« First « Previous Comments 22 - 61 of 76 Next » Last » Search these comments
Unfortunately, you want to pervert your feelings with reality.
You're projecting.
My position is that you should chuck the identify politics. Clearly it pisses you off that transgender CIS males should be called female. Well, get used to it because that's not going to changed. You have already lost that battle.
An ID is comprised mostly of someone's physical makeup.
The sole purpose of an ID is to identify, not to classify. You are simply wrong on this issue. You are placing your identify politics before the entire and sole purpose of an ID.
A dude wearing a dress does not make him a woman or a non binary gender. It's just a cross dressing dude. Complete with a penis.
You clearly do not know the difference between transgender and cross-dressing. They are completely different things.
You are trying to use ID to make a political statement at the cost of accurately identifying people. You are putting your petty politics about the sole purpose of the ID, law enforcement, and public safety. You are literally playing identity politics just like the left does.
Not at all. The left wants to live in an alternate version of reality.
The right does exactly this same thing. Fox News and Breitbart demonstrate this every single day from issues like in person voter fraud to climate change to Obama being a secret foreign Muslim to Iraq having WMD to waterboarding not being torture. Once again, the left and the right are the same. They both live in alternative reality.
You are doing the exact same thing right now regarding sex changes. Although current technology only allows for a crude and inaccurate approximation of a sex change, future technology will allow for a perfect transition right down to the molecular level. That will happen. If the laws of physics don't prohibit something and there is sufficient demand, people will eventually do that thing.
Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?
Although current technology only allows for a crude and inaccurate approximation of a sex change, future technology will allow for a perfect transition right down to the molecular level.
Unfortunately, this "person" would be classified as a science experiment.
You are placing your identify politics before the entire and sole purpose of an ID.
You keep leaning on the term identity politics to substitute reality with your alternate reality.
Previously, you referred to me as insecure,
when you can't seem to accept that it's the transgendered community who is insecure.
And oh so conveniently ignored:
"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."
I was talking with my friend this morning who is a physician about this topic to see what his take on it was. His reply:
"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."
Even if you believe they're mentally ill, that seems like a reason to offer the ID. How else can you get otherwise competent people to carry an ID identifying themselves as mentally ill? If you are mailing something fragile, you try to pack well and write "FRAGILE" on the outside. If you are issuing a driver's license to someone who can drive a car but might not be playing with a full deck, then a voluntary label might be a good idea. Besides, there's no way in which you are worse off for it.
I don't presume to know all the reasons why a person might idenfify as non-binary, including genetic and anatomical, but physicians have had different opinions at different times.
Decades of interviews led to a change in the standard of care.
When you add up all the different reasons why people can be non-binary, it works out to over a million Americans, and most can drive. You seem to insist that they pick a binary label and "stick with it", so that they conform to your assumptions about them, but chances are you haven't walked a mile in their shoes. (Careful: high heels can be tricky!) You're talking about their lives, not yours. They pay their taxes, pass their driver's tests, follow the same traffic laws as everyone else. It doesn't make sense for you to care very much whether the checkbox on someone else's ID says M/F/N, but the person carrying that ID might care very much about that.
Although current technology only allows for a crude and inaccurate approximation of a sex change, future technology will allow for a perfect transition right down to the molecular level.
Unfortunately, this "person" would be classified as a science experiment.
Not at all and you are dodging the issue.
You keep leaning on the term identity politics to substitute reality with your alternate reality.
Again you are projecting. You tried to trap me into advocating an alternative reality and you failed miserably. You cannot state a single statement I've made that advocates putting politics before the truth. You, however, are putting politics before proper identification and that has real world consequences in terms of law enforcement.
And oh so conveniently ignored:
"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."
It would take hours to discredit every minute piece of misinformation you've said. However, since you foolishly attempted to take the position that I ignored a point -- something that I never, ever do -- I will now humiliate you by addressing it. (Hints to others: never call Dan's attention to a point you made because if it were actually a good point, he would have acknowledged it. If he hasn't addressed it, it's probably because it was such a stupid point it wasn't worth addressing and calling attention to it will demonstrate that.)
So, you are saying that if medical authorities classify something as a mental illness or not, we should all accept that position. Very well. I will hold you to that position.
Live Science: Transgender Identity Is Not a Mental Health Disorder, Study Finds
Using a statistical analysis, the researchers found that social rejection and violence were strong indicators that a transgender person would experience distress and dysfunction. Having a transgender identity, on the other hand, was not a predictor of stress or dysfunction, they found.
"Our findings support the idea that distress and dysfunction may be the result of stigmatization and maltreatment, rather than integral aspects of transgender identity,†Rebeca Robles, a researcher at the Mexican National Institute of Psychiatry and the lead author of the study, said in a statement. In other words, the distress and dysfunction that the transgender individuals reported in the study was more likely the result of being treated with prejudice, rather than inherent to having a transgender identity in and of itself.
Scientific America: Where Transgender Is No Longer a Diagnosis
“[G]ender identity disorder†was dropped from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), U.S. psychiatry’s bible for diagnosing mental illness. A new condition called “gender dysphoria†was added to diagnose and treat those transgender individuals who felt distress at the mismatch between their identities and their bodies. The new diagnosis recognized that a mismatch between one’s birth gender and identity was not necessarily pathological, notes pediatric endocrinologist Norman Spack, a founder of the gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. It shifted the emphasis in treatment from fixing a disorder to resolving distress over the mismatch.
Spack compares the DSM-5’s new definition as similar in effect to its 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness. University of San Francisco human rights scholar Richard Johnson agrees. Although gay people certainly knew they were not sick, he says, the move did have an effect. “It has allowed the gay population in the U.S. an opportunity to pursue life on their own terms,†he says. “This will also be the same situation for the transgender population living in Denmark.â€
Yeah, you do have one hold out, the World Health Organization. However, that one hold out is also going to change its position. New York Times: W.H.O. Weighs Dropping Transgender Identity From List of Mental Disorders
The World Health Organization is moving toward declassifying transgender identity as a mental disorder in its global list of medical conditions, with a new study lending additional support to a proposal that would delete the decades-old designation.
“It’s sending a very strong message that the rest of the world is no longer considering it a mental disorder,†said Dr. Michael First, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and the chief technical consultant to the new edition of the codebook, which is known by its initials and the edition number I.C.D.-11.
Science is a self-correcting mechanism, and this is a perfect example of a mistake being corrected.
So, are you now accepting transgender as mentally healthy? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, you are being hypocritical.
Also, you haven't address the question I asked below.
Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?
Afraid to?
Side note. If we were completely honest, the belief in a god would be classified as a mental illness since it is a gross delusion completely divorced from reality.
belief in a god would be classified as....
Scott Adams:
He wrote elsewhere that natural selection did not equip humans with an ability to perceive directly objective reality, nor even favor that result. Evolution favors whatever works. If people believe an imaginary deity is watching them all the time and will reward them for being fruitful and multiplying, and if that belief makes them more likely to be fruitful and multiply, then natural selection favors it. A hallucination isn't "illness" if it is adaptive.
it works out to over a million Americans, and most can drive.
A lot of mentally ill people on the road.
Even if you believe they're mentally ill, that seems like a reason to offer the ID.
Lol. No.
If you feel bad for someone, give them a lollipop, but don't tell someone they can be a butterfly if they really want to be. Giving them a butterfly just encourages such nonsense.
People do not get to decide which gender they are born with. Cutting and hacking all day may change appearance, but not what they really are.
You're talking about their lives, not yours.
We're talking about an ID and if someone is a dude or dudette.
Reality says if you were born a dude, you are a dude. Your alternate version of reality says, if I feel like I want to be a unicorn, I can.
Your arguments are complete bullshit. You try to muddle feelings with simple biology.
simple biology.
See above, about "hallucinating most of the time." On this very screen, you have multiple references documenting that observable biology is not simple and disproves your assumptions. Your tiny percentage above was off by orders of magnitude. Yet you persist in what you want to believe, and call objective facts BS. You are the one elevating your feelings above biology.
A hallucination isn't "illness" if it is adaptive.
What's your point? People are hallucinating penises and vaginas on themselves? Or they are naturally evolving a penis?
Wait for it.....
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So wait, if I were to hallucinate a beautiful pair of DD boobs on my chest, and identified myself as non binary or female - should my ID then say non binary or female?
The answer is..... No!
Why?
Because despite my hallucinations , I am still a dude, with a penis, and my ID should reflect what I really am. Not what I WISH I were.
Come on now...
An ID should reflect reality. Not bullshit.
A hallucination isn't "illness" if it is adaptive.
The belief in a god may have been advantageous in the Stone Age, although more likely it was belief in many gods and supernatural beings rather than monotheism, which is a product of the state. However, belief in a god in the Nuclear Age is down right dangerous. It risks world destruction. It is no longer adaptive.
Also, one can also state as a fact that jealous rages are an evolutionary adaptive trait. If you kill a sexual rival in the Stone Age, your genes are better off. Today, that is not true. Furthermore, your genes being better off is not the same thing as you being better off, and mental health is about you, not your genes.
What's your point?
Again, you seem to have hallucinated a blank screen where there are multiple references to observable anatomy.
Also, you have yet to explain what you would gain by forcing other people to conform to your disproved assumptions. What motivates you demand they submit to your assumptions rather than their own experience? Particularly where they are anatomically non-binary, that seems the most accurate answer, yet you would empower your counter-factual feelings over the observable reality in which they live.
An ID should reflect reality.
You can keep repeating your cultural preference without justification as much as you like. That does not make a case for it.
An ID should reflect the reality of what a person looks like because that is necessary for identification. If a CIS male looks female, as most transgender CIS males do, and not at all like a female, then his ID should say transgender or non-binary so that it's easier and more accurate to identify him. That is the sole purpose of ID, to identify. You keep putting your identity politics before that.
Furthermore, you keep dodging the issue that is will be possible to perform complete sex changes in the future. That is why you refuse to address the questions I keep posing to you.
Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?
Yet you persist in what you want to believe, and call objective facts BS. You are the one elevating your feelings above biology.
Wrong.
Reality says that a penis still makes a dude a dude, and a vagina a woman.
Any altercation to the above makes this person a dude with a fake vagina or a chick with a fake penis. Aka: mentally ill (according to the medical community).
Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?
Reality says that a penis still makes a dude a dude, and a vagina a woman.
So you are saying that sex changes are possible and that a person born and raised with a penis can become a woman simply by transplanting his brain into a female body.
You can keep repeating your cultural preference without justification as much as you like.
This is not cultural preference. It's simple science. Dan8267 says
Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?
This would be classified as a mutant with scarlett johanssons body with Ryan Reynolds brain.
Look, you can insert strawmen all you want, but a person born with a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.
Any objection to that is false.
a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.
There are dating sites where you can find a post-op male-to-female transgendered person. After you have sex with her, ask for ID, and have this conversation in person. Otherwise, you aren't getting anywhere: mere words on a screen don't get through your bubble of hallucinations.
This would be classified as a mutant with scarlett johanssons body with Ryan Reynolds brain.
You clearly do not know what a mutation is. But even in your derogatory comment, you have just stated that there are more than two genders precisely because you have taken the position that the person is neither male nor female. Congratulations, you now have officially adopted the position of the political left. Even I wasn't expecting you to go that far left.
There are dating sites where you can find a post-op male-to-female transgendered person. After you have sex with her, ask for ID, and have this conversation in person.
No thank you!
But even in your derogatory comment, you have just stated that there are more than two genders precisely because you have taken the position that the person is neither male nor female.
Wrong again. For starters, this person doesn't exist, and if it did, it would be a science experiment, not a gender.
Dan... What gender we're you born with? How do you know?
Congratulations, you now have officially adopted the position of the political left.
Wait... You do realize that even the feminists (ya know, lefties) discredit the transgendered community...
Otherwise, you aren't getting anywhere: mere words on a screen don't get through your bubble of hallucinations.
Bro, since when does a penis = female?
a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.
There are dating sites where you can find a post-op male-to-female transgendered person. After you have sex with her, ask for ID, and have this conversation in person.
No thank you!
Then you have contradicted your prior assertion, and are a hypocrite. If she has a vagina, then according to you she's female and that's binary. Yet you would refuse her, without even seeing a photo. Evidently, you feel there is actually something different about her, and she's not entirely female even though she has what you said earlier defines a female. Thus, you concede she is non-binary.
Then you have contradicted your assertion, and are a hypocrite. If she has a vagina, then according to you she's female just like any other female.
Wrong. Let me help.
a person born with a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.
People do not get to decide which gender they are born with. Cutting and hacking all day may change appearance, but not what they really are.
A dude wearing a dress does not make him a woman or a non binary gender. It's just a cross dressing dude. Complete with a penis.
Same can be said for a guy who gets his penis whacked off in exchange for a fake vagina. This person is still.... A dude with a fake vagina
One day you can become one!!!
Wrong again. For starters, this person doesn't exist, and if it did, it would be a science experiment, not a gender.
Whether or not the person exists is irrelevant to the thought experiment or the fact that the thought experiment demonstrates that you hold contradictory beliefs.
Furthermore, there will be many such persons in the future who have had real sex changes in which they have the opposing genitalia than they were born with. So it's not just a thought experiment, but something that we will encounter in the not-so-distant future.
Finally, you are admitting that there are more than two genders by refusing to classify the person I described as definitively male or female. You are advocating the same exact non-binary designation the left is demanding. Ironic, huh?
Dan... What gender we're you born with?
And that gets right to the point. There is no law of physics prohibiting a person from changing the gender he or she was born with. What today's technology allows is irrelevant. There is demand for this, and eventually technology will create supply. This is how economics works. Free markets will create the exchange of money for sex changes. Men born male with penises will become females with working wombs. Women born female with vaginas will become men with working penises and testes.
Then you have contradicted your prior assertion, and are a hypocrite. If she has a vagina, then according to you she's female and that's binary. Yet you would refuse her, without even seeing a photo. Evidently, you feel there is actually something different about her, and she's not entirely female even though she has what you said earlier defines a female. Thus, you concede she is non-binary.
Precisely, joshuatrio's bigoted beliefs are inherently self-contradictory. He cannot avoid the contradictions, so he simply pretends they don't exist.
Whether or not the person exists is irrelevant to the thought experiment or the fact that the thought experiment demonstrates that you hold contradictory beliefs.
No, your science experiment is just what it is. A science experiment. Not a gender.
There is no law of physics prohibiting a person from changing the gender he or she was born with.
People can cut and hack all they want, but a dude is still a dude and a chick is still a chick.
Don't let your feelings get in the way of reality Dan.
Precisely, joshuatrio's bigoted beliefs are inherently self-contradictory. He cannot avoid the contradictions, so he simply pretends they don't exist.
I was waiting for this! So now I'm a bigot because I accept reality?
Nice!
(Waiting to be called xenophobic and misogynistic next)
When a penis no longer means dude, and it means unicorn, I'll accept your reality. But until then.....
No, your science experiment is just what it is. A science experiment. Not a gender.
What gender do you list on the driver's license of that person? Which of the two gendered bathrooms does that person use?
You can try to dodge the issue all you want, but these two questions still expose your contradictions.
When a penis no longer means dude, and it means unicorn, I'll accept your reality. But until then.....
The Ryan Reynold brain in Scarlett Johansson's body does not have a penis since I'm pretty sure that Scarlett Johansson herself does not. I'm willing for the sake of science to confirm this. Scarlett, will you help the cause of transgenders by allowing me to conduct the study?
Anyway, since this person does not have a penis, the person would be a woman by your standards. Ergo, you have just admitted that sex changes are, at least in principle, possible.
What gender do you list on the driver's license of that person? Which of the two gendered bathrooms does that person use?
You can try to dodge the issue all you want, but these two questions still expose your contradictions.
Once again, your strawman does not effect reality. Get over it.
Anyway, since this person does not have a penis, the person would be a woman by your standards.
Uhhhh, did you miss this?
a person born with a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.
People do not get to decide which gender they are born with. Cutting and hacking all day may change appearance, but not what they really are.
A dude wearing a dress does not make him a woman or a non binary gender. It's just a cross dressing dude. Complete with a penis.
Same can be said for a guy who gets his penis whacked off in exchange for a fake vagina. This person is still.... A dude with a fake vagina
Ergo, you have just admitted that sex changes are, at least in principle, possible
As I said before Dan,
A dude wearing a dress does not make him a woman or a non binary gender. It's just a cross dressing dude. Complete with a penis.
Same can be said for a guy who gets his penis whacked off in exchange for a fake vagina. This person is still.... A dude with a fake vagina
There are many classes of gender.
Stupid Republican men.
Stupid Republican women.
Stupid Democrat men.
Stupid Democrat women.
Other men & women that don't vote.
Once again, your strawman does not effect reality. Get over it.
Calling something a straw man does not make it so. I'm demanding that you state how your policy handles a specific use case. Structurally that cannot be a straw man.
The fact that you are refusing to address that use case indicates that you are well aware of the contradictions of your bigoted position. It is thus hypocrisy for you to criticize others for what you believe to be contradictions.
Uhhhh, did you miss this?
No, and my point stands. You have admitted that sex changes are possible and that the gender listed on your birth certificate is not necessarily your current gender.
I also stated that your refusal to classify the person as unequivocally male or female demonstrates an acceptance of non-binary genders.
A dude with a fake vagina
There are many possible techniques for exchanging a penis for a fully functional vagina including, but not limited to, the brain transplant I described. Such a vagina would not be fake. If it functions as a vagina, then it is a vagina.
Of course, now we're getting into territory where your position would classify infertile women as not being female because their wombs and vaginas are incapable of supporting impregnation and birth.
