Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm not sure I follow your train of thought?

And the decisions to allow trans people to go to the bathroom of their gender identity and to allows trans people to compete in sports as their gender identity are not comparable.

There are biological advantages males have over females in physicality down to their very bone structure, which sexual reassignment surgery and treatment can not change. I'm not 100% well-versed in the science, but if those advantages persist in trans women then no, frankly they should not be allowed to compete with cis women in physical sports. It simply is not fair to the cis women who are training as athletes to have to compete with someone who has an innate and frankly readily apparent advantage to their physical prowess that women as can't match. In theory anyway. I've never had enough of a horse in this race to do the research to see how true this is and frankly I don't care enough to. And a counterpoint that I've been buzzing in my head for the past two minutes concerning the athletic advantages of being biologically male is that people with huge athletic advantages due to their athletically superior genes (like Lance Armstrong and his big ass heart IIRC) are allowed to dominate their peers without any fuss. One counter I've considered is that the athletic disparity is not as large or insurmountable as the one between biological males and females, which doesn't really satisfy me because I honestly don't know if it's true. Another which I find a bit better is the argument that genetic anomalies like Lance are not "choices" like living and identifying as trans is, so there is less potential for abuse.

By comparison, cis women aren't forced into competition or anything like that by allowing trans women into their bathrooms. The argument made is that it is unsafe for cis women to let trans women in. If there is evidence for that I'd like to see it. 👆

Not challenging you specifically for that, just saying in general. 👆

But I don't care about the bathroom thing because I don't really understand what the argument is that discriminating along the lines of biological sex is evil, but it's admirable to discriminate along the lines of gender identity.

It'd be most logically consistent to not segregate bathrooms at all.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yes, no doubt, but how rare? I'm XY, you're XY but... have either of us had our cells examined to prove it? This woman/man married as a woman, she looked like a woman why would she think differently and who's to say the reverse isn't happening people who have the sexual organs and correct chromosomes for a woman or man are thinking like the opposite gender through gene expression?

I have my cells examined everyday by scientists from Newfoundland.

Is...is this not standard procedure? Cuz if not I've been lied to.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm not sure I follow your train of thought?

And the decisions to allow trans people to go to the bathroom of their gender identity and to allows trans people to compete in sports as their gender identity are not comparable.

There are biological advantages males have over females in physicality down to their very bone structure, which sexual reassignment surgery and treatment can not change. I'm not 100% well-versed in the science, but if those advantages persist in trans women then no, frankly they should not be allowed to compete with cis women in physical sports. It simply is not fair to the cis women who are training as athletes to have to compete with someone who has an innate and frankly readily apparent advantage to their physical prowess that women as can't match. In theory anyway. I've never had enough of a horse in this race to do the research to see how true this is and frankly I don't care enough to. And a counterpoint that I've been buzzing in my head for the past two minutes concerning the athletic advantages of being biologically male is that people with huge athletic advantages due to their athletically superior genes (like Lance Armstrong and his big ass heart IIRC) are allowed to dominate their peers without any fuss. One counter I've considered is that the athletic disparity is not as large or insurmountable as the one between biological males and females, which doesn't really satisfy me because I honestly don't know if it's true. Another which I find a bit better is the argument that genetic anomalies like Lance are not "choices" like living and identifying as trans is, so there is less potential for abuse.

By comparison, cis women aren't forced into competition or anything like that by allowing trans women into their bathrooms. The argument made is that it is unsafe for cis women to let trans women in. If there is evidence for that I'd like to see it. 👆

Not challenging you specifically for that, just saying in general. 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
I have my cells examined everyday by scientists from Newfoundland.

Is...is this not standard procedure? Cuz if not I've been lied to.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh don't get me wrong I don't view them as comparable. I take issue with the sports thing specifically for the reasons you mentioned.

But I don't care about the bathroom thing because I don't really understand what the argument is that discriminating along the lines of biological sex is evil, but it's admirable to discriminate along the lines of gender identity.

It'd be most logically consistent to not segregate bathrooms at all.

You're thinking too simply here, if I follow you correctly. It isn't a matter of segregating always = bad. It is a matter of whether or not the two issues carry comparable risk.

People who are proponents of allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their gender identity do so because they think the security risk it poses to cis women in particular is nonexistent or at least very minimal compared to the security risk of forcing them to use a bathroom based on their biological sex. At least, that is what I have been led to believe.

Now, if they are for segregating bathrooms based on gender identity, if it is because they think there is a notable security risk in letting men go to the same bathrooms as women, then they can be against it while still being logically consistent with allowing trans people to use restrooms based on their gender identity.

Of course, this could all be bullshit. There might be significant danger towards cis women by letting trans women use their restrooms, and their might be no danger towards allowing men and women to use the same restrooms. I don't know. But that's a separate issue from whether or not their internal logic is consistent.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
this is the thing you can make general assertations to gender advantages in sport, you can also make sport specific racial generalisations. Eg higher level of fast twitch muscles in west Indians of both sexes to their counterparts. Low heart stroke rate to people indigenous to mountainous regions worldwide. The switched off version of the myostatin gene is more prevalent in north western Europeans and Pacific islanders etc. There's a reason Alan Wells was the Last white 100 metres champion.

I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. My gut feeling tells me that allowing trans women to compete with cis women is wrong, but gut feelings aren't always correct.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Okay, I follow you here. But they aren't necessarily logically incompatible if one carries notable security risk and the other, apparently, does not.

You're thinking too simply here, if I follow you correctly. It isn't a matter of segregating always = bad. It is a matter of whether or not the two issues carry comparable risk.

People who are proponents of allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their gender identity do so because they think the security risk it poses to cis women in particular is nonexistent or at least very minimal compared to the security risk of forcing them to use a bathroom based on their biological sex. At least, that is what I have been led to believe.

Now, if they are for segregating bathrooms based on gender identity, if it is because they think there is a notable security risk in letting men go to the same bathrooms as women, then they can be against it while still being logically consistent with allowing trans people to use restrooms based on their gender identity.

Of course, this could all be bullshit. There might be significant danger towards cis women by letting trans women use their restrooms, and their might be no danger towards allowing men and women to use the same restrooms. I don't know. But that's a separate issue from whether or not their internal logic is consistent.

The problem I have with that is that a lot of the same people who claim it's transphobic to suggest transwomen could pose a danger to cis women are often the same people who would say men pose a danger to women and say that that isn't sexist.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Yeah that is true, racial disparities actually are a much better comparison because the difference between ethnicities is even more apparent appearance-wise than between trans and cis people.

I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. My gut feeling tells me that allowing trans women to compete with cis women is wrong, but gut feelings aren't always correct.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well and that's another level to it that could also be discussed.

The problem I have with that is that a lot of the same people who claim it's transphobic to suggest transwomen could pose a danger to cis women are often the same people who would say men pose a danger to women and say that that isn't sexist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well and that's another level to it that could also be discussed.

The problem I have with that is that a lot of the same people who claim it's transphobic to suggest transwomen could pose a danger to cis women are often the same people who would say men pose a danger to women and say that that isn't sexist.

If men actually do pose a danger to women it is not sexist. Do they?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Is it sexist if the latter has evidence? Is it not transphobic if you are suggesting the former without?

If men actually do pose a danger to women it is not sexist. Do they?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
OOOOOOH a very spicey trolling occurred.

YouTube video

Very excellent trolling by this guy, epic freak out, and the company actually doing the right thing at the end.

Wow, this was cringey (the screamer dude). There's a certain KMC poster that I highly suspect would react just like the SJW dude.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
how many black supremacists do you meet a week Surt?

I've met one in my entire life and he was a loser nobody that was stuck hopping job to job and he will never amount to anything.

That's how rare those types are.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Is it sexist if the latter has evidence? Is it not transphobic if you are suggesting the former without?

If men actually do pose a danger to women it is not sexist. Do they?

To admit such, is to believe there is something unique to men.

Not just in the danger they pose on a physical level, but in a "predisposition to violence".

A cornerstone of feminist philosophy seems to be (I say seems, because this is the commom rhetoric I've often heard, though I've never formerly studied feminism as a subject), is that you never say a woman is.

A woman is a homemaker. Wrong.

A woman is attracted to strong men. Wrong.

A woman is a liar. Again, wrong.

So as applies to men, we're not saying "this man" or "that man". We say "men are".

Men are dangerous. Men are violent. Men want to seduce women, at any cost. Men cheat. Men lie.

And men ARE all of these things, on an individual level. In terms of rhetoric, it does seem to be a double standard, if only one can be broad brushed.

I've met zero black supremacists and several white supremacists.

What is “black power” then and how is it different then “white power”

i've actually seen a few black supremacists in nyc. "the israelites", they're called. always very angry and yelling a lot, but i've never seen one pick a fight.
also they never seem to feel the need to bring along 300 buddypals with tiki torches to menace and provoke rioting, so at least they're not just pretending to have balls.

^hilarious

Black Power exists as a contrast to black powerlessness. In theory, the concept exists to "empower" a group, that collectively has had little.

Honestly, I have no problem with something like that. It's the associated militantism I don't care for.

"I am oppressed. Lets end this" is the intended message. Too many people seem to hear a "How's it feel to get the short end, you privileged douche?"

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
What is “black power” then and how is it different then “white power”

Dunno, never met a person chanting black power. Have met many legit neo nazis, though. Probably on account of living in Huntington Beach which has always been pretty known as being a hot bed for neo nazi **** bags.