trans discussion split

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
warumich
Fuzzable
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

trans discussion split

Post by warumich » Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:59 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:24 am
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:44 am
Same thing as was the excuse for sexism and racism and homophobia - prejudice, fear, othering, and a press which is more than happy to pander to all of that. Within much of the Gen X/boomer-age "sceptical" community, also a reliance on biology as a supposedly scientific basis for discrimination.
It's not even a reliance on biology, it's reliance on an oversimplified version of biology. As with so many things, sex and gender are abmctt, yet somehow we get people who really should know better confidently announcing that men are XY and women are XX and that's all there is to it. And even if that were true, so what? Trans people exist. You can't logic them out of existence, and why would you even want to?
There is a certain strand of skeptic who think having read a book or two on critical thinking makes them an expert on everything. But if you want to go down the biology route, I still need to hear an argument on why a person's chromosomes and/or genitals should be the things that determine "real" sex, rather than whatever happens in the brain that makes people uncomfortable to identify with a particular gender - it's not like your brain is any less a biological object than your gonads. Or are we going back to Cartesian dualism where your soul is entirely separate from your body? That doesn't strike me as particularly consistent with much of the skeptic anti-religion stance, but whatevs.

Anyway, what I also find fascinating is that the "feminist" argument against trans people almost always ends up in some type of gender essentialism, i.e. that there really is some feminine or masculine essence that you cannot with the best will in the world divorce yourself from. That plays right into the hands of the Christian Right who use that argument to make sure women are kept in the kitchen and men in the office, because you cannot change your essence after all - emancipation was all a big mistake because men and women will always be just that. And indeed these unholy alliances are being made right now and very forcefully. The anti-trans feminists are being played like a f.cking fiddle and they seem to be ok with this.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: trans discussion split

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Feb 14, 2023 5:13 pm

warumich wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:59 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:24 am
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:44 am
Same thing as was the excuse for sexism and racism and homophobia - prejudice, fear, othering, and a press which is more than happy to pander to all of that. Within much of the Gen X/boomer-age "sceptical" community, also a reliance on biology as a supposedly scientific basis for discrimination.
It's not even a reliance on biology, it's reliance on an oversimplified version of biology. As with so many things, sex and gender are abmctt, yet somehow we get people who really should know better confidently announcing that men are XY and women are XX and that's all there is to it. And even if that were true, so what? Trans people exist. You can't logic them out of existence, and why would you even want to?
There is a certain strand of skeptic who think having read a book or two on critical thinking makes them an expert on everything. But if you want to go down the biology route, I still need to hear an argument on why a person's chromosomes and/or genitals should be the things that determine "real" sex, rather than whatever happens in the brain that makes people uncomfortable to identify with a particular gender - it's not like your brain is any less a biological object than your gonads. Or are we going back to Cartesian dualism where your soul is entirely separate from your body? That doesn't strike me as particularly consistent with much of the skeptic anti-religion stance, but whatevs.

Anyway, what I also find fascinating is that the "feminist" argument against trans people almost always ends up in some type of gender essentialism, i.e. that there really is some feminine or masculine essence that you cannot with the best will in the world divorce yourself from. That plays right into the hands of the Christian Right who use that argument to make sure women are kept in the kitchen and men in the office, because you cannot change your essence after all - emancipation was all a big mistake because men and women will always be just that. And indeed these unholy alliances are being made right now and very forcefully. The anti-trans feminists are being played like a f.cking fiddle and they seem to be ok with this.
I'm entirely in agreement with this, but would add that the majority of transphobia one sees isn't coming from 2nd wave feminists or self-appointed "critical thinkers", but the same reactionaries that also oppose gay rights, gender equality and a lot of other aspects of social progress.

And a general point regarding the bullying/bigotry axis, that I'm sure most people agree with, but I want to state anyway - yes, bullies will find an angle. They'll find a way to target someone, generally someone ill placed to fight back, whether that's socially, physically or whatever. But it's no coincidence when the angle they use aligns with a very prevalent form of bigotry. It simply isn't possible to look at this case and think that bullying is a factor and bigotry against trans people is not. It doesn't just motivate those engaging in the persecution directly, it disarms the victims, prevents them from finding help and support and leaves them generally worn down and vulnerable.

raven
Catbabel
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: Trans murder

Post by raven » Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:53 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 5:13 pm

