Quick, get the patent lawyers on the phone!

[boomzilla]

@flabdablet said:

Mostly: heap scorn upon the act of clinging desperately to a 15th century worldview in the 21st, and keep on insisting that reactionary fuckheads like you and Morbs need to get the fuck out of the way of the positive social change that's already happening everywhere it's allowed to.

Now you're offending dhromed again with your social pressure and using your over active imagination about what I do (and maybe morbs, though I couldn't say).

@flabdablet said:

After a lifetime of being told by most of the people you meet that the parts your body has are "wrong"

I don't get this bit here. Are you saying these people have developed their issues as a result of other people telling them this stuff? I think some of it is probably a result of abuse, but others seems to be a biological thing. Like, their brain developed different that what their body was. Wrong mix of hormones in the womb, maybe. I don't really know. But I'm not telling them their parts are wrong. They're telling me.

@flabdablet said:

@boomzilla said:

What are the ramifications of those accommodations?

Less stress for people currently seen as abnormal and therefore piteous and/or contemptible, less cruelty generally, and a better understanding of the world around us for everybody.

I can see you've applied a typical amount of thought for a leftist on unintended consequences, which is what I figured.

[boomzilla]

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

How do you think I treat people like this?

By saying they're failings and dismissing their concerns entirely.

I don't see how that follows at all. I do see how that follows in the twisted logic that occurs when lefties like you or flabdablet try to understand how people who think differently than you think.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

So, seriously, what are the microscopic accommodations that would make it all better?

They: "I would like that you use the word she to refer to me"
You: "Okay."

 

You may scoff and fall back on hyperbole like "re-engineering human society", but it's literally this easy. Trans people don't need special ramps for their wheelchairs. They're not disabled.

It's not simply that easy, and I haven't said not to do those things. You and flabdablet have imagined that bit of the thread. What about restrooms? What about things like athletic participation? What about people who fake it to gain an advantage? What about romantic relationships?

I'm almost amused that you (and flabdablet) think that I spit at someone who does this. I'm very sad that you think these people just have different preferences and don't have serious problems. Do you think seriously depressed people should just smile more? Manic depressives should just chill out a bit? Maybe have a few extra sick days? I think you guys are trivializing this in a self righteous drive to be tolerant.

[flabdablet]

@boomzilla said:

I think you guys are trivializing this in a self righteous drive to be tolerant.

And like everybody else, I'm watching you do the customary conservative rhetorical dance, huffing and puffing in a high-minded-sounding manner that still fails to disguise an embarrassingly transparent attempt to distract attention from your own initially trivializing comment on the issue, solely because you've been called on being an arsehole about it; which is all to the good.

[Guest]

@boomzilla said:

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

economic / social creationism.

What's that?

The idea that human-created things are created by an intelligent entity?

It's the idea that people can plan an economy. That you can just pass a law to do something and fix it and not create more problems.

Well, my dear, we can't very well sit by idly either. This libertarian/anarcho idea of "The Market Fixeth All" is rubbish as well. We've already had that. And I don't really want to live in a Dickensian society writ large.

The point which people like you seem to forget: Humans need rules. If there aren't rules, someone will inevitably rise up to the top and then make his own rules.

So, you can choose: Either live with at least a framework for some kind of aproximately-fair laws - or live within a system where you're subject to whimsical laws from above. And you can bet that you won't be the one giving orders.

The naivety displayed by you is astounding - you obviously suffer from the same delusional kind of thinking you accuse the "planners of economy" of: That you can shape the world according to your ideas, just that your idea involves getting rid of laws as if that were the solution to all problems.

A more realistic perspective is acceptance of the fact that humans needs rules and laws. We always have, we are social creatures who form tribes, after all. A tribe can't exist without rules. So either you accept this as a given or you can become a hermit grumbling about how noone gives a shit about what you say. And if you accept that as a given, then you have to learn the ruleset first. And after that you also realize that it's not about "too many laws" or "too few laws" - but about the right laws. But laws there are, were and always will be as long as we stay humans.

You may now continue your ramblings.

[boomzilla]

@flabdablet said:

@boomzilla said:

I think you guys are trivializing this in a self righteous drive to be tolerant.

