Topic: Bruce Jenner wants another gold
started by: Malcolm
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 01 2015,10:16
< For changing genders >.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 02 2015,12:44
< Caitlyn Jenner. >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 02 2015,13:52
Would NOT.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 02 2015,14:42
Indeed.But I must say, that picture is leaps and bounds better than I expected.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 02 2015,15:54
Pretty sure they photoshopped the dog shit out of that.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 02 2015,16:01
(Vince @ Jun. 02 2015,17:54)
QUOTE
Pretty sure they photoshopped the dog shit out of that.
I'm about 5000% more than "pretty sure."
Posted by Troy on Jun. 02 2015,19:57
(Vince @ Jun. 02 2015,18:54)
QUOTE
Pretty sure they photoshopped the dog shit out of that.
lol - i'm dying
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2015,12:08
1. Earlier today wikipedia was claiming that Jenner broke had the womens world record in whatever events back when he was an olympic athlete.2. "The left is eating itself," now it is great that Jenner is officially a woman but the word "woman" is now problematic because using that term is oppressive.
QUOTE
“If I were to say in a typical women’s-studies class today, ‘Female people are oppressed on the basis of reproduction,’ I would get called out.”
Some students, she explained, would ask, “What about women who are male?”
Some students, she explained, would ask, “What about women who are male?”
< http://www.nationalreview.com/article....oldberg >
3. I'm sorry, but that shit is hilarious. I realized I am not using these terms ironically... I am straight up saying things like "heteronormative" and "triggers" and "gender identity" in a completely mocking way, as punch lines. I don't give a shit how people live their lives, and would never do a thing to try and control them, but I will not be a cheerleader for them, and I will not pretend to care. They can live forever or die right this second, I don't give a single fuck.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,12:23
QUOTE
No matter how fluid gender may or may not be, the biological category of ‘female’ isn’t going away anytime soon.
If we could restrict this to purely biological and physical things, that'd be a relevant point. Tragically, humans have the enormous drag factor brought on by sentience.
QUOTE
Well, last I checked, biology hadn’t been declared a branch of the humanities.
Biology, in a vaccum, is a fuckload of glorified stamp collecting. What group, family, or phylum something belongs to can quickly devolve into a religious debate. This is more properly classified as behavioural neuroscience or biological psychology.
QUOTE
I have sympathy for people who are convinced they were born the wrong sex. But feeling oppressed by a category doesn’t render that category illegitimate or unreal. (Short people may resent being short, but that doesn’t nullify the concept of height.)
That is a saner argument, except height's plainly measurable. Sexuality isn't.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 05 2015,12:38
I'm with Gordo on this, I have no fucks to give. Live your life. Leave me the fuck alone. If we're at the point where this is the shit we're focused on then that's awesome because clearly the world's in great shape because there's nothing else more important than you being happy with your dick and whether or not you like dick.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,08:16
QUOTE
Live your life. Leave me the fuck alone.
This is exactly what the vast majority of trans people want, too.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 08 2015,08:21
What's the over/under on him killing himself within 5 years?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 08 2015,12:27
< Spike TV > censors Eastwood joke. < Seinfeld > on a semi-related topic.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 08 2015,12:30
Holy shit, it wasn't even a joke, he just mentioned part of his name as a reference to athletes entering Hollywood.Yeah, overkill.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 08 2015,12:42
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,15:35
(GORDON @ Jun. 08 2015,14:30)
QUOTE
Holy shit, it wasn't even a joke, he just mentioned part of his name as a reference to athletes entering Hollywood.
Well, we can't have anyone acknowledging her existence as a human being, that could lead to acceptance. Censor that shit!
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,04:49
You really think it was censored in an effort to prevent acknowledgement of him? What planet have you been living on for the last 4 years? Bruce is now the only member of the Kardashian clan that you can no longer make fun of.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 09 2015,05:52
(TPRJones @ Jun. 08 2015,11:16)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Live your life. Leave me the fuck alone.
This is exactly what the vast majority of trans people want, too.
Most people want that. Those folks, no matter who they fuck and what they do to their genitals, I have no issues with.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,06:09
(Leisher @ Jun. 09 2015,08:52)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Jun. 08 2015,11:16)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Live your life. Leave me the fuck alone.
This is exactly what the vast majority of trans people want, too.
Most people want that. Those folks, no matter who they fuck and what they do to their genitals, I have no issues with.
But don't you dare mention her name on TV.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 09 2015,06:36
(Vince @ Jun. 09 2015,06:49)
QUOTE
Bruce is now the only member of the Kardashian clan that you can no longer make fun of.
Caitlyn Jenner is also now the most authentic and real member of the Kardashian clan, unlike the rest of those hollow shells.
I'm not one to start referring to her as a hero or inspiring, but she's at least trying to be honest about herself unlike the rest of them. That deserves some recognition.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,06:40
Serious question: does she still have a ding dong? I haven't been paying close enough attention. I assumed "transitioning" meant getting the surgery.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 09 2015,06:46
You assume a bit too much there; transitioning may or may not include intent to get specific procedures done depending on the individual.However in this case I don't believe any such surgery has yet been completed, but is likely to be planned.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,06:58
I didn't see a wad in that glamour shot she did. Deceptions! Lies!
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,07:17
Here are someone elses words about this:QUOTE
There is a palpable religiosity to the wild hailing of Bruce/Caitlyn as a modern-day saint, a Virgin Mary with testicles. Within four hours, more than a million people were following Bruce/Caitlyn’s new Twitter account, hanging on her words like the expectant horde waiting for Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai. Her every utterance, all banal celeb-speak, was retweeted tens of thousands of times. Celebs and commentators greeted her as a kind of messiah. ‘We’ve been waiting for you with open arms’, said an overexcited editor at Buzzfeed. Across the Twittersphere Caitlyn was worshipped as a'‘goddess,' a 'goddess in human form', a 'goddess made manifest on Earth'. 'Caitlyn Jenner could fucking stab me right now and leave me for dead and I’d die fucking overjoyed we are not WORTHY OF THIS GODDESS', said one trans tweeter, and she wasn't joking.
In the media, the talk is of how Caitlyn and her iconic likeness might give an adrenalin shot to humanity itself. A writer for the Guardian describes Caitlyn as a 'queen' and instructs us to 'bow down, bitches', telling us her icon on the front of Vanity Fair is 'life-affirming'....
The worship of Caitlyn, and the hectoring of anyone who refuses to scrape before her icon, has graphically exposed the intolerant edge to trans thinking. The insistence that we not only refer to Bruce/Caitlyn as 'she' but also project this backwards -- recognising, in the words of the Guardian, that she has 'always been a woman' -- is borderline Orwellian....
In the media, the talk is of how Caitlyn and her iconic likeness might give an adrenalin shot to humanity itself. A writer for the Guardian describes Caitlyn as a 'queen' and instructs us to 'bow down, bitches', telling us her icon on the front of Vanity Fair is 'life-affirming'....
The worship of Caitlyn, and the hectoring of anyone who refuses to scrape before her icon, has graphically exposed the intolerant edge to trans thinking. The insistence that we not only refer to Bruce/Caitlyn as 'she' but also project this backwards -- recognising, in the words of the Guardian, that she has 'always been a woman' -- is borderline Orwellian....
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,07:20
QUOTE
...recognising, in the words of the Guardian, that she has 'always been a woman' -- is borderline Orwellian....
*** golf clap ***
Dead on. Other than the fact that George was talking about rewriting history and not someone's sexual programming. So, not really. If you're talking about the ability to have children, then maybe. If you're talking about being feminine, then no.
I'm sure this could've happened 40 years ago after the Olympics were over, but I'm willing to bet Wheaties would've had the fuck boycotted out of it. Deifying someone is still extremely troublesome, though.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 09 2015,07:34
Without a doubt people have gone way overboard about Jenner. Both those that are worshiping and those that stubbornly insist on calling her Bruce. That doesn't impact what I said above at all.There is nothing Orwellian about her acknowledging that she has always been a woman. What she means is that she's been living a lie since childhood, forced to keep her true self a carefully guarded secret from everyone lest people react exactly like some people are reacting. So basically the haters are proving her completely right in not having trusted anyone about who she is for her whole life until now. If everyone else going gaga over her helps balance that for her a bit then it's fine by me. Everyone will calm down and forget within a month and we can all go back to our normal lives.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,08:11
All the glitz will fade and Jenner will end up like most every other trans and find themselves just as miserable as a woman as they were as a man.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,08:16
(Vince @ Jun. 09 2015,11:11)
QUOTE
All the glitz will fade and Jenner will end up like most every other trans and find themselves just as miserable as a woman as they were as a man.
I didn't want to seem overly pessimistic but I officially put my suicide prediction at 3 years, 3 months.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,08:41
I'd say closer to 5. But that's just a guess with no research to back it up at all.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,09:26
I think I read it was more likely if they chop off the ding dong, so we'll see.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,09:29
QUOTE
In June 2015, Jenner debuted her new name and image, and marked using feminine pronoun self-descriptors. Her transition is the subject of an eight-part TV documentary series that will premiere in July 2015. While she has undergone some cosmetic surgery as part of transitioning, she has not undergone genital reassignment surgery, but has not ruled it out either; she said that life as a woman is primarily a matter of mental state and lifestyle. She said she has never been attracted to men and had exclusively been attracted to women before her transition, but now identifies as asexual.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,09:33
And perhaps being wealthy and able to surround ones self with sycophants will keep serious depression from setting in. It isn't like she has to go to work at the office and be subject to the tittering of coworkers about what bathroom she uses.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,09:57
Didn't help Michael Jackson too much. Only surrounding himself with little boys did that.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 09 2015,14:34
< For Gordon >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,15:03
(TheCatt @ Jun. 09 2015,17:34)
QUOTE
< For Gordon >
DNA doesn't lie.
However, it isn't like I would go out of my way to be insulting to his face. I know how to be polite.
However, in this forum, where she will never look, it is rare anyone is polite when they don't want to be, so I feel like I have a certain license.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,15:17
(GORDON @ Jun. 09 2015,17:03)
QUOTE
DNA doesn't lie.
Nor is it the only voice in the room.
Posted by Troy on Jun. 09 2015,15:58
I just don't agree with calling anyone who has fathered six children a woman.But Jenner can make his/her own choices. It's America.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,18:26
I'll continue to call him a him and call him Bruce.From < here. >
QUOTE
OTTAWA — When he cut off his right arm with a “very sharp power tool,” a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident….
His goal was to become disabled.
People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.
“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.
“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.” …
“It’s a problem for individuals because it’s distressing. But lots of things are.” He suggests this is just another form of body diversity — like transgenderism — and amputation may help someone achieve similar goals as someone who, say, undergoes cosmetic surgery to look more like who they believe their ideal selves to be….
As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due….
I've described the problem this way:
Both lines of reasoning follow logical paths to internally consistent positions. Unfortunately, a growing number of people can no longer recognize which of these paths leads to an absurd conclusion.
His goal was to become disabled.
People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.
“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.
“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.” …
“It’s a problem for individuals because it’s distressing. But lots of things are.” He suggests this is just another form of body diversity — like transgenderism — and amputation may help someone achieve similar goals as someone who, say, undergoes cosmetic surgery to look more like who they believe their ideal selves to be….
As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due….
