Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Feb 8, 2012.
The gays are more libertarian than the trannies.
That may be because of the mass acceptance of homosexuality. In the trans community, they are in the middle of their civil rights phase. Once their goals are achieved (in short, similar to how gays have been fully embraced) there may be a softening of the mind to view the government in broader terms (economic policies, foreign policy etc). Until then they will be narrowly focused and heavy federal government involvement will probably be seen as their savior.
Maybe I don't understand what libertarians want. I thought they wanted as little government interference as possible.
What we have seen is the exact opposite with the numerous filings against businesses.
I see both groups wanting more gov't interference.
Some gays want to be left alone, no discrimination, etc. Other gays want to force society to accept their lifestyle on equal terms as heterosexual couples via gay marriage, forcing bakers to make cakes,etc. The latter isn’t libertarian, and frankly can never be achieved due to biology (gays can’t procreate).
We're talking about relative terms. There definitely are gays who aren't libertarian, and there are facets of their agenda that isn't. However, plenty of it is. They sought the overturning of state sodomy laws on the argument that the state shouldn't be allowed to regulate people's sexual practices. That's definitely a libertarian stance. They sought to overturn bans on gay marriage on the basis that people should have the right to marry whomever they choose without the state restricting them. That is mostly a libertarian argument. I'm not saying I agree with their arguments, and I think the legal and constitutional arguments were blatant garbage, but they were arguments against government power and in favor of individual liberty.
Are there non-libertarian issues? Of course. Non-discrimination laws (being allowed to demand cakes, etc.) are certainly not libertarian. The introduction of propaganda into public school curricula certainly is not libertarian.
The trans stuff is very different. They have the same non-libertarian agenda on non-discrimination and propaganda. However, they also seek restricting the right of private entities to segregate bathrooms by objective sex. They have no respect for anyone's privacy rights at all. If a woman doesn't want a dude seeing her naked in the shower or taking a dump 3 feet away from her, they don't honor her prerogatives at all,h and they favor bringing the power of the state to coerce her to accept it. Many of them seek to penalize people for refusing to refer to them by their preferred gender. The entire agenda is about using the power of government or the threat of government power to force others (including gays) to accommodate and celebrate their delusions. It is the opposite of libertarianism. In fact, it is consistent with the methods of the most liberty-hating regimes in history.
I live in Austin. Starbucks bathrooms say, "Gender neutral" or something like that. A restaurant in the foo foo section of Westlake say's, "boy" or "girl." I probably doesn't hurt in this day and age to go unisex on all "single-serve" bathrooms. I get that there is a problem with multi-use facilities. Not sure the answer there except to default to the way life has been for years and years.
and will continue to be no matter what - the whatever - say.
You let private property owners decide like they have as long as we've had public bathrooms. This crap wasn't a problem until the idiots of the woke Left decided it needed an issue. It's a classic "solution" searching for a problem.
NOW? Some of us have been saying it for a few decades...
The move to get them out of alphabet soup has taken on some new energy though as it becomes more and more clear that too many of the 'trans' contingent is basically playing dress-up and will never undergo any manner of surgery. The RATIONAL gay and lesbian people want nothing to do with that element...
This"Some gays want to be left alone, no discrimination, etc."
Which is exactly what most of us want. A very common sense reasonable want.
I read most of the article. I need to finish it because it is very interesting. My take is this: it is getting way too segmented. No doubt. Too many categories. But I have a problem with people who for years were upset when hetero's called being gay, "a choice." Then I heard gay (and Liberal) people say, "And so what if it's a choice?"
And now this?
You can't complain. The very arguments made by hetero's are now being used by you against Trans.
The only universal complaint in my book that hetero's and "classic" gays can come together on is a trans male competing against "assigned" females. I think there's a real problem there and it's very possible that one day all female track, strength and other records will be held by trans males.
The "true" transsexual, a documented medical condition, undergoes medical intervention and generally does what they can to maintain a low profile with respect to their medical condition having been related to their personality.
The current crock of crap, err "transgender" demographic actually believes that the roles ARE a choice. They show up some places as a man and some as a woman, depending on what is convenient for them. They demand that females accommodate their delusions.
Have you ever noticed that the male to 'twanz' don't go all apoplectic when a male won't sleep with them but cries 'phobia' when lesbians want nothing to do with them? They know that males would kick their (still very male and packing tackle) ***.
Outside of a very few situations which are ALSO based on legitimate medical conditions, there is NO SUCH THING as 'assigned at birth. Science makes clear that born with an innie= female and born with an outie= male. There are certainly some that claim a disconnect between their brain and their anatomy, but the legitimate transsexual does what they can to FIX the problem. The brigade shudders at the thought of getting their penis inverted...they believe that wearing make-up and maybe taking hormones consistent with the opposite sex should be enough to get legal recognition as something other than what they are.
To me, as "assigned at birth" is just a term to provide flexibility in case the disconnect as you termed it were real. The assignment doesn't mean anything in reality because the percent that is "correctly assigned" is so statistically large (99%?) that it moots the need for another category. But if we want to tied everything out then you have the term which accommodates the outlier. It has no effect on me either way.
Now the idea that there is no such thing is too absolute for me. I believe anything and everything can happen; it's just a matter of degree or frequency. Getting the surgery is probably scary. I don't know why some do and some don't. It may be those that don't are afraid or maybe they just want to "dress-up." So be it as far as I'm concerned. But I don't think they should get bent about a lesbian that does not want to sleep with a "mentally gendered" man wanting to be a woman but retaining the outie parts. I get what the author said about being gay people being attracted to the "parts" of their own sex.
What I don't get is how the shoe has dropped and they are now sounding like old school hetero's...
Similar signs showed up at Western Connecticut State and the school president flipped out over the signs
“I want to state directly and without equivocation that if any member of our university community is found to be party to these revolting actions they will be subject to the severest disciplinary actions, including dismissal as well as possible civil and criminal actions,”
“I am both shocked and immensely saddened about this sick and outrageous behavior"
I guess its not OK to be white, unless you are the school president
Apparently Buttigieg has turned anti-Christian. Or, maybe he has always been and is just letting it out. Maybe someone will ask him what he thinks of the treatment of gays by Islam? Probably not.
The tranny contingent in the current era has shown time and again that they are acting on CHOICE and not any manner of nurture. Some are not even being GIVEN a choice...the moment a boy decides they want to play with dolls, there are too many parents scared of 'teh gay' that they want to medicate the gay away and tell the doctor that their son must actually be a girl...
But females have been dealing with the male-to-trans crap for several years. The reality is that there are far too many of the cocks in frocks that believe they have an inherent right to demand actual females sleep with them or be willing to share close spaces with them, never mind that they are, in fact, still very much an intact male.
Make no mistake- the current movement is designed to harm actual females and has had that effect for several years.
The female to trans are usually doing so in an attempt to punch up. We USED to have a descriptor for many of them...we USED to just refer to them as butch. There are stories of regret that are showing up now but not until they had undergone physiological harm from the years of testosterone injections. But they are not out there demanding that gay males sleep with them and, generally, they are not out there demanding spaces on male teams (largely because they cannot compete while taking testosterone).
The trans contingent, even in the old days where trans actually referred to a transsexual who intended to have full medical intervention, has NEVER had anything in common with gay, lesbian or bisexual persons and they should NEVER have been lumped into the GLB lobby.
This has been clear to me for some time.
Hey Bubba, better keep your door locked at night.
Oklahoma frees nearly 500 prisoners in single day
What do you think the over/under on the number of these folks that are back in jail inside 5 years would be? I'm going with 250 and I'll take the over.
The house has no ability to profit because not a single bettor will be stupid enough to take the under.
Time and time again, we have seen that revolving door prison politics do NOT reduce crime. It didn't work here in Texas and, gee, California has seen an uptick in property crimes after they downgraded some of the felony property crimes to misdemeanor. Take away the consequence and there will be an increase in the criminal activity.
Doesn't the "B" in LGBTQ imply there are only 2 sexes/genders?
Uh oh, now you've gone and stepped in it!
Naaaah, two are plenty.
** For some reason the Hornfans server won't accept the actual infinity symbol within a post. Weird.
But WHAT does the "it" identify as today?
This should have come with a warning. I can’t unsee this.
I wish this thread would die, but it just wont
"The Swedish government will hand out the equivalent of $175,000 dollars from the inheritance money of dead Swedes without heirs to fund drag queen shows for children."
Swedish Government Grants $175,000 to Fund Drag Queen Shows For Children
Hey would you look at that, at least one 'progressive' still believes in due process. Go figure
Here, Ruth Ginsburg (of all people) notes college campus sexual misconduct cases are duly lacking in it
Her breed of ACLU liberal is dying very fast.
On the 17 men including 2 Disney employees arrested for child porn, the Sherriff states:
Some of the victims were infants
Some were videos of them screaming and crying while abused
I don't think the parents who run with the "my boy must be a girl" mantra are doing so because they fear "the gay." I think they are largely "progressive" parents who would welcome the virtue signaling opportunities of having a gay child. If anything, I think they're hoping their child will have some issue that they can exploit to make themselves look righteous to other progressive parents. Getting to dress your boy as a girl is even better than having a gay son, because it'll be immediately obvious to all their friends, who have always known that child as a boy.
"Declan (because of course his name would be something like that) has discovered that he is actually a girl at heart. We are going to be supportive of her gender identity and honor it by buying her girl's clothes, makeup, and calling her by her chosen name, which is Inga (because of course it would be something like that)." They welcome that conversation.
Of course it's intended to harm females. Perhaps the most dominant theme in human history is that men will go to enormous lengths to see women naked and have sex with them, including putting on a dress and pretending to be a girl. We can certainly temper that urge. That's what a civilized and moral man does, but the urge is there, and plenty don't temper it. It's baffling that this extremely obvious fact is ignored by so many when looking at this issue. Certainly every man who ignores this is a flagrant BSer.