Emblematic? Serving as a symbol of a particular quality or concept? Yes, indeed. It serves as a symbol of the the movement's general trend toward imposition and control. Like When India Willoughby files criminal complaints against JK Rowling.Isolated incidents demonstrate that the entire thing is this way?
Are you sure that's the standard you want?
Of course, because the majority of Americans oppose discrimination and abuse of anyone. However, much of what the trans movement complains about is not discrimination and abuse. It is not, for example, discrimination and abuse to reject trans ideology.This is profoundly not true.
The majority of Americans oppose discrimination or abuse of transgender people.
Certainly, if someone was harassing someone at work, which is a severe and pervasive course of conduct, which can involve a lot of things that aren't themselves illegal - like, repeatedly and intentionally calling someone a dog, or teasing the person incessantly. That's what that is directed at and what people understand it to be. However, India Willoughby calling the cops because JK Rowling used the word "man" is not something anyone but fringe asshats agree with.As I have repeatedly documented, the EEOC already has a standard that purposeful misgendering of transgender is a violation of workplace harassment legislation.
Look in the mirror. The trans folks are a fringe minority, with outsized influence. People don't want them harassed, but they also don't think they need obey the trans folks at every turn. Hardly anyone would say that you have to agree that there aren't two sexes, for example. Yet the trans movement says "there's no such thing as biological sex."You can claim to be in the majority all you want, but realistically the only one you are truly trying to convince is yourself...
Poe's Law applies.Personal claims on the internet are like noses.
Everybody's got one and they all smell.
One of the problems with these issues is that sometimes its difficult to tell the difference between right-wing lies and actual events. For example, there were a lot of people up in arms over the CLAIM of litter boxes being provided in schools for kids identifying as cats.
Didn't happen...
Oh, well, that's on a different thread. The OP on this thread is the OP on this thread. That's the discussion here. You don't get to control the discussion.If you want to talk about the main topic that exists with MTF and FTM transgender, I am here for such a discussion.
You are incapable of discussing the topic in the OP. You now want to fault me, who did not create the OP, for discussing the OP. That's YOUR defalcation, not mine. You don't get to come here and derail a thread because you think it should be about something else. If you want to discuss what YOU think is the main topic, then either find that thread or create that thread. This thread is about an example of going to far.If you are INCAPABLE of discussing such things because you want to attack other stuff, then that's a reflection on your weak position.
Sure, I do. However, you keep making comments which aren't responsive to the OP, and I happen to be responding to those. You said you thought the demand in the OP was unreasonable. Then you went off into other issues, claiming that it wasn't an important issue, just an isolated thing, and that we should talk about other things which are more the main topic, etc.Quick question...
Do you even know my opinion regarding the issue presented in post #1, or are you running on an assumption?
It's an isolated example, because there aren't a host of other incidents identical to this one. But it is not an isolated example of the demands to exercise control over language, that's for sure. That's why this example is, as I said, "emblematic." A symbol of the overarching concept.This sentence is a perfect example of too many modern day transphobes.
They admit that they have an ISOLATED EXAMPLE, but then they try to stereotype it onto the entire group anyways.
This is your claim, but ultimately it is false.Of course, because the majority of Americans oppose discrimination and abuse of anyone. However, much of what the trans movement complains about is not discrimination and abuse.
Did somebody claim it was? Or is this just an implied strawman argument?It is not, for example, discrimination and abuse to reject trans ideology.
More strawman crap.Look in the mirror. The trans folks are a fringe minority, with outsized influence. People don't want them harassed, but they also don't think they need obey the trans folks at every turn. Hardly anyone would say that you have to agree that there aren't two sexes, for example. Yet the trans movement says "there's no such thing as biological sex."
To your posted claim? I would agree.Poe's Law applies.
I'm sorry, but is your comment here what I should have used to responded to your non-topical distractions?Oh, well, that's on a different thread. The OP on this thread is the OP on this thread. That's the discussion here. You don't get to control the discussion.
Apply this comment as well to all the non-topical crap you have talked about.You are incapable of discussing the topic in the OP. You now want to fault me, who did not create the OP, for discussing the OP. That's YOUR defalcation, not mine. You don't get to come here and derail a thread because you think it should be about something else. If you want to discuss what YOU think is the main topic, then either find that thread or create that thread. This thread is about an example of going to far.
Then what would you like to say about my position on the situation from post #1?Sure, I do.
