The neo nazis claim their viewpoint is founded in biology, too. And there's plenty of hate involved. 20+ transgendered people are killed a year for no good reason. Not all neo nazis actually kill someone or cause bodily harm.
Posters on here are discriminating against trans genders? Most posters who don't believe in this or don't understand this say they have no problem calling people whatever they want to be called. Then we get the condescending tone of well at least you will do that because that takes nothing and your evil if you do otherwise . . . and I'll still imply your a bad person for not believing what I believe. It's crazy. Taking a concept that is a complicated issue at best and far fetched to some and shoving it down posters throats calling them ignorant for not understanding. Personally I've been so turned off by the side of posters talking down to others about the topic it makes me want to puke back the concession of calling them by what they want to be called and saying the hell to that and this whole topic. I'll try not to let this group of posters get me so on tilt as to do that . . . but it does have to tone of a group of religious fanatics coming at you.
You only care about you. I haven't even posted an argument to win. Obviously your reading comprehension is a little off.
Yes, Neo-Nazi's use illogical biology to conclude certain things that are not clearly connected. The biology in this thread is talking about known sexual reproductive organs. We're not making conclusions. We're simply saying biological sex is a boy has a penis, a girl has a vagina...... this isn't rooted in hate. This is rooted in science - GASP! Which, science by the way, you have used to defend your point on gender/psychological sex. You're comparing a group's illogical conclusions ultimately founded in hate (NOT IN BIOLOGY - they may use poor biology to defend their views, but their views are founded in HATE, NOT BIOLOGY). My VIEWS (yes, plural) are founded in biology, as well as psychology. There's no hate here. As I said earlier, my viewpoints could easily be described as more open-minded than yours. Which, ultimately, is not typical of a bigot, or someone full of hate. It's more closely used to describe someone shut to all but one viewpoint. You relayed your Neo-Nazi comparison like you were comparing it to us on this board. I'm not going to shift arguments/debates and continue this thread based upon how stupid your post/comparison was. I don't need to debate it with you - there's really no debate. It was in excess, and it was dumb.
Well put. Your last points brings up an interesting question for me. I often think about "the way I think" and "what I value," as well as what other people value as well. And I wonder at what point are those things ingrained into your psychology via upbringing and what points can you change. Or, if you even want to change them. Something I often take for granted is that since I am always trying to better my worldview and shape it to be as "best" as it can be (whatever that means), that so must everyone else, right? Maybe some people feel they have it all figured out. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But, it's not really my place to say if they do or not.
Yeah, I guess you could say I ignored my opinion, but really, it wasn't actually an opinion. It was a gut feeling. What really changed is my focus. After traveling and having my mind blown by the variety of life, I kind of stopped taking into account "absolute truths" about most everything. Everything got super fuzzy and I started living in the grey areas. And so, when it came to what I thought about something already kind of fuzzy, like self-identification, it just made sense that there are so many subjective factors involved, there's no way of knowing for sure. No absolute truth. Sure, there is biology, but who cares? I pretty much view it the same as I view race: it is a biological factor that society affixes often incorrect attributes to. I'm white. Does that mean I like country music? Of course not. I'm a man. Does that mean I shouldn't like weaving tapestries? Apparently. But fuck it. I do anyway. But seriously, fuck country music.
Agreed. And that's why I think as long as you, at minimum, respect all others, WTF else really matters? I'd like to think we can all learn love, value, AND respect all others, but as long as we respect and learn from one-another, that's a good start. And it'd make for a pretty solid place. By the way, don't know how you made sense of my point when I said, "As I've said before, I donagree with most of it." I initially had "I don't disagree with most of it," then meant to change it to the positive, "I do agree". The "donagree" makes it seem like I was trying to say "I don't agree," but I'm assuming given my prior posts on the subject, you knew I was trying to say I agree.
I think that calling a man who does "traditionally female" things a woman is sexist. It implies that people can't be different or unique from the label they are given, without changing the label and I think that's wrong. If that's what they want to be called, fine, but I won't feel good about it. I'll still feel sexist. People should be able to do whatever they want without being labeled as something they're not (biologically). If that makes me a bigot to some people, I don't see it, but whatever. I'm not harming anyone and no one is harming me. Sent from my banana using Tapatalk 4
Why is their logic about biology illogical? I know yours is for exactly the same reason. If you don't like the neo Nazi example, then use the Eugenics movement as one example. Or the Russians banning all things gay. Or ultra conservative islamic societies making their women and girls wear burkas. What you think of my example? Ignorance on your part.
Mopping up. +1 There is ultimately the question of morality, which determines right vs. wrong. It's not a religious thing. Our morality happens to come from thousands of years of Libertarian principles that arose from how people were treated up to (and since) the Magna Carta. The right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness (or property). People should be free to do what they want and say what they want, for the most part. Heck, nazis can march in Skokie (google that for some "fun"). Free speech ends when it incites violence, intimidates others, etc. There you have victims of free speech (fire in a crowded theater, the slower people get trampled). Posting "she's really a he" on a message board, saying it to your friends, etc., causes real harm. Tolerating the intolerance is how that homecoming queen got death threats on her Facebook page and the like. People who recently posted in this thread said "she had it coming because of (insert a bullshit reason)." "She shouldn't go X place because she'll get beat up, it's only common sense. " And "I wouldn't raise a hand to help that person if she was getting beaten up." That sort of thing. Yeah, right.
You are out of your mind sometimes. Are the people forcing this issue down peoples throats comparable to Nazis, Jehovah's Witnesses, child sex predators, animal killers . . . I've got other examples
