Opinion Transgender Megathread V1.

[Kirra]

It is abnormal for humans to not be attracted to the opposite sex.

Saying that it is abnormal is not saying that it is wrong or bad - just that it deviates from the normality of human behavior and instincts. Human beings got this far by wanting to reproduce with each other to create future generations.

I'm not saying they need to be ostracized or anything of that nature - they should be free to do whatever the hell they want to do as adults (within the law) and not be ridiculed for their personal preferences.

It will always be abnormal though. They will always be a very, very small minority.

See, then you don't want equality.

This is my issue with conservative folks, you guys never communicate honestly on this issue. It's always "we're not homophobes" and "we accept LGBTQ+ people" until they eventually admit that what they mean by "accepting" is actually closer to "tolerating".

I have no idea how to even word this so you'll understand. You are absolutely on the right track and that's great, but until being LGBTQ+ is viewed the same way as people with green eyes, there's work to be done.

 

[Bald1]

See, then you don't want equality.

This is my issue with conservative folks, you guys never communicate honestly on this issue. It's always "we're not homophobes" and "we accept LGBTQ+ people" until they eventually admit that what they mean by "accepting" is actually closer to "tolerating".

I have no idea how to even word this so you'll understand. You are absolutely on the right track and that's great, but until being LGBTQ+ is viewed the same way as people with green eyes, there's work to be done.

Explain the difference in your mind between tolerance and acceptance if you don't mind.

 

[Kirra]

Explain the difference in your mind between tolerance and acceptance if you don't mind.

It should be pretty self explanatory.

Acceptance in this case is accepting something as valid, equal and normal.

Tolerance is when you accept something or someone that you view as inherently undesirable or "less".

There is a pretty big difference between the two, especially in this context.

 

[The_Renaissance]

See, then you don't want equality.

This is my issue with conservative folks, you guys never communicate honestly on this issue. It's always "we're not homophobes" and "we accept LGBTQ+ people" until they eventually admit that what they mean by "accepting" is actually closer to "tolerating".

I have no idea how to even word this so you'll understand. You are absolutely on the right track and that's great, but until being LGBTQ+ is viewed the same way as people with green eyes, there's work to be done.

People with green eyes don't base their entire personality and behaviour on having green eyes. If they started doing that, it'd be fucking weird and within a year Sherdog would have thread's on People with green eyes.

If People with green eyes started promoting eyeball transplants to pre-pubescent kids, society would say "what the fuck do you think you are doing? Fuck off. Go away".

What you are asking for, same as "anti racism", is there to be no more bad people on earth. Even if there was 50 homophobes left in the west, you would still claim "we haven't done enough".

Bad people will always exist. Good people can try to outnumber them, and already do. If they didn't you'd have 100 homophobic attacks in any major Western city every single day.

 

[tramendous]

I'm pretty sure the emancipation movement also got quite a bit of negative attention back in the day.

Just because a bigoted majority is reacting to something they perceive as abnormal, doesn't mean that they are actually correct.

Unless you have some religous moral anchor, the only reason that the emancipation movement was right was its supporters enforced it on the people who oppose it. So if the majority currently squashes the lgbt movement and writes about how immoral it was, then thats what it will be and the same for the opposite.

 

[Bald1]

It should be pretty self explanatory.

Acceptance in this case is accepting something as valid, equal and normal.

Tolerance is when you accept something or someone that you view as inherently undesirable or "less".

There is a pretty big difference between the two, especially in this context.

They're valid, should have equal rights and opportunities, but by definition not normal. We're all abnormal in some ways.

I don't find trans people desirable, just like I don't find fat women or men desirable. Depending on the individual they could absolutely be less, or even more.

"Desirable" is a big ask, presumptuous, binary and controlling. Nevermind not your call. There's all sorts of room between desirable and un desirable.

 

[Kirra]

People with green eyes don't base their entire personality and behaviour on having green eyes. If they started doing that, it'd be fucking weird and within a year Sherdog would have thread's on People with green eyes.

If People with green eyes started promoting eyeball transplants to pre-pubescent kids, society would say "what the fuck do you think you are doing? Fuck off. Go away".

What you are asking for, same as "anti racism", is there to be no more bad people on earth. Even if there was 50 homophobes left in the west, you would still claim "we haven't done enough".

Bad people will always exist. Good people can try to outnumber them, and already do. If they didn't you'd have 100 homophobic attacks in any major Western city every single day.

Yeah, because sexual and romantic attraction isn't going to be a huge part of people's lives.

And straight people never base their entire personality on being straight, right? Acting out a traditionally masculine gender role is basically the only personality trait of most dudes.

The problem isn't "a few homophobes". The problem is that our whole society breeds homophobia because it's inherently exclusionary and views LGBTQ+ people as outside of the straight ideal.

 

[Kirra]

Unless you have some religous moral anchor, the only reason that the emancipation movement was right was its supporters enforced it on the people who oppose it. So if the majority currently squashes the lgbt movement and writes about how immoral it was, then thats what it will be and the same for the opposite.

Totally, how would one even figure out that slavery is wrong without fucking religion??

Your post is a hilariously bad take.

 

[Kirra]

They're valid, should have equal rights and opportunities, but by definition not normal. We're all abnormal in some ways.

I don't find trans people desirable, just like I don't find fat women or men desirable. Depending on the individual they could absolutely be less, or even more.

"Desirable" is a big ask, presumptuous, binary and controlling. Nevermind not your call. There's all sorts of room between desirable and un desirable.

That's not how words work, dude.

Abnormal:
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
"the illness is recognizable from the patient's abnormal behaviour"

If anything it's homophobia that is abnormal, not gay people.

 

[Bald1]

That's not how words work, dude.

