Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Special Snowflakes - Vol. 1
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 753
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
Male physique


:lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
People Of Love

Kindness Evokes Kindness

Peace Emits Positive Energy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
desultory
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 9068

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BonezTheGoon wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
Cross-posting is a bannable offense, boy.


Since when? It sure wasn't when I was a moderator.
In general, it is not, short of taking it to utterly insane extremes. The typical response is still to shuffle same language duplicates to the obvious place; and possibly give the poster the UN treatment, as k them to stop and if they refuse, ask them again. Though the UN shtick does get old, so things could actually escalate in exceptional cases.
BonezTheGoon wrote:
I also have done it more than once.
The first step is admitting that you have a problem...
BonezTheGoon wrote:
I mean I have one in my signature.
Given that it is in a signature, and linked to the source, I would consider that a reference, not crossposting. I have encounterd only a single user who has ever abused that to the point of getting contacted about it, and at the moment I would need to look up the name of that user to specify who it was.

Naib wrote:
cross-posting, as in same post content in multiple threads, is. referencing isn't and never has been OTHERWISE ever single reporter would be banned if that retarded interpretation of "cross posting" was true
Overly strict, yes; retarded... no.

Naib wrote:
Male physique
I would tend to disagree, basketball should not require that much muscle mass; aerobic performance and endurance seem rather more important, though gaining such performance might tend to produce functionally excess muscle mass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1375
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

desultory wrote:
. . . linked to the source, I would consider that a reference, not crossposting . . .


Thanks!

I think I get the distinction. Maybe I haven't done it more than once then. I'm sure I still have problems I need to address though.
_________________
mcgruff wrote:
I can't promise to be civil.


pjp wrote:
The greater evil is voting for the "lesser evil."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BonezTheGoon wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
Cross-posting is a bannable offense, boy.


Since when? It sure wasn't when I was a moderator. I also have done it more than once. I mean I have one in my signature.

It's right there in the guidelines. At least, that's what somebody said once.

Look, I got banned merely for saying "can you get that into your coconut" to Naib. If I can get banned for that, then he can get banned for cross-posting, which is obviously the more substantial Guidelines violation than referring to someone's head metaphorically as an article of fruit that it actually resembles. I mean, have you ever seen that guy's head?
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe this needs its own thread, or maybe it should be in the MeToo thread. This thread was readily available, so here it is...

Transgender Customer Demanded ‘Full Brazilian’ From Beauty Salon Under Massachusetts Gender Identity Law

The article certainly seems to present the would-be client as genuine customer as opposed to an activist. That said, I don't think the government should be able to force one person to perform an act on or for another person.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noyb
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Maybe this needs its own thread, or maybe it should be in the MeToo thread. This thread was readily available, so here it is...

Transgender Customer Demanded ‘Full Brazilian’ From Beauty Salon Under Massachusetts Gender Identity Law

The article certainly seems to present the would-be client as genuine customer as opposed to an activist. That said, I don't think the government should be able to force one person to perform an act on or for another person.


As one of our resident trans people that just happens to own a salon and spa...

I hear these stories from my clients all the time.

Beyond federal law, which doesn't protect against discrimination based on gender, almost every state in the US provides protections against gender discrimination (forget complicating it with gender identity, we'll deal with straight up gender) in places of public accommodation. Most people think of this in terms of "if you allow men, you must allow women," but the reverse is also true. Most men, denied an opportunity that women have, won't bother to sue, even if they do have the right to.

Most places will straight up tell men and trans women "we don't do guys." That is genuine, boldly stated, discrimination based on gender.

There are ways to get around the law - require that the person receive a certain amount of non-genital work to qualify for genital work instead of basing it solely on gender, limit the hours of availability for such work (require a second staff person to be present), banning people for behavior (I'm thinking of the creepy 70 year old dude that took viagra before his appointment), require that someone of the same gender do the work, etc. Many places don't do Brazilian work at all since it's an area that can cause health issues, which is also ok (they don't do the work, so aren't discriminating at all).

We happily do work on trans people, guys, etc, in addition to cis women... and we're the only place around that does it. And, truthfully, we make a ton of money because we're the only ones that do it. I get cis women coming that that tell us that they chose us precisely because we're open and affirming to everyone. I've spent the last few years watching my competitors go out of business or have to completely change their business model because, amongst other issues, they aren't as welcoming as us. If someone chooses not to come to us because we work on trans people, that's fine with me - people choose a provider based on trivial things all the time.

While most guys will blow off the discrimination, most trans people will just quietly deepen their sense of social rejection and turn it inwardly on themselves. Want to know why the attempted suicide rates are so high? Try living in a world where almost everyone openly discriminates against you and many people consider it socially acceptable. Some people, including our own parents, openly wish us dead even though we aren't hurting anyone else. I've personally faced discrimination within my family as well as from medical providers (whom helped themselves to ancient parts of my electronic medical record that they didn't need to know about since I was seeing them for an unrelated issue - one chose to out me to another patient and another two committed malpractice during a procedure). While I'm strong willed enough to fight back when that happened, 99% of trans people aren't.

Ultimately, as a libertarian, I believe there shouldn't be laws compelling people to do work they don't want to do. As a capitalist, I'm happy that my competition flaunts the laws that do exist. As a human, it's still sad that other people are so happy to discriminate against people just for being different*.

* Including the author of this piece, whom consistently refers to a trans woman with male pronouns. That is one of those things that keeps more trans people from supporting conservatives and republicans even if they oppose the left on virtually everything else. Believe it or not, some of us aren't crazy SJWs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the highly relevant feedback (I wonder what the odds are of someone here being a trans person owning such a spa).

"We don't do guys" seems a reasonable policy at least as far as it isn't specifically discriminating against trans people. I do wonder if that policy is limited mainly to male genitalia. Consider also gyms which focus on female only clientele. Is it discriminating against men? Yes. Is it reasonable for some population of women to want to go to the gym without feeling like they're being ogled because of their (un)attractiveness? I think it is reasonable. However, I also don't think it is reasonable for private facilities to have a "men's only" club. Another example, which I can't find now, was a pharmacy in L.A. which only allowed women. My recollection is that the policy was supposedly due to gang related violence. On the other hand, this women only pharmacy appears to be discrimination for the sake of discrimination.

Extend the generalized situation to other areas. Is there any "personal safety" concerns with getting car maintenance performed? Landscaping, shoes? No. I don't see any reasonable way to deny someone any of those services. What about a lap dance? Should strippers be forced to perform for someone they are uncomfortable being around? What about where prostitution is legal?

Just as the first amendment has limitations, I also think there are "reasonable accommodations" for other areas that shouldn't qualify as discrimination in my opinion. I understand that may not make it feel better, but consider this. Would it feel good to know you were making someone else extremely uncomfortable because they were being forced to do something they didn't like? In that circumstance, are they likely to be able to provide their best quality service? I doubt it. I don't see the "win" in that situation. Trying to find creative ways to circumvent the law doesn't really seem to be an improvement for either the customer or business.

Familial discrimination isn't a new thing. Interracial or inter-religious relationships for two of the most obvious. Sometimes parents think it's "their fault." Hmm. That sounds dismissive, and that's not my intent. I guess my point there is that trans people aren't alone in that regard. As for the medical situation you describe, that to me isn't discrimination but simply criminal assault. I don't know if the medical records access was illegal, but malpractice certainly is. Among other things, deliberate malpractice should result in permanent loss of license.

As for (im)proper use of pronouns, I can only suggest that people unfamiliar with an actual trans person may just have trouble remembering the correct usage. I'm "guilty" of that. For whatever reason, I just find it confusing to remember the "order." First, I don't care whether or not someone is trans. And if I were to meet someone who became a friend, I would know them however they first introduced themselves. If they eventually informed me they were trans, I wouldn't suddenly not know how to refer to them. But when the "bad apples" berate and antagonize people, I stop caring and paying attention to the virtual temper tantrum. I'll reserve my care and concern for any person who acts human.

I can understand to a point why you could be reluctant to vote for conservatives or Republicans. As recently as 2008 I didn't think it was unreasonable to consider voting for a Democrat. But since then, they've made it absolutely clear that if they were to gain power, I could very likely be imprisoned merely for not being one of them.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noyb
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Thanks for the highly relevant feedback (I wonder what the odds are of someone here being a trans person owning such a spa).


Never tell me the odds... ;)

pjp wrote:

"We don't do guys" seems a reasonable policy at least as far as it isn't specifically discriminating against trans people. I do wonder if that policy is limited mainly to male genitalia. Consider also gyms which focus on female only clientele. Is it discriminating against men? Yes. Is it reasonable for some population of women to want to go to the gym without feeling like they're being ogled because of their (un)attractiveness? I think it is reasonable. However, I also don't think it is reasonable for private facilities to have a "men's only" club. Another example, which I can't find now, was a pharmacy in L.A. which only allowed women. My recollection is that the policy was supposedly due to gang related violence. On the other hand, this women only pharmacy appears to be discrimination for the sake of discrimination.


People should have the right to choose the people they want to associate with. As someone that is a minority, I understand why, legislatively, some people have tried to undo some of the damage that can come from discrimination, but I don't believe that two wrongs make a right. Much like with forced integration, compelling people to associate with someone they don't want to only increases animosity and thus perpetuates the damage.

In my particular case, my employees are free to work on the people they want to. If someone doesn't want to work on *insert group here*, someone else is more than happy to do the work. Not only do I like money, but my employees generally do too (and genital work pays programmer level wages without a college degree). That said, if someone behaves poorly, I'm glad to tell them they're no longer welcome.

pjp wrote:

Extend the generalized situation to other areas. Is there any "personal safety" concerns with getting car maintenance performed? Landscaping, shoes? No. I don't see any reasonable way to deny someone any of those services. What about a lap dance? Should strippers be forced to perform for someone they are uncomfortable being around? What about where prostitution is legal?


I'm a big fan of the non-aggression principle. I don't believe anyone should be forced to do anything they aren't comfortable with, including baking a cake, marrying someone against their religious beliefs, or waxing a butt hole.

pjp wrote:

Just as the first amendment has limitations, I also think there are "reasonable accommodations" for other areas that shouldn't qualify as discrimination in my opinion. I understand that may not make it feel better, but consider this. Would it feel good to know you were making someone else extremely uncomfortable because they were being forced to do something they didn't like? In that circumstance, are they likely to be able to provide their best quality service? I doubt it. I don't see the "win" in that situation. Trying to find creative ways to circumvent the law doesn't really seem to be an improvement for either the customer or business.


I'm not judging their reasons for discriminating, only mentioning there are ways of doing it while complying with the law. In the case of my business, we want to get to know the person and feel comfortable with them (and likewise, them with us), which is why we require them to have a certain amount of work done prior to doing genital work. If someone's a creep while we're doing work elsewhere, like the trans woman that grabbed my boobs to "see what they felt like" (that's sexual assault btw), the cis girl that wouldn't stop moaning in pleasure, or the viagra guy, then we aren't going to let them continue to come to our establishment and it has nothing to do with their gender.

pjp wrote:

Familial discrimination isn't a new thing. Interracial or inter-religious relationships for two of the most obvious. Sometimes parents think it's "their fault." Hmm. That sounds dismissive, and that's not my intent. I guess my point there is that trans people aren't alone in that regard. As for the medical situation you describe, that to me isn't discrimination but simply criminal assault. I don't know if the medical records access was illegal, but malpractice certainly is. Among other things, deliberate malpractice should result in permanent loss of license.


Trans people are often kicked out of their houses (including full parental abandonment as minors), forced to go to conversion therapy, and even assaulted by their parents... on top of the general discrimination we can face from them. Speaking simply as a person, our parents, as well as our doctors, should be the people we're most capable of trusting. Not having solid foundations there set you up for a number of pitfalls in the rest of your life. I'm not saying that everyone should cater to every whim a person has (trust me, internally I roll my eyes at the special pronoun non-binary agender aromantic pansexual poly age-playing person too), but we should do our best to let people have their dignity, even if we may be laughing inside.

As for the malpractice, the system is largely set up to protect doctors... and while I believe I have a strong civil case, pursuing it will cost me tens of thousands of dollars, and, in addition to the higher bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt," the hospital has already circled the wagons to protect their doctors against criminal charges through their sham internal investigation (which largely amounted to coaching about what to say/what not to say). Emotionally, I try to move on, though it is difficult to continue to place trust in the medical community since I still need them.

pjp wrote:

As for (im)proper use of pronouns, I can only suggest that people unfamiliar with an actual trans person may just have trouble remembering the correct usage. I'm "guilty" of that. For whatever reason, I just find it confusing to remember the "order." First, I don't care whether or not someone is trans. And if I were to meet someone who became a friend, I would know them however they first introduced themselves. If they eventually informed me they were trans, I wouldn't suddenly not know how to refer to them. But when the "bad apples" berate and antagonize people, I stop caring and paying attention to the virtual temper tantrum. I'll reserve my care and concern for any person who acts human.


For a lot of trans people, it's pretty easy... just go with what they're presenting as. If you aren't sure, it's generally considered ok to ask, or, if you are too embarrassed to, just use the neutral "they/them/their" pronouns (which are both singular and plural grammatically).

