The people who complain about these threads don’t seem to realize, without them, nothing gets done.
I think it’s pretty clear that Mallard considers the transgender plight to be “BS”. While he ostensibly will put up with it in “rental accomidations or employment”, he does not extend recognition of trans gender identities to his personal life. The rationale implied is that the physical sex organs present on a person are “relevant” when dating, but not when hiring or renting or what have you. Piecing all of this together, we get an opinion that rejects the very existence of trans gender identities when it comes to dating, thus answering the question of that thread in a clear and resounding affirmative: yes, Mallard expects to know what genitals a person has before the first date.
Given the context I think I can attribute the “Transylvanian” to sincere ignorance or purposeful self-deprecation (appearing to be old/out of touch on purpose - emphasis on “or whatever they’re called”). I personally associate “Transylvanian” with, you know, vampires, but it’s pretty clear that there’s no overlap here. I don’t think that was meant as a slur or insult.
Say what you will about Mallard’s opinion - ignorant, intolerant, immoral, offensive - but there is no way to express that opinion without being offensive.
But even I cannot defend the “chicks with dicks” comment.
~Max
You’re making a common error in assuming that dictionaries list words’ “real” meanings. Not true. Mirriam Webster doesn’t make the rules. Neither does the OED. We English speakers do. Websters and the OED only look at common usage. They tend to lag a bit in their decisions regarding when a usage is common enough to warrant inclusion in the definition, but I’m confident that as the usage changes, so will the definition.
So all you’re proven is that the expanding definition of “man” (or “woman”) hasn’t yet become common enough for these dictionaries to reflect that.
Sorry you wasted your time. 
What a lovely privilege, to get to decide, on behalf of minorities one is not a member of, which slurs cross the line into hate speech and which merely make for a “teaching opportunity”. Thankfully there’s no middle ground of screamingly obvious jerkishness between the two. And no doubt the opinions of actual trans posters on how they felt being used as a “teaching opportunity” were properly elicited first :rolleyes:
Props for *finally *getting around to issuing a warning, I guess, once there was literally no longer any choice.
I’ll take the dictionary over your snide remarks any day of the week.
Hmm, maybe you’ll take Merriam-Webster’s word for it, then?
Scroll down on the entry for racism to the usage notes.
And allowing them forces trans people to continuously argue for their basic existence and forces them to deal with casual transphobia as the price of existing in this sphere.
Which, big shocker, most won’t, and so we keep having them leave.
We don’t have this kind of justification for racists, or misogynists, or homophobes. If someone calls someone else a “wetback”, we do not then have a long, engaged debate over whether or not hispanic Americans came here by wading through the rio grande, we ban the fucker. When someone says that a rape victim caused great harm to their rapist by accusing them, we…
…Okay, bad example. But the point is, in many cases, we acknowledge that when someone makes a statement like this, even in the extremely rare case that they are open to being convinced that it’s wrong (and, let me ask you, in the history of this forum, how often has that happened when it comes to honest-to-goodness hate speech?), them making that statement creates a hostile environment for others, and that’s not worth having the “debate”. Or, to put it another way:
What the ever-loving fuck is “civil” about telling someone that their identity is suspect or phony in a way that very likely aggravates a severe mental disorder? No, seriously. “Appear civil”? What does that even mean in a case like this? There is no civility when you are denying someone’s humanity. Misgendering trans people is hate speech, and if someone misgenders one of my friends, my response is much sooner to deck them than to engage them civilly on the merits of their position, because that is approximately how civil misgendering is. There’s a reason why various places are instituting laws against it - persistently misgendering an individual is harassment. I don’t care if you sound like Carl Sagan while doing it, you’re still being a huge jerk.
Unfortunately, as pointed out upthread, that’s… rather difficult, given how many of them left. Because that’s always what happens. That’s the tragic cost behind the free marketplace of ideas - tolerance to some is intolerance to others. You cannot share a space between black people and KKK members - and if you insist that the KKK members will be tolerated, and make rules to ensure that social pressures will not get rid of them, eventually most or all of the black people will get sick of hanging around a place where being a member of the KKK is fine, dandy, and normal.
This always happens. Tolerate racists? Racist minorities are going to leave. Tolerate sexists? Women are going to leave. Tolerate transphobe and homophobes? Gay and trans people are going to leave. Why should they stay? They can get whatever they got here from places where they don’t have to deal with the constant mental strain of hanging around people who hate them.
By all means, if you want to accept that cost, go right ahead. But be honest about it. Don’t pretend that it’s on trans folk to educate their oppressors, because that is some grade-A bullshit. Just admit you’d rather defend people’s right to say transphobic bullshit than defend actual trans people.
(And I am quite pointed in saying “transphobic bullshit”, because, as keeps coming up in this subject, the transphobes are not simply being impolite, they are also consistently dead wrong on the science, and directly in opposition to every relevant scientific authority on the subject. So not only are you allowing them to say things that are incredibly harmful to trans people, but you are allowing them to do that regardless of whether or not what they say is in any way, shape, or form true. Which is particularly ironic, given the way several people here have clutched their fucking pearls about the purpose of this board being “fighting ignorance”.)
… I would accept that cost, and I don’t think I have to choose between defending people’s right to offend minorities and defending minorities.
~Max
You can, and probably should. Hatred flows from fear, fear flows from ignorance. Address that ignorance, don’t merely push it to the corners of society and hope it goes away.
~Max
I thought fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, and hatred leads to the dark side…
No, because KKK members belong in jail. They are members of a terrorist group – there can be no other definition for them, as their entire purpose was to put terror in the hearts of blacks, to remind them that slavery or not, they remain below the whites.
They are no better than ISIS, and just like ISIS, we cannot “share a space” with them.
The KKK is a hate group with a history of violence but not a terrorist group. That is mostly because it is entirely domestic, and decentralized. We don’t jail people for association with hate groups, even violent ones, unless there is a clear link between the violence and the individual. I bet most of the Klan groups still around today don’t have a history of violence, the association is in name and ideology only.
~Max
It is not a terrorist group because the FBI hasn’t labeled it as such for political reasons. It has been labeled a terrorist group in some jurisdictions, for example the city of Charleston.
But if you consider the meaning of the word “terrorism” –
That’s exactly what the Klan DOES.
Unless your argument is that the violence was done by the 1st and 2nd Klans, not the third incarnation? Because that is flawed. You think Arabs would be allowed to join the new, fundamentalist muslim, “non violent” incarnation of ISIS or Al Qaeda in the US? What is the difference between that or the Klan?
If I ignore the fact that these are international organizations that actively fight against the United States (thus a domestic member would be treasonous), then yeah, I do.
It’s like the American Nazi party or the Communist party. Nothing illegal about that, until someone actually pokes an eye out.
~Max
I left out a couple of steps. 
~Max
Why is domestic terrorism any better than foreign terrorism? The KKK has killed more Americans than ISIS.
Well, there isn’t really room for domestic terrorism here. Not on the scale and with the level of organization that you might see in lawless areas like the Middle East. If a domestic terrorist group emerged, law enforcement would be all over them, and then there wouldn’t be a domestic terrorist group.
The KKK has been around for a long time. The only reason they are still around at all is because they no longer mass-lynch people or otherwise direct members to commit violent acts. If that was still the case, I would consider it a domestic terror group. But it isn’t, so I don’t.
I think we’re getting a bit off-topic with this, though. We can agree to disagree, or head off to a new thread if you link it to me.
~Max
Oh, I’m sure they would be. Working forces, as it were. Wearing their badges.