Why You Should Have Your Eye On Florida

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
Oh I easily imagine a world where I'm not forcing things on people.
No, no you can't. Everyone wants a world where some things are forced on people. Everyone wants a world where murder is outlawed. You choose to project onto me that I am, in every instance, trying to force people to do something, but that just makes it impossible for you to understand what I'm saying, which is likely just a defense mechanism on your part, since you don't have to consider what you can't understand.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,507
7,086
118
Country
United States
No, no you can't. Everyone wants a world where some things are forced on people. Everyone wants a world where murder is outlawed. You choose to project onto me that I am, in every instance, trying to force people to do something, but that just makes it impossible for you to understand what I'm saying, which is likely just a defense mechanism on your part, since you don't have to consider what you can't understand.
Hilarious, considering this thread started with a conservative backed Florida bill forcing teachers to out gay kids to their parents with no regard for the children's safety
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,515
3,716
118
No, no you can't. Everyone wants a world where some things are forced on people. Everyone wants a world where murder is outlawed. You choose to project onto me that I am, in every instance, trying to force people to do something, but that just makes it impossible for you to understand what I'm saying, which is likely just a defense mechanism on your part, since you don't have to consider what you can't understand.
So now you're equating sex reassignment with murder? Clearly equal moral points, obviously. "You wouldn't allow murder, so you can't allow a personal decision that affects no one else because I don't like it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
So now you're equating sex reassignment with murder? Clearly equal moral points, obviously. "You wouldn't allow murder, so you can't allow a personal decision that affects no one else because I don't like it."
I like how in response to me accusing you of misunderstanding on purpose, you misunderstand on purpose.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,246
6,459
118
Country
United Kingdom
Any of a broad collection of actions that seek to closer match a person's body and appearance to their gender identity, so that they might be accepting of themselves.
Right. See, usually it applies to approaches that try to adjust the physical sexual characteristics to match the gender (which have a high success rate), rather than approaches that try to browbeat the gender identity until it matches the biological sex (which have a godawful success rate).
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,515
3,716
118
I like how in response to me accusing you of misunderstanding on purpose, you misunderstand on purpose.
There is no misunderstanding. You hate other people's freedoms and want to take them away. When pointed out that your logic for why you should take their freedoms away isn't applied to other decisions you make that take people's freedoms away, you want to change the subject. If you believe a teen is incapable of electing to sex reassignment therapy (not even surgery, just therapy) under the supervision of professionals, then you must by definition not allow teenagers to raise children. Or you have to take the position that child rearing isn't a life altering course of action(s).
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,270
6,549
118
Like the one article I posted from a New York Times (leans left obviously) Pulitzer winning journalist, the US is a one-party state, that's the tricked they pulled. Nothing's gonna happen if say every single election goes to the Democrats and they have no Republicans in "their way". It's still gonna be status quo, no public health care and whatnot.
Well, that's not really true.

If the USA managed to elect a sufficient Democrat majority, the USA probably would have universal healthcare. And yet numerous blue states would still have housing and educations problems. An issue here with the video is subtly eliding the difference between the Party at a national level, state parties, and party voters and local representatives. They are all Democrats, sure, but you also have to consider the interplay of national ands local factors. For instance, wanting more green power doesn't necessarily mean wanting your neighbourhood chunk of beautiful countryside filled with wind turbines.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,507
7,086
118
Country
United States
Well, that's not really true.

If the USA managed to elect a sufficient Democrat majority, the USA probably would have universal healthcare. And yet numerous blue states would still have housing and educations problems. An issue here with the video is subtly eliding the difference between the Party at a national level, state parties, and party voters and local representatives. They are all Democrats, sure, but you also have to consider the interplay of national ands local factors. For instance, wanting more green power doesn't necessarily mean wanting your neighbourhood chunk of beautiful countryside filled with wind turbines.
I mean, the democrats had a filibuster proof super-majority in 2008 and *barely* got the ACA
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,270
6,549
118
I mean, the democrats had a filibuster proof super-majority in 2008 and *barely* got the ACA
Okay, more strictly, a super-majority plus the extra couple needed to cover the inevitable Manchin-like fucktards.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,515
3,716
118
Okay, more strictly, a super-majority plus the extra couple needed to cover the inevitable Manchin-like fucktards.
I hate agreeing with mgs (hate it), but I wouldn't be surprised that with 100% D control, you'd find 41 "dissenters" on any given topic, resulting in nothing being done. Or they'd rely on some other factor to "subvert" their goals, like the parliamentarian last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,853
3,559
118
Country
United States of America
I hate agreeing with mgs (hate it), but I wouldn't be surprised that with 100% D control, you'd find 41 "dissenters" on any given topic, resulting in nothing being done. Or they'd rely on some other factor to "subvert" their goals, like the parliamentarian last year.
That does seem to be the experience of supermajority Democratic states like California.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
Right. See, usually it applies to approaches that try to adjust the physical sexual characteristics to match the gender (which have a high success rate), rather than approaches that try to browbeat the gender identity until it matches the biological sex (which have a godawful success rate).
I understand that. I'm just saying why they do that, because they won't accept themselves as their biological sex.
There is no misunderstanding. You hate other people's freedoms and want to take them away. When pointed out that your logic for why you should take their freedoms away isn't applied to other decisions you make that take people's freedoms away, you want to change the subject. If you believe a teen is incapable of electing to sex reassignment therapy (not even surgery, just therapy) under the supervision of professionals, then you must by definition not allow teenagers to raise children. Or you have to take the position that child rearing isn't a life altering course of action(s).
"When I try and change the subject, you try and change the subject back!" - crimson5phoenix