I'm entirely in agreement with this, but would add that the majority of transphobia one sees isn't coming from 2nd wave feminists or self-appointed "critical thinkers", but the same reactionaries that also oppose gay rights, gender equality and a lot of other aspects of social progress.
Yes, I'd agree with that. Saw India Willoughby on Question Time a few weeks back, and it was like being back in the 80s in the bad old days of Clause 28. Genuinely shocked by the level of vitriol. And quite honestly gobsmacked that it's apparently okay for someone on the panel to say 'sex is not something you can change' (thus attempting to deny India Willoughby's very existence), claiming to speak for the majority of the UK on that, followed by a load of guff about 'what's true and what's false', and 'how we raise our kids' being super important -- and not be challenged by Fiona Bruce.

Haven't wanted to throw something at the TV so much for years.

AIso shortly after that, saw a guest on Politics Live claiming that kids don't need to be taught about LGBTQ issues in schools because 'you can't have two mums'. *headdesk* 30 years of progress had clearly passed her by.

Maybe the BBC are trying to combat accusations of left-wing bias by finding the most reactionary talking heads they can, but I really wish they wouldn't.

User avatar
nekomatic
Dorkwood
Posts: 1376
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by nekomatic » Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:05 am

warumich wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:59 pm
Anyway, what I also find fascinating is that the "feminist" argument against trans people almost always ends up in some type of gender essentialism, i.e. that there really is some feminine or masculine essence that you cannot with the best will in the world divorce yourself from.
For clarity, could you paraphrase what you consider ‘the “feminist” argument against trans people’ to be?
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through

User avatar
warumich
Fuzzable
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by warumich » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:18 am

Not sure, I once read an essay by Kathleen Stock that seemed to argue that trans women can never be "real" women because she's not attracted to them.

Maybe I didn't phrase this properly above, any argument that trans women can never be women is pretty much the definition of gender essentialism; that is my paraphrase if you like. But that leaves yourself open to ascribing traditional gender roles.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4746
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by Grumble » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:23 am

The argument (term used loosely) seems to be that trans women are men and therefore should not be allowed into women only spaces. Anyone saying different is labelled a misogynist.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: trans discussion split

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:47 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:42 am
dyqik wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:59 pm
lpm wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:28 pm
I think you are underestimating the problem. In that list of 30 in London there are plenty of examples of 15 year olds murdering other 15 year olds. Plus there are the non-fatal teenage stabbings, relevant because it can be a random outcome once someone has been stabbed.

And I think you are underestimating the problem because the UK media is so racist. Approximately 75% of teenage stabbing victims are non-white. The media tuts at these drug/gang murders, but it does not get emotional. It only goes for emotion when a victim is white and attractive, and in the even rarer cases when the victim is a white girl. There are no floral tributes and grief displays for black victims.
This is verging on whataboutism now. Please don't take it further.
It's clearly not whataboutism. Although we have little information and can't speculate, sadly the problem of teenagers taking knives to school appears to be directly relevant to this case. I don't see how we can just race past the issue of school bullying being (in a subset of cases obviously) school bullying involving knives. And, referenced on another thread, there was a recent case where a teenage girl was injured in a stabbing when she rejected another teenager's demand for her phone number.

Nobody has to discuss knife crime on this forum if they want to focus on other issues, but not doing so obviously misses a large part of this violent murder and a growing problem in teenage lives.
Isn't it strange how the person who likes to downplay and deflect around transphobia is spewing whataboutery in response to the murder of a trans teenage girl? Oh wait, no. Not strange. Expected. If you can't do better - and you should do better - you should f.ck off from this thread.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:50 am

warumich wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:59 pm
There is a certain strand of skeptic who think having read a book or two on critical thinking makes them an expert on everything. But if you want to go down the biology route, I still need to hear an argument on why a person's chromosomes and/or genitals should be the things that determine "real" sex, rather than whatever happens in the brain that makes people uncomfortable to identify with a particular gender - it's not like your brain is any less a biological object than your gonads. Or are we going back to Cartesian dualism where your soul is entirely separate from your body? That doesn't strike me as particularly consistent with much of the skeptic anti-religion stance, but whatevs.

Anyway, what I also find fascinating is that the "feminist" argument against trans people almost always ends up in some type of gender essentialism, i.e. that there really is some feminine or masculine essence that you cannot with the best will in the world divorce yourself from. That plays right into the hands of the Christian Right who use that argument to make sure women are kept in the kitchen and men in the office, because you cannot change your essence after all - emancipation was all a big mistake because men and women will always be just that. And indeed these unholy alliances are being made right now and very forcefully. The anti-trans feminists are being played like a f.cking fiddle and they seem to be ok with this.
I've never seen anything like that kind of argument, at least on the sort of twitter that reaches me.

There's never any theorising about essentialism or essence. Instead it's all entirely practical. The debate is nearly all on safety issues, such as how to deal with violent and predatory cis men who attack women, trans women, trans men and other cis men.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: trans discussion split

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:55 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:50 am
warumich wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:59 pm
There is a certain strand of skeptic who think having read a book or two on critical thinking makes them an expert on everything. But if you want to go down the biology route, I still need to hear an argument on why a person's chromosomes and/or genitals should be the things that determine "real" sex, rather than whatever happens in the brain that makes people uncomfortable to identify with a particular gender - it's not like your brain is any less a biological object than your gonads. Or are we going back to Cartesian dualism where your soul is entirely separate from your body? That doesn't strike me as particularly consistent with much of the skeptic anti-religion stance, but whatevs.

Anyway, what I also find fascinating is that the "feminist" argument against trans people almost always ends up in some type of gender essentialism, i.e. that there really is some feminine or masculine essence that you cannot with the best will in the world divorce yourself from. That plays right into the hands of the Christian Right who use that argument to make sure women are kept in the kitchen and men in the office, because you cannot change your essence after all - emancipation was all a big mistake because men and women will always be just that. And indeed these unholy alliances are being made right now and very forcefully. The anti-trans feminists are being played like a f.cking fiddle and they seem to be ok with this.
I've never seen anything like that kind of argument, at least on the sort of twitter that reaches me.

There's never any theorising about essentialism or essence. Instead it's all entirely practical. The debate is nearly all on safety issues, such as how to deal with violent and predatory cis men who attack women, trans women, trans men and other cis men.
You'd do a better job of pretending not to be into gender essentialism if you didn't immediately descend into gender manicheanism.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:04 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:55 am
You'd do a better job of pretending not to be into gender essentialism if you didn't immediately descend into gender manicheanism.
I'm sorry, I do not understand what those words mean in practice.

There are clearly two biological sexes but that is irrelevant to gender. 99% of our lives are spent in our gender identity. But occasionally biology returns to importance - for example being diagnosed with cervical cancer, being convicted of murder or wanting to compete in an elite swimming race. The fact that biology occasionally intrudes does nothing to change gender identity - for example people can continue to live their lives as a man while being treated for cervical cancer.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: trans discussion split

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:11 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:04 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:55 am
You'd do a better job of pretending not to be into gender essentialism if you didn't immediately descend into gender manicheanism.
I'm sorry, I do not understand what those words mean in practice.

There are clearly two biological sexes but that is irrelevant to gender. 99% of our lives are spent in our gender identity. But occasionally biology returns to importance - for example being diagnosed with cervical cancer, being convicted of murder...
f.ck off. You know what you are doing. Take your bad faith b.llsh.t somewhere else.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:21 am

The trouble with telling the 90% reasonable people in the middle to f.ck off is that they do. And then extremists get to run the show.

So you end up with the Scotland fiasco written by extremists that collapses within a day and sets back gender recognition certificates by a decade. Or you end up with the English disgrace, of the other extremists using it as a culture war distraction and spreading irrational fear.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: trans discussion split

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:43 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:21 am
The trouble with telling the 90% reasonable people in the middle to f.ck off is that they do. And then extremists get to run the show.

So you end up with the Scotland fiasco written by extremists that collapses within a day and sets back gender recognition certificates by a decade.
And here we have concern trolling. Self ID polls at >50%, so you don't really get to claim to be the "90% reasonable people in the middle" and claim its supporters are extremists now do you?

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:54 am

The "90% reasonable people in the middle" support self ID. I don't understand why you think otherwise.

It needs, however, to be a method of self ID that works in practice, not a policy that breaks the moment it's applied. Needing to going against one's own policy is an obvious sign that one got it wrong, and it's trans people who are hurt the most by such incompetence.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2658
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: trans discussion split

Post by IvanV » Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:15 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:50 am
There's never any theorising about essentialism or essence. Instead it's all entirely practical. The debate is nearly all on safety issues, such as how to deal with violent and predatory cis men who attack women, trans women, trans men and other cis men.
I think the debate also often extends to privacy, not just safety. Who are you to expose yourself to in those places of limited privacy that many of us must use?

I think the traditional designs of these places are no longer fit for purpose in a society that has woken up to the fact that there isn't a clear binary division of society that is acceptable to all vulnerable parties.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:42 pm

monkey wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:20 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:54 am
It needs, however, to be a method of self ID that works in practice, not a policy that breaks the moment it's applied. Needing to going against one's own policy is an obvious sign that one got it wrong, and it's trans people who are hurt the most by such incompetence.
The Scottish law was never applied, because it is not law yet. Policy about where trans prisoners are housed in the estate was not changed by it, because GRCs do not determine that, and never have. If you believe otherwise you are believing lies.
I am sorry but you are incorrect. GRCs do change how trans prisoners are treated in Scotland because of how GRCs interact with sex equality laws. In brief, a convicted or accused trans woman with a GRC would be able to sue under sex discrimination laws for a move to a women's prison, while a trans woman without a GRC would not.

There were two amendments proposed to the Scottish legislation which would have addressed the cynical exploitation of self ID by sex offenders, one from a Tory and one from an SNP MSP; both were overruled.

There is a similar impact on other areas, such as employment in a women's refuge. GRCs allow people to sue for sex discrimination, not via this new self ID legislation but via old sex equality acts.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by monkey » Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:34 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:42 pm
monkey wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:20 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:54 am
It needs, however, to be a method of self ID that works in practice, not a policy that breaks the moment it's applied. Needing to going against one's own policy is an obvious sign that one got it wrong, and it's trans people who are hurt the most by such incompetence.
The Scottish law was never applied, because it is not law yet. Policy about where trans prisoners are housed in the estate was not changed by it, because GRCs do not determine that, and never have. If you believe otherwise you are believing lies.
I am sorry but you are incorrect. GRCs do change how trans prisoners are treated in Scotland because of how GRCs interact with sex equality laws. In brief, a convicted or accused trans woman with a GRC would be able to sue under sex discrimination laws for a move to a women's prison, while a trans woman without a GRC would not.
GRCs are 20 years old. There has never been an absolute right for a trans prisoner with a GRC to be housed in the estate of their acquired gender. But if the prisoner is to be held in the estate opposite to their GRC, it has to be determined by a board who take it on a case by case basis.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:26 pm

You appear to be confusing England with Scotland?

The new legislation in Scotland conflicts with previous prison practice in Scotland. The UK Equality Act is based on biological sex and expressly allows discrimination by biological status, for example providers of single-sex services are able to discriminate by biological sex. Scotland's GRR converts all reference to sex to be legal sex, with providers of single-sex services being fully blind to biological sex.

Obviously it hasn't been tested in court yet, but the GRR fundamentally breaks on day one because of its real world interaction with the existing equality legislation.

Polling shows >50% of people want trans lives to be easier and want some form of self ID. But >50% of people in Scotland oppose the actual GRR bill (various measures are opposed 55%-23%, 55%-21%*) while 51%-24%* think GRR would pose a safety risk in women only spaces. 61% to 10% support single-sex spaces being upheld in law. How do you square those opinions, other than by concluding people would support reform but not this version?

Meanwhile Sturgeon thought the UK government intervention over this legislation would be a handy boost to the desire for independence. It backfired and >50% of people in Scotland supports Westminster's intervention. Her personal polling dived and support of independence fell. Starmer et al are going to run a mile from this issue. How could anyone conclude this isn't anything other than a major set back for trans rights?



* Panelbase/Sunday Times Dec 2022, before the Adam Graham disaster https://drg.global/wp-content/uploads/S ... 161222.pdf
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by monkey » Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:17 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:26 pm
Scotland's GRR converts all reference to sex to be legal sex, with providers of single-sex services being fully blind to biological sex.
No it doesn't. It makes it easier to get a GRC, and tidies up the consequences of that with regards to stuff like marriage law. It does not change what a GRC is/does.

Here is the bill as passed (pdf)- clicky

Here is the easy to read version, but I think it was written before the final amending (pdf) - clicky

The bit the converts your legal sex is section 9.1 of the 2004 act - clicky

If there were conflicts between gender recognition certificates and the Equalities Act, they already existed.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by lpm » Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:51 pm

Of course it changes what a GRC is/does. It changes it from people who have medical treatment and surgery changing their legal sex, to all applicants changing their legal sex. It's this legal sex part that has the knock on impact, which the SNP brushed aside and refused to hear considered opinion on.

This wasn't just some tweaking of the admin. It interacts with other law.

It's a bit concerning that people here are reading what Tom Harwood wrote, when Tom Harwood is not a lawyer or expert on this topic, but merely a commentator who gives opinion pieces on any and every issue of the day. For the avoidance of doubt: Harwood is wrong.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by monkey » Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:56 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:51 pm
Of course it changes what a GRC is/does. It changes it from people who have medical treatment and surgery changing their legal sex, to all applicants changing their legal sex. It's this legal sex part that has the knock on impact, which the SNP brushed aside and refused to hear considered opinion on.

This wasn't just some tweaking of the admin. It interacts with other law.
The equalities Act allows for exemptions when there is good reason, even when a person has a GRC. This is why a GRC is not an absolute right for a trans woman prisoner to be housed in the female estate, among other things. Will the Scottish law change that? For what it's worth, I think this is a sensible rule.

I think it's important to remember that The Equalities act also protects the rights of trans people whether or not they have a GRC too.
lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:51 pm
It's a bit concerning that people here are reading what Tom Harwood wrote, when Tom Harwood is not a lawyer or expert on this topic, but merely a commentator who gives opinion pieces on any and every issue of the day. For the avoidance of doubt: Harwood is wrong.
I have never heard of him, so I do not think I read that.

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: trans discussion split

Post by Imrael » Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:37 pm

It's a bit concerning that people here are reading what Tom Harwood wrote,
I might be "people" - I mentioned him but havent commented since and dont intend to

Al Capone Junior
Clardic Fug
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: trans discussion split

Post by Al Capone Junior » Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:26 pm

Ok before I start reading this thread I'm gonna post my un-influenced thoughts about the whole trans thing. I am very sympathetic to anyone who is trans for a number of reasons.

First off, it must be a difficult thing to deal with, not feeling like u are correctly sexed by biology, culture or both. And I can't even pretend to imagine what that must feel like. But, trans ppl are still ppl, and their brains and limbic systems function too, and it must be emotionally difficult to deal with.

I'm male, and I'm fine with that. I also happen to like women (for sex, and, well, generally too) which has made my life more convenient, socially. You're F'd in the A socially when you're not simple male/female heterosexual. Which is terrible, btw, and says something about humanity that's unflattering. Not that unflattering aspects of humanity are in short supply. But really, c'mon ppl. Whilst the idea of big burly man sex repulses me, I really don't care if that's what you like. Or girl sex. Or whatever you want between consenting adults. The fact is that there aren't any gay guys pounding on my front door demanding to have sex in my living room during my weekly prayer meeting while we're trying to pray :roll: tho to listen to our despicable politicians these days you'd think that's what the line is for. :roll: :roll:

And I'm not anxious to get in line, and there's a f.cking long line, of ppl wanting to make the lives of trans ppl miserable. Jesus f.cking Christ, leave them be for f.cks sake. I'm embarrassed to be American these days, not just for how badly we're treating trans ppl, but for how badly we're treating everyone. But it's particularly bad for trans ppl.

That all being said, I admit that I can't even imagine what it must be like to be trans. While I do have a few trans friends, my world is a long way away from theirs, and there's little overlap. Really our worlds are in fact very narrow, even if we are open and accepting of ppl different than us. I mean most of my friends are very similar to me, just because that's how it is. San Antonio Texas has most white and Mexican* ppl, thus most of my friends are white or Mexican. I just don't have much overlap with someone from India or Africa or the Philippines or even England. For this reason I try to talk to ppl different than me and learn something about them, connecting with them in some way, even if it's small. I always enjoy getting someone else's perspective because it enriches mine and helps me be more accepting and less tribal.

And all these hateful a..holes and their hateful bills and laws. [angry comment] They make a good case for the use of guns. [/angry comment]

For further guidance, there's probably a new rule from Bill Maher that gets to the heart of it.

* f.cking trump and his demonizing and fear mongering over Mexicans. What a f.cking idiot. Has he ever even met a Mexican? Seriously, of all the ppl in the world to be afraid of, Mexicans? Please. What are you afraid of, they're going to invite you into their home and make you tacos?**

** It's a stereotype, but it's true :lol:

Post Reply