And like everybody else, I'm watching you do the customary conservative rhetorical dance, huffing and puffing in a high-minded-sounding manner that still fails to disguise an embarrassingly transparent attempt to distract attention from your own initially trivializing comment on the issue, solely because you've been called on being an arsehole about it; which is all to the good.

Yeah, all of us who come to different conclusions are just evil. You've found us out. I wish I could live in a simple world like you, but I'm stuck here in the real world.

[boomzilla]

@Rhywden said:

Well, my dear, we can't very well sit by idly either. This libertarian/anarcho idea of "The Market Fixeth All" is rubbish as well. We've already had that. And I don't really want to live in a Dickensian society writ large.

The point which people like you seem to forget: Humans need rules. If there aren't rules, someone will inevitably rise up to the top and then make his own rules.

So, you can choose: Either live with at least a framework for some kind of aproximately-fair laws - or live within a system where you're subject to whimsical laws from above. And you can bet that you won't be the one giving orders.

The naivety displayed by you is astounding - you obviously suffer from the same delusional kind of thinking you accuse the "planners of economy" of: That you can shape the world according to your ideas, just that your idea involves getting rid of laws as if that were the solution to all problems.

A more realistic perspective is acceptance of the fact that humans needs rules and laws. We always have, we are social creatures who form tribes, after all. A tribe can't exist without rules. So either you accept this as a given or you can become a hermit grumbling about how noone gives a shit about what you say. And if you accept that as a given, then you have to learn the ruleset first. And after that you also realize that it's not about "too many laws" or "too few laws" - but about the right laws. But laws there are, were and always will be as long as we stay humans.

You may now continue your ramblings.

What a lazy straw man. Are you one of the idiots who likes to point to Somalia as a libertarian utopia? Do you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism (or why Somalia is neither)? Do you think the big government "anarchist" protesters at stuff like the G-20 are really anarchists?

There's a difference between having some rules enforced at the point of a gun and the hubris of acting like the Knowledge Problem is some sort of libertarian fantasy.

[ender]

@morbiuswilters said:

The main reason companies like Amazon get patents like this is prophylactic; they're aiming to protect themselves from patent trolls (who are usually small-timers.)

You can't protect yourself from patent trolls with other patents simply because most patent trolls do not produce anything - they just own the patents and sue everybody who potentially infringes them (since they don't produce anything, there's nothing to conunter-sue them on). A common tactic lately has been for companies to sell their patents to trolls, retain a license for those patents, then let the trolls sue everybody else based on these patents.

[too_many_usernames]

@boomzilla said:

These are people who think their bodies have the wrong parts.

I fully blame the social environment that has prevented education about basic logic on statements like this.  How can your body have the wrong parts (except in a disease situation?)  ("But it's not a disease!")?  A more honest statement is "My physiologoical configuration doesn't match my preferences" - but it's not wrong.

The erosion of the ability to distinguish situations where "right" and "wrong" even apply is just sad.

[DrakeSmith]

@morbiuswilters said:

What, you like vanilla more?

Agreed, vanilla sex is boring

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

It's not simply that easy, and I haven't said not to do those things. You and flabdablet have imagined that bit of the thread.

I did assume and imagine, as one does, but you've been relatively clear that you do not respect them as persons and see them as failings. You talk about disgusting? That is it. As far as I can tell, you prefer they'd just go away or they might cause you some intellectual discomfort.

@boomzilla said:

What about restrooms?

They use whatever they want. There's no problem here aside from your rigid categorization.

@boomzilla said:

What about things like athletic participation?

This is truly the only area where I might see some issues, but it's not really anything you should be concerned with, and again it's only caused by the rigid categorization of men/women. Fuck, some people might say Serena Williams should have been in the men's competition.

Maybe we should just split sports into strength and weight categories, just like weight classes in boxing. I don't know, just a random thought*. Particularly dainty men like me might actually grow to like participating in competitive sports if it wasn't for all these half-wit troglodytes. I like moving my body. I don't do sports because I don't like the people it's filled with.

@boomzilla said:

What about people who fake it to gain an advantage?

 

I don't see what possible advantage someone could get by feigning trans. Getting fired? Getting beaten up? These things are rather more likely than any gains.

Bottom line: Who cares? Everything has the potential for abuse, and this doesn't even have a particularly high risk of abuse. Is that a reason to not do someting? Of course not. That's not how we build a world.

