Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
Pics or it didn't happen. I hang out with a lot of furries and can attest that the recent moral panic over them is completely fabricated. And anyone who falls for it is a fucking rube.
Lmao, these conservative reactionaries are overly sensitive and gullible to the gills!


 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,652
764
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Stealing yes/kind of/maybe. Piracy no.

You will literally fall for anything. It's amazing.

Read my previous posts in this thread. I've answered this question extensively. But to reiterate: I want this to be legal because when abortions that late happen they usually don't have the time to be litigated in front of a government tribunal.

What, precisely, am I supposed to find objectionable? More specifically, what am I supposed to find so objectionable that I want the government to stick their big noses in?
Piracy is definitely seen as bad and torrenting is also associated with getting viruses.

Yet no proof from you that teachers are getting for saying something like that they're going to the museum over the weekend with their husband. You will literally fall for anything. It's amazing.

Why does any abortion need time to be litigated in front of a government tribunal? So a woman deciding that at say 8 months she wants an abortion squarely because she doesn't want the kid isn't objectionable?


Pics or it didn't happen. I hang out with a lot of furries and can attest that the recent moral panic over them is completely fabricated. And anyone who falls for it is a fucking rube.
Same thing with teachers getting fired because they merely mentioned their family... I'm merely countering the argument with the same quality argument that I was given.

Lmao, these conservative reactionaries are overly sensitive and gullible to the gills!


Notice how the snopes article says "unproven" vs "false"? If I'm going to be given BS arguments, I'll respond with BS arguments.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,766
5,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
You're still not getting it. I'm not saying trans people are confused or have the wrong reasons. I'm saying the outside circumstances of a society fixated on gender roles puts people into the situation where it is logical to try to present as the opposite sex because of a real dissonance between their self-image and their experience of gender in society. Prescribing transitions further reinforces the societal obsession with gender roles that causes the dissonance in the first place.
Do you think stereotypical gender roles are literally all there is to gender?

And further, do you also believe cis people should all reject gender altogether? Because I can't help but notice this whole "gender is all immaterial so no I won't let you change sex" position also puts you at odds with the vast majority of cis people. In fact, it puts you at complete odds with almost everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Same thing with teachers getting fired because they merely mentioned their family... I'm merely countering the argument with the same quality argument that I was given.
In other words, you're not gullible, you just fancy yourself clever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,266
6,735
118
Country
United States
Piracy is definitely seen as bad and torrenting is also associated with getting viruses.
Lmao, if you're a square maybe. Meanwhile pirates streaming sites have never been more popular
Yet no proof from you that teachers are getting for saying something like that they're going to the museum over the weekend with their husband. You will literally fall for anything. It's amazing.
Continue to deflect away from the fact you thought somebody got fired for not meowing back at a student.

Meanwhile: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dont-say-gay-firing-pansexual
Why does any abortion need time to be litigated in front of a government tribunal?
Because linear time exists. I dunno man, you're the one who wants to ban it, *you* figure out the logistics
So a woman deciding that at say 8 months she wants an abortion squarely because she doesn't want the kid isn't objectionable?
Nope. Least, not in such a way that it can be banned without denying critical care to dying pregnant people or sending cops out to jail somebody who had a miscarriage under suspicion of getting an abortion. The ends of stopping that one theoretical person doesn't justify the means

'Course, I don't think it's objectionable to begin with, and you haven't supplied any argument as to why it should be
 
Last edited:

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,192
1,027
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
I did not. Not even close. I was comparing two related concepts, I never said anything to suggest that one is the cause of the other.
Yes you did, when you characterized the position as "applying an inverted double standard", with your elaboration of that perceived double standard as being rooted in the idea of misidentifying someone's sex.

"Like, I understand the double standard you see, that someone might see the shape of a penis and call a baby a boy, so if that person alters their appearance to have the shape of a vagina, they ought to be fairly seen as a woman by that standard. But I really think most of you are just still applying an inverted double standard: if a doctor can misidentify a persons sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics, why would you then consider changing those physical characteristics to be a sex change? If the current standards can be right or wrong, and you take the exact inverse position, you've still taken a position that can be right or wrong."

