All Things LGBTQ+ (3 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.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Granted, we are using rules/exceptions figuratively, but still, rules apply much more often than exceptions, so frequency matters.

Either there are exceptions or there are no exceptions. Frequency doesn't matter, especially when you have taken it upon yourself to decide what does and does not count as an exception.

Ok?

You asked a question, I clarified.

What is that connotation? What would you like me to use? Breast augmentation? Breast enhancement? Breast replacement? Or the longer "placing silicone bags filled with saline solution under a person's breast tissue"?

The term "boob job" carries the connotation of frivolous cosmetic surgery.

The preventive surgery itself has nothing to do with the "placing silicone bags filled with saline solution under a person's breast tissue" afterwards .

The preventative surgery is what caused the need for the breast reconstruction.

I get the surgery is about the person's identity. That doesn't make the surgery grow on trees. And stop accusing me of referring to anyone a person as unnatural. I am not saying such thing.


You continue to accuse me of calling the LGBTQ+ community unnatural, and you tell me my point of view is the problem. Again, that's rich.

That's because you refuse to see anything beyond your own opinions. Gender affirmation surgery is very closely tied to the gender identity of trans people. Intentionally choosing a term that you know has been used to denigrate, humiliate, and marginalize that community is a shirtty choice, period.

Words are not terrible. It is the sentiment and intent behind those words that are.

Not only are some words terrible, but this take is pretty bad as well.

Uh-hu.

I've explained this already, but it's up to you to actually listen and consider it.

No, he's not. You have to read and understand what he's signing, and why he's promoting signing it. But you won't do either.

Explain it to me, then. Why is he promoting it and signing it?

Nah, I'd do that if I really wanted to piss off someone or even provoke a fist fight. But or the most part...

What does that mean?

When speaking of someone undergoing gender affirmation surgery to have a feminine presentation, you referred to them as he when it is clearly someone who identifies as female.

 

[brandon]

To be clear, I am not saying that. I replied to a post that said "Generally speaking, breast enlargement surgery is an elective procedure and not necessary to address a medical condition" .... maybe I read it wrong, but sounded dismissive of women - the vaginaed ones - who get the procedure.

In reality, any medical procedure, for whatever reason, unless forced upon someone, is elective. One could choose not to go through with a medical procedure. Case and point, my FIL refused to get dialysis. He did die because of it, but it was his choice.



Sure. I don't think I have ever argue against that.



Correct.



Wrong.

Humans routinely change their appearance for self-esteem and identity reasons. From haircuts to tattoos, losing weight, gaining weight, or even just the clothes one wears, we do all of that to feel better about ourselves. "Completing the look" does go a long way to make us feel better about ourselves, whether is mere vanity or to ameliorate deep psychological conditions. In that vein, breast implants for a transgender person are not more important or "a generally an elective procedure" than breast implants for any other person, which is what the statement I replied to made it sound like.

Wait, so what the hell is your thesis again?

 

[SystemShock]

Either there are exceptions or there are no exceptions.

Correct.

Frequency doesn't matter,

Incorrect.

especially when you have taken it upon yourself to decide what does and does not count as an exception.

I am not doing that. It's the data is doing that. Who knows, maybe we'll get better data down the road.

The term "boob job" carries the connotation of frivolous cosmetic surgery.

If you say so.

The preventative surgery is what caused the need for the breast reconstruction.

Yes, and?

That's because you refuse to see anything beyond your own opinions.

I refuse to accept your arguments and your accusations. That's different.

Gender affirmation surgery is very closely tied to the gender identity of trans people. Intentionally choosing a term that you know has been used to denigrate, humiliate, and marginalize that community is a shirtty choice, period.

If you say so.

Not only are some words terrible, but this take is pretty bad as well.

Yet again, words on their own are not good or bad, it is the context, meaning, and/or intention that is good or bad. Take the word "gay" which is probably going to be censored, but it is a 3 letter word that starts with f, ends with g, and has an a in the middle. In the U.S. it is a pejorative for gay men, in the U.K. slang for a cigarette. Or how you see and old friend and you call him an SOB between smiles and hugs, or you call someone an SOB because they cut you off on the highway. Or the word birch, which if you are talking about a female dog, it's fine, but call a woman that...

Or how about if I say you are xux (pronounced shoosh). Is xux good? Or bad? Did I insult you? Or praised you? You don't know? Why? Because you don't know the meaning of the word or my intention in calling you xux.

If you are wondering, xux means wasp's nest in Maya.

Still no idea what I am calling you?

Of course not.

And even though it is not making a dent, I will still refer you to the word "Mexican" which, depending on content and intent, can be used as a pejorative. But you will not acknowledge that. You can't without further undermining your fallacious argument, but it'd surely redeem you a bit.

Or how about the word "gay"? Or "queer"?

