Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#352 Mar 16 2013 at 11:05 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
Jophiel, you don't seem to have read this former post:
Aripyanfar wrote:
a practising US clinician, talking about transgender matters wrote:
the ICD-10 was completed in 1992 and we're awaiting a revision in 2015. The DSMIV was completed in 1998 and the DSMV will come out in 2014. Basically to talk about these manuals at this point, unfortunately is to talk about things that are out of date and will be revised soon. Most clinicians refer to more current research, their own professions code of conduct or what has been written and said about the upcoming manuals.


I'm in an epic skype, I'll argue the point later.

____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#353 Mar 16 2013 at 11:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
The most important **** organ is the brain.
That's why I like getting blow jobs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#354 Mar 16 2013 at 11:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
"...the whole "You're a girl if you just say you are" schtick"

(bolding mine)

...is oddly flippant and dismissive, especially for a topic like this.

"Schtick", in this case, refers to the flip, unsupported argument/defenses given in this thread. As in "They just ARE and if you don't agree then you're just wrong". I don't mean to imply that GID itself is a schtick or unreal.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#355 Mar 16 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Not at all. I quoted what the disorder was (although in children it can apparently manifest as a belief that they will grow the opposite genitalia). Although, neither the term "Gender Identity Disorder" nor the definition suggest that the disorder is being "born the wrong gender". The disorder is in their gender identity. Again, perceiving something that is not accurate (that they are a girl). Obviously I'm not an expert or anything but the sources I've been turned to don't seem exceptionally ambiguous on the point.

Well, they are primarily diagnostic tools. Obviously in a literal sense, XX is a girl and XY is boy, Again, I understand your point, I just don't think it's very important. We have terminology for that, but we also have words that mean more than that. I'd argue "girl" is such a word. Certainly "girly" means more than "someone without a Y chromosome. "Don't be such a girl" isn't a phrase that indicates that someone suspects that the actions taken indicate the actual presence of a vagina. If the word was "female" I'd be inclined to agree. It isn't though. If you want to argue people who haven't had reassignment surgery shouldn't have an F on a passport instead of an M I'd agree. I think that's a more technical term. We're talking about a term in everyday usage that works as a powerful catch all label that's assumed to imply a great many things. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 1:17am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#356 Mar 16 2013 at 11:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel, you don't seem to have read this former post

Being told that in 2-3 years maybe it'll say something new isn't exactly useful at the moment. Currently, it's what I have to go on. So far, no one has offered a definitive source to the contrary.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#357 Mar 16 2013 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
http://gaylife.about.com/od/transgender/f/heorshe.htm

There you go, the AP stylebook. Lucky you're not a journalist, bucko!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#358 Mar 16 2013 at 11:21 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
Quote:
APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender Is No Longer A Mental Disorder
By Zack Ford on Dec 3, 2012 at 10:50 am
This Saturday, the American Psychiatric Association board of trustees approved the latest proposed revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, what will now be known as the DSM-5. This marks a historic milestone for people who are transgender and gender non-conforming, as their identities are no longer classified as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was similarly declassified as a mental disorder in 1973.
Until now, the term “gender identity disorder” has been used to diagnose people who are transgender. For conservatives, this has provided rhetorical carte blanche to describe the entire trans committee as disordered, delusional, and mentally ill. In some cases, this diagnosis has even been used to discriminate against trans people, with claims that they are unfit parents or employees, as examples. On the other hand, insurance companies have been more willing to cover the expenses associated with transition under this language, because treatment for a disorder is considered medically necessary, rather than cosmetic.
The new manual will diagnose transgender people with “Gender Dysphoria,” which communicates the emotional distress that can result from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.” This will allow for affirmative treatment and transition care without the stigma of disorder. Earlier this year, the APA also released new health guidelines for transgender patients, as well as a position statement affirming transgender care and civil rights. Both documents align with a new standard for respecting trans people in the medical community.
It was only after homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder that ex-gay ministries formed, protesting the medical community’s decision to affirm non-heterosexual orientations. Some dangerous ex-trans ministries exist already and are championed by Focus on the Family, NARTH, PFOX, and other anti-LGBT organizations. It’s possible that these efforts may similarly increase in the wake of this DSM revision


Edited, Mar 17th 2013 1:23am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#359 Mar 16 2013 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Certainly "girly" means more than "someone without a Y chromosome. "Don't be such a girl" isn't a phrase that indicates that someone suspects that the actions taken indicate the actual presence of a vagina.

