Do you really find "all or nothing" to be rational? Because if you do, I've got to assume you're a kid, because I've only heard kids try to reason like that. That's not an attempt to insult you, but to say that this kind of thinking is immature as fuck.
And isn't the point of comedy to speak truth to power? Or do you find it funny to abuse the abused? If that's the case, you must find reading about injustices that occur in the world hilarious. If people are hurt by a thing, just because it was supposed to be funny doesn't make it excusable.
Also, with regards to the Holocaust thing, unless that was recently, there's all kinds of differences in viewership and cultural direction to consider.
The point of comedy is to speak truth, however the deliver method of jokes usually involves conflict (in drama and comedies) which is usually based around sorrow, pain & stupidity. And how a person fights it.. vast majority of it.
So I'll have to disagree with you, the bane of jokes can involve any group in society. Theres nothing offlimits really, I don't see the point in apologising if there was nothing wrong with the words used. Transgendered is perfectly acceptable term.. it says someone is about to get a sexchange operation. We all know what it means and makes sense.
Sucking off a pre-op transgendered obviously refers to a man so we know what it means.
Abomination said:
Did you read what Yahtzee said? While he disagreed about people taking offense to the word "trannies" regardless of context, his response to criticism of his pre-op transexuals joke was basically "Hmm, you're right, I could have worded that better. Let me clarify. Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention."
No one was holding a gun to his head. No one threatened to take away his show or do anything bad to him. If he disagreed and wanted to argue with that, fine, but why are you trying to defend him on something that by all appearances, he actually thinks he was a bit in the wrong? Seems a bit . . . knee-jerk?
Then you obviously don't understand what we are doing. We are not defending yahtzee, we are saying that he's wrong about having to apologise, feel guilty for, responding to a minority groups knee-jerk reaction. We are coming to the defence of comedy.. not to yahtzee's defence. I don't give a fuck about yahtzee because hes not my friend, I like his show but hes not my idol. I agree with him on many things but we don't suck his dick. We have self respect which puts us way beyond other kinds fans out there. Thats why I like yahtzee. Hes funny in his cycnical way and his fans have much higher selfesteem and intelligence then the vast majority of websites/reviewers/critiques/game journalists out there.
I can come here to talk with people that share a common ground with cynicism, gaming and poetry if the rhythm downs popularity says anything. The occasional fantards who join up simply to leave a comment on one of these videos when their precious console gets critiqued or get a joke played on their expense is funny. Boo fucking whoo. Cry me a river.
But this... this is annoying.
Mr F. said:
It just means that if you are in the public eye, you HAVE to sometimes be careful. If Yahtzee could not be funny without attacking one of the most victimised groups in society, I would not find him funny.
No. Because there was no attack. Yahtzee was making fun of a gayman in denial about his homosexuality, nothing to do with transgendered people's sexual identity.
Speksi said:
You know what Yahtzee once said? A truly tolerant society is one where everyone can make fun of everyone else without anyone getting offended. And he's right. Will you change your post if I tell you I'm victimized and a self-diagnosed easily-hurt-by-words-phobic, and everything you just said offends me greatly? If not, double standard!
Freedom of speech is irrelevant, I'm not suggesting government action and that's the only thing it applies to. I don't fucking get why people think freedom of speech is "NO CONSEQUENCES NO MATTER WHAT I SAY" , all it means is you won't face legal action. It doesn't mean I can run into a black owned restaurant yell "LOOK AT ALL THE NIGGERS, I WONDER HOW MUCH FRIED CHICKEN AND CORN BREAD I CAN GET HERE" at the top of my lungs and not get kicked out. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about not being a massive dick who makes people think you have something against transexuals when you don't, and since it's more LIKELY that any person is transphobic and doesn't give a fuck than say, a hardcore racist and doesn't give a rnfuck you need to be more careful about it.
Also: You're a very bad comedian. Messaging is a very important part of being an intelligent comedian. That's why there's a media outrage when Daniel Tosh jokingly says it'd be funny if a heckler got gang raped and not at everyone who has ever told a rape joke. Because his joke was stupid enough and worded in such a way that it made it seem like he just doesn't care about rape. Right before that he told a rape joke and only that one heckler gave a fuck because it didn't make anyone feel like he seriously didn't give a fuck about rape.
"lol look at that freak with a dick" doesn't have a message besides "haha, transexuals". Yahtzee's old one just took "transexual women who still have penises aren't women" as the premise and ran with that. Which, you know, he probably wouldn't change if he actually believed it, but he obviously doesn't.
Yeah, you won't face legal action, I know and I've said that freedom of speech just protects your right to say that but someone can still get pissed off and knock your teeth out for it.
And I wasn't trying to be a comedian I was just saying that putting one group on a pedestal over the other regardless is stupid and hypocritical and that thing about that comedian? That **** deserved it, she heckled, fuck her, she came there to see a comedian and you heckle a show you should be sued for interrupting someone and actively making it worse for the people who came there to see him, it's fucking retarded. My main point was that if we start giving credence and making exceptions for people who can and can't be joked about then anyone can get a fucking foothold and say 'I'm special I should be protected', no, just no. That's bullshit. And that's the thing about GOOD OL' FREE ENGLAND! You get your ass thrown in jail for saying sick shit on the internet, fuck, that happened in murrica', what the fuck is that shit? How collectively fucked as a culture have we become if someone says a bad word then we all turn into blubbering pussies? What the fuck?
And while I'm on it, people have been sued as comedians, why? 'B-b-but it was implied they didn't give a fuck about rape to a heckler o-o-or they h-h-hurt someone's feelings'. They're comedians, fuck, some of the best comedians are like this to hecklers, it's great. I mean I'm not trying to be a tough guy or some belligerent prick (god knows I'm far from a badass) but when did everyone lose their spine and become offended at everything? It's cliche to rally against the PC but fuck it is poisoning and weakening the western world, people need thicker skin, all I'm saying.
You may not be a comedian, but yahtzee in a fundamental sense is, and one who gets by on pure wit. There are certain things you need to know, even if just intrinsically. George Carlin is considered one of the best comedians and he offended plenty of people, but you can clearly understand that he was intentionally jabbing at anything he was jabbing at.
Like I said, if Tosh was funny or worded it better it wouldn't have been a problem. But because it wasn't even worded it a remotely funny way it just came across as him threatening rape at the flip of a hat.