Abnormal:
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
"the illness is recognizable from the patient's abnormal behaviour"

If anything it's homophobia that is abnormal, not gay people.

The guy presuming to lecture about the meaning of words doesn't know the meaning of "typically".

Nevermind you don't seem to have a clue as to the prime movers behind abolishing slavery.

Good times.

 

[tramendous]

Totally, how would one even figure out that slavery is wrong without fucking religion??

Your post is a hilariously bad take.

Its not that you cant figure out if its bad its that you have no objective reason for believing if its good or bad and good and bad would literally be dictated as the opposite. Another example would be if the Soviets won the cold war and then US is the one that collapsed into a state that is nominally communist, Capitalism would be seen everywhere as evil and progress would be measured in how socialist/communist a country is. Another example if fascists won ww2. The question becomes is good and bad some objective thing or something that we project and enforce and a cultural concept that is changing.

 

[AZ103]

See, then you don't want equality.

This is my issue with conservative folks, you guys never communicate honestly on this issue. It's always "we're not homophobes" and "we accept LGBTQ+ people" until they eventually admit that what they mean by "accepting" is actually closer to "tolerating".

I have no idea how to even word this so you'll understand. You are absolutely on the right track and that's great, but until being LGBTQ+ is viewed the same way as people with green eyes, there's work to be done.

Do you accept conservatives or tolerate them? Tolerance is absolutely fine for some things including gay behavior. We dont have to celebrate it to prove a damn thing to you. I dont want to be an ally. I just dont care who and how you fuck as long as they are over 18 and its consensual. I will tolerate it and you will tolerate that. Thats all you can do. equality is an entirely different issue. Its a layered conversation im almost certain you are incapable of beyond the now ancient marriage debate.

 

[The_Renaissance]

That's not how words work, dude.

Abnormal:
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
"the illness is recognizable from the patient's abnormal behaviour"

If anything it's homophobia that is abnormal, not gay people.

Yeah ideally nobody would care, I don't consider homosexuality as disgusting or anything, it's something I physically would never engage in or have an interest in but it's not harmful. However, the trans thing is.

If a confused youngster experiments with their sexuality it's essentially harmless. A lot will later think "ah, wasn't for me in the end" but there's no harm done.

If the same confused youngster mutilated themselves, there is harm done if they later regret what they've done.

 

[Kirra]

Its not that you cant figure out if its bad its that you have no objective reason for believing if its good or bad and good and bad would literally be dictated as the opposite. Another example would be if the Soviets won the cold war and then US is the one that collapsed into a state that is nominally communist, Capitalism would be seen everywhere as evil and progress would be measured in how socialist/communist a country is. Another example if fascists won ww2. The question becomes is good and bad some objective thing or something that we project and enforce and a cultural concept that is changing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Here you go. Hopefully you can figure out how to label something as good or bad from reading that article.

 

[tramendous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Here you go. Hopefully you can figure out how to label something as good or bad from reading that article.

Great I empathize with the kids who have to go through this and say we end this degenerate practice of drugging them into the opposite gender and exposing them to drag queens. Lastly, empathy does not challenge let alone solve the issue of moral subjectivity since empathy is itself subjective. If you believe morality is objective (as I do) then prove it without going to God/religion.

 

[Kirra]

Do you accept conservatives or tolerate them? Tolerance is absolutely fine for some things including gay behavior. We dont have to celebrate it to prove a damn thing to you. I dont want to be an ally. I just dont care who and how you fuck as long as they are over 18 and its consensual. I will tolerate it and you will tolerate that. Thats all you can do. equality is an entirely different issue. Its a layered conversation im almost certain you are incapable of beyond the now ancient marriage debate.

I tolerate conservatives in the same way you would tolerate someone else's child having a temper tantrum.

I wish they would have the emotional maturity to not do what they do, and I don't really feel like it's my job to "fix" them, but ultimately they are people too.

Yeah ideally nobody would care, I don't consider homosexuality as disgusting or anything, it's something I physically would never engage in or have an interest in but it's not harmful. However, the trans thing is.

If a confused youngster experiments with their sexuality it's essentially harmless. A lot will later think "ah, wasn't for me in the end" but there's no harm done.

If the same confused youngster mutilated themselves, there is harm done if they later regret what they've done.

Yeah, the trans thing is pretty tricky, especially when it comes to teenagers.

 

[Kirra]

Great I empathize with the kids who have to go through this and say we end this degenerate practice of drugging them into the opposite gender and exposing them to drag queens. Lastly, empathy does not challenge let alone solve the issue of moral subjectivity since empathy is itself subjective. If you believe morality is objective (as I do) then prove it without going to God/religion.

I don't know what to tell you, you either get it or you don't.

I'm not sure that it's even possible to understand feelings by thinking about them.

 

[shankmcgank]

The guy presuming to lecture about the meaning of words doesn't know the meaning of "typically".

Nevermind you don't seem to have a clue as to the prime movers behind abolishing slavery.

Good times.

I don't understand why any of the people here bother engaging with this perpetual victim troll.

Looking forward to their eventual banning, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[Kirra]

I don't understand why any of the people here bother engaging with this perpetual victim troll.

Looking forward to their eventual banning, hopefully sooner rather than later.

I've got zero infractions after posting here for nearly a decade so I don't think there's going to be a ban in the near future. Or ever, really.

 

[The_Renaissance]

I don't understand why any of the people here bother engaging with this perpetual victim troll.

Looking forward to their eventual banning, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Dunno man, I've only noticed he/she/they/whatever very recently and while the poster is a zealot its usually done in articulate manner and fairly open for debate etc. I don't really have a problem with them disagree with a lot of the sentiment but can see where it's coming from at least.