The entire fucking paragraph is you using "misidentification of sex" to claim that the position you're arguing against is inherently flawed, if not hypocritical ("why would you consider that to be a sex change?"). That's not "comparing two related concepts". That's stating outright that you perceive a major failing in the opposing position to be belied by the possibility of "misidentif[ication] of a person's sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics", leading you to characterize the position as necessarily applying "the exact inverse" double standard. If that is not what you intended, then you expressed yourself incredibly poorly.

It is, because it's a different situation entirely. An individual who lived as a certain gender finding out they are intersex and changing their gender expression based on that is not the same thing as a individual trying to change their sex to match their desired gender expression. When I said I had said the opposite, this is what I meant. Someone adjusting their gender to match changes in what they know of their sex is not trans. I have never suggested that is trans.
And again, I never said that you said it was trans. For fuck's sake, that very paragraph you quoted opened up with me acknowledging that poor phrasing on my part may have created that perception, and the next two paragraphs were devoted to explaining the meaning I had actually intended. So to again borrow your phrasing: "I don't think you understood a word I said."

Ok, but you understand that in this context, in order to point to the contradiction, you are appealing to the sensibilities of transphobes. The logic of sex reassignment is identical to the logic of transphobes, that specific elements of physical presentation preclude people from societal roles.
No, we are not. Not remotely. That logic's so tortured that it would make Hellraiser's Cenobites uncomfortable. Setting aside the obvious fact that the argument I'm championing is summed up as "Stop harassing transfolk", which is antithetical to the transphobe's position, your take here is rendered nonsensical by the fact that nobody you're accusing here is trying to make these people trans.

We aren't saying "but thou art trans" when these people display stereotypically masculine or feminine traits/interests or fill a social role stereotypically associated with a different sex. Point of fact, the converse tends to be true in that those are generally not treated as predictors of a person being trans. It's a given that gender non-conforming =/= transgender. Interests do not equal gender identity. The only people trying to pretend otherwise are ideologues (such as "anti-SJWs") strawmanning anyone who's trans-positive as looking for even the feeblest of excuses to try and gaslight someone into believing they're trans. Their characterization is not just factually untrue, it's completely divorced from reality. To use an old favorite analogy, it's about on-par with Creationists pretending that Origin of the Species is treated like some infallible scripture and no advancements have been made in Biology since its publication for fear of contradicting Darwin. Much like in that case, the claim is downright bizarre in how counterfactual it is.

For fuck's sake, before even HRT is even approved, a trans individual has to have mental health evaluations to first confirm that they're making an informed decision, that it really is what they want, that they aren't confusing something like gender non-conformity with being transgender, and to get a professional opinion on whether transitioning would have a positive or deleterious effect on their mental health! Never mind that SOP for trans kids is to simply keep them on hormone blockers to delay puberty until they either change their mind or reach an age where doctors and psychiatrists can be sure that they're cognitively and emotionally developed enough to make an informed decision. That's a waiting period of literal years to ensure that it isn't an impulse decision or rooted in false presumptions!

It is not something that is done lightly, and it is certainly a far cry from the "Aha! That proves you are trans!" mindset that you're trying to paint us as holding. We aren't making determinations based on gender role stereotypes or "specific elements of physical presentation". Hell, the lie of that claim is illustrated by the fact that something like being a drag queen doesn't carry much in the way of implications for a person's gender identity! We just aren't fucking ostracizing people or giving them the runaround when they tell us that they consider themselves to be a different gender and/or that they want to change their sex to better match that gender.

And just so it's not lost in the shuffle, leave us not forget that this idiotic gotcha you're attempting is dead on arrival. You're trying to claim that the logic that SRS changes a person's sex is identical to the transphobe's logic that SRS fails to change a person's sex (which they claim to be immutable; that a transman will always be a woman and a transwoman always a man). Equating the two does not hold up to even token scrutiny.

Once again, you do not understand this topic. The fact that that wounds your pride to be called out on that does not make it any less true.

