Is transgender a disease?

Rocinante wrote:words mean things, x. Language can be (and often is) a tool of oppression. I would debate you, but your flippant dismissal of real issues like "PATRIARCHY!!" and calling gender fluidity fantasy land show me that that effort would be wasted. There was a time that I was like "Dick = Man, Vagina = Woman" anything else is stupid. Then I began talking with people and thinking about what they said and holy shit, I changed my mind. Learning stuff and being open that you might be wrong helps us grow. Don't idolize rigid thinking people. In my experience, anyone who says they have the answer is usually a self-promoting douchecanoe.

I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, Roc. If I'm being flippant it's because I'm used to talking with trolls (everyone else has either left or has been banned).

So gender fluidity...

Do the chromosomes change, too?

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:words mean things, x. Language can be (and often is) a tool of oppression. I would debate you, but your flippant dismissal of real issues like "PATRIARCHY!!" and calling gender fluidity fantasy land show me that that effort would be wasted. There was a time that I was like "Dick = Man, Vagina = Woman" anything else is stupid. Then I began talking with people and thinking about what they said and holy shit, I changed my mind. Learning stuff and being open that you might be wrong helps us grow. Don't idolize rigid thinking people. In my experience, anyone who says they have the answer is usually a self-promoting douchecanoe.

I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, Roc. If I'm being flippant it's because I'm used to talking with trolls (everyone else has either left or has been banned).

So gender fluidity...

Do the chromosomes change, too?

Gender and sex are not the same thing.

P.S. This is flippant and I won't engage you anymore unless you want to have a discussion and not just prove your point.

X wrote:So gender fluidity...

Do the chromosomes change, too?

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, Roc. If I'm being flippant it's because I'm used to talking with trolls (everyone else has either left or has been banned).

So gender fluidity...

Do the chromosomes change, too?

Gender and sex are not the same thing.

So, I have to adjust my argument based on the concept of the day. I've spent the last week discussing this with these types on Reddit and was told they are the same thing and are both social constructs.

For example, that video I posted with Thaddeus Russell, explains that there is no difference.

So if you're not in that group but in the more conservative....'sex is the biology (science) and gender is the cultural (feelings)'... then we don't have too much to disagree with.

My whole point was it doesn't have any basis in science.

But I am still interested in how Jordan Peterson is not allowing other people the ability to define themselves.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Gender and sex are not the same thing.

So, I have to adjust my argument based on the concept of the day. I've spent the last week discussing this with these types on Reddit and was told they are the same thing and are both social constructs.

For example, that video I posted with Thaddeus Russell, explains that there is no difference.

So if you're not in that group but in the more conservative....'sex is the biology (science) and gender is the cultural (feelings)'... then we don't have too much to disagree with.

My whole point was it doesn't have any basis in science.

I highly doubt anyone who actually has any education of merit told you that sexual dimorphism was a social construct, X.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

So, I have to adjust my argument based on the concept of the day. I've spent the last week discussing this with these types on Reddit and was told they are the same thing and are both social constructs.

For example, that video I posted with Thaddeus Russell, explains that there is no difference.

So if you're not in that group but in the more conservative....'sex is the biology (science) and gender is the cultural (feelings)'... then we don't have too much to disagree with.

My whole point was it doesn't have any basis in science.

I highly doubt anyone who actually has any education of merit told you that sexual dimorphism was a social construct, X.

Usually it's those in women's studies.

xsanguine wrote:But I am still interested in how Jordan Peterson is not allowing other people the ability to define themselves.

I didn't say that. I said he's uncomfortable with letting people self-identify. He does not accept that some people do not feel that they fit within the binary genders. I think that's small-minded. I think telling someone that doesn't want to identify as with the gender that was assigned to them and all the baggage that puts on a person, that you are not going to listen to them and their unique story, and further shouting your closed minded, plug your ears, lalalalalalal! is oppressive. And there are segments of the population much more susceptible to oppression than white males. LGBTQ folks are one of those segments.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:But I am still interested in how Jordan Peterson is not allowing other people the ability to define themselves.

