LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[strunkenwhite]

Because it is not just an alteration that is the issue; it is the 'identify as' part that comes with it, and the demands that Ts make on the rest of us related to their chosen 'identity'.

That is where the lie comes into it, and why it is a problem.

It's one thing for them to lie about their reproductive equipment, it's another to try to punish people for not going along with it, and most trans do BOTH.

But (for example, and using your term) after a T who claims to be a woman sets about altering their physical form to be that of a woman—once that transformation is as complete as it's going to get, and certainly closer in shape to female than male, what's the basis for saying they are still a man? And hypothetically speaking would a better process, a more complete transformation, change your attitude towards whether the post-transformation person is man or woman?

On your final note, free speech still comes into play, of course. I can call you a kangaroo if I want, so you can call whoever whatever in my book unless it's part of a targeted harassment campaign of a kind which would be legally actionable for non-T situations as well.

 

[FriedCFour]

I don't get why you are treating "alter" as "lie".

Mutilate is better.

what's the basis for saying they are still a man?

The reality of what they were born as and their chromosomes and their bone structure and all else that is 100% male. You can use a lot of plastic surgery to make yourself look like an elf. You’re still a human being.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Mutilate is better.

That's kind of a non sequitur to whether the mutilation is or is not a lie.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

But if the issue is that (for example, and using your term) after a T who claims to be a woman sets about altering their physical form to be that of a woman—once that transformation is as complete as it's going to get, and certainly closer in shape to female than male, what's the basis for saying they are still a man? And hypothetically speaking would a better process, a more complete transformation, change your attitude towards whether the post-transformation person is man or woman?

On your final note, free speech still comes into play, of course. I can call you a kangaroo if I want, so you can call whoever whatever in my book unless it's part of a targeted harassment campaign of a kind which would be legally actionable for non-T situations as well.

I can't believe we are actually having this conversation, and I know I will be ignored, but here ya go.

All people are born Male or Female or defective Male or defective Female. Defects can be corrected, but biological Sex cannot currently be changed, it is essential to each person. Unless the 'sex change' operation results in a new being that is essentially the new Sex, that is, able to reproduce sexually as the new Sex, we are not talking about a substantial change but an accidental one, which is really no different than a man putting on a dress or vice-versa.

 

[Bacle]

But if the issue is that (for example, and using your term) after a T who claims to be a woman sets about altering their physical form to be that of a woman—once that transformation is as complete as it's going to get, and certainly closer in shape to female than male, what's the basis for saying they are still a man? And hypothetically speaking would a better process, a more complete transformation, change your attitude towards whether the post-transformation person is man or woman?

Men do not have periods, or eggs, and no amount of surgery or hormones will change that.

On your final note, free speech still comes into play, of course. I can call you a kangaroo if I want, so you can call whoever whatever in my book unless it's part of a targeted harassment campaign of a kind which would be legally actionable for non-T situations as well.

Free speech does have to be protected in these cases, on both sides.

However, it's usually the Ts demanding everybody change language and laws to fit them, not the other way around.

Now, I feel that Ts should not be excepted from LGB protections, even if I don't like that they have basically taken over the movement. Ts also should not have to worry about someone attacking them in a 'trans panic', even if they were lying to someone about their equipment.

However, Ts do not have the right to demand the rest of us change bathroom laws, sports laws, or legal terms just to appease them, or make other's foot the bill for their surgeries/meds.

 

[King Arts]

But (for example, and using your term) after a T who claims to be a woman sets about altering their physical form to be that of a woman—once that transformation is as complete as it's going to get, and certainly closer in shape to female than male, what's the basis for saying they are still a man? And hypothetically speaking would a better process, a more complete transformation, change your attitude towards whether the post-transformation person is man or woman?

On your final note, free speech still comes into play, of course. I can call you a kangaroo if I want, so you can call whoever whatever in my book unless it's part of a targeted harassment campaign of a kind which would be legally actionable for non-T situations as well.

