All Things LGBTQ+ (6 Viewers)

[Farb]

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.

 

[Farb]

So you identify as an butt crevasse.

You must identify as a child
So my answer triggered you? Sorry.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm very familiar with it. I didn't think most educated adults needed evidence that the Iberian peninsula was known as Hispania, or that MX was in North America, or that the terms "hispanic" and "latino" were not created in the U.S. in the 1970's and 1990's. But I assumed too much... my bad.

Your desire to be right about everything is on full display. You're right. I am wrong. I will never speak on this again. Please accept my most humble and sincere apology.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That looks like a female to you? It doesn't. Public safety demands actual facts grounded in realty, not how someone with a mental disorder thinks of themselves.

Was the description of the person grounded in reality? Yes. Are you saying that the way the missing person identifies re: their gender is a more important descriptor than their physical appearance when it comes to making an accurate identification of based on physical appearance?

 

[coldseat]

You didn't answer mine either did you? Why?

Lol. I asked my question first based on a link that said that this person was a cis-gendered woman with a facial hair growth condition. I added that I didn't know if this was true o not, but that if it was true, how should they have labeled this person in their tweet. You never responded to my question in the two following post and then decide to throw in your silly hypothetical to contrast my more realistic question/hypothetical. Do you not see the problem here? Answer my question first and then I'll take a stab at your hypothetical if you still insist.

Because answering a hypothetical in an instance where it is not grounded in reality, solved what?

You do no even know if the link I provided is accurate and this person is an actual cis-gendered woman with a condition. You have provided no information that directly contracted the link other than "it has to be a man". The reason you don't want to answer it is clear.

This is a biological male that for some reason thinks he is a woman, despite not even going through any effort to even look feminine. So how is that good for the community to list him as a female on public announcement when you are asking the public's help in locating him?

More assumptions

Who does that actually help? Serious question. Who does this type of blind faith in gender theory that was developed a few decades ago by a child predator/groomer actually help? Does it help the trans community? Once a trans person is affirmed by society shouldn't the suicide rates go down? Have they? Trans people are more accepted now than EVER before. They are not only accepted, they are celebrated. Why are there still high rates of suicide?

Irrelevant

 

[SystemShock]

Your desire to be right about everything is on full display. You're right. I am wrong. I will never speak on this again. Please accept my most humble and sincere apology.

I don't have a desire to be right about everything. I think it is the other way around.

This whole thing started by me correcting this sentence:
"I'm guessing that you don't know that all the terms we use here in the US (Hispanic, Latino/Latina, and Latinx) where all created here in the US to describe and coalesce a group of immigrants from Caribbean, Central America and South America that speak Spanish. Hispanic came around in the '70's, Latino/Latina in the '90's"

But rather than say "I misspoke", I got a runaround from the poster trying to validate that statement.

Now you, by alluding to Hitchens' razor, putting the burden on me to prove something that should not require any proof for an educated adult, have implied that you think that the statement in question is true.

The funny part, coldseat posted an article from which I assume he got the information he posted. Then I went and read a bit, and it validates what I posted.

 

[coldseat]

I don't have a desire to be right about everything. I think it is the other way around.

This whole thing started by me correcting this sentence:
"I'm guessing that you don't know that all the terms we use here in the US (Hispanic, Latino/Latina, and Latinx) where all created here in the US to describe and coalesce a group of immigrants from Caribbean, Central America and South America that speak Spanish. Hispanic came around in the '70's, Latino/Latina in the '90's"

But rather than say "I misspoke", I got a runaround from the poster trying to validate that statement.

Now you, by alluding to Hitchens' razor, putting the burden on me to prove something that should not require any proof for an educated adult, have implied that you think that the statement in question is true.

The funny part, coldseat posted an article from which I assume he got the information he posted. Then I went and read a bit, and it validates what I posted.

I clarified what I meant by "created" in my first response to you. Perhaps a poor use of the word, but I made clear this is what I meant (from the article I posted):

“Here, in Chicago, you had a lot of use of Latin, so without the O, for a lot of the ’60s and ’70s, actually,” Rodríguez-Muñíz says. “I don’t know if that was actually in play in places like Los Angeles. And so we see a series of labels that are circulating, percolating, and then through the processes that Cristina Mora described [in her book], we see this consolidation around the category Hispanic. And around the same time, we’re starting to see people using Latino. At that point, it’s not very clear what the politics are – in terms of what the difference is of Hispanic – but the point that’s of interest here is that you do have a moment where people are grappling, for a lot of different reasons, with the label to capture this population. And after the 1980s, you see this kind of tug of war between Hispanic and Latino. But a decade before, people were using Latin or people were using Spanish-speaking or Spanish descent, that kind of thing. But those kind of fell out of favor after Hispanic and then, Latino came to the fore.”