I didn't say that. I said he's uncomfortable with letting people self-identify. He does not accept that some people do not feel that they fit within the binary genders. I think that's small-minded. I think telling someone that doesn't want to identify as with the gender that was assigned to them and all the baggage that puts on a person, that you are not going to listen to them and their unique story, and further shouting your closed minded, plug your ears, lalalalalalal! is oppressive. And there are segments of the population much more susceptible to oppression than white males. LGBTQ folks are one of those segments.

That's not oppressive, Roc. Someone choosing not to refer to you as Xer or Zhe is not oppressing them. This is why Dr. Peterson has spoken up about this... because it goes from people wanting to define someone not wanting to play along as "oppressive" and then the university makes rules against "oppression" and then you're under the scope for being fired simply for not allowing himself to be forced to play along with something his field's research indicates is not healthy.

He's a clinical psychologist, he's been confronted with these ideas before.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I didn't say that. I said he's uncomfortable with letting people self-identify. He does not accept that some people do not feel that they fit within the binary genders. I think that's small-minded. I think telling someone that doesn't want to identify as with the gender that was assigned to them and all the baggage that puts on a person, that you are not going to listen to them and their unique story, and further shouting your closed minded, plug your ears, lalalalalalal! is oppressive. And there are segments of the population much more susceptible to oppression than white males. LGBTQ folks are one of those segments.

That's not oppressive, Roc. Someone choosing not to refer to you as Xer or Zhe is not oppressing them. This is why Dr. Peterson has spoken up about this... because it goes from people wanting to define someone not wanting to play along as "oppressive" and then the university makes rules against "oppression" and then you're under the scope for being fired simply for not allowing himself to be forced to play along with something his field's research indicates is not healthy.

He's a clinical psychologist, he's been confronted with these ideas before.

Here you go dismissing real life experience again as if you lived it and found that it's "no big deal." Again, words mean things. Language is how we paint our world. What's acceptable, what's not. Think about words and expressions that were in fashion in polite conversation until very recently. Fairy, Pansy, Queer. These words have power in that they illustrate the otherness of the person they are directed at. So too, does saying to a person who identifies as male, but was born female, that you refuse to call them by their preferred gender pronoun. It dismisses their entire life experience simply because they don't fit into your box. That is oppression. Especially when it is spoken from a position of authority. Think about some event in your life that is the most defining of who you are, then imagine people telling you it doesn't matter and refusing to even acknowledge it ever happened.

And I don't care if he's a clinical psychologist, Ben Carson is a Goddamn brain surgeon. Having an education does not inoculate you against bias.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That's not oppressive, Roc. Someone choosing not to refer to you as Xer or Zhe is not oppressing them. This is why Dr. Peterson has spoken up about this... because it goes from people wanting to define someone not wanting to play along as "oppressive" and then the university makes rules against "oppression" and then you're under the scope for being fired simply for not allowing himself to be forced to play along with something his field's research indicates is not healthy.

He's a clinical psychologist, he's been confronted with these ideas before.

Here you go dismissing real life experience again as if you lived it and found that it's "no big deal."  Again, words mean things.  Language is how we paint our world.  What's acceptable, what's not.  Think about words and expressions that were in fashion in polite conversation until very recently.  Fairy, Pansy, Queer.  These words have power in that they illustrate the otherness of the person they are directed at.  So too, does saying to a person who identifies as male, but was born female, that you refuse to call them by their preferred gender pronoun.  It dismisses their entire life experience simply because they don't fit into your box. That is oppression.  Especially when it is spoken from a position of authority.  Think about some event in your life that is the most defining of who you are, then imagine people telling you it doesn't matter and refusing to even acknowledge it ever happened.

And I don't care if he's a clinical psychologist, Ben Carson is a Goddamn brain surgeon.  Having an education does not inoculate you against bias.

So it's oppressive if I don't want to address a woman as "He"... but it's not oppressive of them to demand which pronouns I use? Why?

