People's views regarding transpeople

[midlifeaspie]

The reason I asked about mother nature and God is that nature can't have intentions unless it's an intelligent entity.

Personally I reject that statement.  Nature absolutely has intentions, the greatest of which being the further diversification and expansion of living matter.

I find it interesting that Pandora PrettyHorse Dimwitted Fucktard has time to post here but not in her callout.

[RageBeoulve]

[Rissy]

It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.

I never accused you of trolling and it's easy for personal stances and actions to be disrespectful. Do you not believe you are disrespectful?

I am sure he can be and i am sure he has been disrespectful on occasions on I2. I am sure the same could be said of everyone here. Specifically, and in this instance? I really don't think so.
In fact Odeon I think has been rather gentle with you too and more considerate and respectful than I thought he would be.
What you have got from everyone here in this thread and most others is respect and rather light banter by all and sundry. Were you expecting something else? What has Kayleigh been telling you about us? 

I'm just saying that it isn't hard to be disrespectful, and that it's hardly a big claim to make. I'm not accusing him of being a terrible person.


What 'vanishing minority' do you speak of? And where is your proof that they're vanishing?
What has my lack of a career in language or science have to do with this discussion?

Godwin's Law is probably fun to throw around but it's still just a opinion of an individual. And it was applied here by your judgment. It's just a throw out. Still no relevance, but if you mean to say I'm bad arguer as a seperate criticism, go ahead and take it.

You're still mixing arguments though. The definitions you use are clear and unambiguous, but nature isn't. It's not my job or concern, but sticking with just the simple categories of male and female is lazy. I'm only mentioning it because it's a flaw in your excuse and argument.

Socially, the physical definitions are mostly useless and only apply to biology. And the arguments for the use pronouns and gender labels are in social terms. You ignore me when I say that the definitions aren't being changed. It's extra definitions and it doesn't interfere with the current definitions at all.

Your joking about the meaning of existence does not answer the question asked of you. Answer my question seriously. Biology explains how reproduction works, but does not prove or suggest any purpose for existence. I mean, people are compelled to reproduce but the activity of life is just activity.
I'm not Christian anyway, or religious. And this isn't discounting science facts. But how do you know what the meaning of existence is and that your perception of the world is genuine? I was portrayed here as having 'christian-like arguments' so I'm turning towards that topic. What makes your view better than anyone elses?

Oh and don't stroke your ego. I have always found science terms good for labelling physical things, I just find that culture is more than just cold science.

[Semicolon]

The reason I asked about mother nature and God is that nature can't have intentions unless it's an intelligent entity.

Personally I reject that statement.  Nature absolutely has intentions, the greatest of which being the further diversification of expansion of living matter.

I find it interesting that Pandora PrettyHorse Dimwitted Fucktard has time to post here but not in her callout.

Indeed.

Rissy    11:14:59 AM    Viewing the topic Tentacle Queen; Rissy Amethyst Pandora Everlust, step into the ring.

[odeon]

It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.

I never accused you of trolling and it's easy for personal stances and actions to be disrespectful. Do you not believe you are disrespectful?

I am sure he can be and i am sure he has been disrespectful on occasions on I2. I am sure the same could be said of everyone here. Specifically, and in this instance? I really don't think so.
In fact Odeon I think has been rather gentle with you too and more considerate and respectful than I thought he would be.
What you have got from everyone here in this thread and most others is respect and rather light banter by all and sundry. Were you expecting something else? What has Kayleigh been telling you about us? 

I'm just saying that it isn't hard to be disrespectful, and that it's hardly a big claim to make. I'm not accusing him of being a terrible person.


What 'vanishing minority' do you speak of? And where is your proof that they're vanishing?
What has my lack of a career in language or science have to do with this discussion?

Godwin's Law is probably fun to throw around but it's still just a opinion of an individual. And it was applied here by your judgment. It's just a throw out. Still no relevance, but if you mean to say I'm bad arguer as a seperate criticism, go ahead and take it.

You're still mixing arguments though. The definitions you use are clear and unambiguous, but nature isn't. It's not my job or concern, but sticking with just the simple categories of male and female is lazy. I'm only mentioning it because it's a flaw in your excuse and argument.