Is there ANYBODY on this thread who agrees with the transgender person's position from post #1's situation?It's an isolated example, because there aren't a host of other incidents identical to this one. But it is not an isolated example of the demands to exercise control over language, that's for sure. That's why this example is, as I said, "emblematic." A symbol of the overarching concept.
I'll have to stop you right there. You said my claim that much of what the trans-assholes complain about is not disctrimination and abuse is "false." Wrong. You are wrong. When dipshit india Willoughby and her allies claim that JK Rowling is discriminating against and abusing by calling India a man, well, that's someone bitching about something that is neither discrimination nor abuse. When those scumbags complain about pronoun usage, and think every store clerk making minimum wage should be spending their time and mental energy puzzling out whether to call them a boy or a girl or some stupid-ass "gender outlaw" or "Zir" or "starburst" pronouns - they are calling something abuse/discrimination when it is not.This is your claim, but ultimately it is false.
The only ones claiming to be oppressed by pronouns are the trans folks and their allies. They literally claim that he and she "oppresses" them and is "hate speech" and "erases their identity" and they demand everyone else accommodate them to protect them from this horrible oppression of the pronouns everyone has used for several hundred years, or longer.Most of what anti-transgender people want to talk about is "ideology" and (supposedly) being oppressed by pronouns.
This is a discussion board, to discuss the issues of the day, and this is an issue of the day. Obviously, all the trans activists want to hear is silence on the issue, because they want to be the only ones talking about it, and everyone else has to obey, or it's hate speech and discrimination. So, yeah, those of us who have an issue with certain ideological stances will raise them here, and raise them in the context of events that occur in real life. This is a discussion board, after all, where we are all here, supposedly, to discuss these issues.Every conversation I've had on this board involving trans ideology and pronouns was brought about because an anti-transgender person wanted to push the discussion.\
Oh, yes, constantly. That's an overarching concept in the transactivist community - that to say there are only two sexes or worse yet, only two genders, shouldn't even be allowed to be said. We've had threads discusing examples of school kids debating in class where they argue there are only two genders and they were disciplined in school, and of course the trans dipshits claim "he's erasing my existence!" and "that's hate speech!"Did somebody claim it was? Or is this just an implied strawman argument\
Oh, yes, the trans movement does say that. I literally posted a college professor who said exactly that. You do not know what the **** you're talking about. He is a gender studies professor, teaching college students in gender studies, that it is a myth that there is such a thing as biological sex.More strawman crap.
No. The trans movement DOES NOT say "there's no such thing as biological sex".
Moreover, I find that on this forum it is the pro-transgender side which has to routinely define (biological) "sex" for those who are against transgenderism.
Oh, yes they are - you can't say "nobody" - just look at all the examples in the news about trans assholes abusing fast food workers or store clerks over being called "mister" or something when they are clearly a ****ing man. That's a demand for obedience. Look at what they did to Riley Gaines - "you must have a guy with a swingin' dick changing in front of you in the girls' locker room, or you can quit the sport." Look at the India Willoughby demand for obedience against JK Rowling - unsuccessful so far, yes - but it's their demand for obedience nonetheless - they say to JK Rowling "shut up, transphobe! You cannot voice your opinion! You must be silent!" And, that is their deman - they even want her arrested.Nobody is asking for trans folk to be "obeyed ... at every turn".
Oh, I do address what people are actually saying. People say a lot of things. If you want to cite a different example, feel free. Even the more benign demands from crowd are ****ing absurd.It would be much more meaningful for you to actually address what people are actually saying instead of jumping off into your emotional venting rants.
LOL, no to the fact that people can't tell the difference between what the translobby actually says and a parody of what they say.To your posted claim? I would agree.
A gender studies professor has nothing to do with transgender or gender identity. Gender studies is a sociology course and how society views gender roles and rights.Oh, yes, the trans movement does say that. I literally posted a college professor who said exactly that. You do not know what the **** you're talking about. He is a gender studies professor, teaching college students in gender studies, that it is a myth that there is such a thing as biological sex.
So, cut the crap with this strawman stuff. You are wrong. Face it.
Oh, yes they are - you can't say "nobody" - just look at all the examples in the news about trans assholes abusing fast food workers or store clerks over being called "mister" or something when they are clearly a ****ing man. That's a demand for obedience. Look at what they did to Riley Gaines - "you must have a guy with a swingin' dick changing in front of you in the girls' locker room, or you can quit the sport." Look at the India Willoughby demand for obedience against JK Rowling - unsuccessful so far, yes - but it's their demand for obedience nonetheless - they say to JK Rowling "shut up, transphobe! You cannot voice your opinion! You must be silent!" And, that is their deman - they even want her arrested.
Oh, I do address what people are actually saying. People say a lot of things. If you want to cite a different example, feel free. Even the more benign demands from crowd are ****ing absurd.
LOL, no to the fact that people can't tell the difference between what the translobby actually says and a parody of what they say.
Chair of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality and Professor of Sociology at Harvard University. Her research examines how social mobilization affects gender norms and practices in politics, in government institutions, in warfare, and in communities. Currently, Viterna is developing four research projects. The first project documents how activism surrounding women's sexual and reproductive rights in El Salvador has fundamentally transformed the Salvadoran judicial system, and more specifically, its processes for litigating gender. Building from this research, Viterna is developing and deploying training programs aimed at mitigating implicit bias and gender discrimination in Latin American courts. The second project examines how Salvadoran ob-gyns care for pregnant women and fetuses while negotiating the nation’s absolute abortion ban. This project also interrogates whether and how the ban is consequential for women’s and fetal health. The third project compares the discourse and tactics of 8 conservative and 8 progressive social movements in the U.S., investigating whether and how each camp strategically mobilizes notions of “gender.” Finally, Viterna is engaged in a pedagogical collaboration aimed at re-imagining how sociology programs should teach “classical” sociological theory in a way that is honest about our discipline’s intellectual roots, and their implications for present-day research.
Okay, all preachers sexually assault people.Emblematic? Serving as a symbol of a particular quality or concept? Yes, indeed. It serves as a symbol of the the movement's general trend toward imposition and control. Like When India Willoughby files criminal complaints against JK Rowling.
You used a weasel word "much". "Much" is entirely too subjective.I'll have to stop you right there. You said my claim that much of what the trans-assholes complain about is not disctrimination and abuse is "false." Wrong. You are wrong.
foundit66 said:Most of what anti-transgender people want to talk about is "ideology" and (supposedly) being oppressed by pronouns.
This is a complete nonsequitur to the point I was making.The only ones claiming to be oppressed by pronouns are the trans folks and their allies.
I encourage the viewing audience to observe the hypocrisy @MrNiceGuy presents.This is a discussion board, to discuss the issues of the day, and this is an issue of the day.
This is also true of the transphobes. You guys clearly want to control the dialogue and complain with your talking points.Obviously, all the trans activists want to hear is silence on the issue, because they want to be the only ones talking about it, and everyone else has to obey, or it's hate speech and discrimination.
Then it will be easy for you to quote an example of the actual discussed point.Oh, yes, constantly.
This is not a real example.Example - a Massachusetts student wore a t-shirt saying "there are only two genders." While other messages, pro trans, were allowed on shirts in the shool, he was ordered to remove it. He came back to the school with a shirt that said "there are "censored" genders" -- and he was ordered to remove that. That's a person making an ideological statement, opposing trans ideology, and that's an example of it being censored.
First, I welcome you to document your claim. I won't hold my breath.Oh, yes, the trans movement does say that. I literally posted a college professor who said exactly that.
foundit66 said:Nobody is asking for trans folk to be "obeyed ... at every turn".
You literally equate with responses of free speech and complaints with "obeying ... at every turn".Oh, yes they are - you can't say "nobody" - just look at all the examples in the news about trans assholes abusing fast food workers or store clerks over being called "mister" or something when they are clearly a ****ing man. That's a demand for obedience. Look at what they did to Riley Gaines - "you must have a guy with a swingin' dick changing in front of you in the girls' locker room, or you can quit the sport." Look at the India Willoughby demand for obedience against JK Rowling - unsuccessful so far, yes - but it's their demand for obedience nonetheless - they say to JK Rowling "shut up, transphobe! You cannot voice your opinion! You must be silent!" And, that is their deman - they even want her arrested.
The problem is YOU SEE ONE PERSON making a statement (like you did in this thread) and suddenly you claim it is the "translobby".LOL, no to the fact that people can't tell the difference between what the translobby actually says and a parody of what they say.
First, I welcome you to document your claim. I won't hold my breath.
Yes, certainly -- people in the trans movement do make that claim. I cited the professor as an example.Second, you claimed THE TRANS MOVEMENT makes a claim,
and to document this you want to point to ONE PERSON saying such a thing?
This is woefully inadequate.