@boomzilla said:

What about romantic relationships?

Is there a problem here that concerns you even slightly?

 

Now is there any other mountain you have to move in order to accomodate this particular minority in the world?

 

@boomzilla said:

I'm almost amused that you (and flabdablet) think that I spit at someone who does this.

That's the image you've painted of yourself in this thread. I'm glad you don't spit at them, though (figuratively or literally), but you have the wrong idea about the fix.

@boomzilla said:

I'm very sad that you think these people just have different preferences and don't have serious problems.

The problem is society's pressure to make them feel like failures. That is something you can fix for yourself by, well, not thinking that. Things will start rolling from there.

@boomzilla said:

Do you think seriously depressed people should just smile more?

@boomzilla said:

Manic depressives should just chill out a bit?

Oh, you think it's a psychiatric problem. No, I would not think these things for a single second because I know it doesn't help and is extremely destructive to the afflicted.

@boomzilla said:

I think you guys are trivializing this in a self righteous drive to be tolerant.

Pride is the greatest sin, isn't it? As for me, I'm weirded out that you think "not rejecting someone's person" is a lefty self-righteous extremist point taking it too far.

 

 

 *) "yes just like all your other ones"

[DrakeSmith]

@morbiuswilters said:

I take it this is your first exposure to feminism.. the entire point of this is to whine, feel sorry for themselves and get attention.

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

Wrong mix of hormones in the womb, maybe. I don't really know. But I'm not telling them their parts are wrong. They're telling me.

 

And then you tell them they are wrong.

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

@flabdablet said:

@boomzilla said:

I think you guys are trivializing this in a self righteous drive to be tolerant.

And like everybody else, I'm watching you do the customary conservative rhetorical dance, huffing and puffing in a high-minded-sounding manner that still fails to disguise an embarrassingly transparent attempt to distract attention from your own initially trivializing comment on the issue, solely because you've been called on being an arsehole about it; which is all to the good.

Yeah, all of us who come to different conclusions are just evil. You've found us out. I wish I could live in a simple world like you, but I'm stuck here in the real world.

 

Oh god.

Look, I'm trying real hard not to swear a lot or attack too much in discussions like this but these posts make me want to drink.

[boomzilla]

@too_many_usernames said:

@boomzilla said:

These are people who think their bodies have the wrong parts.

I fully blame the social environment that has prevented education about basic logic on statements like this.  How can your body have the wrong parts (except in a disease situation?)  ("But it's not a disease!")?  A more honest statement is "My physiologoical configuration doesn't match my preferences" - but it's not wrong.

I don't have this issue, so I couldn't say what's really going on inside their heads, and maybe for some it is just a preference. But in some circles, those are fighting words. Ever heard the phrase, "Born this way,"

@too_many_usernames said:

The erosion of the ability to distinguish situations where "right" and "wrong" even apply is just sad.

And I think you're displaying an excellent example of it. In this case, there is a mismatch, and it causes problems, internally and externally. Something isn't right there. It's wrong. That's just an observation, not a judgment, and it's one that self identified people with this issue make.

[dhromed]

 I'd love it if more people would talk, though.

Now it's just like we have four champions of Infinite Debate and it's kind of tiring; I assume for all parties.

[boomzilla]

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

It's not simply that easy, and I haven't said not to do those things. You and flabdablet have imagined that bit of the thread.

I did assume and imagine, as one does, but you've been relatively clear that you do not respect them as persons and see them as failings. You talk about disgusting? That is it. As far as I can tell, you prefer they'd just go away or they might cause you some intellectual discomfort.

No, this is clearly you imagining that I dismiss them as people. Alcoholics have a particular failing. Do I therefore dismiss them as people to note this?

@dhromed said:

Bottom line: Who cares? Everything has the potential for abuse, and this doesn't even have a particularly high risk of abuse. Is that a reason to not do someting? Of course not. That's not how we build a world.

Good luck.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

What about romantic relationships?

Is there a problem here that concerns you even slightly?

Not really. I'm in what should be the last romantic relationship of my life, barring tragedy. Though I expect my kids have some in front of them.