Yahtzee didn't get in trouble for saying a bad word and no one should, context matters. Like I said, he had a sign saying "no trannies", no one gave a fuck. Because it didn't make him seem like he genuinely believes anything against that. Same reason he generally doesn't get a reaction against holocaust jokes, because he generally doesn't seem like a nazi
People need thicker skin? Because someone got called out when they said something that seemed bigoted because it was worded poorly? If you ask me it's more thin skinned that everyone feels threatened when a comedian decides that something they said was truly offensive and worthy of edit because of wording.
Firstly, Phony outrage? Jesus christ. A large part of the LGBTQ community would like to talk to you. Secondly, the second joke actually makes far more sense. I just... Christ.
Oh great....Now I have to figure out what the Q is. Queer? Nah, seems redundant. Queen? Don't think anyone even uses that term anymore. Quirple? No...I think I just made that up. It's gotta be some group of hyper-sensitive, self-important weirdos, but I just can't think of it.
You know what? Cheers for insulting my brother and quite a few other people. Now, just so you know, the Q stands for either Queer (As in, gender queer or gender neutral) or Questioning (It depends on who you talk to and is a cultural thing that differs on either side of the Atlantic. Questioning simply means that you are uncertain about your gender.). For some people Queer simply means they do not believe they should be judged as a result of their gender or that gender matters on any level, what with it being a societal creation that they do not agree with.
Do you believe that Trans people even exist? Lets get that out of the way. Because your statement indicates that you do not believe they exist, or you do not believe their thoughts and opinions should count, or that you believe that they should remain to be victimised. Right.
Do trans people exist? I guess, unless trans means something other than what I think it means.
As for their thoughts and opinions, they can have theirs all they want. It's when they force them on others that people get annoyed. When they attempt to censor people's creativity because they feel they're so important they should be immune from comedy. [/quote] Yet you are totally and utterly willing to force the idea of a binary gender on others, which some people find destructive and upsetting. What is your issue, that a woman wants to be treated as a woman? Oh wait, you want to define them. You seem to think you have the right to call people whatever you want. Interesting.
Remain victimized? Victimized by what? A joke? That wasn't even directed at them?
No, there was a thoughtless joke which is insulting or upsetting. You do not "Choose" to be a gender other than your biological sex any more you choose to be gay, or strait, or bisexual or queer or anything else under the sun. You do not choose to be black so if you get insulted by being called a ****** you are not choosing to be offended. You are simply getting offended.
They chose to be offended, and then chose to be outraged by it.
You are right. I choose to care about other people. How horrible am I? I should be like, shot or something, because I care about my fellow man.
They could have taken it for what it was, in the context it was, and moved on. But they didn't. They're special little snowflakes and they need special considerations. "Everyone else can be made fun of, just not ME!."
If every single day people are not treating you as a person, are treating you as different, divergent, an abomination. If you get abused daily, if you get shit shouted at you in the street and are threatened with violence, you reserve the right to attack bits of the media that are perpetuating the thought processes that are negative. And it is not that Trans people cannot be part of jokes, in a doctor who episode last series there was a Transexual horse. It was funny, small and a GOOD joke. It was a joke that normalised, it was a joke that felt more inclusive. Now, the joke used by Yahtzee was neither of these things. I do not believe it was DELIBERATELY malicious or that he WANTED to insult people, but intent does not really matter.
It just means that if you are in the public eye, you HAVE to sometimes be careful. If Yahtzee could not be funny without attacking one of the most victimised groups in society, I would not find him funny.
So if you insult people, if you demean them, if you state they are not who they are, you should never apologise .
It's the final display of their power (assuming they aren't trying to get someone fired, which they often are). Because, of course, the way you get people to be tolerant of you is by shutting them up.
Well, one of the ways you stop people being intolerant is to attack the things which are perpetuating intolerance. I guess all those black people should not have done anything about the Jim Crow laws and stuff like that, because making noise is always bad. The march on Washington should have never happened, because taht was stifling peoples rights to call them Niggers. Fuck that logic.
And as for literal victimization, I've already proven they're clearly not the most victimized group in society. In fact, they're even less victimized than white, straight males it seems.
You know, I am not going to try and get into the statistics. Directly from cases of "Who gets murdered the most" it could be inferred that they are not victimised. However, you need to look into the causes of those murders, you need to look into daily abuse. I have NEVER recieved abuse as a white strait male for BEING a white strait male. However, I have not met a single Trans or Queer person who has not recieved abuse for being Trans or Queer.
I fully accept that my evidence comes from being a member of the LGBTQ community and the people I talk to. I guess that is not good enough for you. Oh well.
which you probably don't because you don't really strike me as a "stat" or "fact" sort of person.
How kind of you to try and attack my academic credentials! And you do not really strike me as an accepting person, or a decent human being. Like, at all. But that is life. Strangely enough, I have gone through a lot of stats over the last year, what with being a social scientist (Key word there is Scientist), however we did not really focus too much on the victimisation of trans people. We just focused on identity as a whole, particularly racial and national identities.
Hypocrites? Please explain the hypocricy. At the same time, please explain why getting upset by a problematic joke, a joke that essentially reinforces the idea that "You are not a woman.", is not worthy of outrage if you are either a member of the LGBTQ community or an ally of the LGBTQ community.
Well first, this hypothetical person was obviously not a woman. It was a man. The penis was indicative of that fact. Feel free to argue this with me. I'm well versed in arguing fact against people with nothing but imagination, emotions and wishes.
I am getting nowhere here. Just a quick question, what gives you the right to state that they are not a woman? Is it the same right that allows you to call a black person a ******? Or 100 years ago, the same right to state that black people are inferior to you, dumber than you and more servile than you? Honestly, I am genuinely interested in why you think what someone has in the groin area matters whatsoever to their identity? And what gives you the right to declare someone to be what they are not?
And it is hypocrisy. And narcissism. You're absolutely fine at laughing at humorous and insulting things directed at everyone else, but as soon as one thing hits too close to home you're up in arms about it. "It's ok to make fun of THEM. But ME? How could he? I'm OUTRAGED."
If every day people like you tell you you are mentally ill, tell you you are wrong, insult you and attack you (Verbally or physically) and state, in no uncertain terms, that whatever you might think you are wrong. Whatever you might know, you are wrong. If every day you recieve that, and you are currently arguing that they should recieve that you have the fucking RIGHT to get angry. You know, you keep forgetting something. Freedom of speech gives you freedom to say what you want, it also gives you freedom to be called an asshole when you are an asshole.
I guess I am saying if every day you get shit from people like you, whether you say it or not to Trans people (I seriously doubt you know any.), you have the right to ask for an apology when another shitty joke attacks your very identity.