Still denying words on their own had no meaning beyond the intention we give them?

I've explained this already, but it's up to you to actually listen and consider it.

And your explanation is fallacious. And I explained it like 3 times already why it is fallacious, but you cannot see past your bias.

Explain it to me, then. Why is he promoting it and signing it?

How about you read it first? Then tell me what your take is?

When speaking of someone undergoing gender affirmation surgery to have a feminine presentation, you referred to them as he when it is clearly someone who identifies as female.

And this is the woke bullshirt that has to stop.
Oh no! I am a monster! I must be transphobic because I missed a pronoun when speaking about a fictitious individual!! Mea culpa!

 

[SystemShock]

Wait, so what the hell is your thesis again?

I don't think I have a thesis per see. Frankly, I lost some track, but I think I originally mentioned that injections are not natural, then moved to surgeries, and then I was accused of claiming all LGBTQ+ people are unnatural, then someone said honey combs are unnatural, or something like that.

 

[SamAndreas]

I don't think I have a thesis per see. Frankly, I lost some track, but I think I originally mentioned that injections are not natural, then moved to surgeries, and then I was accused of claiming all LGBTQ+ people are unnatural, then someone said honey combs are unnatural, or something like that.

You started out, I think you were at the Sherwood Forest Fair.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Correct.

Incorrect.

I am not doing that. It's the data is doing that. Who knows, maybe we'll get better data down the road.

No, it's you ignoring data- in this case, the data is the existence of people that you have decided to exclude.

If you say so.

Historically, boob job has been used as a pejorative. At the very least, you can understand where a term like that might seem dismissive in a conversation like this, right?

Yes, and?

You said the preventative surgery had nothing to do with the breast reconstruction surgery. I was pointing out how ridiculous that argument is.

I refuse to accept your arguments and your accusations. That's different.

No, you refuse to acknowledge or attempt to understand them. That's the very definition of narrow-minded.

If you say so.

It's not just me that says so. I have a few trans friends, and they've expressed how important gender affirmation surgery is to who they are as a person.

Yet again, words on their own are not good or bad, it is the context, meaning, and/or intention that is good or bad. Take the word "gay" which is probably going to be censored, but it is a 3 letter word that starts with f, ends with g, and has an a in the middle. In the U.S. it is a pejorative for gay men, in the U.K. slang for a cigarette. Or how you see and old friend and you call him an SOB between smiles and hugs, or you call someone an SOB because they cut you off on the highway. Or the word birch, which if you are talking about a female dog, it's fine, but call a woman that...

Or how about if I say you are xux (pronounced shoosh). Is xux good? Or bad? Did I insult you? Or praised you? You don't know? Why? Because you don't know the meaning of the word or my intention in calling you xux.

If you are wondering, xux means wasp's nest in Maya.

Still no idea what I am calling you?

Of course not.

And even though it is not making a dent, I will still refer you to the word "Mexican" which, depending on content and intent, can be used as a pejorative. But you will not acknowledge that. You can't without further undermining your fallacious argument, but it'd surely redeem you a bit.

Or how about the word "gay"? Or "queer"?

Still denying words on their own had no meaning beyond the intention we give them?

When a word only exists to demean, that word is bad. If a racial slur exists that carries no meaning other than the slur, then there is no amount of intent that changes it from a slur into something less offensive.

How about you read it first? Then tell me what your take is?

You're ducking the question. You said I don't understand why Dawkins promoted it, so I asked you to explain why.

And this is the woke bullshirt that has to stop.
Oh no! I am a monster! I must be transphobic because I missed a pronoun when speaking about a fictitious individual!! Mea culpa!

No, you're transphobic because you can't be bothered to understand how describing a medical procedure that is closely tied to a person's identity with a term used to denigrate their community could be taken as offensive. That's on you.

 

[coldseat]

This whole natural and unnatural argument is mostly pointless. I would venture to say that when unnatural is used in relation to people who identify as LGBTQ+, it's almost entirely used as a pejorative with a negative connotation. And it almost always comes with religious underpinnings, which is why it's odd to see @SystemShock so committed to the use of it given his opinions on religion.

But the reason I say it's pointless is because what is very natural for one person, culture or society can be very unnatural for another person, culture or society, independent of the technical or scientific definition of the word. Me having sex with another man is very natural for me, where as I would expect it to be very unnatural for anybody who's straight. Being a woman, presenting as a women, dressing as a women. having reassignment surgery, ect., is very natural for a trans-women, where as it would be very unnatural for me as a cis-gendered man. Unless we can overwhelmingly agree that something is harmful/unnatural (like pedophilia or having sex with farm animals), then we shouldn't be applying the unnatural term because of the pejorative meaning of it.

The point should be to treat people as individuals with dignity and respect, whether you find them, the things they do or their beliefs natural or unnatural. And accepting them as they are.

