Yes you spent 5 years in a NBA message board dissing Islam and migration of Muslims. Half your content was not just about Islam. How much content have you spammed about Muslims being rapists in countries like Germany? It was literally your go to banter for half a decade.
I'll go back to ignoring @fchowd0311 - I just had to address the fact that a reasonable poster such as @Nook got suckered into somehow justifying himself to this lunatic for even having a discussion.
The lunatic who dedicates hours and days of his life discussing the ills of trans people and Muslims on a Houston Rockets fan message board?
In the past ten years can someone explain to me a statistically significant trend that makes this topic naturally rise to the forefront of American cultural and political discourse at this moment in time compared to 2010? Or 2000?
Actually, it isn't me projecting. Before I let you know why I feel women's groups don't place this issue as high as others. Please answer this question. Do you believe that trans athletes participating in women's athletic is in the top five of issues facing women these days?
It doesn't matter if it is in the top 5, 10 or 100. What matters is whether even one woman objects to biological males competing in her competition. You don't get to discount that woman's concern based on a ranking of other causes.
Yes. You do get to prioritize the issues facing women. Activists who dedicate their own time and resources to combating gender inequality also get to prioritize and they do prioritize. You have brought up women's issues in only two situations. Both of those involved presenting other groups in negative light. You've already voiced your opposition to pronouns, children's books and other things that advocate acceptance of trans people. Now you try and make this a big issue. When the female officer from TN. Was the spotlight of the cop p*rn story but not the 5 married men who also participated, you didn't speak out against that kind of misogyny and sexism. I will absolutely listen to the voices of those facing discrimination and unfair treatment. I won't take as sincere, the complaints of someone who only ever speaks up about women's issues when he can use it to attack other groups. You simply don't have a leg to stand on.
You’re proving my point here. Thousands of years of civilization ( in humans) has deemed one half of the species as possessing ovaries and being child bearing while the other hs been hunter gatherer to ensure resources. On a biological level you can’t supersede the genomic bible that attributes one trait to one sex. I’m not arguing the social construct, but the biology is hardwired. You think it’s ludicrous in one instance vs another because that’s how you’ve been groomed to think. Logically speaking neither is genomically possible. Think without your feelings about why one is being socially justified. None of this has to do with identifying as “3rd gender” as is in many cultures and a classification that is more appropriate imo (before you use a straw man and feelings)
Honestly, I don't know how far the line we as a culture are going to draw it when it comes to animals or personality types (babies, tattoo freak, different ethnicity, etc...). We're on a postmodern bent that's more destructive driven than deconstructive. I'm sure it opens us up to laughter and ridicule in other countries, but even the "right things" in hindsight were held with mockery and contempt ages ago (feminism, decency for minors and undesirable classes, animal rights). I'm also certain the pendulum will shift because the moral pedestal the left is preaching on is as solid as whatever you can buy at Walmart that's made in China. At some point, people will snap and demand tangible improvements against stagnation than these weird proclaimations by experts who would otherwise hold zero clout or authority and be ignored. In terms of nature, I disagree about the certainty of 2 fixed biological sexes. Male-female reproduction isn't the only game in town. Even with vertibrates, turtles and amphibians have been observed changing sexes whenever extreme conditions or chemicals are introduced. With nature, diversity is almost always encouraged in times of plenty because when a meteor hits, it's usually the freaks that live on to become the normies. In terms of our recorded history, there have been cultures documenting more than two genders. Male-female, female-male, asexual, etc... It's what makes this debate batty as some feel enlightened by assuming there are four being discussed. I can be convinced of the gender-as-social construct premise because our culture has been heavily rigid in maintaining two for a long time to the point of suppressing documentation (acknowledgement) and research. Sexual identity is similar but a different category than gender because biological nature is the problem. Just like your skin color isn't defined by only one gene, there's an entire Rube Goldberg of events that can determine how you'll turn out in adulthood. The amount of chemicals or hormones needed at a very specific time can determine how one progresses through puberty. With the mind, people