I'm not sure why you'd ask this question, though, because my point was that it's a problem for these people, and we were talking about issues that confront them. I certainly wouldn't have been interested in dating a man trying to be a woman, even if he did an awesome job of looking and acting the part. This is because one of my goals was to find a mate, and I literally can't do that with another man. I'm sure there are some people who could, but I think that the pool is probably going to be fairly small, or else this is going to lead to recurring heartbreak if the relationship starts without everyone involved understanding the situation.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

I'm almost amused that you (and flabdablet) think that I spit at someone who does this.

That's the image you've painted of yourself in this thread. I'm glad you don't spit at them, though (figuratively or literally), but you have the wrong idea about the fix.

No, I haven't painted that in this thread. It's just your stereotype about people who have different views on this than you do.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

Do you think seriously depressed people should just smile more?

@boomzilla said:

Manic depressives should just chill out a bit?

Oh, you think it's a psychiatric problem. No, I would not think these things for a single second because I know it doesn't help and is extremely destructive to the afflicted.

Well, what do you think the problem is? Why doesn't their internal mental identity match the rest of their biology? That's a serious question, and I don't think we know the answer. And as I already mentioned, I don't think there's a single answer.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

I think you guys are trivializing this in a self righteous drive to be tolerant.

Pride is the greatest sin, isn't it? As for me, I'm weirded out that you think "not rejecting someone's person" is a lefty self-righteous extremist point taking it too far.

I can't figure out why you think I'm rejecting someone as a person, and why you think pretending they don't have a problem is a good idea.

[boomzilla]

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

Wrong mix of hormones in the womb, maybe. I don't really know. But I'm not telling them their parts are wrong. They're telling me.

And then you tell them they are wrong.

I clearly need your guys' help to figure out what I'm saying and thinking. But now I can't tell what you're saying: Am I telling them they're wrong to think they're wrong, or am I saying they're right that their parts are wrong?

[flabdablet]

@dhromed said:

As for me, I'm weirded out that you think "not rejecting someone's person" is a lefty self-righteous extremist point taking it too far.

Boomzilla doesn't actually think that, he's just using the standard wingnut line that anybody who takes issue with his working assumptions is "living" in a world that is somehow not "real". This is a sad but natural consequence of his unwillingness to engage with concepts that don't fall neatly into clearly-delineated categories. Much of David Icke's reasoning runs on similarly tragic rails, for what it's worth.

[heterodox]

@dhromed said:

I'd love it if more people would talk, though.

I think most contributors don't have the energy to do anything about the multiple pages of troll bait that have been dumped into the thread. It's Monday, man.

[boomzilla]

@dhromed said:

Look, I'm trying real hard not to swear a lot or attack too much in discussions like this but these posts make me want to drink.

I know, I should just ignore flabdablet, because he rarely posts in good faith. Not that I always do. I appreciate your posts, though, and it would be interesting to get more people to post, too. I find that it's really difficult to get people to read what I'm actually writing and think about my arguments seriously instead of running off with their stereotype of knuckle dragging redneck, or whatever. And I'm sure part of that is the tone typically employed around here.

Now excuse me while I denounce myself with a purple dildo.

[boomzilla]

@flabdablet said:

@dhromed said:

As for me, I'm weirded out that you think "not rejecting someone's person" is a lefty self-righteous extremist point taking it too far.

Boomzilla doesn't actually think that, he's just using the standard wingnut line that anybody who takes issue with his working assumptions is "living" in a world that is somehow not "real". This is a sad but natural consequence of his unwillingness to engage with concepts that don't fall neatly into clearly-delineated categories.

OK, this is too obvious. Now I know I'm getting trolled by the guy who refuses to offer up any serious arguments. At least try to make an argument regarding this stuff about categories. With respect to what I've said, not what random other people I've never heard of have said.

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

I'm not sure why you'd ask this question, though, because my point was that it's a problem for these people, and we were talking about issues that confront them.

 

I believe we were talking about the tiny things you needed to do to accomodate them, but eh.

@boomzilla said:

I certainly wouldn't have been interested in dating a man trying to be a woman, even if he did an awesome job of looking and acting the part.

You're thinking of a crossdresser, which is a hobby. It's a special secret hobby because the current social consensus is that Men Shouldn't Want To Wear Women's Clothes Except When It's Campy, but it's a hobby nonetheless.

And I think your bad date would prefer to be called "she".