You're still not getting it. I'm not saying trans people are confused or have the wrong reasons. I'm saying the outside circumstances of a society fixated on gender roles puts people into the situation where it is logical to try to present as the opposite sex because of a real dissonance between their self-image and their experience of gender in society. Prescribing transitions further reinforces the societal obsession with gender roles that causes the dissonance in the first place.
Everything after that first sentence demonstrates that you absolutely are saying that they're confused and have the wrong reasons. You just balk at the phrasing because it isn't flattering, so you try to spin it as something that paints you in a better light. It's not appreciably different from how a racist will vehemently deny that they're racist, prejudiced, bigoted, or any other similar terms, even if their position is unquestionably racist. Rather, they insist, they're just "telling it as it is", "speaking the truth that everyone else pretends not to notice", and that they're the real good guys who are "standing strong against society's false narrative", because "facts don't care about your feelings". They are not racist, they insist, they're just "not afraid to speak uncomfortable truths"! In fact, if anyone's the real racist, they claim, it's the people insisting to the contrary for the sake of being politically correct, "because, really, those are the ones assigning artificial weight to race"!

Those who championed anti-miscegenation claimed to have the moral high ground, saying that their position that the mixing of races was an abomination was actually rooted in respect for those races that the opposing position lacked. The KKK itself balks at the allegation that they're in any way racist, much less white supremacist. Chauvanists insist that they aren't prejudiced against women, but rather they love and respect them for what they are whereas the the non-chauvanists disrespect them by - as the chauvanists tell it - treating femininity as inferior and trying to make women 'better' by forcing them to be more masculine. ...Ugh. Listen, people are very good at rationalizing their prejudices. As a matter of definition, the moment someone recognizes a prejudice as such is the same moment they reject it. At least as often as not, however, when forced to consider their prejudice they find ways not only to excuse it but also insist that it's really the other side that is prejudiced...often with the same tortured, counterfactual logic that you have utilized here. That last part's kinda a red flag.

In your case, you've tried to spin trans status as an identity forced upon them by society - bullied into as you previously termed it (wrong reasons) - which you further attribute to an "obsession with gender roles" creating a dissonance between their self-image and experience of gender that wouldn't otherwise exist (confused). It's the kind of argument that belies the fact that you've never had an honest sit down with a trans individual in your life, never mind actually learning about the general demographic and its experiences rather than simply assuming an explanation that fits your preconceptions. The basic premise your argument is circling around but you're trying not to directly say is "nobody can legitimately be trans and therefore those who enable the trans identity are the real bad guys; that the alleged trans are therefore really just the brainwashed victims of monsters who are 'drugging children to fit gender roles'". That does not remotely resemble reality. That's a transphobic boogeyman; a fantasy which wholly rejects the demographic's actual experiences to try and justify their dismissive attitude towards that same demographic.

So again, I say to you: You very obviously do not understand this topic and are arguing from presumption. You need to rectify that before trying to weigh in on it again.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,338
918
118
Country
USA
Do you think stereotypical gender roles are literally all there is to gender?\
Yes, that is precisely what gender is.
And further, do you also believe cis people should all reject gender altogether? Because I can't help but notice this whole "gender is all immaterial so no I won't let you change sex" position also puts you at odds with the vast majority of cis people. In fact, it puts you at complete odds with almost everybody.
I'm not saying anyone should reject gender altogether. I'm saying nobody should have their life dictated to them by social norms. Yes, they puts me at odds with possibly the majority of people who treat socially normative behaviors as personal
The entire fucking paragraph is you using "misidentification of sex" to claim that the position you're arguing against is inherently flawed, if not hypocritical ("why would you consider that to be a sex change?"). That's not "comparing two related concepts". That's stating outright that you perceive a major failing in the opposing position to be belied by the possibility of "misidentif[ication] of a person's sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics", leading you to characterize the position as necessarily applying "the exact inverse" double standard. If that is not what you intended, then you expressed yourself incredibly poorly.
There is no quality of communication high enough to get through to someone who is deliberately avoiding understanding you. Stop wanting me to be wrong and listen to what I'm saying. Let's go back to #221 for a second, because I think you've forgotten that I was responding to you. You were comparing the idea of sex assigned at birth to the treatment of sex after a sex change:

" For virtually all practical purposes, sex relates to physical characteristics... It's literally decided with little more than a glance between your legs... But when we talk about trans individuals, suddenly the rules change. Sex is suddenly has nothing to do with their morphological characteristics, but instead is entirely about whether they have the right chromosomes"

I am responding to that comparison you made. I acknowledge and appreciate the double standard you have illustrated. If someone is content to accept identification of sex based on a glance between the legs for infants, they are inconsistent if they reject that standard for anyone else, and shouldn't be questioning the validity of sex changes.

But here is the question that brings intersex individuals and misidentification by doctors into the discussion: are you content to accept identification of sex based on a glance between the legs? If those two ideas are tied by consistent premises, if someone who accepts sex assignment at birth ought to accept sex changes, then the inverse is also true: someone who accepts sex changes ought to equally accept sex assignment at birth. I don't think you are willing to do that, as you're aware that the cursory glance between the legs is not foolproof, and infrequently properly identifies intersex individuals. You are happy to accept exterior genital morphology as a standard for sex identification in one scenario, but I don't think you are in the other. You have taken a position opposite your perceived opponents and then properly identified a contradiction in their stances without realizing that if you invert both parts of a contradiction, it remains a contradiction.
Setting aside the obvious fact that the argument I'm championing is summed up as "Stop harassing transfolk".
Honestly, this is probably the biggest disconnect between us. You aren't aren't arguing based on principles, you are saying whatever you think falls on the correct side of the culture war. You see the people you identify as transphobes and just say the opposite. The underlying logic is "transphobes are bad, and the opposite of bad is good, so let's be the opposite of transphobes". But the inverse of illogic is still illogic, so your positions all make just as little sense as the bigotry you want to fight against.
It is not something that is done lightly, and it is certainly a far cry from the "Aha! That proves you are trans!" mindset that you're trying to paint us as holding.
I never said anything remotely like that. I'm well aware that you have absolutely no standard at all for what gender any given person is. But let me put it this way:

Strict traditionalist: "Gender is a fixed binary tied directly to biological sex that dictates how a person ought to act in society."
Trans advocate: "Gender is in infinite spectrum with no precise determinant that dictates how society ought to treat a person."

The first one is a silly illogical position. The second flipped all the ideas, and is equally silly and illogical. The opposite of a stupid idea is still stupid.

Like: there are arguments to be made for bathrooms segregated by sex just because the same facilities aren't equally convenient for people who may pee differently, but there are plenty of arguments against communal bathrooms segregated by sex. Nearly all of the arguments against sex-segregated bathrooms apply equally to doing gender-segregated bathrooms instead, so why is anyone advocating for that? Flipping a stupid thing is still stupid.

In your case, you've tried to spin trans status as an identity forced upon them by society - bullied into as you previously termed it (wrong reasons) - which you further attribute to an "obsession with gender roles" creating a dissonance between their self-image and experience of gender that wouldn't otherwise exist (confused). It's the kind of argument that belies the fact that you've never had an honest sit down with a trans individual in your life, never mind actually learning about the general demographic and its experiences rather than simply assuming an explanation that fits your preconceptions. The basic premise your argument is circling around but you're trying not to directly say is "nobody can legitimately be trans and therefore those who enable the trans identity are the real bad guys; that the alleged trans are therefore really just the brainwashed victims of monsters who are 'drugging children to fit gender roles'". That does not remotely resemble reality. That's a transphobic boogeyman; a fantasy which wholly rejects the demographic's actual experiences to try and justify their dismissive attitude towards that same demographic.

So again, I say to you: You very obviously do not understand this topic and are arguing from presumption. You need to rectify that before trying to weigh in on it again.
Fun fact: prior to this post, I never once said "bullied" in the entire thread. You scare-quoted those words into my mouth. Good job. You have invented an imaginary version of me to argue against.

