All Things LGBTQ+ (13 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.

 

[brandon]

No.

Then what?

 

[Snarky Sack]

It hasn't sailed. You can still take a few days to read without interjecting. As for sources, I see them used all the time. You either dismiss them outright or you ignore them. Maybe if you stopped responding to everything, as I suggested, you would see them.

I could, but I don't think I'd learn much more than I know now. For example, I've noticed that there is very little posting of sources for claims, but you say there is. That makes me realize that I must be comparing this board to another board that I'm on in which you will be challenged immediately if you post an unsupported claim, so most of them support their claims upfront.

It is a much less homogeneous board than this.

Anyway, point is that I came to that realization while participating on this board. I'm a multi-tasker. Sitting and saying "doop de doop doop," while reading nearly all of you simply agreeing with each other would bore me to tears.

I know that your and BT15's efforts to fix me are sincerely motivated and I appreciate them.

I didn't say that at all. Your reading comprehension is terrible. I said it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with someone's pronouns, you still have the choice to either be a decent person and use them or be a dick and ignore them. You can disagree internally and still use someone's preferred pronouns.

I believe that I have explained that that I do that in most cases.

Since you posted the video of the guy in Target...

Target’s Pride collection features ‘tuck-friendly’ swimsuits for adults, not kids

Target’s seasonal collection of clothes for Pride month collection has been the subject of several misleading videos in recent weeks, with social media users claiming the retailer is selling “tuck-friendly” bathing suits designed for kids or in kids’ sizes.

apnews.com

Target's 'tuck-friendly' swimsuit is made for adults, not kids | Fact check

The swimsuit is marketed and sized for adults, not children. None of the kids' swimsuits in the Pride section are labeled as "tuck-friendly."

www.usatoday.com

Fox repeatedly pushed the bogus claim that Target’s Pride Month collection included “tuck-friendly” swimsuits for children after it was debunked

www.mediamatters.org

I believe I already acknowledged that the Target tuck-friendly swimsuits are not "targeted" at children. Praise Allah for small favors. Much of the transgenderization movement is targeted at children. I may go buy that twelve pack of Bud Lite from them myself to say thanks.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Then what?

Thank you! From now one when someone tries to put words in my mouth, I'll just say "no." Pleasantly surprised that you picked up on it and made the question open-ended.

I don't want them to have to go against their belief that they should not use pronouns that do not match the person's biological sex.

 

[brandon]

I could, but I don't think I'd learn much more than I know now. For example, I've noticed that there is very little posting of sources for claims, but you say there is. That makes me realize that I must be comparing this board to another board that I'm on in which you will be challenged immediately if you post an unsupported claim, so most of them support their claims upfront.

I’d say for the most part you’ve been making the claims, and we’ve been refuting them. I know I’ve linked at least one article when discussing with you.

I will admit that many of my refutations have been largely unsourced, but that is because my refutations have been based on pointing out your logical errors, or the weakness in your own sourcing, rather than making claims myself that required sourcing.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Depends who I'm talking to. With the student, I say "Hi Bob," not "Hi Bobi" (not the real names), and he/him. When I talked to the teachers on my campus about the student, I called the student "the student." I was trying to persuade, not force. When I talk to a counselor or the behavior specialist who first told me about the student, I used "they/them."

I hope the teachers use Bob's preferred pronouns, but I would be appalled if they were required to do so against their beliefs.

I ask because you refer to him as "her" in this post.

I find it curious that you use the proper pronouns with this student because you know the negative impact that misgendering can have on a person, yet in other posts you think it's perfectly fine to do so.

 

[brandon]

I don't want them to have to go against their belief that they should not use pronouns that do not match the person's biological sex.

What if they have no basis for holding that belief other than bigotry? For example, there is obviously no such prohibition in the Bible for Christians.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I’d say for the most part you’ve been making the claims, and we’ve been refuting them. I know I’ve linked at least one article when discussing with you.

True about you.

I will admit that many of my refutations have been largely unsourced, but that is because my refutations have been based on pointing out your logical errors, or the weakness in your own sourcing, rather than making claims myself that required sourcing.

True about you.

