All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Farb

    Farb

    Mostly Peaceful Poster
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    6,610
    Reaction score
    2,233
    Age
    49
    Location
    Mobile
    Offline
    Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

    • The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
    • Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

    I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

    While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.
     
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    Which one is the real woman?

    1.
    Yoshi1.jpg




    2.
    jeen2.jpg
    Click to expand...

    Oh! I want to play!!

    Which one is the transgender woman?

    comp.png



    First of all, 2 pro tips: 1. change the names of your pics. 2. Do some editing so image lookups can't find them. Flipping them horizontally should do it.

    Second: speaking of editing... well...


    In any case, being dainty, and wearing heavy make up in a picture that's retouched, a woman does not make.
     
    Farb said:
    You don't foresee a problem going up and asking a Pat if it is male or female? No hurt feelings or victimhood in that? LOL. No mam, I don't think I will. I will go on visual context like mammals do and have done. Just because you are confused on what make a woman a woman doesn't mean I have to play along.
    Click to expand...
    So how do you propose policing your bathroom policies? If you won’t ask, and you certainly don’t get to peek at peoples’ genitals?

    Also, your conceit that I don’t know what a woman is, or what makes a woman is by far the stupidest stunt you have pulled on here.

    Don’t bother with a reply - I‘m done with this thread. You make zero sense, you want to strictly control who uses what bathroom but have no idea how to make that actually work.
     
    Pointing out, correctly, that trans people can be perceived to be the gender that matches their identity is a pertinent point when addressing arguments that inherently assume they can't.

    Responding to that by observing that other trans people's appearance may not match their identity misses the point. To show that visual determination can be unreliable it's only necessary to show that some trans people's appearance matches their identity.

    Not to mention that no-one is arguing that every trans persons' appearance matches their identity, because of course they're not. Literally no-one is claiming that a trans man just wakes up one day, says "I'm a man," and instantly grows a beard and a penis. Of course a trans man can look feminine, and vice versa, the extent varying depending on the individual and where they are in transition. That's not an insight. Observing that trans people have the characteristics that make them trans people is banal.
     
    SystemShock said:
    Oh! I want to play!!

    Which one is the transgender woman?

    comp.png



    First of all, 2 pro tips: 1. change the names of your pics. 2. Do some editing so image lookups can't find them. Flipping them horizontally should do it.

    Second: speaking of editing... well...


    In any case, being dainty, and wearing heavy make up in a picture that's retouched, a woman does not make.
    Click to expand...
    #1 is Joe Burrow
     
    MT15 said:
    So how do you propose policing your bathroom policies? If you won’t ask, and you certainly don’t get to peek at peoples’ genitals?

    Also, your conceit that I don’t know what a woman is, or what makes a woman is by far the stupidest stunt you have pulled on here.

    Don’t bother with a reply - I‘m done with this thread. You make zero sense, you want to strictly control who uses what bathroom but have no idea how to make that actually work.
    Click to expand...
    Do you know what a woman is? You have yet to give a definition.
     
    RobF said:
    Pointing out, correctly, that trans people can be perceived to be the gender that matches their identity is a pertinent point when addressing arguments that inherently assume they can't.

    Responding to that by observing that other trans people's appearance may not match their identity misses the point. To show that visual determination can be unreliable it's only necessary to show that some trans people's appearance matches their identity.

    Not to mention that no-one is arguing that every trans persons' appearance matches their identity, because of course they're not. Literally no-one is claiming that a trans man just wakes up one day, says "I'm a man," and instantly grows a beard and a penis. Of course a trans man can look feminine, and vice versa, the extent varying depending on the individual and where they are in transition. That's not an insight. Observing that trans people have the characteristics that make them trans people is banal.
    Click to expand...
    So, what makes a woman is only visual clues (which is usually social norms) and the feelings of the individual?
     
    RobF said:
    Pointing out, correctly, that trans people can be perceived to be the gender that matches their identity is a pertinent point when addressing arguments that inherently assume they can't.
    Click to expand...
    Can't have your cake...
    RobF said:
    Observing that trans people have the characteristics that make them trans people is banal.
    Click to expand...
    ... and eat it too.

    Instead of the Burrow and Goff pics, I was going to put pictures of Amanda Nunes and Timothée Chalamet side by side, asking "who is the man?" ... but thought it a bit edgy for the site. Yet, when you consider social and cultural norms past and present, Chalamet can only dream to become the man The Lioness is: Chalamet a dainty delicate flower, Nunes a ripped arse-kicking warrior who'll fight you until unconscious or dead. Still, Nunes is a female of the species and Chalamet is a male of the species.
     
    Farb said:
    So, what makes a woman is only visual clues (which is usually social norms) and the feelings of the individual?
    Click to expand...
    I'm not attempting to comprehensively define woman there - obviously - but if you're adding the notion that the social context in which we all exist and the complex social cues both visual and otherwise that we learn developing within that context are part of the perception of it to your otherwise crude and reductive "has female genitals" premise, that'd be something.
     
    RobF said:
    You're a smart guy,
    Click to expand...
    ... with all due respect, right?
    RobF said:
    so I know you understand the logic that "X is sometimes Y" is a refutation to "X is never Y", whereas "X is sometimes X" is not a counter-refutation to that really.
    Click to expand...
    Something about context... anyway, what I understand is that, when peaking of who something looks, you cannot say that pointing out x looks the part is important, then say that pointing out x doesn't look the part is banal.
     
    SystemShock said:
    ... with all due respect, right?
    Click to expand...
    No, that's the genuine impression I get from your posts. Usually, anyway
    SystemShock said:
    Something about context... anyway, what I understand is that, when peaking of who something looks, you cannot say that pointing out x looks the part is important, then say that pointing out x doesn't look the part is banal.
    Click to expand...
    Context is important. So is accuracy. I said that '"X is sometimes Y" is a refutation to "X is never Y", whereas "X is sometimes X" is not a counter-refutation to that'. That is, to put it in the terms you're using there, pointing out that X sometimes "looks the part" is a refutation to the notion that they never do. Whereas then pointing out that X sometimes "doesn't look the part" does nothing to change that. And it is a banal observation too.

    As for whether I can say that, I have done. Three times now. With reasoning and everything.
     
    RobF said:
    I'm not attempting to comprehensively define woman there - obviously - but if you're adding the notion that the social context in which we all exist and the complex social cues both visual and otherwise that we learn developing within that context are part of the perception of it to your otherwise crude and reductive "has female genitals" premise, that'd be something.
    Click to expand...
    That fact that acknowledging simple human biology is considered 'crude and reductive' show the sad state that this slide into insanity has made our society.
     
    Farb said:
    That fact that acknowledging simple human biology is considered 'crude and reductive' show the sad state that this slide into insanity has made our society.
    Click to expand...
    What's sad is that you consistently have to misrepresent everything. It's not recognising the existence of biology that's crude and reductive. It's reducing the entire notion of what it is to be a human man or woman down to nothing but that which is.
     
    RobF said:
    What's sad is that you consistently have to misrepresent everything. It's not recognising the existence of biology that's crude and reductive. It's reducing the entire notion of what it is to be a human man or woman down to nothing but that which is.
    Click to expand...
    Why do you consider that crude and reductive?

    Is there a 3rd option besides men and women that science doesn't know about yet? If not, then I wouldn't call it sad. I would call it reality and science. For example, where do all the humans come from or simply, can a man give birth to another human?
     
    Farb said:
    Why do you consider that crude and reductive?
    Click to expand...
    "But why is reducing the entire concept of what it is to be a human man or woman down to nothing but genitals crude and reductive? I don't understand!"

    Yeah, if you really need an explanation, I can't help you with that.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom