Scott75

By what measure? Let's start from the mid-60s when homosexual acts are illegal. Imagine it's back then and you're drawing a road map to acceptance. What's the last stop on the road? I would say it would be general acceptance of gay marriage. No one could have imagined back then that people would be fighting over trans people using certain bathrooms. The debate would have been inscrutable to them. So by that measure, how far do we have to go? That's not to say there's no opposition, no discrimination, even systemic discrimination. But if your goal is zero discrimination, complete mind meld to acceptance by all... Then we should go back and work on the Irish again. The thing about destinations is that there is generally no end to the ones we'd like to reach. Once one is reached, we strive to reach another :-). I also agree that people couldn't have imagined back then that people would be fighting over who should use which bathroom and whether some bathrooms should be redesigned. That's the thing about progress- it takes us to places where we have to come up with solutions to novel problems. As to how far we have to go, as far as we like. Finally, as to the goal of zero description and having to work on the Irish again, I'm not sure what you mean by the Irish bit, but I -suspect- that the answer is, yes, the Irish issue still needs work too. I -suspect- that an issue that you are subtly bringing up is whether we should focus so much attention on such issues. I think that's a choice that every individual needs to make for themselves. For now, I think it warrants my attention, but, as has happened in the past, I may stop talking about it if I find that there is something the deserves my attention more.

The best way to resolve things is to make sure Marxists don't get their way. I think this is the first time in this thread that Marxists were even mentioned in this thread. I'm drawn to a recent comment made by Michael Hardner: I suspect he has a good point here. By the same token, conservative republicans would -also- want to ignore the fact that many in their own party are becoming more accepting, because they then wouldn't be able to frame the issue as a right vs. left affair, but rather one where even members of their own party are becoming more accepting.

Not really. They won, and LGBTQ is almost absorbed into our culture. The so-called left refuses to celebrate this, because it would mean that they're no longer needed as warriors in the social struggle. Even the troll kings on here will preface their posts with some kind of innocuous allowance like "I am not against whatever people want to do, but.." When I was young homosexual acts were illegal in Canada. There's progress. I think we should focus on that and not silly troll spats... I certainly agree that there has been progress in regards to LGBTQ rights, but I also think that there's a long way to go as well. There's also the fact that, despite what some posters here think, there are some disagreements within the LGBTQ community, such as hormones/hormone blockers and trans surgery for minors. I think that the community is slowly coming to an agreement that these types of bodily modifications are best post poned until adulthood, but I definitely don't think there's full agreement yet. There are also cases of pushback from those who are not fans of LGBTQ rights. I think a good article on this is here: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health/transgender-bathroom-law-facts-myths/index.html

Actually, the Phoenix is part of both Greek -and- Egyptian mythology: ** The phoenix is an immortal bird that cyclically regenerates or is otherwise born again. While it is part of Greek mythology, it has analogs in many cultures, such as Egyptian and Persian mythology. Associated with the sun, a phoenix obtains new life by rising from the ashes of its predecessor. [snip] The origin of the phoenix has been attributed to Ancient Egypt by Herodotus and later 19th-century scholars, but other scholars think the Egyptian texts may have been influenced by classical folklore. Over time, the phoenix motif spread and gained a variety of new associations; Herodotus, Lucan, Pliny the Elder, Pope Clement I, Lactantius, Ovid, and Isidore of Seville are among those who have contributed to the retelling and transmission of the phoenix motif. Over time, extending beyond its origins, the phoenix could variously "symbolize renewal in general as well as the sun, time, the Roman Empire, metempsychosis, consecration, resurrection, life in the heavenly Paradise, Christ, Mary, virginity, the exceptional man, and certain aspects of Christian life".[3] Some scholars have claimed that the poem De ave phoenice may present the mythological phoenix motif as a symbol of Christ's resurrection.[4] ** Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology)