I'm telling you that the state of society at present has made transitioning a game-theory optimal decision, and you're making that into calling people "confused". I would prefer a world where that isn't the case, where honest self-expression didn't require chopping off penises. If you can't understand that premise as anything other than bigotry, than you really have no motivation but hate.

Honestly, this would probably be a much more reasonable argument with Saelune instead of the rest of you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,766
5,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yes, that is precisely what gender is.
This is a mega fringe belief, so it's a bit odd to act as if this is something everyone else should acknowledge.

I'm not saying anyone should reject gender altogether. I'm saying nobody should have their life dictated to them by social norms. Yes, they puts me at odds with possibly the majority of people who treat socially normative behaviors as personal
Society overwhelmingly pressures people into adopting the gender identity that matches their physical sex.

People who reject that, and identify with the other gender, are literally going against one of the most restrictive social norms that there is.

I might also remind you that you're the one here advocating that we should make it harder to transition-- So you're the one wanting society to dictate (in line with those social norms) what people can and can't do. People who identify as a gender at odds with their physical sex, or seek to transition, are rejecting an overbearing social norm... and you're seeking to force them to abide by it.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,338
918
118
Country
USA
This is a mega fringe belief, so it's a bit odd to act as if this is something everyone else should acknowledge.
1654021240520.png
Society overwhelmingly pressures people into adopting the gender identity that matches their physical sex.

People who reject that, and identify with the other gender, are literally going against one of the most restrictive social norms that there is.
I don't think it is the meaningful type of rejection. If one accepts societal norms but wants them independent from sex, I don't think that's rejecting social norms, I think that is prioritizing social norms over biological functions. Those social norms aren't being tossed, they are being elevated to a pedestal higher than the physical human body.
Oh it's that time of year again!
MysteriousGX essentially said "nursing is women's work".
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,766
5,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
That doesn't say what you said.

I don't think it is the meaningful type of rejection. If one accepts societal norms but wants them independent from sex, I don't think that's rejecting social norms, I think that is prioritizing social norms over biological functions. Those social norms aren't being tossed, they are being elevated to a pedestal higher than the physical human body.
There's no more "elevation" than is done by almost everyone in society, considering that almost everyone uses gender (and not functional biology) when referring to someone as he/she/him/her.

Fact is, you're attributing a thought process to people who you don't really understand, and have shown no interest in understanding.

Your approach is still the one that would restrict what people can do, in line with the social norm that dictates sex must match gender.

MysteriousGX essentially said "nursing is women's work".
No, look at the context.

Nursing being "women's work" is a stereotype, right? But you said that that's all gender is.

...so following that logic, that makes a nurse a woman by gender. It's meant to point out how utterly unworkable it is to consider stereotypes all there is to gender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,338
918
118
Country
USA
That doesn't say what you said.
Considering you're the one that chose the specific phrasing, it's a little silly to call out the specific phrasing not being an exact match. It functionally said the same thing, just with slightly different words.
There's no more "elevation" than is done by almost everyone in society, considering that almost everyone uses gender (and not functional biology) when referring to someone as he/she/him/her.
Perhaps it's no more elevation than almost everyone, but it's certainly not any less either.
Your approach is still the one that would restrict what people can do, in line with the social norm that dictates sex must match gender.
Sex changes exist to try to match sex to gender. Medical transitions, specifically in youth, are the only things I've said to limit, because prescribing such a thing is telling a child that their sex should match their gender. My "approach" does not match a dictate that sex must match gender, it specifically challenges that dictate.
Nursing being "women's work" is a stereotype, right? But you said that that's all gender is.

...so following that logic, that makes a nurse a woman by gender. It's meant to point out how utterly unworkable it is to consider stereotypes all there is to gender.
That's not a flaw in my argument, that's a flaw in the idea of gender itself. Stereotypes are often stupid, that much is true.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,766
5,704
118
Country
United Kingdom
Considering you're the one that chose the specific phrasing, it's a little silly to call out the specific phrasing not being an exact match. It functionally said the same thing, just with slightly different words.
No, it doesn't-- there's a gulf between something being 'socially created' and something being a stereotype.