And I say all the above as a sociology undergrad and a CIS gendered male. I would tear you to little pieces with sociological theory, but I genuinely believe you could not comprehend it. I do not mean that insultingly, unlike your attack on trans people, I mean that with my head held low and a heavy heart.
Oh, wonderful, you are attacking the entire subject of sociology. Anti-intellectualism is a current trend, I guess I should get used to it. Then again, as someone who has studied Identity, I am far more qualified to discuss this subject than you are. I wonder if that upsets you.
Did you HAVE to use the term trannies?
Yes, yes you did. For fucks sake.
For the record, using that term in that context is the equivalent of referring to all women as bitches in domestic violence statistics. You probably know that. You probably know that the term you are using is loaded and insulting. But you probably don't care.
It is a derogatory term along the same lines as calling black people niggers. That is why. Transexuals and Transgendered people would rather they were not referred to with that term, so stop using that term.
I notice you didn't comment on the actual statistics though, despite being confronted with them in the same post where you claim trannies(trans?) are the most victimized group. Interesting.
Not the most, just one of many victimised groups. Now, as I have stated above, I cannot get into the statistics. I have to go from personal evidence. I hope you are aware that you can use statistics to infer whatever you wish. But, well, Lets see what a google search indicates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_bashing
That article, whilst in desperate need for citation I will admit, has a reference to a film I believe you should go and watch. Boys Dont Cry. Tell me, are you likely to get brutally raped because you are a white cisgendered man? I seriously doubt it.
Oh look, some statistics!
Out of Trans people in Scottland:
80% of respondents stated that they had experienced emotionally, sexually,
or physically abusive behaviour by a partner or ex-partner.
? Although 80% of respondents identified having experienced some form of abusive
behaviour from a partner or ex-partner, only 60% of respondents recognised the
behaviour as domestic abuse.
? The type of domestic abuse most frequently experienced by the respondents was
transphobic emotional abuse, with 73% of the respondents experiencing at least one
type of transphobic emotionally abusive behaviour from a partner or ex-partner.
? 60% of respondents had experienced controlling behaviour from a partner or ex-partner.
? 45% of respondents had experienced physically abusive behaviour from a partner
or ex-partner.
? 47% of respondents had experienced some form of sexual abuse from a partner
or ex-partner.
? 37% of respondents said that someone had forced, or tried to force them to have
sex when they were under the age of 16.
? 46% of respondents said that someone had forced, or tried to force them to
engage in some other form of sexual activity when under the age of 16.
? 10% of respondents stated that someone had forced, or tried to force them to
engage in sexual activity for money.
Seventy-five percent of the respondents answered questions relating to the impact that
domestic abuse had on their wellbeing. They also answered questions about whether they had
contacted any support services about their experiences of domestic abuse. Their responses
are as follows:
? 98% identified at least one negative impact upon their wellbeing as a result of their
experiences of domestic abuse.
? 76% identified having experienced psychological or emotional problems as
a consequence of the abuse.
? 15% said that they had attempted suicide as a consequence of the abuse.
? 24% told no one about the domestic abuse that they had experienced.
? 18% felt that the most recent domestic abuse that they had experienced was
?just something that happened?.
? 51% thought that the most recent domestic abuse they had experienced was
?wrong but not a crime?.
Now, general statistics on domestic abuse for the UK
Domestic abuse:
Will affect 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in their lifetime
Leads to, on average, two women being murdered each week and 30 men per year
Accounts for 16% of all violent crime (Source: Crime in England and Wales 04/05 report), however it is still the violent crime least likely to be reported to the police
Has more repeat victims than any other crime (on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police)
Is the single most quoted reason for becoming homeless (Shelter, 2002)
Hmm, One in four CIS woman (25%) and one in six CIS men (41% of the population. Interestingly, I am just inferring that those statistics are referring to CIS gendered people, which is probably inaccurate. So trans people are part of those statistics, inflating the results even further. and 80% of Trans people! Huh, its like trans people are far more likely to face abuse or something!
Will that do? 20 seconds on google and I have already found evidence that Trans people face far more domestic and sexual abuse than the general population. I guess when you inevitably ignore those statistics that you are just not a "Statistics" guy.
I study alternative medicine, so fuck your medical degree! My lecturer said that stuffing tea leaves up your nose cures cancer. It must be true because science is racist!
Thanks for reminding us that it is not just the far-right that is scared of science, but also the far-left too.
Thankyou for making me certain I do not need to bother with your thoughts. See, I spent about a month studying how science was used to further Racism, from George Cuvier onwards. Hell, we went a little bit further back to how biblical traditions of monogenisis and polygenisis are used to further racism. But whatever. Apparently, studying something is worthless.
No, this is not like someone with a fucking pointless degree doing something actively harmful, as homeopathy is dangerous. It is someone who is studying society telling you that society is pretty fucked up, was fucked up and will continue to be fucked up because people are willing to believe science without question.
The same science that thought that by measuring the bumps on someones head you could work out how servile they are. The same science that proved black people were inferior. But that is ok because we have totally moved on, right? As a society we no longer arbitrarily dictate someones character because of outwards characteristics, right?
We do not randomly judge people and who they are because of their genes any more, right? We no longer think we can fathom the human mind just by looking at someone? We no longer abuse people who are different?
Yeah no. I am not afraid of science, I just do not blindly follow it. The DSM gets changed constantly, with different disorders added and, most importantly, removed. Science is not static, it is fluid and it is based upon our cultures. You cannot deny that. Well, you can, and you probably will. But whatever.
Science is not as distant from ethics as many scientists would wish it to be.
Miroluck said:
Mr F. said:
Sorry, going purely from scientific definitions is utterly bullshit. I am a sociologist, firstly,
Not inferior, but equals. And considering I am rather disdainful of science and its trying to define humans in fixed terms, which is pretty much impossible because we are unique (You cannot get into my head, I cannot get into yours) and what is usually being used to define who we are is a few outward characteristics.
who believes that gender and sexual identity are fluid, because they are. So... Fuck that.
Well, I believe the arguments that I have come up with myself after studying the subject for a few years now. I do not just believe what I read. Amusingly, everyone who is going by "THERE ARE TWO SEXES AND TWO SEXES ONLY" is going by what they read, and their cultural norms. Not every society is so fixed, interestingly, but should I get into that? You probably don't care.
I will go with the definition of Gender as outlined by Judith Butler, one of the key theorists required by my course,
Well, not quite, I am more swung by Butler than by Goffman. I honestly hated reading Butlers stuff, its rather too heavy. But whatever. Ok. I am blindly following what my lecturers tell me.
Interestingly, who are you blindly following?
"Science" proved blacks were inferior to whites, dumber, more servile and the like.
