totally disrupts his fantasy about the Trump as expressed in his comment above from January 22, 2021 at 9:12 AM.
But that's OK. I'll be doing a post that will include that long list demonstrating Trump deserved a second term. It'll be fun to watch Biden not do as much nor as beneficial and see how those like Dan pretend otherwise.
Of course, when I ask questions, you ignore them. Maybe that’s why you council me to ask them.
Perhaps you didn’t read what I said well enough.
IF you’re so big on local decision making, then you shouldn’t have a problem if Roe is overturned. You shouldn’t be against local governments expecting all medical facilities to meet some minimal standards. You shouldn’t have a problem with all our patient medical facilities being expected to have admitting privileges at hospitals. Do you support those common sense measures?
Your bathroom example is interesting. Are you referring to Biden’s attempt to allow biological males unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms which have previously been reserved for biological females?
Art,
I would suggest that virtually anyone who runs for POTUS is a narcissist. At least to some degree. P-BO certainly was a narcissist, as were both Clintons. I’d suggest, and have heard others do so as well, that an somewhat amoral narcissist is what you want in a POTUS. Some of the decisions that need to be made, might best be made by someone who’s somewhat amoral and who’s narcissistic enough to believe that they have the right answer.
While you’re making your list, don’t forget that Biden is already talking about more troops in war zones. I suspect Dan will be excusing that move, if not actively cheering it.
Oh, I disagree, Craig. No doubt Dan will don his pacifist attire and claim he's always been against war like a good anabaptist, despite the inherent problem of one side being an oppressor against whom violence is OK...or some crap like that. He'll tell you he's been clear throughout the years about his stance on war, so there's no need to restate it while he deletes me for not restating my position on people with disabilities. And shame on you for not knowing whatever his rules are at the moment.
As to his bathroom example, much like his "making one's own medical decisions", marrying whomever, yada, yada, yada...those aren't personal/family decisions at all, in that they are decisions that affect on the person/family making them.
---The bathroom decision affects all females who must tolerate some mental case who thinks he's a female.
The GOP...conservatives more specifically, and those who are actual Christians primarily...understand these types of decisions aren't the same as deciding whether one and one's opposite sex spouse choose to have and raise a family. It's about whether they are allowed to murder the product of their sexual union if they don't...because it's a freakin' person. These types of differences are what make conservatives more morally sound and logical and better suited to determining law as it relates to one's personal life. Conservatives don't play games with semantics and definitions in order to pervert that which doesn't work in their personal favor, choosing instead to default to existing morality, virtue and principle without regard to how it impacts carnal desire.
In short...Dan's a joke.
---The "medical decisions" refers to murdering one's own child on the basis of the lie that one can't know if the child is a person because...well...one wants to pretend it isn't simply because of it's size, age and location. THAT person doesn't get a say in what the oppressor mother decides to do to it.
---"Marrying whomever" demands the rest of society agreeing to a definitional change forced upon them without their consent to appease the mentally disordered desires of those with perverse sexual attractions. Hardly a personal/family consequence for the rest of us normal people to be forced to pretend with the lie they wish to live.
As to narcissism, I would agree that each president is possessed of a decided high opinion of himself, to varying degrees determined by a variety of factors. I agree also that it doesn't necessarily mean that's a bad thing in a leader. Self-confidence is necessary. Trump's done a lot in his life as a builder/developer that justifies his self-image to a great extent. Don't know where Obama, Biden, Harris and those like them find justification. Certainly the first two haven't anything in their private lies to account for it. They just assume it. Indeed, I'd argue they have the least justification. They have no record.
By the way. I'm not making the list. I'm just presenting lists made by others. So in that sense I'm making a list of lists. I'll be getting to our new president later. I figure I've got at least two months before he's out of office.
As I said, I think some degree of amoral narcissism is a good trait for a president. As you might have noticed, Dan’s stance on violence has changed significantly since last summer. He’s now a supporter of (any/all) violence that is against oppression (as he defines oppression).
I’m going to hold off on commenting about Dan’s examples. He told me to ask questions and I’ve done so. I want to give him time before I conclude that this is just one more question he’s choosing to avoid. His approach has problems, but I can wait to point them out.
Craig... " You shouldn’t be against local governments expecting all medical facilities to meet some minimal standards... Do you support those common sense measures?"
I support local decisions SO LONG as they aren't infringing on others' decisions. That is, I support local hospitals' decisions SO LONG as they don't infringe upon the right of a class of people to seek the medical care they need. I support the family making their own local decisions.
Do you support family's making their own medical decisions about pregnancies?
IF, on the other hand, a local entity, for instance, refuses medical treatment to black people, THEN that state/city/business decision is causing harm to the liberty of individuals. THEN I support other federal or state authorities reminding people that ALL of us have liberties, not just men, not just black people.
Do YOU support larger authorities intervening when a more local authority is causing harm to a group/people like black people, gay people, women?
Craig... " Are you referring to Biden’s attempt to allow biological males unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms which have previously been reserved for biological females?"
I'm not aware of Biden's specific "attempt," but if YOU are talking about efforts to block trans-women (who ARE women) from using women's bathrooms in public places, then yes, I support the local and individual decision to make their own choices and I support federal and state authorities supporting those local decisions, those local human rights liberties.
Do you oppose women making the choice to use women's bathrooms, if they are trans-women?
I've answered your questions, perhaps you'll answer mine.
Also, as to this: " He’s now a supporter of (any/all) violence that is against oppression (as he defines oppression)."
In spite of reading my words, you still fail to understand. I never have said I support violence against oppression. I don't. I oppose that oppression which results in violence from the oppressed and I rightly assign the blame for that wrongful oppression TO THE OPPRESSORS.
Do you understand my position?
Do you disagree? Do you think that when an oppressed group fights back and causes harm to the oppressor, that it is the fault of the OPPRESSED or the OPPRESSOR?
"I support local decisions SO LONG as they aren't infringing on others' decisions. That is, I support local hospitals' decisions SO LONG as they don't infringe upon the right of a class of people to seek the medical care they need. I support the family making their own local decisions."
clearly you don't support asking the question as asked. I asked specifically about specific examples, and you chose not to include them in your quote of me, and chose not to answer them.
"Do you support family's making their own medical decisions about pregnancies"
In what sense? Do I support the family in deciding where to seek pre natal care? Yes. Do I support the father of the child having an equal say in decisions about the child he's fathered? Yes. Do I support underage children having elective surgery without parental consent? No. Do I support the decision of "the family" to end the existence of the life of a unique human being based on what's convenient? No. Your "question" as asked is simply too broad and vague to address every possible question you could possibly intend. Will you be answering the questions as asked?
"IF, on the other hand, a local entity, for instance, refuses medical treatment to black people, THEN that state/city/business decision is causing harm to the liberty of individuals. THEN I support other federal or state authorities reminding people that ALL of us have liberties, not just men, not just black people."
This is simply a diversionary tactic to hide the fact that you didn't asked the questions as asked, but want to pretend that you did.
"Do YOU support larger authorities intervening when a more local authority is causing harm to a group/people like black people, gay people, women?"
This question is much to vague to even begin to guess at what you are trying to get at. As a general answer, IF a local "authority" is intentionally causing specific and measurable harm to a "group" then I (an a vague, general sense) agree that there could be reason for a "higher" governing body to investigate or intervene. If you ask a vague, non specific question, then you'll be getting a vague non specific answer. Do you support that "higher authority", addressing the harm to one group, by choosing to inflict harm on another group?
"I'm not aware of Biden's specific "attempt," but if YOU are talking about efforts to block trans-women (who ARE women) from using women's bathrooms in public places, then yes, I support the local and individual decision to make their own choices and I support federal and state authorities supporting those local decisions, those local human rights liberties."
1. Please define specifically what "women" means.
2. "trans women" and biologically men who have (maybe) had some level of surgery or hormone "treatment" that removes of alters their biological makeup.
3. The act I refer to allows any biological male who identifies as a "women" unfettered access to women's restrooms, locker rooms, and sporting events.
Do you understand that by giving biological makes the choice to use whatever restroom or locker room they choose based on how they feel, that you are removing the choice from biological women/girls to feel uncomfortable changing or showering with biological males? Can you explain specifically why the "rights" of an incredibly small group of biological males override the privacy rights of women/girls?
"Do you oppose women making the choice to use women's bathrooms, if they are trans-women?"
I oppose biological women being forced to share women's bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, with biological males. I can't help but note that you've chosen to focus on the bathroom aspect (where there is some degree of individual privacy), while ignoring the locker room/shower aspect where there is virtually zero privacy.
Do you oppose the "rights" of biological males to deprive biological females the right of fair athletic competition? Do you support the "rights" of biological males to deprive biological females of athletic and educational opportunities?
"I've answered your questions, perhaps you'll answer mine."
No, you didn't, yet I still answered yours. Albeit in a manner that, in some cases, is as vague as the vague questions.
"Also, as to this: " He’s now a supporter of (any/all) violence that is against oppression (as he defines oppression).""
"In spite of reading my words, you still fail to understand. I never have said I support violence against oppression. I don't."
Support, excuse, rationalize, justify, whatever.
"I oppose that oppression which results in violence from the oppressed and I rightly assign the blame for that wrongful oppression TO THE OPPRESSORS."
Got it. You don't "support" violence against "oppressors", you just assign responsibility for that violence away from those who actually commit the violence, and toward those who aren't engaging in violence.
In the case of the 2020 violence, do you realize that you have now placed the blame on the local governments of the Twin Cities, Seattle, Portland, Louisville, ATL, DC, etc., all of which are (and have been for decades controlled by the political left?
"Do you understand my position?"
It's an absurd position, but I've always understood it. Unfortunately, you've chosen to focus on the semantics, not what I've actually said.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I think that people are responsible for their own choices and actions. It's especially absurd to try to excuse/justify/rationalize current violence as a direct/specific response to the past "oppression" of others. I further, find it incomprehensible that the assignment of blame for past "oppression" is so selectively applied.
"Do you think that when an oppressed group fights back and causes harm to the oppressor, that it is the fault of the OPPRESSED or the OPPRESSOR?"
Interesting question, several answers.
1. In general, i believe that people are responsible for their own choices and actions.
2. If the group that "fights back" engages in violence NOT aimed at their "oppressors", but instead engages in violent action that directly harms those who are weaker and less powerful, then those who "fight back" are becoming "oppressors" not the "oppressed".
3. In the case of the riot in January, the rioters actually targeted the people who actually have the power and authority to "oppress" people. Some of the people they targeted have been in g9vernment long enough that they actually "oppressed" people. In the case of the riots from 2020 that vast majority of those that were either harmed, or threatened with harm, were NOT people who are in positions of power or authority. I'd argue that while ALL rioting is wrong, and should be punished harshly, that rioting aimed directly AT those in power is theoretically more justifiable that rioting that harms those who are innocent, weaker, and not in positions of power.
4. Had the dozens of people who stood by and watched George Floyd die while either doing nothing or filming the event, engaged in violent action to save Floyd's life (presuming that he wouldn't have died from the massive amount of drugs in his system), they would have been 100% justified. The folks who waited a couple of days, and used Floyd as an excuse to loot, steal, and destroy are much less justified.
"IF you’re so big on local decision making, then you shouldn’t have a problem if Roe is overturned. You shouldn’t be against local governments expecting all medical facilities to meet some minimal standards. You shouldn’t have a problem with all our patient medical facilities being expected to have admitting privileges at hospitals. Do you support those common sense measures?"
To clarify, If Roe is overturned, then the decision about abortion and restrictions will be determined by the local governments you claim to respect so much. Why are you so obsessed with this being decided at the federal level, NOT at the state or local governments you claim to be so enamored with?
"Your bathroom example is interesting. Are you referring to Biden’s attempt to allow biological males unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms which have previously been reserved for biological females?"
Now that I've answered your questions (albeit with some qualifications), how about if you actually answer the questions asked, as they were asked?
Cannot allow lies to go unaddressed. "Transgendered" females...men who through medical means, surgical or pharmaceutical, alter their appearance to more closely resemble women they think they are...are men. They are NOT women and Dan proves he's a liar by saying otherwise.
Have you seen the video of the police officer running down a bunch of protesters in his car? I guess you want to blame the protesters, not the cop?
Without context, it’s impossible to answer definitively.
Still haven’t answered the questions asked, as asked, still asking more questions.
Impressive example of chutzpah.
Dan’s refusal to define the term woman, refusal to acknowledge biology (science denier), insistence on pretending that this is only about bathrooms, just shows that he’s committed to a narrative regardless of where the data leads.
Instead of answering the questions asked, as asked, and defining the term woman, Dan chose to rant.
So, because Dan wants this, I’ll ask more questions.
1. Doesn’t the fact that you have to add a qualifier to the term woman simply point out the reality that biological men aren’t women?
2. Are you suggesting that scientific disciplines such as biology and forensic medicine are not science?
Just more questions you can choose not to answer and continue to rant and sloganeer.
Instead of answering the questions asked, as asked, and defining the term woman, Dan chose to rant.
So, because Dan wants this, I’ll ask more questions.
1. Doesn’t the fact that you have to add a qualifier to the term woman simply point out the reality that biological men aren’t women?
2. Are you suggesting that scientific disciplines such as biology and forensic medicine are not science?
Just more questions you can choose not to answer and continue to rant and sloganeer.
Turning your own question on you, are you attempting to suggest that psychological and medical gender experts are not scientists but biologists are?
https://www.livescience.com/33513-men-vs-women-our-physical-differences-explained.html
https://fairplayforwomen.com/biological-sex-differences/
https://qz.com/1218680/the-science-of-sex-differences-is-nothing-for-feminists-to-be-afraid-of/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
https://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html
I could obviously find more, but this is plenty for Dan to refute or ignore.
"No, you don't "got it." I assign responsibility towards the ones who instigated it. If a man beats his wife and she hits him back, HE was the instigator."
You keep using this example, yet it's only true of the reaction is contemperaneous. If the wife gets abused once, then waits months, it's not self defense.
"If a society oppresses black people and some black people push back in violence, THE SOCIETY was the instigator."
If by society, you mean the governmental entities that control the city/state/country where the oppression is occurring, then why wouldn't you be all for wholesale replacement of those in power who are actually doing the "oppressing"?
"If a group of cops shoot rubber bullets at a crowd of peaceful protesters and some of the protesters push back with violence, the POLICE were the instigators."
In a hypothetical situation this might be reasonable. In real life, maybe not. Were the "peaceful protesters" threatening the police or innocent bystanders? Were the "peaceful protesters" violating the law, or endangering people? Were the "peaceful protesters" refusing to comply with the lawful, reasonable, commands of the police? Were the "peaceful protesters" violating curfew? Were there other incidents that would blur the line between "peaceful protesters" and rioters?
Please provide one actual example where police simply walked up to "peaceful protesters" and started shooting rubber bullets at them with absolutely zero provocation.
"Now, do you understand my position? Are you going to give a pass to the instigators and assign blame to those who responded to violence with violence?"
While I disagree with your premise, I would say that if I did agree with your premise than I would be energetically and actively campaigning to remove the "oppressors" from office and replace them with people who held different political philosophies. As someone who believes that we are all responsible for our choices and actions, I would hold the "oppressors" responsible for their choices and actions, and the rioters responsible for their choices and actions.
"If so, shame on you. You're missing the point and taking the side of the oppressors, if this is your stance."
It's not, and shame on your for continuing to make shit up and attribute it to me.
"Why are you not understanding why?"
Why aren't you answering the question as asked multiple times?
'People have the right to make their own medical decisions. NOT a local gov't. NOT a preacher. NOT a church. NOT you, except for your own medical decisions. It is not up to a local gov't or a preacher or a bunch of Christians or a bunch of Muslims deciding what a woman should do about her pregnancy. IF a local group tries to oppress an individual on this matter, THEN federal authorities should step in. Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose."
Since I didn't ask about any of this, there is noting to do but point out that it's just a straw man.
"Your right to decide medical decisions ENDS at your body."
Really? Are you sure you want to stick with this hunch of yours?
"Get your gov't - local or federal - the hell out of our lives. Now do you understand?"
I'd love to get as much government as possible out of my life. Unfortunately, your side of the aisle isn't a big fan of that.
Are you talking about ALL medical decisions, or just the decision to end the life of an individual human at certain stages of development?
If one does make the choice to end another individual's human life, then are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a role in regulating the conditions under which this medical procedure is practiced, and in the safety of those who undergo it?
"1. First of all, I doubt that there are many women who have a problem with a person identifying as a woman using the women's bathroom. Much of the time, they wouldn't even know, right?"
A) This is an unsupported assumption on your part, which just happens to support your political views. In other words, worthless.
b) The fact that you continue to pretend that this is just about bathrooms, just demonstrates that you really don't actually want to deal with the reality of this unilateral decision imposed by Biden.
"2. If there are women who are uncomfortable with women who were born male, isn't that their problem? Why does that become the problem of the transgender woman?"