Perhaps it's no more elevation than almost everyone, but it's certainly not any less either.
Uhrm, okay? So what? So trans people place... the same value on gender identity as everyone else. OK?

Sex changes exist to try to match sex to gender. Medical transitions, specifically in youth, are the only things I've said to limit, because prescribing such a thing is telling a child that their sex should match their gender. My "approach" does not match a dictate that sex must match gender, it specifically challenges that dictate.
But nobody is prescribing it for the child. The child is deciding it, and you're the one who wants to prescribe a behaviour by standing in the way.

(Unless you mean 'prescribing' in the sense of a doctor providing a treatment at the patient's own request).

That's not a flaw in my argument, that's a flaw in the idea of gender itself. Stereotypes are often stupid, that much is true.
It shows how utterly impossible your own approach is in practice.

You see someone engaging in a behaviour that's stereotypically associated with one gender. You yourself want to tell me that such stereotypes are literally all there is to gender. But you're not actually putting that into practice, because you also don't assume the gender of that person based on those behaviours.

In clearly follows that in practice, you're acknowledging there's more to gender than stereotypes.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,266
6,735
118
Country
United States
I just put him on ignore. It's gotten particularly stupid in a desperate attempt to shift away from the actual topic
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,192
1,027
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
There is no quality of communication high enough to get through to someone who is deliberately avoiding understanding you. Stop wanting me to be wrong and listen to what I'm saying.
Ok, before anything else, that's grossly hypocritical coming from you, considering how frequently your arguments amount to some variation of "You just hate people like me" whenever you fail to convince people of your point, and how this very same post is more of the same from you. So let me again turn your words back onto you and say "stop wanting me to be wrong and listen to what I'm saying".

But here is the question that brings intersex individuals and misidentification by doctors into the discussion: are you content to accept identification of sex based on a glance between the legs? If those two ideas are tied by consistent premises, if someone who accepts sex assignment at birth ought to accept sex changes, then the inverse is also true: someone who accepts sex changes ought to equally accept sex assignment at birth. I don't think you are willing to do that, as you're aware that the cursory glance between the legs is not foolproof, and infrequently properly identifies intersex individuals. You are happy to accept exterior genital morphology as a standard for sex identification in one scenario, but I don't think you are in the other. You have taken a position opposite your perceived opponents and then properly identified a contradiction in their stances without realizing that if you invert both parts of a contradiction, it remains a contradiction.
You want to talk about me assigning positions to you? How about the myriad assumptions you just made about my position? You've assumed that I am opposed to sex assignment at birth. I have said nothing of the sort. At most I used that to illustrate that the general rule we're ignoring for the double-standard you acknowledge is "close enough" with no fuss over whether or not it's an exact match, and how and that traits commonly cited to exclude the trans don't even factor in that determination. That does not translate to me saying that sex assignment should never happen. I make no bones about sex assignment at birth. What I object to is the idea that such assignment is somehow sacrosanct and - for the sake of example - a transwoman should always be considered a man even after HRT, vaginoplasty, breast augmentation, etc, just because the doctor wrote "Male" on her birth certificate. You assume that this must have something to do with misidentification, which I've previously called out as you superimposing your position over mine to try and make it neatly fit your own worldview.

You make a lot of assumptions about my position, the worst being that it cannot be rooted in anything more than self-righteous tribalism and that it must be hypocritical for no other reason than because you want me to be wrong.

Honestly, this is probably the biggest disconnect between us. You aren't aren't arguing based on principles, you are saying whatever you think falls on the correct side of the culture war. You see the people you identify as transphobes and just say the opposite. The underlying logic is "transphobes are bad, and the opposite of bad is good, so let's be the opposite of transphobes". But the inverse of illogic is still illogic, so your positions all make just as little sense as the bigotry you want to fight against.
Again, considering your post history, that is grossly hypocritical coming from you, Mr. "Oh but my side must be the real Progressives [because progress is by definition good, so of course my side and any positions associated with it qualifies]". It's also yet another childish attempt at a 'gotcha' from you that is rooted in me apparently giving you too much credit and assuming that I didn't need to elaborate on what harassment meant in this context. But no, because you so desperately want me to be wrong as a matter of principle, you therefore assume that I must be unable to elaborate and therefore simply define my opponents as bad and take the opposite position just to be contrarian.

But let me rectify that and explain what I meant by harassment. Let's start with trying to incite some kind of moral panic over the idea that there might be transfolk using your bathrooms, or making new rules to require people present your sex as listed on your birth certificate...concurrently with a legislation that makes it illegal to change the sex on a birth certificate. Or a new rule to requires the state to withhold funding from schools if those schools don't determine a student's gender - for the purposes of qualification for sports - by their birth certificate? Or how about making new rules to disqualify transfolk from work (eg, the armed forces) as a matter of principle? Denial of service? Going out of their way to try to find and "out" them as if they were some kind of imposter? Or pushing to redefine a trans child as necessarily a victim of child abuse? Just being an asshole to them because they learned about the person's trans status? Starting to get the picture here? There's a bit of a history of pushing to make trans status more obvious for the explicit purpose of discriminating against them. Would you have perhaps preferred that I said "stop going out of your way to suss out the transfolk and let them live their lives in peace"? Or would you again have seen that as an excuse to try and claim that I could not have given it any real thought and must therefore be just arguing "that bad, me good"?

Fun fact: prior to this post, I never once said "bullied" in the entire thread. You scare-quoted those words into my mouth. Good job. You have invented an imaginary version of me to argue against.
Really? Then what's post 242 then?

Nor did I say anyone did anything for the 'wrong' reasons (nice scare quotes...). If you've read my posts in the past, which you obviously have but just made up bits to fill in the blanks you didn't understand, you'd have seen that I don't question the motives of those transitioning, but rather the role and response of society around them. When society is bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough, that's not a problem of the motives of those transitioning.
Because that sure looks like you said exactly what I attributed to you!

I never said anything remotely like that. I'm well aware that you have absolutely no standard at all for what gender any given person is. But let me put it this way:

Strict traditionalist: "Gender is a fixed binary tied directly to biological sex that dictates how a person ought to act in society."
Trans advocate: "Gender is in infinite spectrum with no precise determinant that dictates how society ought to treat a person."

The first one is a silly illogical position. The second flipped all the ideas, and is equally silly and illogical. The opposite of a stupid idea is still stupid.
Or you could actually do some research and realize that the second definition is a strawman. The definition "trans advocates" actually use is as follows:

While often erroneously conflated with sex - which is rooted in biology - gender [identity] describes the individual’s own psychological perception of being male, female, neither, both, or somewhere in between. Although a person's gender identity is usually consistent with their biological sex, it does not have to be. Transgenderism describes the situation involving a person having a gender that differs substantively from their biological sex. The distinction between sex and gender is a product of the medical community trying to explain sex reassignment surgery to the general public.

I'm telling you that the state of society at present has made transitioning a game-theory optimal decision, and you're making that into calling people "confused". I would prefer a world where that isn't the case, where honest self-expression didn't require chopping off penises.
Ok, let me rephrase it for your delicate sensibilities. When I say confused, I mean that you are describing a situation wherein you believe that a trans individual would not be trans under normal circumstances and only believes themselves to be such because society erroneously tells them that they can't have the interests/expression they do have and be the sex they would otherwise identify with. Better? Because that's a lot of extra words to convey the same presumption that they've been erroneously led to believe that honest self-expression required - in the case of transwomen - chopping off penises...or in fewer words: that their trans status is the result of society confusing them into taking extreme actions.

If you can't understand that premise as anything other than bigotry, than you really have no motivation but hate.
I understand the premise of "free expression" as something other than bigotry. The problem is that your arguments belie your lack of research and have much less noble overtones. You want to say that gender stereotypes need to go? Cool, all for that. You want to say that trans is just a "game-theory optimal decision", a result of "society bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough", thereby convincing them that "honest-self expression [requires] chopping off penises"? That's a very different claim with prejudicial overtones, to say the least. That you don't want to hear that and want me to be wrong doesn't make me hateful.
 
Last edited: