Site Gender Options are so Regressive!

[poochy]

21 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

But there are third gender people. And third gender people do not identify as 'members of the continuum'. So your suggestion is super regressive!

Sorry, reality is not regressive, it's utter nonsense to suggest that this country isn't progressive enough, everyone has their own agenda, and at some point that's what this becomes, people want to be special, and to be treated as such, well lots of people have more serious problems than considering themselves some incredibly unlikely and in actuality probably a misunderstood version of what they actually are.  The rest of us simply cannot be expected to have a full knowing or understanding of this and will not ever be able to completely accommodate whatever a tiny fraction of the population decides for themselves what everyone else must call them, it's childish, it's ridiculous.  Compared to say the relatively large fraction of the population that suffers with significant depression who still must make their way in the world without much in the way of accommodation the concerns of someone who is a man that is bisexual but is becoming a woman, but still likes to wear mens clothing is a rather small thing for the other 99.99999% of us to be concerned about, as it should be. That's life, i'm not saying this to be mean, i don't envy people in that position, but at some point and that's now, it's become too much, go live your life, but don't expect the rest of us to make it work for you, expect to be able to be left alone to do what you like, but that's it.

[Bryan]

53 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

So you think scientists were paid to find evolution, so they made it up?   Wow, brilliant...  that might be the most ignorant comment about science I've read on this forum....  it's like you're related to Betsy!

 

Some "real" science makes it through occasionally, but it's a small minority of published research.

[Bryan]

51 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

That brings up the question....   if scientists shouldn't be studying genetics and making findings about how genes contribute to gender/sexuality, then who should?  Or do we remain purposely ignorant about these things because people like Bryan don't like the findings?

It's not relevant if I like them. The issue is if they are true. 

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, Bryan said:

It's not relevant if I like them. The issue is if they are true. 

Not so.  The Bible isn't true and there is no God, but that doesn't mean I get to call you a liar every time you mention your faith and to ignore your preference of being considered a Christan.  

Well I suppose I could, but it would be stupid, pointless, petty and mean of me to do so.   

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, poochy said:

Sorry, reality is not regressive

In case it wasn't clear, I tend to poke fun at the SJWs, thus the usage of 'it's 2016' and 'super regressive' in this thread. Makes the thread more entertaining. But I still support adding more gender options.

 

decides for themselves what everyone else must call them, it's childish, it's ridiculous.

... Are you referring to bill C-16 and the Jordan Peterson incident? Cause that's not what this thread is about. This is about increasing the gender options for this forum. It's not about obliging others to use pronouns they don't want to. You can call me he, she, they or potatoman for all I care. It won't trigger me at all.

 

And with respect to non-binary people. We have people that worship a 2000 year old magic jewish zombie who was his own father and who died for the sins that we somehow obtained because a talking snake told a magic rib lady to eat a magic fruit. We have people that believe the moon was split into 2 and believe that a prophet ascended to heaven on a flying horse 1400 years ago. But it's totally the non-binary people that are being ridiculous and childish...

 

[mowich]

23 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I'll also add, that we might want to add species identity to the list of site options. We want to be accommodating to otherkin, people that do not identify as human.

If they don't identify as human then best we treat them like the animals they are - that way we can all breath a bit easier knowing their rights have been recognized.

[The_Squid]

16 minutes ago, mowich said:

If they don't identify as human then best we treat them like the animals they are - that way we can all breath a bit easier knowing their rights have been recognized.

Really poor analogy.  Thoughtless, lacking empathy and unintelligent.  

But let's hear it....   how would you like to treat them "like the animals they are"?   Be specific.

[-1=e^ipi]

7 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

But let's hear it....   how would you like to treat them "like the animals they are"?   Be specific.

You could always play fetch with dogkin. I don't think that's disrespectful.

[Bryan]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Well I suppose I could, but it would be stupid, pointless, petty and mean of me to do so.   

So it would be just like all of your other posts.

[Michael Hardner]

It seems from the above that this thread wasn't started to complain about software features after all.  As such, please start a thread clearly explaining what you want to talk about.  If you have a legitimate complaint about software then let the mods know, thanks.