> Under the guise of anti-discrimination protections, the bill redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women’s spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth
Is it plausible that someone might not support the Equality Act for these reasons, or do you sincerely believe anyone who opposes this particular legislation is phobic to homosexuals? Afraid of gay people? Thinks gays are lesser humans?
We can talk about the other items on the list too if you want. I just wanted to do one as I suspect they’re all similar.
I have no idea what your stance is but the quote your provided is ignorant to the point that I wouldn’t know where to begin discussing it. Moreover, it’s ignorance comes with homophobic undertones. So in the sense that if you buy it at face value then yes you might think that the bill in question is bad. But if you learn even the basics on the subject, then you will realize that this quote and the whole article are homophobic and transphobic FUD.
If your argument here is that Trump read (haha!) articles like these and then believed them at face value and it’s all the media’s fault for putting incorrect information in front of him… that’s 100% his fault and responsibility. He had access to top experts and advisors in every field, he could have figured it out.
If your argument is based on the idea that there is some conspiracy to overmedicate “gender confused youths” then I don’t know what to tell you because your understanding of the subject is at the level of Borat’s (comically poor).
I do find it supremely frustrating to have these discussions because it seems like most times people on the other side of the argument simply question reality. It's like having an engineering discussion where you allow for 1+1 to equal 3 or more in some cases, and every time you have to add 1 and 1 you have to provide proof from a conservative website that shows that it does in fact equal 2 or else the other person just cries "fake news" and "what about..." or "mainstream media". It's almost like a targeted misinformation and propaganda campaign convinced half the US that facts aren't facts and that you can question anything for which there is a lot of evidence because, well, isn't it suspicious that there is so much evidence for it? "The truth is out there, you just have to find it" is my favorite: yes the FBI/NSA/CIA are clueless but anyone with a Facebook account can figure out some kind of grand conspiracy that's afoot...
From my perspective, you didn't address what I said at all and just got extremely emotional very quickly. I venture a guess that you sometimes find these conversations frustrating because it is you who isn't listening.
Oh, ok. I thought I raised some points that were at least plausible (e.g. transgender women in women's spaces) and then you start ranting about conspiracy theories, mathematics, the president not being able to read, not liking gay people and so on. Where did you see this conversation going? It was just so obviously doomed to fail with your attitude. I hope it felt good to take out some frustrations and now you feel better? But I doubt it.
Just some friendly advice man. You goal should be to treat me with respect and try to convince me of your point of view, or at least mutually learn. When you respond like you did, using shame and outrage as an argument tactic, it doesn't work. I just think you're emotional, a bit of a dick and not willing to really engage in a genuine discussion so I just tune out. If anything, it'll just solidify what I think even more because it shows to me you don't have a proper retort.
Look, when you talk about trans women not being allowed in women’s spaces as if it’s even a question, it’s not my job or goal or responsibility to try to convince you that you are wrong. It is exactly the same as if you brought up the voting rights act and wanted to debate whether black people should be allowed in white people’s spaces. What reaction do you expect when you make statements like that?
No it’s not. Where trans women should be allowed to go is far from decided in our society. Combat sports? Sports generally? Bathrooms? It’s nothing to do with an irrational fear or hatred of people who suffer with gender dysmorphia. Comparing it to black vs white segregation is ludicrous.
It seems like a complex question and you just being outraged and wanting to instantly shut down the debate as if I’m a terrible transphobic person is very toxic behaviour. Shaming as an argument tactic might work on weak people when you have backup in the room in places like Berkeley, but it’s bullying. Fact is, it’s far from a consensus in our society, unlike racial segregation. Call me the same as a racist? Fuck off :)
If you feel personally attacked by this, there is probably a reason for it. The question you brought up wasn’t about combat sports. It was about “males who identify as females in women’s spaces”. And the thing is, this is a settled question by and large: it’s none of your business what’s in someone else’s underpants.
Oh and give me your lunch money while I’m at it bullying you :). I’m so sorry to hurt your strong person feelings (wait, I thought only Berkeley snowflakes got their feelings hurt/could be bullied).
One last bit: body dysmorphia is not a necessary condition to being trans. The way you cast a group of people around that diagnosis does seem to indicate that you see them as damaged and/or sick, which they are not. Trying to sound like you know what you are talking about while clearly having a cable news education on the subject makes you look worse, not better.
> If you feel personally attacked by this, there is probably a reason for it.
I feel personally attacked by it because you literally made a personal attack and said its the same as racial segregation, lol.
> The question you brought up wasn’t about combat sports. It was about “males who identify as females in women’s spaces”.
Women-only sports is an example of a women-only space. Maybe that's one reason why someone might oppose the Equality Act (besides just hating trans people and homosexuals)? :)
> And the thing is, this is a settled question by and large
You keep saying this, but It's really not outside of places like California my man. Stop the arguments by made up consensus. 1) It's a bad argument and 2) you don't even have a consensus.
> Oh and give me your lunch money while I’m at it bullying you :). I’m so sorry to hurt your strong person feelings (wait, I thought only Berkeley snowflakes got their feelings hurt/could be bullied).
I am saying you're not able to bully me with this stupid tactic of shaming and shutting down debate instead of debating. That's why I'm not agreeing with you and told you to fuck off when you called me the same as a racist. But doing what you're doing is what bullies and weak people with weak arguments try to do.
> One last bit: body dysmorphia is not a necessary condition to being trans
Wisdom! Thanks. Who knew?
> The way you cast a group of people around that diagnosis does seem to indicate that you see them as damaged and/or sick, which they are not.
It is literally a mental illness to be afflicted with though? It's obviously mental turmoil if you felt like your brain and body did not align in the same gender. The crux of the issue is that you seem to conflate me saying something like this with me also (not) saying "trans people are bad and subhuman". People who are depressed have a mental illness. It's normal, and they're not bad for it. It just happens. I fully expect you to be OUTRAGED by my comment, even though I really don't think it's that outrageous and I have no ill will towards trans people whatsoever. Cue comments such as "do you actually know any trans/black/gay people!?" Yes, actually. Next. You don't win an argument by seeming like you're more compassionate because I really don't think you are.
> Trying to sound like you know what you are talking about while clearly having a cable news education on the subject makes you look worse, not better.
Okay, good one.
> Good luck and learn to be a better human.
Yeah, I disagree with you, so I'm not only stupid, but also a bad person. Classic woke arguments lol. I stand by my "fuck off".
> Fact is, it’s far from a consensus in our society, unlike racial segregation. Call me the same as a racist? Fuck off :)
So the difference you see is on the current societal consensus? In my mind, the consideration of for example, certain authors of being racist as in their current societal consensus is more like an understatement of them being shaped by their society, not and endorsement of their racism. So yeah, and I said this as just a statement without intention to insult, I don't see much difference between some racist 70 years ago, and yourself right now.
The only rationale behind segregating blacks from whites was racism. This joker is trying to say it's the same for segregating trans women and biological women, but it's obviously not. For example, maybe (and this might blow the woke people's minds) trans women aren't exactly the same as biological women in sports? So segregation makes sense to protect the majority of women. There's plenty of other scenarios where allowing people to arbitrarily move between genders might have negative externalities on members of a gender. Those are concerns (not even getting into the debate of whether they're legitimate concerns or not), that have nothing to do with an irrational fear or hatred of trans people. But the woke would just love to frame the debate that way: you only possible way you can disagree is if you're the same as a racist. And to that, I say fuck off.
Said? He
- Refused to support the Equality Act
- Appointed an unprecedented number of homophobic judges
- Gutted Section 1557, removing protections for queer people under the Afordable Care Act
- Blocked transgender people from openly serving in the military
- Banned the flying of LGBTQ+ flags from embassies.
- Weakend rights to asylum for people fleeing gender-based persecution.
And more: https://www.them.us/story/donald-trump-worst-lgbtq-attacks
It's not just about what he said, my friend.