From many other posters on here, I mainly see phrases like "I remember reading somewhere," often when two other posters are discussing an assertion of mine. I've just started going along with it, if it isn't obviously ridiculous and easily refuted by a source.

Last time I'll mention my other forum, because I know how annoying that can be. On my other forum, "I remember reading somewhere" would be mocked into oblivion and the ideological fellows of that poster would not defend it.

 

[brandon]

On my other forum, "I remember reading somewhere" would be mocked into oblivion and the ideological fellows of that poster would not defend it.

For what it’s worth, I would expect here if you asked for someone to cite a source in that instance, they would generally make that effort.

 

[Snarky Sack]

What if they have no basis for holding that belief other than bigotry? For example, there is obviously no such prohibition in the Bible for Christians.

How would I know that? About the bigotry, I mean. How do I read a person's mind and say, ''oh, you're just a bigot?"

Many people apply the term "bigot" to mean "disagrees with me."

As to the bible:

Not saying I agree with that, only that it is indeed in the bible.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I could, but I don't think I'd learn much more than I know now. For example, I've noticed that there is very little posting of sources for claims, but you say there is. That makes me realize that I must be comparing this board to another board that I'm on in which you will be challenged immediately if you post an unsupported claim, so most of them support their claims upfront.

This is an outright lie. I've posted plenty of links refuting your claims, and you have not replied to a single one. I know of at least one instance where you made a claim, I asked for proof, and someone else had to provide something refuting your unsourced claim. If you want to ignore the links provided, that's on you, but you don't get to just make up your own reality.

It is a much less homogeneous board than this.

Anyway, point is that I came to that realization while participating on this board. I'm a multi-tasker. Sitting and saying "doop de doop doop," while reading nearly all of you simply agreeing with each other would bore me to tears.

I know that your and BT15's efforts to fix me are sincerely motivated and I appreciate them.

It comes from a desire to have an honest conversation and it is becoming rapidly clear that it might be an impossible task to drag you into one.

I believe that I have explained that that I do that in most cases.

Choosing to be a decent human being most of the time isn't the flex you think it is.

I believe I already acknowledged that the Target tuck-friendly swimsuits are not "targeted" at children. Praise Allah for small favors. Much of the transgenderization movement is targeted at children. I may go buy that twelve pack of Bud Lite from them myself to say thanks.

Yes, and then you immediately asked me again what kind of lies people like the guy in the video spread, as if you didn't just acknowledge it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is an outright lie. I've posted plenty of links refuting your claims, and you have not replied to a single one. I know of at least one instance where you made a claim, I asked for proof, and someone else had to provide something refuting your unsourced claim. If you want to ignore the links provided, that's on you, but you don't get to just make up your own reality.

It is not a "lie." I may be mistaken, at least as it applies to you. I'll see if I can find some of what you're talking about, or you could give me the post number.

It comes from a desire to have an honest conversation and it is becoming rapidly clear that it might be an impossible task to drag you into one.

Darn! I've been trying so hard to reform.

Choosing to be a decent human being most of the time isn't the flex you think it is.

I believe I came to the board a decent human being. I only gave snark in return for personal insults, which came almost immediate after it was noticed that I did not match the beliefs of most of this board.

Yes, and then you immediately asked me again what kind of lies people like the guy in the video spread, as if you didn't just acknowledge it.

In that video I posted, I did not hear him say that Target has tuck-friendly swimwear for kids. I believe in another video, he showed pride themed kids clothing which was not a lie. I'll look to see if I can find him claiming that Target has tuck-friendly swimwear for kids. If I do, I'll acknowledge it.

 

[brandon]

How would I know that? About the bigotry, I mean. How do I read a person's mind and say, ''oh, you're just a bigot?"

Many people apply the term "bigot" to mean "disagrees with me."

As to the bible:

Not saying I agree with that, only that it is indeed in the bible.

My assumption would be that they would say their Christian beliefs would prevent them from using someone’s pronouns, but there’s no prohibition in the Bible to prevent someone from using someone’s preferred pronouns, as that concept obviously didn’t exist at the time.

It’s slightly a straw man to bring up the Deuteronomy verse, as no one is asking someone to dress in drag if they don’t want to. They’re asking them to use someone’s preferred pronouns, which is not explicitly prohibited.