@boomzilla said:

This is because one of my goals was to find a mate, and I literally can't do that with another man. I'm sure there are some people who could, but I think that the pool is probably going to be fairly small, or else this is going to lead to recurring heartbreak if the relationship starts without everyone involved understanding the situation.

True, but like I said, it's not really a massive thing you have to do, and I think romantically rejecting a trans woman should, to you, be the same as rejecting a born-woman whom you didn't find very attractive, or rejecting a gay man. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're the kind of person to go EW SHEMALE when rejecting her, you might even shut up about it completely, and I think things would be alright.

@boomzilla said:

No, I haven't painted that in this thread. It's just your stereotype about people who have different views on this than you do.

That might be, though I believe you could have worked slightly harder to dispel that notion, but here we are.

@boomzilla said:

Well, what do you think the problem is?

Even if we don't know the answer 100%, we know 100% it's not psychiatric. In general, from a pool of possibilities, we can surely eliminate things.

If being trans is an affliction, then the treatment is surgery, hormone therapy, and a good dose of social acceptance. Neither of us can provide the first two, but we can definitely provide the latter, and we can do so in veritable truckloads.

 

*flies away on unicorn of ideals*

[flabdablet]

@boomzilla said:

I find that it's really difficult to get people to read what I'm actually writing and think about my arguments seriously instead of running off with their stereotype of knuckle dragging redneck, or whatever.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, walk like a duck my so-o-o-on.

[boomzilla]

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

I certainly wouldn't have been interested in dating a man trying to be a woman, even if he did an awesome job of looking and acting the part.

You're thinking of a crossdresser, which is a hobby. It's a special secret hobby because the current social consensus is that Men Shouldn't Want To Wear Women's Clothes Except When It's Campy, but it's a hobby nonetheless.

And I think your bad date would prefer to be called "she".

OK, pronouns aside, why would this just be a cross dresser as opposed to a trans-woman? I would think a trans-woman would be more likely to be trying to pass as a cis-woman (I think I used that correctly) and be interested in a heterosexual male.

@dhromed said:

True, but like I said, it's not really a massive thing you have to do, and I think romantically rejecting a trans woman should, to you, be the same as rejecting a born-woman whom you didn't find very attractive, or rejecting a gay man. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're the kind of person to go EW SHEMALE when rejecting her, you might even shut up about it completely, and I think things would be alright.

The real point isn't the issues I'd have. It's the rejection they'd face. Presumably over and over again. Unless they could find an appropriate ghetto, at which point their marginalization is emphasized. I mean, hopefully, they could be happy with that, but I think they would still feel like they couldn't fully be what they feel they should be (because really, they can't).

I think they're going to feel separate from most of society, no matter how accepting and accommodating we are in normal social / business settings. They're not going to be able to have normal (romantic) relationships, and the successful relationships they have will have to come from a pretty small group of people. I could be wrong about this, but I think it's pretty accurate. There are many more homosexual males and lesbian females, and they're still a bit separate from most of society, again due to relative frequency. And the trans genders aren't what either straight or gay people are interested in. And some trans people don't seem to want other trans people. They often want to be normal, but opposite of their biology. I think it's complicated for them to figure out how to have a fulfilling life, and I don't know how to fix this, and while being more accepting is good and will help them in many ways, it won't solve this.

Sloppy thinkers like flabdablet will tell you that I just have knee jerk reactions to things that don't fit into his nicely conceived categories. While his analysis of me is unfounded, he's on to something with respect to the complexity of this issue and the people involved, even though he wants to over simplify and categorize people who disagree with him.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

Well, what do you think the problem is?

Even if we don't know the answer 100%, we know 100% it's not psychiatric. In general, from a pool of possibilities, we can surely eliminate things.

If being trans is an affliction, then the treatment is surgery, hormonal therapy, and a good dose of social acceptance. Neither of us can provide the first two, but we can definitly provide the latter, and we can do so in veritable truckloads.

I definitely disagree with your 100% diagnosis. I suspect there are people who are that way due to abuse or some other trauma. And that there are some who simply developed that way (though I don't claim to know the mechanism). I agree that generally we probably need to accept these people as they are, at least until we can figure out a better way to help them. Either way, I don't see a painless (for them) way to deal with their circumstances.

[dhromed]

@flabdablet said:

@boomzilla said:

I find that it's really difficult to get people to read what I'm actually writing and think about my arguments seriously instead of running off with their stereotype of knuckle dragging redneck, or whatever.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, walk like a duck my so-o-o-on.

