Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That's not fair at all. I didn't use the word "psychotic" once, nor did I mean to.
Fair enough. You did describe someone who believes something that isn't true, however. Someone who has the pyschological foundation that they are a woman, when they are actually a man, however.
The line "perfectly normal" is, I think, telling. There is a tendency (I've noticed) towards enforcing "normality" onto others, by both implicit and explicit rules. The eagerness to enforce those rules relies strongly on one's upbringing. I was raised to respect and embrace differences (among other things).
I suspect that your social environment put a much stronger emphasis on obedience (if not conformity). There is a fundamental difference (outlined in Lakoff's Don't think of an Elephant) between people that focus on obeying rules and people that focus on making good ones.
This is possible. However, I would consider myself far enough removed from childhood, and educated enough to have thought through most rules of social norms myself. I have adapted the ones i believe to be correct, and discarded those based on fear of the unknown. (speaking of which, i need to answer Autokrat...) I have almost 5 years (ohmigosh i need to graduate!!! 😘 ) of college experiences which have made me a more rounded person, I believe.
However, during all that time, I have continued to call a spade a spade. I believe, in cross-dressing, we are permitting ourselves to step off a slippery slope. I saw an article where a manager of a fast-food restaraunt was being sued for not hiring a cross-dresser. Not a gay man, mind you, but a drag queen. I have no problem with who someone actually is, but if we truly must embrace anything that a person believes themselves to be, we are headed down the wrong path, i do believe.
As the child said "The empourer has no clothes."
What I think is happening here is that you are seeing rules (social norms, etc.) being broken, while I see social norms that have outlived their usefulness. This was probably the same split that occurred over miscegenation laws (and their repeal).
beautiful word, "miscengenation" I had to look it up. Its mine now, and that makes me very happy. I believe there is a GIANT difference between the miscegenation laws and the need to respect someone who believes themselves to be something they are not.
Race is about respecting all persons as equal, something I obviously embrace. (oh, and sidebar, watch the play Take Me Out if ever you have the chance. I saw it last night before we have even ran tech week on it, and it still had an amazing cathartic experience for me)
What you are talking about is respecting WHOEVER a personsthinks they are, which is different entirely.
To me, it is asking too much of society to embrace this. Tell me something, what bathroom should a transgender person use? And tell me which sex should be okay with this? Do we need a transgender bathroom? And if we require that, will we need, as I was using before, a "horse person" bathroom?
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
theres no such thing as mes and womens clothing, there is only clothing.
Should I go on?
Differences are one thing. Delusions are something else. I repeat the horse question. I've no doubt you simply missed it before. If I were a horse, in my mind, would you embrace that difference, or would you try to get me medical help? I contend that attempting to get someone medical help when they believe something that is not true is not so much enforcing a rule, so much as helping a person. This may have something to do with our upbringing as well, though not in the same way i believe you were inferring. I was raised in a more scientific, facts are facts sort of environment. If someone did not embrace the facts, then yes, they were indeed, wrong. Someone who did not admit we landed on the moon was wrong, not a free thinker, for example. Do you watch LOST? if so, i can make examples out of made up characters! hooray!
In the case of your horseperson I would have to ask if you were capable of leading a healthy life, if you were capable of supporting yourself (rather than draining society) and if, based on the limited information available to me, you could be happier than you were as a horse. I would also have to ask myself if I was fit to judge the lifestyle you led, regardless of how you wound up there. If there was good to be done (in the eyes of those closest to you and those most qualified to make a decision) then it is certainly possible that you would be given "help." Deciding who gets to make the decision about what lifestyles need "help" and which do not is a touchy, difficult matter, one that I think is an important consideration in our discussion.
Homosexuality, be it by choice or by genetic destiny, is a facet of a person's identity. For the most part, homosexuals are individuals that are competent enough to decide their own destiny. If that means that they resist "treatment" for their genetics or continue their "choice" then I am not going to interfere; people should be allowed to live as they wish, so long as it does not harm others.
However, during all that time, I have continued to call a spade a spade. I believe, in cross-dressing, we are permitting ourselves to step off a slippery slope. I saw an article where a manager of a fast-food restaraunt was being sued for not hiring a cross-dresser. Not a gay man, mind you, but a drag queen. I have no problem with who someone actually is, but if we truly must embrace anything that a person believes themselves to be, we are headed down the wrong path, i do believe.
What you are talking about is respecting WHOEVER a personsthinks they are, which is different entirely.
I have to ask, would evidence that homosexuality (or any entry on the LGBT list) is genetically based change your assessment of what people really are, compared to what they "believe themselves to be?"
Originally posted by Autokrat
Except this is not an isolated incident but is instead an example of how homosexuals are discriminated against.
Cross-dressing and homosexuality are not the same thing.
