fontaine
Banned
- 8,053
- 6,535
Right....
Yeah, you scared.
Props to Meth for sonning DC.
Not really sure if meff is sonning DC right now...
Both great points, but DC is being more realistic
Is Bruce Jenner Trolling?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by realshoemice,
- Start date
Right....
Not really sure if meff is sonning DC right now...
Both great points, but DC is being more realistic
- 481
- 306
I'm using unnatural in the same way that the dictionary describes the word unnatural. I think it's shaky ground when you resort to calling someone a bigot. I haven't scrambled for anything. Everything I've stated is issues that most people would have problems with or would at least find necessary to discuss. That discussion can't happen if a trans person is unwilling to share that they're trans out of fear of rejection.
Maybe I'd agree with you if this was a perfect transition. Like you've snapped your fingers and everything is changed for all functions and purposes (although it still means you're intentionally hiding a large portion of your life from someone). But, that's not the case. Genetically you're still a man. Functionally you're not a woman. For the most part, all you've essentially done is change what's on the surface. People have the right to know as a straight man that they're essentially dating a man wearing a mask. That might sound insensitive, but it's the truth. In 1800 this wasn't possible at all. In 2015, this is still a heavily flawed science that still falls far short of it's goal. It's unknown territory. People have the right to know.
Last edited:
- 10,930
- 9,249
How about this:
When someone meets a woman, dates her for a month or two, kisses her, smashes, and then she reveals to that she was born a dude, thus deceiving you, make a thread.
Until then, hide under your security blankets
When someone meets a woman, dates her for a month or two, kisses her, smashes, and then she reveals to that she was born a dude, thus deceiving you, make a thread.
Until then, hide under your security blankets
- 39,095
- 55,205
How about you just not read this thread. There has been a lot of healthy debate these last couple of pages.
- 5,983
- 9,870
If I express at some point that I want a family and she knows she is infertile, telling me asap would be the mature, responsible thing to do. Keeping it to herself because that's her right and she shouldn't have tell anyone if she doesn't want to would be the selfish, immature thing to do. If you need to put a law on the books to require your potential wife to be a good person then it probably wasn't gonna work out anyway.
On the subject of transgender relationships, the fact that you were wearing a dress and had **** when i got your number should be synonymous with expressing what my wants/intentions are.
- 10,930
- 9,249
Yes, the point about the trans agenda being furthered by the occult worship of the androgynous demonic deity Baphomet was intellectually riveting.
Also the statement about rapists disguising themselves as transgenders in order to sneak into our bathrooms and assault unsuspecting victims certainly stands as one of the pinnacles of intellectual discourse
Last edited:
- 7,385
- 29,187
Deception is different than being who you are.
There's a reason why I said you should be the one to bear the burden if you're scared that there's even a tiny chance that you might hold hands with a transgender person. If you're the one who's afraid, then why shouldn't you be the one to ask the question?
I don't believe it's fair to assume that a transgender person is "deceiving" someone or "being something they're not" just by living their lives.
The core of this is the assumption that a transgender person is trying to be something that they're not - and that's an attempt to present their identity as illegitimate.
Case in point:
1) You wouldn't say that a woman who "lured a man into sleeping with her using prosthetic buttocks" was practicing a form of deception on par with rape. That's an argument that's been made in this thread.
2) You wouldn't say that a woman who can't satisfy your "natural procreative drive" should disclose her sterility INSTANTLY. (A particularly facetious argument given that the majority of relationships these days are non-procreative, and are intentionally non-procreative through use of "unnatural" contraceptives.
What you're engaged in is a logical contortion to try and invent a way to ridicule and invalidate a transgender person's sexuality.
There is nothing natural about gender. It is a human construct. Males of other species don't have the same behavioral affectations as males are expected to demonstrate in our society, nor are the biological differences as emphasized (or mythologized). In some human societies, there are more than two genders. There are more than two archetypes.
So, let's first recognize that there's an attempt here to "naturalize" a cultural abstraction. The division of labor among other species has more to do with the nature of that species offspring than with the "nature of the sexes." Human division of labor is what it is largely because our offspring cannot cling the way other primates can.
All this cultural baggage about gender identity has little to nothing to do with biology.
Sexuality exists on a continuum. It is resistant to typology. We've been raised with the false supposition of a sex-inscribed male/female dichotomy that, from birth, circumscribes much of who we are and what we can be.
Future generations will not be so encumbered, and that's scary to people in the same way that interracial marriage was scary. It challenged what they considered to be the "natural order of things."
In reality, though, people are people.
The fracturing or queering of a typology makes it impractical to police its boundaries. For example: "you can't do this job if you're _______." "You can't have these feelings if you're ______." There are places on this Earth where people literally carry racial identity cards. That's how ridiculous hanging on to that system of inequality has become.
The thought of losing that handle on sex and gender, losing that ability (which was illusory to begin with) to delineate and define on that basis, is threatening.
And so we as a society will once again have to deal with all the tired tropes about what's "natural," and all the frenzied, paranoid fantasies about what will become of the future in a world where the false certainty of inherited identity has no merit, all to protect a form of unearned privilege.
"If a woman can run for president, then why can't a two year old demon-spawn homicidal maniac from another planet? WHAT THEN!?! OIMOGMGOMOGMOGMGOMGOGMOGMOGM And then I'M the bigot because I'm two-year old demon-spawn homicidal maniac-ophobic, right!? False outrage I say! FALSE OUTRAGE!"
It's almost hilarious how far backwards some of you will bend over to justify prejudice.
Accomodationism was once characterized as "more realistic." "Stay in your lane, seeking true equality is dangerous. Settle for "better."
If you have a prejudice, that should be considered YOUR problem - not everyone else's. THAT is the point I've been making, but people are SO terrified of accidentally liking a transgender person that they're freaking out.
Last edited:
- 26,532
- 29,741
This. Dude comes into the thread and every single page post nonsense and try to derail the thread.
Last edited:
- 12,422
- 2,916
Yeah .. same with transgendered
- 39,095
- 55,205
That's all you picked up from the last couple of pages..? Exit thread. Your problems are solved. Your welcome.
- 10,930
- 9,249
This is literally the backbone of their entire argument
"What's to stop *insert ridiculous scenario* from happening?!
mr marcus
Banned
- 26,572
- 5,415
Nah they get exposed immediately before intercourse takes place. Then that's when dudes start flipping like the numerous stories out here
- 64,966
- 196,175
And I've heard numerous stories of transgender people telling potential mates from the jump.
You shouldn't use the "there are stories" to make blanket judgments.
C'mon brah, you better than that. That's the foundation of the "what bout black on black crime" nonsense
Last edited:
mr marcus
Banned
- 26,572
- 5,415
I'm speaking specifically on that scenario. Wasn't accusing all TS of that and it all started over someone bringing up crime against TS. I mentioned the only crimes that I've seen frequently against them that were classified as "hate" was those type.
Think he posted another link with 7 unsolved TS crimes but you cant automatically link unsolved to hate crimes. There's unsolved crimes of all natures and you can't assume it was behind hate without evidence.
The other link he posted was of a TS boyfriend being the killer. Again that isn't a hate crime but this was pages back.
My post was still on that and not whatever else was being talked about currently.
Think he posted another link with 7 unsolved TS crimes but you cant automatically link unsolved to hate crimes. There's unsolved crimes of all natures and you can't assume it was behind hate without evidence.
The other link he posted was of a TS boyfriend being the killer. Again that isn't a hate crime but this was pages back.
My post was still on that and not whatever else was being talked about currently.
Last edited:
- 15,448
- 16,780
Bruce a lame. Michael Jackson did the same thing without the coming out party. Dude changed gender and race. Step ya game up son.
- 10,322
- 2,557
- 16,379
- 5,098
Yeah... And he chose to touch little boys and pay them off.. Instead of using to keep his name public in a positive light...
valleyside
Banned
- 444
- 61
Bruce is brave for coming out like that. He about to get paid. And we all gonna watch the dam show. Feeding into it like animals. Life is crazy
fontaine
Banned
- 8,053
- 6,535
So disrespectful
- 32,830
- 24,897
Mike ain't touch them kids y'all boys chill
- 10,322
- 2,557
wasn't there basically proof of this but it never got out, because it was Michael Jackson?
- 16,379
- 5,098
**** MJ... I'm happy his pedo *** is dead... I feel bad for farrah Fawcett...
- 5,983
- 9,870
1.) It wasn't MY argument so its irrelevant in your response to me. But since you brought it up I would absolutely say a woman who lured a man into sex using a prosthetic buttocks was practicing a form of deception. "On par with rape" doesn't compute. Deception is not rape, rape is not an act of deception. Its physical assault. You know it is deception with 100% certainty. As if denying it's similarity to rape is to deny the fact it is deception. C'mon meth, you are better. And again, I have not made any arguments based on the off chance a transgender deception takes place, please lets try to stay focused.
2.) As I explained to another poster, I would not expect them to disclose that instantly, but if they became aware of the fact that I did want a family with children it would be selfish and immature of them not to disclose that simply because they have a right not to. She would be placing her wants and needs in regards to the relationship over her partners, which is not a solid foundation for a lasting relationship. An honest and open talk should be had asap especially if she is aware of the discrepancy. In terms of a transgender relationship, the fact that an individual was wearing a dress and had breast implants when I initially asked her out should be enough for them to reasonably assume I want a relationship with a woman, therefore an honest and open talk should take place asap. Again none of this is about disclosure for me, you are responding to other posters in your comments to me. This is about people like you trying to force others to accept behavior which I personally find unhealthy and harmful. I am not one to police peoples bedrooms, I could honestly care less, but i don't need to be equated to a 19th century slavemaster because I find something wrong with inserting your penis into the rectal cavity/inverted penis of another man simply to get high off neurochemicals.
A logical contortion eh? I could say the same about you. You are trying to attribute the qualities of ridicule and invalidation to my arguments and thusly my personality in an attempt to discredit the logic. I hold no ill will and while I may have a negative opinion on certain behaviors, in no way do I feel the need to ridicule of invalidate anyone.
Anyways, you say I am attempting to naturalize a cultural abstraction but that is exactly what you are doing when claiming a transgendered person is just "being who they are". Why, on one hand, does gender have no basis in biology and entirely of human construct, but on the other hand it signifies who you "really" are. What basis do you have for stating that a choice among two opposing social constructs determines who you really are? What factors are at play when an individual undergoes gender reassignment surgery if not genetic or chemical? These "feelings" of being in the wrong body or being born the wrong sex are then a conscious decision, an adoption of specific behavioral patterns and visual representations for the sake of satiating your own psycho-social affliction. If there is no biological basis for gender then nothing is compelling these feelings other than their own conditioned mental state. It is my opinion that that state of mind is an unhealthy one and leads to harmful behavior on both a micro and macro level.
Explain to me how the supposition is false? How can a social dichotomy be false? Social evolution created the behavior which we can now, in hindsight, view as achetypes, for a reason, for social utility. Yet I don't see how evolution toward that end can be considered patently false, and in the same breath hold up some pansexual, gender neutral utopia as truth. That is your personal assumption at best. You would morph a "flawed" dichotomy into a trichotomy/quadchotomy based on, statistically speaking, anomalous, genetically recessive permutations of said "false" dichotomy? Thats truth? Thats progress?
It is also your personal assumption that society as a whole is encumbered by the male-female dichotomy. The cure for sexism and misogyny is not customized gender and homosexuality.
Because my objections are simply a facade for my egomanical urge to police and oppress right? Because hanging on to the concept of male-female, reproductive family units is the same as requiring gender identity cards, right? Can I disagree without being a tyrant? You need to stop this. YOU are contorting logic at this point. How many strawmans were in just those few sentences. I count 5.
Penis goes in vagina, sperm fertilizes egg, humans continue to exist. Look at your parts, now look at your ladys parts, see how they naturally developed to work in conjunction? Natural. Period. Now, perhaps homosexuality, transgenderism, ect is natural as well, idk. Whats your argument? Because we have already established it has no basis in biology. So am curious just how it may be that it is a natural characteristic of humans that should be nurtured and propagated.
You made a pretty big leap with this one, so much so that I am not even sure what parallels you are trying to draw. Your approach is, and always has been, to manufacture an immoral basis for the opinions of those who disagree with you so you can parlay your own personal biases and beliefs down the moral high road. You've been pretty consistent with that in your response to me. Hoping you had something to substantiate your claims that we will all be so much better off in world without inherited gender identity, as you put it.
Last edited:
- 1,115
- 247
I don't think malcolm x would ever chill with Bruce Jenner at Starbucks meth lol
- 10,756
- 9,096
The world is a strange, strange place.
As a father things like this concern me greatly, I'll leave it at that since apparently anything other than unwavering support makes you a bigot, but I personally do not look forward to a world where my sons will need to see a birth certificates upon meeting a "female".
As a father things like this concern me greatly, I'll leave it at that since apparently anything other than unwavering support makes you a bigot, but I personally do not look forward to a world where my sons will need to see a birth certificates upon meeting a "female".