 

I know you're in my "camp", but this is for you as for everybody; it helps me conduct myself properly, and it's especially useful if you hate Penn Jillette (not that I do).

 

[too_many_usernames]

@boomzilla said:

In this case, there is a mismatch, and it causes problems, internally and externally. Something isn't right there. It's wrong. That's just an observation, not a judgment, and it's one that self identified people with this issue make.

 

You've got to define "Something" there - the nature of the universe (e.g., result of DNA, chemicals, environment, etc.) cannot ever be "wrong" (can it?).  Now, the way people treat each other - yes, that can be described with the moral definition of "wrong."  There are, after all, two ways to use "wrong": the first is, a statement that doesn't match with reality.  Saying "I have the wrong physiology" is incorrect - because you cannot have any physiology other than the one you were "born" with.

The other use - the moral use - doesn't have any bearing on phsiology. It only has to do with how people treat each other, and this has the dubious property of generally being unrelated to physical reality: all morality, including what is "fair" or "good" treatment of people is arbitrary (unless you subscribe to a religion that posits there is an external definition of moral right and wrong; the physical laws of the universe are amoral).

@boomzilla said:

But in some circles, those are fighting words. Ever heard the phrase, "Born this way,"

Even if that is the case, what objective basis is there to say that neurophysiology/neurochemistry has the trump card over reproductive physiology?

And as soon as you throw out objective bases then it's basically a contest of "strongest wins." Which, incidentally, is the relevant physical law.

 

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

I don't know how to fix this, and while being more accepting is good and will help them in many ways, it won't solve this.

 

Let's start with the acceptance and let things roll from there, shall we?

@boomzilla said:

There are many more homosexual males and lesbian females, and they're still a bit separate from most of society, again due to relative frequency.

All the gays I know are doing pretty well, though. I'm on teh social medias: I know quite a lot more than I used to, and I have on more than one occasion been scolded after saying a stipud thing. Being resigned to one's fate (i.e. being just plain rare) is not quite the same as being chewed on and spit out by the community at large.

[flabdablet]

Thanks for that.

This is for you, as for everybody; it helps me know when conducting myself properly is a pure waste of time, a straight-up exercise in trying to teach a pig to sing.

[dhromed]

@too_many_usernames said:

the nature of the universe (e.g., result of DNA, chemicals, environment, etc.) cannot ever be "wrong" (can it?). 

 

Of course things are as they are and nothing's wrong, but we can discern patterns and we can discern anomalies.

And we call those things wrong.

And we unfortunately also call immoral things wrong. And this conflation of meanings -- in all concerning minds -- is causing hurt. And I think that's wrong and I would like to fix that if I can.

[dhromed]

@flabdablet said:

This is for you

 

he he he

[boomzilla]

@too_many_usernames said:

Saying "I have the wrong physiology" is incorrect - because you cannot have any physiology other than the one you were "born" with.

Go tell a trans person, see how far you get. I'm not the one saying things are wrong. This is what trans people believe about their bodies. We're all just taking their word for it (or not, as you seem to be doing).

@too_many_usernames said:

@boomzilla said:

But in some circles, those are fighting words. Ever heard the phrase, "Born this way,"

Even if that is the case, what objective basis is there to say that neurophysiology/neurochemistry has the trump card over reproductive physiology?

I would say that objective morality only applies if you're religious. Though I'm not sure what you mean by trump card, here, and I would actually say that neurophysiology and neurochemistry probably aren't independent of reproductive physiology. Our experience with things like dogs and cats provide evidence that they aren't.

[boomzilla]

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

There are many more homosexual males and lesbian females, and they're still a bit separate from most of society, again due to relative frequency.

All the gays I know are doing pretty well, though. I'm on teh social medias: I know quite a lot more than I used to, and I have on more than one occasion been scolded after saying a stipud thing. Being resigned to one's fate (i.e. being just plain rare) is not quite the same as being chewed on and spit out by the community at large.

We're in agreement here.

