Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 11:19:41 AM

The big difference being there fam is that the trans issue is still a pretty contentious debate in the dialogue of society. Not everyone agrees exactly what it is and what should be the ideal solution as there are myriad conflicting scientific and academic papers surrounding it. That isn't the case with race. Scientific racism has been pretty much put to bed sans within a few bumfuck corners of the globe that don't represent the majority of what people think.

So then...since it's an up-and-coming issue, we should just deal with bigotry surrounding it?

So ten years ago when gay rights were in the spotlight, a person calling gays mentally ill would be fine so long as he "put up" with them?

No. We should be having a continuous and polite debate about it without shutting people down with buzzwords.

Quote from: Cindy on February 21, 2016, 11:23:51 AM

Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 11:19:41 AM

The big difference being there fam is that the trans issue is still a pretty contentious debate in the dialogue of society. Not everyone agrees exactly what it is and what should be the ideal solution as there are myriad conflicting scientific and academic papers surrounding it. That isn't the case with race. Scientific racism has been pretty much put to bed sans within a few bumfuck corners of the globe that don't represent the majority of what people think.

So then...since it's an up-and-coming issue, we should just deal with bigotry surrounding it?

So ten years ago when gay rights were in the spotlight, a person calling gays mentally ill would be fine so long as he "put up" with them?

No. We should be having a continuous and polite debate about it without shutting people down with buzzwords.

Daily reminder that buzzword is a buzzword

And it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in my eyes. Why is it not? If she's transphobic, then calling her transphobic is simply stating the obvious facts. What other discourse is to be had if she's so ignorant that she doesn't even know that post-op means that a trans man would have a dick?

Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 11:40:02 AM

Quote from: Cindy on February 21, 2016, 11:23:51 AM

Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 11:19:41 AM

The big difference being there fam is that the trans issue is still a pretty contentious debate in the dialogue of society. Not everyone agrees exactly what it is and what should be the ideal solution as there are myriad conflicting scientific and academic papers surrounding it. That isn't the case with race. Scientific racism has been pretty much put to bed sans within a few bumfuck corners of the globe that don't represent the majority of what people think.

So then...since it's an up-and-coming issue, we should just deal with bigotry surrounding it?

So ten years ago when gay rights were in the spotlight, a person calling gays mentally ill would be fine so long as he "put up" with them?

No. We should be having a continuous and polite debate about it without shutting people down with buzzwords.

Daily reminder that buzzword is a buzzword

And it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in my eyes. Why is it not? If she's transphobic, then calling her transphobic is simply stating the obvious facts. What other discourse is to be had if she's so ignorant that she doesn't even know that post-op means that a trans man would have a dick?

Maybe put together an actual argument with evidence instead of slinging around pejorative epithets that don't really advance the discourse or solve anything at all?

I mean, I don't get what's so difficult about that. If someone's being transphobic, point out why they're wrong and provide them with compelling proof as to how they're wrong. Will it be futile? Probably. But it's a hell of a lot better than screaming meaningless words at them.

Quote from: Cindy on February 21, 2016, 11:42:13 AM

Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 11:40:02 AM

Quote from: Cindy on February 21, 2016, 11:23:51 AM

Quote from: Mordo on February 21, 2016, 11:19:41 AM

The big difference being there fam is that the trans issue is still a pretty contentious debate in the dialogue of society. Not everyone agrees exactly what it is and what should be the ideal solution as there are myriad conflicting scientific and academic papers surrounding it. That isn't the case with race. Scientific racism has been pretty much put to bed sans within a few bumfuck corners of the globe that don't represent the majority of what people think.

So then...since it's an up-and-coming issue, we should just deal with bigotry surrounding it?

So ten years ago when gay rights were in the spotlight, a person calling gays mentally ill would be fine so long as he "put up" with them?

No. We should be having a continuous and polite debate about it without shutting people down with buzzwords.

Daily reminder that buzzword is a buzzword

And it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in my eyes. Why is it not? If she's transphobic, then calling her transphobic is simply stating the obvious facts. What other discourse is to be had if she's so ignorant that she doesn't even know that post-op means that a trans man would have a dick?

Maybe put together an actual argument with evidence instead of slinging around pejorative epithets that don't really advance the discourse or solve anything at all?

I mean, I don't get what's so difficult about that. If someone's being transphobic, point out why their wrong and provide them with compelling proof as to how they're wrong. Will it be futile? Probably. But it's a hell of a lot better than screaming meaningless words at them.

Fair - I don't disagree with this, but it the source you linked, I believe it was more of a "stating the reason for campaigning against her presentation" type of deal, which wouldn't exactly allow for a public discourse

Okay so let's just assume someone here is actually honestly "transphobic".


Now explain to them what's wrong with that. Keeping in mind that this person recognizes that bigotry and its unnamed antithesis are spooks.

Are you asking what's wrong with bigotry?

As usual, transgender discussion on sep7 goes flawlessly.

it seems like bullshit to me.

The legitimacy of transgenderism, or recognizing someone as something other than their sex in a social context?

You shouldn't be dissuaded by what you may think is right just because those around you wouldn't agree.

The former. Which is unfortunate, because I really do want to be supportive of it. It's not easy holding views the people around you would be disgusted by.

As usual, transgender discussion on sep7 goes flawlessly.

"People disagree with me so the discussion has gone to shit"

That's rather odd, usually college campuses are open minded about ideas such as these. That's probably the whole point of being in a learning environment to begin with. That's quite a peculiar school you have there.

Of course. But that doesn't make it any more easy to be the contrarian in the group, especially on a college campus. So I'd really like to have my mind changed on this one.

>Those students who give the middle finger before they leave

So much edge.

o i am laffin

nvm already covered

Quote from: Cindy on February 21, 2016, 12:59:08 PM

Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 21, 2016, 12:27:08 PM

Okay so let's just assume someone here is actually honestly "transphobic".


Now explain to them what's wrong with that. Keeping in mind that this person recognizes that bigotry and its unnamed antithesis are spooks.

Are you asking what's wrong with bigotry?

Not really bigotry in general. It is to one's objective disadvantage to avoid interactions with people of different ethnicities and religions, for example. You gain nothing and lose quite a bit by discriminating on the traditional grounds.

But why should someone acknowledge transgenderism as legitimate, aside from the obvious social advantage of being viewed as a "progressive" by one's peers?

I'm just not convinced of the validity of it. I'll continue, like I have done, to be cordial and use preferred nomenclature to make things easier for myself, but it seems like bullshit to me.

So your criteria of what makes discrimination something one ought or ought not to do is their own detriment? Would it then be not surprising of people (like me say) who live in a 96% white county to be racist, because the number of opportunities that deprives them of are almost zero (unless my racism also effects interactions with those of the same race)?