• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Social Justice Transgender and gender identity discussion

Again, bad apples... some people suck from every demographic. Living in a town with a large trans community, I see very little trouble around here. The vast majority of trans people aren't trying to do the kind of stuff going on in this lawsuit. Here, the trans community is largely accepted and we coexist peacefully. From where I'm sitting (ie, actually among trans people), this whole "social crisis of gender deconstruction" seems like scare propaganda. I'm not seeing it. All I see is a lot of different kinds of people treating each other with respect. It's nice.

I'm so glad I live where I do, it makes it easier to have faith in humanity.
 
The other thing is, it doesn't have to be all one extreme or all the other.

You don't have to put up with every insane abuse of societies systems OR treat transgender people like shit.

You don't have to always pick a side and take it to its most extreme conclusion.

Yeah, this individual is abusing the system, which should absolutely not be allowed. I agree. But it changes absolutely nothing about my opinion that transgender people should be treated with respect like anyone else and that people shouldn't argue with them about their gender.

This is little different to people who'd conflate pedophiles preying on young boys with homosexuals, to argue that homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated and leads only to that conclusion. It's bullshit used to justify bigotry.
 
think you're all forgetting that in many cases these so-called trans-people are aggressive & obnoxious individuals.

Of course. Because just like every human, trans people can be assholes too and it can have nothing to do with the fact they are trans. Just like some golfers are assholes but not all of them.

There is a tendency these days to view the loudest member of a perceived social group as being indiciative of the whole. I'm not too sure its really a valid assessment.
 
What is yalls opinion on biological males (transgender females) playing against biological women in sports? Ie. track, weightlifting, etc.
 
Of course. Because just like every human, trans people can be assholes too and it can have nothing to do with the fact they are trans. Just like some golfers are assholes but not all of them.

There is a tendency these days to view the loudest member of a perceived social group as being indiciative of the whole. I'm not too sure its really a valid assessment.
Im an asshole ;) (im sure you guys are already aware lol)
 
What is yalls opinion on biological males (transgender females) playing against biological women in sports? Ie. track, weightlifting, etc.

Personally I don't much care. About sport I mean.

But if pressed for an opinion... Personally I'd want more evidence before making a decision.

I'd want to know if a transgender person on hormone therapy for years actually have an unfair advantage. If not, let them compete. If so, well they may have to be excluded.

That's my take on it anyway. I wanna go with the evidence.
 
What is yalls opinion on biological males (transgender females) playing against biological women in sports? Ie. track, weightlifting, etc.
Nutty posted a heartwarming story of a coach helping his student athlete through her transition.

Maybe he'll link it for you if he reads this.
 
I think each so-called trans person needs to be considered on a case by case basis. It isn't helpful to indulge other people's delusions, especially when that person is obviously heading for trouble.
Take the case of Transgender Muslim Woman - Lucy Vallender for example. Is he a master troll or really unwell?



According to other reports, he tried to sit in the women's section at his local masjid...sit and pray with the other muslim women lol, but they told him to take a hike. So he was whining about that to no end.
I think it is unkind to smile and agree, pretending that his ambitions to become a muslim woman are a good idea, or that he should be able to do that without encountering problems.
 
Last edited:
Oh my god!! So you mean, a person, born as a man, living in Britain, identifies as a woman, and *gasp* dresses in a Burka and sits in peacefully worshipping with other Muslim women? And then when told to leave, is upset about that, and would like to be able to peacefully sit in a room with other people and worship? Oh the horror!

Integration issues notwithstanding (yeah it's messy considering how intensely gendered Islam and all of the Abrahamic religions are, these are real issues/hurdles), this doesn't invalidate the fact that this person has the right to consider themselves a woman. Nor that they had a choice in the matter in terms of how they feel about themselves. Your use of "so-called" when you refer to trans people says it all.
 
this doesn't invalidate the fact that this person has the right to consider themselves a woman.
I am not questioning his right to consider himself a woman. I am questioning the idea that this person is helped by pandering to his confusion.
No one but him believes he is a woman, because he's not. How can he possibly get along like that? He can not, and never will.
Would it not be better to help him come out from that confusion? Help him accept reality? At least there I can see a chance.