I've described the problem this way:
Both lines of reasoning follow logical paths to internally consistent positions. Unfortunately, a growing number of people can no longer recognize which of these paths leads to an absurd conclusion.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,21:12
Body modification. Bitch is that people who do this extreme form don't believe much in phantom limb syndrome.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 10 2015,10:22
< Bob Costas >, who's about as socialist a sports dude as you'll find, still has at least one functional brain cell left.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 10 2015,14:15
(Vince @ Jun. 09 2015,20:26)
QUOTE
I'll continue to call him a him and call him Bruce.
(Vince @ Jun. 10 2015,15:59)
QUOTE
As I've gotten older I've found the explanation of "Because it makes me happy inside" as all the in depth self analysis I need most times.
See, it seems like you might be able to understand, but then I guess "because it makes me happy inside" is only good for you while everyone else has to have better reasons than that.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 10 2015,14:17
The difference being, Vince wasn't on the cover of vanity faire telling everyone that what makes him happy is "the new normal," and you are wrong/bad/abnormal if you feel differently.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 10 2015,14:34
And Jenner didn't do that either. There is nothing in that interview that implies anything like what you claim it does. Everything she said pretty much boiled down to "because it makes me happy inside". The closest would be the implication that for her the ability to be herself - to be happy inside - is her new normal.She never said you are wrong or bad if you don't also want to become a woman. Nothing of the sort. Not even close.
If other people are making what Jenner has said into their own BS, that is their fault not hers.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 10 2015,14:53
(TPRJones @ Jun. 10 2015,16:15)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Jun. 09 2015,20:26)
QUOTE
I'll continue to call him a him and call him Bruce.
(Vince @ Jun. 10 2015,15:59)
QUOTE
As I've gotten older I've found the explanation of "Because it makes me happy inside" as all the in depth self analysis I need most times.
See, it seems like you might be able to understand, but then I guess "because it makes me happy inside" is only good for you while everyone else has to have better reasons than that.
I really don't care what Jenner does. I still think it's a mental disorder. If he's happy, then I'm glad for him. If his being happy is predicated on me calling him a her and something other than Bruce, then he's has much bigger issues than having a wee-wee.
He's been a man and Bruce since I was a kid and he was on the Wheaties box. I remember watching him in the Olympics. He's a he and Bruce as far as I'm concerned, because he has been for about 40 years of my life. "I'm sorry Bruce. It's not me, it's you."
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 10 2015,15:06
Okay.But I still think liking Face Off is a mental disorder.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 10 2015,16:03
"Caitlyn Jenner: I'm the New Normal."< http://www.tmz.com/2015....o-video >
My mistake, I'd thought it was attached to the magazine article which I'd never read. It was actually him on video.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 10 2015,17:25
QUOTE
He's been a man and Bruce since I was a kid and he was on the Wheaties box. I remember watching him in the Olympics. He's a he and Bruce as far as I'm concerned, because he has been for about 40 years of my life. "I'm sorry Bruce. It's not me, it's you."
Let me get this right: the name someone picks out for them is less proper than the one they pick on their own?
QUOTE
But I still think liking Face Off is a mental disorder.
I'm still going with prayer or perceived communication with the divine. Voting for most of the asswipes in DC should qualify, too.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 10 2015,18:56
(GORDON @ Jun. 10 2015,18:03)
QUOTE
"Caitlyn Jenner: I'm the New Normal."
< http://www.tmz.com/2015....o-video >
My mistake, I'd thought it was attached to the magazine article which I'd never read. It was actually him on video.
< http://www.tmz.com/2015....o-video >
My mistake, I'd thought it was attached to the magazine article which I'd never read. It was actually him on video.
Okay, but I still don't see the problem. The context is clearly defined there; wouldn't it be nice if you could just be accepted for who you want to be. And I think she's right in that it does seem to be the trend for most people - especially younger people - to do just that.
Where you got "you are wrong/bad/abnormal if you feel differently" from that I can't imagine. Not that I would disagree entirely if that had been said (I'd have leaned towards "you are becoming outdated if you feel differently"), but I don't think it was.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 10 2015,18:58
(Malcolm @ Jun. 10 2015,19:25)
QUOTE
Let me get this right: the name someone picks out for them is less proper than the one they pick on their own?
Well, the followup question there would be "what if Bruce had come out and said call me David from now on" with no gender stuff involved, would there be as much pushback?
I think no. The name is not the problem.
Although why did she have to pick a name with a y in the middle? So stereotypical, that.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 10 2015,19:20
If at 69 he suddenly decided that he always wanted to be called David and insisted that everyone call him David, then yes... he's got a mental disorder. Only no one gets in trouble for pointing that out in this scenario.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 10 2015,19:46
(TPRJones @ Jun. 10 2015,21:56)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 10 2015,18:03)
QUOTE
"Caitlyn Jenner: I'm the New Normal."
< http://www.tmz.com/2015....o-video >
My mistake, I'd thought it was attached to the magazine article which I'd never read. It was actually him on video.
< http://www.tmz.com/2015....o-video >
My mistake, I'd thought it was attached to the magazine article which I'd never read. It was actually him on video.
Okay, but I still don't see the problem. The context is clearly defined there; wouldn't it be nice if you could just be accepted for who you want to be. And I think she's right in that it does seem to be the trend for most people - especially younger people - to do just that.
Where you got "you are wrong/bad/abnormal if you feel differently" from that I can't imagine. Not that I would disagree entirely if that had been said (I'd have leaned towards "you are becoming outdated if you feel differently"), but I don't think it was.
Because if that is truly the new normal, if schools start up curricula teaching kids that no one is 100% girl or 100% boy, then I suddenly develop an opinion about it because I happen to disagree, and as I said before, I want to see their metrics. "Because Caitlin Jenner said so in Vanity Fair" is not an acceptable citation. Everything I've looked up suggests it's probably a mental illness, and I don't need that to be the new normal. Kindness and compassion, of course, for the mentally ill...
but whatever, never mind.
I'm obviously just a hateful person.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 10 2015,19:57
(Vince @ Jun. 10 2015,21:20)
QUOTE
If at 69 he suddenly decided that he always wanted to be called David and insisted that everyone call him David, then yes... he's got a mental disorder. Only no one gets in trouble for pointing that out in this scenario.
I don't think misnomerism is a mental disease. Your name's a fucking label that gets slapped on you, whether your someone's namesake or not. I don't give a fuck if someone decides they really want to be known as < Screaming Lord Sutch > or the < Emperor of the United States >.
QUOTE
... if schools start up curricula teaching kids that no one is 100% girl or 100% boy, then I suddenly develop an opinion about it because I happen to disagree...
That's not the right pair of words, so I think it's technically wrong. If you use homosexual/heterosexual or masculine/feminine, then you're quite a bit closer.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 11 2015,03:32
(GORDON @ Jun. 10 2015,21:46)
QUOTE
Because if that is truly the new normal, if schools start up curricula teaching kids that no one is 100% girl or 100% boy, then I suddenly develop an opinion about it because I happen to disagree, and as I said before, I want to see their metrics.
You are still putting other people's words into her mouth. None of that was anywhere in what she said in that video. All she said was that it would be nice if it were normal for a person to be accepted for just being who they feel like they are. And then indicated that the trend is such that this is becoming the case.
Absolutely nothing there about "no one is 100% girl or 100% boy" and all of that. That's what other people are saying. Blame them.
EDIT: I know you probably think I'm nitpicking, but I'm not. I haven't seen where Caitlyn has said any of that sort of stuff. Everything I've read from her has been all along the lines of "this is what is right for me." It's other people that have been attaching all their agenda items to her, and I don't think it's fair to blame her for what other people she has no control over do or say.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 11 2015,04:53
Back during the days of the Black Death, it wasn't the rats that carried the disease. The opportunistic parasite fleas latched onto rats and carried the disease. Jenner hasn't been saying these things. Unfortunately, he's had parasitic SJW types latching onto him. Unless he makes the effort to distance himself from those that have latched onto him (and I think he's so isolated that he really has no clue), people are going to associate him with that message just like people associated the rats with the plague. Might not be fair, but it's human nature.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 11 2015,06:54
(TPRJones @ Jun. 11 2015,06:32)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 10 2015,21:46)
QUOTE
Because if that is truly the new normal, if schools start up curricula teaching kids that no one is 100% girl or 100% boy, then I suddenly develop an opinion about it because I happen to disagree, and as I said before, I want to see their metrics.
You are still putting other people's words into her mouth. None of that was anywhere in what she said in that video. All she said was that it would be nice if it were normal for a person to be accepted for just being who they feel like they are. And then indicated that the trend is such that this is becoming the case.
Absolutely nothing there about "no one is 100% girl or 100% boy" and all of that. That's what other people are saying. Blame them.
EDIT: I know you probably think I'm nitpicking, but I'm not. I haven't seen where Caitlyn has said any of that sort of stuff. Everything I've read from her has been all along the lines of "this is what is right for me." It's other people that have been attaching all their agenda items to her, and I don't think it's fair to blame her for what other people she has no control over do or say.
There was a recent thread elsewhere with a school putting in that exact curriculum. I was referring to that. It's all related.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 11 2015,07:19
< I cant wait to see the updated version of this book. >
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 11 2015,09:32
(Vince @ Jun. 11 2015,06:53)
QUOTE
Might not be fair, but it's human nature.
That's a valid point. But I would still rail against it even so. Give Jenner some time to make her own particular statements instead of painting her with the agendas of others. It may be entirely likely that the shade she's being painted with is just her color, but until she's confirmed it I will keep pointing out the wrongness.
I mean surely you'd be annoyed if the more extreme stances among Christian conservatives - such as that homosexuals need to be rounded up and forcefully reeducated into God's laws - were attributed to you just because you're on the same side of center as they are, no? Admittedly you aren't on the cover of Vanity Fair so there's a difference in scale, but I think it would be similarly unjust.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 11 2015,10:32
Eh... I consider myself Christian (maybe Christianish?), and I am quite used to anyone that doesn't publicly denounce Christianity being lumped in with Westborough Baptist Church. I just write them off an move on. They're idiots.Jenner has some serious issues seemingly completely unrelated to his gender whatever stuff. If I could toss an "irrelevant" grenade into the middle of that circus and take out everyone involved (in a "relevance" sense only) I would do so. I wish him no harm. I hope he finds his path. The rest of the parasitic SJWs around him... different wishes for them.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 12 2015,05:20
< Girl decides she's a boy, wants to use the boys' room. Can't. Sues. >
Posted by Vince on Jun. 12 2015,06:19
< Tran-ethnic white woman identifies as African American and heads NAACP chapter in WA. >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 12 2015,07:32
QUOTE
Girl decides she's a boy, wants to use the boys' room. Can't. Sues.
QUOTE
Since adopting the restroom policy, three unisex, single-stall restrooms separate from the boys and girls rooms have been installed, the complaint said.
But Grimm refuses to use the new bathrooms because they "undermine his social transition," stigmatize him as "different from other students" and inflict "severe and persistent emotional social harm," the ACLU said.
But Grimm refuses to use the new bathrooms because they "undermine his social transition," stigmatize him as "different from other students" and inflict "severe and persistent emotional social harm," the ACLU said.
He's quite different. That's a hell of a long jump to emotional harm. You get to make the transition, it's not painless.
QUOTE
Tran-ethnic white woman identifies as African American and heads NAACP chapter in WA.