Excellent response. If biological women (the vast majority) have a problem with biological males entering spaces that have heretofore been reserved for the privacy of biological women, then just "fuck them". What a gentle, respectful, and graceful way to treat those affected by this unilateral decree. By the way, if a few biological women lose opportunities for education, or athletic success along the way, then "Fuck them" too.
"3. Do you KNOW how uncomfortable it is for a woman (a transgender woman) to use a MEN'S restroom?"
Given the fact that they've most likely been using the men's room for their entire lives, it shouldn't be too traumatic for them to use the john with other biological males. Interesting that in your #2, you dismiss the "comfort" of biological women as immaterial, while insisting that the comfort of a tiny minority should be imposed on the vast majority.
"4. Do you KNOW that there is zero data (at least that I'm aware of/have ever heard) of a transgender woman giving other women a hard way to go in bathrooms? Isn't this a manufactured fear?"
What you mean then is that your just trying to cloak your hunches in made up "facts". I could start with your unproven assumption that 100% these surgically altered biological males have absolutely zero sexual interest on biological women, and suggest that you start there. I could wonder if giving this tiny number of surgically altered biological males this degree of power over over biological women might affect how they interact in bathroom, locker rooms, and showers.
"Straight MEN have harassed women in bathrooms, but not transgender women."
Please provide objective proof of the second part of this claim.
"I say let's worry about actual problems, not ones based on unfounded fears. Do you disagree?"
If you'd only apply this notion across the board, maybe I could.
"Can you explain specifically why the "rights" of an incredibly small group of biological males override the privacy rights of women/girls?"
Excellent question, perhaps you could answer it.
"IF a transgender woman (it's incredibly offensive of you conservative bigots to INSIST on calling them "biological males..." not that you appear to give a damn) being in a bathroom bothers another woman by her mere presence, that woman is free to leave."
What a strange world you live in where accurately describing someone is offensive, and where you have such little concern for the rights and feelings of others. Again, if you are willing to apply this "they can just leave" standard across the board, then we could discuss it. But as long as it's just a convenient cudgel to force others to acquiesce to your political demands, then I'm out.
"Science does NOT support your biased, hateful hunches. Read that. Say it to yourself. Understand it. SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR BIASED, HATEFUL HUNCHES. Stop saying that science supports your hunches. Science does not. You do not speak for God, nor do you speak for science. Quit pretending otherwise. SCIENCE DOES NOT SAY that transgender women are not women. Science does NOT say that. YOU CAN NOT support your hateful, ignorant hunches with "science," and quit pretending that science is on your side. It's not. Just stop it. Scientific American tells you to stop your ignorant hate claims. Your HUNCHES are "anti-science," according to Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ The scientists at Nature say that you have NO BASIS IN SCIENCE to make your hate-based claims. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8 Just stop it. Ignorant claims do not help your cause."
I posted multiple links to actual scientist and medical experts that disagree with you.
"Well you mostly dodge my questions,"
Well, you mostly just lie about this, and still haven't defined the term woman or answered the questions I asked days ago, but if living an a fantasy world helps you get through the days, go right ahead.
"here's another answer to one of yours... "Doesn’t the fact that you have to add a qualifier to the term woman simply point out the reality that biological men aren’t women?" No. Not according to scientists. Not according to experts. No. That is a straight and clear answer. I hope you can understand it. When I say no, what I mean by that is no. Understand? And when I cite experts, the APA, for instance, I mean, according to experts, the answer to your question is no."
OK, as long as you insist on this, without actually providing any hard data, then you must be right. Are you really saying that biological men who have undergone surgery, and/or been injected with hormones not produced by their bodies naturally are 100% indistinguishable from biological women? I need a specific, direct, answer to this question ASAP.
"Now some individual people we have biases and antagonistic hateful views shaped by their religion or culture and they might answer otherwise. But according to the experts, the answer to your question is no."
OK, again the appeal to unidentified "experts" with no actual hard data to prove your hunch is always compelling. Repeating yourself in lieu of providing hard, objective, proof is also very effective.
""Are you suggesting that scientific disciplines such as biology and forensic medicine are not science?" Again, no. I am not suggesting that. I am telling you that biology and forensic medicine experts are not telling you that transgender women are not women."
Are these experts really suggesting that biological men who have undergone extensive alterations in their quest to appear to be women, are 100% indistinguishable form biological women? Are they suggesting that the forensic science that can identify bodies years after death, will identify these biological males as females?
"Look at the expert information that I sent you and listen to The Experts. Or, if you prefer, listen to non experts who have religious and cultural biases. For instance, you might listen to some Muslim extremists, because they agree with your views. But I generally suggest listening to experts. Your attempts to suggest biologists agree with you are a failure. Your attempts to suggest that scientists agree with you are a failure. You're just flatly mistaken."
Only if you ignore the multiple links I've given you that disagree with your hunch.
"Turning your own question on you, are you attempting to suggest that psychological and medical gender experts are not scientists but biologists are?"
I'm suggesting the radical notion that biology/physiology/genetics/ etc are what most would call "hard" science. In that they deal with things that are quantifiable/testable/repeatable/physical/etc.
I'm suggesting that psychiatry/psychology is not a "hard" science in that they deal with things that can't be measured or quantified, they deal with the metaphysical, not the physical. Are you really suggesting that the metaphysical is more "real" than the physical? Or are you suggesting that if the metaphysical and the physical "disagree" that the metaphysical is to be believed 100% of the time?
I'm suggesting that the "medical" category is simply a meaningless attempt to give your hunch support. But, let's see if some questions can help out.
If you show a podiatrist the x-rays of the foot of a biological male, and a biological female, the podiatrist would likely be able to differentiate between the two with a 90+% degree of accuracy, does that medical expertise help prove your hunch?
If a surgically altered biological male, and a surgically unaltered biological female were both being treated for the same form of cancer, would a medical expert give them the same dosages of the same medicines?
How many medical professionals would diagnose a surgically altered biological male with cervical cancer?
Would a medical professional be able to distinguish between a surgically altered biological male, and a biological female using objective testing? (X-rays. blood work, etc)
From what I can see of your link, it mostly consisted of people saying "We don't know why, and we can't explain it, but we choose to believe that the metaphysical is more reliable than the physical.". Or similar crap.
"From the article I just sent... “We know that there is a significant, durable biological underpinning to gender identity,” Dr. Safer said. “What we don’t know are all of the biological factors at play that explain gender identity. As far as we in the mainstream biological-medical community understand it in 2018, it is hard-wired, it is biological, it is not entirely hormonal, and we do not have identified genes, so we cannot specifically say it is genetic.”"
Thanks for demonstrating my point above. We don't know what it is, we haven't found it, but we know we're right anyway.
If that's what passes for hard data in your world, then I pity you.
"If you think that biology is on your side, perhaps the problem is that you have a great school understanding of biology and know that the boys have penises and girls have vaginas. And that was the extent of your learning in biology. But there's more to biology in that little point. Perhaps it's time to start reasoning like an adult and not based on grade school science."
Excellent combo of logical fallacies. To combine the straw man, with the ad hom is impressive indeed.
Unfortunately, your assumptions would be incorrect. When I talk about biological differences, I'm talking about musculoskeletal differences, differences in how effectively the body uses O2, obviously about the chromosomal/genetic differences, and differences in the function of the brain. But, it's quite the impressive pile of bullshit to waste my time.
"First of all, you're ignoring the science that I posted."
No, I'm not. I hadn't read the peer reviewed article from that prestigious medical journal, the Washington Post. I was preempting that newspaper article.
"Secondly, just looking at your first link, it does not address gender. It is not making the argument that you think it is making. It's explaining the difference between men and women... but it's not addressing the scientific realities that we know now about gender. Thus, your first article does not say anything about the topic. Nothing. The articles I submitted, are specifically talking about gender and saying that you are wrong just as a point of fact from what science is actually saying. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand that the article you cited, the first one anyway, it's not saying what you think it's saying? But it's not addressing gender?"
No, it's saying exactly what I think it's saying. It's pointing out the reality that there are undeniable, biological differences between men and women. It's pointing out that these are differences that we can see, touch, measure, quantify, and that are objective. The fact that you disdain those biological objective realities for a metaphysical, theoretical, unproven, notion about "gender" isn't my problem.
You still haven't explained why you think the metaphysical is more real and reliable than the physical?
"The same is true for your second article. That is, it's not addressing gender science. Fail. Science is still not saying what you think it's saying. Are you truly not understanding the difference between gender and sex?"
No it's not. It's referencing the undeniable reality that there are measurable, physical differences between men and women.
"Same for your third article. Are none of them them dealing with the science of gender? We can all agree that little boys have penii has a little girls have vaginas. That there's two differences between men and women. But with people assigned male at birth that are also differences in gender. Do you understand the science involved? I mean, if you want to deal with a third grade understanding of gender, you can, but you'll have to step out of the way when the adults are having a conversation about the topic. Look at the science that I sent you. You deal with that. Your articles are meaningless on the topic if they're not addressing the topic. Do you understand?"
Do I understand that no one is sinking to your childish, wee-wee, hoo-ha, false characterization of the biological case against you.
I understand that you need to introduce this metaphysical concept of "gender" as something that 100% overrules the physical reality of our biology/physiology. I understand that you can't point to what specifically causes "gender" or why "gender" overrules biology. I understand that you've moved "gender" from something externally imposed by society, to something that is intrinsic to humanity, without being able to explain it or identify it.
But, even if your notions about "gender" as 100% factual and immutable, you're still stuck with the fact that in 99.58% of the population the metaphysical notion of "gender" aligns with the physical biology of the person. The fact that you want to make major structural/societal changes based on .42% of the population, makes absolutely no sense.
Now, answer the original questions, as asked, as well as the rest that you've ignored. I've answered all of yours in this thread (withing the limitations I've noted, and that you haven't addressed), so it's your turn.
"Look, I've pointed you to the actual science (not "metaphysical.""
If saying "We don't know, but we're sure we're right" is science, then I'm not sure what to do with that. Of course, you've placed the metaphysical over the physical, you just haven't explained or proven why this is the case. What you haven't done is defined the term woman, answered questions as asked, or answered any of the follow up questions you invited me to ask. Given that reality, the entire rest of this comment is a waste of time to respond to.
"Read more so that you understand). I've pointed out that your articles are not saying what you THINK they are saying. That your articles are not discussing gender, just differences between men and women without touching on gender science."
You are correct, they are pointing out physical, biological, measurable, identifiable, differences between men and women. Unfortunately, a little cosmetic surgery and hormones don't erase these differences. You just want to ignore the biological reality.
When you can show me one "fact" that can be proven objectively regarding "gender science", then I might take you seriously. But you just repeating your insistence, isn't proof. It's not even data.
"So, your articles do not one single thing to help your argument. I've pointed you to the science and I've pointed out your error. If you can't read the science and understand, I can't help you further."
The "science" that can't actually explain anything, just assert things. That's not data.
"But in ALL that you've said, you got at least ONE thing correct, even if you weren't aware of it. You said: "If biological women (the vast majority) have a problem with biological males entering spaces that have heretofore been reserved for the privacy of biological women, then just "fuck them". What a gentle, respectful, and graceful way to treat those affected by this unilateral decree""
Thanks you for acknowledging that you support a unilateral decree that potentially harms 99.52% of biological women, and that deprives women of the ability to use athletics as a means to access higher education or career advancement. Who is the dictator here?
"Look, the reality is, if a white family says to a black family "you have to move off our park, out of our town, you can't use our water fountains or shop in our stores or eat in our diners, your presence makes us uncomfortable..." THEN the correct (if crude) answer to those white racists is "Fuck 'em." That is, to hell with their racist "discomfort." Your "discomfort" does not outweigh the right of the black family to be in your neighborhood/town/diner. IF their human rights makes you "uncomfortable," you're going to have to get over it. You're living in the wrong century if you think you can oppress people in that manner. Do you disagree? Or do you think we need to be "graceful" and "accommodating" to the racists' "discomfort..."? No, the rational, moral and just right answer to that discomfort is, "Get over it or move away." And that is because in our nation, you are not free to oppress people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Do you understand? If you understand that, then perhaps you'll one day understand the right answer to men or women who are "uncomfortable" with a transgender man or woman just BEING is "Fuck your feelings. Your 'discomfort' does not outweigh their reality. Your 'discomfort' does not outweigh their human rights." In the meantime, read about gender science. It's time to reason as an adult and put behind your childish and scientifically illiterate prejudices."
Just more crap with little or no basis in reality.
If you can't objectively define women, or answer both the original questions as asked, as well as the follow up questions you (falsely) claimed to welcome, that's your choice. Just stop throwing out more of your straw man/ad hom bullshit.
It's interesting that in your fantasy world, biology/physiology/genetics/etc aren't really science, but "gender science" is.
In addition to the failure to define the term woman, and answer questions, I want to note the following.
This post started by focusing on the perils of a professional, “expert”, political class, then devolved from there. Instead of discussing the questions asked regarding the appropriateness of local government enforcement of health and safety standards on outpatient medical providers, we’re down to Dan insisting that “gender science” is 100% objective, proven beyond question.
In case anyone wonders why I try to keep Dan focused on the topic.
Haha! "Gender 'science'". That's funny.
Should a dude who thinks he's a woman die and his body is found one hundred years later, no amount of surgery and hormone treatment will confuse forensic experts in determining his sex as a male.
I don't think anyone would argue the notion that some people feel they are of the sex opposite what their physiology clearly says they are. The question is whether or not they should be enabled in their delusion or helped to cope with it properly. We've seen plenty that suggests the "transition" route does little to soothe their mental/emotional state for the vast majority of them.
More importantly is the degree to which the rest of us must accommodate those with said delusion, regardless of whether or not we choose to accept their decision to transition. That is, I'm willing to live and let live, but that shouldn't be a one-way policy to my disadvantage, which is clearly what "Equality Act" type proposals, and Biden's EO specifically, force upon us. In women's sports, this disadvantage is screamingly obvious. My 7 yr old granddaughter can still compete against 7 yr old boys in her favored sports of basketball and soccer. But as they get older, here skills will not be enough to overcome all the physical advantages the boys will at that point possess, just by being boys. Those advantages are impossible to mitigate. Simply because a boy takes hormones and has body parts cut off, he will still cause far greater physical harm when either of these sports become physical as they always do because that's how they're played.
Now imagine pugilistic sports. Males can kill female opponents in the ring far more easily than to face other males, simply because of the physiological differences between the two.
And what of those men who have no desire to alter their physical appearances to match their delusion of being female? They walk about as any other man but choose female facilities and options. By Dan's demented and perverse logic, there's no justifiable way to prevent their demand they be treated as women, since "gender 'science'" (*guffaw*) insists these dude are women because of how they identify, not by their appearance. So someone who looks like Dan (and who have my sympathies for such) to have the freedom to use female locker rooms, compete in women's sports, be housed in women's shelter and prisons...for real women to object means nothing and by Dan's deviancy, it doesn't. The dude believes he's a chick and real chicks must just shut up and accept it.
Dan then pretends there's no evidence of men using this fraud to gain access to women for evil intent. Dan conveniently forgets that I've presented a video made by a woman that clearly belies this lie. The woman provides at least a dozen cases (and by "at least" I mean I believe there were more), with names and even pictures for most, of men of various stages of transition, who were allowed entry to women's facilities, including shelters, and attacked women without provocation by the actual women.
What's most typical is the lack of definitive "science" that enablers like Dan can find to back up their perverse support for this unfortunate mental illness. There's not even a definitive study separating this form of identity disorder from others, such as anorexia, for example, where an rail thin 80lb woman continues to see herself as fat or overweight. How is the guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte not given the same considerations for his very real (in his own mind) belief? or the guy who thinks he's a cat or demon (pics of such can be found on the internet)?
As with homosexuality, no such study or research is ever provided to shut down opposing views because no such definitive work exists. Yet, policy and laws are enacted based on that which has no solid science behind it at all. Just speculation from those of the scientific community who share the beliefs of these people. Thus, they offer no true help and treatments that would bring them in line with reality. The vast majority of the population is merely forced to comply with that which at this point is total fantasy, while those who are exploited for the purpose do not get the help they need.
This is what "experts" driving policy does to the culture.
" I asked you reasonable questions about the post that you didn't answer. I TRIED to make some sense of your post and you opted not to clarify by dodging answers to reasonable questions. That's on you, not me. That's YOU choosing to not clarify and answer questions, not me."
Except, you can't actually point to a question that I didn't deal with, and you still ignore the fact that you've left multiple questions unanswered or chose not to answer the question as asked. I've been pointing out your double standard for quite some time, this is just one more example of you lying to divert attention from your failure to do what you demand of others.
