Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

Part 2/5:Opposition  

damngina39 47T
34 posts
4/6/2018 1:24 pm
Part 2/5:Opposition


Jordan Peterson is a conservative professor from Canada who got known for shitting on some legislation that added protections for trans people, he translated it to mean that if you dont call some by their pronoun it could be used against you as a hate crime offense. This is a reach, but other concerns from people see it as a fuck you to science, saying that if we ignore science to make a group of people happy, it sets a terrible precedent. Now I dont know much about the bill besides what I read but there is a ton of leaps being made here. He refers to the science community having deeply tied gender to sex for ages and that this would also be an insult to science to just let go for the piece of mind of a few people. He however doesnt seem to be a bigot but has made a controversial statement that he now has to back.

If you look at his definition on what Conservative means, one point that is fitting, besides the irony of him redefining his definition to fit how he lives, is that "It is better to do what every has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise"; I will respond to all of this.

Response:
Bear with me, the plan is the breakdown all objections of each point till we are left with something both sides have admit. That we are all hung up on shit terms and identifiers that muddy the waters and also let bigots hide behind good points. I plan to remove these points so there is no island for them to swim to some high ground.

So what does gender mean if you exclude sex from the equation and how do you define it? Can definitions of words change or do people still use the word "faggot" as the best way to describe a bunch of loose sticks? Do we really plunge the world into chaos by losing an old meaning to a word by changing that meaning?

So what is the male gender? Is it wearing blue, driving cars, fist fights,wearing jeans, keeping your hair short? What would it take to go against the gender and do the exact opposite from the definition so that you would piss off some cranky professor? We all know men can be cooks, stay at home parents, have a stronger mate, wear their hair long, wear make up, pluck their eyebrows, wax their bodies, have plastic surgery, and take hormones without getting any shit. We know they can marry other men without giving up their gender identity as well. The founding father wore wigs, pantyhose, heels, and make up. Some cultures are gender neutral on clothing, and we know plenty of men who have feminine traits let alone the metrosexual term for men who moisturize and wash every now and then.

So what is their hang up for me putting on a dress or getting a boob job? Plenty of women do so, some men get pectoral implants. I could naturally work my buns and hips to a more feminine look but why the hang up on trans people doing the same exact thing as heterosexual people? No body builder was ever meant to be that muscly in their DNA, it took a shot in the ass of bull hormones to make that man a walking mule. This is ok though, just dont be born a man and want a pair of tits or the hormone estrogen. Does it all come down to the dress or the desire to identify as a woman. My guess is that they would not have an argument if we wanted our own designated identity instead of adding to an existing . All he has is a case for is people wanting to be called her and it being protected. He admitted he would do it if it wasnt being asked to prove a point or it being political. What he was really saying is he can be a decent human being and be smart enough to assume you want to be called her if you dress and act like a woman, this is an easier ask than wanting to change the definition of woman. The bigots will still exist but not with any valid points if we look into ourselves and stop fighting about names.

If their argument for gender is doing what our genes tell us to do like the caveman excuse we do pretty much the opposite of everything we were made to do. The only time we use it as an excuse is that you were born this way and we were made to eat meat. We were programmed to do a ton of shit before we evolved but if gender is tied to human drive, then a man fucking another man is far from the default program. Do they exempt their gender or do they defy their sex? I only point this out because we will always call a lesbian a woman still even if she dresses like Justin Beiber , hell most bigots will still misgender them just to be assholes but if she wants to transition to a man, then the uproar begins and if he is now properly pronoun-ed, it is only by some happy bigoted accident where they thought they were insulting him but called him by his preferred pronoun.

Should we define ourselves as women in general or add a qualifier?

This is where I differ from most. I dont want to be called a woman. Being a woman is different than being a trans woman. Ignoring these differences is folly and adds to the ammunition of delusion. Some trans people that pass can do this, but only because the others cant tell, this is not some form of acceptance by the whole of society, you have just pulled off the illusion so you dont have to deal with the discrimination as you remain undetected. It is not your winning personality or the way you dress conservatively that gets you the respect you deserve, they just cant tell or you would be getting all the same shit sandwich non passable trans women get. This is where the waters get muddy. The reason i know we need another definition is the same reason I know the term sexual assault should not be used as a term for everything from groping to r*pe, it requires more information. For example I will have a conversation about me and my wife. The first question is "is she trans or cis" The reason why is because we had to add the term CIS to a definition that already existed so that we could take the meaning from the that already used it, but you cant really do that without confusing people. This is where it goes off the rails to me. I know that my brain is wired similar to a woman cause i feel that way. We know hormones do effect behavior as well as other things. There is a huge spectrum of intersex and so on that make the areas more grey but in my case, it is kind of obvious. I was not born a woman, some people dont want to date trans people, and i should not hide that fact if it comes up, much like being gay or lesbian doesnt discredit someones existence, me putting transgender isn't going to discredit mine. I dont want to go down that road too much but I have better written points on the matter.

So right now I know I pissed some people off by even attempting to say maybe we should define ourselves as something other than women. Most of you will see the irony that you do it to crossdressers all the time and while you are ok with identifying in your own circles to make things easier to understand you expect the public to not benefit from the same shorthand and probably revel in the confused looks for some of the real jerks.

Transgender women in sports, I really do think we need to let this one go. I was called a bigot for this and blocked but no one can argue that if Lebron James decided to transition today, 3 years from now, if he joined the wnba he would still be dunking on everyone. Denying the current differences between biological(another qualifier) women and men from a hereditary trait and breeding level leaves us open to ridicule cause it is really hard to stand on this . I know there are grey areas but lets not die on this hill.

So what of his belief of doing what has been done before as a default logic? Well majority rules has never been a completely good or bad thing. We know that in order to keep going we need to keep producing but then there is Britney Spears selling more albums than talented musicians, slavery(should have come first but you wouldnt get the point as clearly), civil rights, gay rights, opposing the Iraq war. Majority doesnt rule all the time and when you have a fringe of a population that they would admit would be more if universally accepted, then you have to admit that this is more than just some fad and that it has been around historically for centuries. So what do you do? Cleanse the anomalies? Ostracize them because large varieties are a danger to the status quo? How bout you do the same thing you did for gay people? Never admit you were wrong and quietly accept their existence?

brutice69 43M

11/1/2018 8:25 am

FUCK MY ASS


Become a member to create a blog