Are you a man or a woman?

[Deluge]

17 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

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...

 

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. 

It's not "some" of the trans community; it's ALL of it, including the LGB cultists. 

Check out the link below, and try not to get too excited - this is a public forum, after all. 

https://www.thetaskforce.org/

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, Scott75 said:

You seem to be equating cross dressers with transgender people. While there was certainly a great deal of overlap back when transgender wasn't a well known term, they've since gone their separate ways for the most part, at least in places like the U.S. Learned a great deal of this from a Wikipedia article I read just now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism

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:

On 12/23/2024 at 9:31 AM, Deluge said:

Nope, no books. Why do you ask? Are you questioning your sexuality? Did someone tell you that maybe you should wear lipstick and put on a dress?

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:

On 12/23/2024 at 9:31 AM, Deluge said:

It's attitudes like mine that keep sanity at the forefront. For some stupid reason you want lunatics driving the bus. Make no mistake, trans people are not right in the head. It's why they want everyone else to bend the knee to their demands.

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

Edited December 28, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, Scott75 said:

In any case, it -seems- that you have an issue with transgender -and- cross dressers being able to dress the way they like in public. Seems like a classic case of transphobia. In case you're not aware of the term, Wikipedia has a helpful article on the subject. Here's the introduction:

**

Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles.^[1][2] Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to racism, sexism, or ableism,^[3] and it is closely associated with homophobia.^[4][5] People of color who are transgender experience discrimination above and beyond that which can be explained as a simple combination of transphobia and racism.^[6]

Transgender youth often experience a combination of abuse from family members, sexual harassment, and bullying or school violence.^[7] They are also disproportionately placed in foster care and welfare programs compared to their peers.^[8] Adult transgender people regularly encounter sexual violence, police violence, public ridicule, misgendering, or other forms of violence and harassment in their daily lives.^[9] These issues cause many trans people to feel unsafe in public. Other issues include healthcare discrimination, workplace discrimination or feeling under siege by conservative political or religious groups who oppose LGBT-rights laws.^[10] Discrimination and violence sometimes originates from people within the LGBT community^[11] or feminist movements.

As well as increased risk of violence and other threats, the stress created by transphobia causes negative mental health outcomes and lead to drug use disorders, running away from home (in minors), and suicide.

In much of the Western world, there has been a gradual establishment of policies combatting discrimination and supporting equal opportunity in all aspects of life since the 1990s. The trend is also taking shape in some developing nations. In addition, campaigns regarding the LGBT community are being spread around the world to improve social acceptance of nontraditional gender identities. The "Stop the Stigma" campaign by the UN is one such example.^[12] However, transphobic violence has been on the rise since 2021,^[13] accompanied with an increase in anti-trans discriminatory laws being enacted in many parts of the US and other countries.^[14][15]

**

Full article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia

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:

On 12/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, Deluge said:

I've told you perverts time and again that trannies dressing up and going out on the town is OK, just so long as they're not trying to mould society around their point of view. 

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:

On 12/23/2024 at 9:31 AM, Deluge said:

I'm a threat to the trans agenda, and that makes me happy.

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.”

**

Edited December 28, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 9:07 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 12/22/2024 at 1:40 PM, Scott75 said:

No, I just have this one. You certainly jump to a lot of false conclusions. I may be mistaken, but I think you were recently accusing Radiorum of having 2 accounts too. Whether it was you or someone else, I remember the person provided no evidence for that accusation either.

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.

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 10:24 PM, User said:

On 12/22/2024 at 9:26 PM, Scott75 said:

I bet you didn't even notice the difference between what I actually said and what you said I said.

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.

[User]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

You did, yes.

Glad you agree. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

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.