No, it's meant to directly compare someone to a vagina-carrying member of the species. The whole **** thing is paramount for the comparison. I'm guessing it's rarely, if ever, is used to mean "Don't be so much like someone with a potential chromosomal aberration that makes you enjoy The View despite the physical presence of a penis" Smiley: grin

Quote:
If the word was "female" I'd be inclined to agree.

I'm personally inclined to think that no one saying "you're a girl if you say you are" would agree with the statement "But you're not a female by saying you are; that requires a couple X's on your genetic bingo card and a vagina." I'm open to being proven wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#360 Mar 16 2013 at 11:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
There you go, the AP stylebook. Lucky you're not a journalist, bucko!

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#361 Mar 16 2013 at 11:29 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
I'm personally inclined to think that no one saying "you're a girl if you say you are" would agree with the statement "But you're not a female by saying you are; that requires a couple X's on your genetic bingo card and a vagina." I'm open to being proven wrong.

No idea, but quite a few pursue complex invasive surgery to mitigate the **** part of the equation. Given the verbal flexibility of most of the GLBT community, I can easily see "male woman" being no big deal as a term. Again, my sleeping wife probably knows the answer, but I fear we'd be discussing if "eunuch" is offensive were I to pry my son from her breast and ask her.

Edit: My education tells me that should probably be "oral", technically, but I just can't bring myself. Although it would probably drive a lot of Google traffic to this thread.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 1:33am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#362 Mar 16 2013 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Quote:
The new manual will diagnose transgender people with “Gender Dysphoria,” which communicates the emotional distress that can result from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.”

This remains the same point of why there's an incongruence between the two. I've no vested interest in it being classified as a disorder beyond that's what the book says. If the next series of books calls it something else then bully for the folks who are upset at the current definition.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#363 Mar 16 2013 at 11:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,852 posts
Is this a thread about airplanes yet?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#364 Mar 16 2013 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
I'm off to sleep, I have a genetic disorder that requires me drink large amounts of jet black beer and eat too much very salty beef tomorrow. I'd appreciate it if you'd refer to me as "the large leprechaun" going forward, as that's what I am. Enjoy your green river, it's probably the best CCR album.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#365 Mar 17 2013 at 12:03 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm just honestly telling you that you seem to be treating this topic radically differently than you treat others. Which you do with a few others, but it's fairly unusual and immediately noticeable.
I'm with Smash on this point. You (Jophiel) aren't coming across - to me anyway - as mean-spirited on the issue, but your views expressed here just seem out of character to me.

Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Is this a thread about airplanes yet?
I don't have any new airplane pix.Smiley: frown

I guess this will have to do.
Screenshot

____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#366 Mar 17 2013 at 12:33 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
You (Jophiel) aren't coming across - to me anyway - as mean-spirited on the issue, but your views expressed here just seem out of character to me.

I'm an enigma!

Really, I don't know what to tell ya. I've expressed similar sentiments once or twice before around here. I don't really care which restroom anyone uses* or what Smash calls some transgendered person or whatever. I just don't accept the "X because they say X" argument. I don't think there's any way to clarify it that hasn't been said. Hell, if the situation is one that Smash suggested and they could prove some "female brain" in a specific person then I could see validity in saying "She's a woman despite the male body". I don't think "Cause I said so" washes. It doesn't come up much in my day-to-day though.

* My argument there was that, absent any legal guides, a property owner/manager shouldn't be persecuted for expecting people to use the restroom assigned to their physical gender, or legal gender in cases where it has been legally changed. Should those guides change (as Smash suggested legislation), the owner should comply but until that point shouldn't be attacked for using the most obvious determinant over "Anyone should get to use any restroom they want to use".

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 1:34am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#367 Mar 17 2013 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
As previously noted, I think it's as important as how "marriage" is defined in the dictionary to the subject of **** marriage. Ie: Not very. I notice that metaphor hasn't interested you much in your replies.

I ignored this last night because it didn't strike me as anything beyond a distraction from the main argument. But, since said argument is largely played out anyway and a completely unrelated train of thought this morning brought me back to this, I'll spend a second on it.

(1) The opposite of marriage isn't **** marriage. The opposite of marriage would be divorce or single. Including homosexual unions into the sphere of marriage isn't the same thing. It's the same basic non-argument as the "midget"/"little people" thing. In fact, in addition to "married" or "single", we have words for transitory states between the two: separated, engaged, etc.

