Will you have the courage to pinpoint say your stance?
There is one member of site leadership I have in mind that ought to speak. Is it time to have the debate?
Where do the LGB on DART stand on the T and drag queen groomer issue?
Posts
Total:
58
-->
@RationalMadman
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't know don't care is the genuine answer.
I am seeing an insanity that has even reached a close relative of mine who is cis, being totally pro trans and ignoring anything I say, saying I am brainwashed. This agenda is truly brainwashing people to think the other side is brainwashed even and then silencing them.
I also notice that almost all transgender people who do not detransition all have other significant mental disorders or emotional damage whereas most sissy/femboy men or severely butch tomboys etc are generally very mentally stable and own their identity even sometimes admitting they get off on being misgendered for roleplay as they feel so extremely femme or masc but knowing their sex and thus gender can not truly change, only their expression of it.
I may need to (not spcifying) make arrangements so where I live it is not child abuse to challenge your child on being transgender. Canada and California are already over the tipping point, literal custody losses and arrests happening.
I just thought you might find it interesting that the phrase "leave kids alone" was considered taboo now.
[RationalMadman] Will you have the courage to pinpoint say your stance?
1) Gender and sex were synonyms and the only reason to redefine "gender" to mean "gender role" or "gender stereotype" is obviously a means to subvert cultural and legal structures. The perfect example of this would be the notion that laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex would apply to "gender identity" or that gendered clubs (like sports) would now be required to no longer differentiate based on sex when that has clearly always been the purpose and meaning of their discrimination in the past.
2.) Since medical science cannot give someone a working body of the opposite sex it is more rational to live with the body you have than to mutilate it into an infertile and often asexual form.
3.) Psychological advise that focuses on shallow contrivance, physical appearance, and validation from others is suspect. For thousands of years saints, sages, gurus, and philosophers have correctly pointed out that man achieves satisfaction in himself only by seating his ego in the fortress of his own convictions and will; from which he cannot be forced by any suffering or threat.
4.) People in drag look like clowns to me. They have a right to do their thing, but I am not interested nor do I "get it".
5.) Children will inevitably be taught something, indoctrinated into something; but when any group with any agenda takes still controversial issue, by passes the general culture, and goes straight for the children they're basically confessing that what they're saying is so crazy that only children would accept it.
It's a temptation for many, certainly religions have long used this tactic.
The correct attitude is to teach children epistemology and logic before ethics and history. They should already be capable of identifying contradictions and asking relevant questions before any controversial (or rather logically fuzzy) topic is introduced.
There is no need to expose them to anything sexual before the age of puberty. Rather (again) their rational faculty should be grown as much as possible beforehand as that is the best preparation for anything confusing or emotionally taxing.
6.) The LGBT cultists who are exposing children to pornographic performances, assigning pornographic homework, deocrating classrooms with ideological symbology, and hiding this from parents are deeply in the wrong for several reasons. They could be harming the children (by inducing delusions of sexual deviancy or gender dysphoria), harming society (by producing acceptance zealots), and they most certainly are harming their own purported goals by making parents murderously enraged.
However, their goals are fairly clear if far from sufficient justification. There is no reason to suspect they are pedophiles.
Furthermore the continued smear of calling them that could result in a conflation that sees the normalization of pedophilia if the cult wins.
In other words team backlash is trying to put pedophiles in the LGBT boat because they think it will sink after they do that. Maybe, but if it still floats... now there are pedophiles in the boat.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In other words team backlash is trying to put pedophiles in the LGBT boat because they think it will sink after they do that. Maybe, but if it still floats... now there are pedophiles in the boat
Yes. People need to understand that if LGBT need to accept pedophiles to justify LGBT position, then LGBT will accept pedophiles to justify LGBT position.
LGBT is being pushed to go in that direction.
-->
@Best.Korea
The LGBT cult has no coherent principles, so there isn't really such a thing as them logically needing to do anything.
Take "Love is love" for example, shallow and meaningless. They certainly do not mean "Anytime someone claims to feel love then any related sexual behavior is acceptable".
I do not mind chicks with dicks. It is like best of both worlds.
-->
@ponikshiy
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢿⢿⠻⠛⣿⣿⣿⣽⡏⣿⣿⣟⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠙⠹⡾⢛⢷⠄⢀⢀⢀⠉⠁⠛⠁⢀⣿⣿⣿⣧⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣷⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢻⣿⣟⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣆⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣦⣄⡀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣠⣴⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⠿⠿⠋⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢿⡏⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⡏⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⢀⢀⣠⠯⠿⢿⣿⣤⢀⢀⠃⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⡇⢀⢀⠈⠉⠁⢀⢀⠈⣠⣴⣾⣿⡿⠛⠁⢀⢀⡄⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣷⠜⠁⢀⢀⠂⠘⠘⠙⠉⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⠉⢀⢷⣴⢀⢀
-->
@RationalMadman
I think that gender dysphoria should be treated like all other dysphorias (bulimia, general body dysmorphia, muscle dysmorphia, etc.) and considered a delusion that should be treated rather than something we should affirm. I find attempts at separating sex and gender typically end up with sexist stereotyping of the kind that the feminists of the mid-late 20th century marched against.
I also think that drag is inherently sexual, and that there very much is a grooming aspect. Look at, for example, Desmond is Amazing, a child "drag star" that essentially participates in non-nude stripping (which is already still recognized as pornographic and sexual in nature) in front of grown men. He would go on stage, put on a show where he removed clothes, as grown men watched, cheered, and threw money at him. Things like Drag Queen Story Hours are not innocent either, as an article written about the purpose of these events (Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood) even talks about how it is meant to get children to think in queer ways, introduce them to queer culture, and even says "We’re reading books while we read each other’s looks, and we’re leaving a trail of glitter that won’t ever come out of the carpet." If we are meant to take what Desmond is Amazing is doing as part of that culture, and it seems like we are, and that Drag Queen Story Hours are meant to get young minds to accept and possible enter into that culture, then that is grooming, no question about it.
I have said a lot on the subject here in the past, I have a lot more I could say, but I think that at this point that people are mostly entrenched in their sides, so question what point there is to rehash things in any sort of depth here.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
child "drag star" that essentially participates in non-nude stripping (which is already still recognized as pornographic and sexual in nature) in front of grown men.
Well, are you saying that child shouldnt do non-nude stripping in front of grown men?
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, are you saying that child shouldnt do non-nude stripping in front of grown men?
Obviously. Non-nude stripping is still inherently sexual and can easily lead to grooming, and thus children should not participate in any way.
Trans grooming is starting to turn against trans itself, with that against LGBT as a whole.
Apparently, the belief that children can choose their gender doesnt always prove to be correct.
Pandora's box being opened on this issue was predicted way back during the gay marriage debate. Noe of this celebration of perversion is any surprise to me. It was predicted. Now the term "minor attracted" is being replacing pedophile to normalize it and make it mainstream. You haven't seen anything yet. This is Mother Theresa shit compared to what's coming and what you will be forced to accept. I know that will never happen.
-->
@sadolite
Now the term "minor attracted" is being replacing pedophile
Pedophile is an ugly word.
Minor attracted person isnt an ugly word.
Lets look at these two sentences:
"Look at that pedophile over there"
"Look at that minor attracted person over there"
Sentence 1 is very insulting. Sentence 2 not so much.
LGBT started an ideology that says how people should be called the way they want to be called.
Minor attracted persons want to be called minor attracted persons.
Or map, if hard to remember.
-->
@RationalMadman
a close relative of mine who is cis, being totally pro trans and ignoring anything I say, saying I am brainwashed.
Cis is a slur, a made up word by a pedophile in the early nineties to give more credence to pedophilia and transgenderism (and transvestites).
-->
@Best.Korea
Variant spelling of paedo-, from Greek paido-, combining form of paid- (stem of paîs ) “child”
(Insert word) phile,
'Common common saying, of describing an individual engrossed in (Insert word).
People and their 'shifting about,
Or euphemism wheels, as PREZ-HILTON might say.
-->
@Lemming
@Best.Korea
People will take insult from anything if they're crazy enough. I think we're seeing that on full display with the pronoun stuff.
I don't care about that, but if given a choice as when there is confusion in the air I would prefer consistent patterns in language so far as possible.
"Homosexual" is pretty good as a term. Homologous + sexual. A more precise version would be homogendersexual.
Homophile would be a bad word, because philo is love (and not even sexual love which would be eros) and it is not about love it's about sex.
For the same reason pedophile and zoophile are bad words. What is meant is sex, not love.
Pedosexual, zoosexual, homosexual, bisexual. Compound words should give a clue as to what they mean.
Gay, lesbian, and map are subversive words. Gay used to be a flavor of happy. A word with good connotations. Lesbian is less dishonest, stemming from a questionable legend about a greek island, but again it was adopted to avoid the negative connotations of "homosexual".
MAP may be an accurate acronym, but the fact that it is spoken and spelled like a preexisting common word is more than a little suspicious and again the the avoidance of using "sex" in the word for a sexual orientation.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you agree that people should be called the way they want to be called?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There 'are words I can understand people not appreciating being used,
But I think such words apply more often to 'invented insults,
Than defining words 'used as insults.
. . . .
"Hey! Don't use gay as derogatory term."
- Pierce Hawthorne, Community
Though I still might use various words as insults in my own head, or with friends, or people I dislike.
Seems better to object to someone being insulted for what they are,
Than the word.
If what they are is not objectionable.
. . . . . . . .
Still, I see your point on the words gay and lesbian,
I've always assumed those two words were just used by people as descriptive of homosexuals.
Though I suppose maybe the movement embraced the words, over over time.
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you agree that people should be called the way they want to be called?
No, I thought I was clear on that.
Language manipulation and violence are not the means to resolve social conflict. Debate is. Debate requires concise definitions of useful and objectively evaluable concepts.
If someone finds a concept/category offensive that is neither here nor there. A definition/category/concept has implications which can be explored by argument. If the definition fits reality then so do the implication feelings be damned.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How rude.
-->
@Best.Korea
fdcayf
-->
@RationalMadman
Got the word from RM that he referencing me here so I'll make a quick comment so as to pinpoint my position
1. What I hold to philosophically
- Trans women cannot coherently adopt the label of "woman" without voiding the term of it's meaning - predicated essentially on the failure to answer the "what is a woman" question. The social roles, self ID and gender nihilism views all fail for various reasons.
- A woman is therefore an adult human female unequivocally.
- Don't really have an issue with drag queens - they're plenty of weird people who have the right to be weird. I would stand against drag queens invading libraries though, that seems to be a stretch.
- I wouldn't use the term "groomer" - it's sort of an implicit virtue signal, where one attempts to resonate the notion that they themselves are not groomers. Politics doesn't need anymore scathing labels than it already has.
2. If the belief is genuine
- I actually don't care about this issue in my real life at all. I know two transgender women and would say I'm friendly with them - we actually discuss philosophy and literature from time to time, all in good spirit. So I guess if someone wants to use the tu quoque fallacy, they could say that my beliefs are inconsistent with my actions.
- It's odd that RM accuses me of being slippery, perhaps alluding to the postulation that my beliefs are not legitimate. This is weird - I've DM'ed Oromagi, Whiteflame, Barney, Danielle, Ramshutu, Tejretics and TheWeakerEdge all for debates. That said, I'm not making a call out - some of these people were very nice about turning the offer down because of personal affairs which is perfectly understandable, but to say I'm unwilling to participate in a scrutinising of my position is weird.
-->
@Lemming
"Hey! Don't use gay as derogatory term."
Which is an example of where even subversion only works for a little while. After the term has been occupied for long enough the concept is rerouted to the new word and the dynamics continue as before.
You can sure cause a lot of confusion in the meantime which can disrupt the coherence of the opposition platform. This can be very useful since most beliefs in society have few apologists and many uncritical followers. If you review fascist or communist propaganda you'll see this semantic rewiring going on a lot. "Jewish" or "bourgeoisie" becomes a synonym for "bad", repeat it enough and random sheeple have a negative reaction to the mere mention of the word.
I look at it the same way I look at artillery. I can't deny it's a dangerous weapon, but it's something you use on your enemies not people you're trying to coexist with.
I really hope that doesn't happen for "man" or "woman" because I will never be able to forget the language I was raised in.
Seems better to object to someone being insulted for what they are,Than the word.If what they are is not objectionable.
Well I think we both know that when the context shows that the intention is insult calling someone what they are can be the most hurtful of all because it is true.
Yelling "Jew" at the end of a diatribe isn't offensive because it's false, but because the implication is that being a Jew is objectionable. Same for gay, homosexual, black, etc.. etc... I mean you've seen the acceptable term for black people shift like three times because of this.
I just noticed above that TWS is saying "cis" is a slur, and I've heard Tim Pool say the same I think.
You can't fix the fact that insults hurt, but we should stop ripping up our dictionaries because it's not helping.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
True.
Huge effort and thought is put into the transformation business.
And seemingly very little effort is put into the curing business.
Which would suggest that the former is perhaps far more lucrative.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I find attempts at separating sex and gender typically end up with sexist stereotyping of the kind that the feminists of the mid-late 20th century marched against.
I have an extended family member who around age 13 or so didn’t want to wear girl clothes and for a time decided she was “non-binary.” Fortunately she reverted before falling into the medicalization trap but you’re exactly right. You can be a female who wears pants lol. It’s terrifying to think that the wrong guidance counselor or psychiatrist or less aware parents could’ve set her down a path that led to sterilization and mutilation…because she didn’t want to wear dresses and fuss about her hair.
It’s completely fine to be a girl and wear pants or have short hair. You’re right that the entire thing relies on super strict and old fashioned gender roles and says that if you don’t fit into that then there’s something YOU need to change. It also has some really weird metaphysical element too, if you talk to these advocates it’s clear that their belief is in a non-material, pre-existing soul that can be male or female in character and can by some cosmic mistake end up in the wrong body. But they’ll never actually defend or articulate the theology here, it’s all implicit
As a barely related aside this is why a decent number (but not majority) of poor people vote Republican. Even though Democrats will give you more free stuff, them being in charge means you have to accept whatever bizarre social policy they are currently fixated on. You have to do what they want. Literally whatever they say! Which changes so quickly you won’t even know four years in advance what’s going to be forced on you!
I don't care what adults do but leave kids and athletes out of it