 

[Farb]

What is outside intervention?

Human made bee hives, honey cultivation.

 

[samiam5211]

Human made bee hives, honey cultivation.

Do humans exist in nature?

Religion is the only reason we somehow view things humans do as not natural. We were made in god's image, so we can do unnatural things...

 

[Farb]

This whole natural and unnatural argument is mostly pointless. I would venture to say that when unnatural is used in relation to people who identify as LGBTQ+, it's almost entirely used as a pejorative with a negative connotation. And it almost always comes with religious underpinnings, which is why it's odd to see @SystemShock so committed to the use of it given his opinions on religion.

But the reason I say it's pointless is because what is very natural for one person, culture or society can be very unnatural for another person, culture or society, independent of the technical or scientific definition of the word. Me having sex with another man is very natural for me, where as I would expect it to be very unnatural for anybody who's straight. Being a woman, presenting as a women, dressing as a women. having reassignment surgery, ect., is very natural for a trans-women, where as it would be very unnatural for me as a cis-gendered man. Unless we can overwhelmingly agree that something is harmful/unnatural (like pedophilia or having sex with farm animals), then we shouldn't be applying the unnatural term because of the pejorative meaning of it.

The point should be to treat people as individuals with dignity and respect, whether you find them, the things they do or their beliefs natural or unnatural. And accepting them as they are.

I am fairly certain, that societies that are not religious still identifiy human females as women and human males as men. No religion needed. This is has been the case in nature since the very very very beginning.
The need to tie opposition to the LGTB group narrative to religion is a left thing in order mobilize against religion.

 

[Farb]

Do humans exist in nature?

Pyramids are natural to you?

Man can manipulate nature. That ability is the reason we are #1. That is also the reason that most natural sciences first question is 'natural or man made?'

 

[samiam5211]

Pyramids are natural to you?

Man can manipulate nature. That ability is the reason we are #1. That is also the reason that most natural sciences first question is 'natural or man made?'

Every animal can manipulate nature.

Our definition of unnatural is based on a belief that we descended from God.

 

[coldseat]

I am fairly certain, that societies that are not religious still identifiy human females as women and human males as men. No religion needed. This is has been the case in nature since the very very very beginning.
The need to tie opposition to the LGTB group narrative to religion is a left thing in order mobilize against religion.

This may be a shock to you, but there have also always been peoples who's gender didn't align with with biological sex. In all societies throughout history. In some societies, they were accepted and allowed to live as third person gender. In other's they were ostracized and punished.

That's rich that you think it's a need to mobilized against religion, when in almost every circumstance it's been religion mobilizing against LGBTQ and locking us out of basic rights. It's exactly the reason we're even having this debate, because the right wing in this country spurred on by religion has mobilized to codify locking transgender people out of rights to compete in sports or use the bathroom all across this country.

 

[coldseat]

The slide to authoritarianism is strong in Florida. They're becoming a first class Christian-Taliban state. But yeah, it's the left "attacking" religion.

 

[Farb]

Every animal can manipulate nature.

Our definition of unnatural is based on a belief that we descended from God.

So everything in natural? Cars, the ISS is natural then? Global warming is a natural effect then?

I think I understand where you stand, but it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Farb]

This may be a shock to you, but there have also always been peoples who's gender didn't align with with biological sex. In all societies throughout history. In some societies, they were accepted and allowed to live as third person gender. In other's they were ostracized and punished.

That's rich that you think it's a need to mobilized against religion, when in almost every circumstance it's been religion mobilizing against LGBTQ and locking us out of basic rights. It's exactly the reason we're even having this debate, because the right wing in this country spurred on by religion has mobilized to codify locking transgender people out of rights to compete in sports or use the bathroom all across this country.

You believe the LGTB community is oppressed? How?

Maybe the idea of your 'rights' (not you specifically but you as in the LGTB) does not trump the rights of women to compete in fair athletic events and also not to see a penis in a woman's bathroom or a woman's 'safe space'?

 

[samiam5211]

So everything in natural? Cars, the ISS is natural then? Global warming is a natural effect then?

I think I understand where you stand, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Everything is natural. Nothing is unnatural.

 

[coldseat]

You believe the LGTB community is oppressed? How?

Maybe the idea of your 'rights' (not you specifically but you as in the LGTB) does not trump the rights of women to compete in fair athletic events and also not to see a penis in a woman's bathroom or a woman's 'safe space'?

The LGBTQ community as a whole has gained a great deal of equality and acceptance in general society, especially after the decision in Obergefell. But what we're seeing now is the reaction to that decision and the march of the right wing to restrict and claw back those rights. It starts with the easy targets, the transgender community, since they're the easiest to ostracize. But it will eventually come for all of us LGBTQ, as made clear by my last post above.