Crazy mental cases do crazy stupid shit, and demand we change laws to accommodate their sick reality. Sadly it's who liberal left and Democrats cater to.
Crazy mental cases do crazy stupid shit, and demand we change laws to accommodate their sick reality.
Again, you are thinking of Republicans and the Bush adminstration. Iraq did not have WMDs, yet your team killed a million people over it. Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda, yet your team created ISIS by taking Saddam out of power. Obama was not from Kenya. He is a naturally born American citizen born in Hawaii. In contrast, Ted Cruz was born in Canada as a Canadian citizen to a Cuban father who was a Canadian, not American, citizen. But hey, why can't we see his long-form birth certificate?
The conservative right lives in a bubble, just like the left. You conservatives are all alike. You completely ignore reality and demand we change laws to accommodate your sick reality.
Calling something a straw man does not make it so. I'm demanding that you state how your policy handles a specific use case. Structurally that cannot be a straw man.
It's a strawman, because your nonsense does not exist and is not a reality.
Dan8267 says
The fact that you are refusing to address that use case indicates that you are well aware of the contradictions of your bigoted position.
How can I acknowledge a hypothetical science experiment as anything other than what it is? An unreal, mutant, science experiment.
Why can't you live in reality, and argue real facts with..... Real facts?
You have admitted that sex changes are possible and that the gender listed on your birth certificate is not necessarily your current gender.
Ok, now you're just lying.
Just because you have surgery doesn't change your gender. Goddamn you can't read.
Same can be said for a guy who gets his penis whacked off in exchange for a fake vagina. This person is still.... A dude with a fake vagina
What I've learned from dan:
1) I'm insecure
2) I'm a bigot
3) Anyone can be a unicorn.
4) Doctors are wrong
5) Reality is not reality
6) Hypothetical science experiments must be accepted as valid arguments and you're a bigot for siding with reality.
7) Gluing wings on little boys makes them butterflies
It's a strawman, because your nonsense does not exist and is not a reality.
1. That's not what a straw man is. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your opponent's argument. I'm demanding that you show how your position handles a situation that will become common in the not-so-distant future.
2. A hypothetical situation is a perfectly valid illustration of why a position fails. If your position cannot handle possible future conditions, then your position is wrong.
3. Since we are debating principles, whether or not a particular scenario has happened is irrelevant. If a scenario can happen, then it can be used to question a principle.
4. It is cowardly to run and hide from a legitimate question your ideology cannot deal with. The honest man would simply admit the flaws in his ideology.
How can I acknowledge a hypothetical science experiment as anything other than what it is?
Honestly. And you are failing at that. You don't need the thought experiment to be performed in order to answer the question. You are running away and hiding from the contradictions in your ideology.
What I've learned from dan:
1) I'm insecure
This is true, but it is not a point that I made.
2) I'm a bigot
This is true and it's very relevant to your ideology and the contradictions in it.
3) Anyone can be a unicorn.
I've never said anything remotely like this. You are making a straw man argument.
4) Doctors are wrong
I've never said anything remotely like this. You are making a straw man argument.
5) Reality is not reality
I've never said anything remotely like this. You are making a straw man argument.
6) Hypothetical science experiments must be accepted as valid arguments
Thought experiments are perfectly valid. Only an ignorant fool thinks otherwise. Some thought experiments have been utterly crucial in the advancement of science from classical physics to relativity to quantum mechanics.
www.youtube.com/embed/aYezkQ05cKg
A famous thought experiment was one proposed by Newton. Most people believe heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. This wrong belief persists even today. Yet a simple thought experiment demonstrates why this is wrong. If you have two identical bricks A and B, they would fall at the same rate. If you glue A and B together making a single brick of twice the weight, it would still fall at the exact same rate as the two constitute pieces. Therefore weight does not determine accelerating in a gravitational field.
You are simply wrong by stating that thought experiments have no value. The thought experiment I gave in this thread demonstrates that your ideology contains contradictions. These contradictions don't cease to exist simply because you have not encountered them empirically. The fact that you could encounter them in the field demonstrates that the contradictions exist.
6) continued: and you're a bigot for siding with reality.
I've never said anything remotely like this. You are making a straw man argument.
7) Gluing wings on little boys makes them butterflies
I've never said anything remotely like this. You are making a straw man argument.
Meanwhile, you still have not honestly addressed the inherent contradictions of your ideology.
Meanwhile
I hope he has a tolerant supervisor for all the time he spends on social media.
« First « Previous Comments 22 - 61 of 76 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/non-binary-now-legal-gender-option-oregon/