The same science that dicated that black people were inferior!
I am saying science is controlled by culture. As culture changes, scientific findings change. No conspiracy theory there. But as we move away from racism, the science of race has changed. As we advance, what we study changes and how we right it changes.
As culture changes, science changes. Natural Philosophy was all great, but Rationalism and Empiricism did wonders for science. And changed how it was written. Essentially, if you go into something with pre-conceived opinions, you will end up putting those opinions into your science, subconsciously or not.
Insinuations about that pipe being stacked with reefer, and sociology degree being waste of money have been cut because that's beside the point.
Also, I don't want to sound like 70-year old.
On a side note, could you two please go off and read some sociological theory? I could post you a reading list when I land. I mean, it could get me in trouble, but I could even send you a few PDF documents containing some of last years set readings.
I have studied humanities for a year - psychology and philosophy professors have nagged our heads off about all kinds of weird western literature and "academics". Not anymore, thank you very much. In other words...
Ah, you spent a year and decided an entire field was bunk. Well, I guess you are now an expert and I should listen to you. Interestingly, I find your idea that the entire field, which has done quite a bit for society in general, is useless to be... Amusing. Let me guess, You are American?
When it's going to bring you some dough somewhere down the line or help you discover laws of the Universe, it is. When it's filling up student's head with useless, dangerous ideas, it's not.
Lol, dangerous ideas. What exactly is dangerous about Sociology? The idea that culture is important? The study of society? How identities are formed, class habitus, divergent societies, divergent communities? The causes behind riots? Whatever.
I'm a bit disappointed that you've decided to latch onto words instead of stating your opinion on those numbers. Because they're showing that trans people are in no more danger than cis, and you've said otherwise.
Well, further up in this epic post (The longest I have written, going away from the computer for a few days was a mistake) you will find a breakdown of some statistics from the UK indicating that Trans people are far more likely to face domestic abuse. Go read them.
Right, thats a few of you responded too. I dont even know if this post will get posted due to its length. Preemptively going to copy it into notepad just in case.
Its been fun guys, please keep your responses short. As far as I am concerned this is good revision.
Although protip: If you are going to respond to this and you simply do not believe that trans people are people, or believe that trans people are mentally ill and should be institutionalised, please don't bother. Seriously. Its too much effort. Its why I couldnt be bothered to respond to one of the others.
I eagerly await your transphobic diatribes.
EDIT:
One last thing. Just something to point out why definitions matter.
http://xkcd.com/1216/
Never linked an image here and I need to eat so CBA to work out how. Just follow the link.
Fixed terms are what good about science, in my opinion. No wiggle-waggle, just - bam - terms.
which is pretty much impossible because we are unique (You cannot get into my head, I cannot get into yours) and what is usually being used to define who we are is a few outward characteristics.
who believes that gender and sexual identity are fluid, because they are. So... Fuck that.
So, do you believe in that just because your college books said so?
Well, I believe the arguments that I have come up with myself after studying the subject for a few years now. I do not just believe what I read. Amusingly, everyone who is going by "THERE ARE TWO SEXES AND TWO SEXES ONLY" is going by what they read, and their cultural norms. Not every society is so fixed, interestingly, but should I get into that? You probably don't care.
I am blindly following the scientists who weren't tainted by associating with certain ideologies.
Insinuations about that pipe being stacked with reefer, and sociology degree being waste of money have been cut because that's beside the point.
Also, I don't want to sound like 70-year old.
On a side note, could you two please go off and read some sociological theory? I could post you a reading list when I land. I mean, it could get me in trouble, but I could even send you a few PDF documents containing some of last years set readings.
I have studied humanities for a year - psychology and philosophy professors have nagged our heads off about all kinds of weird western literature and "academics". Not anymore, thank you very much. In other words...
Ah, you spent a year and decided an entire field was bunk. Well, I guess you are now an expert and I should listen to you. Interestingly, I find your idea that the entire field, which has done quite a bit for society in general, is useless to be... Amusing. Let me guess, You are American?
When it's going to bring you some dough somewhere down the line or help you discover laws of the Universe, it is. When it's filling up student's head with useless, dangerous ideas, it's not.
Lol, dangerous ideas. What exactly is dangerous about Sociology? The idea that culture is important? The study of society? How identities are formed, class habitus, divergent societies, divergent communities?
The causes behind riots?
The causes behind riots are always simple: police and/or riot squads not being trained enough, and government being too lenient to people demanding changes during these riots instead of arresting them as soon as they come.
Ironic that you used this comic as an argument, considering that it's author would certainly call your field "weak", "soft", and "unprofitable", if he would've been here now.
Doesnt work when you are trying to discuss something as complicated as identity. However, interestingly, most of the terms that are used are rather fixed. The issue here is belief that gender is fluid. Which, as both Goffman and Butler state, I am more tempted to believe. Its partially the whole "Nature/nurture" thing, also societal views.
which is pretty much impossible because we are unique (You cannot get into my head, I cannot get into yours) and what is usually being used to define who we are is a few outward characteristics.
Ah, so trans people are inferior? Cause that is what that little demotivational is indicating in this context. Think before you speak or perhaps just outright state that you are anti-trans (Or transphobic. As I stated.)
who believes that gender and sexual identity are fluid, because they are. So... Fuck that.
So, do you believe in that just because your college books said so?
Well, I believe the arguments that I have come up with myself after studying the subject for a few years now. I do not just believe what I read. Amusingly, everyone who is going by "THERE ARE TWO SEXES AND TWO SEXES ONLY" is going by what they read, and their cultural norms. Not every society is so fixed, interestingly, but should I get into that? You probably don't care.
Yes. Yes they were. Go look at mid 20th century science, it was tainted. Go look at how LITTLE comes out of the Eugenics movements, that is tainted by what people think of eugenics these days (Its not all bad.). Go look at the desperation in diagnosing everything, calling EVERYTHING a mental disorder, from grief onwards. Science is as susceptible to society as society is to science. You are a product of society, every scientist is a product of society. Sorry.
Every scientist is affected by the ideologies they believe just as every human is. Thats not a bad thing, as long as you are not putting all your trust in one scientist. Most of the physicists I know despise Brian Cox, within the physics community the Big Bang Theory is starting to loose credibility. Science changes. The reason science changes is the information changes. Having blind faith that the scientists are right is pretty bloody stupid if you have ever studied psychology, sociology or the DSM.
Insinuations about that pipe being stacked with reefer, and sociology degree being waste of money have been cut because that's beside the point.
Also, I don't want to sound like 70-year old.