Most people that met me today would never know of my past and there would never be any confusion about who and what I am, because I look just like any other woman out there (in fact, this is the root of the majority of discrimination against trans people - the idea that we're hiding amongst the general population, secretly waiting to strike our victims - be they poor children and helpless women in the bathroom or hapless, drunk men at the bar that dare to be attracted to us). From a legal standpoint, all of my documents, including my original birth certificate (my state will issue a new original rather than an amended one, due to situations like North Carolina), all have my legal name (the order was sealed) and female, and, thus, the guy that I was forced to be is a ghost that never really existed. Oh, and, while I'm stealth (ie, I live a normal life where I'm neither seen as trans nor wear it on my sleeve), I do disclose my past to anyone I'm in a relationship with before it becomes serious.

My long time friends got to transition with me. For some, it was easier than it was for others, and, as long as they were genuinely trying, I was very forgiving. If someone refused to try, they were disrespecting me, and thus, not really much of a friend anyway. Once in a blue moon, especially talking about events that happened long ago in the past, someone will slip with the wrong pronouns and, while that isn't ideal, I understand that they're simply recounting the event as they knew it then and aren't trying to harm me (in fact, they usually will beat themselves up over it later). The advice given to us used to be to up and leave everything and everyone you knew when you transition, but psychologists have since learned that it is more harmful to do so, since we lose our entire foundation of support.

Given that the article opened with
Matt McDonald wrote:

A biological male who identifies as a woman asked the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office to force a female-oriented spa on the South Shore to give him a bikini wax and other beauty services under the state’s gender identity law.

The transgender biological male said in the complaint that he contacted the spa in December seeking hair removal all over his body, including the area around his genitals.


The intention was to keep drawing attention to the idea that this is a man, not a woman. "Biological male" may not even be accurate - there are plenty of people that have various intersex conditions, and, unless the reporter has done a full workup on the individual (something many trans people and intersex people don't even have on themselves) and it may not even be legally accurate, given that the person most likely has documentation stating that she is female. It is more of a case of the reporter interjecting his own beliefs to try to get the reader to form the "right" opinion rather than trying to remain independent in simply reporting the facts of the story. We hate it when the left does it, we should hate it when the right does too.

It is this type of stuff that fuels the SJW vitriol... it gives them an easy vector to drive a wedge between people.

pjp wrote:

I can understand to a point why you could be reluctant to vote for conservatives or Republicans. As recently as 2008 I didn't think it was unreasonable to consider voting for a Democrat. But since then, they've made it absolutely clear that if they were to gain power, I could very likely be imprisoned merely for not being one of them.


I'm not a one issue voter and, even if I was, the trans thing or even gay politics (I'm a lesbian) isn't my number one issue. Much like you with the Democrats, however, when a politician like Tracy Murphree threatens to beat trans people that just need to pee until they are unconscious, I'm going to take that as a literal threat against my life, particularly since cis women have been assaulted for the "crime" of being too butch looking while going to the bathroom. As a result, I largely find myself rejecting the Republican candidates in addition to the Democrat candidates (whom think it is perfectly fine to act like despots themselves), and vote third party, if I even bother to vote at all (lots of non-contested elections where I live).

Oh, and that guy, Tracy Murphree, was elected sheriff of Denton County, TX. I know one place that I won't be visiting (it has as much to do with the residents that voted him in as it does the man himself).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 753
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The essential divide is between two groups.

Group 1 is about "REALZ BEFORE FEELZ". I fall into this group, as do most sane people.

Group 2 is about "FEELZ BEFORE REALZ", and this is where SJWs and other leftists and crazy people fall.
_________________
People Of Love

Kindness Evokes Kindness

Peace Emits Positive Energy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2247
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
The essential divide is between two groups.

Group 1 is about "REALZ BEFORE FEELZ". I fall into this group, as do most sane people.

Group 2 is about "FEELZ BEFORE REALZ", and this is where SJWs and other leftists and crazy people fall.
Well, I switched to call Group 2 CSJW (C as Counterproductive) after reading this rather lengthy article.

Although I admit there there is social injustice that needs to be fought everywhere on the planet, your group 1 is what is needed by tech projects.

Just imagine a comment on a merged PR that reads like: "Well, that's crap, but I don't want to make you feel bad, so I merged that shit anyway."
...would be a nightmare...
_________________
Important German:
  1. "Aha" - German reaction to pretend that you are really interested while giving no f*ck.
  2. "Tja" - German reaction to the apocalypse, nuclear war, an alien invasion or no bread in the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrbassie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:


Although I admit there there is social injustice that needs to be fought everywhere on the planet


What actually is social injustice?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

noyb wrote:
The intention was to keep drawing attention to the idea that this is a man, not a woman. "Biological male" may not even be accurate - there are plenty of people that have various intersex conditions, and, unless the reporter has done a full workup on the individual (something many trans people and intersex people don't even have on themselves) and it may not even be legally accurate, given that the person most likely has documentation stating that she is female. It is more of a case of the reporter interjecting his own beliefs to try to get the reader to form the "right" opinion rather than trying to remain independent in simply reporting the facts of the story. We hate it when the left does it, we should hate it when the right does too.
I think we agree on most things. And I appreciate your comments as they've given me something else to consider and certainly a different perspective.

As for the article, I can understand why you reacted that way. I didn't notice the label on the site indicating it was conservative as I was focused on just the article. I approached it with interest only in the legal ramifications. As I read the article, I perceived use of "biological male" to mainly be focusing on the presence of a penis, as opposed to a trans woman without one, which would seem to make it an entirely different case.

I perceived that to be the primary concern with the woman who would have provided the service. In retrospect, knowing that it is a self-identified conservative site, I also think that could be a factor. In my experience, they tend to be a group which tries to avoid discussing sex and the parts involved. In considering that is the intended audience, I think it seems reasonable that they would try to present the obvious without actually mentioning it. Without knowing the author's track record, it could very well be how you perceived it. I'm just mentioning how I perceived it.

My perception is that most (non-trans / non-trans aware?) people would translate "biological male" to mean a person born with a penis. Maybe that's not legally accurate, but that gets into a situation where legal dance becomes impossible to navigable for most people in day-to-day usage. I just re-read the article looking for an angle that was intended to put the trans woman in a bad light, and I didn't see it. To me it seemed like they went out of their way to make sure they showed her as willing to accommodate the spa (other services first, any questions).

noyb wrote:
It is this type of stuff that fuels the SJW vitriol... it gives them an easy vector to drive a wedge between people.
In this instance, I think it is unwarranted. If something that minor and very reasonably unintended is that much of a catalyst, then I don't think there is ever going to be a way to bridge the divide.
The Sheriff's comments are worth of a reciprocal response.

noyb wrote:
when a politician like Tracy Murphree threatens to beat trans people that just need to pee until they are unconscious, I'm going to take that as a literal threat against my life, particularly since cis women have been assaulted for the "crime" of being too butch looking while going to the bathroom.


As the author of the headline almost certainly intended, I was "shocked" by the headline (Murphree Calls for Violence Against). No, he actually did not call for violence, but he did make a general threat. The article did present his "clarification" that it was geared toward male predators, not trans people, but the distinction seemed to get lost. Of course, how can anyone identify a predator by the act of opening a door?

