Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

i.e. a biological female who identifies as a male.

What if there was an absence of evidence? Then your conservative outrage would be irrational. Like virtually all conservative outrages...

I don't have any "outrage," and certainly not "conservative" outrage. As between me and you, you are the more conservative, let's get that straight right now.

Now, let's also get the assertion straight - what I commented on was someone else's question - why are there gay men who won't date a woman just because she has a vagina? I wrote that "there is a point here - having a penis doesn't make one male anymore. Gender is fluid and a female body born person can be gender male. So, a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because that vagina-possessor may be a male...."

I made no assertion or contention that such people actually exist, nor did I express any outrage. All I said was that a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because a vagina-possessor may be a male. My question relates to the concept of a gay male not dating someone because they have a vagina. It's not limited to "trans" people.

It makes no fucking sense if it's not about trans people. That's why you had to append the "point" about trans people. If a person with a vagina identifies as a woman, the by DEFINITION a gay man is not going to date her.

Since the word "gay" in reference to a male means a person who is sexually attracted to other males, then typically that has implied a penis possessor dating or attracted to other penis-possessors. The point of the observation in the image I posted is to show that today, however, we're told we can't say who is male or female because of their biology. So, a person with tits and a vagina and XX chromosomes doesn't mean the person is female. That person could well be male, and we only know whether the person is male or female by their own identification as such.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the meme you posted, and is so trivially obvious to us here, that it beggars belief that even you could come up with this as an attempt at a cogent argument.

[Scot Dutchy]

Genderwise I am 80% female and a lesbian. Stuff that.

[rainbow]

So gender is a 'life-style choice' then?

Sometimes I get the feeling you believe your own irony.

That is an interesting question, once again, these days. On the one hand, the argument is that people are born the way they are, and then another argument goes that people "identify" as male or female, and that male and female doesn't necessarily mean "male" or "female" in the traditional senses of the words. That is, male doesn't mean doing male things or acting male. You can say "i'm gender male," even while conforming to traditional female gender roles and norms. That kind of thing.

So, in a sense, we're supposed to understand that people choose their genders, if they even have one ,as some people say they are non-gendered, gender fluid or some other characterization. But in another sense we're supposed say that whatever gender a person chooses to identify themselves as is the gender they were born as.

The 'problem' is easily solved by allowing people to self-identify, and cope with it.

I didn't say it was a "problem."

Then no point in getting your knickers in a twist about it.

[pErvinalia]

He's definitely not getting his knickers in twist. This is only the 673rd time he's posted about this stuff. Knicker twisting doesn't happen till about 700 posts.

[Forty Two]

because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

i.e. a biological female who identifies as a male.

What if there was an absence of evidence? Then your conservative outrage would be irrational. Like virtually all conservative outrages...

I don't have any "outrage," and certainly not "conservative" outrage. As between me and you, you are the more conservative, let's get that straight right now.

Now, let's also get the assertion straight - what I commented on was someone else's question - why are there gay men who won't date a woman just because she has a vagina? I wrote that "there is a point here - having a penis doesn't make one male anymore. Gender is fluid and a female body born person can be gender male. So, a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because that vagina-possessor may be a male...."

I made no assertion or contention that such people actually exist, nor did I express any outrage. All I said was that a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because a vagina-possessor may be a male. My question relates to the concept of a gay male not dating someone because they have a vagina. It's not limited to "trans" people.

It makes no fucking sense if it's not about trans people. That's why you had to append the "point" about trans people.

I used the terms transphobic and misogynistic.

If a person with a vagina identifies as a woman, the by DEFINITION a gay man is not going to date her.

Exactly the point made. By the same token, the gay male likely is not going suddenly be open to dating the female-body possessing person just because that person "identifies" as male. You think gay men suddenly like tits and pussy because the person that has the tits and the pussy says "I'm not really a woman, I'm a man - a gay man in a woman's body?"

Since the word "gay" in reference to a male means a person who is sexually attracted to other males, then typically that has implied a penis possessor dating or attracted to other penis-possessors. The point of the observation in the image I posted is to show that today, however, we're told we can't say who is male or female because of their biology. So, a person with tits and a vagina and XX chromosomes doesn't mean the person is female. That person could well be male, and we only know whether the person is male or female by their own identification as such.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the meme you posted, and is so trivially obvious to us here, that it beggars belief that even you could come up with this as an attempt at a cogent argument.

You misunderstand the meme, but that's typical of you. You're not very bright.

[Forty Two]

He's definitely not getting his knickers in twist. This is only the 673rd time he's posted about this stuff. Knicker twisting doesn't happen till about 700 posts.

My knickers are decidedly untwisted. It's you, eRvin, that typically gets all bunged up about these issues. It's why you get upset about them in your posts, and hound people who discuss these issues.

[pErvinalia]

"Hound"? I, along with pretty much everyone else, laugh at those (in reality, mainly you) who post about these issues.

[Forty Two]

"Hound"? I, along with pretty much everyone else, laugh at those (in reality, mainly you) who post about these issues.

That's because you're not very bright.

[Brian Peacock]

"Hound"? I, along with pretty much everyone else, laugh at those (in reality, mainly you) who post about these issues.

That's because you're not very bright.

Disagreeing with you is not a valid indicator of cognitive or intellectual capacity.

[pErvinalia]

It actually is. It's an inverse relationship.

[Forty Two]

"Hound"? I, along with pretty much everyone else, laugh at those (in reality, mainly you) who post about these issues.

That's because you're not very bright.

Disagreeing with you is not a valid indicator of cognitive or intellectual capacity.

I never said it was. I just accurately pointed out that pErvin is not very bright. That has nothing to do with mere disagreement being an indicator of anything.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Star Trek?

Sexist.

http://whatculture.com/tv/10-sexist-mom ... -star-trek

[Forty Two]

I was at EPCOT (part of Disney World) this past weekend, and I couldn't help but notice how so many people were flagrantly appropriating cultures. In the Mexico area, non-Mexicans were wearing sombreros and ponchos. At the Norway area, people were wearing viking horned helmets. In the Moroccan section, little girls were being dressed in faux traditional Arabic garb. I was shocked at the brazen cultural appropriation taking place.

[Svartalf]

Horned helmets is not cultural appropriation, vikings never wore them