All Things LGBTQ+ (2 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.

 

[insidejob]

The need to tie opposition to the LGTB group narrative to religion is a left thing in order mobilize against religion.

We don't care about your religion.

Until you try to force-feed it to the whole country by inserting it into law.

 

[Farb]

We don't care about your religion.

Until you try to force-feed it to the whole country by inserting it into law.

We don't care about who you sleep with

Until you try and force-feed it to the whole country by inserting it into law.

Lot of similarities I think.

 

[SystemShock]

Every animal can manipulate nature.

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

"Our" definition?

 

[SystemShock]

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

I am not excluding anyone.

Historically, boob job has been used as a pejorative.

Says who?

At the very least, you can understand where a term like that might seem dismissive in a conversation like this, right?

For the intolerant people like you, sure.

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

If you say so.

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.

Good for you, and 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.

And yet, it is the meaning we give words, not the words themselves. I really don't understand what's is so difficult to grasp here. A word is just a sound, or a series of scribbles, both of which have absolutely no meaning, context, or intention but for what we give them. It is the very reason why you can't speak a foreign language until you learn what those sound mean, in what context, and what's the intention of making those sounds.

And yet again, the word Mexican...

But you cannot even acknowledge that... you just want me to be wrong.

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

Did you read what he signed and understand what he's promoting?
Although, given the evidence, you are firmly entrenched in the "he's transphobic" camp.

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.

Oh, I am transphobic. BTW, and just to clarify, what meaning you give to the work transphobic? I don't have an irrational fear or aversion to trans.

In any case, your narrow mind continues to focus on gender reassignment surgery, and I continue to tell you, all surgeries are not natural. If a fact offends you, it's your problem, not mine.

La verdad no ofende, pero incomoda.

 

[SystemShock]

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.

Granted, I am having a bit of fun with it, but it just goes to show the level of wokeness - I guess that's the word that fits - we have reached, that some people can't even admit that an injection of anything is not natural, and that some can extrapolate me saying an injection is not natural all the way to me being transphobic.

Sure, a lot of words have been used as pejoratives with negative connotations to LGBTQ+ people, but the very words gay, lesbian, queer, etc. are used as pejoratives with negative connotations. Whatever word you want to use, it can be praise or insult depending on the meaning, context, and/or intention you give it.

That's why I continue to refer to the word Mexican, which has been used and is used as a pejorative with negative connotations. Should we ask people to stop using the word Mexican because it could have a negative connotation?

Or how about the infamous n-word? It has a very different meaning and connotation when David Chapelle says it vis a vis someone like David Duke saying it.

Fact is, no matter what words one uses or doesn't use, the people who don't like what you are, don't like what you are not because of the word used to describe you, but for what you are. It truly is the thought that counts.

So I can stop saying surgeries are not natural. It won't change anything. It certainly not going to make syringes grow on trees.

 

[MT15]

We don't care about who you sleep with

Until you try and force-feed it to the whole country by inserting it into law.

Lot of similarities I think.

You think people are trying to force you to have sex with someone? Because that’s the only way this little analogy makes sense. Nobody is trying to force you to do anything except leave people alone and mind your own business.

 

[MT15]

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'?

If you don’t think that “LGTB community” has been discriminated against, it’s hard to think of you as a serious person. There are just facts that need to be acknowledged in order to have a conversation. Your ability to disregard facts makes it difficult. I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with me, but if they cannot see reality and insist on inserting their own version of it into a conversation, that’s a real problem. Add to this willful denial the way you play the victim every chance you get and it’s doubly frustrating. Latest example - your claim that the reason the left supports the rights of all is to “target religion”. What a load of crap! Plenty of people on the left are devoutly religious. They just know persecution when they see it.

And quit your virtue signaling about protecting women. You don’t give a crap about women, generally. You’re just using that to do your “othering” of trans people. We don’t need protection from trans people, your ilk are much more threatening to women’s rights.

 

[Port City JJ]

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'?

You don't think LGTB+ persons are oppressed?

I don't believe that at all.

I believe you don't care and are purposely obtuse.

 

[insidejob]

We don't care about who you sleep with

Until you try and force-feed it to the whole country by inserting it into law.

Lot of similarities I think.

No. Not really similar at all.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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'?

FYI, they use stalls in almost all women's bathrooms.