I'm seeing circular logic here. I'm required to address someone by certain pronouns because I don't know their "life experiences" and if I don't I'm oppressing them. But requiring me to refer to someone else by a pronoun despite my own life experiences isn't oppression?

It seems the science you're operating by is if someone wants to be seen and referred to as something that contradicts their biology... then you must submit to their whim, whatever it may be.

I don't know what to make of gender fluidity. I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person. I think that sort of behavior is indicative of mental illness, and I think indulging mental illness is generally agreed to be harmful.

I can buy a man feeling like a woman and always feeling like a woman and always having felt like a woman. Someone going back and forth on a whim seems entirely different to me.

Roc, I have a few questions for you. Are the people who "identify" as a different race or species just trolling? Do those people deserve to be taken as seriously as people who are gender fluid? Are those people (trans-race/trans-species) mentally ill?

Cameron wrote:I don't know what to make of gender fluidity. I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person. I think that sort of behavior is indicative of mental illness, and I think indulging mental illness is generally agreed to be harmful.

I can buy a man feeling like a woman and always feeling like a woman and always having felt like a woman. Someone going back and forth on a whim seems entirely different to me.

Roc, I have a few questions for you. Are the people who "identify" as a different race or species just trolling? Do those people deserve to be taken as seriously as people who are gender fluid? Are those people (trans-race/trans-species) mentally ill?

I think you are approaching the idea of gender fluidity incorrectly. Someone who is gender fluid doesn't say one day they are a man and the next a woman. Gender fluidity is more about not fitting into gender stereotypes, which are 100% a societal construct. Think about all the things we assume about someone based solely on their gender. It's mind boggling to think what it would be like if we simply ignored it.

As far as trans-species and trans-race people, I think this is something that some media grabs on to in order to dismiss all trans people. The numbers are probably nowhere near what social media makes it seem. Some people probably are mentally ill (in the same proportions as the general population), some probably are trolling, some are making a statement about society. I haven't really looked at trans race much, truthfully, but I do know people who identify more easily with the cultures of races other than the one they were born into. The only actual person who I know of that lives life as black but was born white is that lady that got all the shit for it.

Cameron wrote:I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person.

That's exactly what you're being asked to do... and you're not allowed to disagree with that assessment due to their subjective life experiences or elst you're a transphob. Which also mean you're oppressive. Which then means you're a Nazi....

And that's how we get the types of people that show up, in masks, to places like UC Berkeley to throw bottles, explosives, and pepper spray.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Here you go dismissing real life experience again as if you lived it and found that it's "no big deal."  Again, words mean things.  Language is how we paint our world.  What's acceptable, what's not.  Think about words and expressions that were in fashion in polite conversation until very recently.  Fairy, Pansy, Queer.  These words have power in that they illustrate the otherness of the person they are directed at.  So too, does saying to a person who identifies as male, but was born female, that you refuse to call them by their preferred gender pronoun.  It dismisses their entire life experience simply because they don't fit into your box. That is oppression.  Especially when it is spoken from a position of authority.  Think about some event in your life that is the most defining of who you are, then imagine people telling you it doesn't matter and refusing to even acknowledge it ever happened.

And I don't care if he's a clinical psychologist, Ben Carson is a Goddamn brain surgeon.  Having an education does not inoculate you against bias.

So it's oppressive if I don't want to address a woman as "He"... but it's not oppressive of them to demand which pronouns I use? Why?

I'm seeing circular logic here. I'm required to address someone by certain pronouns because I don't know their "life experiences" and if I don't I'm oppressing them. But requiring me to refer to someone else by a pronoun despite my own life experiences isn't oppression?

It seems the science you're operating by is if someone wants to be seen and referred to as something that contradicts their biology... then you must submit to their whim, whatever it may be.

No circular logic. Only one person unwilling to understand the meaning of privilege. You have the right to refer to a transgendered person however you want.

I have the right (and I think the responsibility) to call out bigotry when I see it. I think gender identity is the civil rights issue of the next generation. I'm all promoting gender neutral pronouns and just doing away with the idea of gender altogether.

Rocinante wrote: Gender fluidity is more about not fitting into gender stereotypes, which are 100% a societal construct. Think about all the things we assume about someone based solely on their gender. It's mind boggling to think what it would be like if we simply ignored it.

What do you assume about someone based on their gender?

xsanguine wrote:

Cameron wrote:I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person.

That's exactly what you're being asked to do... and you're not allowed to disagree with that assessment due to their subjective life experiences or elst you're a transphob. Which also mean you're oppressive. Which then means you're a Nazi....

And that's how we get the types of people that show up, in masks, to places like UC Berkeley to throw bottles, explosives, and pepper spray.

Wow. Slippery slope much?

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

So it's oppressive if I don't want to address a woman as "He"... but it's not oppressive of them to demand which pronouns I use? Why?

I'm seeing circular logic here. I'm required to address someone by certain pronouns because I don't know their "life experiences" and if I don't I'm oppressing them. But requiring me to refer to someone else by a pronoun despite my own life experiences isn't oppression?

It seems the science you're operating by is if someone wants to be seen and referred to as something that contradicts their biology... then you must submit to their whim, whatever it may be.

No circular logic. Only one person unwilling to understand the meaning of privilege. You have the right to refer to a transgendered person however you want.

I have the right (and I think the responsibility) to call out bigotry when I see it. I think gender identity is the civil rights issue of the next generation. I'm all promoting gender neutral pronouns and just doing away with the idea of gender altogether.

What rights are they denied?

How is referring to someone with a pronoun bigotry... but claiming someone else has privilege based on the color of their skin or gender not bigotry?

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That's exactly what you're being asked to do... and you're not allowed to disagree with that assessment due to their subjective life experiences or elst you're a transphob. Which also mean you're oppressive. Which then means you're a Nazi....

And that's how we get the types of people that show up, in masks, to places like UC Berkeley to throw bottles, explosives, and pepper spray.

Wow. Slippery slope much?

That's what I'm saying... and that's exactly what has happened.

I'm done with you, X. Your arguments, as usual, have no merit. You repeat yourself over and over and never progress beyond your initial premise, because in your mind, you are right and it's just a game of gotcha. Learn to debate better.

Rocinante wrote:I'm done with you, X.  Your arguments, as usual, have no merit.  You repeat yourself over and over and never progress beyond your initial premise, because in your mind, you are right and it's just a game of gotcha.  Learn to debate better.

You haven't provided anything other than...."They get to determine what is truth and fact because of their subjective life experiences and you have to play along or else you're a bigot."

I was expecting something of substance. You're argument boils down to binary doesn't exist because 0.3% of people feel like they were born into the wrong body. Instead of it being an anomaly, which would support psychologists' assessment that it's a psychological disorder, it's the norm.

Rocinante wrote:

Cameron wrote:I don't know what to make of gender fluidity. I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person. I think that sort of behavior is indicative of mental illness, and I think indulging mental illness is generally agreed to be harmful.

I can buy a man feeling like a woman and always feeling like a woman and always having felt like a woman. Someone going back and forth on a whim seems entirely different to me.

Roc, I have a few questions for you. Are the people who "identify" as a different race or species just trolling? Do those people deserve to be taken as seriously as people who are gender fluid? Are those people (trans-race/trans-species) mentally ill?

I think you are approaching the idea of gender fluidity incorrectly. Someone who is gender fluid doesn't say one day they are a man and the next a woman. Gender fluidity is more about not fitting into gender stereotypes, which are 100% a societal construct. Think about all the things we assume about someone based solely on their gender. It's mind boggling to think what it would be like if we simply ignored it.

When I google genderfluid, it kicks back as a definition "denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender." So I think I've got it mostly correct.