(2) "You are if you just say you are" is, in fact, the same exact logic Gbaji has used to try to prevent homosexuals from marrying. "We don't need to legalize SSM, you're married if you just say you are and no government can change that!". It ignores the obvious: the working definition of marriage assumes acknowledgement by the state. Likewise, "you're a girl if you just say you're a girl" sounds more like the rationale of someone trying to deprive a transgender person of benefits ("You don't need tax-payer funded hormone therapy; you're a girl if you just SAY you are!") than the rationale of someone trying to actually build an argument to include transgender people into their preferred gender.

Now you could have a couple people who say "We DO think we're married because we said we are, so there!" That's fine and I wouldn't waste much energy trying to convince them otherwise. But I also wouldn't defend them when they failed to gain access to things "legitimately" married people gain access to. In the same vein, I'd be much more inclined to argue for protections for someone who has taken steps towards conformity with their preferred gender (medically and/or legally) than someone who simply states "I'm a man because I said I'm a man" and expects that to pass as reason to use the men's room. Or, less flippantly, reason to demand access to a single-gender organization, marry someone of the opposite gender, apply for a scholarship or some other gender-exclusive thing.

Late Edit: Again, the point of my linking to the dictionaries was not to say "they can't be a girl because here's the definition of girl", it was because someone else made the erroneous claim that the "standard definition of girl" included anyone who just considered themselves a girl. It does not and the quickest way to call out that error was via example of standard definitions.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 5:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#368 Mar 17 2013 at 8:05 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
Likewise, "you're a girl if you just say you're a girl" sounds more like the rationale of someone trying to deprive a transgender person of benefits ("You don't need tax-payer funded hormone therapy; you're a girl if you just SAY you are!")
That would just be really silly, since even without insurance, you're looking at a grand total of $5-10 per month for hormones.
____________________________
#369 Mar 17 2013 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Apparently you missed the contraception debate. You can switch it out with any other GID-derived medical care (SRS, psychiatric care and medications, etc) if that's seriously a sticking point.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 9:33am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#370 Mar 17 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
smash wrote:
Gender identity is a complex thing. Why can't a boy who feels born a girl be just as happy assuming the gender role he sees girls performing?


Our facilities are based on **** not gender, so one's gender complexities are irrelevant.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#371 Mar 17 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Almalieque wrote:
smash wrote:
Gender identity is a complex thing. Why can't a boy who feels born a girl be just as happy assuming the gender role he sees girls performing?


Our facilities are based on **** not gender, so one's gender complexities are irrelevant.
Since when? All bathrooms i've ever seen have been labeled men and women, girls and boys, or dress and pants. Not male and female, or **** and vagina.

I get why you'd think that though, since most people don't seem to know there's even a difference between **** and gender.
____________________________
#372 Mar 17 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
This thread is odd... unnatural even.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#373 Mar 17 2013 at 12:46 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Rachel wrote:
Since when? All bathrooms i've ever seen have been labeled men and women, girls and boys,


That's what I said. Thanks for proving my point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#374 Mar 17 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,838 posts
Alma's title should be Head thick as an Brick.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#375 Mar 17 2013 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Since when? All bathrooms i've ever seen have been labeled men and women, girls and boys,


That's what I said. Thanks for proving my point.
It's actually the opposite of what you said.
____________________________
#376 Mar 17 2013 at 2:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Since when? All bathrooms i've ever seen have been labeled men and women, girls and boys,


That's what I said. Thanks for proving my point.
It's actually the opposite of what you said.


It's exactly what I said.

You can't state that you don't know what determines the validation of a label while at the same time insisting that accuracy of a label. You have nothing to compare it to. So, unless you answer the question that you have been avoiding, you have no basis to say that one label is incorrect if you have no idea what determines a label to be correct in the first place.

For all you know, a man can be defined by how many women he has slept with.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#377 Mar 17 2013 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
You can't state that you don't know what determines the validation of a label while at the same time insisting that accuracy of a label.
I'd respond to this, but it occurs to me, i have no way to know what even a single word you said means, so maybe it doesn't really mean what i think it does.

You probably didn't understand any of that, for the same reason...

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 5:04pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#378 Mar 17 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You can't state that you don't know what determines the validation of a label while at the same time insisting that accuracy of a label.
I'd respond to this, but it occurs to me, i have no way to know what even a single word you said means, so maybe it doesn't really mean what i think it does.

You probably didn't understand any of that, for the same reason...

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 5:04pm by Rachel9


Almalieque wrote:
The question is based on what? You have 11 million people here that are LABELED illegal. If those 11 million people decided to LABEL themselves as legal, what determines which label is correct? How are they lying or simply mistaken?