But even if you do make the jump that the verse prohibiting wearing women’s clothing for men and vice versa means you can’t use someone’s preferred pronouns, then you have opened yourself up to all of the other criticisms for modern-day Old Testament “abominations.”

To wit:

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

 

[MT15]

First, no he didn’t.

From the article:


“It is unclear” is NY Post speak for “of course he didn’t, because he wouldn’t have had a government-issued ID that identified him as female.”

Therefore, the protections you seek are already in the rules—they just didn’t follow them.

And lastly, even if he did manage to convince the government to issue him a female ID, that still doesn’t change that he in no way identifies as a female except in that particular instance to stick it to a trans athlete.

Do you understand the difference between blackface and actually being black? That’s literally what’s happening here.

Wait, hold up! He cited the NY Post to try to prove a point?

 

[Snarky Sack]

In that video I posted, I did not hear him say that Target has tuck-friendly swimwear for kids. I believe in another video, he showed pride themed kids clothing which was not a lie. I'll look to see if I can find him claiming that Target has tuck-friendly swimwear for kids. If I do, I'll acknowledge it.

You are correct, sir or ma'am!

In this video, he does indeed claim that the tuck-friendly suits come in kids sizes. He said it in studio after watching the first video I posted with hosts. I'm guessing he assumed. He should have checked instead of making himself a liar.



Again, I am grateful to Target for taking the very responsible step of not providing tuck-friendly bathings suits and binders for children. I hope they survive as a corporation.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I ask because you refer to him as "her" in this post.

Yes, of course. She is female. She is not around to be offended, or to disrupt a class if I use her/she. In working with behavior kids, unlike the adult world, we don't brood about the right and wrong of things. If we do, we don't last long in the game.

I understand not everyone has my experience in that arena.

I find it curious that you use the proper pronouns with this student because you know the negative impact that misgendering can have on a person, yet in other posts you think it's perfectly fine to do so.

In the same post in which I talked about the student, I also said:

Someone making an effort to pass as a female, I would use the gender that he or she appears to prefer.

For someone who does not choose to do so, but calls an obvously male person sincerely trying to pass "he" I wish they would be more polite. But that is still not the same as if they had "loudly and repeatedly expressed an opinion about pronouns, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify the rudeness, and having people think they're a rude bigot as a result," which is a quote from the poster with whom I was debating.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It is not a "lie." I may be mistaken, at least as it applies to you. I'll see if I can find some of what you're talking about, or you could give me the post number.

I'm not giving you the post numbers for anything. It's not my job to waste my time digging up things I've already provided for you once. I can honestly say that any time I have said something that needed supporting evidence, I have provided it. Like when you made the ridiculous claim that Trump didn't weaponize the DoJ.

Darn! I've been trying so hard to reform.

I believe I came to the board a decent human being. I only gave snark in return for personal insults, which came almost immediate after it was noticed that I did not match the beliefs of most of this board.

Snark doesn't make one an butt crevasse. Intentionally misgendering people because you insist that you know them better than they know themselves makes one an butt crevasse.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm not giving you the post numbers for anything. It's not my job to waste my time digging up things I've already provided for you once. I can honestly say that any time I have said something that needed supporting evidence, I have provided it. Like when you made the ridiculous claim that Trump didn't weaponize the DoJ.

I never said that no poster on here ever supports a claim.

Snark doesn't make one an butt crevasse. Intentionally misgendering people because you insist that you know them better than they know themselves makes one an butt crevasse.

I'll have to live with knowing that that is your opinion, then.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, of course. She is female. She is not around to be offended, or to disrupt a class if I use her/she. In working with behavior kids, unlike the adult world, we don't brood about the right and wrong of things. If we do, we don't last long in the game.

The student doesn't identify as female. Why do you have such a hard time accepting people for who they are?

I understand not everyone has my experience in that arena.

Oh, bless your heart...

In the same post in which I talked about the student, I also said: Someone making an effort to pass as a female, I would use the gender that he or she appears to prefer.

Why are you the arbiter of who is or is not making an effort? You don't get to apply your own standards to another person when it comes to their identity.