Besides that, I'm not sure, but he might be trolling lol.

Reg. " Your use of "so-called" when you refer to trans people says it all.
No it doesn't. It says only what it says, the rest is your imagination.
I shouldn't even be on this thread. Call people whatever you like. It's all good with me.
Not coming back here.
 
Last edited:
You just seem awfully judgmental about it, is all, if you read through the collection of your posts in here there's a lot of what appears to be moral judgment going on. If I'm imagining that, then good, I'm glad you don't feel that way.
 
I think it is unkind to smile and agree, pretending that his ambitions to become a muslim woman are a good idea, or that he should be able to do that without encountering


Iran is still an incredibly repressive country don't get me wrong, and all religions are oppressive, it's not Islamaphobic to say that, but transphobia isn't inherent to Islam

I am questioning the idea that this person is helped by pandering to his confusion

Every medical authority in the world recognizes transitioning as the only medically effective treatment for gender dysphoria, and there is a very clear difference between sex and gender, but you've said before you want to pretend that doesn't exist. Facts don't care about your feelings.
 
Factualist said:
Sacred is totally meaningless to rational people, reals over feels my man

Sacred is a word, that has meaning: Holy. Holy and Sacred mean that it is special, and "set apart". Something that is set apart, to me is something that in this sense is protected, and necessary, or required (to some end, like life), and not to be lost. Why is a man and a woman the best option to raise any child? Because they're who produces it. Nobody else needs to agree with them, and their choice to be together is a choice or action that led to life itself. It doesn't challenge anything much. It goes with the flow. It's where we come from, and where we need to return to, regardless, in some way or another, to continue, and what requires the least work/energy, and least commitment and investment and cooperation of the fewest people (like in a machine, the fewest moving parts, least likely to be broken, or require outside fixing, like government), is a "marriage" between two: male and female, who only need to be partner to each other, and life centered in 'god'.

A woman and a woman or a single woman would require the cooperation of a male that is willing to forfeit his rights/his-autonomy (granted many men will jump at the chance, and many men are desperate) over his direction, to volunteer his semen, and often this means he hasn't quite achieved a fulfilled state, with his own family/children (and maybe needed money). Two men adopting children seems to require that people failed at some point. A marriage between a man and a woman to create offspring, and further "society", and the "social-construct" (foundation...) is sacred, holy, because it is the one thing for it (offspring, furthermost of human race) not predicated on failure of some sort, and requires the fewest, necessary ingredients to function, and doesn't require others, at all. Not really. It's the only match-up that needs to happen, that can't be subtracted. That's why it's "set apart", lifted up, and special.

Would I be mad at two gay men that "adopted" my children in the event of me becoming separated from them, and my wife disappearing in tsunami? No. I'd be thankful for them, and I might even take-up protecting them, and "our-rights", to exist, peacefully once I am somehow reunited with my children - having known they were taken care of. My main concern is keeping things in focus...not becoming lost in what we think "equality" is. I don't know. I also think that a man and a woman are the best option to raise any child, because any child, male or female, should have good models of male and female, and again, the most-least complicated mash-up is a man and a woman, committed to what comes next, and both there for the child(ren).. I don't mean to be absolutely condemning, but I am rather a minimalist, in respects.
 
Last edited:
I can understand your argument at least, that basically "it's the path of least resistance". A few other things I agree with too, such as that it's important for a child to have positive male and female role models. However your argument falls apart in several ways. First, positive adult role models can exist outside of the parent/child relationship, in the form of extended family, grandparents, teachers, family friends... anyone, really. Also, there are a huge number of children who need adopting, who were abandoned, or whose parents were killed, or what have you. The fact that there are children who grow up in foster care or orphanages suggests that there are simply not enough straight couples trying to adopt. It produces more harm to already-born children who have no one to adopt them, if you disallow same-sex or non-gender normative couples to adopt, than it could possibly do to allow them to adopt.

It's where we come from, and where we need to return to, regardless, in some way or another, to continue, and what requires the least work/energy, and least commitment and investment and cooperation of the fewest people (like in a machine, the fewest moving parts, least likely to be broken, or require outside fixing, like government), is a "marriage" between two: male and female, who only need to be partner to each other, and life centered in 'god'.