I equate their demands for obedience and filing of criminal complains, and support for laws that would force people to use certain words, to a DEMAND that they be obeyed. That is what they are demanding. **** them. I don't have to agree with them. I never said they didn't have free speech to demand whatever they want. People can demand anything. But that doesn't mean their demands aren't demands -- and in this case, these ****wits are demanding obedience. They want people to obey and that obedience goes right down to whether we agree with them. I don't accept that. They are free to demand it, but I am free to not accept it, and to use MY FREE SPEECH to tell him or her to **** right off.You literally equate with responses of free speech and complaints with "obeying ... at every turn".
No sir, because I'm not asking them to do or say anything. They can claim to be a woman or a man or something else. They can claim there is no biological sex. They can claim it's all a fairy tale spectrum and la la la. They can dress up or dress down. They can "express" in any way they like. I've not demanded a single thing of them.By that mindset, YOU ARE ALSO putting forth a demand to be "obeyed ... at every turn".
Not in the least. He's one example of myriad. Others are legion. It's that group that disciplines a teenager in school for stating his view that there are two genders, and rejecting trans ideology. They are the ones that make that kid take his t-shirt off which said "there are only two genders" and then they made him take his next tshirt off which said "there are CENSORED genders." In the mind of the teachers and school administrators pushing this crap, they wouldn't even let the kid have his free speech to say there are two genders or that he had been censored from stating his view.The problem is YOU SEE ONE PERSON making a statement (like you did in this thread) and suddenly you claim it is the "translobby".
Nonsense.Again, emotional over-exaggeration.
“I could have reacted a whole lot better,” she says. “But you know what: I look back at it and if I could, I wouldn’t change a single thing. I would do it 100,000 times again. I would kick over that display 100,000 times again. Because my actions were justified.”
“Ma’am! Once again, ‘ma’am!,” Moore can be heard yelling. “If you want to call me sir again, I will show you a f***ing sir.” The cashier apologizes before Moore kicks over a display.
The company is also standing by its sales associate. “The incident that occurred between Tiffany Moore and our GameStop associate was unfortunate. We believe our associate acted professionally after misspeaking by apologizing and remaining calm to de-escalate the situation,” the company says. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tra...ral-video-blatant-malicious-hate-162919129.ht
You complain here about the topic of this thread. This thread isn't about that. I didn't create this thread. Go look at the person who did create this thread.This is also true of the transphobes. You guys clearly want to control the dialogue and complain with your talking points.
That is the whole point being presented here. There are clear examples of employment discrimination against transgenders which is an issue of the day, but you don't want to talk about that because it exposes the transphobes as bullies.
Bullshit. I never claimed to be a victim of anything. I claimed to OPPOSE what douchebags like India Willoughby and the translobby who attacked Riley Gaines, and the bathroom and pronoun brigades are doing. I don't like what they are trying to do, and I don't agree when they claim that JK Rowling and others who disagree with them are "transphobes" and worse, should be criminally prosecuted. I don't like when a student at a school has to fend off demands that he not use his own freaking name, because it offends some trans jackass. And that isn't saying all trans are jackasses. It's says THAT PARTICULAR trans person is a jackass, as is anyone who supports that jackass' position.Your whole talking points revolve around trying to pretend you are the victims, when you aren't.
You've already been cited a prime example. You asked for an example of someone being told it is discrimination/harassment for opposing trans ideology. Here you go -- a teen student wants to say "there are only two genders," which is a denial of trans ideology, that there are many genders existing on a spectrum of gender. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...genders-shirt-ban-us-appeals-court-rcna138115Then it will be easy for you to quote an example of the actual discussed point.
Here is the problem. It IS a perfect example, because that shirt is not harassment. It may be something a trans person who believes in trans ideology does not agree with, but it is not harassment. There is nothing uncivil about a shirt that says "there are only two genders" or "there are CENSORED genders." That's perfectly civil. It's as civil as a shirt which says "gender is a spectrum." Would you support a ban on t-shirts that say "gender is a spectrum?" Is that uncivil? Or will you say that one point of view is civil and the other is uncivil?This is not a real example.
The work-place and places like schools need to be a place free from harassment. As such, such shirts are not allowed. The issue is not "rejecting trans ideology", but rather having a civil school / work-place environment.
It's free speech at school, too, unless the school has a content-neutral rule. If they allow other messages, then they have to allow his message.If he wore that shirt elsewhere, it's free speech. Moreover, it's rather obvious that he rejects the trans ideology regardless of the presence or absence of the shirt. Ergo, your assessment is woefully inaccurate.
