GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender & other LGBTQ Americans

[finesse]

I couldn't possibly care less what Elon thinks, nor will he ever be aware of, much impacted by, my opininion.

Prior to the public rise in transgenderism, did you ever question the necessity of separating boys and girls, athletically, after a certain age?

Show me statistics of the rise in transgenderism. Replace it with the recognition that it has always existed. Hell, they were frequently sacred in Native American cultures and have existed throughout recorded history.

In many Native American cultures, transgender and non-binary individuals have traditionally held a unique and revered status, often recognized as "Two-Spirit". This term, widely used by Indigenous communities, encompasses diverse gender identities and sexual orientations, recognizing that individuals can embody both masculine and feminine qualities. Two-Spirit individuals often served as spiritual leaders, healers, and ceremonial leaders within their communities.

No, I didn't question the necessity. I had a benighted Christian upbringing like you apparently did. Is it logical? Yes, but not necessary. As I've pointed out before, I have no problem with men's, women's and open events with the real champions being the open winners. Do I think that in the purely physical game that they will mostly be male? Yeah, but so what?

Why don't you save some feeling for the hungry, sick, lame and otherwise afflicted rather than the temporary disappointment of a minor character in a minor athletic contest of almost no real importance IRL?

 

[finesse]

On a side note, I don't believe in the existence of any gods, including the God of Abraham, so quoting the Bible, if your intention was to influence my opinion, will be as effective as quoting Harry Potter or the Iliad.

Then you have fuck all reason to be concerned about it at all. I had allowed for you to have religious delusions but you're just a nosy PITA interfering in things of absolutely no concern of yours. What a jerk you are. What business is what anybody does with their body any of yours?

 

[dukeman92]

Why don't you save some feeling for the hungry, sick, lame and otherwise afflicted rather than the temporary disappointment of a minor character in a minor athletic contest of almost no real importance IRL?

Trumpers are OBSESSED with this.

 

[akillesheel]

Prior to the public rise in transgenderism, did you ever question the necessity of separating boys and girls, athletically, after a certain age?

Women's sports don't exist as a safety issue. They exist either to shield men's egos from the small number of women who can compete with them athletically, or to foster community among women through a means that we've given more social prestige than the typical ways that women create community (both are things that happen, but it's up for historical debate which happened first).

If we wanted to keep women and girls safe, we'd ban them from sports entirely - do you realize how many athletes are horrifically injured every year?

 

[ZenMode]

Show me statistics of the rise in transgenderism. Replace it with the recognition that it has always existed. Hell, they were frequently sacred in Native American cultures and have existed throughout recorded history.

I said public rise, meaning it's more prominent in public.

In many Native American cultures, transgender and non-binary individuals have traditionally held a unique and revered status, often recognized as "Two-Spirit". This term, widely used by Indigenous communities, encompasses diverse gender identities and sexual orientations, recognizing that individuals can embody both masculine and feminine qualities. Two-Spirit individuals often served as spiritual leaders, healers, and ceremonial leaders within their communities.

ok?

No, I didn't question the necessity. I had a benighted Christian upbringing like you apparently did.

I have no idea why you keep trying to bring religion into this. My position has nothing to do with morality, nor do I believe gender dysphoria is any more immoral than bipolar disorder. My position is based in science, which is why I'm not arguing against trans men in male sports.

Is it logical? Yes, but not necessary.

If you believe fairness in athletics it is necessary.

As I've pointed out before, I have no problem with men's, women's and open events with the real champions being the open winners. Do I think that in the purely physical game that they will mostly be male? Yeah, but so what?

So, there are biological differences between males and females that give males a clear advantage.

Why don't you save some feeling for the hungry, sick, lame and otherwise afflicted rather than the temporary disappointment of a minor character in a minor athletic contest of almost no real importance IRL?

This is how you rationalize your position based on empathy rather than reason.

 

[ZenMode]

Then you have fuck all reason to be concerned about it at all. I had allowed for you to have religious delusions but you're just a nosy PITA interfering in things of absolutely no concern of yours. What a jerk you are. What business is what anybody does with their body any of yours?

Deflection isn't going to work.

 

[ZenMode]

Women's sports don't exist as a safety issue. They exist either to shield men's egos from the small number of women who can compete with them athletically,

or to foster community among women through a means that we've given more social prestige than the typical ways that women create community (both are things that happen, but it's up for historical debate which happened first).

If we wanted to keep women and girls safe, we'd ban them from sports entirely - do you realize how many athletes are horrifically injured every year?

Strawman.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Then you have fuck all reason to be concerned about it at all. I had allowed for you to have religious delusions but you're just a nosy PITA interfering in things of absolutely no concern of yours. What a jerk you are. What business is what anybody does with their body any of yours?

He can say he's not opposing it for religious reasons, but it seems painfully clear that holier-than-thou puritanism is still very much alive and well in the good ole US of A, and always has been. The obsession that so many people have with other people's private lives and what they do in their bedrooms is still off the charts. As H.L. Mencken once said, Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

Contrary to conservative claims, transgenders are hurting no one - it's the puritanical conservatives themselves who keep getting caught molesting kids and cheating on their spouses or engaging in "forbidden" sexual behaviors that they condemn in others, like Jerry Falwell, Jr. watching his wife getting it on with other guys, or the Moms for Liberty school board member in Florida who kept trying to ban LGBTQ books from school libraries while she was privately having threesomes with her husband and another woman they were paying for the service (and who accused her husband of abusing her). I'll guarantee you that if these people knew that a transgender person lived in their neighborhood it would drive them crazy and they would likely lose sleep at night, solely because that person existed and was in their neighborhood, not because it really affected their life in any way. And they'd likely do everything they could to make that person miserable and force them to move, all under pious claims that they were just trying to "protect" the children in their neighborhood or something similar.

 

[finesse]

I said public rise, meaning it's more prominent in public.

ok?

I have no idea why you keep trying to bring religion into this. My position has nothing to do with morality, nor do I believe gender dysphoria is any more immoral than bipolar disorder. My position is based in science, which is why I'm not arguing against trans men in male sports.

If you believe fairness in athletics it is necessary.

So, there are biological differences between males and females that give males a clear advantage.

This is how you rationalize your position based on empathy rather than reason.

It has more validity that trying to combine science and fairness. Fairness is not part of any science.

 

[ZenMode]

It has more validity that trying to combine science and fairness.

Nope and it's not even close.

Fairness is not part of any science.

Biology and physics, as it relates to athletics, is most definitely a part of fairness. It's why they have weight classes in wrestling and boxing. It's why they don't allow 8-year-olds to compete against 20-year-olds and it's why men aren't permitted to compete in women's sports.

Or, it's why men used to not be permitted to compete in women's sports.

 

[superrific]

@finesse You asked yesterday why I somewhat agreed with Elon about empathy being a weakness in the US.

It's not a weakness. Empathy is literally the emotion on which all of civilization is built. Civilization was not built, and never could be built, by a bunch of atomized individuals. It was built out of shared identity, which is a function of empathy. Once civilization got going, there were plenty of developments like slavery -- but still, empathy is the basis of a community or even a nation.

Your views are loathsome and disgusting. Empathy is the most powerful emotion. It is not a weakness at all; it takes great strength. And our best presidents have typically been motivated by empathy (see, e.g., Lincoln, FDR, Obama), an dour worst presidents the ones who preached individualism or mindless tribalism (Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, Trump). This isn't a close call.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Trumpers are OBSESSED with this.

Because it has won elections and will continue to.

 

[superrific]

Because it has won elections and will continue to.

Can't argue that it helped in this election. But we've seen a pattern for 30 years that I expect to continue:

A. Democrats govern well and improve the country.
B. Conservatives take for granted how well the government is working, and instead focus on wedge issues like gay marriage, trans, race, etc.
C. GOP wins elections, and promptly runs the country into the ground.
D. Dems save the day

I have a feeling this cycle will be broken because Trump is wrecking everything to such an extent that the GOP will be forever tainted. I expect the Dems to win every federal election for the next decade, barring unforeseen circumstances (which there always are, but those can cut both ways).

 

[nycfan]

 

[ZenMode]

It's not a weakness. Empathy is literally the emotion on which all of civilization is built. Civilization was not built, and never could be built, by a bunch of atomized individuals. It was built out of shared identity, which is a function of empathy. Once civilization got going, there were plenty of developments like slavery -- but still, empathy is the basis of a community or even a nation.

Your views are loathsome and disgusting. Empathy is the most powerful emotion. It is not a weakness at all; it takes great strength. And our best presidents have typically been motivated by empathy (see, e.g., Lincoln, FDR, Obama), an dour worst presidents the ones who preached individualism or mindless tribalism (Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, Trump). This isn't a close call.

I would argue that sympathy is more effective than empathy because sympathy doesn't ignore reason.

Empathy, as I've been arguing, is why we put aside reason and allow males in female sports or why you give into a crying child when they want candy even when you know they shouldn't have it.

 

[akillesheel]

Strawman.

a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.

b) if it's a strawman, then what is your argument? we can throw out fairness, because you haven't been able to show why the competitive advantage supposedly conferred by "maleness" is uniquely unfair compared to that conferred by genetically superior height, build, lactic acid processing ability, or any host of things that make elite athletes elite (also, when have sports ever adhered to a definition of "fair" that means everybody has an equal chance of winning?). you say "biology," but you're arguing exactly the opposite of the scientific consensus of biologists, geneticists, and doctors, so that's out. what's left?

 

[Mulberry Heel]

This was always the goal - attack transgenders first, then go after the entire LGBTQ community. This is nothing less than trying to cancel all LGBTQ kids from being able to express themselves at school. No clubs, no discussion of LGBTQ issues of any kind, and no doubt no allowance of any shirts or clothing or posters that mention anything to do with the LGBTQ community, and no LGBTQ books in school libraries. And - presto! - they're back in the closet again, just like Republican Jesus and God wants them to be! Yet another page taken straight from the Orban playbook. Disgusting.

 

[superrific]

why you give into a crying child when they want candy even when you know they shouldn't have it.

You think that is about empathy? I am an exceedingly empathetic person and I have never done that.

 

[ZenMode]

You think that is about empathy? I am an exceedingly empathetic person and I have never done that.

Yes, not everyone does everything the same way.

That doesn't change the point that empathy tends to disregard reason, while sympathy doesn't and it's the disregard for reason that makes empathy a weakness.

 

[superrific]

a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.

Well, it's more complex than that. There was also the operation of normative gender roles, and in particular the idea that women were not aggressive or competitive enough to play with men.

You're right that safety wasn't a big issue a hundred years ago, because safety in sports generally wasn't a priority. But over time, it's impossible to ignore safety as an issue in some cases. One reason women don't play football -- and have not been allowed to, generally speaking, except for kicker -- is that they would get badly injured. Of course, women are unlikely to be good at football.

On the other hand, safety doesn't explain why pretty much all Olympic sports (or maybe all), are sex-segregated. There is no risk that a female ping-pong player will be hurt if she plays against men. We have women's chess leagues (and in Asia, women's leagues for go). I don't know why there would be separate categories for shooting or bobsled or curling (which might not be sex-segregated; I don't watch it).