Socially, the physical definitions are mostly useless and only apply to biology. And the arguments for the use pronouns and gender labels are in social terms. You ignore me when I say that the definitions aren't being changed. It's extra definitions and it doesn't interfere with the current definitions at all.

Your joking about the meaning of existence does not answer the question asked of you. Answer my question seriously. Biology explains how reproduction works, but does not prove or suggest any purpose for existence. I mean, people are compelled to reproduce but the activity of life is just activity.
I'm not Christian anyway, or religious. And this isn't discounting science facts. But how do you know what the meaning of existence is and that your perception of the world is genuine? I was portrayed here as having 'christian-like arguments' so I'm turning towards that topic. What makes your view better than anyone elses?

Oh and don't stroke your ego. I have always found science terms good for labelling physical things, I just find that culture is more than just cold science.

I'm sure you have an elaborate reason for quoting Al while replying to me, but I'd suggest you to direct your attention to the callout. I'm all too happy to bitch-slap you for a bit but Al has first dibs, IMO.

Oh, and just to explain things for you: You are using the kind of non-arguments that Christians use, hence the comparison. Also, Godwin's Law may sound like a joke but anyone who's been online for a while will recognise  the basic issue. You really aren't very good at this, are you?

[Rissy]

There was two blank lines after my reply to him. I just didn't quote you afterwards.

I'm just going into philosophy here and seriously questioning you. Will you not humour me? This is not about arguing. Should I start a thread for this instead?
You brought up the subject, and that happens to be another topic I like talking about.

[Callaway]

There was two blank lines after my reply to him. I just didn't quote you afterwards.

I'm just going into philosophy here and seriously questioning you. Will you not humour me? This is not about arguing. Should I start a thread for this instead?
You brought up the subject, and that happens to be another topic I like talking about.

I guess you could call Odeon out.

[Semicolon]

There was two blank lines after my reply to him. I just didn't quote you afterwards.

I'm just going into philosophy here and seriously questioning you. Will you not humour me? This is not about arguing. Should I start a thread for this instead?
You brought up the subject, and that happens to be another topic I like talking about.

I guess you could call Odeon out.

Three callouts from one argument? That's a lot of drama, even for I2.

[Callaway]

There was two blank lines after my reply to him. I just didn't quote you afterwards.

I'm just going into philosophy here and seriously questioning you. Will you not humour me? This is not about arguing. Should I start a thread for this instead?
You brought up the subject, and that happens to be another topic I like talking about.

I guess you could call Odeon out.

Three callouts from one argument? That's a lot of drama, even for I2.

Rissy suggested starting another thread for the subject so if she wanted the discussion to be just the two of them, that would actually be a good way to insure it.

[Semicolon]

There was two blank lines after my reply to him. I just didn't quote you afterwards.

I'm just going into philosophy here and seriously questioning you. Will you not humour me? This is not about arguing. Should I start a thread for this instead?
You brought up the subject, and that happens to be another topic I like talking about.

I guess you could call Odeon out.

Three callouts from one argument? That's a lot of drama, even for I2.

Rissy suggested starting another thread for the subject so if she wanted the discussion to be just the two of them, that would actually be a good way to insure it.

Yes, members actually obey that rule.

[Pyraxis]

How is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?

Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.

Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.

Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.

And finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.

Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.

[Al Swearegen]

How is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?

Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.

Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.

Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.

And finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.

Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.

That and the fact that you and Hadron are contrary in most discussions here and take the path less traveled in discussions.
The big difference is that Hadron looks like he confuses himself when he does it. You do it rather a lot better.
I think you do it to shit-stir and you like the intellectual exercise of taking a strong opposition to things. I personally find it interesting and like watching you come in to play.

[Al Swearegen]

I guess my views on this is simply this.
If you are trans then Life is going to be fraught with difficulties. Difficulties not experienced by the average Joe Blow. I do not question the validity of this and do not contest it. It will be different to the difficulties that you face being an immigrant in a new country, being a person with an intellectual disability, being a gay, being a person with a sensory impairment, being a person with a psychological impairment or.....being someone on the spectrum.
For any of these "classes" of citizens in society, I do not contest or downplay the difficulties faced.
That said, the world will not shaped itself around you or make much in the way of fitting in with your difference. You have to basically get on with life and meet it head on regardless of the difficulties it throws at you.
Work, parenting, social relationships, dating, and countless other things in life will be constant trials. I don't think any of us here doubt that.
Making demands of a community to fit in with you is not cool. It is only going to ostracise and alienate you and exclude you.