Wait a cotton pickin' minute here. I did not talk about anything that was non-topical to this thread. This was a thread about the trans movement going too far. I talked about that directly.I encourage the viewing audience to observe the hypocrisy @MrNiceGuy presents.
I talk about something he doesn't want to talk about, he complains it is non-topical to the thread.
He talks about something that is non-topical to the thread, and he claims it is "an issue of the day".
Oh, you call me a transphobe?Part of the problem is TRANSPHOBES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR making these (supposed) "issues of the day". You guys won't shut up about them and you keep bringing them up ad nausieum.
You used a weasel word "much". "Much" is entirely too subjective.
To claim my statement is "false" because it entirely revolves around what the individual defines as "much".
So, you agree I am right, but you just think it's "not the focus of the fight." This is where conversations often go off the rails, because you switch the issue. You declared what i said to not be true, even though it is true, and even though you now AGREE WITH WHAT I DESCRIBED. You say it's false, because you think it's not the "real focus." Well, that doesn't make it false.I will agree that what you described exists. However, it is not the real focus of the fight.
Ok, one, again, you're suggesting some other people scream louder about being ordered or demanded to use certain pronouns, than the people who are trying to give the orders/demands to those people to use the certain pronouns. Let's see your evidence of that? Care to cite your examples of transphobes -- transphobes now -- make sure that's part of your evidence - that you are not just citing to people expressing a different opinion that they not have to use certain pronouns - you said "transphobes." So, where are the examples of this "transphobes" who are "screaming loudest?"This is a complete nonsequitur to the point I was making.
While there are complaints about wrong use of pronouns, it is the transphobes who are the ones who scream loudest about it on this forum because that's what they want their talking points to revolve around.
That wasn't my standard.Okay, all preachers sexually assault people.
By your standard.
Gender studies includes the study of gender identity. However, feel free to say you completely disagree with what he says here -A gender studies professor has nothing to do with transgender or gender identity. Gender studies is a sociology course and how society views gender roles and rights.
Gender idneity would be in the school of psychology or medical science.
Understanding Gender, Sex, and Gender Identity
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene hung a sign in the Capitol saying there are only two genders. Psychologists disagree. Here's why.www.psychologytoday.com
Okay, so preachers are a symbol of pedophelia.That wasn't my standard.
My standard, using that context, would be the priests/brothers Healy and Beaumont referred to in this article are emblematic of the Catholic Church pedophilia problem and the shuffling of priests around to hide them. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...ffle-of-paedophile-priests-without-punishment
I did not say anything about "all" being one way or another, and you know it. You also know that "emblematic" does not mean "all." It means a symbol of.
Derp!Okay, so preachers are a symbol of pedophelia.
I am merely applying your very own standard.Derp!
LOL - are you not reading what you're responding to? My god, people...
I did not say that trans people were emblematic... I said A SPECIFIC ****ING GOD DAMN PERSON REPORTING JK ROWLING TO THE POLICE was emblematic.
So, YES, a particular preacher - like the preachers I mentioned -- THEY can be emblematic of pedophilia or pedophilic priests/preachers. However, that is not the same thing - and you ****ing damn well know this - that's not the same thing as saying "preachers" are emblematic of pedophilia.
For the love of god - is there a mental block or something?
You aren't though. I literally just explained it to you.I am merely applying your very own standard.
The only difference between your statement and my statement is that you don't like my statement and you don't like that it fits inside your model.You aren't though. I literally just explained it to you.
When you say that Joe Blow, a pedophile priest, is emblematic of the pedophilia issue of the day, that doesn't mean all priests are pedophiles.
Likewise, saying that India Willoughby is emblematic of the excessiveness of the trans movement, that doesn't mean that everyone in the transmovement is excessive.
Maybe that clears it up for you. I think that that there are priests out there who are emblematic of the pedophilia problem. Do you think I therefore think all priests are pedophiles?
Errr... noooo.... your statement doesn't fit inside my model.The only difference between your statement and my statement is that you don't like my statement and you don't like that it fits inside your model.
I never said he was an outlier. I said he was emblematic. YOU said that meant I was referring to "all."You don't get to claim that outliers are emblematic when it suits you and aren't emblematic when it doesn't.
You don't know what special pleading is, and you are incapable of thinking logically.I mean, you CAN claim that, but don't expect to be taken seriously. Special pleading is for nerds.
This is a highly ironic claim from you.You don't know what special pleading is, and you are incapable of thinking logically.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?