I think Jesus and his message of forgiveness are the best part of Christianity. I like Jesus and his message, I just can't take pretty much any of the rest of it, and my God, the vast majority of Christians in America make me sick. If there's anyone that needs forgiveness, it's Christians, because they are vile.

Speaking of forgiveness, and vile, vile corpse said it's not up to me to forgive Alyssa, it's only up to the Oltens. Jesus forgives her, and she deserves that and is worthy of it. By his vile logic, it's not up to him to be upset with her, but he clearly is, so hypocrite much?

The catatonic bliss and comfort choose-your-own-adventure was booked up with drool cups lol

It's a challenge to be better, and therefore as his teachings and Christlike.

I'm sure Allah and Buddha and many others have similar wisdoms, because that's where it is at

Preachers should be all over that from the pulpit, but they're wayward like everyone else. Numbered among the transgressors. Many who are first will be last, and the last first. Git it

I think the trans issue in America is a perfect example. How exactly does "love thy neighbor" translate to "we must completely eradicate trandgenderism in America?"

Christians invert and corrupt the teaching and then parade around this perverted abomination through constant corrupt virtue signaling. It's really a turn off, and it creates so much noise that it's hard to focus on what are truly great lessons.

That's not what corpus vile means and your hybristophilia is your problem.

Agreed and I have no problem if you wish to move the exchange to the high/low content thread. The mods shouldn't permit users to have child murderers as their avatar btw, that's no different than having a nazi or pro paedophile symbol.
Anyway as you said moving on.

There's plenty of gender neutral public bathrooms today and society doesn't seem to have crumbled. There's plenty of valid points to raise regarding Transgender issues but I don't think the bathroom thing is one of them.

Your adept dodging. We accept that some people don't identify as a gender inline with their sex. But why should that mean they don't play sports or use the bathroom of their sex? Where is the logic in that? Your example is a strawman to that question/point.

Strawman. Ur scared. Why should someone who identifies with a gender different than their sex, thus and therefore be legally afforded the social rights of their opposite sex. I didn't see this addressed in the other thread.

I think its the critical thinking you refuse to do.

Is it that we don't like Fascism, Authoritarianism etc?

Again gender neutral or unisex public restrooms exist for quite some time now. There's been no issues over this and nor has there been an outcry re female privacy concerns.

I haven't mentioned sports nor being legally afforded the social rights of their opposite sex, I'm solely addressing the restroom issue, so it's not me engaging in strawmen arguments here.

Myself and Lirva were asked to move on from his tastes in avatars, so I'm not addressing this.

Yes that wouldn't be an example of a transgender woman being afforded legally, the social rights of a female.

The question I meant to put forth, is why should someone who identifies as a different gender than then their sex, be legally afforded the social rights of their opposite sex?

Why shouldn't lia thomas compete with males, since she is a male?

Again I haven't addressed these issues and your questions would fall under what I stated earlier:

I think the sports issue is a valid point to raise. The restroom thing isn't as anyone- male, female or trans- can use unisex restrooms.

All three of suicide ideation, suicide attempts, and suicides are higher for trans people than the general population. While I pointed out already that ideation is the most common of those, again it doesn't mean that suicide ideation doesn't matter. It doesn't mean people can do it "all they like" without us worrying about it. Suicide ideation and absolutely elevated suicide attempts are key markers of mental health and a sign of distress in a population that has disproportionately high levels. Common isn't the same thing as "normal".

So no, actual suicides are not all that matters.

Its a strawman because we are obviously talking about situation's where the bathroom's are labelled binary wise.

Just like sports that aren't mixed.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

On wiki it says its this:

So for example if I ask why should a male that identifies as a woman be legally afforded the social rights to use a female only bathroom. It would be a strawman to reply: "the bathrooms are gender neutral so there is no such problem".

What exactly is "legally afforded the social rights"? Are you trying to talk about like constitutional rights that have legal structures associated with them or are you trying to talk about things like social conventions?

Regardless, I'm broadly a supporter of freedom of expression and we should generally default to letting people be whoever they want to be.

Meaning, I identify as a woman, even tho I am male, and therefore the constitution should up hold my rights to compete in sports that woman compete in.
Absolutely. So how does that extend to being legally being given the social right of a woman/female?

Lets say women get 1 free tampon, why would a male that identifies as a woman also get one (and be able to claim discrimination if he/she doesn't)?

My brother in Christ, if you're going to redefine "Marxism" to mean "stuff that makes me sexually uncomfortable," you're in no position to criticize how people define gender and sexuality.

Its a theme here. You said 'redefine' as in there was a definition and I changed it. But you don't give that definition.

I also didn't define marxism as such, which would make ur assertion a strawman to my intended argument.

I'm not criticizing peoples definition. I am asking you why you think that identifying as a different gender should afford someone the legal protection for the social rights of the sex that they aren't?

You and others comment but won't address the question.

This is incoherent. I still have no idea what you mean by a "social right". Is that the same thing as a "constitutional right"?

My general view here is to let people live as they wish unless there is a really clear, measurable harm against others. It's a bit like how you can say pretty much whatever weird **** you want because you have freedom of speech but can't say incite a riot.

Ok, so let's look at your two examples. I can't for the life of me figure out what you are concerned about tampons. Most trans women have no need of tampons. If there is some marginal case of a trans woman with bottom surgery maybe want a tampon for some reason, uh, ok, sure? Why are you concerned about this? The other example is sports. My personal view is that for top level sports like the olympics where the main purpose is determining a ranked order of athletes that trans women should generally not be included in most sports because it harms the ability to do this fairly, but that for lower level sports like kids playing in school values of inclusion dominate and they should be allowed. You can disagree, but I don't think any of this has much to do with some "social rights" theory, it is just applying much more common sense utilitarian trade offs.

Should have seen my BTK avatar back in the day, vile corpse! Some other guy had a sweet Charlie Manson animated avatar for years!

My question is why the trans kid, who is a male, that identifies as a girl, would have rights to play with the girls and not the males, since they are male.

Why are we playing it like we mean to separate sports by gender when obviously its sex thats relevant? If a trans man doesn't have a penis why would they argue for rights to use a urinal?

Why shouldn't lia thomas, who is a woman, that is male, change with the penis people, since she has a penis?

Well its kind of that people want to argue that its against our constitution or charters of freedoms and rights to deny a trans woman access to the woman's bathroom.....

But bathroom rights aren't really enshrined or rather women don't have specific rights different than men or rather there are not gender specific rights. People, I would call them maybe neo-marxist maybe, mean to take what is otherwise social/cultural based norms and then then ascribe legal protections to them because 'trans'.

So not letting someone play a sport is not part of the constitution (like private country clubs referenced) rights but not letting them play because they are trans is.

Thats why the dog reference was important. Of course dogs don't get human rights. But the equivalent is when a dog demands to be afforded dog rights, because they claim to be a dog.

Just like saying "I get woman rights, because I identify as a woman".

JFC

No it wasn't important, it was completely asinine and I see the whole exchange we had was a ...