Danica Roem becomes first trans*person to be elected to (US) state legislature

[Vekseid]

To the Virginia House.

Her opponent called himself Virginia's 'chief homophobe' who refused to even debate her or refer to her as female.

[HannibalBarca]

All that and a metalhead too:

[SithLordOfSnark]

All that and a metalhead too:

LOL, that's awesome.

[Lustful Bride]

Her opponent called himself Virginia's 'chief homophobe' refused to even debate her or refer to her as female[/url].

HA!

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

That is just too perfect!  ;D I love it. I hope this victory is rubbed in his face forever.

[HannibalBarca]

Andrea Jenkins was just elected to the Minneapolis City Council, making her the first openly transgender woman of color to win a seat on the city council of a major U.S. city.

There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.

--J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

[HannibalBarca]

Furthermore, Robert Marshall was the one who wrote the anti-trans bathroom bill.

Karma's a bitch, ain't it Robbie?

[DominantPoet]

Always good to see the better person coming out on top :D Would hate to think what it would have been like had her opponent won  >:(

[Lustful Bride]

Always good to see the better person coming out on top :D Would hate to think what it would have been like had her opponent won  >:(

Bless our hearts, we do try :P

[Mithlomwen]

Watching her acceptance speech had me tearing up. 

Good for her, and good for VA! 

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Just hearing this news is making me cry-happy.

Trump is making America great again the same way Harvey Weinstein is making Hollywood safe again.

[Vekseid]

I was going to expound more, but I wanted this thread to be about her rather than references to national figures.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Fair enough. Sorry.

[HannibalBarca]

Not one, not two, not three...but four transgender candidates won last night in the United States.  Danica Roem in Virginia, Andrea Jenkins for Minneapolis City Council, Tyler Titus for Erie School Board in Pennsylvania, and Lisa Middleton for Palm Springs City Council in California.

Last night was full of win.

[SithLordOfSnark]

Not one, not two, not three...but four transgender candidates won last night in the United States.  Danica Roem in Virginia, Andrea Jenkins for Minneapolis City Council, Tyler Titus for Erie School Board in Pennsylvania, and Lisa Middleton for Palm Springs City Council in California.

Last night was full of win.

That's total win. I'm so glad.

[GnothiSeauton]

I live in the same county and a neighboring district of the Roem/Marshall race.  So glad to see and read about her victory.  Some of the things that Marshall was saying, in his interviews and such were so mean and hurtful, and seemed to be so personal. 

Love this quote though...

[Deamonbane]

*snip*

A lot more grace and composure than I'll ever have too. Not that that's such a high bar.

[Jazzylynn]

I would not refer to him as she either. Was Robbie a bigot because he did not agree with this Roem character’s lifestyle?

Furthermore, Robert Marshall was the one who wrote the anti-trans bathroom bill.

Karma's a bitch, ain't it Robbie?

Robbie wrote a bill that was against mixing of bathrooms? I didn’t know that, but all the more reason to like him.

[SithLordOfSnark]

I would not refer to him as she either. Was Robbie a bigot because he did not agree with this Roem character’s lifestyle?
Robbie wrote a bill that was against mixing of bathrooms? I didn’t know that, but all the more reason to like him.

Yes. Calling someone a pronoun they have asked not to be called is bigotry - Maybe you should look it up.

[Jazzylynn]

Yes. Calling someone a pronoun they have asked not to be called is bigotry - Maybe you should look it up.

I did not ask if he was called a bigot for not calling him a her. I asked if he was called a bigot for not agreeing with the decisions Roem has made or agreeing with her current ones.
Definition of bigot. :a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
So did Robbie respond to Roem hatefully or intolerantly?

[Avis habilis]

I did not ask if he was called a bigot for not calling him a her. I asked if he was called a bigot for not agreeing with the decisions Roem has made or agreeing with her current ones.

No, he was called a bigot - appropriately - for refusing to acknowledge her actual gender instead of imposing one on her.

So did Robbie respond to Roem hatefully or intolerantly?

That's a big yep.

[Oniya]

I would not refer to him as she either. Was Robbie a bigot because he did not agree with this Roem character’s lifestyle?
Robbie wrote a bill that was against mixing of bathrooms? I didn’t know that, but all the more reason to like him.

The 'bathroom bill' would have required people to use the public restroom that corresponded to the gender that they were assigned to at birth.  As a result, you would have people like Chaz Bono (nee' Chastity) and Balian Buschbaum (nee' Yvonne) being required to use the ladies' room.  You'd also have Laverne Cox and Isis King walking into the men's room - but I'm sure none of those situations would be awkward in the least.

[Jazzylynn]

No, he was called a bigot - appropriately - for refusing to acknowledge her actual gender instead of imposing one on her.


That's a big yep.

If people have the right to acknowledge that transforming your gender is an actual thing, then people have the right to not believe that. He acknowledged that Roem preformed surgeries to change what he was born with because he decided he felt like being a girl. That does not mean he has to agree that he is a female just because of surgery and chemicals he puts in his body to change himself.

Well I have not seen where he was hateful, unless him calling Roem a he is hateful.

[Jazzylynn]

The 'bathroom bill' would have required people to use the public restroom that corresponded to the gender that they were assigned to at birth.  As a result, you would have people like Chaz Bono (nee' Chastity) and Balian Buschbaum (nee' Yvonne) being required to use the ladies' room.  You'd also have Laverne Cox and Isis King walking into the men's room - but I'm sure none of those situations would be awkward in the least.

The 'bathroom bill' would have kept things the way they are... I am not familiar with the names you have listed, probably because I do not keep up with all the people changing genders and coming up with all the new identities. I only mentioned the bill to make sure I understood what the bill the Robbie worked on was what I thought, thank you for verifying.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

The man was being hateful as he was deliberately being antagonistic in a way he knew would hurt someone because he had made a decision as to who they were going to be. He was enforcing the concept that he had greater right to decide what ways people are allowed to recognize themselves. Bob is as much a woman as Roem is a man. Deliberately antagonizing him by calling him a girl, particularly if that carries the negative baggage it might for a transgender individual, would be unreasonably hateful of me.

Bathroom bills are something of a touchy subject because many people seem to think the status quo is being preserved when that simply isn't the case. The conversation, widespread as it is, about transgender individuals in society, is relatively new. As such, the wording of any laws makes it clear that an individual uses the bathroom that corresponds with their gender. Since those things are known to be identified in different ways, now, it's necessary to re-word legislation to reflect that. Lawmakers then have a choice: do they reinforce their own beliefs, or what is best for the individuals of a community.

Generally speaking, those that proudly label themselves homophobes can be counted on to be making relatively ambiguous actions such as these two points on behalf of their own beliefs and not because of the good of a community, particularly as there is no evidence of the community suffering in any way by NOT being antagonistic.

[Nadir]

If people have the right to acknowledge that transforming your gender is an actual thing, then people have the right to not believe that.

If people have the right to be polite and respectful, they have the right to be rude and disrespectful. You are not wrong, but what does it cost to treat people as people?

[Mithlomwen]

He acknowledged that Roem preformed surgeries to change what he was born with because he decided he felt like being a girl. That does not mean he has to agree that he is a female just because of surgery and chemicals he puts in his body to change himself.

Something to keep in mind, is that people who suffer with gender identity issues don't wake up one day and 'decide they are going to be a boy/girl'.  They don't just decide they are going to change their identity on a whim.  Most people suffer their entire lives with this issue, and when they finally make the decision to make the change, it's not an easy decision. 

The hormones they have to take are not easy on their bodies, and the surgeries they have to go through are brutal.

So to address the issue with a flippant statement like 'He acknowledged that Roem preformed surgeries to change what he was born with because he decided he felt like being a girl', is very insulting to folks dealing with gender identity issues.   

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Something to keep in mind, is that people who suffer with gender identity issues don't wake up one day and 'decide they are going to be a boy/girl'.  They don't just decide they are going to change their identity on a whim.  Most people suffer their entire lives with this issue, and when they finally make the decision to make the change, it's not an easy decision. 

The hormones they have to take are not easy on their bodies, and the surgeries they have to go through are brutal.

So to address the issue with a flippant statement like 'He acknowledged that Roem preformed surgeries to change what he was born with because he decided he felt like being a girl', is very insulting to folks dealing with gender identity issues.   

It is also worth noting that in order to transition, heavy psychoanalysis, medical consultation and overall collaboration has to occur. From the tales I've heard, multiple psychologists over multiple years must agree that you are undertaking this venture for good reason.

The cumulative effect is that at the very least half a dozen professionals have to agree that Roem is, in fact, a woman. And if we cannot trust doctors to determine what the gender of an individual is, then by what authority are we defining gender if not medical?

[Oniya]

The 'bathroom bill' would have kept things the way they are... I am not familiar with the names you have listed, probably because I do not keep up with all the people changing genders and coming up with all the new identities. I only mentioned the bill to make sure I understood what the bill the Robbie worked on was what I thought, thank you for verifying.

I would have thought at least one would have been familiar, but no matter.

Laverne Cox - one of the actresses on Orange is the New Black.
Isis King - American model
Chaz Bono - son of Sonny and Cher, actor on American Horror Story
Balian Buschbaum - Olympic pole vaulter.

[HannibalBarca]

My son puts up with a lot of crap just for being who he is when it comes to restrooms.  He was assigned a female gender at birth, but revealed the gender he'd felt he was as long as he could remember when he was 13.  Now, if he goes into a women's restroom, he gets dirty looks and sometimes complaints.  He's even been yelled at for being in 'the wrong room'.  But when he's gone in a men's restroom, he's been yelled at even more.  I've even stepped in between him and a couple of men who got angry with him for being in 'their' restroom.  What the hell were they afraid of?  What unfounded fears did they have in their own heads at my kid using a restroom, women's or men's?  He's told me it's one of the worst things he has to do, using a public restroom.  He's a kindhearted, gentle person, and knowing that other people look at him with such malice only over his appearance makes my blood boil.

There are only two choices for him, and people in either don't want him there.  He's still human and still needs to use the restroom.  It's a question of empathy over fear, and too many people are conditioned to be afraid of what they don't understand.

[Hades]

It's also worth remembering that, despite being used interchangeably in everyday use, there is a difference between sex and gender. 

That aside however, given that the Republican that Ms. Roem defeated in the election proudly gave himself the title of "Virginia's chief homophobe" there is little reason to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he was being malicious or simple ignorant.  The man was considered a deeply conservative, fundamentalist Catholic even within GOP circles in the state house, introducing bills to ban both abortion and birth control, bills that would have allowed businesses and agencies licensed by the state to refuse service to members of the LGBT community (notably hospitals and pharmacies), blocked the appointment of an openly gay man to a state judge position purely because of his sexual orientation, and tried to impeach the state's Attorney General when he refused to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage before a federal court.

So it's not that people suddenly learn that Mr. Marshall is a bigot by refusing to debate her and calling her by male pronouns.  It's that this was simply one more example of his bigotry on display, and the voters finally got tired of it and sent him him packing.

[HannibalBarca]

I correct my prior claim to four transgender candidates winning across the country.  It's actually seven.  Overall, almost forty members of the LGBTQ community won election the other night.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

No better job of demanding than by getting yourself elected to government office.

[HannibalBarca]

Furthermore, Lisa Middleton's election to the Palm Springs City Council makes everyone on that council a member of the LGBTQ community. I'm sure the same people who bewailed one multiethnic man winning the Presidency are bewailing an entire city council full of not-straights.

Deal with it.

[Lustful Bride]

Furthermore, Lisa Middleton's election to the Palm Springs City Council makes everyone on that council a member of the LGBTQ community. I'm sure the same people who bewailed one multiethnic man winning the Presidency are bewailing an entire city council full of not-straights.

Deal with it.

I don't want to come off as rude or contrarian, but I don't think that's the best attitude to have. :/ it just alienates people. Instead we should really be extending a hand to them and going "See? Its not so bad. Just open your hearts and we can all benefit together."

We only truly destroy our enemies when we make them our friends.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I'm not entirely certain I agree with that. I mean, in some cases, I'm sure it's proven to be accurate. For instance, in my son's kindergarten class. However, never in the case of any tyrannical or bigoted thinking has there been hope of the most ardent bigots every deciding to come around because someone just eased them gently into anything but "that good night".

It's like thoughts and prayers. In and of themselves not bad. But if you think that's going to get you out of all your troubles, there is a delusion at work. Even god said something along the lines that we should be hot or cold, but if we're lukewarm he will spit us from his mouth.

Basically, there comes a time when you have to draw a battle line and decide what side of it you're on. Can't keep saying "Don't punch nazis, that's not nice, do it the political way." Then "don't gloat, open your hand to them and be kind". I'm not making a homophobe a bowl of soup when he gets the sniffles, I'm hoping he learns a hard frakin' lesson from it. I'm also hoping that's when his health insurance ... I dunno, glitches out or somethin' (I dunno how you do it down there, your healthcare is crap).

What it comes down to is the same thing I tell my kid. "Don't be an asshole, get off the furniture. If you fall, you're going to hurt yourself and I'm going to laugh first, then people will look at me weird because moms aren't supposed to do that, so... just get the hell down?" Translated, if I tell you you're being bigoted and you didn't know it? That's one thing. If I tell you and you take steps to educate yourself (Even if you disagree with me), that's one thing. To proudly claim to be homophobic, to spend your life attacking the "little" people, those who are already downplayed and underestimated? Sorry, that makes you the bad guy. Of fucking course I am going to want to see you defeated.

And when you're defeated, I'm going to shove the point home by reminding you that I don't need any fucking friends like you. Nobody needs friends like you. Or neighbours. Or leaders. Or or members of this society. Your views are hurtful and unreasonable and we have evolved as a social species that depends on ostracism of unwanted traits to keep ourselves alive.

Get a hold of a gun and shoot a bunch of people? Behind bars, get outta our streets and get your ass somewhere you can't influence others to do the same thing. Inspire others to do so with hateful rhetoric? Follow the orange jumpsuit in front of you and welcome to your new life gents. Watch that last step into the showers, it's a doozy.