I'm assuming ethnicity matters for her application because of some quota thing.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 12 2015,13:36
(Vince @ Jun. 12 2015,09:19)
QUOTE
< Tran-ethnic white woman identifies as African American and heads NAACP chapter in WA. >
That needs it's own thread. It's VERY clear she's white, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 13 2015,06:42
(Leisher @ Jun. 12 2015,16:36)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Jun. 12 2015,09:19)
QUOTE
< Tran-ethnic white woman identifies as African American and heads NAACP chapter in WA. >
That needs it's own thread. It's VERY clear she's white, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But we're lazy.
After / Before pics
For the record, my (very) white daughter has hair as curly as the left. When we looked it up online for how to care for such curly hair, the internet basically said she was black.
Which makes sense since I'm black, but otherwise very confusing.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 13 2015,19:33
NAACP weighs in:
< People mad at singer for backing her. >
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 13 2015,19:42
Huh, who knew the NAACP could be reasonable about race?
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 13 2015,19:54
(TPRJones @ Jun. 13 2015,22:42)
QUOTE
Huh, who knew the NAACP could be reasonable about race?
Right?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 13 2015,21:08
Holy fucking shit, our old jokes about being black are now accepted as reality. We are through the looking class, people.College racial quotas are about to get ALL fucked up.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 13 2015,21:52
QUOTE
College racial quotas are about to get ALL fucked up.
I view that as a positive. Maybe they'll realize how fucking worthless they are. The quotas, too.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2015,05:45
Well, maybe this is one baby step towards a post-racial society?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 14 2015,08:59
Companies can now hire nothing but honkies so long as a certain percentage of them are willing to identify as black if affirmative action folks come knocking.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2015,09:55
(Leisher @ Jun. 14 2015,11:59)
QUOTE
Companies can now hire nothing but honkies so long as a certain percentage of them are willing to identify as black if affirmative action folks come knocking.
I've self identified as black and Native American before.
So I'm like 3 in 1.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 14 2015,10:02
(Leisher @ Jun. 14 2015,10:59)
QUOTE
Companies can now hire nothing but honkies so long as a certain percentage of them are willing to identify as black if affirmative action folks come knocking.
Since AA is bullshit to begin with, I have zero issues with that response.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2015,11:20
(TheCatt @ Jun. 14 2015,12:55)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jun. 14 2015,11:59)
QUOTE
Companies can now hire nothing but honkies so long as a certain percentage of them are willing to identify as black if affirmative action folks come knocking.
I've self identified as black and Native American before.
So I'm like 3 in 1.
I always check the "Dr." prefix on forms when it is available to me.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 14 2015,18:03
(TheCatt @ Jun. 13 2015,21:33)
QUOTE
NAACP weighs in:
< People mad at singer for backing her. >
< People mad at singer for backing her. >
I have a balck supervisor and that was his only question. "Was she doing a good job?"
But he's as practical as all get out.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 15 2015,10:10
< She resigned. I'm sure it was completely her choice... >< Seth responds to his prediction about Jenner. >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 15 2015,10:13
< April Ashley > weighs in. Why should that matter? She had a sex change 50 years ago.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 15 2015,11:28
(Leisher @ Jun. 15 2015,12:10)
QUOTE
< She resigned. I'm sure it was completely her choice... >
She's going to make serious bank on this book and Lifetime movie.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 15 2015,12:10
(Malcolm @ Jun. 15 2015,12:13)
QUOTE
< April Ashley > weighs in. Why should that matter? She had a sex change 50 years ago.
See, she gets it. That name is awful.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 15 2015,18:34
From reddit. From an "un-popular opinion" thread. That's a lot of upvotes for an unpopular opinion.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 15 2015,19:48
I have been thinking about it, analyzing why I have the opinions on this subject that i do, searching for root causes.I got to wondering about what happens if my son comes to me when he is 20 and says he feels like a woman, inside. Wondering what I would do.
Whereas I DO feel like it is a mental disorder, since there is no cure for it I don't think I would ever say that to him. I wouldn't want him, on top of everything else he is feeling and going through, to think that his Dad thinks he is mentally ill... he has the rest of the world to tell him that. I would be supportive, and tell him to pursue whatever life he thinks will make him happiest, and I will always be there when he needs his old man. I might, in some innocent conversation, ask him what he would do if there was a pill to make him "binary," or whatever. See what he says.
I still have a problem with a school system starting a "everyone is queer in some way" class, but aside from that I have a live-and-let-live philosophy, and aside from that, I will not be doing any crusading on the internet against people with a confused gender identity.
But no government representative... and that includes school boards and teachers... is/are going to be telling my kid he is or isn't male. None of their fucking business.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 15 2015,20:10
QUOTE
Whereas I DO feel like it is a mental disorder, since there is no cure for it I don't think I would ever say that to him.
If you can get away with not telling him, I suppose be quiet. If he asks directly, do not lie. As much as you might feel it is, you're not living his life with his brain nor are you a qualified mental health expert.
QUOTE
I might, in some innocent conversation, ask him what he would do if there was a pill to make him "binary," or whatever.
I've had genuinely wacko friends of mine eat anti-psychotics for months with no effect. I've also known people on anti-depression meds for years without it making a dent. The best it did was numb them. Even if you're right and it's a chemical imbalance, the solution may be shittier than the illness.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 16 2015,04:26
(GORDON @ Jun. 15 2015,21:48)
QUOTE
Whereas I DO feel like it is a mental disorder, since there is no cure for it I don't think I would ever say that to him. I wouldn't want him, on top of everything else he is feeling and going through, to think that his Dad thinks he is mentally ill... he has the rest of the world to tell him that. I would be supportive, and tell him to pursue whatever life he thinks will make him happiest, and I will always be there when he needs his old man.
I think I'd have to be honest. I'd probably go Forrest Gump as far as "I'll tell you what I think about it, and that'll be all I need to discuss it unless you feel the need to talk about it some more."
I'm a big believer with my family and loved ones in stating my belief because I need to air my beliefs, not because I'm trying to change their minds. I'm stating this for me, not to change you.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2015,08:33
< She officially says that she "identifies as black". >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2015,08:45
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,11:33)
QUOTE
< She officially says that she "identifies as black". >
I fucking LOVE that.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,08:51
We'll be having the real < racial draft > in a bit.QUOTE
“You gotta think about it: He’s been discriminated against in his time, has had death threats, and he dates a white girl. Sounds like a black guy to me!”
Posted by Vince on Jun. 16 2015,09:16
(GORDON @ Jun. 16 2015,10:45)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,11:33)
QUOTE
< She officially says that she "identifies as black". >
I fucking LOVE that.
What do people expect? You can't say, "We're just going to let the culture go a little bit insane."
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2015,09:38
(GORDON @ Jun. 16 2015,11:45)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,11:33)
QUOTE
< She officially says that she "identifies as black". >
I fucking LOVE that.
I do too.
It opens up so many hilarious possibilities.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2015,09:39
(Vince @ Jun. 16 2015,12:16)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 16 2015,10:45)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,11:33)
QUOTE
< She officially says that she "identifies as black". >
I fucking LOVE that.
What do people expect? You can't say, "We're just going to let the culture go a little bit insane."
Exactly this. I don't know how you have to allow males to identify as females without allowing whites to identify as blacks, or anything else they can think of.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,09:45
Who gives a fuck? She can identify as ancient Babylonian for all it matters.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2015,09:48
But it DOES matter. Or do we live in different countries?
In other news, < Miley Cyrus is "gender fluid". >
I've just decided that I'm "gender, race, and sex fluid". Now I can pretty much say anything to anyone and it's not racist or sexist.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,09:55
Is she applying to college with that ethnicity? Does she have a paying job that had to fill some AA quota and let her in because she checked the "African-American" box?QUOTE
Now I can pretty much say anything to anyone and it's not racist or sexist.
Once we get the race and gender bullshit out of the way, then I'd like nothing more than moving on to the "I can't be prejudiced because I'm a minority" myths.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2015,09:55
From now on we can say anything we want to game the system and it isn't lying. Affirmative Action is done.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,10:00
(GORDON @ Jun. 16 2015,11:55)
QUOTE
From now on we can say anything we want to game the system and it isn't lying. Affirmative Action is done.
Fucking good. One of AA's most baffling tenets is that minorities need help because they have no hope of competing with "the rest." You know, the minorities that have been whipped, beaten, held down, raped, robbed, and lynched by the Man. Those dudes need extra help getting by? Jackie Robinson didn't break into MLB after someone felt sorry for him or decided to pull a publicity stunt.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2015,10:13
BOOM! Post-racial society delivered!
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2015,11:08
QUOTE
Is she applying to college with that ethnicity? Does she have a paying job that had to fill some AA quota and let her in because she checked the "African-American" box?
YES!!!!!
One of the first articles talks about how she's been applying to things and marking the African-American box.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,11:20
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,13:08)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Is she applying to college with that ethnicity? Does she have a paying job that had to fill some AA quota and let her in because she checked the "African-American" box?
YES!!!!!
One of the first articles talks about how she's been applying to things and marking the African-American box.
That's a problem with AA instead of a problem with her adopted ethnicity. It is less legit than her claim of being black. Hell, all these problems could be solved on the forms themselves. All they have to do is start using the adjective "biological" in front of "race."
Fuck it, we don't need a racial draft. We need a racial registration. We can make it like signing up for a political party.
"Is he really white?"
"Dunno, membership card said his credentials expired last year."
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2015,12:11
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,14:08)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Is she applying to college with that ethnicity? Does she have a paying job that had to fill some AA quota and let her in because she checked the "African-American" box?
YES!!!!!
One of the first articles talks about how she's been applying to things and marking the African-American box.
Technically, we're all African.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2015,12:29
(TheCatt @ Jun. 16 2015,15:11)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,14:08)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Is she applying to college with that ethnicity? Does she have a paying job that had to fill some AA quota and let her in because she checked the "African-American" box?
YES!!!!!
One of the first articles talks about how she's been applying to things and marking the African-American box.
Technically, we're all African.
I don't know if that is accurate anymore. I thought they recently found a bone elsewhere that dates back even farther.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2015,12:36
I have a bone for ya to check out.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2015,12:38
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,15:29)
QUOTE
I don't know if that is accurate anymore. I thought they recently found a bone elsewhere that dates back even farther.
< Still African. >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,12:52
(TheCatt @ Jun. 16 2015,14:38)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2015,15:29)
QUOTE
I don't know if that is accurate anymore. I thought they recently found a bone elsewhere that dates back even farther.
< Still African. >
Yeah, last I heard was the difference was whether or not the got out via Egypt or Ethiopia.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2015,13:18
< This story just keeps getting better. >So she's black, but she sued because of bias towards "her race"?
This is delicious.
QUOTE
Still African.
I stand by my statement with only a vague memory to back me up. I'm not even sure it was a fossil of a human, but rather, a tool or a building. Either way, I remember reading something about how it predated the first human remains ever found.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 16 2015,13:28
I heard a black pundit saying he didn't understand what the big deal was. Michael Jackson made lots of money for years pretending to be a white man.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,14:14
QUOTE
I'm not even sure it was a fossil of a human, but rather, a tool or a building.
They found a tool that predates homo sapiens as a species. That just means one of our ancestors was more intelligent than previously thought.
QUOTE
Michael Jackson made lots of money for years pretending to be a white man.
That thought went through my head almost immediately. As did this < character >, though I don't know if anyone but G has even seen the show.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2015,17:06
Posted by Vince on Jun. 16 2015,18:53
Glenn Beck was funny Monday morning. He said he woke up self identifying as Asian. "Go ahead, ask me a math problem."