I did think the article was reasonably fair, but it's headline caused the intended damage (IMO) for any reasonable discussion around the article. Click-bait and eyeballs are are the business, I get it, it's just unfortunate. That said, I agree that his comments should have been presented differently given his position.

As the US has been separated by gender in most things, and bathrooms being among the last of those separations to fall, it isn't surprising to me that people are strongly divided on the issue. Given the number of girls who are assaulted before they are adults, I think a strong reaction in opposition is understandable. Fortunately for me, I'm not trying to campaign on knowing how to solve the division. Maybe the long term solution is to have fewer or no group bathrooms in a similar way that the ADA mandated accommodations for the handicapped.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
The essential divide is between two groups.

Group 1 is about "REALZ BEFORE FEELZ". I fall into this group, as do most sane people.

Group 2 is about "FEELZ BEFORE REALZ", and this is where SJWs and other leftists and crazy people fall.
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I think that there are only two groups identifies the actual problem. Admittedly I've long believed most issues exist in a "gray area" rather than black and white. The correct group is the one which overcomes extremes.


Yamakuzure wrote:
Just imagine a comment on a merged PR that reads like: "Well, that's crap, but I don't want to make you feel bad, so I merged that shit anyway."
...would be a nightmare...
Again, extremes. Why does it have to be called crap? Why not point out that the contribution does not meet QA standards of the project. If they've demonstrated being close, provide useful feedback. If they're "out of their league," point them toward beginner/intermediate/whatever guidance. Here's a thought. If the project is large / important enough, maybe it would be worth the effort to seek people willing to help others learn. That way there is a future pipeline of contributors.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
Well, I switched to call Group 2 CSJW (C as Counterproductive) after reading this rather lengthy article.
I'll have to see if I can continue some other time. I only made as far as this SJWism:
Quote:
The language surrounding how we describe SJW activity tends to be layered in-joke semantic luxuries that were fine during the Progressive Camelot years of Obama, when we had the upper hand. Now that human progress in the form of basic civilization is hanging on by its fingernails, some restraint is appropriate not remotely as any kind of concession, but indeed as a needed bulwark for the resistance.
It is statements like that (among many others) which earned SJW the pejorative.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrbassie wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:


Although I admit there there is social injustice that needs to be fought everywhere on the planet


What actually is social injustice?

Nature being allowed to take its course. Nature was considered by many philosophers to be one of the few cornerstones of valid morality, but they were old white men. Now, we no longer believe that it is right for the smart and productive guy to boss around the dumb useless guy, or for the hot chick to get the biggest dick. Now, we know better: that it's more right for the dumb useless guy to live off the smart productive guy because how else he gonna live, and for the fat chick to get the big dick because how else you get in there past that big ass and sofa cushions of fat? It's called "fair", and if you don't believe in it, you're a bad person who should be intimidated and subjected to various forms of harm.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noyb
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:

I think we agree on most things. And I appreciate your comments as they've given me something else to consider and certainly a different perspective.


As someone that has suffered from this condition for my entire life (I figured it out when I was around 3, though I didn't have the words for it back then and society didn't really either), I've always looked at it as a birth defect. There are a lot of trans people that would pillory me for saying that, but essentially, that is what it is, whether we're talking about a chromosomal disorder, a gestational/fetal development issue, a random mutation, or whatever. Given that, after their deaths, I found out that there are at least two generations previously on my mom side that were also trans (though they never did anything about it, since medicine and society wasn't exactly understanding back then), I wouldn't be surprised if, indeed, I have some type of genetic defect in my case.

Would we stigmatize someone for life because they were born with a cleft palate or would we give them surgery and move on?

Reconciling all of this is something I've really focused my entire life on... and, if there is a potentially receptive audience, I don't mind sharing some of my perspective in the hopes of others gaining some insight. I know this is OTW and all, but I also know I'm not the only trans person that uses Gentoo, since several have reached out to me in the past.

pjp wrote:

As for the article, I can understand why you reacted that way. I didn't notice the label on the site indicating it was conservative as I was focused on just the article. I approached it with interest only in the legal ramifications. As I read the article, I perceived use of "biological male" to mainly be focusing on the presence of a penis, as opposed to a trans woman without one, which would seem to make it an entirely different case.


Most of my political friends are openly conservative or libertarians with a strong social conservative bent. Some of them refused to associate with me after I started transitioning and some others treat me with constant suspicion. I live under the microscope of their judgment and am probably a little more sensitive to it. I could be wrong, but I don't know of anyone from a strict social conservative bent that differentiates a pre-op trans woman from a post-op trans woman, particularly when they are referring to either (and realistically, it is both) as a "biological man." For them, the assumed karyotype of the person they are talking about is all that matters and, even then, some that are aggressively anti-trans, like Steven Crowder, immediately begin their arguments that "intersex people are so rare, they don't matter in this discussion," despite there not being an accurate record of how many people are intersex (largely, in past cases of genital ambiguity, doctors would simply "correct" the baby at birth at not even tell the parents).

Ultimately, the goal is to portray trans people as mentally ill freaks that don't deserve compassion, though they'll claim that the true compassion is in forcing their view of who we are supposed to be upon us... which, again, is why attempted suicide rates are so high.

pjp wrote:

I perceived that to be the primary concern with the woman who would have provided the service. In retrospect, knowing that it is a self-identified conservative site, I also think that could be a factor. In my experience, they tend to be a group which tries to avoid discussing sex and the parts involved. In considering that is the intended audience, I think it seems reasonable that they would try to present the obvious without actually mentioning it. Without knowing the author's track record, it could very well be how you perceived it. I'm just mentioning how I perceived it.


It stems the traditional (and sexist) view that women are fragile and must be protected... Men frequently openly talk about the predatory intentions of other men. Women learn early on as young girls what those intentions are too. What the other does, by referring to a trans woman as a biological male, is to imply that a trans woman is as predatory as men are. A big part of why men are sexually aggressive is their testosterone - something that hormone replacement intentionally sets out to correct in trans women. In my case, like many other trans women, my testosterone level is on the very low end of the female range and was actually below the male range even before starting hormones. I have virtually no sex drive and I certainly have no desire to force myself on anyone (in fact, my penis wasn't even functional before hormones because I couldn't psychologically be the man during intercourse). My junk is nothing but a source of pain for me and I eagerly await my surgery date. I'd argue that most trans women are less sexually predatory than cis women are, particularly if progesterone isn't in their HRT regimen.

By the way, the article, like most of society, completely ignores the existence of trans men... most of whom don't have a penis (only 3% have surgery due to the expense and poor outcomes), but can be as aggressive as any man out there thanks to their abundantly high testosterone. Would the salon be comfortable giving a Brazilian to a hairy, macho, muscular dude (google some trans men) that just happens to have a vagina? If the penis is the problem, why would they turn him down?

pjp wrote:

My perception is that most (non-trans / non-trans aware?) people would translate "biological male" to mean a person born with a penis. Maybe that's not legally accurate, but that gets into a situation where legal dance becomes impossible to navigable for most people in day-to-day usage. I just re-read the article looking for an angle that was intended to put the trans woman in a bad light, and I didn't see it. To me it seemed like they went out of their way to make sure they showed her as willing to accommodate the spa (other services first, any questions).


The bad light comes from the implication that trans people are somehow deceptive and predatory... perhaps I'm a little more sensitive to it, since I see this stuff on a daily basis, not only from conservatives, but from TERFs too.

pjp wrote:

noyb wrote:
when a politician like Tracy Murphree threatens to beat trans people that just need to pee until they are unconscious, I'm going to take that as a literal threat against my life, particularly since cis women have been assaulted for the "crime" of being too butch looking while going to the bathroom.


As the author of the headline almost certainly intended, I was "shocked" by the headline (Murphree Calls for Violence Against). No, he actually did not call for violence, but he did make a general threat. The article did present his "clarification" that it was geared toward male predators, not trans people, but the distinction seemed to get lost. Of course, how can anyone identify a predator by the act of opening a door?

I did think the article was reasonably fair, but it's headline caused the intended damage (IMO) for any reasonable discussion around the article. Click-bait and eyeballs are are the business, I get it, it's just unfortunate. That said, I agree that his comments should have been presented differently given his position.


Theoretically, it is legal to kill us in 47 states (only California, Illinois, and Rhode Island have banned the trans panic defense)... and there is public violence against trans people and people mistaken as trans people on a somewhat regular basis. There was a surge in such behavior with the passage of the bathroom bill in North Carolina which led directly to the Sheriff's statement condoning violence. We can argue over the nuance of it, but I think it is irresponsible for someone in his position to advocate such behavior, particularly as a preemptive action. I will never say that all trans people are saints - given a sufficiently large group of any population, there will be bad actors within it, but the vast majority of trans people go into a bathroom to go to the bathroom and many are terrified to the point where they'll opt to not eat or drink if they're going to go out, or even refuse to be social at all, just to avoid the bathroom and potential confrontations that happen there. And, again, when you see that burly dude walk into the women's room because, well, he was assigned female at birth and, thus, MUST use that room according to these people, there's going to be an even bigger problem. How long before we station someone outside every bathroom to do a genital check and, in that case, who is the perv, the person that needs to go to the bathroom or the one that is employed explicity as a crotch feeler (making them even worse than the TSA)?

Personally, I not only fear being raped, I fear being killed if the assailant discovers that I currently have a penis, since he may feel the need to vigorously defend his manhood against a self-imposed question of whether his attraction means he's gay (if you see a girl that you are attracted to, it doesn't mean you are gay if you later find out that she has or once had a penis, particularly if you didn't know that when you became attracted to her). In addition to the "must protect the women" mentality above, I think this is the twin core of transphobia for a lot of people.

pjp wrote:

As the US has been separated by gender in most things, and bathrooms being among the last of those separations to fall, it isn't surprising to me that people are strongly divided on the issue. Given the number of girls who are assaulted before they are adults, I think a strong reaction in opposition is understandable. Fortunately for me, I'm not trying to campaign on knowing how to solve the division. Maybe the long term solution is to have fewer or no group bathrooms in a similar way that the ADA mandated accommodations for the handicapped.


I totally understand the fear... and I also understand that some establishments (stadiums, mass transit terminals, etc) need group bathrooms by necessity. I think the fix is pretty easy though - make stalls completely private. Put panic buttons in them if you must. If the fear is that there can secretly be a man waiting to attack in there, well, what stops him right now? What stopped him 10 years ago before society even learned the word trans?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 753
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Muso wrote:
The essential divide is between two groups.

Group 1 is about "REALZ BEFORE FEELZ". I fall into this group, as do most sane people.

Group 2 is about "FEELZ BEFORE REALZ", and this is where SJWs and other leftists and crazy people fall.
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I think that there are only two groups identifies the actual problem. Admittedly I've long believed most issues exist in a "gray area" rather than black and white. The correct group is the one which overcomes extremes.


I'm talking about a fundamental level. Of course I'm extremely polite when dealing with people, but I will not go along with a delusion. I won't call a he a she, but I will ask for his name and refer to him by his chosen name. In this way I'm not participating in the deconstructionist nonsense that is the basis of political correctness, but I am also being polite. The way around the pronoun trap is to use proper nouns.

My pronouns are "Your Highness" & "Your Majesty". But you can just call me Muso.

noyb wrote:
Would we stigmatize someone for life because they were born with a cleft palate or would we give them surgery and move on?


It's a mental condition (gender dysphoria), so it is more honest to compare it to schizophrenia than a physical deformity. There's nothing wrong with your actual body, rather you think there is a problem. By definition, that is a mental disorder.
_________________
People Of Love

Kindness Evokes Kindness

Peace Emits Positive Energy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrbassie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
mrbassie wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:


Although I admit there there is social injustice that needs to be fought everywhere on the planet


What actually is social injustice?

Nature being allowed to take its course. Nature was considered by many philosophers to be one of the few cornerstones of valid morality, but they were old white men. Now, we no longer believe that it is right for the smart and productive guy to boss around the dumb useless guy, or for the hot chick to get the biggest dick. Now, we know better: that it's more right for the dumb useless guy to live off the smart productive guy because how else he gonna live, and for the fat chick to get the big dick because how else you get in there past that big ass and sofa cushions of fat? It's called "fair", and if you don't believe in it, you're a bad person who should be intimidated and subjected to various forms of harm.


Well now that I know that, how should a former social heretic such as myself atone?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
I'm talking about a fundamental level. Of course I'm extremely polite when dealing with people, but I will not go along with a delusion. I won't call a he a she, but I will ask for his name and refer to him by his chosen name. In this way I'm not participating in the deconstructionist nonsense that is the basis of political correctness, but I am also being polite. The way around the pronoun trap is to use proper nouns.

My pronouns are "Your Highness" & "Your Majesty". But you can just call me Muso.
I'm not a fan of the theoretically unlimited pronoun options simply because it isn't viable. I'm not good with names. I can understand not identifying as a he or she, but I have a much more difficult time grasping not identifying as either. So I'd be curious to hear from one who was willing to civilly offer their perspective. If they were more accepted, it seems that there would be less extreme outrage. There might be some who were outraged at no longer being special, but that would be a much less problematic scenario that would probably take care of itself.
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17455

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

noyb wrote:
As someone that has suffered from this condition for my entire life (I figured it out when I was around 3, though I didn't have the words for it back then and society didn't really either), I've always looked at it as a birth defect. There are a lot of trans people that would pillory me for saying that, but essentially, that is what it is, whether we're talking about a chromosomal disorder, a gestational/fetal development issue, a random mutation, or whatever. Given that, after their deaths, I found out that there are at least two generations previously on my mom side that were also trans (though they never did anything about it, since medicine and society wasn't exactly understanding back then), I wouldn't be surprised if, indeed, I have some type of genetic defect in my case.