Anyway, you're missing a huge disconnect in your attempt to change the subject: "electing". You're trying to compare how we address a situation where someone is already having a child with a elective procedure. Getting pregnant and having a child is a life altering course of action, and if a parent or professional were encouraging minors to purposefully get pregnant, we'd toss them in jail for child abuse in a heartbeat.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,515
3,716
118
"When I try and change the subject, you try and change the subject back!" - crimson5phoenix
I'm not the one changing subjects.

Anyway, you're missing a huge disconnect in your attempt to change the subject: "electing". You're trying to compare how we address a situation where someone is already having a child with a elective procedure. Getting pregnant and having a child is a life altering course of action, and if a parent or professional were encouraging minors to purposefully get pregnant, we'd toss them in jail for child abuse in a heartbeat.
But yet nothing for those that force, like you.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,735
833
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Well, that's not really true.

If the USA managed to elect a sufficient Democrat majority, the USA probably would have universal healthcare. And yet numerous blue states would still have housing and educations problems. An issue here with the video is subtly eliding the difference between the Party at a national level, state parties, and party voters and local representatives. They are all Democrats, sure, but you also have to consider the interplay of national ands local factors. For instance, wanting more green power doesn't necessarily mean wanting your neighbourhood chunk of beautiful countryside filled with wind turbines.
I really don't think the Democrats would pass through universal healthcare, there'd be too much push back from corporate America for that to happen. There's a reason democrats like Biden have said basically "We need a strong Republican party". It's because it allows them to say things people want while not actually doing what people want so they have the Scooby Doo defense of basically "If it wasn't for those meddling kids..."

I hate agreeing with mgs (hate it), but I wouldn't be surprised that with 100% D control, you'd find 41 "dissenters" on any given topic, resulting in nothing being done. Or they'd rely on some other factor to "subvert" their goals, like the parliamentarian last year.
I don't think you guys realize I'm on your team (progressives) on the vast majority of things. I don't know why you guys think I'm some super conservative right-wing person. If I had free rein to implement policy in the US, I'd implement many policies that a country like Denmark has. Just because I don't think Democrats are going to get us even close to there doesn't mean I'm right-wing. I really don't think anything major will happen until you vote out both parties and get people in there that aren't compromised by money to actually change things in a meaningful manner. For example, a big first step would be making all campaigns publicly funded, which neither party is going to vote for that.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,270
6,549
118
There's a reason democrats like Biden have said basically "We need a strong Republican party".
I think that was Nancy Pelosi, in the specific context that the Republican Party needed to be morally strong enough to grow a backbone and impeach Donald Trump.

I really don't think the Democrats would pass through universal healthcare, there'd be too much push back from corporate America for that to happen.
I disagree. But I think the Democrats have to contend with the fact that the US political system is designed for gridlock, to make it as easy as possible to block laws. This means anything the Republicans really don't want to pass is incredibly hard to pass. Due to this, it's easy to scupper anything progressive by swaying or "bribing" (i.e. donating large campaign funds to) a few conservatives / moderates in the Democratic Party to reject the party line.

And again, the US system makes this relatively easy: votes can often be decided by a few senators, even just one. Thus only a few in each party need to be controlled to be decisive. Plus, senators are incredibly hard to unseat, so are an excellent long-term investment and much effort goes into getting the right people installed.

You're absolutely right that the way to resolve this is widespread institutional reform, which is not going to happen whilst politics is totally dominated by two parties absolutely absorbed into the institutional status quo. However, simultaneously, the US public is too apathetic to do anything about it. Trump appeared to offer a break with the past, but in fact did nothing but create a cult which dreamt of giving him absolute power. The US progressives (AOC, etc.) would also be willing to create institutional change, but are toxic to 75% of the US populace. That might leave a new creation third party... but where is it? The Tea Party might have been closest, but in the end wanted nothing more than to hijack the Republican Party.

Just as some fun reading that I came across recently relevant to this:
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
Well, isn't it great for them that there are people like you willing to bully, force and even beat them into accepting themselves as you say they should be they really are?
I really don't have a response to this, except maybe that the state of my body is desirable now.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,246
6,459
118
Country
United Kingdom
I understand that. I'm just saying why they do that, because they won't accept themselves as their biological sex.
I can only presume this unwillingness to accept someone else's identity comes from a strong religious conviction: that your god "doesn't make mistakes" or somesuch, and thus if someone feels there's something wrong or mismatched between their gender identity and their sex, they must be the one who's wrong to think that.

