Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mannahnin wrote:
By referring to the person discussed in this thread as a mutilated dood, he's making the same error that sicksix and other folks have made. A hurtful and dangerous error.

It's also silly to refer to "new PC groupthink", while engaging in ignorant groupthink. Sticking to binary concepts of sex and gender because they're more convenient and require less thought, regardless of reality or the consequences to other human beings. It's not even a question of "new" vs "old". Many cultures have had more expansive and accurate concepts of sex and identity than that. Many Native American tribes, for example, had a concept referred to as "two-spirited", referring to people who had aspects of both male and female.

Well he is a mutilated dood. That dood is now a woman. As long as she shaves if she needs to:
1) who cares?
2) what business is it of the government or anyone else?
3) again, who cares.

Congrats you're now a girl. For the love of god just drive better than my wife.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


So a known and diagnosed psychological and biological disorder is now in ANY WAY comparable to voluntary behavior that also, shockingly enough does NOTHING to harm you or affect the way you live your life? Which again, oddly neither do trans individuals. Why do you care so much about other people's lives that you have to tear them down for their medical conditions or personal life choices? Do you need to control things that much? Is it that vital for you to impose your bronze age morality on everyone around you?

There is a fallacy in thinking that the philosophy of the transgendered and homosexual "hurts no one". How many young confused men have been bamboozled into becoming something they are not, because no one had the guts to stand up to the lie they were being told, that there are "alternate lifestyles" and these "alternate lifestyles" are just fine because they hurt no one.

There are many people that have come out of that lifestyle, including transgendered people, who come to realize they were lied to, by the PC Big brother police.

And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong

GG

But thats..their problem.
i respect your opinion and view, but I disagree. Aint America great?!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
And yes, those people were indeed harmed.. by the enablers, that had no intestinal fortitude to stand up to the so often modern problem of calling what is wrong.... right. And what is right...wrong.

That's a modern problem? Huh. Here's me thinking that, for example, it's historically a problem that people have called things "right" and "natural", like slavery, and racism, and bigotry, and intolerance, and the domination of women, that were in fact wrong, and evil.

In reality, overall we're making progress. We're growing up a bit as a species as the boundaries of our knowledge expand and push back the areas of darkness; of fear and ignorance. It wasn't all that long ago, for example, that folks made arguments that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Or that there were laws forbidding interreligious marriage.

If a person COULD be talked into thinking that they're gay, that's clear evidence that sexuality isn't as black and white as some folks claim. Real people exist on a spectrum of variations. Gradations of color or shades of grey. Attempting to shoehorn everyone into being black or white is dumb, harmful, and ignorant. If, as Ouze asked, one day you had to make a conscious decision to be heterosexual, that means you're somewhere in the middle. Me, I never had a choice in the matter. Dudes just don't appeal. So maybe it's easier for me to understand the transgender folks than you; I just know that I'm straight, and a dude. So if someone else knows, in their soul and their heart, that they're gay, or actually the opposite gender from their body's physical sex, that provokes sympathy in me;, rather than skepticism.

Gay, straight, slant drilling it doesn't really matter though does it? Everybody has to deal with the same problems in life, and none of us are perfect. Except dogs of course, and eagles, because birds of prey know they're cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
Big Brother thought police! Tricking people into thinking they're gay!

Well you could always be married...

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So many of us who usually spend most of our time in the OT disagreeing with each other are on the same page in this thread.

Almost makes me shed a tear...

I know, I've never seen so many people varying politically (conservatives, liberals, libertarians, social democrats, etc) agreeing on so much.

Well it's like... Ouze I think said, there's something for everyone here if you actually don't have your head shoved up your donkey cave. Equality is a pretty big deal for the average political affiliation.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And even the Kinsey scale isn't considered the best measure any more.

What is the best measure now? In my sociology course we talked about how sexuality isn't as black and white as some might believe and that the barriers between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality can be quite fluid.

Errr... I'm spacing off the top of my head, I do know that Kinsey is considered not flexible enough in the modern setting. So for example how would you rate a man who's attracted to the female gender, to include preop transwomen?

The article was pretty amusing but I wont get into my views on transgendered people as I don't want a temporary or a possible permaban

 generalgrog wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How exactly is it NOT the same as the "freak" post? How is anything you just said NOT a pile of ignorant horse gak? Treating human beings the way they deserve to be treated, with some actual freaking respect, isn't "PC group think" it's "being a decent freaking human being.

I would rather be honest with someone, then enable them.

(the following is sarcasm, for those who missed the other clues I left in the text for you...)


Good call Grog, the invisible sky giant who 'made everything' and is 'always watching to judge you' is no more real than Harvey the Rabbit, grow the feth up and live your life according to your own decisions and own willingness to be a tolerant or (as you've proven in this thread) intolerant person instead of doing things out of fear of this all-loving-yet-willing-to-condemn-you-to-eternal-suffering ghost man who is everywhere, your religion makes no more sense than a fortune cookie, thinking He-Man is real, or predicting the future using chicken entrails.