Ok here is how it works pretend you are talking to an asexual alien robot it asks you what are men and women how do you differentiate between them? You tell it things that women can do have periods give birth things that do this you know are women, then you point at things men can do like site children by impregnating women. No trans person has ever been able to switch from a normal male to being able to get periods go through menopause or get pregnant. That’s why we know they are not real women or men depending on where they started.

 

[ShieldWife]

In their personal capacity, sure; in their professional capacity, what about when Zuckerberg is doing the discriminating?

Zuckerberg discriminates however he has wants when ever he wants. All of the big corporate leftists do. They open discriminate against white people and against men, they viciously discriminate against conservatives. The big corporations do this, universities do this, individuals do it, government agencies do it, law enforcement does it, and they don’t give a flying fuck about hypocrisy. Anti-discrimination is just a weapon to use against the right, not any kind of universal moral principle, the left has none.

A multi billion dollar monopolistic mega corporation that receives tax payers’ dollars can openly discriminate against those citizens on the basis of race, sex, or ideology and get pats on the back for it.

Let one middle class bakers refuse to make a wedding cake for lesbians and the world ends, and they have to be driven out of business and have their lives, business, and dreams destroyed.

So Zuckerberg and every other leftist already gets to discriminate. The right doesn’t.

 

[Bacle]

Let one middle class bakers refuse to make a wedding cake for lesbians and the world ends, and they have to be driven out of business and have their lives, business, and dreams destroyed.

Ok, once again, that's not exactly what happened with the Master Piece Cakeshop case.

It wasn't just 'not bake them a cake'; they wanted him to cater it as well.

He was willing to sell them a pre-made cake, but not the custom cake or do the catering.

 

[ShieldWife]

Ok, once again, that's not exactly what happened with the Master Piece Cakeshop case.

It wasn't just 'not bake them a cake'; they wanted him to cater it as well.

He was willing to sell them a pre-made cake, but not the custom cake or do the catering.

I honestly don’t care, Master Piece Cakeshop shouldn’t be obligated to perform any service.

 

[Bacle]

I honestly don’t care, Master Piece Cakeshop shouldn’t be obligated to perform any service.

And I agree.

But we need to try to be accurate about what actually happened and why. Because the SCOTUS decision that came out in favor of the baker was won partly because they pushed for more than 'just a cake'.

 

[ShieldWife]

And I agree.

But we need to try to be accurate about what actually happened and why. Because the SCOTUS decision that came out in favor of the baker was won partly because they pushed for more than 'just a cake'.

You make a good point.

 

[Abhorsen]

She makes a good point. The people @Abhorsen cite having to clean up the community from its degenerates also had to relentlessly oppose the homosexuality is a mental illness stigma and then they go and get lumped in with literally mentally ill/neurological defective people and its deeply enraged a lot of the old school gay dudes I know.

Sorta kinda about the cleaning up. There was a lot of work to be done with the cleaning up, but the weird/not-so-weird thing is that gays largely cleaned up themselves, not through self help organizations or such. Like, there's a clear correlation between expanded acceptance and less degeneracy.

Honestly, one of these days I'll post a history of the gay rights movement, and what caused stuff, how it evolved, why it won, and why its off the rails now. I think it would be interesting, even for people who disagree with it, to see how it evolved, why strategies it used worked, and what the results were. It's a fascinating story.

 

[LindyAF]

Honestly, one of these days I'll post a history of the gay rights movement, and what caused stuff, how it evolved, why it won, and why its off the rails now. I think it would be interesting, even for people who disagree with it, to see how it evolved, why strategies it used worked, and what the results were. It's a fascinating story.

I'd be pretty interested in this.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I can't believe we are actually having this conversation, and I know I will be ignored, but here ya go.

All people are born Male or Female or defective Male or defective Female. Defects can be corrected, but biological Sex cannot currently be changed, it is essential to each person. Unless the 'sex change' operation results in a new being that is essentially the new Sex, that is, able to reproduce sexually as the new Sex, we are not talking about a substantial change but an accidental one, which is really no different than a man putting on a dress or vice-versa.

So in other words (if I understand you correctly) yes, if science could give them the complete sexual organs of the reassigned sex (along with the rest) you'd accept the change. But it currently cannot and therefore you do not. Thanks for answering.

