[Kaiserschmarrn]

It's literally one sentence whose parts don't work by themselves.

I split your sentence up and it worked perfectly well for the first part to which I wanted to respond.

:eh:

What's unclear? If you'll accept anything that's official, you'll surely also accept whatever the US govt puts forward after clarifying the term "sex" by taking a rational and enlightened approach rather than an muddled and ideological one. Perhaps you want to explain what your contention regarding this "terminology war" is if you still have any.

Jeez, how is that even relevant. Do laws not apply to infertile women? Come up with an argument already.

You can't expect me to be entirely serious if you come up with such nonsense, but if you want you could start by showing me all those laws that deliberately and explicitly contradict the most basic scientific facts and, as is the case of the UK, enforces this denial of reality via legislation.

I also have no idea what you mean by "they're now officially women". They may be able to unfairly compete with women now, but they certainly aren't women, officially or otherwise. That said, I have already agreed that it will always be overwhelmingly men who will impose themselves on women, while the opposite will hardly ever be the case, so I suspect the military is no different. As such I propose gender extremists should go ahead and become openly men's rights group already, as that's what they essentially are.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think people who believe they are another gender, in the absence of genetic or biological facts, are mentally ill. They may not have a total break from reality, their illness being better than some but worse than others, but they are indeed not well.

Does this make them fraks, lunatics, or wastrels?

Most common working people worldwide don't have the luxury of a sexual paraphilia, an obsessive focus, and it indeed is a diversionary preoccupation of well to do people in the First World for the most part.

I do not think this is true. Nor do I think that paraphilias are chosen.

I say ''diversionary'', because all this ''identity politics'' BS does nothing to advance the cause of laborers, the workers and farmers and peasantry worldwide. In fact, I find it to be rather suspicious that these ideas proliferated and gained traction especially after the Soviet Union began to decline...

This does not seem to be true either.

[annatar1914]

@Pants-of-dog

Does this make them fraks, lunatics, or wastrels?

Not necessarily, I imagine there are more than a few of this insignificant as well as unfortunate group of people who are not politically active. What I do see is that they and their concerns are not germane to the primary goals of any vanguard movement to transform society by instituting another and more just mode of production.

I do not think this is true.

I disagree, so I guess we'll have to see where the facts will bear things out.

Nor do I think that paraphilias are chosen.

As convenient as that statement may seem, it matters little even if they are not chosen. I'm sure you are aware of the possibility that one afflicted with a paraphilia may want to engage in an activity, even feel compelled to, while having the moral agency to not actually do so if it happens to be wrong.

This does not seem to be true either.

It is, but again it's one of those things that some not going to see clearly I think until it's blindingly obvious to all and sundry.

[Drlee]

The Democratic party is increasingly becoming home to freaks, lunatics, and wastrels.

Ahem. And you think the party of Roy Moore, Donald Trump and .....oh never mind.

According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not necessarily, I imagine there are more than a few of this insignificant as well as unfortunate group of people who are not politically active. What I do see is that they and their concerns are not germane to the primary goals of any vanguard movement to transform society by instituting another and more just mode of production.

Trans people are not required to usher in a socialist revolution in order to demand equal rights.

I disagree, so I guess we'll have to see where the facts will bear things out.

The facts, if I recall correctly, show that trans people are disproportionately poor or working class.

As convenient as that statement may seem, it matters little even if they are not chosen. I'm sure you are aware of the possibility that one afflicted with a paraphilia may want to engage in an activity, even feel compelled to, while having the moral agency to not actually do so if it happens to be wrong.

This is irrelevant to a discussion about trans people.

It is, but again it's one of those things that some not going to see clearly I think until it's blindingly obvious to all and sundry.

I doubt it.

[annatar1914]

Trans people are not required to usher in a socialist revolution in order to demand equal rights.

People have rights and should be equal under the law, paraphilia does not. It is the fake ''Left'' that has taken the energy and brains of Leftists down this road which leads nowhere.

The facts, if I recall correctly, show that trans people are disproportionately poor or working class.

And fact is is that most poor people have two legs and not one. It's irrelevant to single someone out of the mass of truly suffering common working people, for special consideration because they have a particularly sad paraphilia.

This is irrelevant to a discussion about trans people.

It is absolutely so, because the larger problem is of a false ''Left'' taking people down the road of being advocates for every sad and strange minority of people who feel compelled to have a political solution to their disorders lack of ''acceptance'', while regular common people continue to suffer under late stage Capitalism and that truly existential problem goes unaddressed or lacks the energy and attention these pet causes get.

I doubt it.

Sadly, you may be right, so I feel that this discussion is at an end.

[Wellsy]

It is absolutely so, because the larger problem is of a false ''Left'' taking people down the road of being advocates for every sad and strange minority of people who feel compelled to have a political solution to their disorders lack of ''acceptance'', while regular common people continue to suffer under late stage Capitalism and that truly existential problem goes unaddressed or lacks the energy and attention these pet causes get.

Does this resonate with your view?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm

In other words, the key “Leninist” lesson today is: politics without the organizational FORM of the party is politics without politics, so the answer to those who want just the (quite adequately named) “New SOCIAL Movements” is the same as the answer of the Jacobins to the Girondin compromisers: “You want revolution without a revolution!” Today’s blockade is that there are two ways open for the socio-political engagement: either play the game of the system, engage in the “long march through the institutions,” or get active in new social movements, from feminism through ecology to anti-racism. And, again, the limit of these movements is that they are not POLITICAL in the sense of the Universal Singular: they are “one issue movements” which lack the dimension of the universality, i.e. they do not relate to the social TOTALITY.

Here, Lenin’s reproach to liberals is crucial: they only EXPLOIT the working classes’ discontent to strengthen their position vis-a-vis the conservatives, instead of identifying with it to the end.52 Is this also not the case with today’s Left liberals? They like to evoke racism, ecology, workers’ grievances, etc., to score points over the conservatives WITHOUT ENDANGERING THE SYSTEM. Recall how, in Seattle, Bill Clinton himself deftly referred to the protesters on the streets outside, reminding the gathered leaders inside the guarded palaces that they should listen to the message of the demonstrators (the message which, of course, Clinton interpreted, depriving it of its subversive sting attributed to the dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the majority of peaceful protesters). It’s the same with all New Social Movements, up to the Zapatistas in Chiapas: the systemic politics is always ready to “listen to their demands,” depriving them of their proper political sting. The system is by definition ecumenical, open, tolerant, ready to “listen” to all — even if one insist on one’s demands, they are deprived of their universal political sting by the very form of negotiation. The true Third Way we have to look for is this third way between the institutionalized parliamentary politics and the new social movements.

The ultimate answer to the reproach that the radical Left proposals are utopian should thus be that, today, the true utopia is the belief that the present liberal-democratic capitalist consensus could go on indefinitely, without radical changes. We are thus back at the old ‘68 motto “Soyons realistes, demandons l'impossible!": in order to be truly a “realist,” one must consider breaking out of the constraints of what appears “possible” (or, as we usually out it, “feasible”).

[annatar1914]

Does this resonate with your view?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm

Why yes, actually it does, thanks Wellsy.

There is of course another layer or level of my critique, but I'm not out to reinvent the wheel or bring the discourse to a plane where there is no common ground, so Zizek will do for sure in a pinch

[Verv]

There's a science-based approach that proves that people will be turning trans when transgenders are allowed to change their official gender? Interesting...

It's not really science -- science would have nothing to do with this, more or less -- but it is common sense.

At different points of history it has been fairly common to have relations with teenagers or to even pay to have relations with pubascent boys.

At different points in history a man could be a "top" and face no criticism, and he could impose his will on social lessers than him in this regard.

These are not things that I am suggesting are in the cards, but they are here to show that there is a great amount of fluidity in how we act and in how we behave. Of course, because these lifestyles are so utterly destructive and decadent, there isn't much of a lifetime on them, but they do create a lot of chaos in the societies where they spring up....

No, I do not think that this will mean that loads of men and women will cut themselves up -- but a few who normally wouldn't, and who would re-adjust, might do so, and more importantly, more young people will play silly games with "identity" and gender that aren't quite as extreme, and this leads to generally other unhealthy and antisocial behavior.

Let us also remember that Tindr comes from Grindr; and that these modes of indulgent behavior have only been getting worse. While these things are not directly connected to LGBTQ, they are connected to the post sixties culture.

[annatar1914]

Ahem. And you think the party of Roy Moore, Donald Trump and .....oh never mind.

@Drlee

I didn't say the GOPe is exactly a model of integrity or sanity either, i'm not one of them, either, as you know.

But what I do know, is that a Populist/Nationalist movement, generated by a leadership both ruthless, intrepid, pragmatic, and discerning, is well placed to sweep out what in essence has been the same political party (Democrat-Republican) for good. Why? Because what these people say makes sense to the little man, whose concerns have not been heard by the Elites of either party for decades, as real wages haven't risen since about 1974.

[Drlee]

But what I do know, is that a Populist/Nationalist movement, generated by a leadership both ruthless, intrepid, pragmatic, and discerning, is well placed to sweep out what in essence has been the same political party (Democrat-Republican) for good. Why? Because what these people say makes sense to the little man, whose concerns have not been heard by the Elites of either party for decades, as real wages haven't risen since about 1974.

And this has what to do with transgendered people? As POD correctly pointed out, they are disproportionately lower and lower middle class. Let me insert here that you should choose a term other than paraphilia. It has no diagnostic use whatsoever so you will be thought to be simply using it as a shopping bag of insults.

But look at what you wrote. I agree with you categorically. The above quote is absolutely true. Why insert something so tenuous as transgenderism into so strong an argument?

[Verv]

I am kind of curious... What is the argument that this is not a mental problem? The numbers show that transgender people, even after operation, continue to have enormous suicide rates and mental health issues. This is normally blamed on us -- but I am not sure what they expect from people.

It is like they literally expect every civilian to sacrifice their deeply held religious beliefs -- beliefs which have shaped this country and all of Western civilization, and likewise, beliefs in Asian communities that did the same there -- in order to appease an already mentally unstable extreme minority?

How is any of this supposed to work?

At what point can we say this isn't what we like and this isn't what we support; we don't really want to have it, and we don't want it rubbed in our faces? Surely, that is a relevant sentiment.

[annatar1914]

@Drlee

And this has what to do with transgendered people?

The point, that this is not a political issue nor should it ever have been one, it's a mental health issue.

As POD correctly pointed out, they are disproportionately lower and lower middle class.

But so are most human beings, also. Some human beings also like ham and eggs on toast. All this is something, again, that the Faux ''Left'' has been diverted into the cause of.

Let me insert here that you should choose a term other than paraphilia. It has no diagnostic use whatsoever so you will be thought to be simply using it as a shopping bag of insults.

I disagree, but it's more a classification of different types of abnormal sexuality.

But look at what you wrote. I agree with you categorically. The above quote is absolutely true. Why insert something so tenuous as transgenderism into so strong an argument?

Not only ''tenuous'', but destructive of genuine social change, that's why.

[Drlee]

It is like they literally expect every civilian to sacrifice their deeply held religious beliefs -- beliefs which have shaped this country and all of Western civilization, and likewise, beliefs in Asian communities that did the same there -- in order to appease an already mentally unstable extreme minority?

Tell me what deeply held religious belief transgendered people are violating? The sin of Sodom?

If a guy born a man becomes a woman by having a sex change and another man has sex with her is this homosexual sex?

I reject the religious argument because I am a Christian and am called to love all men and women. I see nothing in the Bible that would condemn a sex change.

I guess I have to put up with the bigots using the "mentally unstable" arguments. They are, after all, just bigots. Not doctors.

[Hindsite]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(Genesis 1:27 KJV)

If God wanted a transgender version, He would have created one.
Praise the Lord.

[blackjack21]

Hopefully this institutionalized insanity will be coming to an end soon.

That's great news. I would go further. I would ditch gender identity as a reporting requirement, and instead require reporting chromosome identity as one of XX, XY, and Other, where Other is for genetic anomalies, such as triple-x syndrome, Kleinfelter Syndrome, etc. which are exceedingly rare. Then, we can ground the whole thing in physical science and ditch whackado self-reporting notions. Then, by operation of law, pre-genetic identification birth certificates of male would imply XY and female XX by presumption, with an appeal process to rebut the presumption. Hereafter, all birth certificates would have the proper genetic identifier of XY or XX, which is leaner than male-female, which should make government forms shorter.

Now Trump and his supporters can pretend that facts do not exist because they wrote a law.

Chromosomes are facts. If you have a Y-chromosome, you are a man in spite of how you feel about it. If you don't, you are a woman (XX) in spite of how you feel about it; unless you have a genetic abnormality like Kleinfelter Syndrome, etc.

Liberal positions have destroyed themselves by allowing disturbed people to expand them into absurdity.

Boy isn't that ever true? I never thought in my wildest dreams that the Democrats would become so alien and bizarre. It makes me miss people like Dan Moynihan, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn and the like. It's hard to think of John C. Stennis or Scoop Jackson as Democrats, but they were. It's just that the Democrats went off the rails into crazyland.

You can't ''define out of existence'' what doesn't really exist to begin with, outside the minds of mentally ill persons.

