Interesting video with many relevant questions society hopefully will answer over the coming years.

I do find it very offensive when the transwomen states 'it's not because they are trans these cis women could not win... it is because they were not fast enough'. (time stamped in video below)

This claim that cis women just need to be better and get better' is a very disingenuous and insulting one as there is a reason these prior Gold medal and record setting cis women cannot compete against these top trans women when they were beating the entire field of cis women prior and why these top performing trans women could not compete against cis males at the top of these sports prior to them transitioning.

Fair enough. I don't think our disagreements here, if any, are worth splitting hairs over as I do support people in any community coming out, if they desire to do so and do agree it is over all better to have as many people out as possible.

wtf is ooboo'ing?

I agree that people at street level often have more nuanced views on tactics than dogmatists on the internet do. I don't think this is even debatable.

This is as I suspected. You simply have a fundamentally transphobic viewpoint that denies their legitimacy. Just being really bad at figuring out how to address people and repeatedly misgendering them is one thing, but this is a whole other level.

You just said something derogatory about non-binary people.

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree about our difference of opinion. We saw that issue differently, that is ok, let's let it rest.

What I'm asking you to do is to retract your accusation that I was a dishonest liar. This is the accusation that you made repeatedly. I wasn't. I was being fully honest. I explained why I was being honest and believe you made a genuine misunderstanding when you interpreted my comments as lies. I tried to faithfully paraphrase your comment; you disagree that it was a good paraphrase and that is fine, but it wasn't in any way a lie. A simple apology for the accusation would go a long way to resetting the conversation.

Ignore the difference of opinion, are you able to retract the accusation of dishonesty?

Offended
On
Behalf
Of
Others

which is extremely common in the reactionary and far left where certain people take offense, start correcting, or insult people for saying things that the people who apparently should be offended by it are not the voice of that complaint.


(*It was a term created by one of the smartest, most respected posters on the old Rotten Tomatoes chat forum, 20+ years ago, named the Victorian)

it should not be contentious but when we talk about tactical implementations that are strategic here, they often get labeled bigoted or wrong or other with only the big picture view considered.

So while we agree that the day slavery (or later Jim Crow) was officially ended, we SHOULD be able to put black kids in any school anywhere including the deepest, deep south, I expressed that tactically I would not just force that due to safety concerns and would use a more graduated and considered approach.

that approach is accused of 'maintaining and supporting segregation' as if the only approach is to force it simply because it is 'right'.

And i don't disagree with what is right, i just think you have sometimes have competing needs that require consideration regardless of right and those might require a better tactical approach.

If i called you a liar I legit believed you lied. I do not say it, if I do not believe it.

Glancing back at that prior argument and the link you provided I did not see the exact aspect you are referring to. Requote the entire thing, including context and if I think you did not lie, I will retract.

If this requires us to re-litigate that entire argument (and this is a back door way to get that, or not), so be it.

Ugh

And on the first point you have every right to believe that just as I think you are everything wrong with people on the left . I am sure your a nice person

Non Binary folks have every right to call themselves what they want and when they figure out if they are Bi, gay, lesbian, Trans Gender, two Spirited I will treat them as I treat most folks with kindness and compassion .
Though please do not tell me I have to refer to a biological female as cis woman

Please tell me what I said now that was derogatory to non-binary folks?

Then I suggest this aside might be an example of how you've gone off on two different issues now (misunderstanding my post about whether Quinn is heroic, and my opinion on why it's good when a prominent LGBT person comes out) without having addressed the issue that I think is quite important and substantive of how I believe that Laurel Hubbard was always a woman and thus referring to her having ever been a man is mistaken and you seem to have attitudes contrary to this. This in spite of at least one other having also put that issue forward to you.

It's not me leading us down these rabbit holes that go nowhere. I keep trying to talk about the thing we actually have a disagreement about.

Great! You have ignored post after post after post trying to get you to finally address your egregious and repeated accusations that I am a dishonest liar, so it is encouraging that you are finally willing to listen. And I agree, let us not re-litigate the argument, I fully agree to disagree on that, I just want a simple apology for you calling me a dishonest liar when I wasn't. The exchange started here:


In trying to argue why I disagreed with this statement I quickly paraphrased it before going on to why I disagreed. This was my paraphrase:
I see the two statements as pretty darned identical (indeed I used the exact same terminology of "is wrong" and "attach a punishment" as you did) but you didn't like my attempt at a faithful paraphrase of you. Your immediate response and several follows up all call me dishonest:
To me this was an extremely simple issue: I faithfully paraphrased you; you responding calling me a liar. To be honest, it took me quite a while to figure out why you thought I was being a liar with my faithful paraphrase. But I finally clued in (I think) when you said this:
As in, my belief is you think the difference between your quote and my paraphrase was this distinction between "my opinion it is wrong" and "it being wrong". As in, my paraphrase didn't sufficiently capture that this was your opinion, as opposed to a sort of factual truth about the universe. However, that wasn't my view:

So as you see, I was not aiming to "lie" or be "dishonest", I was aiming to faithfully paraphrase what you said. It might be that my paraphrase was, and perhaps still is, a poor one even if I disagree with you. But regardless, in no way was it a lie.

Thus I ask you to apologize for accusing me of being a liar.

Sure. This:
This statement is denying the very idea that non-binary person can be genuinely non-binary, instead it is being written off as just a temporary phase, one you previously described as thinking it "was nuts".

Grow up. It is 2021. I get that you are a little older and terminology has shifted a bit, but it is far past time for you learn just the most basic terminology and how to apply it. Someone who is a biological female could be a cis woman OR they could be a trans man. This is because man/woman refers to their gender identity while trans/cis refers to their sex at birth. This terminology is basic, and it helps us have informed and respectful conversations about trans issues. If you are utterly unwilling to use the word "cis", then my strong suggestion is you leave this thread for some time, consume some LGBT literature so you have a more expansive worldview, and only then return.

I had never heard of "ooboo" either, and most of the Google hits were irrelevant, but finally I found one relevant definition for it on Urban Dictionary. I don't know why this guy expected us all to be aware of some highly obscure internet slang, but there's nothing new under the sun; it's just a warmed-over and unnecessary re-definition of "virtue signaling".

Socially conservative people like Cuepee* accuse decent people of "signaling" their "virtue" by publicly speaking up on behalf of disadvantaged or marginalized groups to whom we don't belong. They, to a person, fail to understand that there is no signaling (i.e., a demonstration for other humans) involved; we have a genuine level of empathy and concern for society's victims that they, as a matter of ideological definition, cannot possess. They completely and permanently lack the ability to understand a personality feature like "having empathy for people whom we do not know and with whom we will never interact", and I bet it can be boiled down all the way to evolutionary biology.

*I get that Cuepee is a basic lib Democrat and would balk at being called a social conservative. But that's what he is, along with many, many other older Dems. It positively permeates everything they say and write.

My point is not that two different tangential talks cannot be engaged. It is that when I make a SPECIFIC point that is called out as wrong and is being argued, that I believe was correct, I am not going to go down tangential rabbit holes. Especially based on what 'you think I mean', or 'assume I meant', when I am repeating over and over exactly what I said and meant.

As any arguing of the tangential allows you to then say that was the actual topic being argued over when it never was.

uke, I don't agree with this...

I think if not a lie, then at worst it was a sloppy error.

This is one of my areas of biggest pet peeve in forum speech.

If in fact I did say this paraphrase by you (which I did not)...

that would be a stated I made a factual representation on that topic and i did not and was careful to make it which is why i lead out with "MY POINT IN GENERAL...".

So if I am inclined to give you full benefit of the doubt (and I was not at that time), I could grant that you made a significant and sloppy mistake in the restatement of my position.

To be clear here I would not use cis or trans in general normal talk, I would just refer to the person as a woman or a man.

I don't plan to adopt the terminology generally but would certainly use it if/when additional descriptors are required or if someone asked me specifically.

I love being labeled 'socially conservative' by the crowd complaining about improper labeling.

I am guy 100% for full LGTBQ rights probably beyond what most "liberal" people are. I hold very little social morays restrictions and live my life based on 'as long as you are not harming others, you be you and live your best single life'.

- I would not restrict a womans right to abortion at all.
- I am vehemently anti religion
- 100% for MC4A
- Would make all drugs legal
- i believe the corporate structure and fiduciary responsibility should be rewritten to include a duty not just to shareholders but the 3 key stakeholders of Owners, Workers and the Community
- I believe banks need far more regulation in how they deal with the working poor and marginalized to get them away from the often predatory and discriminatory systems they employ today
- I believe corporate lobbying and campaign contributions should be outlawed or greatly reduced
- I believe climate change issues need to be far more focused upon
- I believe in reparations to African Americans but not via direct cheques. Only in generational investments in their communities addressing the root causes, as best they can, of generational poverty



Oh ya but because I said:

- I hope punitive damages are 'rare' in this evolving area of litigation around trans rights

and

- I think in certain areas we need to consider a more nuanced approach in how these issues are introduced and pushed to avoid creating greater conflicts

Edit

Oh and

- I believe that transwomen competing against cis women in competitive sport creates an unfair playing field that needs to be addressed with another solution


...well then, that 'social conservative' is now outed.

FLOL.

agreed. I mainly use cis when in a conversation about trans issues where that distinction is relevant. All other times I just use woman or whatever as most times whether they are cis or trans just ain’t relevant.

Great. But none of this easy.

I got corrected 3 years ago by a person i assumed was a trans woman on an Edmonton patio when we had 3 of them join our group drinking, when I was chatting with 'him' but referred to him as female. He said something along the lines of 'Oh I am not trans honey, we do cabaret and are all just cross dressers'.

So none of this can be considered obvious and making too many assumptions will get anyone in trouble.

sure. Consider this slight discomfort you felt trying to navigate a complicated and often judgemental world and image now you are trans and these kinds of awkward conversations are a regular part of your daily life. And some percentage are beyond just awkward.

The least we can do is try to learn just the basics of things like cis and trans and correct pronoun usage as a sign of respect and an entrance into conversations.

I mean, we just went on two sidetracks that you brought up, neither of which went anywhere (particularly because one was you grossly misinterpreting a post to someone else), and now you're persisting with this meta discussion instead of just addressing the argument presented over the thing we really do very much disagree on. And all the while you've been moaning that it's me that sends us on these tangents even having admitted that you don't properly read people's posts. Incredible stuff.

So can you stop whining and get back to where we were when I very pointedly rejected the notion that Laurel Hubbard was ever a cis man?

Right which is why everyone needs humility and to hold the woke scolding as the apparent transgender person, could be a cross dresser/transvestite and could be a 'he', despite the appearance of a 'she'.

You might be wrong in referring to the person as 'he' and i might be wrong for referring to them as 'she' and we can both correct ourselves after. But woke scolding based on what you think the norm (the bet you are making) is, when you have no knowledge of the person is arrogant and offside.

Holy ****, i thought your last question was rhetorical. WTF are you saying I did not reply to now that you need answered. Requote it if you want it answered.