Black Dog

WTF is this? So one the one hand, you complain about transgender people on the basis that their gender identity is at odds with their biology. But now their actual biology is irrelevant. You're tying yourself in knots here. At least if you just came out and said you think transgender people are icky (which, let's face it, is really what's going on here) you'd be consistent. Annnnnd we're back to the false equivalencies.

Ok now we're getting into silly territory. As I keep pointing out and as you keeping ignoring, there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that transgenderism has a biological component, just as homosexuality has a biological component. So, a transgender person would not in fact be making claims about their gender that are at odds with their biology at all. As to whether gender as a social concept is completely independent of biology: that's highly debatable. Most would suggest biological differences are at work in the formation of gender roles to some extent. If you actually think gender is a completely arbitrary construct, you are on the side of the radfems (and also a hypocrite).

Nope. It makes total sense. If you were blind and didn't know what colour your skin was, you'd still understand that you were a man. No one says gender is independent of biology. That's a strawman. Again: it's only hypocrisy if you think race and gender are interchangeable.

That's super well-put, actually. I think one has to consider the historical context of white people dressing up as black (blackface) and white cultural appropriation of blackness here. Historically, light-skinned black people have passed as white to escape oppression while white people dress as black to mock black people. I know some people like to think these things happen in a vacuum, but they don't.

Because they thought she was black! Oh yeah?

They even went so far as to connect Thoros withe Melly Mel back in S3 IIRC. the wolf angle doesn't make much sense to me though. So...he'd be a wolf? That's it?

Lying to whom, exactly? Only to a simpleton, but then at least you're not pretending to be anything else.

I don't think they'd bring Mel back to the Wall if they didn't have a plan for her to use her hoodoo to bring Jon back. If they don't and they just spent five seasons building up a character only to kill them off in a completely arbitrary way, then this show is dumber than LOST. I'm betting they made it. It had snowed a lot, remember. Preach. Still not as bad as the whole Dorne roadtrip though. But has she seen the last of us? GET IT? GET IT? I am more interested in the Tyrion Viserys show than anything those two *cough* swordsmen get up to. Dany can pull a Bron for next season for all I care; just have her show up in Mireen on Drogon at the head of a Khalesar "Oh man what an adventure" but no actual explanation. I thought that was great, but it felt extremely rushed. Brienne turning up at just the right moment was a bit of a groaner, though (not to mention her turning away just as Sana lights the effing candle. YOU HAD ONE JOB, BRIENNE!) I would have been happier if they had spent more of this episode in the north and not crammed in so much other stuff. Dany and Arya could easily have kept until next season. Which is why he's not dead. Of course, we don't know if Stannis and the Hound are dead either: we certainly didn't see either body. Ugh that whole plot. They just needed something for Jamie to do for a year and to get him out of King's Landing. So they sent him to an episode of Xena: warrior Princess. I think war with Dorne is the next move. Those Dornish folks with their sexy sexiness and liberal attitudes towards sexy times would make natural antagonists for the Westoros Bapitist Church. Sand Snakes vs FrankenMountain? Hang on to your hats, folks; you'll need them to keep your brains from spilling out all over the damn place.

The only reason she was accepted was because she lied about being a member of said community.

What about hermaphrodites/intersex people? What about mixed race people? Are Hispanics black or white? What about South Asians?

So why are you so bothered by trans people? If there's no basis for the social construct of gender, people should be able to assume whatever identity theyu desire, yet you would classify that as a mental illness.

Instead of fatuous analogies, why not explain what gender and race specifically have in common that makes you think they are merely removed by shades?

Trans people would. Because race and gender aren't the same things. Seems pretty straightforward to anyone not playing the false equivalency game.

A society where men and women wore the same clothes and otherwise did nothing to call attention to the different sexes would still have transgender people, but they might not be able to articulate the issue. In any case, such a society does not and cannot (again, due in part to innate gender differences) exist, so evoking this hypothetical gender utopia to defend your transphobia is a useless exercise. It's also off topic.

So you don't believe in sexual dimorphism. Interesting.

People feel their sex/gender a lot more deeply than they do race. There's also the fact (which you continue to ignore as it throws off your whole "trannies are crazy" schtick) that there's likely a genetic basis for transgenderism. There's no such basis for racial identities.

-edit-

The NAACP has had white members and executives before. The problem isn't that she wasn't black: it's that she pretended she was.

Can one of the mods fix that? There's an extra quote tag that refuses to be edited out.

Reposting this since my previous post was pooched and wouldn't edit.... This cuts both ways. Men also commit a disproportionate amount of crime. You want more female criminals, is that it? Give it a shot. The women not paying for dates thing is an artifact of a time in the not so recent past when women had no economic power. Hardly a feminist idea. And yeah, I know women who do get offended when they aren't given the opportunity to contribute: they see it as condescending. As for the stuff about women's value not being associated with work, same deal. For most of history women were seen as not contributing economically so of course they won't have value assigned to that. But flip the script and talk about, say, parenting and housekeeping and the story is very different. The bold is total b.s. It has nothing to do with women deciding men who work in traditionally female dominated industries are unsuitable mates. It's about the fact that such industries have long been deemed beneath men by virtue of being "women's work". Yes the patriarchy often forces women to compete against each other, just as it does men. I don't by that for a second. Anyone, regardless of gender, can get laid anytime they want. It's just a question of how willing they are to lower their standards... If only women wore coverings to hide their sinful hair and wicked ankles, eh? My point was women will go for taller men just as men will go for more conventionally attractive women (most qualities of which cannot be readily changed ). It proves nothing. Yeah, you missed the point. Why don't you tell me? And no, it's not about overt discrimination, but how men and women are socialized. I think you're proving my point here. You suggest or imply that men naturally dominate online discussions, which supports the idea that women-only spaces are necessary.

-

That was one part of his comments, the part that was the least controversial IMO. In any environment where hetero men and hetero women work side by side comes with the risk of emotional entanglements that could compromise the work environment. That's relatively uncontroversial. The part that really got him in trouble was his idea that you can't criticize women because they'll cry if you do, which compromises the work because you don't want to hurt their feelings. As I said before, this is grounded in some very antiquated and frankly sexist ideas about women and emotions that have no bearing in reality. That was the issue and the primary source of outrage.

The idea that "social media" has a greater influence on politicians/policy than well-organized and well-funded lobby groups like police unions is so farcical it could only have come from one poster. And it sure as hell wasn't public opinion that led to the closures of mental institutions and withdrawal of social supports for the mentally ill or drug addicted: that was pure Reaganomics, baby.

Not sure he actually interviewed anyone he sold art to. It seems the only thing he did wrong was not informing the CBC as to the extent of his involvement with the company he had with his wife. More breach of corporate policy than journalistic ethics.

I don't think you understand what censorship means.