However, if you really think men and women are the same except for social conditioning, I think you're not paying attention. I'm not saying you necessarily do, but there are plenty of people who say that. There are many ways we separate and treat the two differently, and there are good and not good reasons for a lot of them. Trying to figure out how to treat people (not just in the how we talk to them kind of way) is complicated. If you tried to eliminate sex based differences, I would predict you'd face a lot of push back from places you wouldn't have expected. Again, some for good reasons, some not.

[too_many_usernames]

@boomzilla said:

Though I'm not sure what you mean by trump card, here, and I would actually say that neurophysiology and neurochemistry probably aren't independent of reproductive physiology.

 

There is much more support for reproductive surgery than psychiatry or psychiatric drugs: that's all I meant by "brain" trumps "reproductive."

[DrakeSmith]

This thread is a great representation of how when someone who disagrees with a liberal is automatically labeled as intolerant while at the same time said liberal refuses to tolerate your viewpoint. I get into arguments often with liberals when I call them out on their intolerance (e.g. Herman Cain isn't black enough), and once cornered they resort to name calling and accusations of hate and dismiss me as "rich white republican".

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

Trying to figure out how to treat people is complicated.

 

No kidding.

@boomzilla said:

if you really think men and women are the same except for social conditioning, I think you're not paying attention.

In all of my experience, I've not seen a reason to start by assuming any differences between men and women other than physiology. I've never noticed any difference that couldn't be explained with culture; views on what is "appropriate" for men and what is for women. Functions, hobbies, character traits, feats, interests, toys, styles, hopes & dreams; all these things are neutral.

Maybe one day I will come across such a difference.

 

[taustin]

@Rhywden said:

It's the same reason why I don't understand why, when it says: "A jury of your peers"

 

 Note: The word "peer" does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution, nor any of its amendments. Most particularly in reference to juries.

 Article III, Section 2, paragraph 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

 

[taustin]

@El_Heffe said:

The cuurent situation sucks, but "Loser Pays" only works in a perfect world.

 

It isn't really a question of if it works, though. It's a question of if it works better than what we have now. Arguing that we shouldn't change anything that can 't be made perfect is arguing that we shouldn't change anything, ever, for any reason, no matter how bad things are, no matter what.

The current systems is very, very broken, and "loser pays" has improved some counties' legal systems. It has made others worse, so perhaps it's a bit more complicated than a sound byte can solve.

 

[flabdablet]

@dhromed said:

@flabdablet said:

This is for you

 

he he he

And this is for boomzilla (and no doubt Morbs in due course) to mansplain the futility of to all, for surely our trans readers could only benefit from exposure to such dispassionate, rigorously objective and supremely well informed points of view.

[taustin]

@morbiuswilters said:

But if they know I have to pay if I lose, then they will be much more cautious in taking my case or not. And they'll be more likely to take the case on contingency if they know it has a good chance of succeeding, which at least spares me from paying my own lawyers because they will be paid by the defendant when I win.

 

Note that (while I agree that, handled right, there might be significant benefit to a "loser pays" reform) a lawyer taking a case on a contingency does not mean the client doesn't pay anything. In fact, if there is a lot on the line (and the lawyer gets a percentage), it may well cost the client more, not less. There are filijng fees, stenographers do not ever work on a contingency, expert witnesses (who are very common in patent cases) often charge higher hourly fees than lawyers, etc. And none of them bill you after the trial is over. And if the client balks at things the lawyer (correctly) believes are necessary to win, then things get very messy and very complicated very quickly, and a lawyer with a client who won't play  the game right isn't motivated to win at all, and knows the client is on the hook even if the lawyer phones in it from the beach.

There can be value to "loser pays," but it's hardly a magic bullet.

[taustin]

 I have a lawyer friend. He normally gets automatically thanked and sent home when called for jury duty, because generally speaking, lawyers don't like laywers on their juries. One time, however, he got on the jury, because the entire case hinged on a highly technical point of law. Said the entire case, by both sides, was presented to him, and him alone, and the other eleven jurors basically asked him how to vote.

Jury pools are chosen at random. Jurors are not. If the jurors are not capable of understanding your case, then your lawyer is incompetent, and you're going to lose no matter what.

"If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."

[boomzilla]

@too_many_usernames said:

@boomzilla said:

Though I'm not sure what you mean by trump card, here, and I would actually say that neurophysiology and neurochemistry probably aren't independent of reproductive physiology.

 

There is much more support for reproductive surgery than psychiatry or psychiatric drugs: that's all I meant by "brain" trumps "reproductive."