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,19:03
(TheCatt @ Jun. 16 2015,19:06)
QUOTE
< There are places > for people like you. They don't give a fuck what your GPA is.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 17 2015,10:20
< Gets better >.QUOTE
NBC's Savannah Guthrie pointed out there's a birth certificate that lists the Dolezals as her parents.
Rachel Dolezal responded that she can't prove her parentage one way or another.
Rachel Dolezal responded that she can't prove her parentage one way or another.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 17 2015,11:53
Honestly, at this point she's clearly insane or just a cunt. Who sues because black students are getting treatment she doesn't get, and then a few years later decides she's black? Who abandons her family like that?
Fuck that bitch, although I appreciate her creating all these fun jokes.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 17 2015,12:09
(Leisher @ Jun. 17 2015,14:53)
QUOTE
Who abandons her family like that?
Her < adopted siblings are black >, apparently.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2015,12:26
I hope lots more transracial people are brave and decide to finally go public, because I find it all quite hilarious.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 17 2015,12:32
I am a meat popsicle.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2015,12:35
Hands on the yellow circles.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 17 2015,14:26
< I can't stop >.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 17 2015,14:59
(Leisher @ Jun. 17 2015,13:53)
QUOTE
Honestly, at this point she's clearly insane or just a cunt.
Who sues because black students are getting treatment she doesn't get, and then a few years later decides she's black? Who abandons her family like that?
Fuck that bitch, although I appreciate her creating all these fun jokes.
Who sues because black students are getting treatment she doesn't get, and then a few years later decides she's black? Who abandons her family like that?
Fuck that bitch, although I appreciate her creating all these fun jokes.
In this world of professional victimhood, is it really any shock that some people would start to develop some sort of meunchenhausen disorder around being a victim of society? Now that I think about it, I think this is similar to the chick in Rolling Stone that made up the story about being gang raped. Our culture is creating this.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2015,15:03
Unfortunately, instead of this crap being a litmus test of who is and isn't mentally ill, and thus identifying who needs help living in society, this crap is not only suffered but celebrated lest we have a CHILLING EFFECT on... whatever.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 17 2015,20:50
(Malcolm @ Jun. 17 2015,17:26)
QUOTE
< I can't stop >.
I'm sure she was also right there protesting when black actor Michael P. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm. Or is it ok if black people take white roles, just not vice versa?
In other news, < she had previously violated ethics rules. > The hell you say...
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,06:10
(GORDON @ Jun. 17 2015,17:03)
QUOTE
Unfortunately, instead of this crap being a litmus test of who is and isn't mentally ill, and thus identifying who needs help living in society, this crap is not only suffered but celebrated lest we have a CHILLING EFFECT on... whatever.
95-99% of society qualifies as "mentally ill," I bet.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,06:29
Are you suggesting that someone who has an aversion to dogs is, in degree, as mentally ill as someone who wants to chop their wiener off because it doesn't feel right?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,06:36
(GORDON @ Jun. 18 2015,08:29)
QUOTE
Are you suggesting that someone who has an aversion to dogs is, in degree, as mentally ill as someone who wants to chop their wiener off because it doesn't feel right?
Now you want to start talking degrees of mental illness. That opens up all sorts of doors. I consider it less insane than voting Democrat or Republican. If it's evidence of having something wrong with the brain, what about the more than a couple people who've been through the process and are leading quite satisfied lives? Why isn't their psyche imploding? Either they aren't ill or they're functioning successfully while ill. Other societies, thousands of years ago and now, would say that biological sex isn't the sole factor in someone's gender. I'm inclined to agree. Your body, your cock, if you want to cut it off or turn it into a makeshift vagina, not my problem.
As for race, how the fuck often have I heard that someone "acts black" or "acts white?" How many goddamn comedy routines is that a part of? Why are we using a colour description of skin pigment to describe a set of attitudes or a culture? Fuck if I know, I'm not an anthropologist. I really don't care if Ms. Reverse Jackson calls herself black. Why? Because it shouldn't fucking count. It's absurd except in matters of medicine. Meaningless and arbitrary rules deserve equally meaningless and arbitrary compliance.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,07:32
(Malcolm @ Jun. 18 2015,09:36)
QUOTE
As for race, how the fuck often have I heard that someone "acts black" or "acts white?" How many goddamn comedy routines is that a part of? Why are we using a colour description of skin pigment to describe a set of attitudes or a culture? Fuck if I know, I'm not an anthropologist.
Because people with different skin colors came from different places, and thus, have different cultures and act differently.
That's before we get into nationality, economic status, etc.
I mean, if you can't see that, you'd be delusional.
It's why the NBA is filled with white people, the NHL is filled with Asians, hip hop is dominated by Hispanics, and black people rule the country music scene...
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,07:44
QUOTE
Because people with different skin colors came from different places, and thus, have different cultures and act differently.
So, the skin is just incidental with respect to where you come from? Are you saying environment is the real factor?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,07:52
This is a hard topic to discuss on a shitty iPad because there's so many different factors that make us different. Typing is hard on this thing.Geographical location is a massive part of who you are because it determined your bloodline's evolution. Also, your region's climate and resources meant different cultures from other climates and resources. Also, your body would be different based on climate.
Every single part of your body and your beliefs that make you different are the basis for why folks would accept or reject you. The folks like you create a culture that embraces you and you embrace. The folks different from you create a different one that you don't embrace and it doesn't embrace you.
Should it be that way? Yes? No? Utopias would say no, but don't you then lose diversity, and at the end of the day, isn't diversity good?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,08:05
There's a big nature/nurture conversation to be had, but in my experience 95% of people are 75% controlled by their DNA, not their upbringing.If that makes sense.
I just don't see many people using their brains to override their hearts and/or hormones.
So as to this woman saying she is black on the inside.... my bet goes on "She is a lying sack of shit."
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,08:06
QUOTE
Geographical location is a massive part of who you are because it determined your bloodline's evolution. Also, your region's climate and resources meant different cultures from other climates and resources. Also, your body would be different based on climate.
I exempted medicine from my leniency. One, for instance, can't claim to be genetically Tibetan. Altitude sickness won't care. Identifying with their culture is completely legit, even if you weren't born there.
QUOTE
The folks different from you create a different one that you don't embrace and it doesn't embrace you.
Differences in DNA and skin colour aren't enough to convince me of this woman being mutually exclusive with the black culture. If she's filling out a hospital form and checks that box, she's an idiot. Other than that, it doesn't matter. Not my fault that ethnicity and cultural norms have become conflated.
QUOTE
Utopias would say no, but don't you then lose diversity, and at the end of the day, isn't diversity good?
Why would you only take one? I can be accepted and part of a group without losing my individual identity, unless you're talking some very fundamental disagreements. Diversity's awesome, except when you need specialization. It's neither good nor bad; it simply is.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 18 2015,09:47
(GORDON @ Jun. 18 2015,10:05)
QUOTE
There's a big nature/nurture conversation to be had, but in my experience 95% of people are 75% controlled by their DNA, not their upbringing.
No way. The upbringing - mostly cultural conditioning and parental brainwashing - have FAR more impact to the way a person ends up being than their genes.
If they find the genes for racism, ice cream preference, religious beliefs, cultural cuisine, political party, language selection, and etc ad nausea then I will agree with you. But of course I clearly think that's incredibly silly to contemplate.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,12:12
In a college biology class the prof stated that it is a fact that people with Downs Syndrome have a genetically cheerier disposition. Babies adopted from Russia, raised in middle-upper-class white homes, frequently have major behavioral problems.... though I guess that could be explained by mothers drinking and getting high while pregnant, which would technically be defined as nurture.
I've observed brothers with different fathers, one white, one black, raised by the same people, neither one favored over the other, and one turn out civilized, and one drawn to a life of crime, and I'll let you choose which was which.
In my observation it takes a pretty strong mind to overcome animal urges (if it feels good, do it), and most people weren't raised that way. I guess I'm saying I think nature has more influence over most people, because most people weren't nurtured right.
As for me, I was raised in a religious environment until I was about 13, and then my parents divorced and I was pretty much left to raise myself, and I decided the only person responsible for my happiness was me. I bet you don't know many people with that level of self awareness, and can't understand why they make one bad decision after another based on what "feels good," and then have such "bad luck."
But I think I am touching on too many topics there, maybe.
tl;dr - I still feel like DNA trumps nurturing, because most people weren't raised right.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,12:17
Also we should move that conversation to a new thread, unless we are going to try to tie nature/nurture into transgender people. I think that is DNA too, btw.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,12:36
QUOTE
In my observation it takes a pretty strong mind to overcome animal urges (if it feels good, do it), and most people weren't raised that way. I guess I'm saying I think nature has more influence over most people, because most people weren't nurtured right.
Even not being nurtured properly has an effect. You seem to say:
nature > nurture, unless nurture is "positive."
That implies nurture > nature in at least one case, which is still saying something.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,12:38
(GORDON @ Jun. 18 2015,14:17)
QUOTE
Also we should move that conversation to a new thread, unless we are going to try to tie nature/nurture into transgender people. I think that is DNA too, btw.
Well split it off, Lord Admin G. Unless you want to give me privs...
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,12:43
(Malcolm @ Jun. 18 2015,15:36)
QUOTE
QUOTE
In my observation it takes a pretty strong mind to overcome animal urges (if it feels good, do it), and most people weren't raised that way. I guess I'm saying I think nature has more influence over most people, because most people weren't nurtured right.
Even not being nurtured properly has an effect. You seem to say:
nature > nurture, unless nurture is "positive."
That implies nurture > nature in at least one case, which is still saying something.
Well, that's why I said for 95% of people, DNA was 75%+ in charge. The other 5% are the ones who can function above the moods and hormones.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,12:48
(GORDON @ Jun. 18 2015,14:43)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jun. 18 2015,15:36)
QUOTE
QUOTE
In my observation it takes a pretty strong mind to overcome animal urges (if it feels good, do it), and most people weren't raised that way. I guess I'm saying I think nature has more influence over most people, because most people weren't nurtured right.
Even not being nurtured properly has an effect. You seem to say:
nature > nurture, unless nurture is "positive."
That implies nurture > nature in at least one case, which is still saying something.
Well, that's why I said for 95% of people, DNA was 75%+ in charge. The other 5% are the ones who can function above the moods and hormones.
I'm not buying that. There's not an elite few who are simply willing their way into discipline. Otherwise, the crime rate in this country wouldn't be dropping. If people really wanted to, they could organize flash mobs that would tax and tie up law enforcement to the point of gridlock. They don't. If 95% of the population couldn't rise above their base instincts for a significant portion of time, no military or police force in this world would save you.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,12:49
(Malcolm @ Jun. 18 2015,15:48)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 18 2015,14:43)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jun. 18 2015,15:36)
QUOTE
QUOTE
In my observation it takes a pretty strong mind to overcome animal urges (if it feels good, do it), and most people weren't raised that way. I guess I'm saying I think nature has more influence over most people, because most people weren't nurtured right.
Even not being nurtured properly has an effect. You seem to say:
nature > nurture, unless nurture is "positive."
That implies nurture > nature in at least one case, which is still saying something.
Well, that's why I said for 95% of people, DNA was 75%+ in charge. The other 5% are the ones who can function above the moods and hormones.
I'm not buying that. There's not an elite few who are simply willing their way into discipline. Otherwise, the crime rate in this country wouldn't be dropping. If people really wanted to, they could organize flash mobs that would tax and tie up law enforcement to the point of gridlock. They don't. If 95% of the population couldn't rise above their base instincts for a significant portion of time, no military or police force in this world would save you.