...There you go, how did that work out for you? I just couldn't stand by and enable you any further in your delusions and wanted to be honest with you, I'm sorry if that made me read like a gigantic fething douche, but hey, right is on my side, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you can feel me, right bro? Cos, that's how you roll too, you just said the same thing about this woman.

Or was that too subtle?


(sarcasm now disengaged...)

When a man has undergone gender reassignment surgery, he has become she, she is no longer a 'dood', dood... Western society recognizes this, some bureaucracies don't quite get it yet, being bureaucratic and all and taking time to change their forms and some ignorant or intolerant people or stupid people don't get it, for the reasons I just named. You don't get to scream blue murder every time someone offends your (very brittle) religious convictions in the OT (something over time I've seen you do waaaay too often) and then play the 'I speak it like it is, offense is other people's problem' bs when we're talking about people that you, for no good fething reason, seem to want to insult.

...And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

You without sin then Grog? Cos last I checked, only God is without sin.

eeedited. Didn't realise the back story and what not, now I get it

I think he's making a point...

edited

It does raise an interesting point.
Why are people allowed to be incredibly rude to transgendered people and yet others are not allowed to be rude concerning a religion...
It's probably about time the MODs locked this...

 motyak wrote:
I know, and the point he made was a very good one and needed to be made, but it could have been made without that bit.

edit: and I know it's silly to get put out by something someone says about religion on the internet, it's just that I normally like how MGS posts and agree with many of his points, which is why this one is so jarring I guess.

Well, he made the point that by judging some and calling members of a subgroup "freaks" and such you are judging the entire group the same way. People who struggle with the same issue of having a brain/body mismatch but have not done any surgery and are sitting on the computer reading this thread will feel that their condition makes them "freaks" as well even though they have not made any attempt at gender reasignment. They don't look like "freaks", but their condition makes them "freaks" that just need to be corrected according to some on here. Just like judging "freak" Christians who are offensive makes other Christians feel like they are judged as well.

His point was very well made I thought, even though I am in the "insulted" group of Christians.

Ha I reported the first of those 'abomination' posts as 'possibly the most insulting and horrific thing I've read on dakka in my time here'. They definitely can't be rude to them, I just didn't honestly know how to respond in the open without losing it.

edited

kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

Freak?

That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.


I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.

I don't think that means what you think it means. I really don't give two craps how someone chooses to live their life. But don't expect me to kiss their butt for it and praise their 'alternate' lifestyle or tell them that I'm 'OK' with it.

And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.

azazel the cat wrote:

SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?

Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.

Ah yes, please, find your nearest elderly black person that lived through the civil rights movement and tell them how the LBGT plight is equal to the struggle of blacks in America. Tell me how that works out for you.

You are a stellar student of the left.

I'm totally okay with tolerating people. I do it all the time.

 motyak wrote:

and I get your point d-usa, but how is the best way to fight the people bigoted against transgendered people by doing the same thing to another group? It was a fine point, it just didn't need the first paragraph.

Well, I can't speak out for MGS to tell you how serious he was with his post. But I think a dose of "walking in their shoes of being judged and being called out" can help. It's not the only answer though.

Sometimes, you just can't fix people that feel like they should fix people...

 SickSix wrote:

kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

Freak?

That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.


I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.

I don't think that means what you think it means. I really don't give two craps how someone chooses to live their life. But don't expect me to kiss their butt for it and praise their 'alternate' lifestyle or tell them that I'm 'OK' with it.

And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.

You aren't expected to do anything.

 purplefood wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

Freak?

That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.


I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.

I don't think that means what you think it means. I really don't give two craps how someone chooses to live their life. But don't expect me to kiss their butt for it and praise their 'alternate' lifestyle or tell them that I'm 'OK' with it.

And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.

You aren't expected to do anything.

He isn't supposed to throw them a "Surprise, you're a girl" party and give them presents and a "You got new bitz!" card?

What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?

The first part of my post was demonstrative of being as asinine and repellent as General Grog had just been, only towards the thing he places highest in his life, his religion, as opposed to someone, like this lady, who had been battling with their identity their entire lives, suffered prejudice, depression, terrible self image and potentially (as many have) suicide.

To many people calling themselves 'Christian' and yet seem to possess not a shred of tolerance, compassion or empathy. As far as I am concerned, Christ and Bill & Ted basically all said 'be cool to one another'. So start being cool and not a hate monger with notions that you know better than the other guy what the creator of universes does or does not find offensive about a person who is not harming others and simple searching for ways to make themselves happier.

Matthew 7:1, read it, take it on, try living by it.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The first part of my post was demonstrative of being as asinine and repellent as General Grog had just been, only towards the thing he places highest in his life, his religion, as opposed to someone, like this lady, who had been battling with their identity their entire lives, suffered prejudice, depression, terrible self image and potentially (as many have) suicide.