What part of that is confusing?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#379 Mar 17 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
It's not a real Alma thread until he's overextended himself to the point that he's questioning the very notion of "definitions".
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#380 Mar 17 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's not only a question of what the definition of "is" is, it's a question of the definition of "definition".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#381 Mar 17 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's not a real Alma thread until he's overextended himself to the point that he's questioning the very notion of "definitions".


Are you claiming that definitions aren't important in arguments?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#382 Mar 17 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's not a real Alma thread until he's overextended himself to the point that he's questioning the very notion of "definitions".


Are you claiming that definitions aren't important in arguments?
Sure, they are, but it is not so important to know how a definition came to be, or why something is called what it is.
____________________________
#383 Mar 17 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
I shudder to think what would happen if we brought all those Asian/Polynesian traditional cultures that have three defined genders in them, or heavens above, the nation that has five. Someone google that for me, I'm going back to bed, perchance to dream, or read, or wonder over all the **** in the world.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#384 Mar 17 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Rachel wrote:
Sure, they are, but it is not so important to know how a definition came to be, or why something is called what it is.


I'm not asking why something came to be or why something is called what. I'm asking you a simple question, who determines the definition and how is it validated? You can dance around it all you want, but you can't argue against a definition if you don't know if that definition is validated. In other words, if I told you that men are defined by their height and how much income they earn, then you would have to equally consider it as a definition. You have nothing else to compare it to.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#385 Mar 17 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
I'm not asking why something came to be or why something is called what. I'm asking you a simple question, who determines the definition and how is it validated?
dot dot dot

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 8:42pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#386 Mar 17 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
I'm not asking why something came to be or why something is called what. I'm asking you a simple question, who determines the definition and how is it validated?
dot dot dot

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 8:42pm by Rachel9


You do realize that those are two different questions right? Why something is illegal is different from who determines it illegal. Murder is illegal because you don't have the right to take someone's life. Lawmakers are the ones who determine if murder is legal or not.

Hence why a woman who has an abortion isn't committing murder, yet if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide. Hence why capital punishment isn't illegal, yet you killing your friend because he took your ipod without your permission is illegal. Lawmakers are the ones who determine if murder via self-defense is justified or not, not you. You just can't say "self-defense" and everything be ok. Likewise, just because you call yourself a woman, doesn't make you a woman. The "why" is not the same as "who determines it".

So, unless you can determine the approving authority of what **** is what, you have no grounds to argue the accuracy of any claims.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#387 Mar 17 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
The authority that decides who is a citizen is the government.

There is no authority that can decide what "fork", "rock", "girl", or "definition" means. They mean whatever they are understood by english speakers to mean.
____________________________
#388 Mar 17 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
So a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with. How can you counter that if there is no standard? How is anyone wrong?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#389 Mar 17 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
So a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with
You keep saying this, but i have no idea what you mean.

Quote:
How can you counter that if there is no standard? How is anyone wrong?
That isn't how languages work. There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words. That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word. It means a word means whatever the speakers of the language use it to mean.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 10:06pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#390 Mar 17 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,700 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words.


Ya, like when I say that Alma and Rachel are awesome posters, I really mean they both suck. Because **** language, all words mean only what I mean they mean.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#391 Mar 17 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
Ya, like when I say that Alma and Rachel are awesome posters, I really mean they both suck. Because @#%^ language, all words mean only what I mean they mean.
Quote:
That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word.
Smiley: glare
____________________________
#392 Mar 17 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,940 posts
Rachel wrote:
You keep saying this, but i have no idea what you mean.


What's so hard to understand. Your argument is that a man isn't defined by a penis. My argument is that a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with. Since there is no standard, you can't say that I'm wrong.

Rachel wrote:
That isn't how languages work. There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words. That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word. It means a word means whatever the speakers of the language use it to mean.


Read above. So, if I call a **** a male, then you have NO AUTHORITY to say that I'm wrong.

What is the purpose of contracts if words aren't held to a standard?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#393 Mar 17 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,700 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Ya, like when I say that Alma and Rachel are awesome posters, I really mean they both suck. Because @#%^ language, all words mean only what I mean they mean.
Quote:
That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word.
Smiley: glare


Ya, I have to remember to quote the whole thing so you can't go back and edit it and make yourself NOT look like a dumbass. My bad.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#394 Mar 17 2013 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Alma, why does it matter to you so much if a person born biologically male feels like a woman? Do you dispute that this happens? Do you not believe that it's possible? What's the problem?