The "reproductive" surgery is really superficial with respect to reproduction, which isn't to say that it couldn't be more or less helpful to the person than some kind of psychiatric treatment.

[boomzilla]

@flabdablet said:

And this is for boomzilla (and no doubt Morbs in due course) to mansplain the futility of to all, for surely our trans readers could only benefit from exposure to such dispassionate, rigorously objective and supremely well informed points of view.

Uh, OK. Maybe you can libsplain how this should help me. I don't see how this contradicts what I've said, except that I believe that some people become that way through abuse. An interesting and related thought experiment / flamewar instigator: If some people really are born that way, what would happen if we could detect this before the person is born? Would it be moral / ethical to abort said fetuses? How common would this procedure be?

It would be cool if you were more interested in discussing than proclaiming your allegiance to your tribe and your eternal war against those outside your tribe.

[taustin]

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

But today, if you're not a lesbian marxist who thinks the world would be better without men, you're not a feminist.

 

I don't know where you got this, because it cannot be observed in the world.

 

I've seen it. I had an intro to history of western civilization class once, taught  by a woman who obivously felt crushing guilt that the only oppressed minority she was, was a woman, and who clearly would have been much happier if she'd been a black, jewish, crippled lesbian communist or something.

In the two weeks or so before I dropped the class as useless, literally the only thing she talked about was how all bad things in all of human history were done by the richest 3% of white men. Her favorite phrase (uttered several times an hour) was "manly men doing manly things with men," not used, ever, even once, in a less than insutling fashion.

In short, yes, you can observe it in the real world. Not, perhaps, in your world, but in the real world.

 

[flabdablet]

You went there. You really truly actually went there. Holy crap.

[derp]

@dhromed said:

 I'd love it if more people would talk, though.

Now it's just like we have four champions of Infinite Debate and it's kind of tiring; I assume for all parties.

 

That image of the marshalling signals you posted with regards to communication during sex really cut me up.  Funny shit.  Laughed for like 5 minutes.

 

[too_many_usernames]

@boomzilla said:

The "reproductive" surgery is really superficial with respect to reproduction, which isn't to say that it couldn't be more or less helpful to the person than some kind of psychiatric treatment.

 

The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that it's very, very difficult to define what "helpful" really means in any given situation...

[boomzilla]

@flabdablet said:

You went there. You really truly actually went there. Holy crap.

I assume you're talking about the abortion thing. Where is it you thought I went? What is it you think I think about it? Am I a terrible person for thinking about this sort of thing? Why are you afraid of going there? Are you afraid to think deeply about things you do or do not support?

I guess I'm not surprised that you would show outrage instead of thoughtfulness.

[flabdablet]

So you've dived straight down the eugenics rabbit hole, and you expect me to take seriously some bullshit claim that this is a purely academic side topic with no implication whatsoever that a trans identity is some kind of defect?

There is only one reasonable reaction to that, and it is this: Fuck off. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

[dhromed]

@pauly said:

That image of the marshalling signals you posted with regards to communication during sex really cut me up.  Funny shit.  Laughed for like 5 minutes.

Thanks, buddy. I try.

[boomzilla]

@flabdablet said:

So you've dived straight down the eugenics rabbit hole, and you expect me to take seriously some bullshit claim that this is a purely academic side topic with no implication whatsoever that a trans identity is some kind of defect?

LOL. I think there are a lot of reasons to consider it a "defect," and I know that a lot of people will have their own opinions on them regardless of all the loving wishes you send their way. I know you just read that and think it said that I wish all trans people were dead, because you're just that kind of person. You obviously haven't thought too much about this because it makes you uncomfortable. Of course, we may never figure out if being trans is genetic or environmental or psychiatric (and it may be some combination). But you're the one who linked to a page that said they were the way they were and can't be changed.

You know who is "is the way they are?" Females. And there is such a thing as sex selective abortions. What do you think about that? It's perhaps a less uncomfortable way for you to exercise your thinking muscles instead of your outrage reflex.

Or maybe you just hate women and it's part of your War on them and their bodies.

@flabdablet said:

There is only one reasonable reaction to that, and it is this: Fuck off. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Yes, there's no reasonable sense in discussion something that makes you squirm. No one should ever consider awful things.