Put this exact quote in the other thread and I will respond there.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,21:06
QUOTE
I try to stay chipper about Rachel Dolezal and the rest of this stuff, but it's not really funny, is it? More and more levers of civilization appear to be in the hands of the clinically insane.
-- Mark Steyn
-- Mark Steyn
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 20 2015,15:20
Posted by Troy on Jun. 20 2015,17:09
owns
Posted by Vince on Jun. 22 2015,15:15
< The baby name trend that's on the rise. >QUOTE
Move over, Noah. You too, Emma. Though these monikers topped the Social Security list of most popular boy and girl names last year, 2015 is all about the rising popularity of unisex baby names, according to a new survey from BabyCenter.
Dear new dad. Here's a web site to help you name your son so that he doesn't grow up with a vagina like his father.
< Male Viking names >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2015,15:28
QUOTE
ÁSBJORN
ÁSGEIRR
ÁSGAUTR
ÁSGEIRR
ÁSGAUTR
Let me translate that to 10-year old speak for when your kid gets to middle school:
Assborn
Ass Guy
Ass Gator
Then there's this gem:
QUOTE
ÁSKETILL: Old Norse name composed of the elements �ss "god" and ketill "cauldron, kettle," hence "divine kettle."
Yeah. Divine kettle.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 22 2015,15:37
Doesn't matter. Still a Viking name at which point your kid simply kills the little bastard for mocking his manly mantle.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2015,16:32
(Vince @ Jun. 22 2015,18:15)
QUOTE
Dear new dad. Here's a web site to help you name your son so that he doesn't grow up with a vagina like his father.
< Male Viking names >
< Male Viking names >
There's a kid in cub scouts with a given name of "Thor."
Best Dad ever.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 22 2015,16:53
You know it's an awesome name when you don't know if he's calling over his son or his Rottweiler.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2015,07:59
(Vince @ Jun. 22 2015,18:53)
QUOTE
You know it's an awesome name when you don't know if he's calling over his son or his Rottweiler.
So naming your kid Fido or Slag would be good?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 26 2015,11:16
< Another white black woman steps forward. >
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,11:47
I read that one yesterday. What a messed up story!
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2015,07:29
TPR has, a couple times, obliquely suggested that I am paranoid about liberals out to get me. I never responded because I didn't care enough to post the things I've read over the last 20 years that, as a whole, gave me that impression, but here's a thing I found just now that pretty much sums it up.This person on MSNBC thinks people should be forced by the government to call Bruce Jenner a "she."
< http://hotair.com/archive....-jenner >
A freedom-loving liberal's favorite word is "compulsory."
Posted by Vince on Jul. 28 2015,08:46
I've always loved how liberals want the government out of their bedroom when it comes to sex and reproductive rights, but they want them in every other room of the house with a totalitarian authority.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 28 2015,10:52
(GORDON @ Jul. 28 2015,09:29)
QUOTE
This person on MSNBC thinks people should be forced by the government to call Bruce Jenner a "she."
I can easily find one crazy person that thinks Jenner should be executed for being transgendered. Do you think that means she should be afraid for her life?
If it only takes one example of crazy to make something a trend to be afraid of, then the internet has demonstrated that EVERYTHING is true and we should all be afraid of the absolute chaos that surrounds the 4-equidistant Time points of our Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth.
EDIT: Not to say that I don't think liberals have shown a tendency to want to tell people how to live, but I hardly think that a conservative would have much room to talk when it comes to that particular point.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 28 2015,11:01
QUOTE
...but I hardly think that a conservative would have much room to talk when it comes to that particular point.
Flag burning laws spring immediately to mind.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 28 2015,11:02
(TPRJones @ Jul. 28 2015,12:52)
QUOTE
I can easily find one crazy person that thinks Jenner should be executed for being transgendered.
Being interviewed as an expert on a news broadcast?
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 28 2015,11:27
These days there is no fundamental difference between a news broadcast and a blog post, no. Neither is likely to have any journalistic integrity.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2015,11:52
(TPRJones @ Jul. 28 2015,13:52)
QUOTE
Not to say that I don't think liberals have shown a tendency to want to tell people how to live, but I hardly think that a conservative would have much room to talk when it comes to that particular point.
This means absolutely nothing to me, though. I don't give a shit how people live, that is my reality. I my reality I am live-and-let-live.
These people are on TV saying I should be forced by law to say things a certain way, and by extension, change my thinking, or else. That is her directly threatening me.
So here's me, minding my own business, and there's her, saying the government should be coming after me.
Just because some different person outside of this example thinks a certain extreme way doesn't mean a thing to my perception of this event. That crazy liberal bitch thinks the government should be in the business of adjusting my attitude.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 28 2015,11:57
QUOTE
That crazy liberal bitch thinks the government should be in the business of adjusting my attitude.
That's what everyone in gov't thinks.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2015,11:58
(Malcolm @ Jul. 28 2015,14:57)
QUOTE
QUOTE
That crazy liberal bitch thinks the government should be in the business of adjusting my attitude.
That's what everyone in gov't thinks.
So I am wrong to feel "paranoid" about it?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 28 2015,11:59
(GORDON @ Jul. 28 2015,13:58)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jul. 28 2015,14:57)
QUOTE
QUOTE
That crazy liberal bitch thinks the government should be in the business of adjusting my attitude.
That's what everyone in gov't thinks.
So I am wrong to feel "paranoid" about it?
The chances of them actually going after you personally or some group you belong to is about 0%. The pronoun police are quite far down my list of people to take as a real threat.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2015,12:06
(Malcolm @ Jul. 28 2015,14:59)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jul. 28 2015,13:58)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jul. 28 2015,14:57)
QUOTE
QUOTE
That crazy liberal bitch thinks the government should be in the business of adjusting my attitude.
That's what everyone in gov't thinks.
So I am wrong to feel "paranoid" about it?
The chances of them actually going after you personally or some group you belong to is about 0%. The pronoun police are quite far down my list of people to take as a real threat.
Well now, let's see....
- "They" will sic the IRS on you if you show up on conservative group donor lists
- Every other week "they" are winning some crushing victory for equality by shutting down some family-run business that dared not verbally support progressive ideals
- "They" vetted Joe the Plumber more than the guy he criticized, up to and including running his state driver license info, blah blah blah. Too long ago to remember specifics.
- "They" are on TV straight-up claiming other people should be compelled by government to say the correct words, with impunity.
If you think that doesn't give a person pause before he shares a well-thought-out but unpopular opinion, well then I disagree, sir. Everybody has something to lose, and "they" will try to take it, if they can.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 28 2015,12:15
QUOTE
"They" will sic the IRS on you if you show up on conservative group donor lists
I don't think that's you. Even if it is, you don't contribute enough.
QUOTE
Every other week "they" are winning some crushing victory for equality by shutting down some family-run business that dared not verbally support progressive ideals
I'd say in some of those cases, the biz is clearly violating state or federal law. In others, yeah, they're just being dicks.
QUOTE
"They" vetted Joe the Plumber more than the guy he criticized, up to and including running his state driver license info, blah blah blah. Too long ago to remember specifics.
Joe made himself a target during an election year. It's not different than the mudslinging and muckraking a normal candidate faces. Difference is Joe didn't have a campaign team.
QUOTE
"They" are on TV straight-up claiming other people should be compelled by government to say the correct words, with impunity.
Sounds like the psychotic "Defense of Marriage" proposals that have been all the rage the past decade or so.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 28 2015,12:57
QUOTE
Joe made himself a target during an election year.
Let me correct you there. The guy asked a question. He didn't ask to be on TV. He was asked to ask the president a question, he did, stumped Barry, and paid the price for it.
As for vetting a fucking plumber so strictly, they also mocked Palin's experience to run a country. At the time she was governor of a successfully run state, Alaska, and more importantly was running for VICE president. Meanwhile, the guy they supported was running for president and had only been a community organizer.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 28 2015,13:01
QUOTE
He was asked to ask the president a question, he did, stumped Barry, and paid the price for it.
Yeah, with cameras rolling.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 28 2015,13:03
The MSM's cameras (or were they Barry's?).Either way, he was the one selected by them to ask a question, and his question didn't come from Karl Rove or Bush. His question was not a planned thing.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 28 2015,13:25
(Malcolm @ Jul. 28 2015,15:01)
QUOTE
Yeah, with cameras rolling.
This is the most agonizing asinine thing I've read in some time. A citizen asking a politician a question in front of a camera makes that citizen a target for the press? Holy fuck, let's shut down all town hall meeting unless your prepared to have a press crawl up your ass if you disagree with one of their anointed butt buddies.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 28 2015,13:41
Remember when that filthy dope smoking idiot asked the question of George HW Bush and Bill Clinton where he asked them to imagine that we are their children and then some stupid drug induced idiocy bullshit stupid assed question and Bush understandably didn't know what the fuck was wrong with the guy and looked bad, but Clinton gave some touchy feely answer and everyone swooned over his humanity? Remember how the press crawled up that dopers ass and exposed all his drug related arrests and how his girlfriends complained of his impotence and erectile dysfunction?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 28 2015,14:40
(Vince @ Jul. 28 2015,15:25)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jul. 28 2015,15:01)
QUOTE
Yeah, with cameras rolling.
This is the most agonizing asinine thing I've read in some time. A citizen asking a politician a question in front of a camera makes that citizen a target for the press? Holy fuck, let's shut down all town hall meeting unless your prepared to have a press crawl up your ass if you disagree with one of their anointed butt buddies.
Politics isn't about rights or freedom or any of that idealistic rhetoric your civics class may have drilled in to you. It's about the assholes up top getting more money and power, which means it's about lies and meaningless sophistry. There are certain members of the political world in this country that may as well be aristocrats.
Now, back to Joe. Free speech cuts both ways. You can try to make someone look bad and embarrass them on camera. Just like that guy's bajillion dollar campaign war machine can spare a turret or two to blow a sitting duck out of the water. Joe didn't pay attention to my first paragraph. He's living in the past, as are many voters.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 28 2015,17:25
(GORDON @ Jul. 28 2015,13:52)
QUOTE
This means absolutely nothing to me, though. I don't give a shit how people live, that is my reality.
Then you aren't a conservative in the usual sense. Which is good, IMO. The whole legislating morality thing is just an awful idea.
QUOTE
These people are on TV saying I should be forced by law to say things a certain way, and by extension, change my thinking, or else. That is her directly threatening me.
If you are threatened by anything some crazy bitch says on TV then you are going to have a hard life. I recommend you stop watching TV. You certainly aren't going to get the awful 24 hour news networks to stop letting crazy people spew bullshit to fill time.
QUOTE
A citizen asking a politician a question in front of a camera makes that citizen a target for the press?
Given the complete lack of any professionalism or journalism left on TV, yes, this is what they do to get viewers. Is it right? No, I don't think so. But it's not going to stop. Because they aren't "the press" anymore, they're just half-assed video bloggers with a budget.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2015,17:36
(TPRJones @ Jul. 28 2015,20:25)
QUOTE
QUOTE
These people are on TV saying I should be forced by law to say things a certain way, and by extension, change my thinking, or else. That is her directly threatening me.
If you are threatened by anything some crazy bitch says on TV then you are going to have a hard life. I recommend you stop watching TV. You certainly aren't going to get the awful 24 hour news networks to stop letting crazy people spew bullshit to fill time.