And if you think this is an AMERICAN problem, you are out of your mind. Hello Eastern world where people face PRISON for this stuff. Hello China where they shut down GATHERINGS of people for being homo-sexual. Hello Africa where they EXECUTE homosexuals.
America is as progressive as any country on earth when it comes to homosexuals. NOTHING in the article you linked should make you ashamed of your country, and it sickens me of you when I discover that is the tact you decide to take.
Right, because discrimination like this has nothing to do with a particular set of verses in the Bible that have a negative view of cross-dressing and homosexuality. It also has nothing to do with why forty five states still don't allow same sex marriage, of course a few allow for "civil unions."Christianity is a frustrating and depressing aspect of American culture and lo and behold the side effects.
I'm calling your BS right here. Discrimination against sexuality stems from the Bible? BS my friend. BS. So why does China have discrimination against it? That country totally rules from the bible, right? Why is it illegal to the point of death in Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc?
In fact, Achminjinidab stood up and said his country doesn't have gay people, because his people have less mental problems than ours.
BS, yes? But that DUDE is obviously NOT ruling by the Bible. Find something else to hate Christianity over, but blaming the Bible is you trying to pick a fight.
Also, those against gay marriage do NOT base it on the Bible, but on a percieved (if imaginary) slight to their own marriage.
Fear the unknown? Hardly, I grew up in a religious environment. I used to be a devout Christian, so no, don't accuse me of fearing the unknown.I know very well how delusional religion is, because I lived it. I am very aware of the pluralistic aspects of religion. I didn't take Philosophy of Religion and several Religious Studies courses for no reason.
I'm willing to make the guess (and you may reject it out hand, because its easier) that you rejected religion BEFORE taking your classes to strengthen your arguments on why it was wrong. Even if so, rejecting something that is force-fed you in your formative years is hardly "knowing" something. I had lived in the same environment my entire life, but I hardly believe I know religion.
I neither fully embrace nor utterly deny religion at this point in my life, but I do know I refuse to pretend to have a full understanding of why people who do believe, beleive. I think anyone who acts like they know religion is either being dishonest to themselves, or simply arrogant. Especially in your TWENTIES man! Religious intolerance is ALSO discrimination, no matter HOW you look at it.
If religion kept to itself and did not in any involve itself in dictating social norms or policy, I wouldn't care about it. It does however get involved. Things like: stem cell research, same sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia are all matters that religion has tried to impose social norms on. A great too many people believe that faith is a valid reason to believe in anything and so they use their faith as a justification to impose social norms.
Stem cell research falls under abortion. Abortion, (which i have discussed at LENGTH) has NOTHING to do with religion. NOTHING. You try to make it religious, because it IS wrong to dictate legislation based on a faith based religion. For you to sit here though, and try to say opposition against abortion is christianity based makes me wonder if you are lying about your upbringing. The Bible, my friend, does not say a single word against abortion. Not. One. Word. Abortion, in my opinion, is wrong, because it is MURDER. I'm sorry if you have a problem with the bible speaking against murder, but THAT is as close as you will get to a religious argument against abortion.
However, you try to make it religious, as well as anything else that you don't like, so that you can (rightfully) dismiss it out of hand. If the argument WAS rooted in the Bible, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Your problem is, you truly can't say abortion debate stems from christianity. Or, which religion were you raised in?
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I do not watch LOST. I'm planning to wait (spoiler free thank you very much) until I can watch it all on DVD without any commercials. Also: waiting after a twist/cliffhanger is physically painful. That show would kill me.)In the case of your horseperson I would have to ask if you were capable of leading a healthy life, if you were capable of supporting yourself (rather than draining society) and if, based on the limited information available to me, you could be happier than you were as a horse. I would also have to ask myself if I was fit to judge the lifestyle you led, regardless of how you wound up there. If there was good to be done (in the eyes of those closest to you and those most qualified to make a decision) then it is certainly possible that you would be given "help." Deciding who gets to make the decision about what lifestyles need "help" and which do not is a touchy, difficult matter, one that I think is an important consideration in our discussion.
Homosexuality, be it by choice or by genetic destiny, is a facet of a person's identity. For the most part, homosexuals are individuals that are competent enough to decide their own destiny. If that means that they resist "treatment" for their genetics or continue their "choice" then I am not going to interfere; people should be allowed to live as they wish, so long as it does not harm others.
This example is one that illustrates hypersensitivity run amok, not wanton acceptance. The drag queen should live as (s)he sees fit, and the owner of the store should do the same. Those ideals may conflict. When that happens the goal should be to achieve a fair compromise. Which is difficult.
I have to ask, would evidence that homosexuality (or any entry on the LGBT list) is genetically based change your assessment of what people really are, compared to what they "believe themselves to be?"
Could you address the part about the drains on society of accepting each decision? I think my point about bathrooms was worth discussing anyway, because that sort of thing applies to so many situations. Then we can discuss it all at once.
I read this from you before posting Autokrat. I come from the exact same background, and can say the exact same thing about myself. I don't know how old you are now, but considering you are posting here, it can't be too old. You mentioned you are in college, so at best, you were religious for... 2 adult years? The rest of your religious life, you would have to have been considered a child who never sought out the truth for yourself, i'm guessing. I chose my words carefully when i said fear of the unknown.I'm willing to make the guess (and you may reject it out hand, because its easier) that you rejected religion BEFORE taking your classes to strengthen your arguments on why it was wrong. Even if so, rejecting something that is force-fed you in your formative years is hardly "knowing" something. I had lived in the same environment my entire life, but I hardly believe I know religion.
I neither fully embrace nor utterly deny religion at this point in my life, but I do know I refuse to pretend to have a full understanding of why people who do believe, beleive. I think anyone who acts like they know religion is either being dishonest to themselves, or simply arrogant. Especially in your TWENTIES man! Religious intolerance is ALSO discrimination, no matter HOW you look at it.
Stem cell research falls under abortion. Abortion, (which i have discussed at LENGTH) has NOTHING to do with religion. NOTHING. You try to make it religious, because it IS wrong to dictate legislation based on a faith based religion. For you to sit here though, and try to say opposition against abortion is christianity based makes me wonder if you are lying about your upbringing. The Bible, my friend, does not say a single word against abortion. Not. One. Word. Abortion, in my opinion, is wrong, because it is MURDER. I'm sorry if you have a problem with the bible speaking against murder, but THAT is as close as you will get to a religious argument against abortion.
However, you try to make it religious, as well as anything else that you don't like, so that you can (rightfully) dismiss it out of hand. If the argument WAS rooted in the Bible, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Your problem is, you truly can't say abortion debate stems from christianity. Or, which religion were you raised in?
Total pwnage. I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the typical argument brought by secularists and atheists. They act like they know what's in the bible, and what societal laws are based on it, then they act as if they're being objective. Well done TJ.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Which part was that? The part where I said drains on society should be helped (which looks a bit draconian, in retrospect), or the part where you said that accommodating them eats up scarce resources?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
[B]Uhuh. You're going to have to show me what you're wearing.
youd like that wouldnt you 😉
Like where? It's an actual distinction even if it isn't a universal distinction. The fact that there might be 1 or 2 exceptions doesn't make the distictions "relative". And I assume you mean Japan and/or China, where those things aren't really dresses.
meh, i was actually thinking along the lines of ireland (technically a kilt is not a skirt. but. cmon. semantics.)) but that works too.
but my point is not that there isnt a distinction period my point is that there is no universal all encompassing force that dictates this distinction. so to say "THIS is mens clothing and only men wear this and THAT is just the way it is and if you say otherwise than youre in the wrong" is ridiculous...
Originally posted by truejedi
http://www.jcpenney.com/jcp/default.aspx?&cm_mmc=Google-_-G_JCP_Official_Site-_-G_JCP_Official_Site-_-jcpenney&mscssid=607c65ffeae7a4c5da89ca7cd51a8baf1xMnVNoV5aGoxMnVNoV5aGW200B29AE33B2BE6E6A9698F3040717A0F36E1007201Should I go on?
relevance?
Ms. Marvel, did you watch the Sassy Gay Friend video yet? Fantastic stuff, i promise.
I'll even post it again:
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
youd like that wouldnt you 😉meh, i was actually thinking along the lines of ireland (technically a kilt is not a skirt. but. cmon. semantics.)) but that works too.
but my point is not that there isnt a distinction period my point is that there is no universal all encompassing force that dictates this distinction. so to say "THIS is mens clothing and only men wear this and THAT is just the way it is and if you say otherwise than youre in the wrong" is ridiculous...
I don't know what you think religious people believe, but it's NOT that God commands us to dress a certain way..
We as a society decide and therefore, women's clothing IS women's clothing and men's clothing IS men's clothing. There is no "just clothing."
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
[B]I don't know what you think religious people believe,
not all religious people think the same thing... i know thats not what you were implying but the way you worded that makes it seem that way haha.
We as a society decide and therefore, women's clothing IS women's clothing and men's clothing IS men's clothing. There is no "just clothing."
we as a society decide... so its relative.
because if it wasnt relative, then it wouldnt change so dramatically based on the time and the location. what is and what isnt clothing based upon who and when you ask is in fact pretty much the text book definition of "relative"...
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
not all religious people think the same thing... i know thats not what you were implying but the way you worded that makes it seem that way haha.we as a society decide... so its relative.
because if it wasnt relative, then it wouldnt change so dramatically based on the time and the location. what is and what isnt clothing based upon who and when you ask is in fact pretty much the text book definition of "relative"...
How has it changed in the last.... 500 years? I bet you can show me any dress/pants/piece of clothing and I can tell you definitively what it is. So while the specific style for each gender has changed, the distinctions haven't.