It's a pity that people suffer from such conditions; however, that does not mean that the rest of the population has to understand, agree with or accommodate the demands of such damaged people. I think the Democrats exploiting the mentally ill is almost as bad as healthcare providers playing Joseph Mengele with people's hormones, genitalia, etc.

This is just a step back towards sanity and an opportunity for alleged ''Leftists'' to stop with the stupid diversions of false ''identity politics'' and get with their real business of standing up for the common working people of the world instead of the freaks, lunatics, and the lazy wastrels who want free shit for life without work...

That is a pretty concise assessment of what has become of the Democratic party.

Do you think trans people are freaks, lunatics, and wastrels?

I think they are mentally ill.

Obama did not give transgendered people a single right that any other citizen does not have. What he did do is prohibit the federal government from taking away any rights from citizens based upon their being transgendered. This is key. So the difference is that Trump wants to allow discrimination and Obama sought to prevent it. This is not even in debate.

Of course it is in debate. Obama was a shit disturber and did things with the express intention of disturbing the peace, not to "protect" people with sexual identity-related mental health problems. The idea of allowing men into women's restrooms because they "feel like a woman" is only going to thwart carefully constructed customs that promote domestic tranquility.

So ask yourself. Why would Trump want to take away, for example, a transgendered persons right to certain employment opportunities with the federal government? The justification has to be one of two things. Either he believes that there are psychiatric reasons for doing it or he is throwing a bone to Christians who think being transgendered is sinful.

People who do not identify with their own physical sexuality feel out of place wherever they are, and tend to reject society as a sort of psychic defense. Hence, people with these sorts of conditions are more likely to commit espionage, treason, etc. for the nation's enemies. Government espionage agencies have long sought to provide "misfits" with a feeling of acceptance, specialness, superiority, etc. in exchange for an adversary's secrets. Bradley Manning is an excellent example. Watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy for a backgrounder on it.

Clearly the Courts have ruled, in the case of same sex marriages, that ones sexual orientation is subject to the equal protection clause.

That may change in the future. Even John Roberts's commentary in Obergefell said that there was no such right in the constitution. That is why the Democrats tried to leverage a manufactured, uncorroborated and utterly unprovable sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh in hopes of trying to leverage male voter's inclination to protect women, and women's sense of vulnerability. It was an interesting, but failed psyop.

It is fairly clear that the courts are going this way WRT trans people.

No it is not clear. I have been one to rail vociferously against retired Justice Kennedy and his ludicrous reasoning in Obergefell. Yet, even I didn't think he'd be the first to step down. I figured Ginsberg would quit or drop dead. Yet, both SCOTUS and the UK high court have upheld religious rights objecting to being compelled to provide services to homosexuals. That was BEFORE Kavanaugh. Kennedy tried to keep the door open, but he's gone now. I wouldn't expect too much love from Kavanaugh after the way he was treated.

Indeed at least four federal courts have ruled on it already, blocking Trumps ban on transgendered people in the military.

As we get more court picks, I expect that stuff will get overturned. There are national security risks for people with gender dysphoria. It's the same reason they don't want alcoholics and drug addicts having access to classified information. It's not just a function of blackmail and social shame. Misfits by definition don't fit in and feel alienated by their society, which makes it easy for adversaries to exploit them.

Trump tried it several times and the courts have thwarted him. Why?

Because they haven't got the internal memo yet that the transgender and homosexuality stuff was a bridge too far, and the establishment will not be able to rule if they try to continue it. So they will gradually render it meaningless by siding with religious freedom and national security.

So if Trump really believes that transgendered people should be widely discriminated against, then he has a very good remedy. He could propose a constitutional amendment excluding transgendered people from protection under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

He has an even better remedy: nominating strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, since there is clearly no such protection in the constitution for people of the same sex to marry each other. Such a proposition is ludicrous on its face.

At one time interracial marriage opponents imagined a parade of horribles should we allow blacks and whites to marry.

Mulattos do struggle with racial identity and identity negotiation.

The problem with Drlee’s argument is it conflates the current view of transgender with a view conservatives would accept so it can be conflated with same sex marriage and interracial marriage.

Drlee didn't present a very strong constitutional argument. He mostly presented a "go with the flow" argument. His view seems to be that all the transgender stuff is a fait accompli. I don't think that it is. I think the Democrats have--intentionally or unintentionally--fucked the left over by abandoning the working class and pushing "crazy" as a party platform. It's backfiring in a big way. The conservatives have a majority for at least another 10 years on the court, but it's likely that it will get more conservative. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already damn close to a cadaver. She's probably clinically dead a few times a night during the regular course of sleep. It's only a matter of time now.

The objection is to this being used to say anyone can just decide to change their gender even without bothering to change it physically.

Well, you can't actually change your sex. You can surgically mutilate your genitals or have prosthetic pseudo-genitals constructed from other body parts and the like. However, you are still plumbed as a particular gender. Men have to have their testes removed to reduce the effect of testosterone and artificially introduce estrogen. Our modern day Joseph Mengeles are doing that sort of thing now. The odd thing is that only these extreme surgeries get covered. There are lots of women who would like larger boobs, and yet there is no push to cover surgeries that don't present such permanent, irreversible changes. A man with tits and a pseudo vagina still has a y-chromosome. That doesn't change.

It is about not allowing people to assume rights they have no need to have. Unfortunately, no one is addressing one without the other.

Well, it's not just that. It also involves the mentally ill demanding that we use a set of contrived "pronouns" and that we all join in on their delusion. There's only so much suspension of disbelief that people can take though.

At my workplace, our company phone book allows you to set up alternative pronouns, with an upfront admonishment to not do that in a trivial manner because that would be "unprofessional." Obviously, they know that it is something that most of us aren't going to take seriously. Basically, these people are fucking nuts. Why can't I just say, "Today, I feel like God."? Why should I not be able to demand everyone else participate in my delusion by requiring people to treat me reverentially, genuflect in front of me, etc.? Why can I not claim that America is one nation under me? God? There are real problems with treating the mentally ill as though they were just like everyone else. It's as I have said before: egalitarianism beyond uniform applicability of the laws is basically just institutional insanity.

But even if transgenders were still fit to serve as men (they won't serve as men since they're now officially women), I would rank the individual interest of transgenders higher in this case.

They aren't fit to the same standards. The Marines have to lower the standards for women, because they don't have the physical strength or the aerobic endurance that men do. This is why I decided in my early 40s that I no longer accepted the idea of equality, which is to say that by modern American standards, I am un-American. (Please don't PM me and ask if I'm going to become a communist; that is also basically against the law of nature too, and will never work, ever).

Sorry to break it to you, but you will never be able to bear children, and even if the law explicitly stated that you can, it won't become a reality.

This is quite true. However, do not put it past the Heinrich Himmlers of today to create a pseudo-uterus in a man, and impregnate it with a zygote from another couple and then demand that we all accept that as "pregnancy" as equivalent to the natural sort.

This is medically sort of untrue but I will let it pass. Suffice it to say that Gender Dysphoria is a condition that has merit. The genuine - long-standing cases are deeply unhappy people, many of whom find happiness with gender reassignment. Some have surgery, some have hormone treatment and some neither. To dismiss this condition as "invalid" is not supportable by the facts.

This is also why I say you can never overcome non-institutional racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. The idea that a person is deeply uncomfortable with themselves sexually suggests that a lot of attitudes are deeply ingrained and cannot be "educated" away. Otherwise, we could just educate those with gender dysphoria, and it seems that we cannot.

Why do you think that transsexuals are "mentally unstable".

They usually experience profound feelings of alienation from society at large too, because very few people really relate to them on an emotional level.

I would be very interested in hearing from you One Degree, what the parade of horribles consist of if we accept transsexuals.

In state craft, treason, espionage, etc. are common problems. It is why homosexuals are both banned as agents and recruited as assets by a great many states. I think it motivated people like Bradley Manning.

Please tell me why you think these things are so profound that they warrant denying an individual equal protection under the law.

These things are so profound, because they demand overturning the long-standing meaning of language and institutions to accommodate these people. For example, Obergefell was a case where a lesbian didn't think it was fair to have to pay estate taxes, and so SCOTUS overturned not the applicability of the estate tax which was ripe for consideration, but the entire concept of marriage law since the reign of Octavian Caesar to accommodate mentally ill people who have achieved significant positions power hiding their true identities. Overturning stare decisis for 2000 years--obviously this has a lot to do with bribery, placation, propaganda and the idea that those government officers who go along with it will be seen as "heroes" in the future--is clearly far too great a leap for the purposes of soothing the feelings of a lesbian tax protester.

If our society is not ready to allow individuals to make the latter choice on their own, we should not allow them to decide to change their gender on their own.