still haven't figured that one out. As for nature, there's castration, unexpected doses of chemicals/radiation, and good ol fashioned family abuse. Culture also mixes into this by determining how repressed or relaxed you are with your freak tendencies. To share more insight in our cultural underpinnings, Rome and Greece of antiquity were more tolerant of homosexual behavior. There were definitely pendulum shifts wrt homosexual acceptance from that period to now, notably when Paul the Apostle denounced homosexuality by focusing on the practice of pederasty by Romans. Will this cultural shift be the last? History hasn't been disproven when it comes to human and social behavior. There's a case to be made that these questions and debates prevents a culture from moving forward as we're currently mired in paralysis and division over what might be at most a 5% minority. Despite these shifts, Western Culture always put the masculine gender construct at the forefront. Masculine qualities such as aggressiveness, strength and independence have long been the privilege and responsibility of men. The hyper aggressive Roman military and leadership loved their buttsex, but they categorized effiminite men as minions or catamites. It wasn't as big a deal for women to be butch, even if they were scorned for being childrenless as long as they held power, but to promote or tolerate sissies would bring upon the downfall of the Roman Empire. Similarly, no one here has shown as much interest nor disgust for "women in beards". Sure, let them dress in men's rooms. If they want to compete in men's sports, good luck with that. Overall, our culture has shifted into an ugly aggressiveness as we continue to redefine political and social hierarchies. Women can be equally nasty or toxic on the internet while retreating from being held accountable, and a big part of it is that we're enabling and encouraging aggressive traits as the norm for equality. Maybe it's the work culture that supercedes family life or the diluted value of the individual among an increasingly complex society. Whatever the **** is the reason, we're tearing each other apart at the seams without having much to to heal or mend.
What it means is that I understand what he is trying to say. He questioned if I understood the point he was trying to make.
I suspect we’re not understanding each other. There are cases of children being raised by an animal and “identifying” as that animal because they were never socialized at a young age to identify as human. But no human being, raised under normal household conditions, will have a strong, immutable identity as a dog or cat rather than as a human. They may have an affinity to some aspect of being a dog or cat, they may even wish they were a dog or cat. Maybe you think being transgender isn’t fundamentally different from that, even if it might be far more common. However, I don’t think you are suggesting that a child can be born into this world with a natural inclination to think they are a cat or dog. To me, the possibility that gender identity can be determined during fetal development contrary to other sex traits, and may not be a consequence of how the child is socialized, means that we should not pathologize it and as a society we should strive to make some accommodations for people who naturally have non-conforming gender identity.
I brought this up earlier but an argument we heard against gay marriage was that it could lead to people wanting to marry their pets or their cars or any other slippery slope argument. While I’m sure we could find someone who does that certainly didn’t become an issue. Identifying by another gender isn’t the same as identifying as another species anymore than marrying someone of the same sex is marrying another species.
You made the argument if a single women is upset by this issue we shouldn't discount it. So does that apply to other issues? For example if a single women believes that p*rnography is exploiting and degrading women should we consider banning p*rnography? YOu're making the argument that women should be listened to. Does that only apply to this issue or to all issues?
The flaw in your argument is that I am talking about a single woman actually being in the competition and being pushed back by a biological male participating. She is directly affected. Your example has **** all to do with anything. Nice try though.
There are plenty of women who have argue that p*rnography creates a direct harm. https://www.jouslinesavra.com/how-p*rnography-affects-wives/ "For some women, discovering that their husband is a habitual consumer of pornographic content can result in a deep traumatic wound, referred to by many psychologists as Betrayal Emotional Trauma. In the scientific world, trauma is defined as the reaction of an individual’s experience of an event that put his or her life at risk, caused physical or emotional insecurity, or even terror, fear, and helplessness. " There is a CA law against "revenge p*rn" already. Howabout another issue. Do you support gender affirmative action under that historically men have been hired over women for often the same job?