As far as trans-species and trans-race people, I think this is something that some media grabs on to in order to dismiss all trans people. The numbers are probably nowhere near what social media makes it seem. Some people probably are mentally ill (in the same proportions as the general population), some probably are trolling, some are making a statement about society. I haven't really looked at trans race much, truthfully, but I do know people who identify more easily with the cultures of races other than the one they were born into. The only actual person who I know of that lives life as black but was born white is that lady that got all the shit for it.

"The numbers are probably nowhere near what social media makes it seem. Some people probably are mentally ill (in the same proportions as the general population), some probably are trolling, some are making a statement about society."

From where I sit, that chunk of your post could pretty much all apply to transgender issues in almost equal measure.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I'm done with you, X.  Your arguments, as usual, have no merit.  You repeat yourself over and over and never progress beyond your initial premise, because in your mind, you are right and it's just a game of gotcha.  Learn to debate better.

You haven't provided anything other than...."They get to determine what is truth and fact because of their subjective life experiences and you have to play along or else you're a bigot."

I was expecting something of substance. You're argument boils down to binary doesn't exist because 0.3% of people feel like they were born into the wrong body. Instead of it being an anomaly, which would support psychologists' assessment that it's a psychological disorder, it's the norm.

That's an oversimplification of what I said that serves your self interest to not upend your worldview by reaching outside of your little box, and you know it.  You have considerable intellect.  It is a shame you don't have the courage to go where real challenging knowledge can take you.

Sorry Cam, I don't know you, so I didn't know you just wanted to be like X and prove a point instead of actually trying to learn something. It's cool, you guys can have your party without me.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

You haven't provided anything other than...."They get to determine what is truth and fact because of their subjective life experiences and you have to play along or else you're a bigot."

I was expecting something of substance. You're argument boils down to binary doesn't exist because 0.3% of people feel like they were born into the wrong body. Instead of it being an anomaly, which would support psychologists' assessment that it's a psychological disorder, it's the norm.

That's an oversimplification of what I said that serves your self interest to not upend your worldview by reaching outside of your little box, and you know it.  You have considerable intellect.  It is a shame you don't have the courage to go where real challenging knowledge can take you.

Sorry Cam, I don't know you, so I didn't know you just wanted to be like X and prove a point instead of actually trying to learn something. It's cool, you guys can have your party without me.

I want something other than "they feel this way... therefore you're wrong". So far this entire thing has been a cultural push, not a scientific one. Part of taking a scientific approach to things is to be skeptical. You haven't presented anything that quells that skepticism.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

You haven't provided anything other than...."They get to determine what is truth and fact because of their subjective life experiences and you have to play along or else you're a bigot."

I was expecting something of substance. You're argument boils down to binary doesn't exist because 0.3% of people feel like they were born into the wrong body. Instead of it being an anomaly, which would support psychologists' assessment that it's a psychological disorder, it's the norm.

That's an oversimplification of what I said that serves your self interest to not upend your worldview by reaching outside of your little box, and you know it.  You have considerable intellect.  It is a shame you don't have the courage to go where real challenging knowledge can take you.

Sorry Cam, I don't know you, so I didn't know you just wanted to be like X and prove a point instead of actually trying to learn something.  It's cool, you guys can have your party without me.

Oh, you're done with me now too? That was fast. I'm not opposed to learning something, but I wasn't aware that you were in a position to be teaching me. Are you closed to the possibility that you might learn something?

If you thought the definition google gave me was wrong, you could have cited some other definition. But I think your definition was inexact.

And if you can't agree that some transgender people are mentally ill, some are trolling, and some are making a statement about society, then we really don't have very much to say to each other anyway. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "in almost equal measure." I think fewer are trolling/making a statement about society than in the trans-race/trans-species set, and I think more are probably suffering from a legitimate mental illness.

Mark Green withdraws his nomination for Army secretary

When I google genderfluid, it kicks back as a definition "denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender." So I think I've got it mostly correct.

I'm fine with your google definition.  not "having a fixed gender" is not the same as waffling between male and female.  You're stuck in the binary construct.  You asked me a question.  I attempted to answer it in good faith that you were looking for an answer.  I see now you were not.  So yes.  I'm not going to argue the same thing on two fronts.