The god stuff is arbitrary. It is meaningless to anyone but those who believe in it. If religion had developed differently in the history of this country, the "ideal" scenario would be different than it is. I would hope we could one day as a species move past arbitrary distinctions like what you happen to believe about what all of this is, and focus more on whether someone is a qualified parent. A whole ton of same-sex couples are not qualified to be parents but they do it anyway. Being same-sex/gender normative doesn't automatically make you better parent, that's about your personality and the strength of your relationship with your partner.

A woman and a woman or a single woman would require the cooperation of a male that is willing to forfeit his rights/his-autonomy (granted many men will jump at the chance, and many men are desperate) over his direction, to volunteer his semen, and often this means he hasn't quite achieved a fulfilled state, with his own family/children (and maybe needed money). Two men adopting children seems to require that people failed at some point. A marriage between a man and a woman to create offspring, and further "society", and the "social-construct" (foundation...) is sacred, holy, because it is the one thing for it (offspring, furthermost of human race) not predicated on failure of some sort, and requires the fewest, necessary ingredients to function, and doesn't require others, at all. Not really. It's the only match-up that needs to happen, that can't be subtracted. That's why it's "set apart", lifted up, and special.

This argument is invalid too, because the scenario you describe is just one possibility. Men go to sperm banks so that women who want to get pregnant can do so without having sex with that guy, children are orphaned in wars and conflict zones, abandoned, and so on. And yeah, two men adopting does require that people failed at some point, but guess what... a lot of people fail, like I said, there are too many children that need adoption. That's not gonna stop either.

Would I be mad at two gay men that "adopted" my children in the event of me becoming separated from them, and my wife disappearing in tsunami? No. I'd be thankful for them, and I might even take-up protecting them, and "our-rights", to exist, peacefully once I am somehow reunited with my children - having known they were taken care of.

Here's where you really lose me. So you're saying that maybe, if you had a child and that child was adopted by a gay couple, you might start supporting gay rights out of gratitude? So in other words you're fine with denying entire swaths of people basic civil rights until such a time as those civil rights would benefit you? That's... not cool, man. How about the fact that there are gay couples who have adopted kids in the same situation you're describing, but they're not yours, and they saved that child? Don't you have empathy for the needs of others?
 
You just seem awfully judgmental about it, is all, if you read through the collection of your posts in here there's a lot of what appears to be moral judgment going on. If I'm imagining that, then good, I'm glad you don't feel that way.
So what is happening here? You judge me for the suspected crime of making moral judgments? Yes, that is what is happening. Try to step back for a moment.

You are actually conducting purity tests. People who make different judgments to your own, are bad people, because you are a good person.
Like most people, I don't care about gays or trans. No like or dislike. Normal people care about individuals. Your imaginary "community" doesn't exist,and you are not their spokes person. It is a delusion.
Normal people, including myself, hate LGTB ideology, because it is nothing more than Communism thinly disguised as liquid shit.

I don't hate you, or gays or trans...you see hate in others because they fail your purity test. Send them to the gulags. You sad sad ideologue.
Your lack of self awareness here (hypocrisy) is breathtaking.

This is not about gays or trans. This about you. When you speak about gays and trans, you are using them (imaginary), like all LGBT ideologues, to profess your phony virtue.
In effect, you are hateful. You are judgmental. You are exclusive. You are indifferent.
 
Like most people, I don't care about gays or trans. No like or dislike.
Normal people, including myself, hate LGTB ideology, because it is nothing more than Communism thinly disguised as liquid shit.

8)

LGBT = Communism? Please explain how gay/transgender has anything to do with even dispersal of resources.

Your lack of self awareness here (hypocrisy) is breathtaking.

You're really something. You know what, you've convinced me. My refuting your judgment against an entire category of people for how they believe is definitely me hating people, and being a hypocrite. I guess anytime someone disagrees with you, they're spreading hate?

I don't care to continue this "debate" with you because it will never go anywhere. Enjoy the smell of the inside of your rectum.

Do you honestly actually believe that you don't care one way or another about transgender people? Or are you just fucking with me?
 
Top