To many people calling themselves 'Christian' and yet seem to possess not a shred of tolerance, compassion or empathy. As far as I am concerned, Christ and Bill & Ted basically all said 'be cool to one another'. So start being cool and not a hate monger with notions that you know better than the other guy what the creator of universes does or does not find offensive about a person who is not harming others and simple searching for ways to make themselves happier.

Matthew 7:1, read it, take it on, try living by it.

Yup... I'm in that "Christian" bucket.

Plus, Bill & Ted are on my Pantheon list too!

Everyone needs to cool it. Like d said (and MGS alluded to), walk in their shoes for a day before passing judgement.

 SickSix wrote:
And that is what really gets me pissed off, is that it's not good enough to 'tolerate' people of alternate lifestyles, now we are expected to celebrate their choices that we may or may not agree with or are held up as bigots/racists/whatever the flavor of the month term the left comes up with next.

Nobody is demanding "celebration", unless you consider things like "put my chosen gender on my driver's license" to be a "celebration" rather than "stay out of other people's business".

azazel the cat wrote:Ah yes, please, find your nearest elderly black person that lived through the civil rights movement and tell them how the LBGT plight is equal to the struggle of blacks in America. Tell me how that works out for you.

Oh good, this classic "argument". Like it or not there IS a lot of similarity. Both groups have faced severe discrimination and outright hatred (and, often, murder), and eventually people who opposed LGBT rights will be looked at as unfavorably as the racists of the 1950s.

purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.

If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.

d-usa wrote:
What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?

Which is exactly what I do in practice. But god forbid I voice my differing opinion in public discourse on the internet!

 SickSix wrote:

purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.

If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.

Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?

 SickSix wrote:

purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.

If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.

d-usa wrote:
What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?

Which is exactly what I do in practice. But god forbid I voice my differing opinion in public discourse on the internet!

There's a big difference between 'I don't agree with their choice' and 'they are freaks for their choice'

 SickSix wrote:

purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.

If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.

dissenting opinion<>prejudice against people based on their non-harmfully conducted lifestyle that you personally don't like, for reasons you've not mentioned yet.

You get attacked? Poor you, you understand that others with a similar viewpoint to yours go out and actually attack and have on many occasions killed people with LBGT 'lifestyles'.

 SickSix wrote:

d-usa wrote:
What is he supposed to do, just leave them alone?

Which is exactly what I do in practice. But god forbid I voice my differing opinion in public discourse on the internet!

And God forbid others call you out on that opinion. "I'm a special snowflake and I can call lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and anyone else a freak but when others voice objection to that, I'll wail like an alleycat about the mean old internet picking on me!"

Quit portraying your bigotry as 'just an opposing opinion'.

People are allowed to disagree, hell they are allowed to disagree on religious grounds, but they aren't allowed to be rude and bigoted in doing so. You can say 'I don't agree with what you did (for whatever reason), but that doesn't make you less of a person', but you can't say 'that's heinous what you did to your body, you are now a freak'

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.

If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.

Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?

I hope you are being sarcastic.

If not your statement is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Suddenly having a different opinion = hate? I think you need to look up the definition of hate and then you can return to the conversation.

 SickSix wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

purplefood wrote:
You aren't expected to do anything.

If that were true, people wouldn't get attacked for voicing their dissenting opinions now would they? So we can at minimum establish that all those that don't agree with LBGT lifestyles are expected to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the conversation, or they suffer the punishment of being demonized.

Cause you're hating on love man, not cool the LBGT just want to be treated like normal human beings why do you have to hate them? What did they do wrong?

I hope you are being sarcastic.

If not your statement is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Suddenly having a different opinion = hate? I think you need to look up the definition of hate and then you can return to the conversation.

You insulted the LGBT community by calling them freaks how is that not hateful? Now say you're sorry.

 SickSix wrote:
Suddenly having a different opinion = hate?

It is when the "different opinion" is:

1) Expressed in an offensive manner (calling someone a 'freak').

and

2) Completely and objectively wrong.

I just want to say, while I cross aisles and join hands with d-usa, some of the Canadians, MGS, etc fairly regularly as a libertarian who's really strong on the social half of that equation, you guys are making me agree with Peregrine a lot in this thread and that is just not cool.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
you guys are making me agree with Peregrine a lot in this thread and that is just not cool.

I love you too.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I just want to say, while I cross aisles and join hands with d-usa, some of the Canadians, MGS, etc fairly regularly as a libertarian who's really strong on the social half of that equation, you guys are making me agree with Peregrine a lot in this thread and that is just not cool.

I know, Im scared too.

I think what people are getting at is this:

You can say "I don't agree with what they are doing" and we can say "we think you are wrong".

Now everybody is happy.

But if you say "I think they are freaks" then you can't act offended when people say "we think you are a bigot".

Offensive language begets offensive language.