NigelUno wrote:Mark Green withdraws his nomination for Army secretary

You could tell the guy is a pussy. This isn't surprising

NigelUno wrote:Mark Green withdraws his nomination for Army secretary

Fucking liberal snowflakes.

Roc, this kind of reminds me of that debate we tried having about interracial crime... and you posted some stats that you thought proved your point but in fact proved the exact opposite, my point, and it took a few back and forth posts for you to admit the stats said what they actually said. Despite all of that, you proclaimed you didn't care and it didn't affect your opinion anyways. So I'm under no illusion that I stand a chance changing your opinion. You've demonstrated that is impossible.

So I'm aware that no matter what, you're dug into this and there is no way you could be wrong about it. I could very well be wrong... maybe they'll discover a 3rd chromosome or some other such thing.
And while I'm all for letting people do what they want to do and believe what they want to believe... I can only humor someone that identifies as a "door knob" or identifies as "love" for so long.
I have never done any research regarding climate change, but I trust the scientists that have done the research are right. It's the same way with gender dysphoria for me.

Okay man. I don't remember that conversation, but I'm sure you got me good.

Rocinante wrote:

When I google genderfluid, it kicks back as a definition "denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender." So I think I've got it mostly correct.

I'm fine with your google definition.  not "having a fixed gender" is not the same as waffling between male and female.  You're stuck in the binary construct.  You asked me a question.  I attempted to answer it in good faith that you were looking for an answer.  I see now you were not.  So yes.  I'm not going to argue the same thing on two fronts.

I didn't say waffling between male and female. I said alternately male or female or both or neither. I don't think that's an incorrect summation of gender fluidity, and you have done nothing to adequately demonstrate my description's shortcoming.

I was indeed seeking answers to my questions. You'll note that no sentence containing a question mark in that post uses the word genderfluid, nor seeks a definition of that term (as I'm fairly confident I have an adequate grasp of what it means). I asked 3 questions, I would say you more or less answered two of them (you didn't say whether trans-race/trans-species deserve to be taken as seriously as transgender, though I think I can surmise what your answer would be), albeit somewhat indirectly. I then responded to your response. That's how conversation works. You didn't like my response, evidently. Sorry to have disappointed you.

Rocinante wrote:Okay man. I don't remember that conversation, but I'm sure you got me good.

I'm sure you don't, I wouldn't want to remember that.

You made very similar claims that whites commit more violence against blacks than vice versa and then included some stats from the FBI. The problem is, the numbers were outrageously opposite and it took you several posts to finally admit it. And when you did admit it you said it didn't matter and didn't change your opinion.

I don't know what to make of gender fluidity. I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person. I think that sort of behavior is indicative of mental illness, and I think indulging mental illness is generally agreed to be harmful.

Here's your actual quote. As if not fitting in to the binary gender categorization is a choice. Yeah, people really WANT to be different and get harassed. It's their MOOD.

Come on dude. Both of you be intellectually honest, have some guts and say what's true: You have preconceived notions and you just want to solidify them by finding someone whose arguments you can break down as uninformed. Unfortunately you picked the wrong person, because I know what I'm talking about. I would have more respect for you if you'd just said from the beginning "transgendered people are sick fucks" and then we could argue from an honest place instead of you asking questions like you're legitimately interested in the answers and then coming up with bullshit arguments like a "third chromosome" or "trans-species".

Get over yourselves.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Okay man. I don't remember that conversation, but I'm sure you got me good.

I'm sure you don't, I wouldn't want to remember that.

You made very similar claims that whites commit more violence against blacks than vice versa and then included some stats from the FBI. The problem is, the numbers were outrageously opposite and it took you several posts to finally admit it. And when you did admit it you said it didn't matter and didn't change your opinion.

I'd have to go back and review the thread. I really don't remember but if I provided evidence that proved your point, I would have had a reason for it. It sounds like one of your prouder days.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'm sure you don't, I wouldn't want to remember that.