Am I on the right lines? Not trying to describe it in an insulting way. Genuinely trying to get my head around your position.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
I can only presume this unwillingness to accept someone else's identity comes from a strong religious conviction: that your god "doesn't make mistakes" or somesuch, and thus if someone feels there's something wrong or mismatched between their gender identity and their sex, they must be the one who's wrong to think that.

Am I on the right lines? Not trying to describe it in an insulting way. Genuinely trying to get my head around your position.
To be fair, we've been pretty far from even establishing my position.

"Gender identity" is a combination of two imagined things. Both gender and identity come from the human mind exclusively. Which is not to say that they aren't real just because they are imagined: sports are imagined, recipes are imagined, nations are imagined. Lots of important, real things come out of the human imagination. Human sexual dichotomy is not one of them. There are categories, male and female, which may not contain every single human between them, but are physically required categories for humans to exist and reproduce. We cannot reimagine sex, reality will assert itself.

Gender and identity are things society has invented, and can choose to reimagine. Gender is the collection of things we societally associate with masculinity and femininity (or anything in between), but most of those are semi-arbitrary and highly relative to time and place. Identity is those characteristics by which we associate people into groups and/or distinguish between them, and those things are also semi-arbitrary and highly relative to time and place. The very concept of gender identity is the avoidable societal decision to distinguish between groups based on arbitrary markers of masculinity and femininity.

I'm going to group people out here for a second so that I can speak specifically. There are people with severe body dysmorphia related to their sex organs. That is incredibly rare, and I'm not talking about them. There is also the Tumblr crowd with fake identities, which is depressingly common, but I also don't want to talk about them. I want to talk about just the people whose gender identities don't match their biological sex. I am not unsympathetic to them, their suffering is real, the causes are real. But the suffering does not stem from a medical problem, it stems from a societal problem, a society that has latched gender markers onto things needlessly and tied them conceptually to sex such that people who do not often match up with those markers are constantly being signaled to that their existence is wrong. That's where the inability to accept oneself comes from. That's where the suicidality comes from.

I don't think a transgender individual is wrong about who they are and ought to conform to societal standards. I think the problem with transitioning is the societal standards. I have no problem with masculine women or feminine men, that does not make them less of a man or woman. I think it's a horrible thing that people are conditioned to not be able to live as they are, based on arbitrary standards, and so often choose suicide to escape it. But transitions are themselves a parallel to suicide. Obviously preferable out of the two, but it's still killing the person they are in a certain sense. Hence concepts like "deadnaming", the individual may be alive, but that pretransition identity is dead now.

On an individual level, I can't fault an individual's personal decisions. Societal problems are not within the power of any one person to fix, a trans person cannot rewrite society alone, but they can present themselves as they choose for themselves. What I do fault, however, is rhetoric that reinforces rather than challenges the modern notion of gender identities. I am still quite fond of the phrase "gender is a social construct", and I wish we could get back to that point of understanding, because treating transgenderism as a medical issue broadly is choosing to lock in the current gender paradigm that causes so much pain in the first place. A medical professional telling a troubled youth being hurt by society that the problem is entirely within their body and we just need to block their hormones for a while seems to me both insane and heinous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravinoff

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,507
7,086
118
Country
United States
I don't think a transgender individual is wrong about who they are and ought to conform to societal standards. I think the problem with transitioning is the societal standards. I have no problem with masculine women or feminine men, that does not make them less of a man or woman. I think it's a horrible thing that people are conditioned to not be able to live as they are, based on arbitrary standards, and so often choose suicide to escape it. But transitions are themselves a parallel to suicide. Obviously preferable out of the two, but it's still killing the person they are in a certain sense. Hence concepts like "deadnaming", the individual may be alive, but that pretransition identity is dead now.
The you of a decade ago is dead now. Hopefully anyway, some people stagnate. The me of a decade ago is very definitely dead, and they were significantly different than the me of a decade before that.

And no, that's not in anyway comparable to suicide.
What I do fault, however, is rhetoric that reinforces rather than challenges the modern notion of gender identities. I am still quite fond of the phrase "gender is a social construct", and I wish we could get back to that point of understanding, because treating transgenderism as a medical issue broadly is choosing to lock in the current gender paradigm that causes so much pain in the first place. A medical professional telling a troubled youth being hurt by society that the problem is entirely within their body and we just need to block their hormones for a while seems to me both insane and heinous.
So here's the problem:
Societal problems are not within the power of any one person to fix, a trans person cannot rewrite society alone, but they can present themselves as they choose for themselves.
You're putting the cart several decades before the horse, at a minimum, setting the onus on the trans person to suffer in the meanwhile. And that's charitably assuming that how you view trans people and their bodies is correct
 
Last edited: