I started to have a discussion with my very liberal and gay brother about the ban on transgenders in the military and something came to mind.
When it comes to discussing global warming climate change, liberals are always quick to point out and cite "science" regarding this.
If a debate and/or discussion comes up regarding creationism vs. evolution, the main argument from the left is "science".
When it comes to transgender issues, they are quick to cite "feelings" or "identity" and basically ignore science. After all, when a person is born, science determines their gender not how they "feel".
I would love for some of our liberal friends on here to explain what the difference is.
I have a feeling you'll be waiting a while for an answer.
(07-26-2017, 05:12 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I started to have a discussion with my very liberal and gay brother about the ban on transgenders in the military and something came to mind.
When it comes to discussing global warming climate change, liberals are always quick to point out and cite "science" regarding this.
If a debate and/or discussion comes up regarding creationism vs. evolution, the main argument from the left is "science".
When it comes to transgender issues, they are quick to cite "feelings" or "identity" and basically ignore science. After all, when a person is born, science determines their gender not how they "feel".
I would love for some of our liberal friends on here to explain what the difference is.
Oh my...I can't wait to read this!
Seriously.
Leftists will speak out and be against creationism being taught in school because science says otherwise.
When it comes to global warming climate change, they say that science determines the need for taxes/regulation.
When it comes to transgender issues, it's all about how a person "feels" or "identifies" and has nothing to do with science.
After all, a person's DNA is determined at the moment of conception (science) and can never be changed.
Where is the difference here?
I know you don't want an actual answer. You just want your fellow altright friends to pat you on the back but here is my answer anyway: it's about trying to do the right thing. If a very large group of some of the smartest people we have say we should start making a change for future humans I am willing to hear them out because I know the world doesn't end after me. If someone has felt out of place in their own bodies and wants to do something about it to feel secure about themselves for the first time I believe they have that right. By believing in both of these things I am trying to do the right thing in my mind. Sometimes it's about having more empathy than trying to win a contest. Have a great day!
(07-26-2017, 05:12 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I started to have a discussion with my very liberal and gay brother about the ban on transgenders in the military and something came to mind.
When it comes to discussing global warming climate change, liberals are always quick to point out and cite "science" regarding this.
If a debate and/or discussion comes up regarding creationism vs. evolution, the main argument from the left is "science".
When it comes to transgender issues, they are quick to cite "feelings" or "identity" and basically ignore science. After all, when a person is born, science determines their gender not how they "feel".
I would love for some of our liberal friends on here to explain what the difference is.
My relation to the term "liberal" ends at the "liber" part, but I'll take a stab at this anyway because I know I'm considerably left of you in these matters.
There is sound scientific data showing that the earth is warming, there's a hole in the ozone layer, greenhouse gases are contributing to it and that climate is changing. There is sound scientific evidence in the form of a fossil record that goes back millions of years indicating that life, as it is today, is not as it always was. These are both topics up for debate.
If a sister of mine were to walk up to me and say, "T.J., I'm a man," what scientific data could I possibly pull out to convince them that they are not who they believe they are? And what decent human being would dehumanize someone like that?
That's the difference for me. Two of your examples deal with impersonal things, with no attachments or feelings intrinsic to them. Your third example involves weighing the value of a person against the value of a book. I don't necessarily agree with the concept of transgender, but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. You can prove climate change, evolution and creationism to some extent. You can't prove that a person born with a penis who is otherwise mentally sound is not actually wired as a woman.
Or, in my case, an attack helicopter.
(07-26-2017, 08:23 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2017, 05:12 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I started to have a discussion with my very liberal and gay brother about the ban on transgenders in the military and something came to mind.
When it comes to discussing global warming climate change, liberals are always quick to point out and cite "science" regarding this.
If a debate and/or discussion comes up regarding creationism vs. evolution, the main argument from the left is "science".
When it comes to transgender issues, they are quick to cite "feelings" or "identity" and basically ignore science. After all, when a person is born, science determines their gender not how they "feel".
I would love for some of our liberal friends on here to explain what the difference is.
My relation to the term "liberal" ends at the "liber" part, but I'll take a stab at this anyway because I know I'm considerably left of you in these matters.
There is sound scientific data showing that the earth is warming, there's a hole in the ozone layer, greenhouse gases are contributing to it and that climate is changing. There is sound scientific evidence in the form of a fossil record that goes back millions of years indicating that life, as it is today, is not as it always was. These are both topics up for debate.
If a sister of mine were to walk up to me and say, "T.J., I'm a man," what scientific data could I possibly pull out to convince them that they are not who they believe they are? And what decent human being would dehumanize someone like that?
That's the difference for me. Two of your examples deal with impersonal things, with no attachments or feelings intrinsic to them. Your third example involves weighing the value of a person against the value of a book. I don't necessarily agree with the concept of transgender, but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. You can prove climate change, evolution and creationism to some extent. You can't prove that a person born with a penis who is otherwise mentally sound is not actually wired as a woman.
Or, in my case, an attack helicopter.
ok what defines a man and what defines a woman?Pretty sure if you gots ya a natural winkie between your legs you are classified as a man...If ya gots ya a natural woo hoo between your legs you are classified as a woman...Its really easy to prove gender...maybe someone doesn't feel like a man, but if he has a natural winkie he is a man even if he doesnt feel like it...Gender is not about what you feel like, its what parts ya got naturally...
(07-26-2017, 08:36 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2017, 08:23 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]My relation to the term "liberal" ends at the "liber" part, but I'll take a stab at this anyway because I know I'm considerably left of you in these matters.
There is sound scientific data showing that the earth is warming, there's a hole in the ozone layer, greenhouse gases are contributing to it and that climate is changing. There is sound scientific evidence in the form of a fossil record that goes back millions of years indicating that life, as it is today, is not as it always was. These are both topics up for debate.
If a sister of mine were to walk up to me and say, "T.J., I'm a man," what scientific data could I possibly pull out to convince them that they are not who they believe they are? And what decent human being would dehumanize someone like that?
That's the difference for me. Two of your examples deal with impersonal things, with no attachments or feelings intrinsic to them. Your third example involves weighing the value of a person against the value of a book. I don't necessarily agree with the concept of transgender, but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. You can prove climate change, evolution and creationism to some extent. You can't prove that a person born with a penis who is otherwise mentally sound is not actually wired as a woman.
Or, in my case, an attack helicopter.
ok what defines a man and what defines a woman?Pretty sure if you gots ya a natural winkie between your legs you are classified as a man...If ya gots ya a natural woo hoo between your legs you are classified as a woman...Its really easy to prove gender...maybe someone doesn't feel like a man, but if he has a natural winkie he is a man even if he doesnt feel like it...Gender is not about what you feel like, its what parts ya got naturally...
But what if the parts down there don't match up with the chromosome or the brain chemistry? There's a lot we don't yet know about how the human brain works, and it's possible that brain chemistry has as much to do with gender as the downstairs equipment does.
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the concept of transgender, but I won't discount it either. That's my sniff test on that one. If my brother walked up to me and said that the climate is not changing, I'd laugh in his face and point him to all the proof that it is--and the studies which suggest that we don't know exactly how much of that change is manmade vs. natural yet. If he walked up and said that the world simply popped into being as-is 6,000 years ago, I'd collapse on the floor crying with laughter. If he walked in and told me in all sincerity that he is a woman, I couldn't laugh that off and I couldn't find it in myself to dismiss him or tell him he was wrong. The person gets the benefit of the doubt.
(07-26-2017, 08:49 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2017, 08:36 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]ok what defines a man and what defines a woman?Pretty sure if you gots ya a natural winkie between your legs you are classified as a man...If ya gots ya a natural woo hoo between your legs you are classified as a woman...Its really easy to prove gender...maybe someone doesn't feel like a man, but if he has a natural winkie he is a man even if he doesnt feel like it...Gender is not about what you feel like, its what parts ya got naturally...
But what if the parts down there don't match up with the chromosome or the brain chemistry? There's a lot we don't yet know about how the human brain works, and it's possible that brain chemistry has as much to do with gender as the downstairs equipment does.
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the concept of transgender, but I won't discount it either. That's my sniff test on that one. If my brother walked up to me and said that the climate is not changing, I'd laugh in his face and point him to all the proof that it is--and the studies which suggest that we don't know exactly how much of that change is manmade vs. natural yet. If he walked up and said that the world simply popped into being as-is 6,000 years ago, I'd collapse on the floor crying with laughter. If he walked in and told me in all sincerity that he is a woman, I couldn't laugh that off and I couldn't find it in myself to dismiss him or tell him he was wrong. The person gets the benefit of the doubt.
yeah the only way that would happen is if someone tried to pick something different for you at birth. For instance, my parents had a friend who was a doctor dealing with kids from china. Basically these children would have birth defects in the genitalia and she would tell the parents that 'so and so is genetically a boy, but he doesn't have enough material down there for a penis, we should give him hormones and let him live as a girl'. Yeah if that situation happened I could see how you would be screwed up. But that is not even close to the majority of trans. Almost all of them started life out with all the equipment and no doctors interference.
If your sister decides she wants to be a man, and she didn't have the above happen, then its not a genetic or scientific reason. Epigenic maybe (BPH is indicated as something that can cause this), but not just 'born that way.'
(07-26-2017, 08:49 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (07-26-2017, 08:36 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]ok what defines a man and what defines a woman?Pretty sure if you gots ya a natural winkie between your legs you are classified as a man...If ya gots ya a natural woo hoo between your legs you are classified as a woman...Its really easy to prove gender...maybe someone doesn't feel like a man, but if he has a natural winkie he is a man even if he doesnt feel like it...Gender is not about what you feel like, its what parts ya got naturally...
But what if the parts down there don't match up with the chromosome or the brain chemistry? There's a lot we don't yet know about how the human brain works, and it's possible that brain chemistry has as much to do with gender as the downstairs equipment does.
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the concept of transgender, but I won't discount it either. That's my sniff test on that one. If my brother walked up to me and said that the climate is not changing, I'd laugh in his face and point him to all the proof that it is--and the studies which suggest that we don't know exactly how much of that change is manmade vs. natural yet. If he walked up and said that the world simply popped into being as-is 6,000 years ago, I'd collapse on the floor crying with laughter. If he walked in and told me in all sincerity that he is a woman, I couldn't laugh that off and I couldn't find it in myself to dismiss him or tell him he was wrong. The person gets the benefit of the doubt.
well if my brother came to me and said he doesnt feel like he's a man, I would kick him in the nuts and ask if he did now...Look, women dont have penises, they just dont, not naturally anyway and men dont have va jay jays naturally...things happen in the brain sure...there are kinds of mental disorders, and I'm not going to say gays or trannys have a mental disorder, but again...gender isnt about feelings
It's simple...gender identity has nothing to do with genitalia.
And science supports the reality that transgenders are acting normally, and it's not a mental disorder.
What if I don't care, will I still be made to?
(07-26-2017, 11:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What if I don't care, will I still be made to?
Of course
(07-26-2017, 11:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What if I don't care, will I still be made to?
Not in my world, but we both know that my world will never be a reality.
Unless people like you vote for me.
Gender dysphoria aka Gender identity disorder, is a mental health disorder. The diagnostic code is ICD-10-CM F64.9.
(07-27-2017, 09:10 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Gender dysphoria aka Gender identity disorder, is a mental health disorder. The diagnostic code is ICD-10-CM F64.9.
Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until 1973. It's not, really, but it wasn't understood, so it was lumped in with schizophrenia and psychosis for a while there.
Just saying, not everything listed in the DSM is actually a disorder. Most stuff is, some stuff is just in there because we don't understand it yet.
(07-26-2017, 05:12 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I started to have a discussion with my very liberal and gay brother about the ban on transgenders in the military and something came to mind.
When it comes to discussing global warming climate change, liberals are always quick to point out and cite "science" regarding this.
If a debate and/or discussion comes up regarding creationism vs. evolution, the main argument from the left is "science".
When it comes to transgender issues, they are quick to cite "feelings" or "identity" and basically ignore science. After all, when a person is born, science determines their gender not how they "feel".
I would love for some of our liberal friends on here to explain what the difference is.
I don't understand why you are attempting to tie the 3 subject matters together?
... unless I'm missing something like Adam (Eve's boyfriend) got a boob job and the silicon is now adversely impacting the ozone layer, I don't see how you can group climate change, evolution, and transgenders into a single grouping.
.