Looks like he's right you're wrong. When you find yourself having to go back and reword and explain what you said as often as you do then you have a communication issue or you're not being honest

[Scott75]

On 12/23/2024 at 9:44 AM, User said:

On 12/23/2024 at 9:38 AM, Scott75 said:

Labelling a person doesn't change the person. "Man" and "woman" are labels too. Terms like cisgender and transgender are just necessary to differentiate between people who may both identify as being of the male or female gender but whose biology doesn't necessarily match their gender identification. In many circumstances, such differentiation is unecessary. As I've said previously, I've lived in Mexico for 3 years now and I haven't used the spanish term for cisgender once. I didn't even know what it was until I looked it up recently.

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. 

On 12/23/2024 at 9:44 AM, User said:

Just because some fringe group of people want to pretend to be something they are not, and label themselves something they are not, doesn't put the onus on the rest of society to change for them. 

We already have a term for what those people are, its called trans.

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.

**

[Scott75]

On 12/23/2024 at 9:51 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 9:26 PM, Scott75 said:

I bet you didn't even notice the difference between what I actually said and what you said I said. Saying that in -some- ways a person might "fit right in" with the KKK is not saying that they would fit right in all ways, and I'm certainly glad that Deluge made it clear that he's -not- a fan of the KKK. The reason I said this to begin with was in large part because of comments such as the following one from Deluge's post #371:

**

The key now is to get the trannies, and all the other radical activists, back in their lane so America can recover from the woke infection. 

**

As I've said elsewhere, tranny and its plural trannies is a word that is now considered a slur by a fair amount of organizations:

**

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

 

The KKK is also fond of using slur words for members of the LGBT community, so they certainly have that in common. My actual response to Deluge's comment was the following in post #413:

**

I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too. It's so easy to just say that some other group is wrong and use whatever means is necessary to try to put them "back in their lane", as you say. What's hard is to actually try to understand the other group's reasoning.

**

His response, in turn, was the following, in post #443:

**

The KKK hates black people and used to murder them, I just want the LGBT community to stay in their lane, and YOU are a troll.

**

It was only then that I pointed out that the KKK didn't just hate blacks, but also the LGTB community, and in -that- way, it looked like he'd fit right in. For anyone who'd like to see exactly what I said, the post in question is post #480. Now, there is one point I will concede- perhaps Deluge doesn't hate the LGTB community. But this talk of putting them "back in their lane" sounds -so- very similar to the types of things that the KKK and other hate groups would say about blacks that I found the similarities too glaring to overlook.

"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".

[Scott75]

On 12/23/2024 at 9:51 AM, Deluge said:

"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. No homosexual/transsexual novels or storybooks in libraries; no pronouns; no gender identity bullshit; no men or boys in women's and girl's bathrooms. No changing the entire bathroom structure to suit the trans agenda. In essence, no left-wing bullshit in mainstream society. 

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/

Edited December 28, 2024 by Scott75
Added information

[Scott75]

On 12/23/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

On 12/23/2024 at 9:38 AM, Scott75 said:

Labelling a person doesn't change the person.

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...

On 12/23/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

Labelling people changes the perception of them in the communities they live in. And that can radically affect their lives.

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

On 12/23/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

If labelling people is no big deal then just call a male who identifies as a women a "Man".  I mean, doesn't change who they are right? It's just a label.

I never said that labels are no big deal, I said that they don't change the thing being labelled, at least not directly.

  

On 12/23/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

The reason you want phrases like cis  is to dehumanize and objectify people you disagree with. You don't want them to sound 'normal',  and you want a pejorative to use.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 - there's a faction within the Republican party that is also becoming more amenable to these changes as well.  

Well, yes, because it's about freedom.  If you don't like it, don't participate.  If you're personally disgusted then eat your feelings.

How do they think the kids got to the drag queen storytime?  The parents took them, or at the least allowed them to attend.

I agree with parental rights.

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 8:50 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/24/2024 at 8:30 AM, Scott75 said:

First of all, there's no need to insult transgender people. For those who don't know, the term tranny/trannies is generally considered to be an insult at this point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny

Secondly, I've seen no evidence transgender people don't have a unified agenda.

As to overreach, we agree that some things, such as transitioning hormones/hormone blockers and surgery is generally not a good thing, at least for minors. We clearly disagree on other issues. I also expect morality will win, we just have different ideas on what is moral on a lot of things in this area.