Flip your shit because some invisible voyeur in the sky accidentally gave some girl a cock? You get to sit in the societal time-out corner till you're ready to play with the other children. When they start showing remorse for their stupidity and made strides to atone for their pettiness and make it up to the people they've wronged, I might extend a hand of friendship. Right now, my friendship is better spent on the people they would victimize instead of spending all my life and energy trying to convince them to change. To paraphrase their Jesus, "ain't nobody got time for that."

P.S. "You" being the bigot, not anyone here personally.

[Lustful Bride]

I'm not entirely certain I agree with that. I mean, in some cases, I'm sure it's proven to be accurate. For instance, in my son's kindergarten class. However, never in the case of any tyrannical or bigoted thinking has there been hope of the most ardent bigots every deciding to come around because someone just eased them gently into anything but "that good night".

It's like thoughts and prayers. In and of themselves not bad. But if you think that's going to get you out of all your troubles, there is a delusion at work. Even god said something along the lines that we should be hot or cold, but if we're lukewarm he will spit us from his mouth.

Basically, there comes a time when you have to draw a battle line and decide what side of it you're on. Can't keep saying "Don't punch nazis, that's not nice, do it the political way." Then "don't gloat, open your hand to them and be kind". I'm not making a homophobe a bowl of soup when he gets the sniffles, I'm hoping he learns a hard frakin' lesson from it. I'm also hoping that's when his health insurance ... I dunno, glitches out or somethin' (I dunno how you do it down there, your healthcare is crap).

What it comes down to is the same thing I tell my kid. "Don't be an asshole, get off the furniture. If you fall, you're going to hurt yourself and I'm going to laugh first, then people will look at me weird because moms aren't supposed to do that, so... just get the hell down?" Translated, if I tell you you're being bigoted and you didn't know it? That's one thing. If I tell you and you take steps to educate yourself (Even if you disagree with me), that's one thing. To proudly claim to be homophobic, to spend your life attacking the "little" people, those who are already downplayed and underestimated? Sorry, that makes you the bad guy. Of fucking course I am going to want to see you defeated.

And when you're defeated, I'm going to shove the point home by reminding you that I don't need any fucking friends like you. Nobody needs friends like you. Or neighbours. Or leaders. Or or members of this society. Your views are hurtful and unreasonable and we have evolved as a social species that depends on ostracism of unwanted traits to keep ourselves alive.

Get a hold of a gun and shoot a bunch of people? Behind bars, get outta our streets and get your ass somewhere you can't influence others to do the same thing. Inspire others to do so with hateful rhetoric? Follow the orange jumpsuit in front of you and welcome to your new life gents. Watch that last step into the showers, it's a doozy.

Flip your shit because some invisible voyeur in the sky accidentally gave some girl a cock? You get to sit in the societal time-out corner till you're ready to play with the other children. When they start showing remorse for their stupidity and made strides to atone for their pettiness and make it up to the people they've wronged, I might extend a hand of friendship. Right now, my friendship is better spent on the people they would victimize instead of spending all my life and energy trying to convince them to change. To paraphrase their Jesus, "ain't nobody got time for that."

P.S. "You" being the bigot, not anyone here personally.

Ben trying to think up a proper response to this but cant seem to get thoughts in order without rambling or ending up in circular logic. So I will try to keep it short and clear.

Some of those people out there have hatred and bigotry born out of ignorance. Hate is the absence of love, and pouring more hate only increases it, we need to inject its counteragent and show some love when we can.

Now that isn't to say you try to give a hug to some Nazi punk who comes up to you with a pipe or a chain. But if you see a chance to extend a hand in friendship its always worth it, even if they spit on that hand. We cant let ourselves be dragged down into the same muck that this poisonous hatred is born from. Because if we do, then what the fuck were we fighting for? What is the point of it all if it ends up being the same bigotry with just a different mask?

We cant let it get that way.

I don't know if mr. "Chief homophobe' will ever see the error of his ways. That's his prerogative. If he wants to wake up every morning to be an asshole its his right. But I agree with how Ms. Roem reacted after winning. Its the proper, professional, way to do things.

The best way to heal the rift that has grown in our society is to reach out and unify again. To show that we are all people, we all live, we all love, we feel pain, and in the end we all die. And as such we should enjoy one another's company on this short journey for the beautiful thing it is.

At a certain point they cant be turned around, there are some who delight in causing pain to others and making others into 'those people'. But I don't want to be the person who looks at others as 'those people' I want to see everyone as 'my people' and keep on adding more people to my people. :P

[Fury Aphrodisia]

And as sweet as that is, there comes a point when it's no longer practical. I believe that mindset to be unfortunately naive. The only place that people in flower crowns with forever smiles actually end up beating the odds and triumphing over evil is in Disney movies.

Yeah, there are some that are just plain ignorant. Once we sort them out and teach them better, they're free to try for friendship. But I'm not about to bring a rabid dog to lie down with the lambs. That's just crappy business practice.

To be clear? I'm not advocating attacking them, it's just not necessary and I do agree with you and Roem in that point. But I also agree with Barca when he, without remorse, says "deal with it." He's not saying "I hope it hurts you", he's not even crowing with laughter over the whole thing. He's probably a better person than I am. But telling him he's wrong for insisting that this is the way things ought to be? I'm not down for that. This victory was hard won, even a sociopath like me can recognize that.

In the end, people like me are sent to make sure people like Trump don't hurt people like you. There's nothing wrong with thinking as you do. But the world needs people who are willing to be firm so that things can actually get done.

[Lustful Bride]

And as sweet as that is, there comes a point when it's no longer practical. I believe that mindset to be unfortunately naive. The only place that people in flower crowns with forever smiles actually end up beating the odds and triumphing over evil is in Disney movies.

Oh?

Off the top of my head I can think of some people who would disagree.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I suppose their work meant nothing?

Yeah, there are some that are just plain ignorant. Once we sort them out and teach them better, they're free to try for friendship. But I'm not about to bring a rabid dog to lie down with the lambs. That's just crappy business practice.

To be clear? I'm not advocating attacking them, it's just not necessary and I do agree with you and Roem in that point. But I also agree with Barca when he, without remorse, says "deal with it." He's not saying "I hope it hurts you", he's not even crowing with laughter over the whole thing. He's probably a better person than I am. But telling him he's wrong for insisting that this is the way things ought to be? I'm not down for that. This victory was hard won, even a sociopath like me can recognize that.

But what you do after a victory is also important, as it sets an important example. Do you laugh at your defeated enemy? Do you mock them? Do you tell them to just get over it because they lost?

Or do you reach down and help them up, and show them a better way?

In the end, people like me are sent to make sure people like Trump don't hurt people like you. There's nothing wrong with thinking as you do. But the world needs people who are willing to be firm so that things can actually get done.

People like you make sure Trump doesn't hurt people like me? Oh yes the cheetah man is so scary.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I'm usually a very snarky 'fuck both sides' person who tends to get grumpy at the drop of a hat. But on rare occasions my idealistic and hopeful side comes out. This is one of those moments.

More acts like this will be far more effective

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Protesters on both sides came together and instead of anger and swearing there were tears hugs, rejoicing and prayer.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I think you're dangerously conflating a few issues here. I've stated time and time again I'm not talking about the people that are willing to change. And Hannibal didn't say anything about mocking these people, he didn't talk about putting them down or even being remotely harsh with them. From what I gathered, he was basically turning their own words around on them, and allowing no propaganda/partisan stupidity in saying they were going to have to face reality one way or another.

You mention Ghandi, but I'm not sure "eye for an eye" really belongs as a steadfast moment for a man who clung to the same religious laws that told him to beat his wife. Just saying.

And yes, while Dr. King did say to love his brother for love would lead the way, he also did not lay down in the street and allow white men to walk all over him for the sake of keeping peace. In fact, it was peace of mind directly he intended to stir up.

These people have been shown a better way and refuse to allow it to happen. I also don't feel it's fair to conflate protestors with evil people. Just because someone protests something doesn't make them evil. What Hannibal was talking about - again, so far as I gather - are those who get spitting mad at the concept of equality. The people who can't understand why someone born with male genitalia would give up that privilege to become a lowly woman and cannot trust those sort, and would be damned if they're going to let a woman come up and usurp what is rightfully the domain of men. This is the sort of mindset that would make them reach for their second amendment weapon and their first amendment shield in an attempt to abuse those who stand on the council that HB was exulting over. He didn't tell them they were assholes (because again, he's a better person than I am, so people like you might say) just that this is reality and all the stomping of feet in the world wasn't going to fix that.

Listen, darling, I dunno how to break it to you, but the last time Nazis felt comfortable because the leader of the country was letting them walk unchallenged through the streets, the problem wasn't solved with fuzzy cardigans and labrador puppies. When it comes down to the necessities, you need people willing to shove back so that the ones who were built to dish out endless love don't get banged up too badly in the process. You can be snarky if you want, but that isn't going to change reality.

The people hugging and praying... nice enough, I suppose, but it's still not going to change the minds of religious fundamentalists with hate in their hearts and malice in their eyes. I'm not stupid enough to walk up to a mofo with a handgun and offer a hug. That's just going to get people I'm responsible for hurt or worse.

To be clear, I'm not saying anyone unhappy with democratic wins needs to be bombed out of existence: I understand the concept of temperance, and most people aren't a big enough threat to warrant that, with a few notable historical exceptions. What I am saying is that being firm with people is not something you ought to chastise your allies for. I certainly am not going to teach my boy to be someone who lets others beat the everliving shit out of the people around him. He's going to learn to hug and say he's sorry and talk things through in an attempt to solve it, but when push comes to shove, I'm also going to teach him to say "Back the fuck off before I fill you in with your own goddamned teeth, you hear me?"

Attacking Hannibal because he says, essentially, "This is the reality, live with it or leave but your hate isn't welcome here" is just ridiculous. My mother's a hippie type too, stuck somewhere between woodstock and a Stepford throwback. "Just believe and everything will work out." Fuck that, flower child. Good thoughts and healing crystals to whomever wants them, I guess, send your thoughts and prayers but don't be an idiot. Get up off your ass and do something about it. If it's a danger, end it.

By all means, if it can be healed with a hug and a band-aid, it was probably better handled by a kindergarten teacher anyway and as such it's not really worth my notice. But when real shit happens, when it hits the fan, you get the Mr. Rogers nonsense out of the way of the battle lines.

Even he fought for his country, and if he'll pick up a gun, who is anyone to veto the idea that sometimes martial force is needed?


This all misses the point, though. The point was, in the end, that all HB said was "I bet they hate it. They're gonna have to get over that" and didn't deserve to be chastised for it. I'm not keen on being lectured for not liking pastels enough when there's real work to be done and I assume I'm not alone in that even here.

[Lustful Bride]

Wait what? I'm not attacking Hannibal. I'm just saying I don't think his way of going about this was the best.

I don't really have much to say in response to the rest though. Instead I think I will bow out at this point since if I keep going it will just be the both of us going round and round again.

[HannibalBarca]

I'm indeed talking about the people with whom no amount of discussion, debate, cajoling, or argument will help in changing their mind.  There are more than enough people who can be talked to and can walk a mile in your shoes and learn some empathy.  Those are not the people I'm describing in my earlier posts, however.

I once read an alternative history fiction story about the Nazis winning world war two.  The story itself was based in India, and how Gandhi dealt with the Nazis.  The summary was, he failed, because the people you are trying to change have to be capable of shame.  The English, despite some horrific atrocities, were able to be shamed into capitulating and leaving a nation they never should have tried to conquer in the first place.  Gandhi's tactics worked well against them, though it took much time.  His system never would have worked in Nazi-controlled Germany, however.  Long before that they would have sent him to a concentration camp.

I've often looked at the disparate factions of the 'change' branch of history.  A good example would be Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, or Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois.  All four were leaders in the civil rights movement, but two were moderates and two were radicals.  The question bounced between the pairs of men was 'how should we advocate for equality?'  The two moderates believed in working within the system; the two radicals believed in working outside it or actively trying to destroy it.  History has shown that both options have times when they are necessary--understanding which is necessary is the difficult part.  Sometimes a line must be drawn in the sand and cannot be crossed, particularly when death or destruction of freedom is involved.

There can be no compromising with people who have no respect, and actively seek to remove the label of humanity from you or the social group you belong to.  Nazi Germany was only one example in history when people were stripped of their humanity and treated as less than vermin.  The genocide in Rwanda was another example.  History is rife with such examples, and I'm not in the right frame of mind at present to draw forth more examples, though they can easily enough be found with web searches. 

I've studied too much history in my 48 years to turn a blind eye to the rising of yet more groups of people who would bring us to more of those moments where inhumanity reigns.  Dr. King repeated a truism that had been said by others before him in history: evil triumphs when good people do nothing.  There is a such thing as good and evil in this world, and when evil is defeated, I will mock it for what it is, and expose it for others to see.  Robert Marshall championed evil, and his electoral defeat is a significant thing not only to me but many others.  It makes the country a little bit safer, but there is never a time when one can rest from the task of being vigilant.  Trump being elected is as good an example of people resting on their laurels and assuming the best, then getting the worst.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

My concern, Lust, was that you decided that there was no place, ever, for his response. The truth is, to everything there is a season. Every time we run into each other, you and I, it's always about the idea of prayer for some reason. Sometimes, it's in context of the arrogance from SOME religious types in regards to morality and in this case it's about the idea of the lack of usefulness of prayer in a battlezone type of scenario.

Decreeing that the only option in the face of hate is love is only half the story. Hate isn't the absence of love. It's what happens when love is injured. But no one is talking about hate in the initial points. Instead, it's bigotry that we're talking about. That's not hate, that is apathy. Apathy, in that it is incapable of making an emotional connection to other people based on arbitrary differences. So, yes, there is a place when love is the answer: that is when there is hate and love is necessary for healing.

But there is a time when a refusal to pull punches is also necessary. Just because it may seem distasteful, doesn't mean it's not necessary. We have sewers for a reason - humans are full of shit and someone's gotta clean it up.