The original post on this thread is evidence of the indifference of society. Is it fair? Nope. Is stamping your feet or waving your fists in rage going to fix it? Nope.
Perhaps best we can do is be a little tougher skinned and a little more willing to fight to defend our personal values and freedoms and at the same time accept life is life and it is not the walk in the park or joyous, wonderous thing of feelgood movies. Life is tough and demanding and choosing what and who to fight against is key. Fight the fight that are worth fighting and that you can win at.

I expect that with trans people that is fighting to protect the values of your identity. To rail against those that would seek to do you harm and be accepting of people who would seek not to do you harm. Fight to be comfortable in the skin you are in and with the understanding of what it is to be trans. I ought not be a me and the transpeople against the world. The world is rather big and transpeople are a rather small and insignificant part of that great world. The good news of course is that if you are trans you are also a number of other things that has fuck all to do with being trans. You are a member of a number of other classes be it race, creed, religion, career, or whatever. Look at the sum of your parts and you find the things in yourself that fit with others.

Transpeople are not, in my view, just people with a silly notion in their heads. Even were that the truth it would not really matter. People are people and it is the similarities and the other shared aspects of a human nature and condition that bind us. Interests, experiences and personality. This is where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. This is where when we say "We don't give a shit". It demands whilst trans may be something of great importance to you it may not be to us so find some aspect we share common ground and we will fit in and actually care and share.

That is just my belief.

I don't have a problem with this standpoint. That's the kind of thing I accept.

Rissy agreeing with me BEFORE you answer my callout, especially when it is agreeing with my in respect to what I feel, about something you previously judged and railed against me (the crux of the callout after all), is not an especially good move. It weakens you further.
Makes it seem like you can galloping in making base assumptions without actually having any idea on us collectively or individually.
Makes it look like a put up job from Kayleigh.

But enough on this thread from me. I made a callout and you have not gone galloping in there nearly as enthusiastically

I'm sure you have an elaborate reason for quoting Al while replying to me, but I'd suggest you to direct your attention to the callout. I'm all too happy to bitch-slap you for a bit but Al has first dibs, IMO.

Oh, and just to explain things for you: You are using the kind of non-arguments that Christians use, hence the comparison. Also, Godwin's Law may sound like a joke but anyone who's been online for a while will recognise  the basic issue. You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Thanks Odeon and quite right Rissy. The callout is there and by all means make one on Odeon, but do take care of mine first. It has been there a while. It places Odeon at a bit of a disadvantage. He wants to allow you to address the callout and the points made there without going over this ground or bringing in new subject matter. Once the callout is done my points will be addressed and we will know where things stand there. It is a respectful approach he is taking with us both.

[odeon]

How is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?

Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.

Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.

Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.

They don't sound PC to me? It's interesting that you would know this better than I do.

But again, they are not my definitions, and no, I disagree, they are perfect for what they are for. So I guess we won't come to an agreement.

And finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.

Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.

What I am seeing is that you'd go after us for argument's sake just because it's us. It's almost a foregone conclusion if the subject is provocative enough; when I see you posting, I almost *know* that you will have taken a stance against us. Other people might voice those same arguments and you'd remain silent and probably not even here. I tend to see that as a kind of dishonesty on your side. It hurts your credibility.

And it certainly doesn't make whatever points you might have more right.

[odeon]

How is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?

Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.

Nope. The further qualifications are to remove ambiguity, and your simplified definitions, by the nature of simplification, are imprecise.

Beyond that, it's about subtext. So long as you refuse to acknowledge such a thing, we will never come to agreement.

And finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.

Yep. I often disagree with both of your stances on things. I also find your communication styles limiting and unpleasant. Hence, more conflict.

That and the fact that you and Hadron are contrary in most discussions here and take the path less traveled in discussions.
The big difference is that Hadron looks like he confuses himself when he does it. You do it rather a lot better.
I think you do it to shit-stir and you like the intellectual exercise of taking a strong opposition to things. I personally find it interesting and like watching you come in to play.

Hadron does it with everyone. Pyraxis is more selective so as a shit-stirrer she is rather limited. She doesn't like me or Callaway and it shows. I'd be more impressed if she did the same with others and even more so if she had a leg to stand on.