User is projecting, once again. Some of the most vehement homophobes, are the way they are either due to being in the closet themselves, or they are sexual deviants. I agree that he's projecting -something-, but it doesn't have to be that he's in the closet or a sexual deviant. I found an article just now of a former homophobe who came to realize the error of their ways. It's here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-09/how-a-homophobe-repented-and-became-an-imperfect-lgbtq-ally Quoting the bit about transgender people: ** A decade after my shameful behavior toward my Anaheim High classmate, I read a powerful column by Times sportswriter Mike Penner that revealed he would return from vacation as Christine Daniels. “I am a transsexual sportswriter,” Penner wrote. “It has taken more than 40 years, a million tears and hundreds of hours of soul-wrenching therapy for me to work up the courage to type those words.” I was so moved that I sent a note of appreciation through a mutual friend. To my surprise and delight, Daniels wanted to meet me to talk about dealing with sudden fame. I was then at the OC Weekly, and The Times had featured me and my column, “¡Ask a Mexican!”, leading to an avalanche of attention. I was nervous, and not just about meeting a writer whose work I had long admired. I didn’t know anyone who identified as transsexual and worried that I would offend Daniels by asking an inappropriate question or using the wrong name or pronoun. At a panini spot in Old Towne Orange, Daniels quickly disabused me of my low-key transphobia. I found myself focusing on the person before me: Kind. Hilarious. Brilliant. Happy. In the Weekly, I continued to proudly bash the ghouls who ridiculed Daniels, all the way to the sad day in 2009 when Mike Penner, who had returned to using that byline in The Times, died by suicide. Today, as city councils reject calls to fly rainbow flags during Pride Month and school boards ban books and curricula that touch on anything LGBTQ+, as adults protest drag time story hours in the name of protecting children and hurl invectives at drag nuns while mocking the rise of “Latinx,” I remember my journey from hatred to humility. I asked Bamby Salcedo, president and chief executive of the TransLatin@ Coalition, about the best way to change closed hearts and minds. It’s not “about doing a training or checking a DEI box” she said, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion; it’s about having difficult conversations from a place of love, “because hate doesn’t win.” A heartfelt push back to someone’s anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes, Salcedo said, can “put out that seed of change. And if you plant it, la cosecha sale [the harvest comes].” **

What problem do you think I am creating? Oh, OK. So you don't think there is a problem that requires calling normal people cis now. Great. Glad you agree. You are aware that there is a difference between there being a problem and me creating one, right? There is no problem. And yet, in post #490, you said that I was creating a problem. This is how this conversation thread started. I asked you what problem you thought I was creating and then you somehow came to the conclusion that because I asked you this question, there was no problem at all. Anyway, let me spell it out to you once more: the problem is that we have 2 factions within the U.S. and around the world, one that supports being more supportive of the LGBT community, and one that doesn't. Eventually, I believe that the faction that supports the LGBT community will win, but until then, the struggle continues. This is ofcourse a simplification of sorts, but I think it's the gist of the issue.

Trans people tend to define themselves as men and women. Here is the problem, at least for people like you. You don't accept that a trans woman is a real woman, while others do.

I have not forgotten that people like you want to try to change the meaning of male and female to the nonsensical gibberish you do. I soundly reject it. No, I'm just trying to point out that a good amount of people have already changed their meaning of male and female. You can deny that this has happened, but it's quite clear that it has, and this is reflected in both dictionaries and the law. On the contrary, I think that by including terms like 'cis' in dating apps, it can help people -avoid- finding people who wouldn't be compatible for them.

Trans people are abnormal. I see that DUI asked you to define normal in post #751 and you simply linked to an online dictionary in response. I think the more important definition in this case, however, is the definition of abnormal. From the online dictionary you previously linked to, there are 2 definitions for the term: ** : deviating from the normal or average a person with abnormal [=exceptional] strength abnormal powers of concentration often : unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way abnormal behavior abnormal test results ** The first definition is positive, but the second one is not, and I think we can agree that it's the definition that is most often used. It's for this reason that I think that using this label for trans people is deceiving. There is a lot of talk of gender wars and what I think few realize is that transgender people can be a way to bridge this gap. So instead of terms like "normal" and "abnormal", I think terms like "common" and "uncommon" or "rare" would be better.

There's ALWAYS a need to insult agenda pushers, and most trannies are agenda pushers, if not all of them. The insults must continue until they either withdraw, or until we're able to outlaw their agenda. In the past, I decided to look up the meaning of an agenda pusher. I found the following definition, which I think fits: ** It means that you are forcing/pushing other people to accept your opinions, actions, values while disregarding theirs. ** Source: https://hinative.com/questions/20350859 I'd say it's -you- who are pushing an agenda, with your continual use of the word tranny, despite the fact that you know that it's an insult to transgender people at this point. You don't want to listen to viewpoints that differ from your own and apparently want to silence those who disagree with you into submission, with insults if necessary. I actually have very strong moral values. It's one of the reasons I decided to take up this discussion to begin with.

Sure, that's why no black people get upset if you call them "muh nigga" 🙄 First of all, labelling a person, or group of people, doesn't change the person or people regardless of whether the label is taken to be offensive or not. You get into another issue below though, let's get into that one... Yes, -that- is true. Which is probably why some well known institutions have labelled the term tranny to be an offensive and derogatory slur: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.[3][4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny I never said that labels are no big deal, I said that they don't change the thing being labelled, at least not directly. No, that's not true. I myself am a cisgender male. I suppose I could say that I'm not a trans male, but I'd rather define myself but what I am, not what I'm not. Perhaps same gender male might work, but cis is definitely shorter.