You made very similar claims that whites commit more violence against blacks than vice versa and then included some stats from the FBI. The problem is, the numbers were outrageously opposite and it took you several posts to finally admit it. And when you did admit it you said it didn't matter and didn't change your opinion.

I'd have to go back and review the thread.  I really don't remember but if I provided evidence that proved your point, I would have had a reason for it.  It sounds like one of your prouder days.

Your reason for it was that you thought the numbers were flipped and you misread the statistics. You argued the point as if the numbers said the opposite.

The point in bringing it up is that you've demonstrated that no amount of evidence, facts, and data will change your opinion because it's rooted in what you feel is right, not what actually is.

Similar to Dwags and Pylon with the Moldylocks hairy vag chick.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I'd have to go back and review the thread.  I really don't remember but if I provided evidence that proved your point, I would have had a reason for it.  It sounds like one of your prouder days.

Your reason for it was that you thought the numbers were flipped and you misread the statistics. You argued the point as if the numbers said the opposite.

The point in bringing it up is that you've demonstrated that no amount of evidence, facts, and data will change your opinion because it's rooted in what you feel is right, not what actually is.

Similar to Dwags and Pylon with the Moldylocks hairy vag chick.

Cool, well if you've got me all figured out, I wish you would just ignore me. Clearly I'm a sociopath who accuses other people of being what he is.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'm sure you don't, I wouldn't want to remember that.

You made very similar claims that whites commit more violence against blacks than vice versa and then included some stats from the FBI. The problem is, the numbers were outrageously opposite and it took you several posts to finally admit it. And when you did admit it you said it didn't matter and didn't change your opinion.

I'd have to go back and review the thread. I really don't remember but if I provided evidence that proved your point, I would have had a reason for it. It sounds like one of your prouder days.

It goes from amusing to concerning to "fuck it". Too big of a chip on the shoulder.

Rocinante wrote:

I don't know what to make of gender fluidity. I'm not willing to accept on virtually no information that someone feeling alternately like a man or a woman or both or neither depending on their mood is normal and there is nothing clinically wrong with such a person. I think that sort of behavior is indicative of mental illness, and I think indulging mental illness is generally agreed to be harmful.

Here's your actual quote. As if not fitting in to the binary gender categorization is a choice. Yeah, people really WANT to be different and get harassed. It's their MOOD.

I didn't say they wanted it. I didn't say it was a choice. I shouldn't have said mood, and I shouldn't have said whim after that. I don't know what causes their gender changes, so I shouldn't have ascribed it to anything at all. I should have been clearer that I understand that it probably isn't at all volitional in most cases.

Come on dude. Both of you be intellectually honest, have some guts and say what's true: You have preconceived notions and you just want to solidify them by finding someone whose arguments you can break down as uninformed.

I certainly have preconceived notions about this and virtually every other topic. Perhaps I'm delusional, but I don't think I'm the sort of person who seeks to solidify my own preconceived notions any more than anyone else, including you. You seem to have a preconceived notion that anyone discussing this topic who isn't already on your side has a certain set of preconceived notions. It's like preconceived notion inception or something.

Unfortunately you picked the wrong person, because I know what I'm talking about.

Do you? What is your basis for this self-confidence? What are your credentials? Because, frankly, I don't consider myself that well-informed on this topic and I think my definition of genderfluidity was more accurate than yours (albeit perhaps slightly patronizing/douchey in tone). What reason do I have to assume or accept that you know more than me about this topic?

I would have more respect for you if you'd just said from the beginning "transgendered people are sick fucks" and then we could argue from an honest place instead of you asking questions like you're legitimately interested in the answers and then coming up with bullshit arguments like a "third chromosome" or "trans-species".

I don't think transgender people are "sick fucks." I think it might well be the case that they are indeed mentally ill. I was legitimately interested in the answers to my questions because I've not discussed this with you before, so I don't know what you take seriously and what you don't. I asked about trans-race/trans-species, but I didn't invent either concept. And I didn't mention a third chromosome at all.

Get over yourselves.

You first.