On a side note, could you two please go off and read some sociological theory? I could post you a reading list when I land. I mean, it could get me in trouble, but I could even send you a few PDF documents containing some of last years set readings.
I have studied humanities for a year - psychology and philosophy professors have nagged our heads off about all kinds of weird western literature and "academics". Not anymore, thank you very much. In other words...
Ah, you spent a year and decided an entire field was bunk. Well, I guess you are now an expert and I should listen to you. Interestingly, I find your idea that the entire field, which has done quite a bit for society in general, is useless to be... Amusing. Let me guess, You are American?
So you are using the term comrade? Interesting. So you are British? Fun fun fun! Sociological theory and liberalism is what gave us the NHS and the welfare state. This entire country has been rocked and shaped by sociological theory, from Attlee onwards. Stating it is pointless is stating that social policy is pointless.
Education is AWESOME.
When it's going to bring you some dough somewhere down the line or help you discover laws of the Universe, it is. When it's filling up student's head with useless, dangerous ideas, it's not.
Lol, dangerous ideas. What exactly is dangerous about Sociology? The idea that culture is important? The study of society? How identities are formed, class habitus, divergent societies, divergent communities?
The causes behind riots?
The causes behind riots are always simple: police and/or riot squads not being trained enough, and government being too lenient to people demanding changes during these riots instead of arresting them as soon as they come.
Right. And all wars are just defensive wars against aggressors. Interestingly, some people like to look into the causes of social unrest. Because they are myriad and not as reductivist and you are trying to portray them to be.
Like the August Riots. Were they simply caused by the police not stopping them? If the police had stopped them, there would have been no riots, true. But the reasons why people wanted to riot would not have changed, they would have simply been ineffective in their violent action. Its fun stuff to try and study rioting and stigma. Here is a nice and simple song (Which I had to study for one of my other degrees, interestingly enough.)
Interestingly, what do you think of people studying Politics and International Relations? Just trying to find out if you believe my entire degree is pointless.
(For the record, I believe you should acquire education for the sake of education, not merely to get a decent job. Although as I am in line for a first, or a double first if I do decide to turn my degree into a double major and the civil service fast track, I will end up earning quite a bit with my degree.)
Yet you were transphobic up above! Or were you simply not thinking before typing? Its a good idea to think, "Bro", before you accidentally end up insulting more people. Which, interestingly, is the root of this entire debate. Funnily enough, when Yahtzee fucked up, he apologised, admitted he had been thoughtless and then edited the joke into one which made more sense and was marginally more amusing.
One last thing. Just something to point out why definitions matter.
http://xkcd.com/1216/
Never linked an image here and I need to eat so CBA to work out how. Just follow the link.
Well, his thoughts are sometimes rather pertinent. If I quote Marx, Bourdieu, Mill, Butler, Goffman or anyone else I believe is applicable to this situation, would I be just "Posting some other dudes thoughts"?
Definitions matter my friend. Refusing to accept peoples identities causes damage to those people.
Here, an NHS page explaining the issues that trans people deal with as a result of the discrimination people like you further.
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can make you happy or sad which is literally all that matters in this stupid world.
By refusing to accept trans people as an entity, by refusing to accept that a woman can be born in the body of a man, you are directly causing harm. You are part of the issue. You are transphobic (In the same way that a man who thinks gays are just "Unnatural" is homophobic.). Your intent might not be malicious, but intent really doesn't matter. You are, through action or inaction, furthering the harm to a group of people who really do not need more assholes hating on them.
What is it you find so hard to accept about Trans people?
You're obviously building bulk of your argument (like that part about August riots later) on a fact that I'm allegedly British. That is partly my fault. Should've used "tovarisch" (damn).
Education is AWESOME.
When it's going to bring you some dough somewhere down the line or help you discover laws of the Universe, it is. When it's filling up student's head with useless, dangerous ideas, it's not.
Dangerous for certain societies, not for everyone in general.
Interestingly, what do you think of people studying Politics and International Relations? Just trying to find out if you believe my entire degree is pointless.
Politics and International relations are plenty useful, as long as you apply them for their intended purpose (working in an embassy or a similar government organisationn).
Yet you were transphobic up above! Or were you simply not thinking before typing? Its a good idea to think, "Bro",
You're obviously building bulk of your argument (like that part about August riots later) on a fact that I'm allegedly British. That is partly my fault. Should've used "tovarisch" (damn).
Ah. Russian. Sorry for the gross stereotype, but I am not exactly expecting a decent conversation about this sort of issue in Russias current environment. I guess it is only a matter of time before promoting trans behaviour gets you jail time, or is it just the norm to kick the shit out of people?
Education is AWESOME.
When it's going to bring you some dough somewhere down the line or help you discover laws of the Universe, it is. When it's filling up student's head with useless, dangerous ideas, it's not.
Exactly the kind of societies in which studying sociology is dangerous are the societies in which we need people to study sociology.
Interestingly, what do you think of people studying Politics and International Relations? Just trying to find out if you believe my entire degree is pointless.
Policics and International relations are plenty useful, as long as you apply them for their intended purpose (working in an embassy or a similar government organisationn).
Strange, you find politics and IR to be useful, but not sociology. You are aware that one is essentially the other on a larger, and MUCH more pointless, scale? It is much easier to infer why people are doing things when your scale is a few hundred, maybe on a national scale (If you are studying Billig or Enderson) but IR is utterly, utterly pointless as a field of study because you make inferences that are absolutely pointless, such as putting Brazil, Russia, India and China in the same economic playing field. Political theory is interesting enough to study, though.
Yet you were transphobic up above! Or were you simply not thinking before typing? Its a good idea to think, "Bro",
Trans people just demand the same respect that everyone else gets. They do not want to be viewed as disabled, just as people. Jokes such as the one being discussed demean them as people. Trans people are on the recieving end of a fuck of a lot of abuse, sexual and otherwise, ergo should be treated with a modicum of respect. That said, everyone should be treated with respect.
This entire discussion was spawned by one man making one badly thought out joke, which he apologised for. In full.
and the actual problematic remark was one from earlier in the video along the lines of "'Co-op single player' is like saying 'I'm not gay, I only suck off pre-op transsexuals'". And that one I do regret, in retrospect. It was supposed to be a joke about cognitive dissonance, that a man in denial about being gay would seek out things with penises attached that aren't necessarily men, but I realise now that this was a poor choice of words, because some people who identify as female have cocks. Lord knows I have nothing to gain from enforcing gender roles, 'cos I don't like cars OR football. I should probably have gone for something like 'I'm not gay, I only suck off pantomime dames.'
Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/10550-Bureaucracy-Em-Up#vOqrZRFX2LgdBz0s.99
That is the apology. That is what people are finding so difficult.
So I restate, considering trans people in no way want to be treated like they are disabled, what exactly is your issue?
Although now that I know (Or at least this time you have led me to believe you are Russian, FYI the issue was I do not consider Russia to be communist for obvious reasons and I was assuming you were trying to infer with your statement that we are both from the United Kingdom. Interestingly enough, I hear the word Comrade quite a lot, although it infuriates me) that you are Russian, I feel less... Angry that you are struggling to get your head around this, or struggling to understand why Sociology is an important, and valid, sphere of study.
Cause Russia is... well, Russia.
See, My parents used to teach a lot of Soviets, back in the day. They drank, they drank like fucking fishes. They were also some of the most well read and articulate students they ever had the pleasure of teaching. One of the things they said though, many times over, was "I would like to tell you about the tragedy that is my country.". Most of my opinion of Russia comes from either History, and the bastardised version of Communism that existed, Sociology, and the bastardised version of communism that existed, politics and the bastardised... You get the idea.
That plus the institutionalised homophobia based on the logic "We are normal" revolts me utterly. Oh, and the statistics I had to read when I was studying the healthcare system in Russia. Official statistics putting alcoholism at one in three among men, one in four among women, life expectancy dropped to below or around 50 years old at the end of the USSR, plus the lovely one in twenty abusing cocaine and the Crocadyl problem. Yeah, Russia is not a place I would like to have grown up, nor a place I would like to get an education. Might want to visit at some point, if I was not terrified I would get the shit kicked out of me by some thugs, or get arrested for believing in freedom of speech.
Russia is a tragedy, and I am sorry if stating that upsets you.
I think that clears things up, largely. I doubt I have anything else to say to you and need to sleep. Its almost 1am.
@The7Sins
I see you've already been suspended, but let me still point the following condition out to you since you are for some reason so focused on the shape people's gonosomes/allosomes take:
Depending on the extent of the insensitivity, these people can be phenotypically somewhere betweeen male and female or even completely indistinguishable from genetically female people, yet they, too, have XY chromosomes. If you see an XY androgen insensitive woman out in public, you'd treat her as a man? Is that the idea? Because of fucking chromosomes? If not, why behave so differently towards people who changed their sex? But if it's not really about the chromosomes, what is your actual reason for treating them differently?
See, the thing is this: Nature and the real world don't actually function in these simplistic black and white categories that absolutist moralizers like to employ. Things tend to be a lot more fluid and complex than that.
@The7Sins
I see you've already been suspended, but let me still point the following condition out to you since you are for some reason so focused on the shape people's gonosomes/allosomes take:
Depending on the extent of the insensitivity, these people can be phenotypically somewhere betweeen male and female or even completely indistinguishable from genetically female people, yet they, too, have XY chromosomes. If you see an XY androgen insensitive woman out in public, you'd treat her as a man? Is that the idea? Because of fucking chromosomes? If not, why behave so differently towards people who changed their sex? But if it's not really about the chromosomes, what is your actual reason for treating them differently?
See, the thing is this: Nature and the real world don't actually function in these simplistic black and white categories that absolutist moralizers like to employ. Things tend to be a lot more fluid and complex than that.
People with working male reproductive organs & the chromosomes to match are men. People with working female reproductive organs & the chromosomes to match are women.
The rest, genetic mishaps/mutations. Men who like to dress up in women's clothing: mental issues.
Simple as that.
[Edit:] Before I get banned by the ultra-liberal mods who seem to hate everything that disagrees with their liberal feminist/hipster agenda, I still have not seen ANY scientific evidence that "transgender" exists, any more than my "lion trapped in a mans body" scenario.
"You know what? A society where anyone can make jokes about anyone else and everyone laughs is a truly tolerant society."
-Ben Croshaw
If only that we're true. But if it was, the Internet might just be a welcoming and civil place. Can't have that.
In all seriousness I respect that you recognised an error in your work and apologised for it but I still hope for the day that having to apologise for making a joke doesn't have to happen.
@The7Sins
I see you've already been suspended, but let me still point the following condition out to you since you are for some reason so focused on the shape people's gonosomes/allosomes take:
Depending on the extent of the insensitivity, these people can be phenotypically somewhere betweeen male and female or even completely indistinguishable from genetically female people, yet they, too, have XY chromosomes. If you see an XY androgen insensitive woman out in public, you'd treat her as a man? Is that the idea? Because of fucking chromosomes? If not, why behave so differently towards people who changed their sex? But if it's not really about the chromosomes, what is your actual reason for treating them differently?
See, the thing is this: Nature and the real world don't actually function in these simplistic black and white categories that absolutist moralizers like to employ. Things tend to be a lot more fluid and complex than that.
People with working male reproductive organs & the chromosomes to match are men. People with working female reproductive organs & the chromosomes to match are women.
The rest, genetic mishaps/mutations. Men who like to dress up in women's clothing: mental issues.
Simple as that.
[Edit:] Before I get banned by the ultra-liberal mods who seem to hate everything that disagrees with their liberal feminist/hipster agenda, I still have not seen ANY scientific evidence that "transgender" exists, any more than my "lion trapped in a mans body" scenario.
The APA no longer considers it a mental disorder http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20Dysphoria%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
. I am yet to see the American Psychiatric Association accept your lion in a man's body as legitimate enough to try to get you lion hormones and change your body into that which resembles a lion's more. I respect, disrespect, love, marry, and fight people based on their minds, so the way I see it if mental professionals say that is genuinely the mind of a woman, and that they should be treated as a woman, than I will certainly do the same.
Also, is there something about conservatives and just throwing out extra useless adjectives. No Rush Limbaugh, Obama's stated policies aren't just slightly more socialist than our previous ones, he's also a marxist,a fascist, a communist and a nazi for good measure. No, the mods don't just lean left they are avid......Hipsters? Seriously? They have a hipster agenda? Seriously?
The APA no longer considers it a mental disorder http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20Dysphoria%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
. I am yet to see the American Psychiatric Association accept your lion in a man's body as legitimate enough to try to get you lion hormones and change your body into that which resembles a lion's more. I respect, disrespect, love, marry, and fight people based on their minds, so the way I see it if mental professionals say that is genuinely the mind of a woman, and that they should be treated as a woman, than I will certainly do the same.
Also, is there something about conservatives and just throwing out extra useless adjectives. No Rush Limbaugh, Obama's stated policies aren't just slightly more socialist than our previous ones, he's also a marxist,a fascist, a communist and a nazi for good measure. No, the mods don't just lean left they are avid......Hipsters? Seriously? They have a hipster agenda? Seriously?