[Sparrowhawke]

I have, far too often, seen this idea that the oppressed people are those who have to make all the effort, that we have to not only fight for our cause but in the same moment be perfect paragons of innocence and restraint. Sometimes we get angry, sometimes we are hurt and all we want to do is lash back, sometimes, when we see that brief moment of a hint of change for the better all we might want to do is rub it in our opponent's faces. Because they get to do that and more. They get to demand we not even exist from the space of their own little bubbles, while we get told

'Yeah, but you lashed out so you're as bad as them :(' from the people who would totally ally with is if we were just a little more quiet, a little more well behaved. Us lashing out is not the same as people literally getting away with openly wishing we were dead, or openly disrespecting our very identities which many of us have fought so damn hard for. That's not even to mention the fact that, as Fury said, Hannibal wasn't even really 'lashing out,' I've seen and certainly thought much worse.

Too often people get silenced from expressing their hurt or their victory, and I don't believe it is the conscious intention of the people who do it, I desperately hope that it's not people just trying to look for any reason not to be on our side. But it often feels that way.

And, frankly, when peaceful protest and love are just ignored by the people hurting us, if getting angry and violent and taking what we bloody well deserve as human beings (rights, acceptance, etc), is the only thing that gets results? Well that's going to happen, sooner or later, it has happened before and history has always shown which side was right. It wasn't the people who just sat around wishing people would stop making waves, that is for sure.

[Oniya]

you get the Mr. Rogers nonsense out of the way of the battle lines.

Even he fought for his country, and if he'll pick up a gun, who is anyone to veto the idea that sometimes martial force is needed?

While we're dispelling false assumptions, Reverend Fred Rogers never served in the military.

[Oniya]

Also relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LGHtc_D328

[pansexualbadwolf]

Personally, I am basking in the warm glow of the schadenfruede of the man who wrote the anti-trans bathroom bill being defeated in a public election by a trans woman. It's delicious, honestly, I could probably stop eating and just sustain myself with the beautiful irony of the situation. i'm so so happy for Danica, and for all of my trans friends. This victory was momentous, and as a queer woman, it brings tears to my eyes to be able to say that I lived to see it happen. I never thought I'd see a black President in my lifetime, either, but things happen. As awful as the political climate in this country is right now, it's amazing too because it has spurred more people than ever to get involved in local politics. That's where big change starts-from the ground up. If we keep moving forward like this, maybe one day we'll have a trans WOC as President. Not only were a slew of LGBTQIA+ people elected this time around, an atheist and a Sikh made it into office, too. All we can do is keep chipping away.

I think you've all made some great points-it's very difficult to change a person's mind when you're on the defensive and they feel like they're being attacked. Even a crapbag bigot has feelings, and hatred/ignorance is taught, not innate. If they became that way, it was for a reason. A guy I knew who referred to Obama as the 'king of the n*****s' was raped in prison by a black guy. Does that mean it's right for him to hate or disparage all black people? Of course not. But given his own personal trauma, it's understandable (but not excusable) psychologically. There are some things a person will never be able to comprehend or empathize with if they haven't lived through it themselves, and the problem with telling someone to walk a mile in another person's shoes is that people have a tendency to imagine what they personally would do in the same scenario rather than imagining what the person with a different set of circumstances would do. We can't apply our own context to another person's actions or behaviors, or rather, it's not fair to. At the end of the day, save a few true sociopaths, no one wants to be perceived as a 'bad' person and we're now living in a world where it's becoming increasingly bad and unacceptable to be bigoted, racist, homophobic, etc... But these things are often ingrained in a person if they've been that way long enough, so when they feel threatened they do what any creature backed into a corner will do-they lash out. As infuriating as it is, especially if you are the one being attacked for being trans, gay, black, etc... sometimes the best thing you really can do is show that person compassion and prove to them that whatever misconceptions they have are wrong.

That said, we cannot be complacent and just accept things as they are. Slavery wasn't abolished without a war, women didn't win the right to vote by shutting up and sitting down, the civil rights movement didn't make progress without civil disobedience.

As Elie Wiesel said, "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim." It seems like most of us here are on the same side-of equality and equity. But we're all using different language to describe it. Miscommunication is at the heart of most conflicts, and people who are on the same page continue to fight because they don't realize they're on the same side. There isn't a right or wrong way to win a 'war' like this one, because it depends on the context. If you're interacting one-on-one with someone, compassion and empathy makes more sense, you aren't going to turn their heart or change their mind with name calling, even if it is the truth. Of course it's not that simple on a national level, we can't just sit down the entire government and kill them with kindness, not when the language they speak is one of bigotry and violence. Both compassion and action can be effective tactics, but it depends on the context you use them in. If you're more comfortable with the kill them with kindness approach, start by trying to soften the hearts of the people you actually know. No one is 100% completely good or bad, so appeal to whatever part of them still seems human. If you change even one mind or give somebody a new or different perspective, that's a start. And if that's all you do, if that's all you feel emotionally and physical capable of, that's fine. If you want to march on Washington, call your local reps every week, write letters, boycott, or whatever, that's excellent too. If you want to do all those things, even better. Pretty sure Obama and Ghandi both said to be the change you want to see in the world, and I think that's damn good advice in these circumstances. Do what you feel capable of to achieve the changes you want to see, you don't necessarily have to sacrifice yourself in the process.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Hunh. My mistake about Mister Rogers, then. I apologize for that.

[TheGlyphstone]

Hunh. My mistake about Mister Rogers, then. I apologize for that.

If it's a common enough misbelief to warrant a Snopes article, I don't think an apology is necessary. ;D

[Fury Aphrodisia]

That's exactly where I found the info. I rarely take Wikipedia's word for anything, and digging through all that for the pertinent information is way more time than I have to spare.

Slightly off-topic: I can't remember where it was, but someone was debating somewhere in the PROC and said they refused to accept any references from Snopes or Politifact cause they're partisan democratic nonsense (paraphrased) and I just went "I can't take this person anymore."

[FeveredDreams]

I would not refer to him as she either. Was Robbie a bigot because he did not agree with this Roem character’s lifestyle?
Robbie wrote a bill that was against mixing of bathrooms? I didn’t know that, but all the more reason to like him.

Disagreeing with a life style?  Sure you can do that.  I think it's scummy as hell though,  when it is something that... really really don't change your life at all.  It mostly just comes off as I think this is icky or this old book told me it's wrong.  As for the bathroom bill...  do you really think that trans people are in there perving on people?  They're not,  and whenever I hear people talk like this I kind of wonder if they're the type who enjoys peeping on people in public restrooms,  because that thought process has to come from somewhere.

Actual predators aren't going to listen to the ruling anyway,  and if you actually understood anything about being trans you'd know that the difficulties of going through the processes and how no predator would go through that sort of thing just to get their jollies off. 

[HannibalBarca]

That's exactly where I found the info. I rarely take Wikipedia's word for anything, and digging through all that for the pertinent information is way more time than I have to spare.

Slightly off-topic: I can't remember where it was, but someone was debating somewhere in the PROC and said they refused to accept any references from Snopes or Politifact cause they're partisan democratic nonsense (paraphrased) and I just went "I can't take this person anymore."

As Stephen Colbert said, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

That made me all snickery, but it's true. (Good ole Colbert)

And that's what we're seeing here, with Roem. And of course, the others like her in Wednesday's (it was Wednesday, right?) elections. As the few cling to traditional views that seem to become more and more out of touch with the way the world is growing, I'm reminded of evolution. Those mindsets were supposed to die out. They're not going with the way the rest of us are adapting. The rest of us are making room for this organic thing we call humanity.

Danica and her contemporaries are a clear visualization of the fact that when faced with the rigidity of intolerance and bigotry, humanity and its "ridiculous liberal bias" acts like tendrils of hearty jungle plantlife, resurging over the dead bits of traditionalist views and reclaiming them for our own use.

[HannibalBarca]

Danica and her contemporaries are a clear visualization of the fact that when faced with the rigidity of intolerance and bigotry, humanity and its "ridiculous liberal bias" acts like tendrils of hearty jungle plantlife, resurging over the dead bits of traditionalist views and reclaiming them for our own use.

That's a rather picturesque image :)

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Thank you!

[Mithlomwen]

That's a rather picturesque image :)

Agreed.  :-)

[Jazzylynn]

If people have the right to be polite and respectful, they have the right to be rude and disrespectful. You are not wrong, but what does it cost to treat people as people?

He did not treat Roem as a monkey? He referred to him as him did he not? Or did he actually call Roem something that is not a person?

[FeveredDreams]

He poked the bear.  At some point you just choose to be nice,  if one of your friends decided to change their name would you just keep calling them by the name they got rid of.  Particularly is say,  said new name actually helps them feel better about themselves. That really doesn't matter though does it?

[Jazzylynn]

Something to keep in mind, is that people who suffer with gender identity issues don't wake up one day and 'decide they are going to be a boy/girl'.  They don't just decide they are going to change their identity on a whim.  Most people suffer their entire lives with this issue, and when they finally make the decision to make the change, it's not an easy decision. 

The hormones they have to take are not easy on their bodies, and the surgeries they have to go through are brutal.

So to address the issue with a flippant statement like 'He acknowledged that Roem preformed surgeries to change what he was born with because he decided he felt like being a girl', is very insulting to folks dealing with gender identity issues.

I do not research gender identity problems. It wasn't a big deal back in the 50's or any other time except now, recently. Altering a body, like transgenders do, should hurt. How could it not when it is so strange and extreme of a change? I did not mean to insult, if I did it would have been much better than that. I have not meant to offend or insult anything, only converse or share my opinion. Flippant or not, it is true is it not? "Folks" dealing with "gender identity issues". How do they deal? Do not most pick from the list of 50 unique genders, orientations, whatever special term is used, and become whatever they feel is "more like them?"

[Jazzylynn]

Disagreeing with a life style?  Sure you can do that.  I think it's scummy as hell though,  when it is something that... really really don't change your life at all.  It mostly just comes off as I think this is icky or this old book told me it's wrong.  As for the bathroom bill...  do you really think that trans people are in there perving on people?  They're not,  and whenever I hear people talk like this I kind of wonder if they're the type who enjoys peeping on people in public restrooms,  because that thought process has to come from somewhere.

Actual predators aren't going to listen to the ruling anyway,  and if you actually understood anything about being trans you'd know that the difficulties of going through the processes and how no predator would go through that sort of thing just to get their jollies off.

"Scummy?" Mmmm, not quite. I do not agree with the black man who comes to my church in the morning asking for money while he smokes dope. When we give him cash, guess what he does? Buys more, and we have proved it. So I DO NOT agree with his lifestyle. Why? Because I think his choices are poor, will kill him, hurt others and not get him very far. That is an example just to show that you can disagree with the way someone is doing something and it not be "scummy." I do not think it is healthy for people to arrange their body parts the way they were made or to jack themselves up with the hormones that "change" them. Transgenders are the most extreme of the LGBT community. So I really do not know. Possibly? Three schools in my area had to expel three different students because they were "gay" and were taking part in spaying and sexual actives. I do not know of any trans that have, but yes to people in the LGBT community.

[Nadir]

He did not treat Roem as a monkey? He referred to him as him did he not? Or did he actually call Roem something that is not a person?

Not sure why you are refering to monkeys. Why do you personally refer to Danica is 'he' when you have access to information that shows clearly she is a woman? You may be misunderstanding what it is to be transgender if you think this;

Flippant or not, it is true is it not? "Folks" dealing with "gender identity issues". How do they deal? Do not most pick from the list of 50 unique genders, orientations, whatever special term is used, and become whatever they feel is "more like them?"

because that is not accurate - indeed, it sounds like you went back to the 50s for your information, out of date and crass as it is. 

[Jazzylynn]

Not sure why you are refering to monkeys. Why do you personally refer to Danica is 'he' when you have access to information that shows clearly she is a woman? You may be misunderstanding what it is to be transgender if you think this;

because that is not accurate - indeed, it sounds like you went back to the 50s for your information, out of date and crass as it is.

Because someone said "You are not wrong, but what does it cost to treat people as people?" I do not know why else this would have been said unless it was about the topic being discussed. In which case... how did Bob Marshall not treat Roem as a person?

My eyes are brown. I want blue. Can I surgically have them done blue? Maybe? Maybe in the future? I am and still will be originally and genetically brown eyed. He is a "woman" because he had a doctor perform surgeries and because he took bunch of pills. I do not think something that is "meant to be" should require such.

Just because some things change does not mean everything does. 50's were way better than now and that is because so many things are being changed or altered and shouldn't be.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

It seems to me that your opinion is dangerously antiquated, grossly misinformed and worse, speaks with the confidence of someone who is comfortable in that lack of understanding.

Firstly, the frivolous: smoking pot is not deadly or a lifestyle. Based on the tenuous understanding you seem to have on the subject at large, I would be interested to find out how you have "proved" he does this with the money but in the end, it's a nonsense argument based in flawed mindset, so it doesn't matter.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if your opinion is that gender reassignment surgery should hurt. That opinion is made irrelevant by virtue of the fact that wishing pain on anyone is a depiction of faulty moral fiber.

Thirdly, no, someone doesn't simply point and click to choose a gender. You are deliberately undermining the gravity of years of work my qualified therapists and the individual themselves to better define their identity. While we're on the subject, it strikes me that there are many people who have no issue with the way they were born and have such opinions about other people's lives and would easily fly into a rage if they were told they were not normal for being something they themselves are proud of or at the leazt, cannot change. I would be severely disappointed if I were to find that was the case here.

Fourth, your use of sarcastic quotes for things like gender identity issues and the concept of changing one's hormones is deliberately belittling an idea in the most juvenile fashion possible. Denying the reality of change is simply stubborn and overall pointless, particularly since that change is not something that is questionable insofar as the fact it actually happens. If you are the type to naturally grow a beard, it may seem strange to you all the attention that a transgender man might receive for his, but that is a perspective issue, not a fault of reality.

Fifth: The heinous way you present the issues in a school. I'm sure you don't mean students are spaying, but spying. However, that is not an issue that stems specifically from being gay (again with the air quotes?). Also, I'm not at all certain where this fits in with the concept of transgender individuals, but perhaps you're looking at the concept of people using being gay as a cover for their practices, particularly potent given the context that someone already said that criminals won't listen to literally anything in law but will do whatever makes it easiest to get away with their crimes. Further, if you want people to believe this actually happened, you will have to provide source material. Personally, I do not believe this to be true at all.