Well, it also beggars a lot of questions about priorities. Why shouldn't a woman with small tits be allowed to have health insurance that covers breast augmentation? Why shouldn't a man with a small dick be similarly covered? Why will certain liberal city government cover gender reassignment surgery, but not chiropractic care (not that I agree with either, but people seem to need chiropractors more than sex reassignment surgeons)? Why should tax payers be on the hook for any of this?

Not doctors.

Bwahahaha. It was doctors who originally classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Joseph Mengele was a doctor. Carl Clauberg was a doctor. Jack Kevorkian was a doctor. Walter Freeman was a medical doctor. Che Guevara was a doctor. Being a doctor does not make a person virtuous. It is at best a license to steal. Harry Holmes was doctor, and was the first American serial killer to be hung in America. There are many doctors who have been serial killers, and that is not including the many mass murders prescribing opioids.

26 Serial Killers Who Were Doctors

[Rugoz]

It is like they literally expect every civilian to sacrifice their deeply held religious beliefs -- beliefs which have shaped this country and all of Western civilization, and likewise, beliefs in Asian communities that did the same there -- in order to appease an already mentally unstable extreme minority?

It's a shame the Romans didn't manage to crucify every last one of you when you were still a "mentally unstable extreme minority".

I also have no idea what you mean by "they're now officially women". They may be able to unfairly compete with women now, but they certainly aren't women, officially or otherwise. That said, I have already agreed that it will always be overwhelmingly men who will impose themselves on women, while the opposite will hardly ever be the case, so I suspect the military is no different. As such I propose gender extremists should go ahead and become openly men's rights group already, as that's what they essentially are.

This is going nowhere. Let's take this German law from 1981 as a reference, in particular the change of the "Personenstand". https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuellengesetz

Do you approve of that solution?

[Pants-of-dog]

People have rights and should be equal under the law, paraphilia does not. It is the fake ''Left'' that has taken the energy and brains of Leftists down this road which leads nowhere.

People are not paraphilias.

The fact that someone has a paraphilia should not affect whether or not they enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

And fact is is that most poor people have two legs and not one. It's irrelevant to single someone out of the mass of truly suffering common working people, for special consideration because they have a particularly sad paraphilia.

You are right. We should treat all people equally, regardless of paraphilia. This means that trans people should have the same rights as the rest of us.

It is absolutely so, because the larger problem is of a false ''Left'' taking people down the road of being advocates for every sad and strange minority of people who feel compelled to have a political solution to their disorders lack of ''acceptance'', while regular common people continue to suffer under late stage Capitalism and that truly existential problem goes unaddressed or lacks the energy and attention these pet causes get.

Sadly, you may be right, so I feel that this discussion is at an end.

My point was that trans people are not doing anything wrong.

Mind you, I also disagree that equality struggles, other than Marxist ones, are somehow detracting from the Marxist struggle.

——————————

I am kind of curious... What is the argument that this is not a mental problem? The numbers show that transgender people, even after operation, continue to have enormous suicide rates and mental health issues. This is normally blamed on us -- but I am not sure what they expect from people.

They expect to be treated like people. How is that so hard or threatening?

I do not care if it is a “mental problem” or not. It has no impact in me either way, and trans people are not doing anything that affects me.

It is like they literally expect every civilian to sacrifice their deeply held religious beliefs -- beliefs which have shaped this country and all of Western civilization, and likewise, beliefs in Asian communities that did the same there -- in order to appease an already mentally unstable extreme minority?

How is any of this supposed to work?

I highly doubt transphobia is an actual religious belief, nor do I think that transphobia have helped build any countries or civilisationa.

At what point can we say this isn't what we like and this isn't what we support; we don't really want to have it, and we don't want it rubbed in our faces? Surely, that is a relevant sentiment.

No, those feelings do not seem relevant to a discussion on social policy.

[One Degree]

At what point can we say this isn't what we like and this isn't what we support; we don't really want to have it, and we don't want it rubbed in our faces? Surely, that is a relevant sentiment.


No, those feelings do not seem relevant to a discussion on social policy.

How can you support equality and deny the basis of rule by the people? You are literally saying they are not equal and must be ruled by the minority.
@Pants-of-dog

[Pants-of-dog]

How can you support equality and deny the basis of rule by the people? You are literally saying they are not equal and must be ruled by the minority.
@Pants-of-dog

This is so poorly written that it took me a while to figure out you were actually addressing me.

What are you trying to say?

I pointed out to @Verv that feelings are not a good reason to determine social policy. If it were, then we would outlaw portrayals of Mohammed because it would hurt the feelings of Muslims.

And in response to this point, you claim that you are being ruled by some minority?