I don't know if you are suggesting that she is the only person with that opinion, or if you are saying that having a medium with which to communicate your ideas to hundreds of thousands (Maybe? MSNBC...) of people is useless and doesn't influence anyone, or both. I disagree with both things, though. I disagree with your blowoff, I think this is a "all evil needs to do to win is for good people to do nothing" situation. Someone needs to publicly laugh in that bitch's face to take away whatever mojo got her on TV in the first place.
But at the same time, we're in the era when you can be fucked over by the mob if the wrong person hears your opinion, so I'll just shut the fuck up about it before she decides to sic the FCC on me for having THAT incorrect opinion.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 28 2015,17:46
QUOTE
with which to communicate your ideas to hundreds of thousands (Maybe? MSNBC...)
Heh. No way do they get those kind of numbers anymore. More people watch SourceFed on YouTube for news every day than watch any of the 24-hour networks, at least that was so about a year ago when I checked into the reported statistics. At the time the television news program with the highest viewership was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (which was still outpaced by SourceFed's viewership). That goes to show how seriously people take the so-called "news".
TV news is only for old people and waiting rooms anymore.
QUOTE
Someone needs to publicly laugh in that bitch's face to take away whatever mojo got her on TV in the first place.
Feel free. But if you are going to make a crusade out of it I still don't see why you prioritize what this one crazy bitch said over the dozens of other equally crazy bullshit statements pundits make on all the 24-hour news channel on a daily basis. Not to mention the crazy bullshit people say on the internet, some of which gets more viewers than those TV channels.
QUOTE
But at the same time, we're in the era when you can be fucked over by the mob if the wrong person hears your opinion, so I'll just shut the fuck up about it before she decides to sic the FCC on me for having THAT incorrect opinion.
The FCC doesn't regulate websites so there is no danger of that happening. If what you say pisses off enough people for them to start saying things in response that is just part of how Freedom of Speech works. Crazy bitches get to say crazy bitch things. All because you don't like what they say doesn't mean the law should stop them from saying it. Just like the law won't stop you from responding. Respond away.
Unless ... how exactly do you define being "fucked over" by the mob? Are you envisioning actual physical violence?
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 26 2015,05:55
< People pissed about Caitlyn Halloween costume. >Because the push for equality is complete bullshit.
It's only ok to mock straight white men. Making fun of anyone else makes you a racist, misogynist, bigoted pig.
< And nobody is watching her show. >
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 26 2015,06:39
One picture of a guy in a dress is brave, the other one is evil.How long until they track down the model in the costume?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 01 2015,12:25
QUOTE
She officially says that she "identifies as black".
< Here's > what someone with an insane body disorder looks like.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 02 2015,11:07
< Dolezal > finally does for herself what "< In Living Color >" did for Wacko Jacko years ago.
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 02 2015,11:37
Remember the good old days when they'd lock these people up for their and our protection instead of pretending they're normal?
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 03 2015,11:41
QUOTE
...when they'd lock these people up for their and our protection...
Okay, I can understand not agreeing with being tolerant and giving people the freedom to define themselves in whatever way makes them happy even if I think it's a bit of a dick stance. But I fail to see why they could possibly need to be locked up; are you implying that they are actively harming people with their insanity? Like every time Caitlyn uses that name someone somewhere suffers physical damage?
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2015,12:39
(TPRJones @ Nov. 03 2015,14:41)
QUOTE
QUOTE
...when they'd lock these people up for their and our protection...
Okay, I can understand not agreeing with being tolerant and giving people the freedom to define themselves in whatever way makes them happy even if I think it's a bit of a dick stance. But I fail to see why they could possibly need to be locked up; are you implying that they are actively harming people with their insanity? Like every time Caitlyn uses that name someone somewhere suffers physical damage?
< Verbal virus. >
Posted by Leisher on Nov. 18 2015,04:48
< Rose McGowan slams Jenner's "Woman of the Year" speech. >QUOTE
We are more than deciding what to wear. We are more than the stereotypes foisted upon us by people like you. You're a woman now? Well fucking learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege. Woman of the year? No, not until you wake up and join the fight. Being a woman comes with a lot of baggage. The weight of unequal history. You'd do well to learn it. You'd do well to wake up. Woman of the year? Not by along fucking shot.
“Let me amend this by saying I'm happy for what she's doing visibility wise for the trans community, and I'm happy she's living her truth, but comments like hers have consequences for other women. How we are perceived, what our values are, and leads to more stereotyping. If you know you are going to be speaking to media About being a woman, maybe come to understand our struggles.”
“Let me amend this by saying I'm happy for what she's doing visibility wise for the trans community, and I'm happy she's living her truth, but comments like hers have consequences for other women. How we are perceived, what our values are, and leads to more stereotyping. If you know you are going to be speaking to media About being a woman, maybe come to understand our struggles.”
So does anyone want to go on Facebook and point out that Caitlyn Jenner winning all these "Woman of the Year" awards is proof men are better at everything, even being a woman?
But seriously, if I was a woman I'd be fucking pissed too. Aside from coming out as transgender, what exactly has Caitlyn done to make her "Woman of the Year"?
Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 18 2015,06:26
Nothing. But these awards are always bullshit, anyway.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 12 2016,10:23
< Gervais > booed at Golden Globes for Jenner joke.
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 12 2016,11:46
His comments are hilarious. Where's the problem?
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 12 2016,11:48
(Leisher @ Jan. 12 2016,14:46)
QUOTE
His comments are hilarious. Where's the problem?
He dares to not fawn over the Stunning and Brave.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 12 2016,12:37
(Malcolm @ Jan. 12 2016,13:23)
QUOTE
< Gervais > booed at Golden Globes for Jenner joke.
He wasn't booed. Watch the video, people laughed.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 12 2016,12:43
Mayhaps they're referring the social media backlash.
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 12 2016,20:11
Or they're just bad at reporting news.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 01 2016,12:21
If this is true, the olympics just went full retard.< http://thefederalist.com/2016....o-women >
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 01 2016,12:27
Says they've been doing that since '04.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 01 2016,12:32
They allowed full-postop trannies since 2004. Now you just need the hormone treatment and to identify as female.... since no femme to male trannies would ever qualify against men.Genetic women are not going to like this.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 01 2016,12:54
Eh, they'll have to start measuring things more to determine the class under which someone can compete. Much like boxing has weight categories, you might see Olympic sports start to measure fat, muscle, bone, stamina, etc.Additionally, the MMA fighter they talk about in there is 5-1. That's hardly enough of a sample size to call her unfairly dominant.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 01 2016,13:04
(Malcolm @ Feb. 01 2016,15:54)
QUOTE
Eh, they'll have to start measuring things more to determine the class under which someone can compete. Much like boxing has weight categories, you might see Olympic sports start to measure fat, muscle, bone, stamina, etc.
Like I said, they went full retard.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 01 2016,13:52
(GORDON @ Feb. 01 2016,15:04)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Feb. 01 2016,15:54)
QUOTE
Eh, they'll have to start measuring things more to determine the class under which someone can compete. Much like boxing has weight categories, you might see Olympic sports start to measure fat, muscle, bone, stamina, etc.
Like I said, they went full retard.
That sounds the opposite of retarded. It would go from a very rough measurement (gender) to very targeted ones. I guess until those classifications come along, it is kind of retarded.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 01 2016,13:54
Retarded.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 01 2016,13:56
(GORDON @ Feb. 01 2016,15:54)
QUOTE
Retarded.
So you think they should remove weight classes from men's boxing and let it be a free for all because everyone's a dude?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 01 2016,15:23
Yeah that is exactly the next logical step.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 01 2016,18:28
Just means they have to come up with a better definition of "fair competition" that wasn't needed a century ago. They have to adapt. My heart bleeds.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 01 2016,18:41
(GORDON @ Feb. 01 2016,15:54)
QUOTE
Retarded.
Agreed.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,10:25
I'm with Gordo here and so are most female professional athletes. It's unfair. I don't give a fuck what you identify as, Mother Nature made you what you are and men are genetically superior to women. It's completely unfair in every way.
If my wife and I just choose to identify as non-mammals it certainly as fuck doesn't make us non-mammals. Sure, people around us can pretend we're not mammals, but they're just pretending.
Cut a guy's cock and balls off and you do nothing to change all the other characteristics and features nature gives men.
A person could argue all day about how society needs to change to fit these people in, and I say bullshit. Like me and everyone else I know, these people have a place in society, but that certainly doesn't mean they deserve EVERY place in society. I don't, so why do they?
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2016,10:34
QUOTE
Mother Nature made you what you are and men are genetically superior to women. It's completely unfair in every way.
Awesome. Let's put some numbers to those claims and try to base some rules around them versus "men over here, women over there," which is no longer adequate. I want to see hard data on transgendered athletes versus men and women.
QUOTE
Cut a guy's cock and balls off and you do nothing to change all the other characteristics and features nature gives men.
If we were just talking about someone missing some organs, then I'd give you that point.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2016,10:47
(Malcolm @ Feb. 02 2016,12:34)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Cut a guy's cock and balls off and you do nothing to change all the other characteristics and features nature gives men.
If we were just talking about someone missing some organs, then I'd give you that point.
Besides, that cut is nothing compared to the effects of stopping testosterone and pumping in estrogen instead. After a few months there are huge physical and mental changes.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,10:55
QUOTE
Awesome. Let's put some numbers to those claims and try to base some rules around them versus "men over here, women over there," which is no longer adequate.
So if Terry Crews wakes up tomorrow and decides he's a woman, we need to let him fight Rhonda Rousey and that's a fair fight because he thinks he's a woman?
I think I'm the supreme lord of the universe, yet here you are going against my wishes and talking back to me.
I understand the argument you're trying to stand on, and while I'm sure you'll find exceptions, generally speaking, you're wrong. Men are the stronger sex. We're faster, stronger, can jump higher, etc. No amount of liberal "correct thinking" can make that not reality.
If I stuck a gun to your temple right now and told you to name a woman over 50 years old to represent you in a decathlon to determine if you live or die, who are naming? Hillary Clinton?
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2016,11:03
QUOTE
So if Terry Crews wakes up tomorrow and decides he's a woman, we need to let him fight Rhonda Rousey and that's a fair fight because he thinks he's a woman?
I think I'm the supreme lord of the universe, yet here you are going against my wishes and talking back to me.
I think I'm the supreme lord of the universe, yet here you are going against my wishes and talking back to me.
If Terry goes through some operations and hormone therapy...
QUOTE
Men are the stronger sex. We're faster, stronger, can jump higher, etc. No amount of liberal "correct thinking" can make that not reality.
This isn't about being "correct." It's about grouping individuals based on their athletic ability to promote fair sports. Instead of two extremely broad categories, now someone's going to have to do work and use physical metrics instead of what sex organs they were born with. As I said before, bring on the numbers.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 02 2016,11:14
(Malcolm @ Feb. 02 2016,14:03)
QUOTE
Instead of two extremely broad categories, now someone's going to have to do work and use physical metrics instead of what sex organs they were born with. As I said before, bring on the numbers.
Fuck it, make each unique string of DNA its own category, because that's the only way to be fair. Everybody gets a gold medal.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2016,11:28
As much as I care about the Olympics, they can go ahead and do that.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,11:45
QUOTE
If Terry goes through some operations and hormone therapy...
He'd still have a ridiculous advantage...sorry, she.
QUOTE
This isn't about being "correct." It's about grouping individuals based on their athletic ability to promote fair sports. Instead of two extremely broad categories, now someone's going to have to do work and use physical metrics instead of what sex organs they were born with. As I said before, bring on the numbers.
Oh good. I found it rather difficult to separate people as men and women.
I can't wait to watch the PGA and LPGA and TPGA and People in Transition PGA and Men who used to be Women PGA and Women who used to be Men PGA and This guy here thinks he's a couch PGA, etc.
That's good business. Ratings will be through the roof in our perfect utopian society where our comedy is about nothingness until someone comes along who's offended by even that.
QUOTE
As much as I care about the Olympics, they can go ahead and do that.
"I"
And that's the problem. We're trying to shoehorn society into individuals rather than letting the individuals mold into our society.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2016,12:19
QUOTE
He'd still have a ridiculous advantage...sorry, she.
Fine. Measure those advantages and put numerical values on them.
QUOTE
I found it rather difficult to separate people as men and women.
We're talking about athletics, which is only supposed to care about potential, performance, and results.
QUOTE
We're trying to shoehorn society into individuals rather than letting the individuals mold into our society.
That's not a problem. Individuals making society adjust to them is how society advances.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 02 2016,12:23
(Malcolm @ Feb. 02 2016,15:19)
QUOTE
QUOTE
He'd still have a ridiculous advantage...sorry, she.
Fine. Measure those advantages and put numerical values on them.
ok brb getting my calipers
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,12:31
QUOTE
Fine. Measure those advantages and put numerical values on them.
You do it.
QUOTE
We're talking about athletics, which is only supposed to care about potential, performance, and results.
Point? You're saying a former male athlete is equal to a born female athlete?
Did you want to answer my question from earlier now?
QUOTE
That's not a problem. Individuals making society adjust to them is how society advances.
If that's true, then < you're a massive hypocrite. >
To save you though, you've oversimplified the argument. It's not about an individual making society adjust to them. It's about an individual helping a group of people adjust to society and/or make society adjust to that group. And it does go both ways or am I missing the point of political correctness and public shaming?
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2016,12:36
(Leisher @ Feb. 02 2016,12:55)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Awesome. Let's put some numbers to those claims and try to base some rules around them versus "men over here, women over there," which is no longer adequate.
So if Terry Crews wakes up tomorrow and decides he's a woman, we need to let him fight Rhonda Rousey and that's a fair fight because he thinks he's a woman?
Not unless Terry Crews loses enough mass to be in her weight class. And given his height I think that would probably kill him. Unless height classes are also part of the categories, I guess.
How does boxing do it? They have different segments so that not all winning boxers are the same, right?
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2016,12:39
(Leisher @ Feb. 02 2016,14:31)
QUOTE
And it does go both ways or am I missing the point of political correctness and public shaming?
Society adjusting to how people live is a normal pattern of growth. Political correctness and public shaming are a cancerous pattern of growth.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,12:39
(TPRJones @ Feb. 02 2016,15:36)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Feb. 02 2016,12:55)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Awesome. Let's put some numbers to those claims and try to base some rules around them versus "men over here, women over there," which is no longer adequate.
So if Terry Crews wakes up tomorrow and decides he's a woman, we need to let him fight Rhonda Rousey and that's a fair fight because he thinks he's a woman?
Not unless Terry Crews loses enough mass to be in her weight class. And given his height I think that would probably kill him.
Plus, he'd be an incredibly ugly woman.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2016,12:43
Personally I've always considered "fair" to be a stupid concept in these sorts of things. Where to draw the line for "fair" is completely arbitrary. Why is it "fair" to have the genders be two separate groups, but the availability of training being completely different between athletes is not a concern? Why is it "fair" that some athletes have access to better equipment than others? Really making it "fair" is not only impossible, it's counter to the nature of competition in general.I say damn the rules and let it be a chaotic free-for-all to see who is the best man/woman doing the particular sport thing.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,13:01
(TPRJones @ Feb. 02 2016,15:39)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Feb. 02 2016,14:31)
QUOTE
And it does go both ways or am I missing the point of political correctness and public shaming?
Society adjusting to how people live is a normal pattern of growth. Political correctness and public shaming are a cancerous pattern of growth.
I agree with society adjusting to how people live being normal.
Society bending to the will of an individual usually ends with trials at the Hague.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 02 2016,13:03
(TPRJones @ Feb. 02 2016,15:43)
QUOTE
Personally I've always considered "fair" to be a stupid concept in these sorts of things. Where to draw the line for "fair" is completely arbitrary. Why is it "fair" to have the genders be two separate groups, but the availability of training being completely different between athletes is not a concern? Why is it "fair" that some athletes have access to better equipment than others? Really making it "fair" is not only impossible, it's counter to the nature of competition in general.
I say damn the rules and let it be a chaotic free-for-all to see who is the best man/woman doing the particular sport thing.
I say damn the rules and let it be a chaotic free-for-all to see who is the best man/woman doing the particular sport thing.
Why do you hate women? Minorities? Handicapped people? And every other group of people who have demanded a "fair" chance?
In competitions, I see the value in creating divisions. Otherwise, why can't we put Mike Tyson in the ring with a 10 year old?
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2016,13:46
QUOTE
Otherwise, why can't we put Mike Tyson in the ring with a 10 year old?
Yes, why not?
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2016,13:51
QUOTE
You're saying a former male athlete is equal to a born female athlete?
No. I'm saying there are more than two categories.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 02 2016,13:54
QUOTE
If that's true, then you're a massive hypocrite.
I didn't say adjustment was good. I'm on the side of the individual (Cleese) in that article, anyhow. Being overly PC is not what I'd define as "advancement" either. Straight up cutting off communication or knowledge about something is goddamn near universally stupid and represents a step backwards.
QUOTE
Otherwise, why can't we put Mike Tyson in the ring with a 10 year old?
I'd order that on PPV. I don't think Mike would be proving much, though. Better than Mayweather and Manny.
QUOTE
Political correctness and public shaming are a cancerous pattern of growth.
The first, sure. The second ... nah, I think shaming has a place. What's WikiLeaks if not a way to shame the governments of the world by serving up proof of their dishonesty?
QUOTE
Society bending to the will of an individual usually ends with trials at the Hague.
Or A/C current, the automobile, powered flight, the theory of evolution, quantum physics, germ theory, the Magna Carta, the theory of direct democracy, the world wide web, etc. All shit that changed the world because a few people had to tell the rest of the population how fucked up their thinking was and clue them in to a better way to do things.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 02 2016,13:57
DEPENDS ON THE BONE THICKNESS AND STUFF OF THE 10YO
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 02 2016,16:15
QUOTE
What's WikiLeaks if not a way to shame the governments of the world by serving up proof of their dishonesty?
True, but I do think the internet mobs tend to push too far on the public shaming when it happens. But that's pretty much unavoidable given the asynchronous nature of the communications; each individual just does their own small bit of shaming but it stretches out over a long period of time into a never ending torment due to new people learning about it and jumping on as time goes by. It would be nice if people would take a moment to see if there's been enough shaming already before piling on.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 17 2016,10:23
< "Man" enter women's locker room. >Everyone's upset.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 17 2016,14:07
I'm almost certain that's some anti-trans guy that's trying to stir up shit with his idiocy.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2016,14:21
(TPRJones @ Feb. 17 2016,17:07)
QUOTE
I'm almost certain that's some anti-trans guy that's trying to stir up shit with his idiocy.
What does it matter? The law's the law, and if the law says a dude can use the ladies' room because he is feeling feminine that day, then fuck everyone elses feelings about it.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 17 2016,14:28
(GORDON @ Feb. 17 2016,16:21)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Feb. 17 2016,17:07)
QUOTE
I'm almost certain that's some anti-trans guy that's trying to stir up shit with his idiocy.
What does it matter? The law's the law, and if the law says a dude can use the ladies' room because he is feeling feminine that day, then fuck everyone elses feelings about it.
QUOTE
We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity
That's not "feeling feminine that day."
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2016,14:31
The hell it isn't.Or do we need to require people to start carrying their "papers" around with them, identifying themselves to all who challenge them?
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 17 2016,14:47
(GORDON @ Feb. 17 2016,16:31)
QUOTE
The hell it isn't.
I maintain that being transgender isn't anywhere close to the equivalent of "feeling feminine that day."
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2016,15:42
And until there is some way to know exactly who is what, dudes will be using the ladies room.I recommend tattoos on their arms. It has a proven track record of success.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 17 2016,15:44
(Malcolm @ Feb. 17 2016,17:47)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Feb. 17 2016,16:31)
QUOTE
The hell it isn't.
I maintain that being transgender isn't anywhere close to the equivalent of "feeling feminine that day."
How DARE YOU deny someone their feelings.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 17 2016,16:34
So at what point do y'all think it would be acceptable to switch bathrooms? After the outward appearance has changed to the other sex? After full bottom surgery so there's no identifiable physical differences? Or never ever?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 17 2016,16:48
(TPRJones @ Feb. 17 2016,19:34)
QUOTE
So at what point do y'all think it would be acceptable to switch bathrooms? After the outward appearance has changed to the other sex? After full bottom surgery so there's no identifiable physical differences? Or never ever?
Let me hear your opinion while I contemplate that.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 17 2016,16:57
I think somewhere around the outward appearance stage. Not exactly sure how far into that stage would be best. Maybe it's enough to shave any beard and put on a dress and makeup to be considered a good-faith establishment of beginning to transition (for MTF of course, with appropriate inverse for FTM). Maybe it's better to require that hormone replacement therapy has begun (because that comes with some paperwork that can be used as backup should there be any accusations). But somewhere in that range.Alternate solution 1: Require anyone transitioning to use the men's room (regardless of MTF or FTM) until such time as an MTF has bottom surgery, but this solution includes the proposition that women need more protection than men which may not be something everyone wants to agree with. I don't like this one much, but it's an option.
Alternate solution 2: Stop having separate facilities altogether and everyone just grow up and stop freaking out about sex and gender issues. This one is admittedly not likely for at least another generation or two.
Honestly just about anything would be better than the "assigned at birth is forever" crap.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2016,05:05
Would you say it is an honest assessment that extraordinary measures are being considered to make less than 1% of the population feel more comfortable at the expense of making more than 50% of the population uncomfortable? I mean, I get that you are saying that people just need to get over it, but I don't think that's realistic, because no argument is more persuasive than "It's just your body you stupid idiots, so stop being such bigots."
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2016,05:06
Vassar students pushing for "all gender" shitters.< http://legalinsurrection.com/2016....-gender >
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 19 2016,06:09
(GORDON @ Feb. 19 2016,08:06)
QUOTE
Vassar students pushing for "all gender" shitters.
< http://legalinsurrection.com/2016....-gender >
< http://legalinsurrection.com/2016....-gender >
I visited a friend of mine at Wesleyan University back in the early 90s. The dorm, and the bathrooms/showers were co-ed.
I was a little surprised to be pissing at a urinal when a bunch of women walked in.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 19 2016,07:12
QUOTE
Would you say it is an honest assessment that extraordinary measures are being considered to make less than 1% of the population feel more comfortable at the expense of making more than 50% of the population uncomfortable?
I would disagree with your percentages, and I don't think any of these measures are extraordinary. I think that both sides generally make too much of a big deal about this. However, there is the added wrinkle that sometimes - rarely, but it does happen - a group of people on one side will beat and/or kill one on the other side, and I'm not referring to roving gangs of transexuals here. All in all transexuals have more reason to be afraid of the people that hate them than the inverse.