They do, as was pointed out earlier. http://juliaserano.blogspot.fi/2012/12/trans-people-still-disordered-according.html
So, it's about the amount of which you resemble the thing you think you are. This is not legitimate. Or can you tell me a percentage of resemblance at which point a man turns from a man to a woman, or from a man to a lion? If you can't, then again we're talking about your perception of the world, not facts.
I'm not a conservative. I'm not liberal either. I'm myself, and I have my own views. Some are conservative, some are liberal, and in this particular situation, I lean on SCIENCE. PROVE to me that "transgender" is anything more than a mental disorder. Then I can agree with you. Until then, "transgender" is not a real thing, but instead comparable to pedophiles.
And before you get your panties twisted over that, "transgender" is not as sick nor should it be illegal like pedophilia, but until you can prove that it's more than just a mental disorder, it's as valid a sex as pedophilia. Or zoophilia, or any other sexual preferences that differ from the one evolution has assigned us.
And before you get your panties twisted up even more than you did before, I don't discriminate against gay folks, trannies, lesbians or any other group of people that differ from me. What I'm saying is, things aren't facts until they've proven to be facts. Until then, keep it to yourself, and stop acting victimized over a joke an internet comedian (one known for offending everyone, no less) made.
[Edit:]
This is why a person of privilege isn't allowed to decide what is or isn't offensive to someone who is marginalized. Cause a person of privilege has no way of knowing
Stop with this privilege crap. You OH WOE IS ME drama queens are the most privileged people of all. Nobody's allowed to joke at your expense, nobody's allowed to question the bs that comes out your mouths, and most of all, you're so freakin' privileged that you think you can change your gender and whatnot because SURELY IT'S EASIER TO BE FEMALE. What would you like to change next, your height? Your skin pigment? Suddenly decide you're a dragon?
Not sure if privileged is the right word. Maybe "spoiled"? "Silly"? "Attention wh..."?
Ok, I'm not sure if anybody else proposed a bureaucracy-'em-up game like this (or any other bureaucracy-'em-up, since the only comments I've seen are arguing back and forth over internet free speech that are flying over my head right now), here's my idea: basically, you're playing as somebody in an unstable dictatorship, and you're trying to take control of your country. The best analogy I can come up with is that it's a cross between "Republic: The Revolution" (where you play as a revolutionary in a fictitious post-Warsaw Pact nation) and "Executive Suite" (a white collar simulator where you climb from cubicle worker up to CEO).
At the start, you can join either your ruling government, or one of several resistance factions. When you select your faction, you can choose one of several branches to work at (for example, the ruling government will have branches for the military, the secret service, the propaganda ministry, etc.), and will have to make decisions during your rise to power: do you try to hem the crazier aspects of your faction, playing the moral high ground to win compassion of the masses (and potentially make dangerous enemies of those supporting the genocidal policies), or do you support the evils of the faction completely to rub shoulders with the old guard (and potentially make LOTS of enemies with the victims of these atrocities)?
Most of the action will, naturally, be done from behind the desk, even for the militaristic branches of factions (your input would do little beyond suggesting base tactics, like a straight-charge compared to a flanking maneuver), with perhaps some action-packed sequences to barely dodge assassins or rival faction assaults. Your actions will be to suggest policies and strategies to your higher-ups in the faction, decide which of their orders you should carry out, and potentially use "subversive" policies to undermine stronger candidates (using blackmail, assassins, etc.) or secretly support a rival faction (leaking information to them or providing false information to yours). You'll have several followers depending on your position, and you'll be given the option of trying to help them rise the ranks with you, or deliberately screwing them over to prevent potential rivals in the future.
The end goal will be to (in one way or another) dispose of the dictator ruling the country: this is as simple as launching a coup or revolution, to as guile as being announced as his successor before having him assassinated. A possible post-game will have you desperately reigning in the political conflagration from you taking control, whether it be from new and old revolutionary groups wanting to take you down, old-liners loyal to the old dictator wanting you rubbed out, or being tugged over by international superpowers (i.e. the USA, the USSR, the EU, fictional equivalents, etc.). Ultimately, your legacy (post-game summary) will be determined by your actions, so you can be labelled as a benevolent visionary, a brutal despot, an abject failure, or anywhere in-between.
The APA no longer considers it a mental disorder http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20Dysphoria%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
. I am yet to see the American Psychiatric Association accept your lion in a man's body as legitimate enough to try to get you lion hormones and change your body into that which resembles a lion's more. I respect, disrespect, love, marry, and fight people based on their minds, so the way I see it if mental professionals say that is genuinely the mind of a woman, and that they should be treated as a woman, than I will certainly do the same.
Also, is there something about conservatives and just throwing out extra useless adjectives. No Rush Limbaugh, Obama's stated policies aren't just slightly more socialist than our previous ones, he's also a marxist,a fascist, a communist and a nazi for good measure. No, the mods don't just lean left they are avid......Hipsters? Seriously? They have a hipster agenda? Seriously?
So they have an overly-vague definition of transvestite? That does not make them not recognize transgender individuals. They DIRECTLY talk about transgender individuals in a way that says they should be respected/helped transition/aren't disordered
Also "it was not applicable to trans male/masculine folks nor heterosexual-identified trans women. " So that's not relevant to what is probably more than half of transexuals.
So, it's about the amount of which you resemble the thing you think you are. This is not legitimate. Or can you tell me a percentage of resemblance at which point a man turns from a man to a woman, or from a man to a lion? If you can't, then again we're talking about your perception of the world, not facts.
Psychologists, mental professionals deam that all the time. Like I said, you don't get the hormone therapy without speaking to them and getting the diagnosis. Just because I'm not a doctor and can't tell you the point that a cell's growth is uncontrollable/malignant doesn't mean it's reasonable to think cancer doesn't exist.
And before you get your panties twisted over that, "transgender" is not as sick nor should it be illegal like pedophilia, but until you can prove that it's more than just a mental disorder, it's as valid a sex as pedophilia. Or zoophilia, or any other sexual preferences that differ from the one evolution has assigned us.
Transexuality isn't even a sexual preference. You can be transexual any way you want and like men,women, both, nothing. Also: Our brains at some point got to the point where our evolutionary desires just don't really matter. We use contraceptives to make it so our entire evolutionary purpose for sex is gone most of the time, we eat enough to get fat and increase our chance of dying early while decreasing our chances of getting that ineffective sex with people we consider better mates, fuck we're both on here which at best is neutral evolutionarily but there's a pretty decent chance that both of us sit on our asses long enough to screw with our health and/or find a mate. Also, I don't think pedophillia is "invalid sex", if you were a virgin before and you just had sex with a 10 year old I'd say you're not a virgin, among other less pleasant things about you.