However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word "accident", and I definitely disagree with "no different than putting on a dress" given that I, for one, do not sew my clothing into my skin. But different strokes for different folks.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'd be pretty interested in this.

So I decided to start a thread about this where I will build a history. The history isn't even started yet, but I laid out my initial theses that further research on my part will either prove or disprove.

Here it is:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/a-history-of-lgbt-rights-in-the-us.5101/

 

[DocSolarisReich]

So in other words (if I understand you correctly) yes, if science could give them the complete sexual organs of the reassigned sex (along with the rest) you'd accept the change. But it currently cannot and therefore you do not. Thanks for answering.

However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word "accident", and I definitely disagree with "no different than putting on a dress" given that I, for one, do not sew my clothing into my skin. But different strokes for different folks.

Accident, (noun) in philosophy, an accident, or 'accidental property' is an attribute that may or may not belong to a subject, without affecting its essence. It does not mean an "accident" as used in common speech, i.e. a chance incident, normally harmful.

Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made. To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.

 

[ShieldWife]

So in other words (if I understand you correctly) yes, if science could give them the complete sexual organs of the reassigned sex (along with the rest) you'd accept the change. But it currently cannot and therefore you do not. Thanks for answering.

If there was a significant enough physical transformation, I think I would accept the person as the sex that they were transformed into.

At that point, I’m not sure about how we could even handle sports, you’re essentially created a human body, it seems questionable to let a human being so heavily modified compete with someone who hasn’t been.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

If there was a significant enough physical transformation, I think I would accept the person as the sex that they were transformed into.

At that point, I’m not sure about how we could even handle sports, you’re essentially created a human body, it seems questionable to let a human being so heavily modified compete with someone who hasn’t been.

Let's not get started down the transhumanist rabbit hole please, at least, not in this thread. Even hypothetical substantial and essential sex change opens up enough philosophical and moral cans of worms that it is more than enough. I for one pray we are never forced to return to the well of Patristic Theology or Thomism to work out a moral theology for AD&D's girdle of femininity.

I would argue that even attempting such a change constituted a rebellion against the created order itself, but I am a noted reactionary grognard with primitivist instincts. You'd want an opinion from someone who doesn't wish that the stories of the Papal States' banning of steam engines and street lamps were actually true rather than secularist black propaganda.

 

[ShieldWife]

Let's not get started down the transhumanist rabbit hole please, at least, not in this thread. Even hypothetical substantial and essential sex change opens up enough philosophical and moral cans of worms that it is more than enough. I for one pray we are never forced to return to the well of Patristic Theology or Thomism to work out a moral theology for AD&D's girdle of femininity.

I would argue that even attempting such a change constituted a rebellion against the created order itself, but I am a noted reactionary grognard with primitivist instincts. You'd want an opinion from someone who doesn't wish that the stories of the Papal States' banning of steam engines and street lamps were actually true rather than secularist black propaganda.

Well, I avoided any metaphysical question when I discussed what a male or female was, the combination of both XY or XX chromosomes and a physical body consistent with those chromosomes. As this was my standard for rejecting transsexual claims, I would have to then accept the possibility that if a person is altered both genetically and physically to the level that they were a fully functional member of the formerly opposite sex that they had become a member of that sex.

It still seems weird, but I think I would have to accept this as true to remain consistently in the realm of biology. If I were to say that even after a complete physical transformation that the person isn’t a “true male” or “true female” then I open the door for mystical claims from transsexuals that they are mystically a member of one sex despite being physically the other.

I don’t see this being anything more than a weird hypothetical question anytime in my lifetime. Though if such a transformation were possible it would likely open up a Pandora’s Box of other strange problems, including all of the other stuff such technology might be used for.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

I don’t see this being anything more than a weird hypothetical question anytime in my lifetime. Though if such a transformation were possible it would likely open up a Pandora’s Box of other strange problems, including all of the other stuff such technology might be used for.

I am reminded of the advice of an old sorcerer to the reader of his book on the subject of the summoning of demons.

Don't.