Hodad

Really? "He woke up?" ?

Their "agenda" of being treated with respect and dignity. As long as they don't want that, you'll let them be. What a mensch.

I told you from jump that LGBTQ people are at the most at risk of any group -- race, religion, class, creed whatever. That's pretty obvious. I don't think it should be treated as a controversial statement, but here: "The figures show that LGBT people are 2.4 times more likely to suffer a violent hate crime attack than Jews (8.3 divided by 3.5). In the same way, gays are 2.6 times more likely to be attacked than blacks; 4.4 times more likely than Muslims; 13.8 times more likely than Latinos; and 41.5 times more likely than whites, according to the FBI figures."

What they really need is a list of people who feel for something so obvious. Those folks shouldn't be voting or making any kinds of decisions.?

I can't be more clear about this. You are still trying to compare the count of ALL racially motivated hate crimes (when every person has a race) against the count of hate crimes against trans people, a diminutive population. It's just not useful or honest. It's like trying to convince people that skydiving is safer than sleeping because a lot more people die in their sleep every year.

You've made this "mistake" of reasoning before, so it's starting to feel less like a mistake and more like disinformation. You did the same thing with regard to hate crimes in this thread. Comparing the number of incidents within a large population vs incidents within a small population is useless, at best. To compare the groups honestly you must use rates.

Ah, yes. Naked links. The refuge of those who have made up nonsense and then wish to *pretend* to validate it. The third naked link is the only one that nearly supports one of your claims, and of course the individual who exposed themselves in the spa room was arrested and charged with 5 felonies, exactly as any man who could walk into a locker room and expose themselves. So what's the issue? Look, it's just a culture war talking point. It's pure fantasy to think that men are just jumping into the trans lifestyle to score a few easy dubs in non-commercial sports or peep random women in locker rooms. It's like voter fraud: a made up crisis that's just not happening at any scale. It's HARD to live as a trans person. The cost-benefit analysis just isn't there.

The portion of the population actually committing hate crimes isn't really the issue. The actual crimes committed are a good barometer for how tolerant or intolerant society is of any given trait or behavior. Only a small subset of people are going to act violently on their biases. And are you really trying to nominally compare hate crimes against ALL races (every human has a "race") against hate crimes against the very small LGBTQ population? Suffice it to say that they are more likely to be victimized than any given race or religious affiliation. Nobody is organizing nationwide boycotts of Target stores for Jewish bathrooms. It just seems silly and shallow to complain about trans activists applying social pressure when the social pressure against trans rights is larger, better organized and got started hundreds of years earlier. Like, is it really "bullying" when a struggling minority group applies social pressure to try to stake out some expectation of decent treatment. Are you gonna tell me how Rosa Parks and the bus boycott were bullying the city of Montgomery? Was that "cancel culture" in action? Were the people protesting Strom Thurmond's speeches the bullies practicing cancel culture, or were the bullies those picking on a numerically powerless minority?

You cannot possibly have thought this through. LGBTQ people are more likely than any other group to be targeted by hate crimes, usually VASTLY more likely. The phrase "gay bashing" exists for a reason. Nobody dragged Matthew Shepard behind a truck because he had brown hair. Come on.

You've really jumped the shark on this one. The tone of your post implies that social pressure is something newly weaponized by trans activists. It's not new, not expected--hell, not even dominated by the left. Think about the the threats--the ever present threats--and the actual violence against the queer community (not to mention the extreme social pressure) that has forced closeting and repression in most societies. Anti-trans activists organize large scale, formalized boycotts of individuals and businesses who support trans rights (see Target). If anything, trans activists and allies have taken a small-scale play from the opposition playbook in gathering enough momentum to apply social pressure.

I'm mostly fine with this, though there may be a more nuanced position regarding puberty something something. Perfectly happy to let sports authorities and medical experts determine what is fair and safe for competitive sports. That's their entire function in society.

Many would call those completely fictional scenarios.

It's hard-won and jealousy defended because the world is full of people trying to strip them of that identity and even basic dignity. Social progress and acceptance is slow and painful. Definitely hard won.

Show your work. I showed mine.

Because that is how they identify--and because of the challenge and struggle of being trans in this society, that hard-won identity is more jealously protected. Just because it's a social construct doesn't mean the word without meaning, particularly on a personal level. I've known cis men who'd be inclined to punch you in the nose if you insisted on calling them a woman. Why would he be "getting all angry?" Identity matters, and to some more than others.

This is true on multiple levels. When you unpack it, that's what it really comes down to. You can be respectful and considerate about the feelings of other human beings, or you can choose to be a spiteful a-hole. And like those other things, society will respond in kind.

Thanks for the very thoughtful post. To be clear, I definitely did not intend for my short post to tackle the larger conversation about trans rights, etc., but rather to simply challenge the specific thought that gender has the same meaning as sex and has been immutable and binary up until this point of radical departure. Gender and biological sex have a long history of being distinct from one another within human conception and communication. Yes, there was a period of time when those words were largely interchangeable in the English speaking world, but that's a pretty narrow aperture. We didn't have a need to distinguish the social from the biological so we were casually lazy. But the need for precision is growing and the words are drifting apart again. The whole thing is a little like watching an astronomical transit.

Gender has been understood as a social construct rather than a biological observation since before you were born. Think about cultures with gendered language, in which words are assigned a gender (masculine, feminine or neuter) based on how those words relate to social expectations. As societies drift and shift so do the words and the ways they are employed.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. She didn't harm him in any way. Your analogies all involve actual harm. Yes, he thought he e going to get laid. The fact that it didn't happen-for whatever reason- is not harm. Someone born female could have ridden in the car with him and changed her mind about sex. He's disappointed, but that is not harm. Not getting laid when you expect to is NOT an excuse for anger, in let alone violence. What a sense of entitlement. He was not robbed of the chance to decide. He was not excluded from the conversation. He got the information and chose not to proceed. That IS the conversation. ^^that whole post is giving off crazy strong vibes of sexual entitlement. You went on a date and maybe paid for dinner and now you're OWED sex and if it doesn't happen or doesn't happen as expected you have been wronged and are justified to be angry. Come on.

Agreed that timing matters. You don't cross certain lines. Earlier is safer. Public is safer. But I don't necessarily agree about a lie by omission--at least not to a degree that it's outside social norms for getting to know someone. Like many of those other examples, I think people omit a lot of details that could make them challenging or incompatible partners and don't reveal those things until they get to know people and establish some level of comfort. And then at a certain point, or when it becomes relevant, it becomes appropriate to share those details. Nobody leads with "I'm an alcoholic," or "I'm on antidepressants so I don't have much of a libido," or whatever. Those deeper truths usually come out after a few dates. And if we want to flip the script, he clearly didn't lead with "I'm an abusive a-hole with anger control problems." To be clear though, his reaction wasn't out of anger at her. Like most abusers, he was punishing her for triggering his insecurities. His being attracted to her challenged his sense of masculinity and heterosexuality. He was disgusted with himself and that manifested as anger at her for "making" him feel that way. "Look what you made me do!"

I'm actually going to side with her on this. There's a lot of potentially disqualifying traits in terms of sexual or relationship compatibility. Whether it's kids, infertility divorce, religion, politics, circumcision, endometriosis, whatever... Typically, people don't disclose all of these things upon meeting. They go out, get to know one another a bit and then decide if they are interested enough in the other person to want to progress the relationship--to work through or around potential challenges or not. I don't see how this is fundamentally different. After they've spent some time together they can decide whether it's an issue, and if so, if it's an issue worth dealing with.

Jewish. Space. Lasers. Starting forest fires. It's hard to imagine what overly negative would look like. ?

Only "kinda"? We must not be explaining it properly. ?

Sorry, but disapproving of the guy who just kicked your ass in the election is not a justification to attempt a coup. In a democracy, the voters get to choose their leaders. They chose Biden over Trump--by a lot. Your post rather neatly proves that @Aristides is correct: you DO want a dictatorship instead of a democracy.

Sure, if you ignore the attempted coup, in which he literally tried to seize power against the will of the electorate. Just that little ol' thing. ?