Problematic Stuff

[Cunt]

@Cunt. I'm a pretty live-and-let-live kind of guy. I don't think people are going to be switching sex just to succeed in easier class of sport, well, other than the Iranian Women's soccer team of course, and anyone who does that deserves all the ridicule mustered against them. From what little I know of Megan Fox--only what I've picked up from Joe Rogan's podcast--she didn't trans to forward her career even if it may have given her some physical advantage. I don't see how it gives her a skills advantage, or a motivational advantage, or a stick-to-it-while-she's-being-kick-in-the-head advantage. Which is to say, her opponents are not automatically at a disadvantage just because she was born male.

You are incorrect. It is a HUGE advantage to have been born male.

If you have trouble seeing why, look at ANY physical competition in the Olympics, and see if the boys beat the girls regularly.

Fallon Fox is a woman, as you say. Even accepting that, she has had the advantage of male hormones (testosterone) throughout her formative years, which gives her more muscle, more bone density, and a host of other advantages.

You saying that it isn't a disadvantage sounds either ignorant of biology, or some kind of motivated lie.

If you want me to tell you whether she should be allowed to fight on the womens' card or not, all I'd say is that it's up to the sports governing body. You're still going to have to show me how acknowledging the status of transgendered is relevant to the example of Fallon Fox. Do you think that such a law encourages guys to get their dick's chopped off so they can beat women?

It DID. In the case of Fallon Fox.

She would not have been allowed to get into a ring and beat a woman, except for the 'transition'.

So, what's the alternative to letting children be who they are?

When it comes to this 'good criticism' of which you speak, well, I'm all ears. Have at it.

Why not tell me why gender, sexual preference or gender dysphoria should be anyone elses business?

Discrimination laws won't stop people being disgusted by anyone different than them. Just look at how some treat republicans here, even though the law forbids discrimination based on political affiliation.

I have heard good criticisms, and the best reasons to accept. I was asking you because I think you haven't sought out those criticisms. You confirmed that by not being able to provide an example.

Go listen to the other side. Whatever the issue. Hell, it's why I started listening to guys like Crowder. You should hear the 'quality criticisms' of him. Mostly, they aren't accurate, fair or reasonable.


Sean, you are saying insurance may go up - it will. When the companies aren't allowed to discriminate by gender, they will simply charge everyone the higher rate.

If they were giving women a lower rate due to fewer claims, that won't matter. The advantage women had (from having fewer insurance claims) which gave them lower rates, will be taken away.

Do you think anyone would change genders for other financial reasons? We have a lot of scholarships which are only available for women. Do you think anyone might take advantage there?

If someone can change their gender to access a scholarship, are they allowed to change it back after they finish their degree?

[Sean Hayden]

Yeah, so what? It seems to me that you've got some serious problems with perspective --I'm talking big problems.

How many people do you estimate will be willing and able to abuse the law so as to get a cheaper college education? Is it more than are able to abuse the systems in place now? Is it enough to threaten the stability of the system? Is it enough to justify denying some other benefit?

I'm always reminded in these conversations of Jesus and the goddamned swallowing a camel and choking on a fly shit. I don't care if I'm misusing that, it's a perfect saying in the way I'm using it. You'd swallow camels all day and die choking on the fly.

[Cunt]

Yeah, so what? It seems to me that you've got some serious problems with perspective --I'm talking big problems.

How many people do you estimate will be willing and able to abuse the law so as to get a cheaper college education? Is it more than are able to abuse the systems in place now? Is it enough to threaten the stability of the system? Is it enough to justify denying some other benefit?

It's enough to show that only the dishonest will take advantage.

Jordan Peterson often speaks in favour of equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcome)

I think equality of opportunity is just a way for rich people to pretend they aren't discriminating against poor people. Equality of opportunity still ends up with the rich taking most of everything.

Treating everyone the same, regardless of gender, strikes me as more 'fair' than any other system.

If you don't want to treat people differently based on gender, you don't need to know their gender. If you do want to discriminate, then you do need to know.

I'm always reminded in these conversations of Jesus and the goddamned swallowing a camel and choking on a fly shit. I don't care if I'm misusing that, it's a perfect saying in the way I'm using it. You'd swallow camels all day and die choking on the fly.

No, I am unwilling to create more and more divisions of people based on gender, sex, race or such. I think it's useless in pursuit of fair treatment.

[Sean Hayden]

Then say that. Don't burden the conversation with exaggerated problems. I'm sure I don't need to give examples of my government's use of that very tactic to support all kinds of abuses.

Anyway, I see the gender issue as one of acknowledgement. That's it. They get no special treatment from me. In nearly all circumstances I don't give a rat's ass about your gender.

[laklak]

Gender is an important consideration when dating someone. Unless I'm drinking, then who cares? Roll over and bite the pillow.

[Sean Hayden]

[Cunt]

Then say that. Don't burden the conversation with exaggerated problems. I'm sure I don't need to give examples of my government's use of that very tactic to support all kinds of abuses.

Anyway, I see the gender issue as one of acknowledgement. That's it. They get no special treatment from me. In nearly all circumstances I don't give a rat's ass about your gender.

Good thing you aren't in a position where you have to 'give a rat's ass'.

There are human rights laws to insist that you never discriminate against someone based on their gender expression. Nevermind how many genders there might be (no fixed number) or how you might choose to live (such as denying gender, and staying with sex)

You don't have to give a fuck, but the law is made for your kind of people. You will give a fuck when the government tells you to.

[Sean Hayden]

When the government tells me to? Is this more of your exaggerated problems? I'm stuck in a loop with you man. I think I know a way out--

--give me some credit.

[Brian Peacock]

STOP PRESS!! Dishonest people cheat. Pictures at eleven.

[pErvinalia]

You cant change gender at will. Once again Cunt you are being one. I think basically you are very uncomfortable at the thought what you see is not what you get.

You aren't understanding, Scot Dutchy.

Those ideal trans people you are describing are going to be as honest as you imagine them.

But when this law is available, I assure you people will abuse it.

Now, as to the law (in Canada) my understanding is that one only needs to decide to change, and their new choice is immediately protected under our Human Rights legislation.

How many people do you think are going to change just to fuck with you (or someone else)? Seriously, what a ridiculous view.

[pErvinalia]

I always adapt to the most rational view. If you can present a rational argument for the type of conservatism practised by the Republicans in the US, have at it.

How about this - people have the right to come to their own decisions about who they vote for.

Of course they do. But that has nothing to do with anything I've said, so I'm not sure of the relevance.

[pErvinalia]

Sean, you are saying insurance may go up - it will. When the companies aren't allowed to discriminate by gender, they will simply charge everyone the higher rate.

If they were giving women a lower rate due to fewer claims, that won't matter. The advantage women had (from having fewer insurance claims) which gave them lower rates, will be taken away.

Do you think anyone would change genders for other financial reasons? We have a lot of scholarships which are only available for women. Do you think anyone might take advantage there?

If someone can change their gender to access a scholarship, are they allowed to change it back after they finish their degree?

You're a scared old man aren't you? Inventing a whole host of hypotheticals to justify your fear of different people. It's sad.

[Hermit]

...the transgendered comprise a group that fells between the cracks...

Your argument is invalid because the transgendered fell through a crack.

[Hermit]

There are human rights laws to insist that you never discriminate against someone based on their gender expression.

Bill C-16 again? Do you even know what "gender expression" means? Hint: It has nothing to do with the use of personal pronouns.

[JimC]

It's such a silly straw man from Cunt. He fears that his personal expressions will be policed - no one is going to give a fuck about any individual's casual greeting. If there are any legal protections, I would imagine it would be to prevent institutions, government or otherwise, deliberately refusing (for right-wing ideological reasons) to recognise gender choice in any way whatsoever, and so imposing institutional level discrimination.