However, the person you were responding to said that no one was going to go through hormone therapy, years of psychological evaluation, multiple surgeries, the ignorance of others, wholescale ostracism from their communities just to spy on members of the opposite sex. Labelling transgender individuals as more extreme is ridiculous, particularly since you then go on to insinuate that by nature, they must be willing to do even worse because they are transgender. That is a whole load of such horrific nonsense that it makes me wonder what public school must be like in your district to produce such terrible and wholly confident attempts at logic.

What am I on, six?

"I do not research gender identity problems". Okay, then by virtue of your own testimony, nothing you have said is viable, can be trusted or is even allowed on this board, since you have to be able to back up your claims and have entirely failed to do so.

It being jot a big deal in the fifties is irrelevant. Cell phones and internet weren't either, what's your point? Clearly you can learn new things when it benefits you, so you give up the right to plead ignorance as you argue against your own.

To add to this, no one said hurt. They said brutal, suffering and that it isn't easy. If the only kind of pain you can conceive of is physical, you are mentally incapable of keeping pace with this discussion. And ghen we have the quotes again, this time around "folks". Do you not believe them to be people? Is that where your problem stems? Whether you mean to or not, the language you are using is extremely insulting and moreover, appears directly intended that way. If that's not how you intend to come across, then you need to change that. It's up to you to make a decent attempt at being understood, that's how communication works.

Also, if you don't know the difference between gender and sexual orientation, you should maybe look at up as that is a fundamental necessity for having this conversation in the first place. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Your arguments, in their entirety, lack information, are unpolished, ill-informed, reek of arguments intended to hurt rather than converse, and are especially heinous in terms of basic human respect. Once you have educated yourself (Google is free) and have managed to at least figure out what argument you're even having, please feel free to return with an informed point of view, cited sources and a language that is exceptionally more respectful.

[Sparrowhawke]

"Scummy?" Mmmm, not quite. I do not agree with the black man who comes to my church in the morning asking for money while he smokes dope. When we give him cash, guess what he does? Buys more, and we have proved it. So I DO NOT agree with his lifestyle. Why? Because I think his choices are poor, will kill him, hurt others and not get him very far. That is an example just to show that you can disagree with the way someone is doing something and it not be "scummy." I do not think it is healthy for people to arrange their body parts the way they were made or to jack themselves up with the hormones that "change" them. Transgenders are the most extreme of the LGBT community. So I really do not know. Possibly? Three schools in my area had to expel three different students because they were "gay" and were taking part in spaying and sexual actives. I do not know of any trans that have, but yes to people in the LGBT community.

First of all, you are not even trying to dig into the reason why he would use the money for drugs. I would assume from the story you are telling that he is homeless. Homelessness and mental illnesses are massively linked. You can google 'mental health and homelessness' and find all the links you could care to read. Without access to proper coping mechanisms and proper aid, many people (hell, even plenty of people who have homes but no framework of how to cope) will fall to shitty coping mechanisms such as self-medication, through drugs or alcohol. Addiction is not something that is easy to deal with, especially when alone. Unless you've taken the time to find out what has happened to him, and why he does what he does, you. Don't. Know.

Instead it sounds like what you are saying is 'this black man does drugs, therefore he is a Bad Man.' And this isn't a topic about racism, but given the rest of your argument, it sounds like you might be inclined to allow that ONE person's behaviour to justify feeling a certain way about the rest of them. Because that's what your argument about those gay students is saying.

You can disagree with his 'lifestyle' all you want, but unless you're going to offer him concrete options to get him OUT of that situation (fun fact: small bursts of money that are less than a living wage are definitely not a viable 'out' - especially not on its own) - you can't really say that it's his choice to stay like that.

Secondly, I'm assuming this school you're talking about is a high school. Newsflash. Straight kids spray shit and have sex too. They're teenagers. It happens. This doesn't mean gay kids are any more perverted or vandalous than the straight ones. They're just kids who like one gender rather than the other. Which is a feature of heterosexuality, surprisingly enough.

As for the health side of things, studies have shown that transition improves quality of life for transgender people. There are risks associated with transition, sure, but there are risks associated with so many other forms of medical treatment. Some of those risks exist for Cis people who are taking those hormones as supplements for a natural, pre-existing deficit. But by and large, the medical benefits to transition outweigh the risks. That is not even to mention the benefits for the individual's mood and self-confidence.

We are not destroying ourselves to transition, and even if we were, it is our bodies and our lives.  You can 'disagree' all you like, but the instant you refuse to refer to a person as they have fought so hard to be referred as, you are actively disrespecting every single decision we have made and everything we have done. You are disrespecting us as people.

That point. That one right there. Is not up for discussion. If you call me a woman, you are disrespecting me, and I have the right to be angry about that, just as you would if I disrespected something so integral to your identity.  I am a man, I do not 'want' to be a man. I am one. I want to be respected, as most human beings do. If there had been an option for me to be comfortable in my skin, if I could have chosen to be happy as a 'woman' I would have taken that out. I already have so many issues to deal with, I didn't need this on top of it.

[Hades]

Based on the tags you have on your profile, I assume you identify yourself as female in terms of gender.  If I refused to accept that and constantly refereed to you with male pronouns, that is dehumanizing.   It's the same in this instance where Mr. Marshall refused to use the pronouns that Danica.  Does he have to agree with her? Of course not.  Does his opinion outweigh her own when it comes to how she is addressed? Fuck no he doesn't.  Danica Roem identifies as a woman and should be given the same respect that anyone else has when it comes to our own self image and identity.


Also, just as a side note, the 1950s in America was a terrible time unless you were rich, white, and male. 

[Nadir]

Because someone said "You are not wrong, but what does it cost to treat people as people?" I do not know why else this would have been said unless it was about the topic being discussed. In which case... how did Bob Marshall not treat Roem as a person?

That person was me, hi. My post was to do with respect, not monkeys. Giving another person the respect to say 'Hey, I am going to listen to what you say and not determine it for you based on a letter written on a piece of paper'  - which any biologist will tell you is highly inaccurate. There are a lot of aspects that determine a person's physical sex - looking at what is between a baby's legs doesn't really cover all the different type of biological variations that can occur - and neither can it accurately describe what a person's gender is. Gender being the social construct. You show very clearly that you can call a woman a 'he' and hey, wow, look, you don't tear the fabric of the universe to shreds. Makes you crass, but that's a social thing. So yeah, gender and expression of gender is a purely social thing. Which means when someone says 'I am a woman' and they get refereed to aggressively as a man it's disrespect.

I hope you don't get confused and think about monkeys again.

My eyes are brown. I want blue. Can I surgically have them done blue? Maybe? Maybe in the future? I am and still will be originally and genetically brown eyed. He is a "woman" because he had a doctor perform surgeries and because he took bunch of pills. I do not think something that is "meant to be" should require such.

When you look in the mirror and see brown eyes, how do you feel? Do you feel like someone is lying to you, the very worst most paper thin lie you have ever heard, a lie so blatant it's insulting - but the speaker of that lie is your own body? Does looking at your eyes, your eyes that you see as brown but know, you know they are blue, does looking at those not-blue eyes make you feel like you ought to rip them out, gouge them out to be free of them, even at the cost of sight because at least then they wouldn't be lying at you, each moment, each instant.

When you look at you eyes, do you see them as yours, or do you see them as alien, a stranger's, something horrific and shattering because you are certain they are blue - they are blue. Even though everyone sees them as brown.

If you feel that when you look in the mirror, you understand a fragment of what it is to be trans.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Woow hoo!

[Fury Aphrodisia]

As a woman who is a self-proclaimed 50's throwback, you're about to love this.

Firstly, sit down and listen, you're not going to want to speak up and share a dissenting opinion. Things have changed too much and women are being far too loud, so if you love the kind of backward thinking you're promoting, boy do I have a deal for you.

Further, since the fifties were a generation that were a little more fascinated by Science than we are now, here's a bit of knowledge for you to chew on. Did you know that most people have two different eye colour signatures in their genetic code? it's called dominant and recessive genetics. Or you know... just 'genetics'. Those who study the subject have found that you could probably change your eye colour. It would mean you have blue eyes. Genetically speaking, however, you probably have brown and green, brown and blue or possibly just brown and brown. Where do you think the genetic material of the other parents goes when you're being gestated? I'll leave you to ponder that.

Furthermore, what about the people who are male but have XYX or even just XX chromesomes? What about the females with Y cromesomes? Claiming an absolute in terms of genetics is a faulty, ridiculous argument, since even geneticists who have studied the challenge professionally and for more years than I, at least, have been alive don't really have solid answers about genetics yet. Claiming an absolute truth on the authority of genetics is by default a flawed argument, so we're just going to go ahead and throw that out. Don't you worry your pretty little head over it, chicks sometimes like to talk without realizing they ain't got a clue what they're squawking about. (Just trying to make you feel more comfortable).

ONTO THE TOPIC OF SURGERY!

Here's a task for you. I dare you to go to a veteran with a prosthetic limb and tell him that just because someone did a surgery on him, doesn't mean he has a right to be presenting himself as an abled person. Then, for extra credit, go ahead and tell him that you don't agree with his lifestyle. I'm just gonna wait here. (Side note, for those watching from the audience, I anticipate the first three rows will get wet.) See, when someone's body isn't working right, when that body isn't doing what the brain is telling it to do (sit, walk, run, read words properly, curb intrusive thoughts, pee standing up) surgery fixes it. In fact, it's what's allowed a lot of the same people who have been smoking in cars with children, drinking themselves into a stupor, eating double greasy cheeseburgers with extra grease their whole lives to continue having... well, lives. So tell that triple bypass survivor that the pacemaker doesn't give him a right not to be called a zombie! You've earned it!

Also, make sure you tell every adopted child that the parents that adopted him or her aren't actually parents and they don't have to listen to them. After all, something that's "meant to be" shouldn't require actual effort. (As an aside, personal curiosity, how's your personal relationships? I feel like they ought to be going swimmingly right about now.)

Just because you want to argue with a doctor, particularly surgeons, plethora biologists, psychologists and the like, doesn't make you right. Having an opinion doesn't overrule the scope of reality. I know there are a lot of people who like to use traditional outlook to justify these arguments, but if you're one of those that thinks you have an opinion to equal a medical professional?

Spoler Alert

You don't.

Just because you have a thought that runs contrary to the understanding of current medical science, doesn't mean it is equally as strong as science nor that it is equally weighted to scientific understanding or that it is in any way equal to anything except another dissenting opinion to reality.

I have a thought that perhaps those who are against being defined by surgery have been told they have some sort of brain tumour that leads to their outlandish claims and they are rebelling against the concept of science as a defence against the idea that when they're healthy, they might not carry all these nonesense thoughts around.

Until such a time as these mysteries are solved, shut up and sit down, toots, nobody listens to women in the fifties. Enjoy your polio and asbestos.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

First of all, you are not even trying to dig into the reason why he would use the money for drugs. I would assume from the story you are telling that he is homeless. Homelessness and mental illnesses are massively linked. You can google 'mental health and homelessness' and find all the links you could care to read. Without access to proper coping mechanisms and proper aid, many people (hell, even plenty of people who have homes but no framework of how to cope) will fall to shitty coping mechanisms such as self-medication, through drugs or alcohol. Addiction is not something that is easy to deal with, especially when alone. Unless you've taken the time to find out what has happened to him, and why he does what he does, you. Don't. Know.

Instead it sounds like what you are saying is 'this black man does drugs, therefore he is a Bad Man.' And this isn't a topic about racism, but given the rest of your argument, it sounds like you might be inclined to allow that ONE person's behaviour to justify feeling a certain way about the rest of them. Because that's what your argument about those gay students is saying.

Also, let's not forget, for a man to be able to get work he must be of sound mind. If he can't afford health insurance, he can't afford to get the help he needs because he can't afford his dosages. So, what if said man gets ten dollars, buys a gram, smokes it up, hits an interview and sounds coherent until the munchies kick in? What if he gets hired? What if he gets health insurance through work and can finally see a specialist that prescribes him....


Dun Dun DUUUUUUUUN.


Medical marijuana.

Honestly, people, it's called cause and effect. Fix your broken health care and stop being so damned judgemental.

[Iniquitous]

Wow.

Just... wow.

I am all for people having their own opinions.  I am even for people expressing their own opinions.  However, what I am not for is the blatant disrespect that I am seeing here.  You are trying to claim ignorance on the subject as a reason to be hateful towards others that are different than you.  Who are YOU to decide that your opinion gets to overrule what someone else identifies as?  Why do you think that your opinion is the be all, end all when it comes to who a person is?

Danica is a SHE. Calling her anything other than the female pronouns that align with her gender is rude, arrogant, spiteful, disrespectful, and downright hateful. Refusing to recognize and RESPECT the wishes of someone else when it comes to how they identify themselves is despicable and trying to condone the bigotry by saying it wasn't a big deal in the 1950's only makes this all the worse.

For future reference - there were trans-gendered individuals in the 1950's. As a matter of fact, one of the first identifiable recipients of sexual reassignment was Lili Elbe.  She lived from 1882 to 1931. 

If you are going to throw your opinion out there and try to say it is fact, you might want to get better at researching what you are talking about before you do so.  I would also suggest not insulting members of E by making light of their situation.  Instead, I would suggest that you actually talk to those on E who have made the outside match the inside (or those that want to make the outside match the inside/those who are in the process of making the outside match the inside) and actually learn about gender dysphoria.

I am censoring the hell out of myself right now because my first reaction when I read your responses a day or two (maybe three days) ago was anger and I had to actually shut E down so that the temptation to respond without thinking wasn't in my face.  Reading your further thoughts on this subject just lit my fuse - especially when you try and hide behind the 'I do not research gender identity problems.'  Why are you in this thread talking about this issue if it is something you do not research?  To stir the pot and get the angst going? To be a troll and hurt others that have done nothing to you?