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.

On 12/24/2024 at 8:50 AM, Deluge said:

You have no morals; that's the difference. 

I actually have very strong moral values. It's one of the reasons I decided to take up this discussion to begin with.

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, User said:

On 12/24/2024 at 8:07 AM, Scott75 said:

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're going to call normal people cis, the implication is that trans people are abnormal. Your problem is that you seem to want to keep on forgetting that not everyone defines male and female the way you do. If a person defines a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman, then looking women in a dating app may yield some results one would like to avoid. By simply allowing a second word to define the -category- of women one is looking for, such as cis, one could resolve this problem.

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.

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, User said:

On 12/24/2024 at 8:07 AM, Scott75 said:

Your problem is that you seem to want to keep on forgetting that not everyone defines male and female the way you do. If a person defines a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman, then looking women in a dating app may yield some results one would like to avoid. By simply allowing a second word to define the -category- of women one is looking for, such as cis, one could resolve this problem.

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 12/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, User said:

So, your big argument now is that trans people should be able to trick and deceive people on a dating app?

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.

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, User said:

There is no problem here to solve. Men are men. Women are women. Trans people are Trans people.

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. 

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, User said:

On 12/24/2024 at 8:14 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/16/2024 at 7:55 AM, User said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:27 AM, Scott75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 1:43 PM, User said:

Like I said, you are the one creating this problem

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. 

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 9:56 AM, DUI_Offender said:

On 12/24/2024 at 9:49 AM, Scott75 said:

User, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions. Michael has made it quite clear that he's -not- in favour of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers and transition surgery, such as in post #737. 

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].”

**

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 Eventually, I believe that the faction that supports the LGBT community will win, but until then, the struggle continues.  

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...

[Scott75]

On 12/24/2024 at 10:24 AM, Deluge said:

The origins of the Phoenix come from ancient Egyptian mythology. Styx comes from ancient Greek mythology. It is the principal river of the underworld.  

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)

[Scott75]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

36 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Eventually, I believe that the faction that supports the LGBT community will win, but until then, the struggle continues.

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

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Scott75 said:

1. ... there's a long way to go as well.  

2. 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

1. 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. 

2. See #1.  

 

[Scott75]

On 12/25/2024 at 11:12 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/25/2024 at 2:17 AM, Scott75 said:

Insulting people that you think have gotten "aggressive", as you put it, is hardly a way to resolve things. Now, I certainly wouldn't deny that transgender people, and others in the LGBTQ community, have gotten more vocal about being treated fairly, and this could certainly be seen as aggressive if you'd like these people to "stay in their lane" as someone here (you?) put it. All of this reminds me of things that were said to black people who refused to do what they were told to do by white people, such as the case of Rosa Parks. There's a word similar in some senses to aggressive that was frequently used- these black people were being "uppity". The term has an interesting history. From the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:

**

• adjective Haughty or presumptuous, especially for one's rank or social standing.

**

Wiktionary really spells it out, as well as other codewords that have since replaced it for the most part:

**

• This term has historically been used in America to describe black people who were considered to be acting above "their place", and is considered by some to have racist connotations when applied to people of color; sometimes arrogant and presumptuous, invoking the same idea, are used as codewords for it.^[3][4][5]

**

I imagine "aggressive" could be used as well, both for people that consider that blacks have refused to "stay in their lane" as well as others who people dislike, such as members of the LGBTQ community.

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:

 

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

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.

[Scott75]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

13 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

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.

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.

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 ... 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.

It's not left versus right. Left versus right is about power dynamics between the ruling class and workers. 

Identity politics is easier to understand, because it's simply a moral take. No study required.  You can have an opinion that is as basic as "I hate f*gs" or "I hate redneck haters"

It's even got so dumb that people call identity politics warriors "Marxists" although it has nothing to do with Marxism.  You absolutely should put such types on IGNORE, as it's been pointed out to them that this is the case.

They're just being brats...