But ultimately for me it comes down to personal freedoms. I believe very strongly that the only time a personal freedom should be limited is when it causes direct and measurable harm to another citizen. And letting transexuals piss in the bathroom of their chosen gender causes no harm to anyone, regardless of what some crazy people think about it.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2016,11:41
(TPRJones @ Feb. 19 2016,10:12)
QUOTE
And letting transexuals piss in the bathroom of their chosen gender causes no harm to anyone, regardless of what some crazy people think about it.
I submit there are parents of little girls who might object to their girls walking into a restroom and seeing a guy with a massive hog hiking up his dress and taking a piss. I say there could be harm, there, not only in the exposure, but because one does not know the mental state of said guy in dress. Urinals in the ladies room? Of course, if we are going to let men in dresses piss in there. Why wouldn't there be urinals?
On a related note, I think some of these huge fat guys in thongs photographed on "People of Walmart.com" should be fucking beaten, because I think they are there exclusively to expose themselves to kids.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 19 2016,13:08
QUOTE
I submit there are parents of little girls who might object to their girls walking into a restroom and seeing a guy with a massive hog hiking up his dress and taking a piss.
I submit that this just isn't going to happen for a couple of reasons. 1) the ladies room has stalls with doors that provide a modicum of privacy, and 2) transgenders that care enough about their identity to be using that bathroom in the first place aren't proud of their massive hogs, they'd rather hide them away and not let anyone see them.
If some dude in a dress is showing off his massive hog in the ladies room I can guarantee you that dude is not a trangender. And he should be appropriately punished in pretty much the same exact way you'd punish some woman that's goes flapping her twat around at children in the bathroom.
QUOTE
Why wouldn't there be urinals?
Because the people going in there either can't pee standing up or are working to make it so that they can't.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2016,13:29
Oh, I didn't realize that only the best, balanced, most sane, and honorable people were transgendered, and there was no way for pervs to game all the new rules. I'm good, then.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 19 2016,13:34
There's a lot of utopian thinking that goes along with making everything "equal".
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 19 2016,14:26
(Leisher @ Feb. 19 2016,15:34)
QUOTE
There's a lot of utopian thinking that goes along with making everything "equal".
I wouldn't call it utopian. I'd call it skeptical. It's that sort of thinking that raised up societies from being followers of god- and warrior-kings.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 19 2016,17:03
QUOTE
Oh, I didn't realize that only the best, balanced, most sane, and honorable people were transgendered, and there was no way for pervs to game all the new rules. I'm good, then.
Hardly. There are crazy people all over the place. But whatever the rules I'm pretty sure waving your genitals at a child is going to get anyone in trouble, as it should. I just fail to see how it being someone who is transgendered makes it any better or worse than someone who is not. The laws that protect young girls from old lady twat will still apply to protecting them from young tranny dick (and all vice-versa for the men's room).
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 19 2016,19:21
(GORDON @ Feb. 19 2016,15:29)
QUOTE
Oh, I didn't realize that only the best, balanced, most sane, and honorable people were transgendered, and there was no way for pervs to game all the new rules. I'm good, then.
I didn't realize a transgender was more likely to be a perv or pedo than any other straight, gay, or bi man or woman.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 19 2016,20:42
(Malcolm @ Feb. 19 2016,22:21)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Feb. 19 2016,15:29)
QUOTE
Oh, I didn't realize that only the best, balanced, most sane, and honorable people were transgendered, and there was no way for pervs to game all the new rules. I'm good, then.
I didn't realize a transgender was more likely to be a perv or pedo than any other straight, gay, or bi man or woman.
Then you should pay better attention. "Gender Identity Disorder" is an actual thing.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 20 2016,08:45
Let's say I grant that. Your wanting to switch up your gender doesn't make you any more likely to be a sexual predator than someone else.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2016,07:09
(TPRJones @ Feb. 19 2016,10:12)
QUOTE
And letting transexuals piss in the bathroom of their chosen gender causes no harm to anyone, regardless of what some crazy people think about it.
One of those crazy people is this chick rape survivor.
< http://thefederalist.com/2015....throoms >
Telling people with a hangup over this to "just get over it" isn't going to work. Regular people want to hear a compelling reason why everyone else needs to cater to the 1% on a sensitive issue. So far there isn't really one, and there's going to be resentment when it is forced upon them, anyway.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2016,20:51
QUOTE
Regular people want to hear a compelling reason why everyone else needs to cater to the 1% on a sensitive issue.
< Like this >?
QUOTE
A new study has found that if young transgender children are allowed to live freely with their true gender then they are as psychologically well as other children.
I'm still waiting for a refutation of...
QUOTE
Your wanting to switch up your gender doesn't make you any more likely to be a sexual predator than someone else.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2016,21:18
"Young transgender children." Neat, you managed to find a demographic smaller than the 1% from my example. You actually inspired me to use google, my 1% was optimistic. < Looks like .3% of the adult population is transgender. > I couldn't find kid statistics, so I assume that number is smaller, or at best, the same, assuming one doesn't "grow out of it."
So, that being said, there's still no compelling reason that the majority of people are going to want to cater to .3% and have penises in the ladies room no matter how loudly you call them crazy, or tell them to get over it. "Think of the children" has been said time and again on this forum to not be a good argument.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 28 2016,09:45
You just said to find a reason. I didn't say I bought into it. Until the other statement I made above is proven false, I'm not going to prohibit them from pissing where they want because the parts that piss look different.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 28 2016,10:55
Ok. So you're sorted, then, Just a couple hundred million more people to convince.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 28 2016,11:33
If you want to bust out Gender Identity Disorder, then I claim this country < already caters to schizos and their disorders and beliefs propping them up >. Speaking of GID...QUOTE
In December 2002, the British Lord Chancellor's office published a Government Policy Concerning Transsexual People document that categorically states, "What transsexualism is not ... It is not a mental illness."
But I guess they're < fringists, those wacky out-there, liberal British >. The French came to the same conclusion seven years later. Then there's < this dude >, from crackpot Concordia ...QUOTE
Concordia was ranked among Canada's 20 most reputable universities overall in the 2016 Maclean's university rankings. The university is ranked 16th in Canada and 411th worldwide by QS World University Rankings and is featured in the 2015 Times Higher Education ranking of the top 100 universities worldwide under 50 years old. The university's John Molson School of Business is consistently ranked within the top ten Canadian business schools, and within the top 100 worldwide. Moreover, Concordia was ranked 7th among Canadian and 229th among world universities in the International Professional Classification of Higher Education Institutions, a worldwide ranking compiled by the École des Mines de Paris that uses as its sole criterion the number of graduates occupying the rank of Chief Executive Officer at Fortune 500 companies.
... that says the entire diagnosis is bullshit. The shrinks who disagreed with him have this awesome counterpoint...
QUOTE
He rejected the view he ascribed to Hill that “everything is socially determined” and that straying far from those expectations is an acceptable variance of human behavior.
Fuck you. Who quantifies acceptability and distance in that statement? Once upon a time, taking your god's name in vain or working on a holy day was enough to get you killed. Fortunately, someone strayed the fuck away from that goddamn susperstition.
QUOTE
He also rejected Hill’s contention that “gender is not dichotomous,” with everyone somewhere between the two poles. All humans are “biologically one or the other” sex, Spitzer stated, and cultures view gender as a “dichotomy.”
That shows < ignorance of basic biology >, which is probably why he went into psych.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 15 2016,11:42
< The fuck >?QUOTE
"I would never, ever ever vote for Hillary. We're done—if Hillary becomes president, the country is over," she said adamantly on the show.
When Cayne defended Clinton's extensive political resume, Jenner continuously begged the question, "What has she done?"
"She's a f--king liar!" Jenner screamed. "She's a political hack. That's all she is. She's done nothing."
When Cayne defended Clinton's extensive political resume, Jenner continuously begged the question, "What has she done?"
"She's a f--king liar!" Jenner screamed. "She's a political hack. That's all she is. She's done nothing."
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 15 2016,12:39
Wow. Several liberals' minds probably exploded when they read that.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 24 2016,16:58
< Trans people who are supported, have good mental health >QUOTE
“The thinking has always been that kids who are not acting gender-stereotypically are basically destined to have mental health problems,” said Olson, a UW assistant professor of psychology. “In our study, that’s not the case.”
Co-author Katie McLaughlin, a UW assistant professor of psychology, called the findings “incredibly promising.”
“They suggest that mental health problems are not inevitable in this group, and that family support might buffer these children from the onset of mental health problems so commonly observed in transgender people,” she said.
Co-author Katie McLaughlin, a UW assistant professor of psychology, called the findings “incredibly promising.”
“They suggest that mental health problems are not inevitable in this group, and that family support might buffer these children from the onset of mental health problems so commonly observed in transgender people,” she said.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 24 2016,21:46
So, not treating someone like shit might be better for their mental health? Huh, go figure.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2016,07:10
(TPRJones @ Mar. 24 2016,23:46)
QUOTE
So, not treating someone like shit might be better for their mental health? Huh, go figure.
These are mostly clueless academics. That's a pretty big discovery for some of them.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2016,07:15
Hey Leisher, I heard the school system your girls go to is having some issue with transgender bathrooms. Fill us in on the facts and share your thoughts.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 08 2016,10:18
First I've heard of it. I went and looked it up and there's no details. However, I assume it has to occur at the high school, which offers two gender neutral bathrooms. So I'm not sure why there would be a controversy unless someone is REALLY adamant about using a bathroom that their genitals aren't supposed to be in.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2016,10:30
My wife saw it posted on facebook by one of the local TV stations.Here it is, under federal investigation for Title IX violations, and the schools aren't letting the parents/taxpayers know. Transparency!
< http://www.13abc.com/home....81.html >
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 08 2016,12:23
Let me know if you get any details and I will do the same.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 08 2016,12:28
The video said a student complained, in spite of there being unisex restrooms, he or she wanted to use... as you put it.. the one the genitals didn't belong in.I dunno.
My local schools had one or two unisex restrooms back in the 70's and 80's, but I never stopped to wonder why.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 08 2016,13:00
QUOTE
The video said a student complained, in spite of their being unisex restrooms, he or she wanted to use... as you put it.. the one the genitals didn't belong in.
This is the part that bugs me.
I'm probably looking at it completely wrong, but why is his or her rights of higher priority or value than the kids who use the bathroom he or she wants to use? Why can't he or she simply choose the gender neutral one?
Let's say it's a guy identifying as a girl. You know who doesn't need a male figure, even if he calls himself Karla, standing around judging them when they're vulnerable? Teenage girls.
And honestly, how long before it's a federal crime to lie about your sexual identity? Because we all know this is going to eventually get abused, if it hasn't already.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 08 2016,14:15
QUOTE
Let's say it's a guy identifying as a girl. You know who doesn't need a male figure, even if he calls himself Karla, standing around judging them when they're vulnerable? Teenage girls.
Statistically, the students of the school are the least likely to be offended by Karla going into the girls room with her friends just like any other girl in the school would. It's likely only the parents that care.
As to fairness, there's various things that could be a problem that should be considered. One is that we don't know the nature of the unisex bathrooms and how they are being used at the school. Perhaps they suck. Or for another complication, the last thing Karla needs is to be in the bathroom doing girl things and worrying about some male asshole bullies coming in to pick on her while she's trying to pee. And of course there's the issue that the concept of "separate but equal" doesn't have very good standing in our legal system after the end of Jim Crow.
It's not simple.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2016,10:27
< Guess who's got a new book on racial identity >?