I don't get why it's a big deal.
#395 Mar 18 2013 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Belkira wrote:
Alma, why does it matter to you so much if a person born biologically male feels like a woman? Do you dispute that this happens? Do you not believe that it's possible? What's the problem?

I don't get why it's a big deal.

Because what if she sees his wiener in the shower?! it could fall off.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#396 Mar 18 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,406 posts
Belkira wrote:
I don't get why it's a big deal.
Meh, they're both playing the definition game.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#397 Mar 18 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Exodus wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I find anyone that even hints at suicide to be trash.


This would strike me as a very silly position to hold.


From the outside looking in, its only natural he'd hold a position like that. Inside looking out, imo, suicide is just pure weakness.

I'm sure there are exceptions for situations where you're terminally ill, dying, etc, though.


Is that a defense? Setting aside "pure weakness" for a second - he said "anyone that even hints at suicide is trash." That's not quite the same thing as saying that they're weak.

"Pure weakness" itself is a gross oversimplification; as convenient a mental dissonance as the one that lets some rich folks believe that the poor are only poor because they deserve as much.
Not ever having killed myself I can only surmise, but I'd think it takes some courage to off yourself.

But it takes a really big man to call the imperfect human 'trash'. Smiley: rolleyes



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#398 Mar 18 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
You keep saying this, but i have no idea what you mean.


What's so hard to understand. Your argument is that a man isn't defined by a penis. My argument is that a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with. Since there is no standard, you can't say that I'm wrong.
All of it? "How many woman he has slept with" doesn't make sense as a definition for the word "man" (or any other word). If you said "a person who has slept with at least 10 woman", then it would at least make sense...

Quote:
Rachel wrote:
That isn't how languages work. There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words. That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word. It means a word means whatever the speakers of the language use it to mean.


Read above. So, if I call a woman a male, then you have NO AUTHORITY to say that I'm wrong.

What is the purpose of contracts if words aren't held to a standard?
They ARE held to a standard, there is just no single authority that can decide that standard.
____________________________
#399 Mar 18 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Why does it even matter? The only argument, as I saw it, was whether or not it's a good idea to let any biologically male human have open access to use the facilities reserved for biologically female humans. I could care less who feels they are what inside - what I care about is the safety of the population at large. That's not to say I feel trans are the danger - don't misunderstand.

The danger is in allowing a precedent to be set that anyone can say they are anything and be allowed immediate and open access to areas they shouldn't have access to. I don't get access to the vault at a casino in vegas just because I say I'm the most important person in the world. Neither should any biologically male human get open and unquestioned access to the ladies' room just because he says he feels female inside. There's no way for the population at large to quantify that or know whether or not he's being truthful or is just an opportunistic predator.

I'm sorry that trans have a hard life. I agree that should change. I'm part of the LGBT community too and my life was just as hard - it sucked. I've been subject to some of the most awful violence known to humankind because of it, so I understand your plight as well as anyone can, Rachel. Sometimes, though, you have to look beyond your bubble and think about consequences that might result from your little "victory". Sure, you get to use the ladies room with your penis. So does everyone else, and now we have five or six more reported sexual assaults a month because predators have easy, unquestioned access to a private area where there are no cameras.

It's just not worth it.
#400 Mar 18 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,914 posts
So many of you are making this a harder problem than it is. Transgendered people go on a journey, inside and outside. When they are on their way on the outer physical journey, other people can tell. Not just by clothes, make up and hair, but also by body-language, speech patterns and other outward mannerisms. If a straight male perve tosses on a skirt and makeup and uses the female toilets to check out women, or gain access to them while they are vulnerable, women are going to know that this person is not a legit person in the bathroom, unless the man attacks them within seconds. It's all in the behavior. Society has very strict and defined public bathroom etiquette rules, and most people stick to them closely. That's why we can trust lesbians and trannies in with us. And men can trust gays and trannies in with them. And why in South Yarra and Prahran, the **** guys come in with the girls in the female bathrooms and are trustworthy there.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#401 Mar 18 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Society has very strict and defined public bathroom etiquette rules

Like "The ones with the **** go in the men's room and the ones with no **** go in the ladies' room"? Because that's the primary bathroom etiquette rule around these parts. Great if everyone down there has moved beyond such things or whatever but generally, around these parts, the whole **** thing is the first thing you categorize someone on when they're in the restroom with you. You know, before wondering if they're standing the proper number of urinals away from you or using too many paper towels.

Which is why I argued before regarding both owner protections and patron protections for restroom use. Because whatever Pollyanna dreams we may all hold for a future where no one cares... people care.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 32 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (32)