 

[Farb]

If you don’t think that “LGTB community” has been discriminated against, it’s hard to think of you as a serious person. There are just facts that need to be acknowledged in order to have a conversation. Your ability to disregard facts makes it difficult. I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with me, but if they cannot see reality and insist on inserting their own version of it into a conversation, that’s a real problem. Add to this willful denial the way you play the victim every chance you get and it’s doubly frustrating. Latest example - your claim that the reason the left supports the rights of all is to “target religion”. What a load of crap! Plenty of people on the left are devoutly religious. They just know persecution when they see it.

And quit your virtue signaling about protecting women. You don’t give a crap about women, generally. You’re just using that to do your “othering” of trans people. We don’t need protection from trans people, your ilk are much more threatening to women’s rights.

Why do you think I don't care about women 'generally'?

 

[Farb]

You don't think LGTB+ persons are oppressed?

I don't believe that at all.

I believe you don't care and are purposely obtuse.

Currently, no I don't. Not any more than any 'group' out there.

 

[brandon]

also not to see a penis in a woman's bathroom

We've already been through how there's no realistic way that this happens.

If you're a trans man who doesn't have a penis, you use the men's room but you use a stall, since you don't have a penis to use a urinal.

If you're a trans woman who does have a penis, you use the women's restroom but you use a stall, because there aren't forking urinals in women's restrooms.

So unless you think trans people are taking their dicks out for a wash at the sink, you realize that there's no scenario where you see a trans person's junk.

You'll ignore this post.

 

[samiam5211]

We've already been through how there's no realistic way that this happens.

If you're a trans man who doesn't have a penis, you use the men's room but you use a stall, since you don't have a penis to use a urinal.

If you're a trans woman who does have a penis, you use the women's restroom but you use a stall, because there aren't forking urinals in women's restrooms.

So unless you think trans people are taking their dicks out for a wash at the sink, you realize that there's no scenario where you see a trans person's junk.

You'll ignore this post.

Yea, i wonder where @Farb is going that he sees another person's penis in a men's room.

I've never see a penis in a men's room that didn't belong to me. Maybe @Farb should stop peeking into glory holes.

 

[Farb]

Yea, i wonder where @Farb is going that he sees another person's penis in a men's room.

I've never see a penis in a men's room that didn't belong to me. Maybe @Farb should stop peeking into glory holes.

Silly me, that would never ever happen right?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/wi-sp...istory-of-indecent-exposure-and-masturbation/

A judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a second arrest warrant for Darren Agee Merager, 52, on Sept. 8 after Merager failed to appear at a hearing related to six felony charges of indecent exposure in connection with a previous case at a West Hollywood swimming pool. Merager, a registered sex offender in California for two prior convictions of indecent exposure, identifies as a woman, but law enforcement sources said that’s a ruse to get into women’s-only areas. In the Wi Spa case, Merager is accused of exposing an erect penis to four women and a minor girl.

But we would rather break a few eggs than make a pedophile, or MAP as the new inclusive verbiage goes, tummy upset. (By break a few eggs, I mean sacrifice a couple innocent girls to the trans movement).

 

[Farb]

Yea, i wonder where @Farb is going that he sees another person's penis in a men's room.

I've never see a penis in a men's room that didn't belong to me. Maybe @Farb should stop peeking into glory holes.

Are you saying something is wrong with glory holes? I figured the left would be all about that type of sexual and fetish freedom.

 

[samiam5211]

Are you saying something is wrong with glory holes? I figured the left would be all about that type of sexual and fetish freedom.

I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own home, but you and George Michael need to stop living in the 80s and get a Grindr account.

 

[MT15]

Silly me, that would never ever happen right?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/wi-sp...istory-of-indecent-exposure-and-masturbation/

A judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a second arrest warrant for Darren Agee Merager, 52, on Sept. 8 after Merager failed to appear at a hearing related to six felony charges of indecent exposure in connection with a previous case at a West Hollywood swimming pool. Merager, a registered sex offender in California for two prior convictions of indecent exposure, identifies as a woman, but law enforcement sources said that’s a ruse to get into women’s-only areas. In the Wi Spa case, Merager is accused of exposing an erect penis to four women and a minor girl.

But we would rather break a few eggs than make a pedophile, or MAP as the new inclusive verbiage goes, tummy upset. (By break a few eggs, I mean sacrifice a couple innocent girls to the trans movement).

Good lord, do you have any idea how many times women are exposed by what used to be called “flashers” in any old place? And how long it’s been going on? Trust me, this isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is.