Would we stigmatize someone for life because they were born with a cleft palate or would we give them surgery and move on?
I think your comments highlight an important underlying nuance that is avoided. As a society, we are also extremely uncomfortable with mental illness. As you point out, we're OK with physical deformities, mostly (I think abnormal size is still an issue). But we're less OK with mental issues. It seems that we've made great strides with acceptance of cerebral palsy, retardation, etc. But when it comes to depression and schizophrenia, not so much. So if there's any suggestion to a brain component to sexual orientation or identity, the strongest reactions would seem to be related to how society reacts to people with mental illness. Which appears to be one of the most difficult to overcome "fears of the unknown." I'm just hoping the rejection of science is superficial, otherwise there could be decades of negative impact to research.

noyb wrote:
Reconciling all of this is something I've really focused my entire life on... and, if there is a potentially receptive audience, I don't mind sharing some of my perspective in the hopes of others gaining some insight. I know this is OTW and all, but I also know I'm not the only trans person that uses Gentoo, since several have reached out to me in the past.
I definitely appreciate your willingness to do so. OTW is bad, but I don't think it's _that_ bad. I don't think there's anyone here who would be that directly disrespectful. Nor would it be tolerated.

noyb wrote:
Ultimately, the goal is to portray trans people as mentally ill freaks that don't deserve compassion, though they'll claim that the true compassion is in forcing their view of who we are supposed to be upon us... which, again, is why attempted suicide rates are so high.
I have a difficult time believing it is that intentional, but you may be correct. I don't know anyone that socially conservative. Still, you highlight the issue with mental illness. I just can't fathom a person saying they didn't believe a person with a non-specified mental illness was undeserving of compassion. Combining social conservatism (something also likely to be a "brain issue"), their discomfort with "dirty" sexuality of any kind (seems there's still a large majority fear of "internet history" being exposed), and an almost universal discomfort with mental illness, well that seems a challenging combination for anyone to navigate. For example, I believe there was a "brain issue" which led to the murder of Matthew Shepard, not simply being socially conservative. So it wouldn't be reasonable to presume all socially conservative people are on the brink of committing murder. I'm not trying to imply you think that, just that mental illness is perhaps the ultimate thing "everyone" can come together and fear and ostracize.

noyb wrote:
By the way, the article, like most of society, completely ignores the existence of trans men... most of whom don't have a penis (only 3% have surgery due to the expense and poor outcomes), but can be as aggressive as any man out there thanks to their abundantly high testosterone. Would the salon be comfortable giving a Brazilian to a hairy, macho, muscular dude (google some trans men) that just happens to have a vagina? If the penis is the problem, why would they turn him down?
I'm sure there would be some who were uncomfortable enough with that to not want to. I may be naive, but I think it would be appreciably less. I think people would be generally uncomfortable with a "biological female" with a sufficiently abnormal amount of hair. It isn't "normal," and most people are uncomfortable with at least some things that are different.

noyb wrote:
The bad light comes from the implication that trans people are somehow deceptive and predatory... perhaps I'm a little more sensitive to it, since I see this stuff on a daily basis, not only from conservatives, but from TERFs too.
I would imagine it would be next to impossible to not be more sensitive to it if that were a daily normal. Unless it went to the point of becoming numb to it.

noyb wrote:
Theoretically, it is legal to kill us in 47 states (only California, Illinois, and Rhode Island have banned the trans panic defense)...
Would you elaborate on this? The scenario I picture is seeing a trans person entering a bathroom and the "panic" resulting in the death of the trans person. I can't see how that would be legal. I think "crimes of passion" have been seen as a lesser crime than premeditated murder, but they aren't license to kill. And beating someone to "stop an attack" is far different from beating them to death.

noyb wrote:
How long before we station someone outside every bathroom to do a genital check and, in that case, who is the perv, the person that needs to go to the bathroom or the one that is employed explicity as a crotch feeler (making them even worse than the TSA)?
I think discourse is the only long-term solution. People tend to go on the defensive when attacked, which shuts down any chance at a discussion. I don't associate with or know anyone who is extremely conservative, so at best I'd have a rare opportunity to discuss it with someone who felt awkward about an encounter. Even then, I'm not sure what armchair comments I'd be able / willing to offer. Trying to do the right thing is often not welcomed, even by those who would be the benefactor.

noyb wrote:
Personally, I not only fear being raped, I fear being killed if the assailant discovers that I currently have a penis, since he may feel the need to vigorously defend his manhood against a self-imposed question of whether his attraction means he's gay (if you see a girl that you are attracted to, it doesn't mean you are gay if you later find out that she has or once had a penis, particularly if you didn't know that when you became attracted to her). In addition to the "must protect the women" mentality above, I think this is the twin core of transphobia for a lot of people.
Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to fear the unknown and anything different.

noyb wrote:
If the fear is that there can secretly be a man waiting to attack in there, well, what stops him right now? What stopped him 10 years ago before society even learned the word trans?
I think it is partly more awareness. I think the same people would have reacted the same way before knowing the word, they would have just assumed it was a "freak dressed in women's clothes." Not too many years ago, only people in a local community might have heard about an incident because it wouldn't make national news. In the short term, there is likely to be a bad reaction. Hopefully that doesn't last long. As well, I think people like Chaz Bono and Caitlyn Jenner help. By being famous, they're used to at least some attention. So by being able to go public, they can probably tolerate more nastiness. I think US society will become tolerant at a faster rate than experienced by the homosexual community. Yes, I'm aware they still experience bad things, but I think it is far less than it was, and I think everyone experiences something. I know I can't imagine going to South Central LA in my lifetime (I'm not comfortable in any largish cities, so I'd probably stand out as a target in relatively safe urban environments).
_________________
Slowly I turned. Step by step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing about gender that most people don't understand, because most people are pretty ignorant, is that gender in nature is rather fluid and non-binary. Most species do not have sexual reproduction. It's a relative newcomer, if you'll pardon the expression.

While it has the advantage of recombinant DNA, which provides genetic diversity and, therefore, adaptability, it is an inefficient method of reproduction. First, diversification is essentially trial-and-error with a throwback. You don't have a mixture of your parents' traits; you have a mixture of your grand-parents traits, and it's highly probable you don't have anything close to an optimal combination of them. Secondly, it's also quite likely there isn't an optimal ratio of males and females.

There are dozens of strategies being tried by various creatures to deal with the latter, but almost all of them rely, not on the culling of the excess gender, but some form of gender fluidity. In some species, living individuals can change sex. In some, they can produce more of whichever sex is lacking. In higher order species such as mammals, where gender determines not merely what form of gonad you have but what role you will play in the familial and social construct, the possibilities are more than black and white.

A disproportion of one sex, as signaled by pheromones and hormones (and potentially signalled incorrectly by human tampering such as artificial birth control chemicals, processed foods, plastics, etc.) may not require more breeders of that type as much as it requires more family members or community members predisposed toward that gender's familial or societal roles.

In short, the Pill, tofu, and new car smell are causing women to give birth to girlie men. Moreover, this is working and okay because the traditional, testosterone-ridden, aggressive, violent, predatory male has few legitimate roles in modern society.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 753
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
In short, the Pill, tofu, and new car smell are causing women to give birth to girlie men. Moreover, this is working and okay because the traditional, testosterone-ridden, aggressive, violent, predatory male has few legitimate roles in modern society.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
People Of Love

Kindness Evokes Kindness

Peace Emits Positive Energy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noyb
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
pjp wrote:
Muso wrote:
The essential divide is between two groups.

Group 1 is about "REALZ BEFORE FEELZ". I fall into this group, as do most sane people.

Group 2 is about "FEELZ BEFORE REALZ", and this is where SJWs and other leftists and crazy people fall.
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I think that there are only two groups identifies the actual problem. Admittedly I've long believed most issues exist in a "gray area" rather than black and white. The correct group is the one which overcomes extremes.


I'm talking about a fundamental level. Of course I'm extremely polite when dealing with people, but I will not go along with a delusion. I won't call a he a she, but I will ask for his name and refer to him by his chosen name. In this way I'm not participating in the deconstructionist nonsense that is the basis of political correctness, but I am also being polite. The way around the pronoun trap is to use proper nouns.


So, I'm sure you strictly call your wife by FirstName MaidenName, right? After all, that is her real name and you wouldn't want to participate in the delusion that she is someone else. Likewise, you probably call the current pope Jorge Bergoglio, rather than Pope Francis. Did you exclusively refer to John Wayne "Marion" too?

Or is it that you are really targeting one group you don't like to inflict your political displeasure on that specific group while trying to claim you're taking the high ground?

You do know that it is entirely possible to be extremely polite while being a total condescending jackass too, right? Southern women excel at it - "Oh my god, that dress looks marvelous on you... I certainly could never pull that off..."

Do you physically confirm that all of the people you condescendingly treat as trans people actually are trans? I mean, a few of them must go under your radar... in fact, I've bet you've accidentally done it to a few cis people too, that you just assumed are trans. The air does probably get a little thin way up on that high horse though, so I understand how that could happen and forgive you.

Quote:

noyb wrote:
Would we stigmatize someone for life because they were born with a cleft palate or would we give them surgery and move on?


It's a mental condition (gender dysphoria), so it is more honest to compare it to schizophrenia than a physical deformity. There's nothing wrong with your actual body, rather you think there is a problem. By definition, that is a mental disorder.


Homosexuality also used to be listed in the DSM, is that a mental condition? Oppositional defiant disorder (something your posts indicat you're likely to have) is also listed, so do you have a mental disorder?

How about the idea that disorders can be the direct result of physical deformity? Is our psyche not derived from our brain? If someone has brain damage, could that result in a mental disorder. Does chronic traumatic encephalopathy result in issues like depression, impulsive behavior, and confusion? Maybe, just maybe, transsexualism is the manifestation of neural physiology - say, a birth defect - you know, something that routinely happens elsewhere in the body which you will conveniently ignore here for political purposes, since, if you acknowledge that, you might actually have to consider reforming your thoughts... and it's just so damn fun to make fun of those tranny weirdos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noyb
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
I think your comments highlight an important underlying nuance that is avoided. As a society, we are also extremely uncomfortable with mental illness. As you point out, we're OK with physical deformities, mostly (I think abnormal size is still an issue). But we're less OK with mental issues. It seems that we've made great strides with acceptance of cerebral palsy, retardation, etc. But when it comes to depression and schizophrenia, not so much. So if there's any suggestion to a brain component to sexual orientation or identity, the strongest reactions would seem to be related to how society reacts to people with mental illness. Which appears to be one of the most difficult to overcome "fears of the unknown." I'm just hoping the rejection of science is superficial, otherwise there could be decades of negative impact to research.


I think there are a few issues going on here... people will cling to the science that supports their world view while rejecting the science that repudiates their world view. The simple fact is, there is a LOT of bad science published out there and very little of what is published is actually verified independently. Some of that is derived from the "publish or perish mentality" and some of it is because the "scientist" just wanted to push their opinions out there, so they manipulated data, forged experiments, etc, to further the cause, ensure future funding, etc. It can be really hard to know what to trust, especially if you aren't an expert in that field. Sometimes, even experts in a field find that their fundamental assertions are turned on their head, invalidating the presuppositions that their own word is predicated upon.

As Bones jokingly alludes to below, we're just now finding out about the ramifications of some of what we've been doing for the last century or two... and I firmly believe that the incidence rate of transsexualism and other conditions have been and will continue to rise as a result - see diabetes or obesity for example.

pjp wrote:

noyb wrote:
Reconciling all of this is something I've really focused my entire life on... and, if there is a potentially receptive audience, I don't mind sharing some of my perspective in the hopes of others gaining some insight. I know this is OTW and all, but I also know I'm not the only trans person that uses Gentoo, since several have reached out to me in the past.
I definitely appreciate your willingness to do so. OTW is bad, but I don't think it's _that_ bad. I don't think there's anyone here who would be that directly disrespectful. Nor would it be tolerated.


There are times that OTW _IS_ that bad when it comes to trans issues, though I'm not the type that is going to mash the report button every time something comes up.

pjp wrote:
I have a difficult time believing it is that intentional, but you may be correct. I don't know anyone that socially conservative. Still, you highlight the issue with mental illness. I just can't fathom a person saying they didn't believe a person with a non-specified mental illness was undeserving of compassion. Combining social conservatism (something also likely to be a "brain issue"), their discomfort with "dirty" sexuality of any kind (seems there's still a large majority fear of "internet history" being exposed), and an almost universal discomfort with mental illness, well that seems a challenging combination for anyone to navigate. For example, I believe there was a "brain issue" which led to the murder of Matthew Shepard, not simply being socially conservative. So it wouldn't be reasonable to presume all socially conservative people are on the brink of committing murder. I'm not trying to imply you think that, just that mental illness is perhaps the ultimate thing "everyone" can come together and fear and ostracize.


When my best friend told his wife about me, her initial reaction was "does that make him a pedophile?" It's an absurd reaction, but the reason why it happens is because there is a misunderstanding of what transsexualism is. The goal of social conservatives, is to ensure that it stays a taboo, and, as a taboo, it is easy to lump it in with perversions. In fact, as a mom, her first instinct was to protect her child, and thus, the emotional reaction was "omg, does this put my child in danger?"

Back in the early 90s, someone did a survey asking people if someone in their family was gay and a small number, maybe 15%, said that there was. By the late 90s and early 2000s, that number had jumped up to almost 90%. Some of it was the social stigma of being gay had been reduced, so more people were coming out of the closet, while, at the same time, more people coming out of the closet normalized it more, making it easier for others to come out of the closet. At this point, only hardcore "traditional values" people even care if someone is gay, so the moderate "traditional values" people take up the flag of fear that transsexualism is going to go mainstream, and, next thing you know, society is on the slippery slope of decay to the point that bestiality and every other taboo is normal and those "traditional values" are gone, maybe even shunned. That's scary when your own identity is founded on those ideals that society is slowly eroding away at, and, thus the need to lash out at the people you perceive to threaten your own values. People tend to be pretty poor at self-validation and seek public validation of their own points of view.

pjp wrote:

noyb wrote:
Theoretically, it is legal to kill us in 47 states (only California, Illinois, and Rhode Island have banned the trans panic defense)...
Would you elaborate on this? The scenario I picture is seeing a trans person entering a bathroom and the "panic" resulting in the death of the trans person. I can't see how that would be legal. I think "crimes of passion" have been seen as a lesser crime than premeditated murder, but they aren't license to kill. And beating someone to "stop an attack" is far different from beating them to death.


The trans panic defense (a modification of the gay panic defense) is an affirmative defense (ie, yes, I killed that person) which tries to excuse the behavior as an act of self-defense. Basically, it amounts to "Yes, I killed that guy (trans woman). I met him (her) at a bar, thought he was a girl, and was attracted to him, though I didn't know that he was really a guy then. As happens in bars all across the land, after some small talk and drinks, we agreed to have sex. Upon removing our clothes, I noticed he had a penis. In a panic, I killed him for fear that he was going to penetrate me, and thus was defending myself from rape."

I think we all agree that someone who is about to be raped may use physical force, even deadly physical force, to prevent the rape from happening, particularly because rape can lead to murder.

The question is, was the supposed victim in this case actually a victim of attempted rape? Was there a real threat of him being physically violated? Would a 250 pound guy genuinely fear that a 120 pound woman with a penis could rape him? If not, then deadly physical force wasn't necessary.... and ,ore often than not, what actually happens in these cases, is that the guy suddenly questions his own sexuality in that moment and then kills the trans person because that trans person, who poses no threat, made him uncomfortable in that moment of self-doubt. The trans person, being dead, doesn't get to share their side of the story* which, in the absence of further evidence, allows the actual perpetrator to walk free.

* ask a cop about what to do during a home invasion. If you're going to pull a gun, you better be willing to shoot, and, if you're going to shoot, you shoot to kill AND make sure you kill. If you shoot to wound, you're going to find yourself on the end of a line of questions that lead to the conclusion that you didn't actually fear for your life and, thus, weren't justified... and, again, if you kill, dead people can't talk and have a much harder time with the family suing you in civil court for wrongful death. If they're dead, it's a pretty open and shut "home invader and I killed in self-defense."

Given the trans panic defense, what happens if you have someone that intentionally targets someone that is trans because the perpetrator is a bigot and believes trans people deserve to die? Again, the dead trans person can't talk, so maybe the perpetrator constructs a false story about how the trans person attempted to rape them, so the perpetrator just killed in self-defense, and there's nobody to claim otherwise, so a sympathetic jury lets them walk despite it being a cold blooded intentional murder. How long until someone is mistaken for trans and killed anyway, since it is ok to kill, or even just beat, someone for being trans? Again, there are police reports of cis women being assaulted for using the bathroom because someone mistook them for trans people.

Therein lies the problem with allowing society to stigmatize and "other" trans people and why the attitude that discrimination against them is ok is bad, particularly given that their condition doesn't harm anyone but themselves. It's not like trans people are advocating genital mutilation for all, like the doctors and religions that push circumcision.

pjp wrote:

noyb wrote:
If the fear is that there can secretly be a man waiting to attack in there, well, what stops him right now? What stopped him 10 years ago before society even learned the word trans?
I think it is partly more awareness. I think the same people would have reacted the same way before knowing the word, they would have just assumed it was a "freak dressed in women's clothes." Not too many years ago, only people in a local community might have heard about an incident because it wouldn't make national news. In the short term, there is likely to be a bad reaction. Hopefully that doesn't last long. As well, I think people like Chaz Bono and Caitlyn Jenner help. By being famous, they're used to at least some attention. So by being able to go public, they can probably tolerate more nastiness. I think US society will become tolerant at a faster rate than experienced by the homosexual community. Yes, I'm aware they still experience bad things, but I think it is far less than it was, and I think everyone experiences something. I know I can't imagine going to South Central LA in my lifetime (I'm not comfortable in any largish cities, so I'd probably stand out as a target in relatively safe urban environments).


Awareness cuts both ways... it reduces the stigma and increases acceptance for large parts of the population (see: gays), but it also causes the extremes to overreact as they fear losing the values and way of life they hold dear.

Statistically, you're probably at least 10% likely to meet someone that is gay rather than someone that is trans. But probability and statistics are all about the odds of something happening on a broad scale. The fact that "statistically, you'll never win the lottery, so it is dumb to waste money on it" ignores the people that do play and do win. It may be a one in a billion chance, but, well, someone IS going to win even if 999,999,999 others lose, so for that person, the statistic was useless.

In that regard, yes, attitudes will change, but that doesn't mean that individuals won't continue to be targeted. The simple fact is, there's always going to be someone that hates someone else just because that someone else is different. If you are one of the 0.3% of the population that happens to be trans, even if only 10% of the population may have a problem with it, that 10% is a much bigger tribe than yours, especially if they choose to target you, as an individual, specifically. We can play with the group and play with the numbers, but someone in a position of weakness ALWAYS has some amount of fear... and that's why, for example, women begin to learn skills very early on to protect themselves from rape and assault even though women outnumber men. As a society, statistically speaking, trans people aren't likely to rape anyone, though one trans individual may actually be a rapist. The question is, how much fear is healthy and how much of it is actually justified? The reality is, most trans people that inflict violence, inflict it upon themselves... and a lot of that is because of the internalization of how society scorns them due to unhealthy amounts of unjustified fear.

In the end, I believe that awareness and familiarity IS the cure, but there are people vested in their own insecurity that will do anything they can to prevent that from happening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 753
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

noyb wrote:
<snip>


I don't care how you run your life. Go and be happy. But demanding that I change the definitions of "he" and "she" because you have a condition akin to alien limb syndrome is just never going to lead to success. In the same way I'm not going to agree that the schizophrenic has a space alien.
_________________
People Of Love

Kindness Evokes Kindness

Peace Emits Positive Energy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Page 18 of 21

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum