Societal problems in a nutshell.

A few hundred posts ago someone made the claim that nobody tries to be transgender, they just ARE transgender.

Nobody tries to be bipolar, they just are bipolar. It's not any less of a mental illness.

But the more apt comparison is OCD.

There are a lot of people who claim to be OCD because of some weird quirk they have. Then there are people who actually have OCD. The people in the second group generally hate those in the first because they're just posers who have no goddamned clue what it's really like.

There probably are some people who legit suffer from whatever mental/chemical malfunction results in being "transgender" but for every one of those, there seems to be a ton of people who are just trying to be part of the club. The struggles of one group are downplayed by society because of the actions of the other.

The attention-seeking behavior grates on a lot of people, and then you end up with what we have today.

You're not even American and you're going on and on with this absolute nonsense about trans issues in America? Holy **** **** off, my god this is the most ******ed ****ing ****.

Sadly, Canadians like him are bringing US culture wars north of the border.

Although, that's not totally accurate - belief systems like his aren't unique to the US. But the recent trend of being more public with their grievances and turning it into an all-out culture war does seem to have been more of an American phenomenon that is spreading here. Trump-style populism accelerated the process there, and I think Covid brain-breaking did it here.

I'd actually contend we both share the belief that just because you claim to be a woman doesn't mean you should be legally afforded everything a female is. The fake culture war was upheld by the state controlling the narrative on twitter and facebook. Part of it making people believe that a trans woman must legally be considered a woman and that there is no definition that distinguishes the two...

but nobody here seems to be willing to argue for that anyways.

A friend of mine who lives in Canada and is somewhat lefty, agreed with the covid procedures and so forth had an absolute outrage over the bank seizures of the trucking protest. I don't know the legitimacy of that story but he was different from there on.

In Britain, due to research on the subject, they can't compete in women's rugby, swimming, cycling, or now (just today) rowing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rowing/66393959

There's one word you overuse/use incorrectly more than "strawman" - it's "we". The word you're looking for in the spots highlighted above is "I". Unless there's some group you've nominated yourself as spokesperson for?

I'm not sure who you think you're arguing against with this. You keep going on about people avoiding questions, and coming back to this issue. I'd think this would be pretty obvious by now, but here you go, again:

And uke shared his thoughts on it:

uke and I are on the same page on this, and I think many others are as well, with some disagreement as to just where the line is when distinctions need to be made.

That's not to say everyone is in agreement; far from it. But if you're looking for some big group to argue with and tell you that transgender men should be allowed to compete in male sports at the very highest levels of competition, I don't think you'll find it here. In fact, I don't know if any single person has argued in favour of this. But as I said, there are a couple of threads dedicated to this very topic.

Well, it's kind of hard for him to let go of the word, because his posting all seems to be tied into some grand theory of "Marxism" where the state is trying to use transgender rights and Indigenous education and who knows what else to divide us. Something Q taught him, maybe.

I think it could go as far as high school Intramurals though once a school team competes against another school than it should not. I know we had a track day in Junior High and I am not sure you handle that

Yeah I always though of Canada as like America only a lot more sane, eh. It's just crazy seeing a Canadian going on and on aboot this in America and on and on aboot that in America when it has absolutely zero effect on them, eh.

When America sneezes Canada catches a cold. You have a huge effect on this country

I've expressed repeatedly you are strawmanning and failing to address the question/point. Its telling.

I am asking why would ever feel that someone identifying as woman would get legally afforded the social rights of a female?

I offered to replace the word with the definition. I use my own definition in this regard. Ur caught on the word.

Ur afraid of sincerity.

You are simply saying effectively 'at the time we separate boys and and girls in sports' because of bodies. Same with Uke saying we want to keep trans boys with their boy peers because they would feel comfortable that way. How is that different than failing to make the team your friends made?

special priveleage for special groups is anti thetical to the nature and intention of the constitutional framework of the US. That you mock people that would point this out is simply an expression of ignorance on the subject of freedoms and the nature and role of the frameworks that were created to defend them.

How exactly is anyone "legally afforded the social rights of a female"?

Are there actually any laws about who can be part of a women's swim team? Or who can use a particular restroom?

I have never heard of laws about either of these things. Who is allowed to do those things seems to be determined by the people in charge of organizing the swim league or owning/operating the restrooms.

Thats how I'm trying to use language to describe something. Uke is asking what I mean as well.

Its not legal, but when you claim you are discriminated against because ur trans, then you are trying to invoke the constitution. So something that is generally a socially set rule, ie etiquette becomes constitutionally enforceable.

Thats what happens, for example the swimming pool will say 'this is part of your charter of freedoms and rights' ie that one would use the change room they identify with.

I .. had no idea I was so powerful. You are now a Eugenia Cooney fan, eh!

The answer is dogs! Here is Eugenia's dog, Buzz!

You keep using this phrasing but I don't think it makes any sense. There are legal rights, things granted by constitutions and written into laws etc. And there are social and cultural conventions and practices that are not in laws. But I have no idea what "legally afforded social rights" even are. Can you be super explicit about what precisely you mean?

You're being told, repeatedly, that this is a nonsensical question. Legality is an entirely different concept from societal norms. Every topic you are talking about - sports, bathrooms etc - is governed by societal norms, not legality. There is no requirement for there to be absolutes in the way these situations are handled. Believing that someone identifying as a female should be treated as a woman in the vast majority of social situations but that there are some specific exceptions (e.g. high level sports) is a perfectly logical opinion to hold.

There are some situations where gender is relevant that are actually matters of legality (the one that immediately jumps to mind is placement in prison) and in those then a simple declaration of identifying as a specific gender likely shouldn't be sufficient to treated as that gender. These situations are very much the exception rather than the rule in day-to-day life though.


And just because it has been bugging me, talking about bathrooms is by far the dumbest argument imaginable when it comes to situations in which a trans person shouldn't be able to act as the gender they identify as. It should be trivially obvious why attempting to force people to use the bathroom of the gender they were assigned at birth would cause vastly more problems than allowing people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

I'm inventing a phrase...I will try to be explicit....

I'm saying a certain class of people wants to invoke the constitution to grant them rights, that are usually only otherwise socially granted (ie they aren't generally legally protected). I don't think thats a good thing, or a good thing to let happen.

Men are trying to pass as dogs so they can go up and sniff women's butts and it be socially acceptable.

jbouton you're a programmer, huh? You keep mentioning things like classes and inheritance. I think you should stick to java or whatever languages you **** around with

Yes. Simply put, identifying as a woman, shouldn't necessarily grant you all the things being a female would.

Its not obvious to me can you put it in words?

But sports for sure its far less obvious. If we mean to separate by body types, why would we make gender identity based distinctions at all?

Do poker players remember to use poker as an example (of a sport)?

Of course, Greg Raymer is an amazing athlete!

This is weird. Constitutions are there to protect people and have things like the equal protection clause that protects all kinds of minority groups over history. That should be a laudable thing. But this doesn't even make sense because the group that is about making enforceable laws out of cultural conventions are the republicans! They are the ones trying to put in bathroom bans and the like and using the power of law to enforce their social views. It's a bit stupid to be mad about this, but if you are mad about it you are mad at the wrong side.