 

[Farb]

Was the description of the person grounded in reality? Yes. Are you saying that the way the missing person identifies re: their gender is a more important descriptor than their physical appearance when it comes to making an accurate identification of based on physical appearance?

Yes. If you are looking for a person that looks like woman, call them a woman for the sake of public safety. What if they identified as black? Should they put out bullentin for a black female too?
Their physical appearance looks to be a male. Why call it a female? The only reason is to adhere to gender theory. A theory that was created by criminals.

 

[Farb]

Lol. I asked my question first based on a link that said that this person was a cis-gendered woman with a facial hair growth condition. I added that I didn't know if this was true o not, but that if it was true, how should they have labeled this person in their tweet. You never responded to my question in the two following post and then decide to throw in your silly hypothetical to contrast my more realistic question/hypothetical. Do you not see the problem here? Answer my question first and then I'll take a stab at your hypothetical if you still insist.



You do no even know if the link I provided is accurate and this person is an actual cis-gendered woman with a condition. You have provided no information that directly contracted the link other than "it has to be a man". The reason you don't want to answer it is clear.



More assumptions



Irrelevant

The most important aspect of this whole mass psychoses.

And, if you look through her neck beard hair, I think you can make out an adams apple so he appears to be a male.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't have a desire to be right about everything. I think it is the other way around.

This whole thing started by me correcting this sentence:
"I'm guessing that you don't know that all the terms we use here in the US (Hispanic, Latino/Latina, and Latinx) where all created here in the US to describe and coalesce a group of immigrants from Caribbean, Central America and South America that speak Spanish. Hispanic came around in the '70's, Latino/Latina in the '90's"

But rather than say "I misspoke", I got a runaround from the poster trying to validate that statement.

Now you, by alluding to Hitchens' razor, putting the burden on me to prove something that should not require any proof for an educated adult, have implied that you think that the statement in question is true.

The funny part, coldseat posted an article from which I assume he got the information he posted. Then I went and read a bit, and it validates what I posted.

You are right. I am wrong. Please accept my most sincere apology.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes. If you are looking for a person that looks like woman, call them a woman for the sake of public safety. What if they identified as black? Should they put out bullentin for a black female too?
Their physical appearance looks to be a male. Why call it a female? The only reason is to adhere to gender theory. A theory that was created by criminals.

Why use a gender-based identifier at all? Would it be better to just issue a physical description and (when possible) a picture?

 

[Saintamaniac]

So, I think you are right, the political leaders appear to be liars.

I never said the political leaders appear to be liars so you can't possibly think I'm right on that. I made a statement on habitual lying being a mental condition. Now, if you are saying that you think some political leaders are liars, then I completely agree. There are several examples of recent political leaders habitually lying, on camera and audio no less. Not unexpectedly, the vast majority of the liars caught on camera and recordings have been from the Republican party. It's seems that a good bit of Republicans lie on a regular basis.

 

[Farb]

Why use a gender-based identifier at all? Would it be better to just issue a physical description and (when possible) a picture?

you can literally cut the pool down by 50% by using a gender based identifier.

 

[Farb]

I never said the political leaders appear to be liars so you can't possibly think I'm right on that. I made a statement on habitual lying being a mental condition. Now, if you are saying that you think some political leaders are liars, then I completely agree. There are several examples of recent political leaders habitually lying, on camera and audio no less. Not unexpectedly, the vast majority of the liars caught on camera and recordings have been from the Republican party. It's seems that a good bit of Republicans lie on a regular basis.

Yep, I agree. I would say the vast majority of the republicans politicians are liars as well. I would also say the numbers are identical on the other side, but I have a feeling you won't agree to that.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

you can literally cut the pool down by 50% by using a gender based identifier.

Which they did. Accurately, too. Looks like we're in agreement, Farb.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Yep, I agree. I would say the vast majority of the republicans politicians are liars as well. I would also say the numbers are identical on the other side, but I have a feeling you won't agree to that.

I would agree to the extent of the number of democratic politicians that are caught lying on audio and video. But those numbers don't approach being equal.

 

[SystemShock]

Yes. If you are looking for a person that looks like woman, call them a woman for the sake of public safety. What if they identified as black? Should they put out bullentin for a black female too?

That's the Richard Dawkins Challenge

Their physical appearance looks to be a male. Why call it a female? The only reason is to adhere to gender theory. A theory that was created by criminals.

It's not even a theory.

 

[bird]

A theory that was created by criminals.

You know the policy on assertions.

 

[Saintamaniac]

You know the policy on assertions.

It's already been established that he will say anything with complete disregard of the truth. Pretty much anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.