I personally think you need to be making some massive apologies to those here on E that live with gender dysphoria/bigotry about being transgendered.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Two further points. Cause I can't edit.

One, if you call a Doctor a Doctor even if they're not biologically a PhD, then call a transgender man a man. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

If you have ever gotten offended on behalf of someone with a baby that is female and others call them male (or the other way around), you're a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is dishonesty and dishonesty has no place in ... well, humanity.

[MiraMirror]

If you get all upset about someone calling your male dog "she" or your female dog "he", you can call a transman or transwoman by the correct gender.   Doing otherwise is tantamount to saying that a dog is more important than a woman...and that's not responding to your other points, Jazz.

[FeveredDreams]

I'm sorry,  I'm actually afraid I'm going to get banned for this...  but I can't help it.

I've decided your current pronoun is shithead.

[Nadir]

Okay, tensions are running high, let's take a cool down

[Nadir]

Discussion may resume

[Jazzylynn]

Being a pothead can be a lifestyle. Does me saying “part of a lifestyle” suit you better? Eating healthy can be a lifestyle. Being a frontiersman is a lifestyle. A boy from the college group at my church offered the man food when he was asking for money at sonic. The man was going around asking for money, so he could get food, so he gave him food. Then the boy watched him walk a way down the line of cars and try to sell the food so he could get money. He clearly did not want food. Another guy friend gave him hot dogs at his apartment and the druggie tried to sell them to his neighbor. Other than this, a man from my church that tried to help him has talked with him and tried to help him, but he does not accept it.
I never said I wished pain on anyone. If you go get surgery for anything it should hurt cause that is normal? Saying it could is not very accurate.
Okay, they do not choose and click a gender. They spend long hard hours debating on who they are, discovering themselves, trying to find their identity because they have no clue. Better? I am not in a rage and I do not see how that “could be the case here.”
And I dunno if y’all can tell, but y’all are just as sarcastic, which I do not mind. I did not say change does not happen. I said some things should not change. Especially common sense ones. Men grow beards. Not strange. A transgender man… meaning he was man and is now woman or woman and now man? I do not know. If a woman who was a man is growing a beard… uh yeah that sounds pretty normal.
<snipped for extremely hurtful content> That was my point. Which parts do you need proof for? Like the schools? I might can find news channels in my area that covered it, if they did. I do not know if schools publicize those things.
I do not research. That does not mean that I have no learned a lot from news, college or other means. I may look into it at times or whatever, but no I do not research.
I used quotes to literally quote words from other people’s post. I know that gay people have mental struggles. Isn’t that how they start wanting to change or having the desire to change who they are? Their mind clearly plays a role. People are people. People are who they are. I just do not believe in people changing who they are.
No no, believe me I know the difference. Since homosexuality is so important and people need to understand that gay people are around, and they need to be loved and supported we have to learn about them. I have lessons about it in college. I have had to research all the unique terms of orientation and gender. In fact, there is another term to go about describing all the different things a person can call themselves, but I do not remember.
I may use sarcasm or bluntness, but I have my opinions. I find it funny that no one here has the same stance as me. And by here, I mean this site, which I do not expect to find others like me here. I disagree with any and all things regarding homosexuality. Just like you all seem to love, support and dream that anyone who wants to be gay can be and we should support them. Doesn’t mean my opinion is CORRECT, but it also does not mean yours is CORRECT either.
I never said the black man at my church was a bad man. He needs help and my church has tried. The lady’s class has cried over how long they have tried to help him. I did not mean to be racist by calling him black if that is what you refer to. It was just a way of describing. I will say baggy sweatpants and bald next time. I forgot calling someone by their skin color is racist.
If I call a transgender by their preferred “he” or “she” then I am accepting it and supporting, it. If they get mad about it they can come to me and we can talk about it. I tend to not refer to them with he or she at all to avoid “disrespecting” and “offending.”
If someone refers to me as he I would not get offended. That is your opinion. I would like to know why you call me he and when I hear your reason then I will know.
Well you said the Marshall did not respond to Roem like they were a person. What else is Roem if not a person?
I look at my eyes and I go cool I got my dad’s eyes. I do not think about anything about my body so extremely. Why would I want to change something about me so badly? How could my body be a lie? Did mom and dad doing something wrong when they were making me? I wanted blue eyes, whose fault is that? That is not fair. I am going to do something about it and change it so that I can have blue eyes because then I won’t feel like an alien made me or did something to me that I did not want to be to start with. I am not trans along with most of the world population, so I guess no one except the small percentage of trans will ever have a mind that says that to them.
My opinon which was just my opinion and still is was not meant to be offensive. Should I be offended that every single one of you disagree with me and say I need to study the minds of transgenders until I agree? Cause I am not.
I would not get upset is someone called my female dog a he. I would probably ask why. “Yo, she is a girl?” Then they can respond with whatever they are thinking. No, a woman is more important than a dog. Humans have souls, so I think that tilts the scale just a little.
FeveredDreams does not like my opinion and therefore finds it best to “heat it up.” Reminds me of how since Trump got elected there have been riots and violence from people who were so butthurt. Were there as much violence and protesting when Obama was elected? See, I may not be super educated with the transgender world, but I hold an opinion. I never said it was right or had hard work and research behind it. I have read everyone’s post on here and I never thought hmm they are shitheads or hmm they are stupid and wrong. I didn’t necessarily agree either. If you look at my very first post you can tell I literally stated my opinion. I also asked a question because I didn’t know. Clearly, I am seeking some opinion and feedback, but I never meant to offend. I also forget how easily offended people can get. Everyone else just saw it and went “She doesn’t agree. She has an opposing view! Attack.” So apparently I along with Bob Marshall and the rest of us as just shitheads.

[HannibalBarca]

Why, if I may ask, do you not do research?  Isn't learning new things and being able to separate facts from untruths an important thing to you?

Also, you are confusing gender with sexuality.  Gender and sex are not the same thing.  This is an established medical and psychological fact.  Don't take my word for it; look it up, or ask a medical doctor.  Sexuality has to do with the other people you are attracted to. Gender has to do with your own identity.  That means lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight--those deal with sexuality.  Most people are cisgendered--that means they identify their gender with the body they were born into.  I'm cisgender.  I have a penis, and I identify as a man.  95% of people are cisgender, if I recall the statistics correctly.  Transgender means you don't identify with the body you were born into.  Look up gender dysphoria if you wish to understand more about the subject, but that is only one aspect of it.

Gay, straight, and lesbian individuals, when observed in an MRI machine, show different brain functions.  The actual physical parts of their brains are different.  It's something you're born as, for the great majority of people.  Bisexuals can differ as far as leaning towards preferring one gender or another or being equally attracted, and pansexuals have no preference, being interested in any gender.  Asexuals have no interest in sex, but can still be romantically interested in others.  The human brain is much, much more complicated than what people hundreds of years ago thought was just 'male' and 'female'.  Bodies don't even always come in just XX and XY chromosone pairs.  Some people are born with YY, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and so on.  Some people are born intersex, which used to be called hermaphrotitism. 

Life doesn't always fit into neat little categories.  When science discovers new knowledge, many people are uncomfortable with it.  Some Catholic religious leaders in the Renaissance refused to look into telescopes and see that Jupiter actually had four moons, because they were afraid it was Satan trying to mislead them into not believing in what they had always been taught--that the sky was unchanging.  Many times throughout the centuries, new knowledge has been learned, but it took many more years before it was generally accepted.  People will hold on to what they already know, because change is frightening.

People in the LGBTQ community are not pulling your leg, trolling you, trying to get attention, or wanting special treatment.  They already get 'special' treatment--bad treatment, and for millennia.  They simply want to get the same things straight people get, instead of ridicule, abuse, and historical discrimination.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Hahahahaha. I love this.

Alright, honey. Let's assume you're sincere. You don't come across as sincere, but let's try it out and see how far we get.

So, let's start with this poor, downtrodden man you seem to think makes a good example. Let's say that the man needs money. He needs it for the thrift shop, for instance because he needs a blanket or a pair of gloves or something. Or perhaps there's an expense that he needs to have taken care of - like paying for copies to print out his resume, or something of the like. Maybe it's soap, or he needs to be able to plan ahead. He can't tell for sure when the next meal is coming. Could be anything. I once knew a man who only ever asked for a dollar at a time so he could call his daughter once a week. That's it, that's all he ever asked for. This was back around when payphones were still the primary on-the-go method of getting a hold of people.

So, since some (very loud) people are incredibly suspicious of the homeless for whatever reason, they mostly try to give him food. As you have demonstrated. Now he's full, and knows that overfilling yourself often leads to sickness that can actually be really painful and detrimental to someone who has no steady access to a bathroom far less a nice warm house and an endless supply of Pepto. So, this person takes the food they can't eat, that will only go to waste now, and tries to trade it to people who will actually buy it off him and allow him to get five bucks for shampoo or canned goods maybe, or possibly a vegetable or two for later.

See, when you have your opinion and defend it to the complete blindness of everything else, you fail to take into account the reasonable occurrences of what we like to call ... reasons. You know, the cause to the effect you see? It might be that you have information we don't have, but so far all I can hear is that a bunch of god-touting types are arrogant enough to assume that they have an understanding and a judgement and no real compassion unless it's by their own standard. Unfortunately, it's a story most of us are tired of hearing, since ninety percent of the interactions some of us have are at best annoying and at worst, violent, hateful and willfully ignorant.

Saying "it generally hurts" is possibly a better way to be properly communicated, rather than "it should hurt", particularly when the context you gave seemed to offer none of the compassion you now insist would be part of the inherent meaning. To me, that sounds like backtracking your argument and is a dishonest tactic a lot of less savoury types of apologists tend to use, getting so mixed up in trying to put everyone else on a semantic defensive so their "opinions" are somehow appearing to be equated with that of ... well, the rest of the world.

"Trying to find their identity because they have no clue. Better?" No, miss caustic, not better. You seem to be missing a fundamental aspect of the conversation as it has been presented to you. Whether because it has not been communicated clearly, because you are incapable of taking in that many points at once or because you are incapable of understanding the concept as presented, I don't know. I'm inclined instead to believe that you are being dishonest and overtly attempting to misunderstand, instead making overtures to common, anti-liberal tropes to attempt to solidify your position as evenly-weighted in discussion. So, for the sake of being able to clarify that once and for all, allow me to present it in the clearest way I believe it is possible to understand it.

A transgender person knows exactly who they are. They know better than anyone else. No one else has ever seen who they truly are. They get that fixed. None of which requires an outside opinion. None. You can have an opinion all you like, it's entirely irrelevant to anyone aside from yourself. Literally no one needs to hear it because it's not going to present any new information or enrich the world in absolutely any manner whatsoever. Basically, no one has a need for your opinion. If you have ever uttered the phrase "mind you own business", or "nobody asked you", you pretty much have the idea of exactly how much your opinion needs to impact that person's life at all.

Now, this is not to say that your opinion is not allowed. I have no right to try to judge that. However, when your words then impact people who have taken enough shit in their lives and you double down instead of acknowledging that being nasty to people is hurtful regardless of whether you want to be worthwhile somehow or not, we will close ranks and defend each other. And there's more of us than there are of those who oppose us.

See, there's a great fallacy going on right now with the traditionalists, the conservatives, the religious, those of that particular mindset. It is the unfortunate mixup between terms. Theory in common parlance, for instance, is used to replace hypothesis, while Theory ACTUALLY means the method by which we describe a fact/law/absolute. In the same vein, people seem to think they're entitled to have opinions about facts. This is simply not true. The earth revolves around the sun. This is not subject to any of your opinions and we are not required to respect that opinion or its existence. Human beings breathe Oxygen. This is a fact. You are welcome to disagree with this, at which point I would seek to prove that the fact is not subject to your thoughts by having you test it thoroughly. So, simply because you have an opinion does not make that opinion entitled to my respect nor are you entitled to act in such a manner as you please and expect me not to correct the heinous torrent of logical fallacies, cruel judgemental words or the complete lack of personal integrity and accountability that you display. You are entitled to nothing.

You said some things should not change. Fine, you think that. But as previously established, your ideas alone are not inherently worthy of respect. Therefore, what is it that you believe should not change and why? What makes you think that applying  any sort of is/ought fallacy is going to bring you some sort of legitimacy? Simply because something "ought" not to change does not mean that it does not change, or that railing against that change is intelligent, useful or respectable. Once again, hyper-subjective elements are not inherently worthy of respect. I would go so far as to point out that if something is common sense, it is either incorrect if it must then change and is therefore not common sense but common naivete, or else we must all agree to wrap our wounds in moldy bread because common sense tells us that's how we keep from experiencing the creeping rot of flesh that leads to so many amputations. See, people used to believe that because that was the sort of thing that saved limbs. Turns out that it wasn't the moldy bread specifically but the pre-penicillin that was so useful. As a species, humanity learns and grows and becomes the better for it. It's why history is said to have the hindsight benefit of being liberal.

Also, you're going to have to stop saying "want to be gay." There are mountains of evidence by trusted sources that confirm independently (it's what we call peer-review. It's a fundamental aspect of science) that orientation is not a chosen quality. Terminology is entirely subjective and unique to the individual in terms of absolute definition. But orientation is simply not a choice. What you are describing begins inherently dishonest (whether willfully or incidentally is irrelevant at this point) and proceeds into the truly absurd. You equate extremity of internalized action with extremity of outwardly-focused action. You insinuated in your prior argument that the extremity of transgender individuals was somehow linked to the implied fear they would go on to use their state of being to take advantage of others, citing the specific examples you claim happened. If you have to narrow the scope of your argument and add addendum to that extent to the argument you're using, then it was a flimsy argument to begin with and it might be better advised to abandon it in order to better reinforce a superior argument, provided you can find one.

Yes, proof that events such as this have actually happened. Otherwise, we will be forced to assume that you are making the whole thing up to falsely prop up your point. Not that your point cannot be argued without that information. I intend to do so, I just would also like to see some actual evidence to back up your claim. You know, just to make sure you're not trying to troll us. If you came across the information in the first place, you will be capable of finding it again. Almost every new outlet has, for instance, space on a media sharing website such as YouTube.

People lying in order to commit atrocities is something the human race isn't remotely unfamiliar with. It has happened from the dawn of time and will continue to happen for a long time yet to come. Trying to claim that one set of people or another does this more often than others is absolutely ludicrous and nearly impossible to prove, with the possible exception of sociopaths and psychopaths. The practice can be found in any religion, establishment, organization, community or other subset of people. It is how we respond to it that defines us. Will we victimize an entire subset of humanity to punish them for the actions of a few? Or shall we take the more intelligent path and agree as a group that scummy people are scummy people and need to be removed from the privileges of society based on their own merits? I sincerely wish you would address this with a straight answer, so that we can be warned or confirmed on the content of your character as applicable.

You can learn a lot from the news, sure (I doubt "college" since I saw you mention somewhere else that you dislike schools, colleges and the like and listed this as a reason for your ignorance on the content of a subject in another thread here). Provided you have a good cross-section of sources from which to choose and aren't taking, say, Fox news at face value for everything. They are a self-proclaimed conservative network whose invested interests would include maintaining a partisan spin on their news. Local stations, however, tend to be a little bit more balanced due to having a far lesser pool of competition to draw from and generally the grain of salt required to swallow it is a little smaller. So, yes, you can learn from these things. However, if all you're doing is absorbing the information in passing, you are incapable of being called educated on the subject. Most people don't tend to question the information they're given if they're not invested in discussion on the subject. In layman's terms, they don't tend to double-check what doesn't matter to them at the time. If you do not research, you are going to A) be terribly outmatched by those who do, B) run the risk of losing all integrity with the people around you, C) be at risk of being fooled by every person who sees you as a pawn because they assume you're not going to look into something. Google is free, laziness is no excuse for piping up with an unsubstantiated opinion. Particularly one so caustic as you have been wielding.

You do not need to quote everything used by another person in a post. That would be ridiculous. Based on common habits (which I'm hard-pressed to believe you simply did not know), putting quotes around "folks" indicates that you don't necessarily believe the terminology applies. Since 'Folks' is a term used to refer primarily to people as human, insinuating that you do not believe this implies fairly heavily that you in fact believe the opposite, as though these people to whom you refer are not actually people. If you have not been clear on this, I invite you to either clarify or else confirm this suspicion.

Gay people do not necessarily want to change their bodies. That's a false equivocation. Just because some transgender individuals happen to be gay does not automatically mean that they all are. This is the sort of bigoted, unconcerned ignorance that leads most to say that those who express themselves the way you have done are more likely than not transphobic or homophobic. However, to chase down your point, these people are not changing who they are, whether that is gay or not. They are instead getting rid of the parts of them that do not fit how they are. They are not changing FROM their identity, but TO it.

In all of Elliquiy, there are certainly people who carry the stance that they do not understand/have not been exposed to/have not accepted the choices that other people make about their bodies. The trouble is that those mindsets usually do one of two things: Either they discover that they are outnumbered both here and in the real world and that Elliquiy isn't going to be the platform they need to reach out and make a plethora of friends like them or they couple their actual opinions ("transgender people aren't really transgender, just confused") with hatred ("transgender people aren't really people"). The former type tend to believe in a "live and let live" philosophy, which incidentally coincides with the opinions of a great number of people with whom they disagree; LGBTQ/Liberal/People of colour, etc. As such, they agree that they needn't try to change each other's minds and go their separate ways. However, those who would show hostility to those members of the site whose existence they callously deny or seek to appeal to emotion rather than reason are generally not welcome on the PROC boards, if not the site in general. The sort of degredation and heinous claims that have been made already in this thread tend to often be grounds for removal from Elliquiy based on how the opinions are shared. Those who find themselves so vastly outnumbered in terms of opinion tend to see better fruits in debating topics aside from that which will not bear any sort of fruit.

I think you will find that there is resistance to the concept that, aside from "Anyone who wants to be gay" (it is empirically not a choice), that it is opinion that we should support other human beings. The more that people argue with supporting and being kind to people of any group is outside the purview of some morality or opinion makes it less viable that the person speaking such an opinion would be taken seriously or respected as a fellow human being. The heart of the concept of saying that the "opinion" (see, I have it in quotes to show that I am unconvinced it is truly an opinion) that we should be humane and kind to people (or as you put it in your introduction questionnaire 'polite about it') may not necessarily be CORRECT is something that leads me to question the quality of the individual speaking. No one aspect of a person's identity should be a justifiable reason to refrain from treating them as human.

"He needs help and my church has tried". It seems to me you've tried under your own judgement on what he SHOULD need, not in what he actually DOES need. If you thought that he was in need of mental health support or addiction support, there are a plethora of facilities and programs to which a phone call would have been ultimately not only easy but for the best for the individual. Far more than trying to nag him into giving up whatever you believe that he doesn't need. I do notice, however, that you have neatly avoided addressing any other point that was made in the man's defense, taking on only the one that pertained to something that you could re-word to your benefit rather than to what I believe was likely to be accuracy. If your lot would spend so much time mourning the fact they have been unable to help him, perhaps someone might stop and think if they are helping him according to what he needs, or being judgemental in a fashion that their faith itself claims they ought not to be if they expect to call themselves true Christians. (Yes, I know, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy) Let me rephrase. There is no justification, within the JudeoChristian faiths or without, for mandating and trying to force the outside world into needing whatever the members of that faith might insist on. If you haven't been able to help him in one way, consider changing what it is you're trying to help him WITH, otherwise you give up the right to lament over the long hours insanely attempting the same entitled maneuvers.

Yes, calling someone by their skincolour is racist, particularly when it is meant to draw a parallel between that skin colour and a behaviour, and especially when it is an unnecessary description. It was not necessary to describe in any way how he looked instead of simply telling us it was an individual with whom you were familiar and getting to the point. Aside from racist, this behaviour is what is known as "poisoning the well", and only really works when you know your audience. Sometimes, it's used by reflex and it can be difficult to get around the habit of consistent racism to the point where you may not be aware that is the tactic you're employing. This is understandable. However, now that you are aware that this is a problem, I anticipate advanced attempts to avoid using it in the future.

If you called any person by the pronoun by which they wish to be known, you are respecting them. Anything further is your own baggage. As mentioned before, if you call a Doctor "Doctor" instead of their first name, then you really have no basis for argument. I am not genetically a PhD. I am not genetically a medical professional. However, if you will still refer to someone by this title, then you not only grasp the concept and are arguing against it out of willing belligerence, but you are also unequivocally declaring that one is inherently immoral, which can only be achieved by citing sources from a select few religions. Aside from that, the differences are arbitrary and logically in fact support the Transgender individual over the doctor, because one is a personal identity and the other is a vocation. A doctor's license can be revoked but a person's identity is completely and solely their own property.

Referring to you as "he" is not opinion. It is factually incorrect. Assuming you are female, which by your own testimony you are, referring you you as he is simply wrong. It is inaccurate, incorrect. Opinion has no domain here, because there is a "true" and a "false" option and none are dependent on the thoughts or feelings of those who discuss them. Therefore, having an opinion on the subject could be construed as dishonesty. You say you are female. If I challenge that and claim you are male, I am saying that I have a stake in your identity, that the fact of it belongs in some small part to me. I am not entitled to any such nonsense on your behalf, I don't get to decide who you are or what you tell people in that regard. You ascribe to the social construct of female. I have no right to try to impose an opinion on a fact. That is something that a lot of detractors don't understand. Those of us who are not transgender individuals have no right to lay claim to part of that truth and attempt to make it conform to our viewpoints. We are not welcome to try to influence the truth of another person's gender. We're not invited. It is not our place.

The rest of us are perfectly aware that Roem is a person. The person to whom you are referring said that she wasn't being afforded the basic respect of a human. Trying to twist the argument to suit your purposes is dishonest, impotent and factually laughable.

Since you are comfortable with the eyes you have (the example you gave, so if you feel it is inapplicable to some part of this argument, the only one to blame is yourself), you cannot speak to the reality of how a person feels about their body when experiencing dysphoria because you literally have no experience. You know of no research. You have no facts upon which to stand. Therefore, your part in that discussion is ill-informed and we are free to ignore it on the basis that it is wasting everyone's time with unsubstantiated assertion. "Why would I want to change something about me so badly?" This is the part of the argument when you prove that it's not that you disagree with the existence of trans people, but that you cannot UNDERSTAND the viewpoint of a trans person, which makes you woefully incapable of being able to effectively argue against any part of their reasoning. The fact that you have not felt that way doesn't mean you disagree, but that instead you simply haven't experienced it. Not everything must be felt by you personally in order to be valid. It's rather telling that you bring up the concept that someone must have had sex wrong in order to produce an individual who turns out to be transgender. I do, however, applaud your ability to understand that there is only one part of the population that can truly understand what it is like to be transgender. That in and of itself is a useful acknowledgement.

No one has said you need to study the minds of transgender people until you agree. We questioned your unequivocated statements and then the support that you gave as an excuse to be ill-informed, which was simply that you had not researched the phenomenon. You for some reason feel that you are validated in your opinion without having any information. The world at large will tell you that, outside of perhaps context which directly supports their mindset, you would be in the wrong for insisting that your viewpoint, without any such research at all, is equivalent in factual basis and respectability as someone who has done their research. Let me tell you right now, it is absolutely not. An opinion that proudly boasts of knowing nothing of what they're talking about is not an opinion equal to one who speaks with the authority of understanding. It is a lesser opinion and it is the duty of the rest of society to make that understood and to shun that entitlement wherever it exists.

If you're able to correct people about a dog being female, then you understand that when someone biologically, physically, mentally, emotionally, socially and in all other ways presents as a female, referring to them by that standard is considered the civilized thing to do. Failing to do so is merely being belligerent, since they have no basis on which to lay their claims.

"Reminds me of how since Trump got elected there have been riots and violence from people who were so butthurt". I will leave http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit this here, since if you read it you will have things to say to answer it, and if you don't, you'll simply look like you're railing against nothing. In short, however, it makes everything from "FeveredDreams does not like my opinion" to "Were there as much violence and protesting when Obama was elected?" look utterly foolish. I would like to point out that the first reports of violence came from Trump supporters, from harassing people in the streets to assaulting people in their homes, in shops and public transit, etc. The same with acts of vandalism. Claiming that people got "butthurt" because Trump became elected is a severely shortsighted admission that you are entirely unfamiliar with the grander scope of the subject and are best ignored.

You didn't state a question from lack of understanding and both you and I know that this statement is more than misleading and only a hair's breadth from being entirely dishonest. You specifically asked a question in order to open the door to a conversation in which you would go on to insist that Marshall's insistence of using a pronoun he knew to be insulting as a reasonable realm of opinion (it's not) rather than an underhanded attempt to discredit and disrespect a political rival. While I will not continue to argue at this point the concept of his intentions, I will by all means address the fact that you will not be able to effectively pass yourself off as having had benevolent intentions, particularly since the context of literally everything else you have said gives the lie to that claim.

It's possible, if you're feeling that people are too easily offended, that you are simply communicating yourself as an utterly unpleasant human being. That is not, to be clear, to say that you ARE an unpleasant human being, only that you are presenting yourself as such. There is an old adage that says "if you walk into a room and three of forty people dislike you, that's their problem. If you walk into the room and only three of forty people like you, that's very definitely your problem." It means that if you find that people are easily offended, you would only be considered a reasonable individual if you were capable of asking yourself if the problem is you, instead of being everyone else's problem. Perhaps you are simply offensive.

No one attacked you for an opposing view, we questioned the facts of your statement, then berated you for claiming you have opinions on facts as though that's reasonable or your right, and then berated you for trying to argue facts that you yourself admitted you were uneducated about. The fact that you have oscillated between confirming and contradicting almost everything you've said including that point goes to show that there is little you have already offered on the basis of factual points that can be trusted. You have engaged in dishonest discourse and are attempting to act the victim once that has been pointed out to you. This is a popular tactic amongst the people who wish to cover up their bigotry, whether politically left or right, and discuss according to their own rules. This is a "moving the goal posts" fallacy, meaning that you refuse to converse unless you are in such control that you feel permitted to change the criteria of conversation to match your points or garner sympathy for them, instead of debating in good faith.

Lastly, "the rest of us" insinuates that you are in the majority in your mindset whereas history, polling, scientific study and the course of history would insinuate that you are not. Attempting in your parting shot to not only play the victim but to falsely represent your mindset as the "normal" stance is utterly laughable. What you have accomplished here is to establish to a significant portion of Elliquiy that you are an individual who feels entitled to judge, to claim domain over and to try to manipulate the lives of others and cannot be trusted to take responsibility for one's own words or actions. I would suggest taking some time to come to terms with how you choose to present yourself and either change tactics or take responsibility for your decisions. Perhaps then you won't feel so attacked and we can have productive conversation.

[Sparrowhawke]

There is a lovely quote I have heard in the past, I believe it was a comedian, but I don't remember who. If anyone could throw the name at me again so I could find the full one that would be lovely.

'You don't get to decide when you've hurt someone.'

And I am going to very intentionally stick to that word there. Hurt. Voicing this opinion is not harmless, especially as you are voicing it directly to a number of Trans people. I am not talking just about offense, I am talking about concrete, actual harm. Because physical harm is not the only type of harm that exists, and many people would argue that it isn't even always the worst kind.

Also yes, you may struggle to find people with similar opinions, here. This is a good place by and large, most of the interactions have been lovely and supportive. Because these are good people who respect each other. You seem to be struggling with that. As Fury said, we will certainly close ranks to protect each other.

Now, as I am tired, have writing to do, and Fury has already stated much of what I could possibly say in response far more eloquently, I will leave you with one last thing.

If I did not have the Liege tag, and instead had the Lord tag, you would not know I was trans. I 'pass' well enough in flesh that you would never know I was trans unless I told you. Therefore, you would refer to me as male without any issue.

The fact that you will only refer to someone as their preferred gender if it aligns with what you think it is is something that has bothered me about this kind of argument for a very long time. I am sick of your kind of people picking on the ones who are visible, whether its because they are unable to 'pass' (for whatever reason, including if they don't subscribe to passing as a concept to begin with) or because they are open about their transness, or because some jackass outed them to you, just because you think it is your goddamn right.

You cannot morally defend your position to me. You can't. I don't really care how you feel about that, but there is no string of words you could ever say to me that would make intentionally misgendering people acceptable. It is abhorrent and I am sick of seeing it everywhere I look. Since you can't seem to grasp anything else we have told you so far I can't see how you could ever see the actual impact of your 'opinions' are. But I see them all the time, and I feel them plenty, too.

But of course, it has occurred to me that maybe that's what you want.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Sparrow, darling, I believe I heard Trevor Noah say the same thing, but I would have to look up the title of the piece in which he said it. I'm sure it's been said by other people, however.

Also, I have to correct myself. The phrasing "Lastly, "the rest of us" insinuates that you are in the majority in your mindset whereas history, polling, scientific study and the course of history would insinuate that you are not" is meant to read "Lastly, "the rest of us" insinuates that you are in the majority in your mindset whereas history, polling, scientific study and the course of society would insinuate that you are not." I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.

[Hades]

Reading that long, nicely written rebuttal makes me realize something.   If my plans for world-domination ever come to fruition, I have to make certain to put Fury in charge of my Public Relations department.

[Regina Minx]

...insinuating that you do not believe this implies fairly heavily that you in fact believe the opposite...

Fury,

I can't thank you enough for this post. Your depth, passion, and compassion for our transgendered fellows is clearly shining through. That being said, I do need to take issue with this line of reasoning.

If somebody tells us their position on a single fork of a true/false dichotomy, we cannot infer their position on the other fork of the dichotomy. To do so is to commit the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, and it takes this form:

P --> Q
∴~P --> ~Q.

The go-to example I use to explain this is the following scenario. I have a jar of individual candy pieces on my desk. Before you have an opportunity to count them, you know as a matter of fact that there is either an odd or an even number of candies in that jar. It is a proper dichotomy, just like the statements "Q is true" and "Q is false." If I was to ask you; do you believe there is an even number of candies in that jar, unless you had some sort of super-counting-power, you must honestly say 'No," (note that I would disqualify an 'I don't know,' response, since I asked about belief, not knowledge). You do not believe there is an even number of candies in that jar, but it does not follow from that that I can conclude that you believe there is an odd number of candies in that jar.

You are equally unconvinced of the truth of either fork in the dichotomy. To bring it back to our discussion with Jazzylynn (who I noticed is on probation), she might actually not believe that transgendered people are folks; might not believe them to be people (odd if true). But we cannot conclude that validly based on denying the antecedent.

[Iniquitous]

“Being a pothead can be a lifestyle.”   

Since you do not do research, I am going to do it for you.

Marijuana use can be used to treat and prevent the eye disease glaucoma, which increases pressure in the eyeball, damaging the optic nerve and causing loss of vision.

Marijuana decreases the pressure inside the eye, according to the National Eye Institute: "Studies in the early 1970s showed that marijuana, when smoked, lowered intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with normal pressure and those with glaucoma."
These effects of the drug may slow the progression of the disease, preventing blindness.

Marijuana use can prevent epileptic seizures, a 2003 study showed.
Robert J. DeLorenzo, of Virginia Commonwealth University, gave marijuana extract and synthetic marijuana to epileptic rats. The drugs rid the rats of the seizures for about 10 hours. Cannabinoids like the active ingredients in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC), control seizures by binding to the brain cells responsible for controlling excitability and regulating relaxation.

It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome.
During the research for his documentary "Weed," Gupta interviewed the Figi family, who treats their 5-year-old daughter using a medical marijuana strain high in cannabidiol and low in THC.
Their daughter, Charlotte, has Dravet Syndrome, which causes seizures and severe developmental delays.
According to the film, the drug has decreased her seizures from 300 a week to just one every seven days. Forty other children in the state are using the same strain of marijuana to treat their seizures — and it seems to be working.
CBD may help prevent cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007.
Cannabidiol stops cancer by turning off a gene called Id-1, the study, published in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, found. Cancer cells make more copies of this gene than non-cancerous cells, and it helps them spread through the body.
The researchers studied breast cancer cells in the lab that had high expression levels of Id-1 and treated them with cannabidiol. After treatment the cells had decreased Id-1 expression and were less aggressive spreaders.


Medical marijuana users claim the drug helps relieve pain and suppress nausea — the two main reasons it's often used to relieve the side effects of chemotherapy.
In 2010, researchers at Harvard Medical School suggested that that some of the drug's benefits may actually be from reduced anxiety, which would improve the smoker's mood and act as a sedative in low doses.
( I can personally vouch for this one.  I suffer from extreme anxiety and marijuana does help me cope.)

The 2006 study, published in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics, found that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, slows the formation of amyloid plaques by blocking the enzyme in the brain that makes them. These plaques are what kill brain cells and cause Alzheimer's.


Marijuana may ease painful symptoms of multiple sclerosis, a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in May suggests.
Jody Corey-Bloom studied 30 multiple sclerosis patients with painful contractions in their muscles. These patients didn't respond to other treatments, but after smoking marijuana for a few days they were in less pain.
The THC in the pot binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to relieve pain. Other studies suggest that the chemical also helps control the muscle spasms.

Treatment for hepatitis C infection is harsh — negative side effects include fatigue, nausea, muscle aches, loss of appetite, and depression — and lasts for months. Many people aren't able to finish their treatment course because of the side effects.
But, pot to the rescue: A 2006 study in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology found that 86% of patients using marijuana successfully completed their Hep C therapy, while only 29% of non-smokers completed their treatment, possibly because the marijuana helps lessens the treatments side effects.
Marijuana also seems to improve the treatment's effectiveness: 54% of hep C patients smoking marijuana got their viral levels low and kept them low, in comparison to only 8% of nonsmokers.
(Have a friend who has Hep C and she uses marijuana to help her cope with the treatments she has to go through)

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis could benefit from marijuana use, studies suggest.
University of Nottingham researchers found in 2010 that chemicals in marijuana, including THC and cannabidiol, interact with cells in the body that play an important role in gut function and immune responses. The study was published in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
THC-like compounds made by the body increase the permeability of the intestines, allowing bacteria in. The plant-derived cannabinoids in marijuana block these body-cannabinoids, preventing this permeability and making the intestinal cells bond together tighter.

(again, I live with ulcerative colitis. Marijuana helps me deal with it.)

Marijuana alleviates pain, reduces inflammation, and promotes sleep, which may help relieve pain and discomfort for people with rheumatoid arthritis, researchers announced in 2011.


Researchers from rheumatology units at several hospitals gave their patients Sativex, a cannabinoid-based pain-relieving medicine. After a two-week period, people on Sativex had a significant reduction in pain and improved sleep quality compared to placebo users.
(I have fibromyalgia. Marijuana helps my pain levels and allows me to sleep - something I do not do well if I do not have some type of assistance from either natural items or pharmaceutical items)

A study published in the American Journal Of Medicine on April 15 of last year suggested that pot smokers are skinnier than the average person and have healthier metabolism and reaction to sugars, even though they do end up eating more calories because of the munchies.
The study analyzed data from more than 4,500 adult Americans — 579 of whom were current marijuana smokers, meaning they had smoked in the last month. About 2,000 had used marijuana in the past, while another 2,000 had never used the drug.
They studied their body's response to eating sugars: their levels of the hormone insulin and their blood sugar levels while they hadn't eaten in nine hours, and after eating sugar.
Not only are pot users skinnier, but their body has a healthier response to sugar.

Medical marijuana is being used to treat the autoimmune disease Systemic Lupus Ertyhematosus, which is when the body starts attacking itself for some unknown reason.
Some chemicals in marijuana seem to have a calming effect on the immune system, which may be how it helps deal with symptoms of Lupus. The rest of the positive impact of the marijuana is probably from the effects on pain and nausea.

Crohn's disease is an inflammatory bowel disorder that causes pain, vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, and more. But a recent study in Israel showed that smoking a joint significantly reduced Crohn's disease symptoms in 10 out of 11 patients, and caused a complete remission of the disease in five of those patients.
That's a small study, but other research has shown similar effects. The cannabinoids from marijuana seem to help the gut regulate bacteria and intestinal function.

Recent research from Israel shows that smoking marijuana significantly reduces pain and tremors and improves sleep for Parkinson's disease patients. Particularly impressive was the improved fine motor skills among patients.
Medical marijuana is legal in Israel for multiple conditions, and a lot of research into the medical uses of cannabis is done there, supported by the Israeli government.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently signed off on a proposal to study marijuana's potential as part of treatment for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Marijuana is approved to treat PTSD in some states already. In New Mexico, PTSD is the number one reason for people to get a license for medical marijuana, but this is the first time the U.S. government has approved a proposal that incorporates smoked or vaporized marijuana, which is currently classified by the government as a drug with no accepted medical applications.
Naturally occurring cannabinoids, similar to THC, help regulate the system that causes fear and anxiety in the body and brain.

Research from the University of Nottingham shows that marijuana may help protect the brain from damage caused by stroke, by reducing the size of the area affected by the stroke — at least in rats, mice, and monkeys.
This isn't the only research that has shown neuroprotective effects from cannabis. Some research shows that the plant may help protect the brain after other traumatic events, like concussions.

There is some evidence that marijuana can help heal the brain after a concussion or other traumatic injury. A recent study in the journal Cerebral Cortex showed that in mice, marijuana lessened the bruising of the brain and helped with healing mechanisms after a traumatic injury.
Harvard professor emeritus of psychiatry and marijuana advocate Lester Grinspoon recently wrote an open letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, saying the NFL should stop testing players for marijuana, and that the league should start funding research into the plant's ability to protect the brain.
"Already, many doctors and researchers believe that marijuana has incredibly powerful neuroprotective properties, an understanding based on both laboratory and clinical data," he writes.
Goodell recently said that he'd consider permitting athletes to use marijuana if medical research shows that it's an effective neuroprotective agent.

This is a complicated one, because it involves effects that can be both positive and negative. Marijuana disturbs sleep cycles by interrupting the later stages of REM sleep. In the long run, this could be a problem for frequent users.
However, for people suffering from serious nightmares, especially those associated with PTSD, this can be helpful. Nightmares and other dreams occur during those same stages of sleep. By interrupting REM sleep, many of those dreams may not occur. Research into using a synthetic cannabinoid, like THC, but not the same, showed a significant decreasein the number of nightmares in patients with PTSD.
Additionally, even if frequent use can be bad for sleep, marijuana may be a better sleep aid than some other substances that people use. Some of those, including medication and alcohol, may potentially have even worse effects on sleep, though more research is needed on the topic.


One of the most well-known medical uses of marijuana is for people going through chemotherapy.
Cancer patients being treated with chemo suffer from painful nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. This can cause additional health complications.
Marijuana can help reduce these side effects, alleviating pain, decreasing nausea, and stimulating the appetite. There are also multiple FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs that use THC, the main active chemical in marijuana, for the same purposes.


Marijuana is safer than alcohol. That's not to say it's completely risk free, but it's much less addictive and doesn't cause nearly as much physical damage.
Disorders like alcoholism involve disruptions in the endocannabinoid system. Because of that, some people think cannabis might help patients struggling with those disorders.
Research in Harm Reduction Journal shows that some people use marijuana as a less harmful substitute for alcohol, prescription drugs, and other illegal drugs. Some of the most common reasons for patients to make that substitution are the less adverse side effects from marijuana and the fact that it is less likely to cause withdrawal problems.
Some people do become psychologically dependent on marijuana, and this doesn't mean that it's a cure for substance abuse problems. But, from a harm-reduction standpoint, it can help.

So, why did I go and pull up that (small) amount of research on marijuana?  Because you have no idea what that man is going through.  You judge him as a pothead and unworthy of your help and compassion because you think marijuana is ‘bad’.  See, this is where researching things comes in handy.  You learn new things, you broaden your scope.

Better yet, why don’t you study your bible just a wee bit more. Particularly the part of the bible where it tells you to judge not lest ye be judged.  And the part where it tells you to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.  I mean, it is a crying shame when a Pagan is having to instruct you on your faith.  It is not your place to judge anyone else or their lifestyles.  It is your place to love them no matter what, to extend a helping hand no matter what. 

Now for the part that really set my teeth to grinding.  My daughter did not just suddenly decide to be gay.  Being gay is who she is. Why on earth do you think a person would CHOOSE to be something that so many ridicule, hate, and abuse???  I know for a fact my daughter didn’t ‘choose’ to be gay and I also know that if someone like you were to -ever- say such a thing to her in earshot of me they’d be getting a lot more than a civil discourse on the matter.

I really cannot decide if you are truly this hate filled or if you are troll.  You have posted nowhere else on this site and you truly seem to just post things that will incite the members of this community.  Either way, it is highly unbecoming of you and demonstrates that it is you who has the problem.

[MiraMirror]

@Jazz: It takes a lot for me to post in here, and I'm honestly terrified of confrontation, but I also can't stay silent on stuff like this.  I'm one of the "transgenders" you keep railing on, and I've also been one of those homeless people you seem to want to judge so badly.  I am not confused or searching for my identity.  I know what it is.  I went through a period of time when I was in denial, and it was absolute hell, because I didn't want to be the weird one in the family.  That's how I thought about it at first, when I figured out just what was even going on.  But you know, I got over it.  Some people like to tout this nonsense about how transfolk are mentally unstable and all this, but let me tell you, you have to go through therapy for quite a while before your therapist makes the call to let you undergo HRT or not.  I have told my therapist anything that might affect that judgment in complete confidence, just the same as anyone who gets on HRT has done.  So that kind of kills that whole "mentally unstable" thing, no?  Considering that to even start HRT, we have to go through therapy, and cis people do not have to do that. 

Point being, I know who I am and here's a shocker- I'm happy with who I am.  I'm a woman, and nobody, not a single person, can take that from me, or tell me that I'm not and seriously make me consider that as truth.  Sure, I might be terrified to be who I am at times, but I'd also like to point out that it isn't really the fault of the transfolk that they have to live in fear.  I walk to work, to the bus stop, etc., with my head down, because I'm from a location where getting clocked as trans means you get killed, raped, or viciously beaten, and the police will often blame the victim if they're trans.  We don't want special treatment, we want equal rights.  We want to be able to work places, be gendered correctly (read: shown common courtesy like everyone else expects to be), to not be fired based on who we are.  The only special rights I see getting passed around are those belonging to certain institutions that get to go tax-free while shoving their noses in politics (you know, that thing that they're legally not supposed to be doing).

And you know, I have it easy, all things considered, because I pass.  If you walk by me on a street, you'd have no idea that I was transgender, not unless I told you, or I wore some kind of tag or something out-and-out telling you that.  You probably pass transgender people every day that you can't out as trans.  You go to the restroom with them and you never know.  There are also some trans people who don't pass as well, or those who don't give a shit if they pass.  That's fine, too.  But none of them should have to stare at the ground out of fear that someone's going to hurt them.

I have also been one of those homeless people you talked about, when I was kicked out of my home and disowned by my family.  I was lucky.  Someone found me and took me in when I was at the end of my rope.  Others don't get that luxury.  People give food because they have the mentality of "Oh, they're just going to buy drugs if I give them money".   And you know, some might, because the street is a shitty place to be.  I used to see those streets every day when I headed to work and had somewhere to live.  After I got kicked out and fired from my job for being trans, those same streets looked a hell of a lot different.  They weren't friendly neighborhood areas anymore.  They were potential places to rest for the night.  It's tough, and if you've never lived on the streets, I don't think you have a right to complain about homeless people.  People assume they're homeless because they mismanaged stuff, or that they're at fault, but so many of them were hit with something beyond their control.  It's easy for those in comfortable housing to look down upon them and judge them.

It's easy for people who don't have to live in their shoes to say "This is what you should have done.  This is where you fucked up and it's your fault."  So many people don't realize that the words they speak to people on the street could be the last ones that person hears.  Those words could be the ones that break that person and convince that person to commit suicide.  I managed to survive, if you can call it that, on the street.  I came out of that with pretty awful vitamin deficiencies and not nearly enough nutrition, and every damned time I had to waste food or something, it killed me a little.  I didn't do drugs, personally, but others might.  And you know, if they keep getting food that they can't eat, I don't see what's wrong with taking the edge off every once in a blue moon.  I'm sure they could use it, from someone who got out of that situation only because someone else helped.  Not enough people help.


I went off on a tangent there, but what I'm ultimately saying is this.  Your opinion is your opinion, sure.  Your opinion is not fact, however.  Your opinion ultimately means nothing when medical and psychological science has proven your opinion to be false.  You do not get to tout it as fact when it has been proven to be the opposite.  You're not some amazing visionary or whatever who's going against BS science, or whatever it is you might think.  You're someone standing in the way of progress and understanding, and denying facts and science is harmful.  That kind of thinking is a dated relic, and if you willingly cling to that while the world moves forward, it's not the world's fault that you're getting swept away by "all these new made-up things".  It's yours, because you refuse to research, refuse to understand, and refuse to accept.

[WindFish]

Fury, I wish I could like your posts.

One of my coworkers is transgender and another is gay. It's not something they suddenly "chose" to become. Frankly the idea that it's a choice is offensive and outdated.

Considering that this user haven't posted in anywhere other than in this forum and that she refuses to do any research, I highly suspect that they're here to troll. E is a friendly and welcoming place for the LGBT community and her posts make me question her motives for being here.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Thank you all for the support where it has come.


@Regina Minx You are absolutely correct in identifying and calling out that fallacy. I've always had trouble with it and try to avoid it, but there are scenarios in which I feel as though refusing to accept a toggle option is a little... closed off. This is a case of what I would say is a true toggle situation. One acknowledges or does not acknowledge the humanity of a creature. Believe they are human or believe they are not. One might posit that a third option would be not to believe in either option, but I struggle to attribute that to a reasonable application. What would that statement look like?

I've always struggled with this fallacy because I believe that it permits too much cowardice in terms of stance, but my belief over the subject does not make it one thing or another any more than any other opinion on fact changes the nature of that fact. Thank you for calling me out on that.

My only defense is to point out that I used the word "imply" specifically to insinuate that there are other options but that their likelihood of application in this context (given the acknowledgement of Jazzylynn that the people to whom we were referring exist) was very low. On the basis of communication alone, while logic may reveal a non-path path - like a light switch stuck halfway between settings - the way in which she communicated her ideas gave the impression that she did not feel the need to regard others as human beings.

That being said, I should have found a better way to communicate what I thought, as well. Thank you, Regina.

[Regina Minx]

My only defense is to point out that I used the word "imply" specifically to insinuate that there are other options but that their likelihood of application in this context (given the acknowledgement of Jazzylynn that the people to whom we were referring exist) was very low. On the basis of communication alone, while logic may reveal a non-path path - like a light switch stuck halfway between settings - the way in which she communicated her ideas gave the impression that she did not feel the need to regard others as human beings.

I agree with you that you're probably right about Jazzylynn's stance. She seems to be willfully ignorant at best, and deliberately trolling at worst. This is a logical fallacy that may be minor in this and most contexts, but it's one I'm painfully sensitive to, as it's misused against me all the time.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god or gods. But when I tell people this, the response if very often "So you're saying there's no god." And I have to break out the candy jar analogy, the proper dilemma/forking language, and explain that my lack of belief in the existence of a god is not the same as my AFFIRMATIVE believe that there are no gods. This is a distinction that can be very hard to spell out, very tricky to make people understand, but if I don't take the time and energy, I usually have to then justify why I have no burden of proof in the "god exists" debate.

So yeah; this is one I'm sensitive too. But even so, generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid the FORMAL logical fallacies identified by Aristotle and his merry band of logicians.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I agree. And yes, the Atheism debate is... irritating at best. Particularly when having to spell out that it's not a world view on the basis that a lack of belief does not constitute a world view.

In the end, particularly given the tone of the rest of my response, you are perfectly correct to have called me out on that. Thank you for doing so.

[Oniya]

I just wanna say that these last several posts are the sort of thing I love seeing in the PROC. 

[MiraMirror]

I just wanna say that these last several posts are the sort of thing I love seeing in the PROC.

Might I probe and ask why? .x. 

[Oniya]

People standing up for each other, people pointing out things in a civil manner, and people taking correction with grace.

[TheGlyphstone]

I agree with you that you're probably right about Jazzylynn's stance. She seems to be willfully ignorant at best, and deliberately trolling at worst. This is a logical fallacy that may be minor in this and most contexts, but it's one I'm painfully sensitive to, as it's misused against me all the time.

I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is a god or gods. But when I tell people this, the response if very often "So you're saying there's no god." And I have to break out the candy jar analogy, the proper dilemma/forking language, and explain that my lack of belief in the existence of a god is not the same as my AFFIRMATIVE believe that there are no gods. This is a distinction that can be very hard to spell out, very tricky to make people understand, but if I don't take the time and energy, I usually have to then justify why I have no burden of proof in the "god exists" debate.

So yeah; this is one I'm sensitive too. But even so, generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid the FORMAL logical fallacies identified by Aristotle and his merry band of logicians.

Just as far as semantic terminology goes, this would be the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism? The latter is admittedly a sort of linguistic kludge since gnosticism is in itself a religious tradition, but the gist is between saying someone believes but cannot prove X, and someone categorically stating X as an objective fact.

[Oniya]

Just as far as semantic terminology goes, this would be the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism? The latter is admittedly a sort of linguistic kludge since gnosticism is in itself a religious tradition, but the gist is between saying someone believes but cannot prove X, and someone categorically stating X as an objective fact.

The 'gnosis' in this case comes from the Greek for 'to know' (also part of 'diagnosis').  Gnosis is 'knowledge', agnosis is 'absence of knowledge'.  The religious 'gnosticism' uses the same root word. [/linguistical trivia]

[Mithlomwen]

People standing up for each other, people pointing out things in a civil manner, and people taking correction with grace.

^ So much this. 

Thank you all for yet again proving what a wonderful place E really is. 

[TheGlyphstone]

The 'gnosis' in this case comes from the Greek for 'to know' (also part of 'diagnosis').  Gnosis is 'knowledge', agnosis is 'absence of knowledge'.  The religious 'gnosticism' uses the same root word. [/linguistical trivia]

so its not a kludge, its linguistic retro-engineering!

[Regina Minx]

Just as far as semantic terminology goes, this would be the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism? The latter is admittedly a sort of linguistic kludge since gnosticism is in itself a religious tradition, but the gist is between saying someone believes but cannot prove X, and someone categorically stating X as an objective fact.

Not...quite. In this context, it has more to do with the shifting of the burden of proof. A lot of religious people tend to view religious belief and belief in god as the norm, and to ask those that differ from the norm to justify themselves. The burden of proof in any debate rests with the person making the claim. The theist "I believe that god exists" and the strong atheist "I believe that no god exists" would each have a burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of their claim. But just like a court of law is not set up to determine guilt or innocence, but whether or not guilt has been proven, my usual tactic for discussing this is to make the argument that until such time as something is demonstrated to be true, disbelief in it is the only epistemologically warranted position.

This is not the same thing as the gnostic-agnostic spectrum. In fact, gnosticism, atheism, and theism are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, and 'agnosticism' is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. Gnosticism refers to what you know, and theism refers to what you believe. One of the classical definitions of knowledge is "justified true belief"; you can believe things you don't know, and disbelieve things you don't know. Helpful visual diagram is helpful:



Because I am a Bayesian, though, there is not much in the world that I am gnostic about. Almost all of my knowledge is known to be true only within the error bars of my own epistemic certainty, with provisions that I might be wrong baked into almost everything I claim to 'know'.  Personally, I think the notion of knowledge/belief fuzzy at best, and would just as soon dispense with notions of absolute certainty and replace it with probablistic belief instead, but that's me.

[Oniya]

Because I am a Bayesian, though, there is not much in the world that I am gnostic about. Almost all of my knowledge is known to be true only within the error bars of my own epistemic certainty, with provisions that I might be wrong baked into almost everything I claim to 'know'.  Personally, I think the notion of knowledge/belief fuzzy at best, and would just as soon dispense with notions of absolute certainty and replace it with probablistic belief instead, but that's me.

This just means you pop open Photoshop and throw a 'blur' filter on the diagram.  ;D  (Or a circular gradient if you want to be really ambitious.)

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Gnosis is really only important if you have an abundance of breed, auspice or tribal gifts.

[/Werewolf trivia]

[FeveredDreams]

I am a jerk,  I can admit that.  After a certain point of hearing the same stuff over... and over and over again.  I lost it.

While I am not apologizing to Jazz,  I am sorry for coming off as an asshole and tainting the legitimacy of the words of people who are calmer and capable of well defending my views.  I should have known to step aside. 

[NebulousCass]

I would just like to say that I am pretty excited about Danica Roem's election.
A lot of hard work went into that win and probably a whole lot of persecution was suffered through as well.
Not just during the campaign but before, during and afterwards will be a constant thing.

Hopefully this is the beginning of an era of acceptance, tolerance and love toward all members of the human race.

I only hope that one day, perhaps in the far future that our descendants can look back at us and say "This, this is where peace began.". I weep at the thought that looking into the future there will be no voice to speak about us, that we will be forgotten by the cosmos because we were consumed by our own hatred, our own mistrust of one another so much that we silenced our voice, that we annihilated ourselves. That one day we are united as one race, one planet. Bound together by a mutual acceptance and understanding, where bigotry and hatred are far removed from our culture and we can all work and live together in peace, working toward the betterment of all mankind.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I would just like to say that I am pretty excited about Danica Roem's election.
A lot of hard work went into that win and probably a whole lot of persecution was suffered through as well.
Not just during the campaign but before, during and afterwards will be a constant thing.

Hopefully this is the beginning of an era of acceptance, tolerance and love toward all members of the human race.

I only hope that one day, perhaps in the far future that our descendants can look back at us and say "This, this is where peace began.". I weep at the thought that looking into the future there will be no voice to speak about us, that we will be forgotten by the cosmos because we were consumed by our own hatred, our own mistrust of one another so much that we silenced our voice, that we annihilated ourselves. That one day we are united as one race, one planet. Bound together by a mutual acceptance and understanding, where bigotry and hatred are far removed from our culture and we can all work and live together in peace, working toward the betterment of all mankind.

+1000, darling. I'm really hoping.

[Remiel]

Because I am a Bayesian, though, there is not much in the world that I am gnostic about. Almost all of my knowledge is known to be true only within the error bars of my own epistemic certainty, with provisions that I might be wrong baked into almost everything I claim to 'know'.  Personally, I think the notion of knowledge/belief fuzzy at best, and would just as soon dispense with notions of absolute certainty and replace it with probablistic belief instead, but that's me.

As Socrates said: "I am the wisest of all the Greeks, because I, alone out of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing."

[TheGlyphstone]

As Socrates said: "I am the wisest of all the Greeks, because I, alone out of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing."

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-02-05

[Various]

In a fit of sore-loserdom, the GOP-controlled House of Delegates is ending the tradition of addressing members as 'gentleman' and 'gentlelady' for the neutral 'delegate' entirely so they won't have to address Roem as 'gentlelady'. They claim they're changing with the times but the fact that this comes riiiight after her win and that both her opponent and the party apparatus repeatedly referred to her as 'he' is telling.

[Blythe]

In a fit of sore-loserdom, the GOP-controlled House of Delegates is ending the tradition of addressing members as 'gentleman' and 'gentlelady' for the neutral 'delegate' entirely so they won't have to address Roem as 'gentlelady'. They claim they're changing with the times but the fact that this comes riiiight after her win and that both her opponent and the party apparatus repeatedly referred to her as 'he' is telling.

On the one hand, I like the neutral wording better, because it's more inclusive in general and sounds far less clunky than 'gentleman' and 'gentlelady.'

On the other hand, I'm kind of annoyed that the context suggests that it came about because of bigotry against a transwoman. :/

[PhallusOperandi]

Various:

Don't be so sure it will be GOP-controlled after vote counts have been finalized; it's 48D-49R at the moment, with the remaining seats undergoing recount as required.