Out of bounds, Ensign E. Get riled up all you want but stop it short of wishing physical harm on another poster. This is a warning. Do not do it again.
TVeblen
Nope, it’s just more of the same illogical argumentation you’ve been employing.
Thalidomide was prescribed in Europe on the basis of inadequate research and problems were ignored early on. When the F.D.A. in this country turned down the drugmaker’s application (and thus saved perhaps thousands of American babies from deformity), it wasn’t because scientists said “Oooo, thalidomide sounds icky! What do people need sedatives for? I don’t believe in it.” The chief F.D.A. investigator (Dr. Frances Kelsey) relied on good science.
Anyone who refuses to consider evidence and denies the legitimacy of a minority group based on personal distaste is a fossil with a bigoted outlook.
You’re not standing on principle, you’ve just dug in your heels because you can’t admit your approach to this subject is wrong.
Keerist! This thing is still fucking GOING? I really thought this would’ve resolved itself by now, or at least that everyone would’ve become so mutually frustrated it would’ve died a sudden death, lost in a sea of rolling eyes.
Excalibre,
“The tactics end intentions of the whole would be better served by focusing on the largest demographic therein for starters. And it’s not an issue of how ‘gay’ people ‘look’, it’s what image comes to the mind of Joe Six-Pack* when he thinks ‘gay’. For this reason, it best serves the purpose of the GLBTM for Joe Six-Pack to see little, normal-looking, darling old ladies holding hands and smiling pleasently while they wait hopeful epxressions to get married. THAT will resonate.” is not the same as saying “You don’t deserve any rights unless you sit down, speak when spoken to, and dress normal like a good little hetero-looking-queer. And TGs don’t deserve any rights whatsoever, cuz they’re funny looking.”
As far as Niccolo Machiavelli is concerned, are you using his name in reference to the superiority of a republic over a principality? The strength of a tripartite structure? Our need for checks and balances in governance? Or are you using it in the strictly perjoritive sense of “the ends justify the means, no matter what the means”?
Any of the former would be valid, as I’ve known my dad to be generally suspicious of untethered power. The latter, however, is right out. Saying “there are better means to this end” is not remotely similiar to saying “the end justifies the means”.
Oh yeah, and in reviewing the thread, it doesn’t appear he ever thought the “Will & Grace” character was gay. He posed it as a sophomoric question. “If trangendered is X, wouldn’t Z also be considered transgendered?”
*son of Tom Six and Wendy Pack…
Jesus. How is it that my side of the argument is the one that got labeled “oversensitive?”
Of all the things people have ever said about me on this board, this has to be the most off the mark. It’s also one of the most ironic since it comes from someone who is trying to argue precisely for an ideological definition of gender over a physical one and then seeking to demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line to recognize your purely ideological definition.
The biological reality is that sex is all about the Xs and the Ys. If you’re biologically a male, you’re a male. The rest is just so much precious, ivory tower, socio-political bullshit. If you really want to help your tranny brothers and sisters (or is that sisters and brothers?) then you’d be better served by toning down the shrieking, self-righteous bullying of people who aren’t standing in your way. Fighting for civil rights is not about browbeating everybody into liking you. I know for a fact that there were people who supported the civil rights movement of the 60’s who never really believed that blacks were equal to whites but that they still shouldn’t be treated any differently (some of them were related to me). There are people who think that homosexuality is a sin but that the law has no business interfering with it. Not all of your allies are going to love you or agree with you for the same reasons or perceive the issues the same way you do. Nonetheless, no movement can suceed without those people and nothing is gained by screaming at them. Not everybody who supports TG rights is necessarily going to buy that it’s a.) a real condition (which they’d be wrong about) or b.) that there can’t be a better way to treat gender dysmorphia than by chopping off perfectly healthy body parts. You can accept those people as enemies of your enemy and get somewhere or you can wait around for everybody to achieve your perfect level of insight and righteousness and turn people off who might otherwise want to help you.
It’s not about getting everybody to agree with you, it’s about getting people who don’t agree with you to go along with you. The more any movement attempts to purify itself ideologically, the more doomed it’s going to become.
I hasten to note you seem to have picked the example you can refute, or at least think you can. What about the rest?
They rest of it amounts to the same tired insults already offered. Pass.
Well, I’ve never actually been called a bigot before, but imagine it would make me a bit touchy too. Especially if, at least in my own view, I’d been quite sincerely and even actively the opposite for upward of 40 years.
I can, however, think of plenty times I’ve been insulted in some way that caused my face to get red and my brain to shut off, making any further attempts at rational discussion futile. That’s not called being ignorant or bigoted, it’s called being human.
Ooopsy. Last for Jack, not DtC or the Err Apparent
Well, I’ve never actually been called a bigot before, but imagine it would make me a bit touchy too. Especially if, at least in my own view, I’d been quite sincerely and even actively the opposite for upward of 40 years.
I can, however, think of plenty times I’ve been insulted in some way that caused my face to get red and my brain to shut off, making any further attempts at rational discussion futile. That’s not called being ignorant or bigoted, it’s called being human.
I’m wearing ladies’ panties right now. Ladies’ panties!
Jesus, now it’s not just the thread but the sequence of the posts that’s becoming a trainwreck.
Anyway, oopsies on the double-post and all that.
Thank you for sharing that.
That’s nothing, I’m not wearing any.
And if you have a problem with it, then YOU’VE got a problem.
Wait, what? Since when? I know it’s against the rules to wish death, hence my disclaimer. It would probably be against the rules to threaten to do harm. But I can’t say I hope something bad something to another poster, or that I think it should?
Oh, there it is in the sticky. I apologize. Obviously, I was trying to keep the rules in mind, but failed. For the record, I don’t actually think Dio should be shot in the knees, nor did I intend to literally advocate such. I know it’s still against the rules; just clarifying regardless.
And if I couldn’t care less, then I couldn’t care less? Seems fair.
So why aren’t all biological male individuals attracted to the opposite sex?
Dio, you’re usually better at dealing with scientific topics than this. Do you really not understand that it’s often more than just XX or XY? Are you really that unfamilar with the scientific part of this euqation? The fact that intersex individuals exist is enough to disprove your hypothesis. One needn’t even delve into the realm of “T” to do that.
He hasn’t refused to consider evidence, he’s refused to consider that evidence to be overwhelming. There is a difference.
How so? Seems to me he was suggesting the term ‘transgendered’ itself isn’t legitimate. There is a difference.
His personal distaste was in regards to a medical procedure, not the recipient his/herself. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (which I hereby propose we change to “badly ripped mp3” to keep current) there is, once again, a difference.
Well, there’s some horses I’d consider Coulteresquely evil, at least as I observed their departing rumps from the perspective of the bramble thicket I’d landed in. “Horseface” enjoys a long and honorable history as an epithet, doesn’t bother me, apply it at will directly to the sorehead. Just, I’d rather people would stop beating one particular dead metaphor, okay?
Hey, Weird With Words, you been away from the boards since 2003 (when I joined), or just flying under the radar? I confess, I never knew your esteemed if sometimes erratic elder had offspring. Glad to see you turned out so well [despite/because of your delightfully warped parental unit?].