"However, FROM there, we see that you appear to reject the wisdom of experts (no one is saying experts are 100% objective, a false claim from you that will no doubt just be left there) and I see now that this post (in spite of its irrational and meaningless analogy) is built upon the notion of "I don't believe the experts. I, Craig, am better able to make complex medical and societal advice over the experts." This latest sidebar about your rejection of science, of yes, BIOLOGY - which doesn't say what you are saying it says - and other fields of expertise and study. But the fool rejects the wisdom of elders and experts. I'd be wary of that."
So, instead of answering the questions or acknowledge your hijacking of the actual topic, you choose to spin some fantasy tale where you ascribe all sorts of motives and motivations to me. You pass of one article as the work of "experts" (ignoring what they actually said), while ignoring multiple other articles (also from experts) that don't support your premise. Of course, it's hard to know exactly what your premise is because you won't define the term woman, won't answer questions, and keep moving the topic wherever you want to.
" PREFER local decisions. The more local decisions and policies, the better, generally speaking. I prefer families, for instance, making their own medical decisions or decisions about who to marry or what flipping BATHROOM they use!"
Yet you support Roe, which takes the decisions AWAY from state and local governments, and I suspect that you support Biden's executive orders on some of these topics, which also take away from the "local decisions" you claim to prefer. I suspect that you "prefer" local decisions when they fit your partisan agenda, and you "prefer" federal decisions when local decisions don't go the way you want them to. It's more about forcing people to bend to your political agenda, than about allowing local jurisdictions to make local decisions.
I"t's why I counsel you to ask questions when you don't understand what a liberal's position actually is (which seems to be pretty regular) and when you THINK you understand a liberal's position, ask them nonetheless, because historically, you've shown an inability to rightly state our positions."
What in interesting comment. You "counsel" me to ask questions, then you don;t answer them, then you bitch about me not understanding your positions. Just one more double standard.
"I don't think anyone would argue the notion that some people feel they are of the sex opposite what their physiology clearly says they are."
The question then is, which is the more reliable metric. The physical or the metaphysical? Do we really posses enough understanding of the human mind to say with confidence that what we think is more real than what we are?
The bigger problem is that this whole notion clashes with those who believe in a materialist/Darwinian worldview. If one accepts that the "mind is a computer made of meat", or that matter is all that there is, then how does one diminish the material in favor of the immaterial?
"My 7 yr old granddaughter can still compete against 7 yr old boys in her favored sports of basketball and soccer. But as they get older, here skills will not be enough to overcome all the physical advantages the boys will at that point possess, just by being boys. Those advantages are impossible to mitigate. Simply because a boy takes hormones and has body parts cut off, he will still cause far greater physical harm when either of these sports become physical as they always do because that's how they're played."
This is something that Dan ignores entirely in his myopic focus on bathrooms. The fact that Biden unilaterally decided to harm female athletes, and the educational opportunities that athletics gives women is shameful. The fact that there is nothing to stop a biological male (with absolutely no alterations) from dominating women's sports as well as having free access to women's locker rooms seems like a shot at women.
This is a great example of two DFL interest groups who's interests are opposed to each other. The only way to advance the cause of "trans women" is to diminish the status of biological women.
I have to note that Dan tried the mockery (little boys have pee-pees, little girls have hoo-hoos and ta-tas) tactic yesterday. One has to wonder why, if those differences in the physical, material, biological, body are so insignificant why so much effort is expended to remove or alter them?
Dan can't define woman, I wonder if he can define "trans woman". Let's take two examples. Bruce Jenner has spent thousands/millions of dollars on plastic surgery and still looks like a guy dressed as a woman. He's uniformly treated as a woman among the liberal elites. Ellen Page (a lesbian) simply announced that she was now a he named Elliot. She got a haircut, and bought a bunch of boy's clothes and baseball hats. She is also treated as if she's a he by the liberal elites.
Clearly the notion that "trans" involves anything except a declaration and some cosmetic changes is ludicrous.
Tucker Carlson, last night, had a discussion with a woman with a book out regarding the inane and insane "transgender" lies, in which she spoke of the fastest woman in international track competition. She is said to have more awards than Usain Bolt(sp). There are 300 high school boys who can beat her best times.
Identity disorders are horrible conditions. Some people actually identify as cats, even employing surgeries to look more like one. Should employers provide litter boxes? I've read where a middle-aged man identifies as a little girl in diapers. The most alarming case is Dan identifying as a Christian.
I just read a story about someone who identifies as an alien, and has gotten tattooed and modified to further his delusion.
A simple look at track and field records demonstrate that a below average biological male can beat elite biological females in track and field. Of course that costs women opportunities for education and professional sports, as well as being forced to share locker rooms with biological makes.
This notion that Ellen Page is just as much a man as Bruce Jenner is a woman is just nuts.
Of course, if it’s true that men have all sorts of advantages, why aren’t women switching over in droves to get the extra benefits?
Hate comments will always be hate comments. Doesn't matter if, in your ignorance, you don't recognize how hateful your words are.
The idiot who calls black people the "N" word are still engaging in hate speech, even if they don't recognize it.
Open your eyes. Learn from LGBTQ folks.
Stop your ignorant hate.
An interesting poll, assuming we could trust responses are honest: how many fake women got into women's sports because they weren't good enough to compete as men, versus how many fake women became interested in athletic competition after "transitioning"?
Clearly, Ellen Page is absolutely just as nuts as Bruce Jenner.
Again with the straw man/ad hom combo platter. Still no definition of the term woman, no answers to the original questions as asked, no answers to any other questions either.
What can be learned from this?
I think that there are a number of dudes who will announce themselves as chicks long enough to win a few HS state championships. They’ll never bother with hormones or surgery, probably won’t even change how they dress that much. These are the kids who construct little league teams so that they’re always 1.5-2 years older than their competition. Or the college stud athletes who play down in softball.
What’s interesting is that the very notion of doing anything to win, no matter how much of an unfair advantage you have, is a trait that is stereotypically male, and isn’t particularly flattering.
Craig (and Marshal, with his similarly ignorant comments...) " think that there are a number of dudes who will announce themselves as chicks long enough to win a few HS state championships. "
This line of thinking is just SO ASTOUNDINGLY ignorant and arrogant and hateful. How do you all move through the day in the adult world with this level of ignorance? How many trans people do you all know? ANY?
Good Lord, have mercy. Protect this world from the ignorant and the hateful. Open up the eyes of the ignorant and hateful. Protect those who have been oppressed for centuries by these sorts of people (people like me, once upon a time). Thank you for forgiveness. Thank you for second chances. Thank you for opportunities to learn and grow.
In the name of Jesus, Amen.
The funny thing is that Dan’s focus (bathrooms) is actually the simplest to solve. Simply configure all public bathrooms as single “stalls” (toilet/sink), 4 walks, lockable door, and don’t specify who uses which one.
That’s simple and is already happening. It’s the stuff that Dan ignores that’s the problem.
To add ignorance of reality to the ad hom/straw man combo, to the lengthy avoidance of defining the term woman, to failing to answer the questions as asked, to simply pretending that multiple follow up questions haven’t been avoided, is quite impressive.
I don't know to whom Dan is praying, but given his woeful rejection of God in favor of all manner of immorality, it can't be the One True God. Thus, a waste of keystrokes.
I find it typical that Dan will ignore logic and reason and suggest that without personal relationships with these disordered individuals, there can be no true understanding of the issue. I see that lame-assed argument and raise it with the obvious counter: being too close to the issue due to personal relationships clouds the salient points. I've known nice guys who were involved in criminal activity. If I was to judge their behavior by their "niceness", it would corrupt the entire concept of their criminal behavior. This is a not uncommon phenomena. It's a form of Stockholm Syndrome (or must we now call it "Stockholm Dysphoria?).
And while we talk to these disordered people, what of the many girls and women who are forced to tolerate that which they find incredibly "uncomfortable"? I find their fears and discomfort far more compelling as what they must endure is the result of enabling lies and the moral corruption of enablers like Dan. He doesn't care about learning and growing. Dan cares about imposing his deviancy upon the nation...just like the LGBT community...without regard for what's best for the nation. This is clear in his never having expounded on how we're improved by doing things his way.
I wonder who a lot of people pray to, and what they think praying accomplishes.
On an unrelated note, THIS would drive a bunch of racists, as well as conservatives like you two, crazy, wouldn't it? That is, if BLM won the Nobel Peace Prize, you all would be flummoxed and paralyzed by an ability to even comprehend it, because you accept the racist story line that BLM represents thugs and hoodlums, instead of justice warriors.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/black-lives-matter-nobel-peace-prize-petter-eide-norweigan-mp
Of course, your inability to understand the importance of BLM and the just work they do is not an indication of anything beyond your inability to understand.
Sadly.
May your eyes be opened.
Why am I not surprised. Instead of defining the term woman, answering the questions as asked, and answering the follow up questions, we get this steaming pile of excrement.
Continuing along the ad him/straw man combo platter we’ve been served for a while, we see those garnished with additional falsehoods.
I guess things are different when you don’t have control and are held to account.
The problem with your bigoted and hateful question is that it's a stupid question. I define woman as it is defined in the dictionary. And a transgender woman is someone who identifies as a woman. They may or may not be transitioning to having female body parts but they identify as a woman.
That's their gender. As a matter of fact.
But this is of course obvious for anyone with an ounce of brains and decency. What in the hell is wrong with you that you can't just say yes you're a woman? Must you be hateful... Must you go to a hateful place? What does it hurt you to say She if she tells you she's a she? Are you harmed somehow by a woman identifying as a woman?
The answer is no.
The answer is it's none of your goddamned business.
Get the hell out of people's bathrooms. Get some help.
Or move to an anti Human Rights country where they punish things like that. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable in a fascist Society like that. I counsel Grace, not hate.
After being asked multiple times to provide a simple definition, this is the bullshit you come up with. More with the ad hom/straw man personal attacks, instead of providing a definition. The fact that you waited almost this time before you pulled this bullshit, tells me all I need to know.
Dictionary definition of woman
1a : an adult female person
Dictionary definition of a female
1a(1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs
This of course poses a challenge for Dan's "definition". Dan further says that "having female body parts" doesn't determine of one is a woman. Clearly, that would be at odds with the dictionary definition.
The question is then raised, what makes something a "female body part"?
For example does skin, a nipple, and a bag of silicone actually become a breast? Or does an actual breast require all of the component parts of a breast?
Does surgically removing the penis, cutting a "hole" in the body, and refashioning part of the penis into something that gives sensations similar to a clitoris, turn into an actual fully functioning vagina, or is it a less capable substitute?
Are things like bones, brains, muscles, lungs, DNA and chromosomes considered "body parts"?
For someone who frequently argues that words have specific meanings, I guess this particular word is the exception.
I'm sure that all the biological women who just lost their uniqueness, are thrilled by this news.
And the hateful, godless nonsense continues. Repent. Open your eyes to the harm you're doing, stop it and repent.
Now the dictionary is hateful and godless. This notion of words meaning things can really be a problem when you’re swimming against the tide.
It’s like the old, “How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg” joke. The fact that you can surgically alter one body part to make a facsimile of another body part, doesn’t magically change those body parts.
I get that all you have is your ad hom/straw man/false witness trifecta to fall back on, honestly it’s kind of amusing to watch you desperately try to avoid the dictionary definitions, the reality of biology, and so many more questions.
Do I need to define hateful and godless as well? Or can you specifically point out what you’re talking about.
No, you don't need to define anything. You NEED to recognize the harm you're causing. YOU and YOUR hate speech. The dictionary isn't doing anything wrong. YOU are deliberately looking at a person who says she's a she and YOU, for no good or decent reason, are saying, "I will NOT recognize you as you desire..."
You're doing this NOT because God has told you to do this, because God has not told you ANY of this shit.
You're doing this NOT because you're in a better place than gender experts to recognize someone's gender, because you're not and experts and the dictionary have NOT told you this.
You're doing this NOT because you know better than the person themselves, because that's arrogant as shit and just stupidly false.
In the end, you're doing this for NOT ONE SINGLE good, decent or rational reason. You're doing it because of your biases and backwards arrogant ignorance. You're doing it because your culture (not God, not experts, not reason) are telling you "ew, trans people are icky..." and you're buying into their hateful arrogance.
Again, WHY not just let people, themselves, understand their gender and get the hell out of their business?
Shame on you. Stop. Open your eyes. Open your mind. Embrace reason and basic common human decency.
Repent.
That’s the most impressive collection of blatantly false, ad hom, straw men I’ve ever seen.
There’s only one explanation for this level of vitriolic hatred and lies. It’s kind of pathetic to watch you go off the deep end like this.
I guess you’ve given up your love affair with dictionary definitions and words meaning things for this absurd notion that imagination somehow equals reality.
I guess this is why you won’t define terms and answer questions, it’s easier to attack people that make your case.
“ Again, WHY not just let people, themselves, understand their gender and get the hell out of their business?”
Ahhhhh, the let people mind their own business line of bullshit. Back in the day, it was let gays do what they want in their bedrooms, except y’all weren’t content to keep things in the bedroom.
The problem with this line of bullshit, is that we’re not dealing with people living out their own personal reality. We’re dealing with being forced to affirm these people’s delusions, and actually mandating harm to others.
But you keep up the bullshit, it’s your new go to.
Then answer this: Do you KNOW the harm you're doing and you just don't give a damn? Or are you ignorant of the harm, the hatefulness, the petty, despicable and diabolical nature of your actions?
When you meet God one day, and God rebukes you for your prideful and hateful attitudes towards innocent people you don't even know, will you have the good sense to be ashamed of your actions? Or will you tell God that God is wrong?
The unbelievable hubris of you demanding that I answer your questions, given your refusal to do so, is astounding.
I’m doing zero harm.
There is no hate in my “actions”.
When I meet God one day, I’ll have plenty to be ashamed of, although this isn’t it, I think I’ll be more overwhelmed with God’s grace at forgiving my multitude of sins than embarrassed about getting you angry.
I’m not presuming to tell God anything.
Are you suggesting that God has definitively spoken on this issue, and that you are 100% sure that you know what He’s said?
So, the answer to my question is, you do not realize the harm you're doing.
I am very well aware of the harm you are doing because I talk with people nearly every day about the harm you have caused. You and people like you.
People who have left the church because of shitty behavior like what you're doing right now. People whose families have abused them and left them and abandoned them because of words like yours. People who have psychological harm because of the attacks of idiots like you do on post like this.
The unending Relentless attacks and denial of the humanity of people just living their lives because you presume to know best on their behalf.
There ARE lives that are harmed. People are dead because of people like you.
That you are not aware of the harm just speaks to your ignorance and not to the idea that you're not causing any harm. I have seen the harm. Give up your arrogance. You can't deny the harm.
Listen to transgender people. Don't say another goddamn word until you start to listen to what transgender people are saying. Do not speak from a place of utter and dangerous idiotic ignorance. Humble yourself.
As do your question, "Are you suggesting that God has definitively spoken on this issue, and that you are 100% sure that you know what He’s said?"
I'm saying that God has not said a single thing about the topic of transgender people. That is, in the Bible, there is no discussion of this topic and Christians like you to claim to speak for God and suggest the God has condemned it are just damned Liars and factually wrong. God has not told you God's opinion on transgender questions. Do you acknowledge that reality?
And while God, in the Bible, never speaks to issues related to transgender questions, God did give us common sense. God did give us the ability to reason. God did give us the ability to think things through and reach moral conclusions. And God did constantly, constantly, over and over and over, in the Bible remind us that God was on the side of the least of these, the oppressed, the marginalized Ama those innocent to suffer harm at the hands of jackals.
And given the ability to reason, to reach moral conclusions, to recognize the value a siding with the oppressed and marginalized, of course it is reasonable to take the side I've transgender people. They are perhaps one of the most demonized and attacked groups a people in all of history. Certainly it all modern history, and certainly the hands of the so-called Church.
Why wouldn't I lend support to transgender people and stand against idiots like you who can't do the simple - the very basic simple step of recognizing their Humanity and allowing them to tell you who they are without arrogantly and diabolically saying "no, you are wrong. That's not who you are."
What the hell is wrong with you? At the very least, Do no harm. At the very least, shut the hell up and mind your own business. Just have that much basic decency.
Craig... "I’m doing zero harm.
There is no hate in my “actions”."
Again, then you are ignorant of the harm you were doing. But do this. Connect with local lgbtq organizations in your community. Take them your words from this post. Ask some of the transgender people there, or maybe some that you actually know, do these sorts of words cause harm? Do these sorts of words promote hate?
You think you're doing no harm, you say. I'm telling you, words like these do cause harm. I'm saying that because I know transgender people. I know that because I read their words. I know what they said. So I know the harm that's game calls by words like yours. At the very least, operate from a place of intellectual Integrity. He can't say I'm not causing any harm if you are ignorant of it. Ask people. Let them tell you. Listen to what they say. If they're willing to talk to you, even. Some folks have been so wounded and harmed by conservative churches and people like you that they can't even spend the effort to talk with people like you because of the harm people like you have inflicted upon them. On the other hand, the transgender folks I know are exceedingly gracious and willing to help educate people like you. So, talk to them. Listen to what they say.
Then, and only then, if you still think you're causing no harm, come back here speak from a place of at least having a little information. But you really should stop speaking on this topic if you are ignorant of the harm that you're doing. Ignorance is not a good starting point.
1. And there’s the difference between us, I answered you’re questions, you won’t.
2. You can twist my answer however you like, you’ll keep falsely characterizing my answers no matter what I do or say.
3. This notion that I’m directly “harming” people I’ve never met, never been in a position to affect, and have absolutely zero power to enforce my views on anyone, is quite bizarre. It’s like you want to make me responsible for things you claim others have done, while simultaneously arguing that the leftist protesters aren’t responsible for the actions they actually engaged in. I’d ask for an explanation, but we both know that you’re not answering questions and haven’t for quite a while.
4. Of course people are dead because of people like you, but you ignore that.
5. While your in the mindset to deny reality, it’s pointless to explain that “people” that you perceive as “like me”, are not me. I have no responsibility for the actions you attribute to them. Hell, given your inability to actually provide and details or specifics, I can reasonably conclude that these “people” only exist in your demented mind.
6. It’s telling that you’ve substituted substituted faux outrage, ad hom attacks, straw men, and flat out lies for an actual discussion of the biology, or for answering questions. I think you’ve tipped your hand.
This “listen to...”, is simply stupid. I can go to any number of biology texts and experts to determine that no amount of surgery will turn a penis into a vagina, it’s literally impossible. Yet you seem to be arguing that belief will overcome reality.
Your problem is that you assume that listening to people arguing that they get to define reality in ways that contradict the physical reality, is going to be persuasive.
By the way, can you tell me about the mental health condition of those who “transition”, can you talk about the suicide rates, and the rates of mental health issues post surgery and how those rates compare with society at large?
Can you explain why .42% of society should be able to impose their version of reality on the 99.58%?
Again, more questions for you to be ignore.
Ahhhhh, the argument from silence, impressive that you’ve added a third logical fallacy to this one topic,
Where, (quote and link required), have I ever made a scripture bared argument in this thread? Or anywhere else for that matter?
The fact that you’re (in addition to the logical fallacy trifecta, and lies), arguing against a case I’ve never made, either supports my theory that you have no counter to the questions I’ve actually raised, or that you just don’t give a shit and are making stuff up as you go along.
Look, if you can’t show me specifically where there is “hate” in my words, where my specific words have caused direct/specific harm, or that I’m directly responsible for the (alleged) acts of (alleged) “people” (allegedly) “like me”, then maybe you should dial back the vitriol and bullshit and actually prove your claims.
But these vague, unproven, bizarre, claims aren’t worth addressing.
So, you won't have the intellectual honesty to even ask a transgender person about your words and the harm they caused? Are you a coward? Do you just not give a damn? Or you just so damned arrogant that you don't care what they say, you know best? Which is it?
And transgender folks are not trying to impose their reality on anyone. They're just saying get the f*** out of our way and let us be. Let them be you piece of s***. You don't want to believe that a transgender woman is actually a woman? Fine. Think that in your own head. But you don't have to say it out loud. You saying that sort of s*** out loud is what contributes to harm. It's the denial of their very personhood. Now coming from a place of white male privilege, maybe you don't have a way of comprehending what it's like to have your personhood denied. That is why you should talk to oppressed people, historically marginalized and attacked people. In admitting your ignorance and arrogance and humbly seeking the points of view of people who are not like you, maybe then you can be saved. But presuming, based on nothing but your hunches, that you know best is not going to do anything but damn you. Humble yourself. Listen to people who are experts on their own gender.
If you're not willing to have that degree of personal Integrity, then have even less integrity and admit that you don't care about the harm imposed upon people like them by people like you. Say, no, I'm not going to ask them about their experience. I just don't care what they say. Have some integrity.
Where is there hate in your words? Are you serious?
Jane: I'm a woman. I know myself and no that I was born with a penis but I also know in my heart that my gender is a woman.
Craig: no. You don't know that. You are NOT a woman.
To hell with what you think, you are not a woman. I know this because I know that if a person is born with a penis than the only possible conclusion to reach is that they are male and must be thought of as a male for all their life. There are no other factors that should matter. I know this, because I know best and Jane is just wrong.
Jane: ah, but gender is more complex the near body parts. I know this because I know myself. The experts and Scholars on gender matters will tell you the same.
Craig: No. You are wrong. You are a man no matter what you say. No matter what the experts say. I know best.
You don't see the arrogance and hate in that line of reasoning, such as it is? Then talk to transgender people. Listen to their testimony. Read up on what gender Scholars are telling you. Don't operate from a place of ignorance.
You can't say hateful things in ignorance, then have someone let you know how hateful and harmful they are, and then stick your fingers in your ears and say, no I'm not going to listen to anyone else, I know best! That too is hateful and harmful.
I've shown you specifically where the harm in hate is. Now, be an adult and go listen to transgender people. Are you willing to do that? Or are you a coward?
“Some things are believed because they are demonstratively true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly-and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.”
A wise black person
Do you know even one single transgender person, Craig?
Again with the hubris to demand that I answer more questions, when you just keep ignoring mine.
Yes.
As to your question about suicide rates amongst transgender folks, here too, you are part of the problem. You're saying, look, they commit suicide at a higher rate. There's something wrong with them. It's their transgender nature. You see, I know better than they do what's best for them? This diminishes their Humanity and their Liberty. It's another way of feather marginalizing them and feather pushing them towards depression and suicidal ideation. Here too, your question is part of the problem.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/
You’re the one making these wild, supported charges about the “harm” my questions (that you won’t answer) have allegedly caused. Why would I ask people about your claims? Why wouldn’t the burden of proof be on you for claims you’ve made? You’re the one that won’t answer questions, wouldn’t that make you the coward? If I’m faced between ascribing truth to something that can be observed, that is attested to by hard science, or something merely asserted, I’ll lean towards observable physical reality most of the time.
Really, placing rules on 99.58% of the country by executive fiat to appease .42% of the country isn’t imposing the reality of a tiny minority on a vast majority? It’s one thing to ask that we call a man a woman, it’s another thing to insist that a man IS a woman. Of course, you’ve failed to prove the latter, and are trying to pretend that the former is all anyone wants. Despite proof to the contrary.
The fact that you try to speak for these groups of people would be amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic.
I've answered your questions. You don't understand the answers, then ask but I have answered your questions. Now maybe you can start answering mine. Have you asked anybody about these claims of yours, these comments of yours? Or are you too chickenshit to be adult enough to ask the people you're talking about their opinion?
Re your claim that I'm speaking for people.
This is a stupidly false claim. I'm LISTENING to people. THEY are telling me this. I'm REPEATING to you what they have said.
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
You’re the one making these wild, supported charges about the “harm” my questions (that you won’t answer) have allegedly caused. Why would I ask people about your claims? Why wouldn’t the burden of proof be on you for claims you’ve made? You’re the one that won’t answer questions, wouldn’t that make you the coward? If I’m faced between ascribing truth to something that can be observed, that is attested to by hard science, or something merely asserted, I’ll lean towards observable physical reality most of the time.
Really, placing rules on 99.58% of the country by executive fiat to appease .42% of the country isn’t imposing the reality of a tiny minority on a vast majority? It’s one thing to ask that we call a man a woman, it’s another thing to insist that a man IS a woman. Of course, you’ve failed to prove the latter, and are trying to pretend that the former is all anyone wants. Despite proof to the contrary.
The fact that you try to speak for these groups of people would be amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Really, where are the actual quotes and evidence of what these people are saying?
If you’re going to blatantly lie about answering all of the questions asked in this thread (particularly about the first 2/3 that you didn’t answer as asked), then clearly you’ll lie about anything if you think it’ll help your pathetic “case”.
If you’ll lie about something so easily demonstrable as false, then why would I accept your vague, unsupported, claims as being true?
"Where are the actual quotes and evidence of what these people are saying?"
First of all, are you TRULY ignorant that transgender folk are saying they are harmed by words and denials like yours? You TRULY don't know that is the reality?
Please answer.
To answer your question, HERE:
"The proposed new definition of gender eliminates the very idea of a transgender person. Therefore, what I found was not surprising. It’s one thing for people to have to defend their rights as equals in society. But when people have to defend their very existence, both the frequency and degree to which transgender people experience negative emotions significantly increases...
In my survey, more than three-quarters of respondents said they felt their identity was under increased threat.
Many people noted that they had already felt that way, even before the story ran. But the story had made the feelings worse.
In other words, those transgender people who were already under stress became even more so.
An open-response section of the survey made clear what type of emotional impact transgender people felt after reading this story.
“Shock,” “horror,” “a sense of uncontrollable doom,” were just some of the responses my interviewees had.
“I feel like they’re trying to erase me as a person,” was a frequent response."
https://theconversation.com/denying-transgender-identity-has-serious-impact-on-mental-health-108152
Shock. Horror. Doom. Being erased.
YES, YOUR WORDS HURT. Your attitudes, writ large and embraced by thousands and tens of thousands (millions?) of people CAUSE HARM.
Open your eyes. Open your brain and your ears. LISTEN to these fellow humans.
Show some basic decency.
Your ability to discern my thoughts from a question is quite impressive, if faulty.
But your defensiveness does provide an answer of sorts. Of course you don’t like the questions that answer raises, nor does your response show compassion for the mental health trauma encountered by the trans community, nor to complicity of folks like you in their pain.
It’s interesting that so much pushed by the left (trans surgery, lockdowns, etc) seems to lead to increases in mental health issues and suicide.
At what age is a person mentally, emotionally, and physically at the point to determine if they are prepared to make permanent surgical and biological alterations to their body?
If a trans women (presenting as a man)has cancer, should the oncologist prescribe the dosages intended for a male?
“ Are things like bones, brains, muscles, lungs, DNA and chromosomes considered "body parts"?”
Here’s a question I don’t believe you’ve answered. Since you claim you have, please provide the quote and context of your answer.
“ First of all, are you TRULY ignorant that transgender folk are saying they are harmed by words and denials like yours? You TRULY don't know that is the reality?”
I’m truly ignorant of the specific nature and content regarding the claims YOU are making about what people say to YOU, and how my questions cause specific harm to these people you’re speaking for. The reason I’m ignorant about these things is your complete lack of specifics, sources, quotes, or anything that can be substantiated. .
Do you offer one survey of peoples opinions and feelings.
Anything objectively factual?
You realize that you’re arguing for the elimination of women as a unique biological and legal category, don’t you?
That these laws being imposed on the 98.58% (I know you claimed that nothing was being imposed on anyone) actually render the current protected classes of women and homosexuals meaningless, don’t you?
This notion that one’s “gender” is immutable and completely detached from physical, biological reality while arguing that sexuality is flexible spectrum of unlimited permutations, certainly lacks any objective proof.
One of the proudest achievements of the political left had been Title 9 and the positive affect it’s had in women in sports and education. Well, if you can’t identify what a woman is, how does one extend legal protection to that which can’t be identified?
"Anything objectively factual?"
SO, to the question, "DO these words cause me strife and harm to transgender folks...?" TRANSGENDER PEOPLE saying, "YES, they cause me harm!" is NOT objectively factual?
Again, you casually dismiss people's existence with such blithely arrogant presumptions that people's experiences aren't real or valued or "objective."
So, you don’t have any objective factual proof that my specific words have caused specific harm.
It’s almost like you don’t care about the harm caused, as long as you can claim some unspecified, non documented, vague, semi harm, to this minuscule minority.
Of course, I haven’t casually dismissed anything, that’s just more crap you’ve made up to divert attention from the increasing number of questions you’ve dodged.
The problem is that the questions I’ve raised are based on listening to/reading the words of scientists, women, and trans folks. Just like much of my views on BLM are formed from listening to black voices. Hell, it’s white liberal dupes like you who think BLM can do no wrong, I have to listen to black folks to get a more accurate view than you provide.
Maybe you should shut the hell up and stop trying to speak for everyone else.
And the fact is, you are a coward and arrogant and in your ignorance, you continue to promote attitudes that cause harm to innocent people, NOT because you have any reason to say, "You're not a woman" to a transgender woman, but because you think you know best.
I get that this is coming from a place of unrepentant ignorance and so, I'll just pray that your eyes will be open and that, one day, you'll spend some time actually listening to the people you attack and demonize and marginalize.
In the meantime, I hope and pray that not too many more transgender people have their lives harmed or oppressed because of attitudes like yours. And I will keep working to help marginalize your harmful words.
If by “fact” you mean your unsupported hunch, you might be able to make some sort of a case.
The fact (as in demonstrable reality) is that you haven’t defined the term woman in any meaningful way, answered the original questions as they were asked, nor answered the vast majority of the follow up questions. The fact (again in the actual meaning of the word fact), that you’ve been reduced to this sort of ad hom/straw man/argument from silence, buttressed by lies/misrepresentations/false claims, instead of actually offering anything objective says all I need to hear.
I really must jump in here. Dan takes great pains to suggest he's somehow on top in this debate, but he doesn't rely on facts to do so. Instead he defaults to the tired tactic of appealing to emotion.
In general, I'm not at all ignorant of the emotional response of these people to the perceived attitudes of those who won't abide their delusion. And delusion is what it truly is. There is no science to suggest that how these people see themselves is how the rest of us should as well. There is only the demand that we do so...that we partake of the delusion and act as if it is reality. It is not. The reality is that these people are denied true psychological treatment for that which is a problem with their minds, not their bodies.
And while Dan insists we can't speak on the issue without engaging in dialogue with the delusional, he rejects the concerns of those displaced by accommodations to the delusional, particularly actual women and girls (or actual men and boys as the case may be).
But worse than that, as Dan weeps over the sad tales told by these people, he offers no counter to them. That is, what of the families and churches these people regard as villains for refusing to participate in their delusions? What do they have to say? Where are the interviews with them? It's the same with homosexuals. We're to believe that the families and churches related to homosexuals are hateful, bigoted and unfeeling. And for what? For speaking the truth, both scientifically and religiously? Sorry. That dog won't hunt. It's like a small child who regards his mother as mean for not enabling the child's delusions and demands.
The harm suffered by these people are not the result of others, but are the consequence of their delusions about themselves. Some come to realize it, but then are further harmed by their enablers who insist their regret is false.
So there are two issues here:
1. The delusion of these people enabled by liars like Dan, whose delusional self-identification as a Christian compounds his sin.
2. The demand that all join in the enabling of these delusional people. This is the old story, where the right to the pursuit of happiness is confused with a demand that the entire population help one catch it, regardless of what that one's "happiness" looks like.
This is all just one more lie lefties like Dan wish to impose upon the nation in the greater delusion that we'll all be better off living life according to how they would like it to be, rather than how life actually is. Facts don't matter as much as what they wish was true.
By all means jump right in. I think one of Dan’s problems is that he wants to give these emotional responses some level of credibility that he doesn’t lay the groundwork for. After years of demanding things like data, proof, and things like that and now he’s just accepting virtually anything as the truth regardless of proof. It’s him responding emotionally to an emotional issue, instead of looking at what’s objective.
It is a simple fact that you two are too cowardly to actually ask people if your words cause harm. Is that the case or not?
How many people have you asked?
Is the answer greater than 0?
If the question is, do my words cause harm and distress or oppression to others? Then how do you find that out without asking them? That you are too cowardly or lacking in intellectual Integrity too much to just simply ask about the harm you're causing, that says it all.
Craig... " I think one of Dan’s problems is that he wants to give these emotional responses some level of credibility"
An "emotional response..."? There's nothing emotional about it. Transgender people have been oppressed, beaten, killed, fired from their jobs, treated like freaks, kicked out of their churches and their families and otherwise harmed for generations/centuries. This is especially true as it relates to conservative churches over the decades/centuries. THESE ARE FACTS. THIS IS REALITY.
Do you recognize this reality or not?
If you're part of the crowd that denies the reality of this oppression (and it IS reality, whether you recognize it or not), you are on the side of the oppressors. IF you are on the side that downplays the actual oppression, you are on the side of oppressors.
It's not "emotional" to point out the reality of actual oppression and harm, it's a matter of God's justice, of justice, whether or not you believe in a God. It's a matter of just plain human decency.
What IS emotional is to act (as Marshal is doing) as if the white church is the one being oppressed or somehow "harmed" by MERELY asking you not to be pricks.
What would Jesus do?
At the very least, he would not be a prick.
Be like Jesus.
“It is a simple fact that you two are too cowardly to actually ask people if your words cause harm.”
1. It’s a simple fact that you can’t prove what you claim is a “simple fact”. Hence, it’s not a simple fact.
2. It’s a simple fact that you haven’t demonstrated any direct, specific harm caused directly by my words.
3. It’s a simple fact that you, not either of us, are claiming that our words cause harm. Hence, the onus on you used to prove your claims not to expect us to prove them for you.
4. It’s a simple fact, and easily demonstrable, that you are unable to defined the term woman, and have been avoiding answering and increasingly large number of simple direct questions.
5. It’s a simple fact, that if you aren’t going to answer questions, you have no expectation that yours will continue to be answered.
6. 2
7. Yes, were you unaware that 2 is greater than 0?
8. You’ve made that claim, which you haven’t proven. Now you’re asking the question. It’s not a question that I’m asking. But it’s an interesting admission that you can’t prove your original claim.
Yes, I realize that some percentage of the .42% of the population that claims to be trans, has been treated badly. I also realize that you’re hysterical, emotional, response is based on emotion not reason and hard data. The two things aren’t exclusive.
Well, I guess that your emotional overreaction might have led you to a mistaken conclusion, likely based on your prejudices and prejudging of others. No one is denying that trans people aren’t “oppressed” (oppressed us an emotionally charged, loaded, word intended to portray something that might not really exist, but I know how much you like to bitch about semantics...), that’s you imputing things to others that aren’t true.
Jesus would say “Go and sin no more.” among other things. I doubt He’d encourage people to mutilate their functioning bodies, with surgery or hormones, based on feelings. I suspect He’d say, “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life”, or “Love the Lord your Gus with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.”.
I don’t have to guess about what Jesus would say to those suffering emotional pain, because He’s already said plenty.
Unfortunately, you’ve already argued that Jesus was silent, so anything that you’d offer to encourage surgical mutilation would simply be something you’ve made up based on your predilections.
"Go and sin no more..."?
And what part of saying, "I recognize that I'm a woman" is SINNING?
Answer that question. Directly.
Your refusal to answer that question will show you're arguing in bad faith and covering up your hateful words rather than owning up to it.
If you answer that God HAS said that being transgender is sinning, you're a foolish liar, because God literally never said that.
If you recognize the reality that God has never called being gender fluid a "sin," THEN you will at least be connected to reality and being honest about it.
Craig... "1. It’s a simple fact that you can’t prove what you claim is a “simple fact”. Hence, it’s not a simple fact."
ALL I can do is base my observations on your actual words. HAVE YOU ASKED transgender folk if words like yours cause harm?
Answer the question. Dodging from answering it says a lot.
4. It’s a simple fact, and easily demonstrable, that you are unable to defined the term woman
That is, of course, a stupidly false, damned lie.
And I quote myself:
"I define woman as it is defined in the dictionary.
AND a transgender woman is someone who identifies as a woman. They may or may not be transitioning to having female body parts but they identify as a woman."
This is, as gender experts testify, factually correct, and literally correct.
Yes, I realize that some percentage of the .42% of the population that claims to be trans, has been treated badly. I also realize that you’re hysterical, emotional, response is based on emotion not reason and hard data. The two things aren’t exclusive.
Well, I guess that your emotional overreaction might have led you to a mistaken conclusion, likely based on your prejudices and prejudging of others. No one is denying that trans people aren’t “oppressed” (oppressed us an emotionally charged, loaded, word intended to portray something that might not really exist, but I know how much you like to bitch about semantics...), that’s you imputing things to others that aren’t true.
Jesus would say “Go and sin no more.” among other things. I doubt He’d encourage people to mutilate their functioning bodies, with surgery or hormones, based on feelings. I suspect He’d say, “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life”, or “Love the Lord your Gus with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.”.
I don’t have to guess about what Jesus would say to those suffering emotional pain, because He’s already said plenty.
Unfortunately, you’ve already argued that Jesus was silent, so anything that you’d offer to encourage surgical mutilation would simply be something you’ve made up based on your predilections.
This mythical trans woman you’ve made up is sinless, that’s almost as impressive as you doubling down on your argument from silence fallacy. Impressive, but not convincing.
Except I demonstrated that the dictionary definition disagreed with your pile of excrement.
Which still ignores the fact that you’ve avoided the vast majority of questions you’ve been asked. It’s all about you obfuscating the details of your position. Not providing them.
You asking a question is the opposite of you being able to prove the claim you made before you asked.
I saw something that I realized applied to this thread.
If, as many scientists posit, the natural/physical world is all that really exists, then it seems safe to say that gender identity (along with many other things) would be a casualty of a naturalistic worldview.
Again, you fail to understand science. What have you read about gender science, about psychology as it relates to gender identification? Are you familiar with what the experts are telling you?
"It is a simple fact that you two are too cowardly to actually ask people if your words cause harm. Is that the case or not?"
No. There's simply no need to ask a question for which the answer is clear and obvious: our words don't cause harm to these disordered people. That is, unless you mean "the truth hurts". In that case, the need to ask is still non-existent.
There's far more harm caused by enabling these people then by refusing to enable them. They come to believe there's nothing wrong with their choice to "transition" and foolishly expect that honest people are obliged to join in their delusion. We are not so obliged.
"If the question is, do my words cause harm and distress or oppression to others? Then how do you find that out without asking them?"
But my words DON'T cause any of those things. If someone hears me speak the truth and somehow is motivated to inflict harm on any of these delusional people, that's not on me. My words aren't responsible for the actions of some wackjob who likes to harass or attack others, and as such neither am I. Your focus on this angle is nonsensical. It is another of your typical ploys to deflect from the issue.
"And what part of saying, "I recognize that I'm a woman" is SINNING?"
If an actual woman acknowledges her gender, it's called "stating the obvious". If a dude "recognizes" he's a woman, he's either delusional...in which case it's not a sin, but a condition screaming for treatment...or a liar, which, from what I understand about Christianity, is a sin.
"Your refusal to answer that question will show you're arguing in bad faith and covering up your hateful words rather than owning up to it."
Your refusal to answer a host of questions still unanswered, as well as your asking stupid questions of your own instead proves you know nothing of "good faith" discourse and instead haven't the courage to admit you have no legitimate defense of your indefensible position.
"If you recognize the reality that God has never called being gender fluid a "sin," THEN you will at least be connected to reality and being honest about it."
I don't believe anyone here has so much as hinted that God regards mental disorder to be a sin. You'd be hard pressed to defend the notion that God is cool with the lies you need to tell in order to continue enabling disordered people in their delusion.
"Answer the question. Dodging from answering it says a lot."
Take your own advice, dodger.
If you define "woman" as it's defined in the dictionary, then you can't refer to a man as a woman simply because he "self-identifies" as a woman. The dictionaries I've looked at don't include "self-identity" among the characteristic traits of a female. Your "gender experts" don't have a shred of definitive evidence that alters that fact. Indeed, they don't have evidence of any kind, just as there is none to support the homosexual claims.
It's so sad you're far more interested in supporting this fraud rather than truly helping these people cope with their delusion.
Here, read, learn. Let the biological sciences be more fully understood. A first grade understanding of biology is fine for a first grader...
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
Again, you are just making up things based on your preconceptions and prejudices. The reality is that I've looked into this (from both sides)) recently and have reached my conclusions based on that study and research. Of course, this won't matter to you because you won't believe what I'm telling you. You see, the multitude of questions you've ignored are based on the research and study that I've done, and on the science. The fact that you've chosen "gender science" as taking precedence over biology, anatomy, and genetics, isn't based on your scientific expertise (don't tell me, let me guess, you minored in science when you studied journalism at JUCO and are an expert in that as well).
The reality is that you've chosen (in opposition to naturalistic science) to place more credence on the metaphysical, than on the physical, yet you haven't bothered to explain this miraculous transformation you posit.
IF you won't answer questions, that's fine, just don't think for a second that one link (which is quite clear that they can't actually explain anything) somehow summarizes all of the discussion.
I'd challenge you to start by reading and refuting Love Thy Body by Pearcey. Professor Pearcey does an excellent job looking broadly at this issue. Again, I know as I type the words that this challenge is in vain, that you will find some excuse to avoid this as you've avoided so many questions in this thread.
This piling up of logical fallacies (ad hom/straw man/argument from silence/appeal to numbers), is simply pathetic and amusing simultaneously.
I've read a reasonable amount, and yes.
This notion of harm is interesting to me. You claim that my specific words, have caused specific and measurable harm to some unknown and unidentified people. Somehow this vague complaint is supposed to "prove" something.
Yet, as we've seen, actual biological females are being harmed by men who "transition" to women on a regular basis, and you seem oblivious, and to callously disregard, that actual, specific, measurable harm being inflicted by government edict.
What a strange, inconsistent, view of harm.
I'll go deeper into your study at some point. But I'll note that they're quite clear that much of "gender science" is based on discredited studies, and they are also quite clear that the biological differences between male/female are as I have described, not your superficial (pee-pee/hoo-ha) childish nonsense.
The absolute best that can be said with even a small degree of confidence is that there is some degree of hope that they might be able to "prove" something, at some point in the future. Certainly not the certainty you pretend exists.
I'll simply note the hubris and pride involved here. You expect me to read and accept the (now) two articles you've provided, while having failed to answer multiple questions, and address an of the counter evidence. In fact, you didn't actually counter anything I've provided, you just announced that they "didn't say what I thought they said". Of course, you failed to explain how you knew the contents of my thoughts, and how your hunches were more accurate.
I wonder why this one sided expectation would seem rational to any sentient human.
Art,
This concept of "the Truth hurts" is an interesting one. Obviously it hinges on ones concept of Truth as a starting point, which is a whole other discussion. But, if the truth is "that which best aligns with reality", then shouldn't telling others the Truth, regardless of the possibility of temporary harm, be our goal?
What's more harmful, telling a child the Truth about his/her dreams, or lying to them? (Extreme example warning) If Steven Hawking's parents had told young Steven that his future was to be a superstar in the NBA, they would have done him a grave disservice on two levels. They would be virtually guarantee him failure in his NBA pursuits, while also failing to nurture his actual abilities and talents.
Yes, the Truth does hurt. It might even cause some degree of short term harm. Yet, wouldn't it make more sense for us to commit to what's True (even if there is hurt or short term harm), as opposed to settling for what's not True?
Marshal... "There's far more harm caused by enabling these people then by refusing to enable them..."
Okay. Tell me your background, your education, your experience in working on questions of gender science... How many years of research have you done on the topic?
Because I'm reading many experts who say this is a stupidly false thing to say. They are saying that your words are causing harm.
So if you want people to listen to you, begin by citing your accreditation and verifying your authority and expertise. If you're just some jerkwater on the internet who doesn't even KNOW any transgender people and has done no research on the topic, then your opinion is pretty meaningless, isn't it?
Be reasonable.
Craig... "You claim that my specific words, have caused specific and measurable harm..."
What I'm saying is that words like yours coming from a historically majority group towards an historically oppressed group, taken in congregate, have the result of causing harm.
In a world where the N word has never existed, if someone one day says to a black man "you N word!" there's not much harm in and of that one instance itself.
I know it's hard for people like you, coming from places of privilege to understand the plight of the oppressed and historically attacked, maligned, demonized, killed and otherwise harmed. But in the world of the oppressed, more people adding more attacks like yours do cause harm. Again, look at the data. Listen to the experts. Listen to the people involved. Get out of you privileged little bubble you live in and try to understand the real world of oppressed people.
"What I'm saying is that words like yours coming from a historically majority group towards an historically oppressed group, taken in congregate, have the result of causing harm."
So you're saying that my words have NOT caused any harm. Please make up your mind.
"But in the world of the oppressed, more people adding more attacks like yours do cause harm."
Since you haven't identified any specific "attacks", any specific "harm" or any specific "people", I can only take this as bullshit.
"Again, look at the data. Listen to the experts. Listen to the people involved."
Maybe you haven't been paying attention when I've explained that I have, or you have seen that and just chosen that your narrative is more accurate than my reality.
"Get out of you privileged little bubble you live in and try to understand the real world of oppressed people."
What an absolutely idiotic and unrepresentative of reality thing to say. Please prove that I haven't.
"I'll just respond by noting the reality that I'm not avoiding anything. I'm looking for expert opinion. If I'm asking you how to launch a rocket to the moon can you cite a Dr. Seuss to me, I'm not going to bother reading it. And I love Dr Seuss. I'm not avoiding him. It's just that I'm looking for expert opinion. Can you at least begin by admitting that someone with no background in biology, anatomy, science or gender studies is not an expert in science and gender studies?"
Ahhhhhhh, the I'll listen to the "experts" as long as I get to define which "experts" I'll accept and which "experts" you'll listen to excuse. What's interesting is that you apparently aren't aware that in many cases intelligent people, who write books, will spend months or years of research then summarize that research in their book. They actually reference their sources, and everything.
Obviously, this comment just proved my suspicion correct,
"And when I say, I know it's hard for people like you to understand the plight of the oppressed, it's because I, like you, came from place a privilege. My gender, my race, orientation, my Christian faith, all put me in a big majority group that had not been historically oppressed. Just to be clear."
1. You don't know the first thing about what background I came from.
2. The fact that you think you can now speak for me, is absolutely absurd.
3. For someone who keeps bitching about assumptions, you sure do make a lot of assumptions.
"And I note that this is just an empty claim. Discredited by whom? Cite the research and studies and the researchers' qualifications. If their qualifications are they went to a Bible School, thanks, but no thanks. I want experts not uninformed hunches."
It's a direct fucking quote from the blog post you offered as proof you idiot. If you're going to offer something as lightweight as a blog post as proof, you should probably have read the whole thing.
Oh my goodness, the sheer hypocrisy of this absolutely blows me away.
"CITE YOUR SOURCES. Which Biologists have said that gender is a simplistic as a first grade level understanding of body parts?"
For months I've tried to get you to cite sources and name names regarding various topics, yet you've somehow never managed more than a partial list of random names. I've given you one, (which contains citations and references to hundreds of others), until you exhaust that, I see no reason to do what you won't.
"The reality is you've cited some bible thumper and YOUR IGNORANT positions not based on ANY science, but just on your preconceptions and biases."
That's quite a claim, based on your ignorance. I guess your fear that you might find something you can't deal with is so strong that you'll simply resort to this kind of ad/hom bullshit attacks.
"You cite a Seminary professor with no degrees in biology or science. Get serious. If you want to be treated like an adult, reason like one. Otherwise, you're just marginalizing yourself along with other conspiracy theorists and nutjobs."
That's pretty impressive for someone without even half the credentials. I love it when you dismiss something with this sort of ad hom attack without even the tiniest effort to curb your ignorance.
"Because I'm reading many experts who say this is a stupidly false thing to say. They are saying that your words are causing harm."
Well Dan, you won't "name names" or "cite sources" or provide evidence that Art's words "are causing harm". Still nothing specific.
If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards.
Dan,
The reason why I'm not inclined to give you any other resources is that you haven't dealt with the source you've been offered in any way but to ridicule someone out of ignorance. This notion that I must spoon feed you things that are readily available if you'd simply take the time to search for them.
Also, if you're going to ask questions (which I answer), and then tell me that my answer is wrong, it makes me wonder why you asked the question in the first place.
This is all quite a lot of effort to go to in order to avoid simply answering the questions you've been asked, and to square your "definition" of woman with the dictionary.
Not to mention how well you've driven this thread so far from the topic of the original post.
I'll give you up to your reprobate and arrogant mind, for now. If you ever want to try to actually SUPPORT your nonsense claim that "biology" is on your side by citing an actual biologist and gender studies experts, let me know.
May God open your eyes, soften your heart and lead you away from this oppression of people who've never harmed you. May you find a sense of shame for your arrogant presumptions about matters you're ignorant on.
As I was thinking of the absolute idiocy of Dan telling me that I haven’t spent enough time with the “oppressed”, I realized the truth about this conversation.
This entire discussion is an example of the ridiculousness of 1st world problems. The fact that we live in a society where we are so free from problems that we have to turn
“Man I feel like a woman”, into an issue of “oppression”, is a joke. The fact that we have enough excess medical capacity that Drs are getting filthy, stinking rich making permanent alterations to perfectly functioning body parts because of someone’s feeling kind of makes me want to puke a little bit. I’m not talking about “I have no cartilage in my knee and it’d be nice to walk without excruciating pain” elective surgery. I’m talking about “Remove my fully functioning and perfectly normal penis and tested, and fashion something that a partially functional, abnormal, inferior facsimile of a vagina.” elective surgery. Or “I know I’m healthy, but carrying a healthy human child to term so he/she can be adopted is cramping my style.” elective surgery.
Hell, we’re even so far down this elective surgery at any price that we’ll eliminate age restrictions and health and safety requirements to encourage more elective surgery.
I know I’ve got my own first world problem that are ridiculous and deserve to be mocked, but don’t try to tell me that this crap is a sign of how awesome our society is.
Absolutely the point in my bringing it up, Craig, as well as the reality that it's really the only way what I (or we) say can actually harm these people at all by any words we've chosen to say.
The following is from a talk given in 2017 that describes how we got here, as well as a review of the "quality" of the type of "experts" with whom Dan is so perversely enamored:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c
The info the Dr. provides could have been copy-pasted from similar histories of the pro-homosexual faction of the psychology industry...which is pretty much all of it these days. It's not "science". It's ideology poorly disguised as science, but accepted as science by buffoons like Dan because it's all there really is. There's no definitive study or research which affirms any of it.
More later...
Excellent attempt to mask the fact that you’ve utterly failed to answer numerous relevant questions, provide what you demand from others, cloaked your cowardice in 4 simultaneous logical fallacies, and hide behind a self righteous veneer of religiosity and pride. Well played, fortunately the actual evidence is here for all to see.
So I read Dan's last link in support of his premise and was taken by how poorly it did. Nothing in it suggests it's in any way akin to the definitive study I requested and expected would be easy to produce, were Dan's premise to be sound, rational and reflective of reality. No. It's just more speculation at best. Indeed, there's nothing at all definitive about it or the studies the link references. There's a lot of "it appears" and similar expressions that do little to warrant posting the link as evidence at all.
One thing that stands out to me is the concept of comparing the brains of the disordered with those of normal people. This is always and only done with those they know are disordered. It would seem to me that a better way of trying to make this "evidence" work would be to scan brains of infants...say, at least a thousand of them at least...and scan them again every five years or so until, say, age twenty-five. Regardless of whether or not even one of them claims to be of the opposite sex than is evidenced by their biology, perhaps we could see if these differences exist nonetheless. If they did, and the subject had no sign of the disorder, that would mean that the differences have no meaning related to the disorder. OR, they could simply scan the brains of several thousand normal men and look for those whose brains "seem" to be more like a chick's brain. The point here is that the research finds disordered people and measures them against normal people and then say, "See? His brain is different. That must be why he thinks he's a woman!" without really knowing if that condition is unique to the disordered guys...or caring to find out.
Worse than that, however, is suggesting that it validates the notion that one must be accommodated for identifying as the opposite sex or that it is justification for not helping the person come to terms with the fact that the perception is flawed.
And if we're to accept the person's perception as more valid than the clear and unequivocal evidence of the person's biology...DNA, chromosomes, etc.....then we must do as much for the anorexic, those with BID, those who perceive themselves as Jesus Christ or Napoleon Bonaparte or those who perceive themselves as various animals or toddlers. We can't then say ANY of them are disordered, when they all so clearly are.
"Because I'm reading many experts who say this is a stupidly false thing to say. They are saying that your words are causing harm."
Of course you are. Why should we believe them when you can't seem to find any definitive studies that validate any of what they say? What "science" proves a man saying he's a woman actually is a woman when his biology says he's a man? Even the brain comparison "evidence" suggests a biological defect or deformity rather than evidence of normalcy. Then the question is still a matter of whether or not the patient should be enabled and accommodated at the expense of the rest of us, particularly 99% of women and girls, military readiness and effectiveness, etc.
You want us to be cognizant of the "harm" speaking the truth does to these unfortunates. That can't be helped and is exactly what treatment should be addressing...coping with the truth about themselves. Personally, I would have a far more favorable attitude toward one who fully accepts his self-perception is abnormal but indulges it anyway, rather than the majority who refuses to accept their disorder and demands we ignore it, too.
Blair White seems to be one of the former, who isn't so whacked that he demands children who question their sexual identity must be accommodated. He opposes it fully. I've seen him interviewed on Steven Crowder's show several times and I don't get the sense that he's a head case beyond his disordered self-perception. Doesn't seem combative, a crazed activist, pretentious or filled with outrageous demands, but someone who's just doing his thing and the rest of us can take it or leave it. Who knows. Maybe he just hides it better.
He also suggests one who doesn't actually believe himself to be a woman, but simply wants to be one, went through with the procedures necessary to be one and then lives it out. I'm just speculating here, but it leads to another aspect we don't often consider...that some really DON'T believe they're women, but just decided for one reason or another they'd rather be one. What do THEIR brains look like? Maybe THOSE are the ones who aren't so much disordered as they are eccentric. Blair White doesn't impress me as one who would be "harmed" in the least by the truths to which I've referred.
Art,
I think that part of the problem is that (like so many things) we've watered down the meaning of harm/hurt. As we've moved our society forward, the threshold of harm has moved closer to inconvenience or feeling bad. On top of that there is this notion that all harm/hurt is automatically a bad thing.
It's almost like these folks realized that scientific disciplines like biology, genetics, and physiology weren't going o be supportive of their agenda, so they just came up with a new discipline intended to further their agenda, rather than engage in science as we've known it. As I read through Dan's links, I was surprised by the sheer volume of people saying some form of "We don't know, and can't explain it, but we're positive that we are correct.".
Your point about comparing brain characteristics is interesting. I think many on Dan's side of things would like to pretend that the variation in these things is more of a straight line and less of a bell curve. The reality is that there is likely the vast majority fall into a small range, while the outliers are a tiny fraction. Based on the .3-.42% of the population that are "trans", this seems likely. The problem is that they are giving the .3-.42% the same weight as the 99.7-99.58%, which makes no sense.
Craig... "I think that part of the problem is that (like so many things) we've watered down the meaning of harm/hurt"
Good God in heaven! What is wrong with you all? Lgbtq folks have been murdered. They've been beaten. They've been raped. They've been harassed. They've been kicked out of their homes. They've been kicked out of their churches. They've been called evil disgusting loathsome. All of this marginalization in these attacks have resulted in Great Depression increased suicide rates.
What the f*** is wrong with you all? What do you mean to suggest that harm hasn't really happened? Good God, forgive you your ignorance. Open your eyes! Stop listening to whatever brainwashing you're listening to and just look at reality.
Ask the experts. Ask the people themselves. Quit cowering in your little temples of ignorance and hatred.
If only Dan was this histrionic when other folks are murdered.
FYI, the lock down has resulted in greatly increased suicide rates, but I don't hear you pushing to end the lock down.
"What the f*** is wrong with you all?"
Other than being subjected to your rantings, vitriol, lies, hatred, and logical fallacies, not much.
"What do you mean to suggest that harm hasn't really happened?"
No. You can tell because I've never said anything like that. Perhaps more care when you read, and more thought when you write would be a good plan.
"Quit cowering in your little temples of ignorance and hatred."
Again with the ad hom attacks.
"Your words, right? Your words in the context of the conversation about the harm done to lgbtq people. Right?"
It's actually, specifically, in the context of Art's comment about how sometimes telling someone the Truth can hurt. But, even though if you are correct, the fact that I've pointed out the reality that the term(s) hurt/harm have been broadened to mean virtually anything, doesn't minimize serious harm done to people. Quite the contrary, it's pointing out the fact that using the term(s) hurt/harm indiscriminately has the effect of minimizing actual harm by putting murder and discomfort under the same banner.
"This makes it sound like you think people are overstating how much harm has been done to LGBTQ folk."
No, it makes it sound like you are desperately seeking anything no matter how far you need to twist it in order to buttress your narrative. The fact that you choose to make vitriol laved assumptions, rather than ask first for clarification indicates that you could care less about the reality and simply want to stoke your anger.
"Is that what you're suggesting?"
No.
"If so, do you realize that this is a stupidly false claim that you can't prove?"
Do you realize how incredibly stupid this little rhetorical trope is?
"Do you recognize how the claim, itself, is another little attack on lgbtq folk?"
No. But please, show me specifically where my broad statement of opinion (which is completely in line with my view on the corruption of words like "evil", "hate", etc) about the over use/over broadening the meanings of terms in ways that strip them of any real meaning and force. The fact that you are seriously suggesting that my specific words have caused direct specific harm to anyone, simply reinforces my point. the fact that you can't demonstrate this direct harm, just makes your histrionics even funnier.
"Oh, you're just blowing it out of proportion, it's not that bad..." Gaslighting is just another way of attacking and harming people."
I don't have time to look it up, but if there's a logical fallacy for putting words in someone's mouth, then you've added one more to your already impressive stats. If not, it's just you continuing to make shit up and argue against the made up shit.
The lengths you'll go to, and the vitriol you'll hurl to avoid answering questions is pretty impressive.
You know, had you chosen to simply acknowledge that you were confused by my comment, and asked for clarification, I likely would have apologized for not being clear enough and clarified. Unfortunately, you chose a different, more vitriolic tack. It's too bad you've chosen to abandon civility.
YouTube continue to attack transgender folks and I'm the one that's abandoned civility for taking up for them. Is that what you're saying? I know, I know. You don't understand that you're attacking. Nonetheless.
The thing is, just as Jesus got uncivil towards the hypocrisy and oppression of the religious zealots of his day and was righteous in doing so, so are those of us who take stance against those who embrace oppression. I pray that you will one day understand this.
The fact that you are seriously suggesting that my specific words have caused direct specific harm to anyone, simply reinforces my point.
The fact that you don't understand how your words, REPEATED BY millions of Christians and people in authority and loved ones and parents and authority figures over centuries DOES cause harm is only an indication of how uninformed you are.
ASK LGBTQ people. THEY will tell you. THEY are the ones who have been oppressed, beaten, killed, marginalized and otherwise harmed by your type of words, THEY know the harm. Ask them.
HAVE YOU ASKED THEM or do you remain a coward, unwilling to face responsibility like a decent adult for your own words and actions?
I know it's not easy. I had to atone for my contribution to the oppression of LGBTQ people for my words that were much like yours. But I took the steps to do so because it was the right, responsible, adult thing to do. It was the Christian thing to do.
Open your eyes. Open your ears. Ask.
Since you offer no proof that anyone is repeating my words, no proof that I’ve said anything that is objectively false, no evidence there I’ve attacked anyone, and no evidence that I’ve ever posted anything to you tube, I’ll leave your histrionics on their own.
No reason why a thread filled with logical fallacies on top of logical fallacies, lies, unproven claims, and unanswered questions, shouldn’t end with more of the same.
Until Dan can explain in at least some detail how speaking the truth about LGBT people leads to their deaths, he's just sensationalizing and overstating the harm done to these people by those who he believes is "out to get them". It's simply not true. Here's two articles (one linking to the other, but despite the fact that Dan won't read them or won't do more than reject them if he does, I'm posting both because that's how supporting a position works) that deal with the actual statistics. I've no reason to believe it gets that much worse going further back in time than period covered:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-the-left-claims-theres-an-epidemic-of-anti-trans-hate-crimes-theyre-lying-here-are-the-facts
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/the-left-is-lying-about-a-hatred-and-violence-epidemic-against-transgender-people/
In the first, Matt Walsh mentions the percentages being half the general population. That suggests those of the "trans" community is far less victimized by murder than are most people, and as such far less likely to fall victim of murder. And then to see an even smaller percentage murdered because they're "trans" really means that Dan is just parroting what the LGBT activists want the general population to believe in order to generate sympathy and legal/political considerations.
As we've come to this point in time, there's been, very sadly, a growing acceptance of LGBT people generally and "trans" people specifically (for the purposes of this discussion). Insisting then that their much higher than normal suicide rates can't be attributed to ongoing "transphobia" when the stats aren't showing their disorder is the reason they're attacked in the first place. I would suspect that if we see details of the cases where "They've been beaten. They've been raped. They've been harassed.", we'd very likely see the same realities...that they're no more likely to have been victims of those things due to being "trans", either.
As to "They've been kicked out of their homes. They've been kicked out of their churches.", I will say again that until we can hear from their families and churches as to their side of the story, we'll likely learn much which would lessen their ability to draw sympathy. My suspicion is that they did little to consider the feelings and positions of their families and churches, instead demanding full acceptance without condition.
So tell me, Dan. How many of those families and churches have you approached to get their side of the story? I suspect you have done very little in that regard, preferring to pretend you're doing the Lord's work by just taking the word of those you wish to regard as "oppressed". It's YOU who's been brainwashed and YOU who only listen to those "experts" who aren't really honest about their work because they, too, are morally corrupt like you.
Here's one more link that relates to this discussion, and no doubt a case that Dan will say is not the same thing:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-every-sane-person-saw-this-coming-now-a-pedophile-claims-he-identifies-as-an-8-year-old-girl
It's not the first case I've seen of someone like this. Is Dan willing to treat people like this dude on the dude's terms as he demands of us with regard to the disordered "transgendered" people? I can't wait to hear his response!
"You understand, don't you, that I'm not saying that ANYONE is QUOTING your words on this blog, right?"
Actually, since you've been quite clear that you believe that MY words are causing specific and direct harm, this clarification/change does make slightly more sense.
"I'm saying people like you (and me, once upon a time) would say things LIKE what you're saying and that compilation of attack after attack, millions of them repeated over decades and centuries and THOSE COLLECTIVE words cause harm? Do you understand that's what I'm saying?"
I understand that you have that opinion, and that you are expressing that opinion. Beyond that, you'd need proof of direct causation.
"Do you doubt that Christians have, for decades/centuries been saying these types of things ("She isn't a she, she's a man!" "He has disordered thinking" "That's just sick and evil!" etc, and much worse)? Do you seriously doubt that it's factual that these repeated attacks cause harm?"
People have been saying all kinds of things for all kinds of time. I'm sure it's possible/probable that there are instances where there is a direct causal relationship.
The problem, of course, is whether the things being said are True of False, and how they are said.
Since you haven't pointed out one thing I've said that is provably, objectively, False, I'm at a loss.
What you seem to be saying is that it's better to tell people falsehoods that they want to hear, than the Truth that they don't. I'm struggling to find a circumstance where lying to someone is better that telling them the Truth.
"OF COURSE conservatives are out there attacking women by saying they're NOT women, as if they know better than they do, and in so doing, denying their personhood, their dignity of self-identification, their humanity."
Interesting take. I'm unaware of a single conservative who is trying to dilute what it means to be a woman. What's interesting is that you are defining the worth of an individual by their feelings about themselves. Rooting their "personhood" in their feelings.
As a Christian who leans theologically and politically toward the conservative side of the spectrum, I emphatically deny your charge above. To the contrary. I affirm that one's "dignity, humanity, and personhood", one's intrinsic value is NOT rooted in the self at all. All of those things are rooted in our status as beings who are created in , and bear, the Imago Dei. Good lord, by suggesting that a persons entire value (dignity/personhood/etc) is defined by how they "self identify", I don't think you fully understand the Pandora's box you're opening. Do we really want to define the value of someone because they "self identify" as "worthless/unloved/hopeless" and are on the brink of suicide? Are you really suggesting that "self identification" is the ONLY source of one's value as a human being? Do you even think through the downstream consequences of these buzzwords before you mindlessly type them?
" And it's objectively false that "science" or "biology" agrees with you. Of course. As evidenced by you not being able to cite a SINGLE biologist (much less ALL of the biologists) who agree with your attacks on these women and men and non-binary folks."
1. I posted links to multiple articles defining the differences between male and female on various levels, beyond your childish (pee-pee, hoo-hah level). You have yet to explain how one magically transforms on a genetic/skeletal/muscular level from one to the other.
2. I provided you with one resource that contains multitudes of citations of scientists, "trans" people, etc that would keep you researching for an extended period of time, had you not chosen ignorant dismissal over open minded research.
3. The above is simply, objectively false. The fact that you can impose your definitions/qualifications on various things to disqualify them a priori, doesn't make those resources wrong. It just means that you've made your own rules to exclude what you don't want to consider.
With the caveat that you asking for more answers is simply the height of hubris and self absorption...
"Questions for you to continue to dodge: HAVE you asked any LGTBQ folks if words like yours are causing them harm?"
Since much of what I've concluded on this issue has been informed by what I've read from "trans" individuals, as well as the scientific research, I'm not sure what additional anecdotes will add. Have I asked your specific question, no. Have I had discussions about the topic yes. Have I already answered this, yes.
"DO you recognize that there is NO EVIDENCE that scientists don't "agree" with your hunches, at least not the majority/mainstream of scientists?"
That's a fascinating hunch you have there. I'm not sure how to answer this question given that the premise of the question is a claim that you haven't demonstrated to actually be objectively true. I'll answer your (rhetorical) question thus. I realize that there are "scientists" on both sides of this issue, and that as of now I find the scientists that disagree with your hunch much more persuasive than the blog post and article you've offered. Do you realize that your "question" is essentially an unproven claim of fact, disguised as a question? If you could prove the claim, I might reconsider, but you can't.
"You DO recognize that for most of our nation's history, LGBTQ folk have been murdered, harassed, beaten, accosted, abused, maligned, imprisoned demonized and otherwise oppressed?"
Yes, I recognize that throughout history people have committed acts against LGBTQXYZPDQ folks that they should not have committed. However, the fact that people have engaged in wrongdoing, is NOT proof (or even an argument) for the scientific position you assert. It's entirely possible for your hunches about the malleable nature of gender to be wrong, and for those who harmed minorities to also be wrong.
"That they were not free to be themselves and had to be in hiding for most of our history because to NOT be in hiding was to face more abuse and harm? DO you recognize the great harm that this very real history has caused?"
Again, while this is true to some degree, it's not a scientific argument (nor any argument) that proves your hunch.
"Will you agree that it is WRONG/IMMORAL/UNJUST to harm and/or imprison someone for "gay sex," ie, for being gay and falling in love with another gay adult?"
I will "agree" that I believe that it is a mistake for a civil government to imprison people for sexual acts between consenting adults. Since you have never proposed an objective standard of morality or right/wrong, I can only go as far as my personal opinion.
Are you suggesting that it is "WRONG/IMMORAL/UNJUST" to imprison ANY consenting adult for ANY sexual activities, or for "falling in love" with ANY other adult who reciprocates their feelings?
"Can you clearly condemn that part of our history without equivocation?"
Within the limitations outlined above, sure.
"f Marshal thinks transgender and gay folk are "mentally ill/disordered," can you clearly condemn this attack on folks for just being the person God made them to be?"
No. I could, but I won't. Your question contains too many unproven assumptions for me to do so. If you can prove that "God made them" to engage in specific sexual acts, and to remove and replace fully functioning body parts with partially functioning facsimiles, and define what "God made" actually means, then I might be willing to dive deeper. As it's asked, it's too speculative.
"Do you recognize that THE EXPERTS do not consider being gay/transgender mentally ill?"
Again, a fact claim disguised as a question. As it's asked, my answer would have to be no. If you can prove the claim, I might have to reconsider.
"Do you think that you and Marshal know better than the experts?"
No. Of course, this broad, vague term "the experts" is a meaningless term in terms of answering the question. As you've demonstrated, you are willing to exclude some "experts" because they disagree with you. Are you suggesting that you know better then the experts?
"Do you recognize that the Bible nor God NEVER condemn being a transgender person? Never condemn gay folks getting married?"
I realize that those terms are not specifically used in the Bible, but that it's reasonable to form conclusions about those two things based on what the Bible does say.
Do you realize that this is simply an argument from silence dressed up as a question.
Do you realize that the Bible DOES specifically condemn stealing? Do you realize that you have argued that there are cases in which stealing is appropriate? Are you saying that IF the Bible DID specifically condemn "being a transgender person" or "gay folks getting married", that you would change your position and align your position with what the Bible said? Does this mean that you align your position on issues 100% with the Bible when it contains clear, direct, unambiguous condemnation of behaviors or actions?
"Do you think that God condemns either of these, in spite of never condemning them in the Bible?"
Do you believe that God encourages (applauds/blesses/allows/cheers on/approves of) either of those? I'll gladly answer after you do.
"DO you believe that Qanon is a legitimate set of concerns, or do you recognize that these folks are batshit crazy? (the last one is just an aside because I'm curious as to the depths of your confusion)."
Do I believe that concern for children is a legitimate concern, absolutely. Do I believe that Q is a reliable source for anything, no.
The fact that (given the multitude of questions you've dodged), you have the gall to ask that last question can only be interpreted as you acknowledging that you simply want control of the conversation and of others.
I've answered these questions (some directly), or I've pointed out the specific reasons why the question as asked present problems that preclude answering AT THIS TIME. I guess how you respond to this will demonstrate what you are hoping to accomplish. If you're actually interested in answers, you'll deal with the problems. If you choose not to deal with the problems, then I'll know that you're not interested in answers as much as you are looking for more diversion from your failure to answer the questions you've been asked.
The big problem with much of your last two comments, is that even if you are 100% accurate in your representation of history, it has absolutely ZERO bearing of the question at hand. The two things are not related.
It's like claiming that Judaism is the correct religious belief system because Jews have been persecuted by multiple societies over thousands of years. Persecution doesn't speak to the Truth of Falsehood of the beliefs of the persecuted.
But, it's a great way to introduce an additional level of diversion into the thread and avoid answering questions for a while longer.
Listen:
"Research shows that members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community are more likely to experience potentially traumatizing events (Roberts et al., 2010), mental and physical health problems (Mimiaga et al., 2009), and discrimination due to their perceived sexual identity throughout their lifetime (Friedman et al., 2011; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012).
Several new studies on the impact of traumatic events on the mental health and functioning of LGBTQ individuals highlight the importance of providing a safe, sexually affirming space in mental health treatment for LGBTQ individuals, especially if they are receiving treatment related to traumatic events...
Results indicated that exposure to both impersonal and interpersonal potentially traumatic events were positively correlated with shame, depression symptoms, PTSD symptoms, substance use, chronic health conditions, and somatic symptoms. Impersonal, but not interpersonal, potentially traumatic events exposure was positively correlated with sexual risk behavior. Shame was also positively correlated with depression symptoms, PTSD symptoms, substance use, sexual risk behavior, and somatic symptoms.
The researchers found that participants who identified as people of color reported greater exposure to interpersonal potentially traumatic events and shame than White participants. TGNC participants reported greater exposure to both interpersonal and impersonal potentially traumatic events, along with greater somatic and depressive symptoms than cisgender participants."
https://www.apaservices.org/practice/ce/expert/traumatic-events-lgbtq
Listen:
"LGBTQ people often must deal with lingering trauma from religious teachings they encountered as children, in many cases before they even realized they were members of a gender or sexual minority. Teens have it tough, but adults struggle too. Here are some numbers and a personal story to illustrate just how tough things can be...
======
LGBTQ kids raised in conservative religions often experience faith as poison. Most people who attend church regularly experience better mental health and more happiness than the general public. For LGBTQ people, the opposite is true. A 2018 study examined over 21,000 young adults and found that the more LGBTQ people go to church, the more mentally unhealthy they are.
Teenagers are most severely affected.
According to a Trevor Project survey, rates of LGBTQ youth suicide attempts, homelessness, and major depression are through the roof.
The survey found 39% of LGBTQ teens had seriously considered suicide in the past twelve months. More than half of transgender teens had seriously considered suicide. For LGBTQ kids living in supportive, affirming environments, these numbers plummet.
The survey found that religious-based family rejection was the single most important common factor in LGBTQ youth depression, suicide attempts, and homelessness...
"I realized I was an atheist when I was 16 years old. I was thirty-something before I had my last religious nightmare.
The evangelical Christian universe can be terrifying and depressing. Almost all humans ever born burn for eternity, eaten by worms. Only a tiny minority of humans are spared eternal torture.
As a child, I believed this.
I also believed I was surrounded by malicious demons, and that at any moment the few true believers in the world would be snatched into the clouds to be with Jesus, leaving me alone to fend for myself.
Being gay sealed my fate."
LISTEN.
https://medium.com/james-finn/lgbtq-people-and-religious-trauma-f672034ca435
"Listen to LGBTQ people... "In the early 2000s, when I"
"I" is singular not plural. This is an unsourced anecdote from ONE person, not multiple "people" as your appeal to numbers attempts to indicate.
"was a middle schooler in Florida, I was subjected to a trauma that was meant to erase my existence as a newly out bisexual. My parents were Southern Baptist missionaries who believed that the dangerous and discredited practice of conversion therapy could “cure” my sexuality. For over two years, I sat on a couch and endured emotionally painful sessions with a counselor. I was told that my faith community rejected my sexuality; that I was the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school; that I was the only gay person in the world; that it was inevitable I would get H.I.V. and AIDS. But it didn’t stop with these hurtful talk-therapy sessions. The therapist ordered me bound to a table to have ice, heat and electricity applied to my body. I was forced to watch clips on a television of gay men holding hands, hugging and having sex. I was supposed to associate those images with the pain I was feeling to once and for all turn into a straight boy. In the end it didn’t work. I would say that it did, just to make the pain go away. I have begun to repair the damage that conversion therapy caused me and my family. But the failed promise of change has very likely caused a permanent tear in our relationship.""
While this anecdote is distressing, it hardly constitutes objective proof of any of your claims about "trans' folks. It's an anecdote intended to reach people on an emotional level, it's certainly not scientific.
As I said in my last comment. How you respond to my answers, clarifications, issues, and questions, will be very revealing as to what your motive is. I guess the fact that you chose to move away from "science", not address anything I wrote, nor even acknowledge the fact that I invested time and effort responding in an extensive and specific manner, tells me that you're more interested in pushing an agenda.
I'm not sure how you think that this buttresses your case that a penis magically becomes a vagina after surgery, but I completely understand what you are hoping to do.
Since you obviously aren't interested in anything but pushing your agenda, go right ahead. Just don't expect any further significant engagement.
Listen:
"People who are transgender experience discrimination across the board, particularly if they’re known, believed, or discovered to be transgender. The National Center for Transgender Equality’s 2015 U.S. Trans Survey found that 46 percent of transgender people surveyed had been verbally harassed — and 9 percent had been physically assaulted — just for being transgender.
Due to discrimination in both housing and employment, 30 percent reported having experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. Another 30 percent reported having been discriminated against in the workplace or with prospective employers."
https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/deadnaming
Marshal, Craig: How often have you been assaulted for being a straight CIS guy? How often do you think men get beat up for being straight CIS men? 1% of the time? .001% the time? Never?
Probably the last.
LISTEN.
Craig... "While this anecdote is distressing, it hardly constitutes objective proof of any of your claims about "trans' folks. It's an anecdote intended to reach people on an emotional level, it's certainly not scientific."
It's ONE story. I've since sent you multiple other stories and data... ALL of which points to the real harm that has happened and continues to happen to LGBTQ folks.
"Reach people on an emotional level?"
It's an appeal to justice. WILL you stand for justice or will you continue with your attacks and dismissal of the oppression?
Being quiet and downplaying oppression is standing with the oppressors.
Which side will you be on?
And Jesus will say (in effect), "When you failed to support the least of these who are oppressed, you've failed to do to me."
"No. No, it's not like that. At all. I'm pointing out the reality of religious and cultural oppression of LGBTQ folk that you barely can acknowledge as reality."
Oh, OK well as long as you just say "No. No,", I guess that's settled.
Of course, your problem is that you're offering evidence of "oppression" as proof of your hunch about "trans' folks. The tow things are totally unrelated.
"That REAL history, the real demonization (literally) of LGBTQ folk, the denial of the Christianity, the morality, the decency, the liberty, the humanity of LGBTQ folk by people like me, once upon a time, and you and Marshal today is PART of the oppression. I'm just asking you to acknowledge the toxic and deadly real world history of the oppression of gay folk that has only begun to change in the last few decades and still, as we see with your words this week, continues in large parts of the nation and world. Asking you to recognize that reality is JUST asking you to acknowledge that reality. That is important, in and of itself, because denying of oppression is PART of oppression. Same with asking you to acknowledge that God hasn't told you that gay folks getting married is wrong or that being a transgender person is wrong is NOT arguing from silence. It's just getting you to acknowledge reality. ONCE you begin to recognize reality, THEN we can move on from there. The problem with modern (and past) conservatives and conservative Christians is that they have a hard time just acknowledging reality and ignoring reality is part of the same oppression, and denying that reality is, again, part of the oppression. The irony is, when you keep saying I'm committing logical fallacies, you're doing that BASED UPON FALLACIES of what I have and haven't said. Not that you'll understand that, but maybe one day. Listen.'
You've demonstrated that you can repeat yourself to the point that I stopped reading halfway through this latest pile of shit. I've acknowledged the history. But the history doesn't prove a damn thing regarding this conversation.
The existence of past "oppression" doesn't answer the question regarding the biological nature of male/female. Hell, it doesn't even prove your claims about my words causing harm.
But thanks for reinforcing my conclusions. If beating the dead horse floats your boat, go right ahead.
Damn, the horse is really dead now.
If you would have just said that my answers/responses/clarifying questions were going to be ignored, I wouldn't have wasted the time one them I did.
Please, keep beating.
"It's an appeal to justice. WILL you stand for justice or will you continue with your attacks and dismissal of the oppression?"
Never have been.
"Being quiet and downplaying oppression is standing with the oppressors."
That's a hunch.
"Which side will you be on?"
Biology. The side that doesn't encourage self mutilation. The side that isn't pressuring 4 year old children to make permanent, irreversible, life altering decisions about "gender" based on their adherence to gender stereotypes. The side that isn't about causing harm to one minority on behalf of another minority.
"And Jesus will say (in effect), "When you failed to support the least of these who are oppressed, you've failed to do to me.""
Had you only answered my related question(s) from earlier, I might have responded to this.
Maybe y'all can gather the .3-.42% of the population we're talking about and burn some more shit down in the name of justice.
Never have been.
Ah, but you have. Again, ASK LGBTQ folks. They'll tell you. Listen to them.
But you appear too cowardly to do so. It's easier/less scary/less adult to attack by sniping away from the anonymity of your computer.
Biology. The side that doesn't encourage self mutilation.
You keep saying that. But you have not cited the FIRST biologist who agrees with what you're saying. I have posted biologists who are saying you don't know what you're talking about. But you make up your own "science," if it comforts you. Just get out of the way while the adults take care of the oppressed.
A review of your "source" (a theologian, not a scientist):
"The author makes some interesting points, a good number with which I agree. However, her premise contains too many unproven theological and ethical assumptions to ground her claims. For example, using the biblical creation narrative to determine ethics is fraught with difficulties given its protohistory/mytho-poetic genre and ANE cultural context. Additionally, the author assumes arguments from nature/biology without sufficiently building the case for why and how. In many cases, it is merely stated as fact. That was terribly unhelpful."
and...
"This book will only be used as ammunition to keep people from loving themselves as they are; it perpetuates shame and hatred towards very vulnerable populations. This book won't change any minds, it will only reinforce the stereotypes you already hold."
https://www.amazon.com/Love-Thy-Body-Answering-Questions/product-reviews/1538503514?pageNumber=10
Sounds like it worked for you to "reinforce the stereotypes you already hold."
More reviews...
"and now I understand why she think it's okay to threaten LGBTQ people with guns. If you are curious about what I'm referring to, check out the news about our town of Leander, Texas, besieged by outside hate groups upset that parents who belonged to a welcoming church would allow an LGBT person to read a book to their kids. So they decided they'd hold a gun counter-rally at the same time, in the hopes of intimidating those parents into not bringing their kids to the event. This is the intellectual backing offered by those terrorists."
And...
"This is truly one of the most close-minded disgusting pieces of literature I’ve ever read. Her voice on homosexuality and transgenderism is dated and offensive, as well as hypocritical at best. This book is good only for getting a thorough look at what radical conservative Christians believe. "
and...
"Pompous hate speech that uses religion as an excuse to degrade anyone in the LGBTQ spectrum. Ignores science in favor of propaganda. A truly unsettling read. "
That's your "source..."?
Why do you ask questions if you’re going to ignore, or dismiss the responses out of hand.
Are you seriously suggesting that cutting of perfectly functioning body parts and replacing them with semi functional facsimiles is not self mutilation?
No, that’s not my source. Those are anonymous Amazon Reviews. I love how you think that the most negative anonymous review you can cherry pick is better than the work that’s been “reviewed”.
When I encounter someone who puts so much effort into avoiding things, I usually wonder why they are so afraid. What is it about a book, filled with primary source material and citations of the primary source material that is so daunting that one will go to such lengths to denigrate it and it’s (female) author? As I said, I’ve looked at this quite a bit over the last year or so, and I’m at least willing to look at things before I denigrate them.
But, you keep avoiding things. It suits you.
This notion that the existence of past oppression somehow validates the scientific claims, is just as absurd as the notion that the existence of bad reviews somehow invalidates or disproves the material contained in the book itself.
What a shallow, biased, lazy, incurious, boring way to go through life. To just find the absolute worst thing being said about someone, and to simply assume that it’s true. What a sad, pathetic, graceless, existence.
Given that the prevailing viewpoint in biology over the past decades is some variation of Darwinian theory, filtered through a materialist worldview, how does “LGT”, provide an evolutionary advantage?
How does taking a fully functioning male or female, with the ability to reproduce, and surgically removing that reproductive ability further the interests of the species?
This notion that the existence of past oppression somehow validates the scientific claims
And yet, the fact is, I NEVER MADE THIS DUMBASS claim. This, like point after point you try to make, is just another empty strawman fallacy.
Do you recognize that I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM?
I'm saying that SCIENTISTS TODAY/experts in the field of gender, will tell you that a transgender woman is a woman, because gender is not directly connected to anatomy. That you can't understand that is not evidence that they're wrong.
How does taking a fully functioning male or female, with the ability to reproduce, and surgically removing that reproductive ability further the interests of the species?
Because humans are more than sex and reproduction. Human nature is, I believe, nurtured and found within the very creation of each of us as unique people. For those of us who believe in a creator God, we are made in God's image and God is not just a penis, nor a vagina. It's deeper than that.
People reaching the full potential of who they are is a deeply human notion, a grace beyond mere body parts. That you are trying to reduce things down to dicks and vaginas says more about you than it does about anyone else.
Put another way, that you don't understand Darwinian science is evidence of nothing more than your inability to understand beyond a first grade level.
Listen to the experts. Listen to the individuals themselves.
Or, at the very least, get the hell out of people's way as they live their lives. Get our of their bedrooms, out of their bathrooms, out of their knickers. It's simply none of your God damned business and your attempts to oppress or repress others is only a sign of your own sickness.
Put yet another way, a transgender man or woman causes you no harm. Your attempts to mock and belittle and literally demonize them DOES cause harm to others.
Which side are you going to be on?
Is honesty important to the beginning of a romantic/dating relationship?
If a woman (after “transitioning to a man) was admitted to a hospital (checked female on the admitted documents), is the hospital required to give “her” the drug dosages for a female or for a male? If it’s the female dosage, is the hospital liable for malpractice?
Ahhhhh, more excrement.
I’ll pull one thing out of the less than steaming pile above though. If what we were discussing was limited to what people did in the privacy of their bedrooms, and bathrooms, with other consenting adults, this discussion wouldn’t be happening.
But the fact that a decades old slogan gets trotted out again, seems to reinforce the fact that people laughed about a slippery slope back then, and somehow all those concerns ended up being valid.
It has ZERO impact on you. Nothing. Just keep your mouth shut and let people be.
I get that you might think that there are guys out there who think that if I just act like a woman I can win in sporting events against women. That doesn't happened. It just doesn't happen.
I get that there's some women who are uncomfortable with transgender women being in their bathroom. And there are some white people who are uncomfortable with sharing the bathroom with a black person. Those people have to get over it. That's their hang up, not the fault of the transgender woman nor the black person. There just is no harm being done by transgender folk or gay folk. The harm is being done but people like you refusing to just shut up. By refusing to just let people be.
You can't point to a single point of harm caused by lgbtq people being lgbtq.
Still nothing but verbal excrement, no substance, no answers, just ranting.
“ You can't point to a single point of harm caused by lgbtq people being lgbtq.”
Wasn’t a mayor of Seattle just involved in a scandal for being lgbtq, with underage boys?
Ooops, just one more question to ignore.
Still nothing... says the guy who has offered ZERO evidence to support his claim of "harm" by lgbtq folk and ZERO evidence to support his stupidly false claim that science and biology agree with him.
Irony.
I have to note how you lump the lgbtqxyxpdq all together as if every variation has the exact same agenda and as if it’s a monolithic bloc. But it is a great way to move the goalposts when convenient.
Re: an accusation of a gay person abusing children...
I'm not saying there's not individual gay people who cause harm. You dumbass. Of course there are. And there are individual straight men who cause harm... And they do so at a much greater rate you, you lame wannabe deceiver.
What I'm saying is that a gay guy being gay does not cause you harm. It just does not cause you harm. Get the hell out of his bathroom, out of his bedroom and out of his life. You don't have any role in his life. Shut up and get the hell out of the way.
The same is true for a trans person just being who they are. It doesn't hurt you. Get over it. It does not hurt you. You do not get to say how they should live. It's none of your goddamn business and it does not cause you harm you ignorant busybody.
What about this are you failing to understand? You keep making accusations as if they had any weight at all. They don't. Not with rational adults.
Now if you have Hang-Ups about gay people for transgender folks that's your problem. You just have to get out of the way. You are the same as white folks we have problem with black folks. That's not the black folks problem. It's theirs.
Let people be.
Just more nothing. I guess simply repeating oneself is what passes for truth.
FYI, you said “a single”, I pointed out “a single”, or isn’t an adult man having sex with a boy count as “lgbtxuzpdq”?
Hell, there’s a worldwide organization dedicated to furthering gay statutory rape, but no harm done there, right?
,,,says the guy who suggests that LGBTQ folk cause harm by being LGBTQ AND CONTINUES not to support the stupidly false claim. And he doesn't support it because he can't. He continues to attack and demonize and belittle an historically oppressed people and won't just let people be themselves... and he suggests that THEY are the ones to be concerned about.
And again, if you can't understand and just get the hell out of the way so the adults can take care of the oppressed and marginalized. Get the hell out of people's pants, bedrooms and bathrooms, pervert.
I guess repeating false charges and dangerous attacks on historically oppressed people is what passes for "truth," amongst too many of today's "conservatives."
Craig, to point out your utter lack of understanding words... you said, "FYI, you said “a single”, I pointed out “a single”, or isn’t an adult man having sex with a boy count as “lgbtxuzpdq”?"
What I SAID was NOT what you said above. What I SAID was:
"You can't point to a single point of harm caused by lgbtq people being lgbtq."
I am talking about, in this conversation, the great evil of you who would oppress LGBTQ folk for being who they are. And make NO mistake, what you are doing is evil.
I am talking about the reality that there is NO HARM to you in a transgender woman being a woman or a gay guy being a gay guy, or a gender fluid person being gender fluid. There is LITERALLY NO HARM to you or your candy ass snowflake associates. That is the reality of it all. You can not and will not (because you can not) point to a SINGLE instance of someone being harmed by another LGBTQ person being who they are.
That you can't do so is evident by the complete absence of you even TRYING to support the stupidly and dangerously false claim (and make no mistake, it IS dangerous to continue oppressing and lying about an historically oppressed people).
ALL you have to do is, when meeting a trans woman who tells you she is SHE and that HER name is Alice, say, "Hi Alice, I'm pleased to meet you..." and simply have the very little decency of referring to her as her.
That costs you nothing and causes you NO harm.
ALL you have to do is, when meeting a gender fluid person who says they go by They and Them, refer to them as They and Them.
That costs you nothing and causes you NO harm.
Do you recognize that reality?
ALL you have to do is stay the hell out of people's bedrooms, bathrooms, pants and business. That costs you nothing and saves and improves lives. And yet...
Just more nothing. I guess simply repeating oneself is what passes for truth.
FYI, you said “a single”, I pointed out “a single”, or isn’t an adult man having sex with a boy count as “lgbtxuzpdq”?
Hell, there’s a worldwide organization dedicated to furthering gay statutory rape, but no harm done there, right?
I'm confused as well.
"You can't point to a single point of harm caused by lgbtq people being lgbtq."
Maybe Dan means that the simple existence of a member of the LGBTQNESTLES community isn't in and of itself harmful? Hmmm. Let's try that another way:
"You can't point to a single point of harm caused by white nationalist people being white nationalist."
And it's true! Simply because one is a racist doesn't necessarily mean harm is inflicted on anyone. Something must be done by the racist in order to inflict harm.
But the harm to individuals and society is from the implementing of the agenda aims of the LGBT community. And for the purposes of the subject of this discussion...the so-called "transgendered"...the harm is not only evident, but documented. What follows was a piece I referenced earlier and which I posted about a month short of five years ago. At that time, Dan saw no reason to comment on it despite it being posted for his benefit, given he was defending these unfortunate disordered people back then. I doubt he'll bother now because he has no legitimate counter to it still:
https://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/girls-and-women-at-risk-in-co-ed-restrooms-dressing-rooms-and-locker-rooms/
No doubt, should Dan try to dismiss the above, he'll do so by suggesting it's not typical of the community he defends. But it doesn't have to be, even though he couldn't guarantee to what degree that might be true. OUR point is that this demand that these people be treated as actual women, with the same access to the same "female only" facilities reserved for actual, biological females, puts women at risk of GREAT harm by predatory men, including those who, sincerely or not, "identify" as women themselves. The video in the article is almost 25 minutes long, and is simply a list of criminals of various stages of "transition", but with each exploiting the ability to access female/only facilities to assault actual females of any age to one degree or another.
So our concern is by the victims of some serious oppression by those Dan wants us to believe are innocent victims of oppression themselves and never anything worse. That's always the way with Dan. We speak of statistics and facts, while he brings anecdotal stories of gentle "women" and kindly old lesbians. The thing is, we don't pretend that all within the LGBTRESPECT community are predators. We're just acknowledging realities he wants to pretend don't exist. We do so for the sake of those who are victimized by those realities and put at great risk, simply to appease the demands of an extraordinarily tiny percentage of the general population.
And that's just the worst examples of the harm to society. For the sake of the tiny percentage, the rest of us must by made to forsake our rights and liberties protected by the US Constitution people like Dan and the activists pervert for the purpose. It's as if were there to be no corrupted equal protections legislation, no one of the LGBTGICUOK community could get work, housing, health care or beef jerky at the local Circle K. It's absurd given how many "progressives" there are to provide.
Not that I think you'll understand (and maybe not even read), but here's more information on the biology/science of gender and it explains why it's not the grade school understanding of XX or XY...
"THE IDEA OF TWO SEXES IS OVERLY SIMPLISTIC
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.
When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health..."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
and...
"Yet just like gender isn’t binary, our biology isn’t binary either: it, too, exists on a spectrum. In fact, many people’s bodies possess a combination of physical characteristics typically thought of as “male” or “female.” As one example, some people with androgen insensitivity have XY chromosomes, internal testes, and external female genitalia. Traits, including hormone levels, can also vary widely both within and across sexes. But people who fall outside of what’s considered normal face discrimination...
Students are often inaccurately taught that all babies inherit either XX or XY sex chromosomes, and that having XX chromosomes makes you female, while XY makes you male. In reality, people can have XXY, XYY, X, XXX, or other combinations of chromosomes — all of which can result in a variety of sex characteristics. It’s also true that some people with XX chromosomes develop typically male reproductive systems, and some people with XY chromosomes develop typically female reproductive systems."
https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/
...If actual biology beyond a first grade understanding matters to you.
So, stop saying science and biology "agree" with you. They don't. You're just lacking information and a more adult understanding of biology/science.
Marshal... ""You can't point to a single point of harm caused by white nationalist people being white nationalist."
And it's true! Simply because one is a racist doesn't necessarily mean harm is inflicted on anyone."
This is so ineptly stupid as to defy a response. WHITE NATIONALISTS, by definition, advocate policies and actions that cause harm to non-whites, as well as to their own sick souls.
The very definition of White Nationalists undermines this stupid conclusion:
"White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites."
IF you have a majority white population that embraced a white nationalist set of policies, non-whites would be exported and treated as inferiors (at best!) and otherwise caused great harm and oppression.
Catch up to the real world, Marshal. White nationalism IS a set of beliefs that cause harm.
Being gay or a transgender person (or being black or brown, for that matter) is just who some people are. There's no harm in being a person who is a person who happens to be gay, lesbian, black, brown, Asian or transgender. None and that you can't point to it (and you can't) is obvious.
EMBRACING white nationalist beliefs, on the other hand, is CHOOSING to embrace harmful behaviors, policies and attitudes. It's the embracing of sick policies, not "who they are."
You lose, fellas. In the adult world of providing data to support arguments and making rational arguments, you just lose.
As to your nonsense example, idiot, PERVERTED STRAIGHT CIS-MEN, right now, could dress up as women and enter bathrooms to attack people. The rule that is in place to protect that from happening is saying, "You can't assault people." That's already in place. It doesn't matter IF a transgender person actually assaults someone in a bathroom or if it's one of the many straight CIS-men who would do such a thing (and who do it in MUCH greater numbers and as a percentage, as far as we know) is not an argument for keeping certain people out of the bathrooms.
Look, hell, RIGHT NOW, straight CIS-men pose the greatest threat to boys being attacked and assaulted. Is that an argument for keeping ALL men out of men's bathrooms?
Your "argument" is nonsense and not data based.
Give it up, boys. Go back to school. Get at least a middle school understanding of the science and sociology involved.
Or, at the very least, get the hell out of people's private lives. It's just none of your damned business.
And Marshal, you have NOT presented a single shred of "statistics and facts," and certainly not from any reputable sources.
Conspiracy theories and hate groups and other sick, irrational sources don't help your argument. They just make you look pathetic and ignorant and hateful.
Marshal... "The thing is, we don't pretend that all within the LGBTRESPECT community are predators."
No, because such a claim would be patently false and sick-headed. In fact, we know that the majority of predators are straight CIS-males. But that Marshal wants to cater to the actual predators (hell, he even helped elect an overtly self-confessed predator for president!) and cause harm to the historically oppressed.
Shame on you.
"And when the Son of Man comes in all his Glory, he will sit on his glorious throne... Then he will say to those on his left,
‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me,
I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
~Jesus
Good Lord. Against my better judgment, I started watching your sick, perverted hate propaganda in your link, Marshal. THE VERY FIRST example of a threat they presented was from a STRAIGHT WHITE CIS-GENDER MALE. The same appears to be true for the second "example," they gave.
This is an argument AGAINST what you're saying, not in FAVOR of what you're saying. THIS is an argument that straight CIS-Males are the threat, NOT that allowing transgender women to simply go to the bathroom are a threat.
We are NOT endorsing letting abusive straight CIS-men use women's bathrooms. Because of course we're not.
THESE sick and hateful (and quite dubious - ANY source that does not provide links to their information is dubious at the outset and should raise red flags for any rational adults seeking information) false and slanderous attacks are targeting the wrong people. We don't punish the whole group (CIS men, transgender women, etc) for the actions of a few who misbehave, and we sure as hell don't punish an innocent group (transgender women who simply want to go to the bathroom in peace) for the actions of a separate guilty group (straight CIS males seeking to assault women). That's just yet another attack on human rights and human liberties of a group that has been historically oppressed.
Get help, boys. Or just get the hell out of the way and shut up.
Marshal... "But the harm to individuals and society is from the implementing of the agenda aims of the LGBT community."
The harm of the agenda of "just leave us the hell alone, get out of our bedrooms, bathrooms, marriages and pants..."? Where is the harm in that agenda?
The harm of the agenda of "We are humans and have human rights and expect you to respect those human rights..."? Where is the harm in THAT agenda?
I'm curious: Can you even explain what you think the "agenda" is for LGBTQ folks? Once you've done that, can you explain how that harms anyone?
If I were to guess, I'd guess that you think they want to "force" you to "accept" LGBTQ folk for who they are. First of all, you don't have to "accept" anything you want. You can be a bigot who hates black folks or gay folks or whoever and no one is stopping you from holding that hatred inside your sick soul. You won't be "forced" to "accept" people you hate.
HOWEVER, as is the case for everyone, we DO expect you to not oppress, not harass, not cause harm to folks that you hate or disagree with.
But this is just the human rights ideal that is implicit in all free societies.
What "harm..."?
Marshal... " For the sake of the tiny percentage, the rest of us must by made to forsake our rights and liberties protected by the US Constitution"
You're on the wrong side of rights and liberties, Marshal. Saying, "You can't discriminate, attack, oppress or otherwise harm LGBTQ folk for simply being who they are" is not denying ANY actual rights you might think you have. You DON'T have the right to cause harm to a group of people because of who they are. you just don't.
That's an imaginary and diabolical "right" that comes from hell, not human rights or reason.
Also Marshal, as an aside: I've posted several comments on your blog that I'm guessing you haven''t seen. Just fyi.
And Dan finally pulls out the intersex argument. The problem with this argument is that it elevates a genetic defect that occurs in an infinitesimal amount of people and uses that as an argument to normalize being trans. The problem with this, of course, is that it uses tiny samples from the ever more extreme end of the bell curve, to try to normalize that which (by definition) isn’t the norm.
This notion that well over 99% of the population has a physical body that aligns with their perception of their “gender”, should give us a hint.
Further, the notion that a girl who enjoys things that are stereotypical of boys, or vice versa is simply parents imposing their political beliefs on their minor children.
Are you seriously saying that an 8 year old had the ability to make an informed decision about undergoing medical procedure that will take years, make irreparable changes to their bodies, and make them even more different?
This absurd attempt to point out the reality that the physical differences between male and female are limited to the superficial, exterior, ones is childish in itself.
It is a way to dodge questions and avoid things that don’t fit one’s narrative though.
Dan provides data from biologists and scientist that contradicts Craig's first grade understanding the biology.
Craig responds by saying, nuh-uh!
There we have it. Data versus fractured opinion. Experts versus non-experts. Scientific level understanding versus Grade School understanding. Data vs. hateful bias.
Religious bias versus reasoned look at data.
Craig... "Are you seriously saying that an 8 year old had the ability to make an informed decision about undergoing medical procedure that will take years, make irreparable changes to their bodies, and make them even more different?"
Where precisely did I say that? Of course, the reality is, I did not say that. So, when you ask, "am I seriously saying..." something that I never said, the answer is a factual no. Because, reality.
Do you understand that reality?
Craig... "It is a way to dodge questions and avoid things that don’t fit one’s narrative though."
Says the man who keeps saying that science and biology are on his side, and who has not yet cited the first scientist or biologist who supports this false claim.
Craig... "This notion that well over 99% of the population has a physical body that aligns with their perception of their “gender”, should give us a hint."
I don't think you understand how science and data work. The majority of the world is right handed. That does not mean that left-handed people don't exist... you understand this, right?
Another question for you to ignore, Fox screaming falsely that I'm ignoring questions.
Craig... "The problem with this argument is that it elevates a genetic defect..."
To hell with you and your attacks. Data shows that conservatives have an enlarged fear center in their brains. Shall we call conservatives "genetic defects," you asswipe?
Post a Comment