And before you get your panties twisted up even more than you did before, I don't discriminate against gay folks, trannies, lesbians or any other group of people that differ from me. What I'm saying is, things aren't facts until they've proven to be facts. Until then, keep it to yourself, and stop acting victimized over a joke an internet comedian (one known for offending everyone, no less) made.
Any reason you still refer to them as trannies? Also: Do you not think Yahtzee has the sway where if he didn't think this is worth apologizing for he wouldn't need to? He's the main attraction here at the Escapist, he definitely could have gotten away with not editing the video if he didn't genuinely think it in poor taste. Also: I have never found yahtzee's jokes genuinely offensive, he jokes about concentration camps all the time, but he's just referencing them, and normally in a way that makes it obvious that he's no real fan of nazis. Yahtzee's only offensive in that he's willing to reference things lightly, not express some sort of truly offensive opinion.
I refer to them as trannies for the same reason I often refer to black people, homosexuals, women, feminists, children, other men and everone else with terms that may or may not be offensive: the offensive terms have no meaning to me. I don't find any word more offensive than the next, and if someone else does, that's their problem, not mine. I have no ill will, I just don't like it when people tell me to use a different word because some drama queen is offended by a freakin' WORD. Words have no meaning beyond what people give them; to me, calling my best male friends fatties, homos or whatever is just... WORDS. And they call me all those things right back, because we are not drama queens.
Let me just bring this thing to a closure because I'm tired. If someone, born with black hair, dyes their hair blond, does that mean that they are blond? If someone with white skin starts acting like those idiots in Lil' Wayne videos and coloring their skin black with a black marker, does that mean they are black, African or African-American?
No, it does not. The person in the first example is a black haired person with some blond dye in their hair, and the person in the latter example is just an idiot. It doesn't matter how they feel about it or what they think they are, they will ALWAYS be what they were born as.
Me, I'm naturally blond. If I dye my hair black, it doesn't mean I've black hair. It means I have blond hair with some paint in it. I can shave myself bald and start using black wigs. I can probably get a surgeon to insert black hair to my scalp somehow. None of this matters, I will still ALWAYS be blond. A blond with fake black hair at best.
What I can do is either try to convince other people I'm black haired and live in denial, or I can just accept the fact that I'm blond and live my life as best I can as a blond. See where I'm going with this? Changing some superficial things about yourself DO NOT CHANGE THE GENES NATURE ASSIGNED YOU.
I refer to them as trannies for the same reason I often refer to black people, homosexuals, women, feminists, children, other men and everone else with terms that may or may not be offensive: the offensive terms have no meaning to me. I don't find any word more offensive than the next, and if someone else does, that's their problem, not mine. I have no ill will, I just don't like it when people tell me to use a different word because some drama queen is offended by a freakin' WORD. Words have no meaning beyond what people give them; to me, calling my best male friends fatties, homos or whatever is just... WORDS. And they call me all those things right back, because we are not drama queens.
Words matter in context. I don't mind if you use the word ****** in one context, but if you were to say, talk about black people over-exaggerating racial problems and then just casually referred to them as niggers in a sentence than there would make you look like a racist. Like, seriously, there's a time to be blunt and not care but some basic fucking sensitivity isn't something to be avoided.
No, it does not. The person in the first example is a black haired person with some blond dye in their hair, and the person in the latter example is just an idiot. It doesn't matter how they feel about it or what they think they are, they will ALWAYS be what they were born as.
Me, I'm naturally blond. If I dye my hair black, it doesn't mean I've black hair. It means I have blond hair with some paint in it. I can shave myself bald and start using black wigs. I can probably get a surgeon to insert black hair to my scalp somehow. None of this matters, I will still ALWAYS be blond. A blond with fake black hair at best.
What I can do is either try to convince other people I'm black haired and live in denial, or I can just accept the fact that I'm blond and live my life as best I can as a blond. See where I'm going with this? Changing some superficial things about yourself DO NOT CHANGE THE GENES NATURE ASSIGNED YOU.
No one cares what genes nature assigned you. Genotype does nothing but define phenotype, which is flexible and is what matters. I'm more attracted to black hair than blonde, so if a blonde haired girl dyed her hair black I would see her as a black-haired girl and be more attracted to her as such. Nature is irrelevant, black hair turns me on, if a girl's hair is seen by my eyes as black than as long as she keeps dying it, it is black. No one's arguing that hormone therapy and sexual reassignment surgery make you genetically a different sex, but who really cares? If it looks like a girl, acts like a girl, thinks like a girl, and identifies as a girl, than to me they're a girl
Oddly enough....I was born with brown hair, got cancer , and when my hair came back after chemo it was black...So what hair color do I have? Brown or Black? I was born brown but I don't need anything artificial from here on to grow black hair.
No one cares what genes nature assigned you. Genotype does nothing but define phenotype, which is flexible and is what matters. I'm more attracted to black hair than blonde, so if a blonde haired girl dyed her hair black I would see her as a black-haired girl and be more attracted to her as such. Nature is irrelevant, black hair turns me on, if a girl's hair is seen by my eyes as black than as long as she keeps dying it, it is black. No one's arguing that hormone therapy and sexual reassignment surgery make you genetically a different sex, but who really cares? If it looks like a girl, acts like a girl, thinks like a girl, and identifies as a girl, than to me they're a girl
Oddly enough....I was born with brown hair, got cancer , and when my hair came back after chemo it was black...So what hair color do I have? Brown or Black? I was born brown but I don't need anything artificial from here on to grow black hair.
Well you see the way your hair example differs from the one I posted is your hair now grows black naturally. So congratulations, you're now black haired. The reason why my example was more relevant to "transgender" is you have to keep dyeing your hair black if you want it to stay black. Thus, it's nothing but some black paint in your brown hair. There's a difference to being blond and being blond haired, and it's the same thing with all artificial changes you can do to yourself. See how this is closer to "transgender" men acting like women?
Why did you ignore my black marker on a caucasian -> black person example? Is that valid?
As for words being offensive, if I choose that terms like male, caucasian, blond or human are now offensive, and invent a new word that you can only use from now on (let's say the word is CAPTAIN GORGEOUS, KING OF THE UNIVERSE), will you cease to use any of the words I mentioned and instead always use the new one? If not, then double standard! If yes, then boy have I got a way to make your life more difficult than it needs to be.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