For the audience, I dealt with the first sentence in my previous post. As to "No homosexual/transsexual novels or storybooks in libraries", "no pronouns" and "no gender identity bull****", I think I understand where this is all coming from. It seems you're afraid of the LGBT community and think that other people should be too. Fortunately, I think that initiatives like the ones you mention are gaining steam and soon, people who think like you will become a thing of the past. It just takes time. The same when it comes to bathrooms- it's not that hard to make each bathroom cubile private, as a matter of fact, that's the way female bathrooms are already set up. Simply having unisex bathrooms with private cubicles for everyone might be the solution to this. As to your final comment on the left wing, it's not just the left wing that's changing as I've mentioned in the past- there's a faction within the Republican party that is also becoming more amenable to these changes as well. Quoting from an article on the subject: ** There are wide ideological differences within both parties. Two-thirds of conservative Republicans (66%) view the impact of same-sex marriage negatively. Nearly the same share of moderate and liberal Republicans (62%) take a positive view. ** Full article: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/

"Back in their lane" means LGBTQ keeps their shit to themselves: No pole dancing in front of kids, and no drag queen story hour with kids. I think I may agree with you that pole dancing in front of kids isn't the best idea, but I suspect that this happens rarely anyway. I'm a supporter of Drag Queen Story Hour, though. Wikipedia has a page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_Queen_Story_Hour Again, this is an area where the culture war in the U.S. and other places is clearly ongong. Quoting the final section of the article above makes this clear: ** Bans on DSH [Drag Queen Story Hour] have been proposed and enacted in several jurisdictions. Current laws make DSH events illegal in several countries, including Hungary and Russia. In the United States, DSH is banned in the state of Tennessee (but was blocked by a federal judge) and bans are being considered in several other states.[75] ** As to why I'm in favour, here's a good reason that the article mentioned: ** The New York Times noted "Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist in Oregon who works with queer and trans kids, said that experimenting with gender expression isn't necessarily linked to being queer or trans."[38] and "It's normal at basically any age for boys to dress up as princesses and girls in male superhero outfits".[38] She argues that what changed is parenting: "When there's no judgment, kids are more likely to feel free to explore".[38] ** Left unsaid, but I think implied, is that it allows kids to express their 'gender' the way they'd like to, without feeling that they need to suppress it because it won't look "normal".

No, terms like cisgender are not necessary. Again, they are if some people define terms like male and female to include anyone who identifies as male and female. You seem to want to deny that this is, in fact, how many people define those terms, including myself now, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. If it were just some "fringe group", then the gender of transgender people would be discounted everywhere and they'd simply be lumped in with those who match their biological gender. That's clearly not the case though. I've already given examples here of this happening, but once more: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nj-trans-prisoner-impregnated-2-inmates-transferred-mens-facility-rcna38947 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/wisconsin-school-district-cant-restrict-bathrooms-trans-student-judge-rcna93471 Now, I'm not saying there isn't pushback, far from it. An example of such pushback: https://aflegal.org/major-victory-court-rules-fairfax-county-public-schools-pronoun-and-bathroom-policies-violate-students-constitutional-rights/ But there is clearly a culture war here, and to simply label the transgender community and those who support them as a "fringe group" is perhaps akin to how the British never thought that the Americans would win their revolutionary war: ** However, despite these more moderate voices on both sides, the march towards war became inevitable and was quite a shock to the British populace that never would have thought the colonies might rise up against their king. It was even more shocking when the Americans began to win. At the time, Britain was a world power with one of the strongest armies and navies to rival the French, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, amongst other imperial nations. ** Source: https://anglotopia.net/british-history/british-empire/british-history-the-british-perspective-on-the-american-revolution/ Yet win they did. I would say that when it comes to LGBT isssues, views have definitely been changing in their favour. A good example is that of same-sex marriage. I found a good article on American views of that to be here: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/ Quoting from said article: ** Views of the impact of same-sex marriage on society are largely unchanged since 2019. However, there has been a dramatic increase in public support for same-sex marriage over the past two decades. As recently as 2004, nearly twice as many Americans opposed than favored allowing gay and lesbian people to marry legally; by 2019, public opinion had reversed, with 61% in favor and 31% opposed. ** I think it's important to note that there are divisions in American society that have a large impact here: ** Opinions about same-sex marriage’s impact on society vary widely by age, education and – most starkly – by party and religion. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a largely positive view of the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage: Eight-in-ten say it has been good for society, while 19% say it has been bad. Republicans and Republican leaners are more divided: 43% view the legalization of same-sex marriage positively, 55% negatively. ** Even within the Republican party, however, there are divisions: ** There are wide ideological differences within both parties. Two-thirds of conservative Republicans (66%) view the impact of same-sex marriage negatively. Nearly the same share of moderate and liberal Republicans (62%) take a positive view. **

I quoted you. You did, yes. I suspect you didn't even read the rest of what I wrote in the post you're responding to. Heck, you apparently didn't even understand the one line of mine you -did- quote above. Put simply: what you said I said and what your quote from me said are not the same thing. For anyone who'd like to know the details of User's misunderstanding, I invite you to read my post #717.

CdnFox is a bad faith actor, and he is compromised by foreign agents. The sooner you stop arguing with him, the better it is for your mental health. I haven't seen any evidence that he's been compromised by foreign agents, but he certainly jumps to a lot of false conclusions. As to ceasing to argue with him, I don't know about that one either. That being said, I have decided that some of his posts are best not responded to.

You don't read my responses, do you. Not only do I read your responses, I read responses of people who have already responded to your post, which in this case would be Radiorum's post. Continuing with what you wrote in your post: I think Radiorum's response to you in post #710 here was quite good. Quoting it: ** When I read this, I thought of other identifiable groups in the past who had to fight for their rights, and I imagine they too faced this kind of ignorance. I think you are the threat, not them. ** Your glib response to him was as follows: You think it's just some mythical "trans agenda" that your comments are a threat to? The truth is, attitudes such as the ones you hold lead to terrible consequences. A good article on such consequences can be seen here: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/09/25/nx-s1-5127347/more-trans-teens-attempted-suicide-after-states-passed-anti-trans-laws-a-study-shows I will say that I have serious doubts regarding the whole bit of minors getting gender affirming care, but other than that, I think they have some really good points. Quoting from the introduction to the article: ** States that passed anti-transgender laws aimed at minors saw suicide attempts by transgender and gender nonconforming teenagers increase by as much as 72% in the following years, a new study by The Trevor Project says. The peer-reviewed study, published published Thursday in the journal Nature Human Behavior, looked at survey data from young people in 19 states, comparing rates of suicide attempts before and after bans passed. Over the past few years, dozens of states have passed laws affecting how transgender young people do things like play sports, go to the bathroom at school, and access gender-affirming medical care. The study’s findings are not theoretical for some families. “You know my child is dead,” Kentucky Senator Karen Berg said at the statehouse during the debate over that state’s anti-trans bill in Feb. 2023. Her transgender son had died by suicide two months earlier at age 24. “Your vote yes on this bill means one of two things: either you believe that trans children do not exist, or you believe that trans children do not deserve to exist.” **

Crossdressers could also use psychological help. Any man who doesn't look and act like a man, needs their head examined. I see that Radiorum already responded to your post in post #710. I think he made some good points, so I'm going to quote him. For the audience, this was the first part of his response to it: ** And how is that exactly? How should a man act? Is there a book "How to Act Like a Man"? Don't colour outside the lines? ** You in turn responded to his post. Your response to his 2 lines above was: I see that he never responded to your response, which I think is understandable, given what you said above. As I've said in the past, I think that it's people like you who chastise any male or female who dares to break from social norms that get many transgender people to think that they need to take hormones/hormone blockers or surgery, just so that they can "fit" with the gender they identify with. Anyway, continuing with what Radiorum had to say in his post: ** It's attitudes like yours in society that drives transgender persons to despair. ** I agree with Radiorum here. You, on the other hand, simply kept on going with your disparaging remarks regarding transgender people: The truth is, what transgender people want most is just to be accepted for who they are. Instead, they are disparaged, which sometimes leads them to make decisions they can't undo: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/09/25/nx-s1-5127347/more-trans-teens-attempted-suicide-after-states-passed-anti-trans-laws-a-study-shows

That goes without saying. The question is, do you know you're speaking falsehoods, or are you truly ignorant? I was leaning toward the latter until I got further down in your post; now I just think you are lying. I suppose I should console myself with the fact that at least you haven't said that you are -sure- I am "lying", as at least one poster here has done. Anyway, let's get to more of what you've said in your post... Yes there is. LGBT has an agenda, and the "T" in LGBT stands for Trans. You have a link handy for this alleged LGBT agenda? I suppose some in the trans community decided to make use of this notion that they have an unified agenda :-p. The very first line of text on that page is this: "The Trans Agenda for Liberation is a community-led guide towards the world we deserve." That certainly sounds fine, but that definitely doesn't mean that all transgender people on board with their guide, let alone all the people who support transgender people.

I found myself laughing at this, thought of putting a laughing emoji, and then thought, then I might be criticized for laughing at someone insulting other posters :-p. I think we can agree that it would be -so- nice if we could all have a respectful debate, but it seems that a lot of the time, that's just not in our reach. So while I laughed at this and almost immediately afterwards thought, I shouldn't make any sign of this for fear of someone castigating my 'double standards' or what not, I decided it was best to just reveal it, as well as what came afterwards, which is a sadness that for the most part, the level of discourse is so poor :-/.

I'm not even sure what that means. What I want is for people to be able to define their gender as the gender they identify with. I also think that being more accepting of people who don't fit inside the conventional norms for gender could go a long way to making trans people not feel the need for hormones/hormone blockers and surgery and just be fine with the appearance that their biological sex gives them. What it means is that you want the trans community to define who everyone is and that's just about the stupidest thing anyone could ever want. No, I want individuals to be able to define who they themselves are. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be limits. I know that someone posted a video here of a man who had been driving a car identifying as a cat when asked to provide his license and the police explaining to him how that wouldn't fly if he wanted to keep on driving. There are times and places to identify as things of that nature, and doing it while being pulled over by a cop isn't one of them. Even when it comes to human beings, I think there should be limits to how far one can go in regards to defining people. I think it's universally acknowledged that biological men are better at sports then biology women for reasons that have to do with biology. For this reason, I'm fine with biological women being able to compete in an environment without biological men. But there are many other areas where I don't see any reason why transgender people can't define their gender as the gender they identify with and have that respected by others. Always dangerous when people start thinking of human beings as degenerates. Many groups, from the KKK to the Nazis have followed similar path, and we both know the atrocities they've committed.

You would have chosen "I identify as something else", as you think you are a "cisgender man" when you're really just a man whose been brainwashed by trans activists. No, I wouldn't have, because I identify as a man. I am also a biological man. I also haven't been brainwashed. What I find rather ironic is that until I started to participate in this thread, I was much more ambivalent in regards to a lot of trans issues. As I've pointed out in the past, I was unabashedly for J.K. Rowlings' stance on women and like you, I had thought that saying that defining a woman as someone who identifies as a woman made no sense either. It was only after really getting involved in this thread and doing a fair amount of research on the subject that I had a change of heart. A woman is a word, and a word is what people define it to mean. As I've said many times in this thread, there is a substantial amount of people who now define a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman. You may not like it, but that doesn't change this fact. As to your belief that only women can give birth to human beings, I agree that by one definition of women, this is true. By the definition that people are the gender they identify with, it's not true, as a biological woman who identifies as a man could, in fact, give birth to human beings.

You don't get to pretend you are above the fray of making personal comments when you are here accusing someone of transphobia... I'm just pointing out that you seem to have a case of transphobia. It's like noticing that someone is afraid of spiders (arachnophobia). I must admit I'm not a fan of the big ones. We all have our fears. The important thing is to try to deal with them as best we can. Sometimes, we can even overcome a given fear of something. I said that in -some- ways, they'd fit right in with the KKK. I am happy to report that the person I said this to said they did -not- support the KKK. As I've mentioned, there are some, perhaps most, in the KKK, who are also against many elements of the LGTB community and say so in quite disparaging ways. My goal was to get them to realize that some groups which I had hoped they were -not- into are also quite disparaging of the LGTB community.

The real absurdity here is that he only wants trans people to be able to identify as they like... for the vast majority of the rest of us normal people, we must accept being called cisgender. As I've said before, there are other ways of differentiating between people who are transgender and people who are cisgender. They're just more cumbersome. The one I came up with previously are ones like this: "A biological man who identifies as a man". Cisgender is just shorter. If given a choice between the 2, I'd go with cisgender.

As I've already made clear in many posts, there are some transgender platforms that I don't agree with. While I support transgender people being labelled as the gender they identify with, I never said that I agreed that children by treated without parental consent. As a matter of fact, I've clearly stated that I don't think minors should be getting hormones, hormone blockers or transgender surgery even if one or both of their parents consent. I wouldn't say it's a completely solid stance, I may change my mind in the future, but that's my current stance. I've also made it clear that I think that biological females should have the right to compete in sports where only biological females are allowed. As to the issue of exposure, I think that issue is thornier. One solution is to have things like unisex places where one can go to the washroom and change. Like female bathrooms, it could mean individual sealed stalls for anyone going to the washroom or changing.