Transsurrection: All the documented events that aren't happening. TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I think it can be looked at other ways too.  Many see a small but vocal fringe sub-culture attempting to impose their cultural and social norms on the entire society that follows a different set of social rules.  Truthfully, look at the norms and customs of trans culture and tell me a society based on those norms and customs is going to stand up to the Russians and Chinese.  These are damaged and fragile people but their also free to pursue their own course.  But as a standard for any culture its a losing proposition. 

 

Have you interviewed the families and children dealing with this issue?

 

[BillStime]

20 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Isn't that what we both do? You see things thru your lens to placate you as well. But instead of respecting my pro woman opinion, you call me a sick !@#$. Bravo!

 

So, you're okay with forcing every child to expose their genitals to school administrators so that we can placate the insecure fringe who can't stand the SMALLEST population on earth?

 

This isn't about WOMEN!

 

This is about f'n HATE and RIDICULE.

 

And we wonder why LGTBQ experiences the highest suicide rates.

 

So much hate; so litle time.

 

 

[Pokebball]

7 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Have you interviewed the families and children dealing with this issue?

 

Do you need to take from women, after decades of fighting for rights, in order to help these families and kids? No other option?

Just now, BillStime said:

 

So, you're okay with forcing every child to expose their genitals to school administrators so that we can placate the insecure fringe who can't stand the SMALLEST population on earth?

 

This isn't about WOMEN!

 

This is about f'n HATE and RIDICULE.

 

And we wonder why LGTBQ experiences the highest suicide rates.

 

So much hate; so litle time.

 

 

Aren't we talking about not allowing biological men to compete in women's sports? That's 100% what this is about.

 

I presume we both want trans the ability to compete in sports. I do anyways. Why do you want trans men to compete against biological women?

 

If it is, as you say, about hate, why do you hate women so much?

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

Do you need to take from women, after decades of fighting for rights, in order to help these families and kids? No other option?

 

This has nothing to do with women. Keep up.

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

moderately intelligent is not how anyone would describe billstime 

 

You misread the post.  Which is not really a surprise, sadly.  

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

This has nothing to do with women. Keep up.

 

 

This bill wouldn't even be a thing if there wasn't women sports. You are 100% wrong.

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

This bill wouldn't even be a thing if there wasn't women sports. You are 100% wrong.

 

No, not really. 

 

This is what you are promoting when you support this bill. 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

47 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That's seems like a reasonable position but my understanding is literature being "banned" is based on it being accessible by children and not on the basis or belief its unsuitable for adults.  Correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

I also don't see this as a "MAGA" specific issue.  Parents of children across the political landscape don't want their children exposed to adult and sexually explicit materials.  That seems reasonable too.  Saying its MAGA sounds like an attempt to marginalize objections.

 

 

 

 

I don’t think anyone disputes or should dispute that children should not have access to sexually explicit materials.  The problem with MAGA is that it doesn’t know what it wants to burn, and that, to my sort of anecdotal interpretation, it has indicated that it would prefer to burn such things are non-explicit literature that that involves gay or questioning characters (the frog and the toad from earlier, for example) or views of American history inconsistent with MAGA beliefs (e.g., with respect to slavery, or the “discovery” of North America).  

[Pokebball]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

No, not really. 

 

This is what you are promoting when you support this bill. 

 

 

 

This wouldn't be a thing if trans men didn't demand to compete in biological women's sports. Your solution is degrading women. Why the hate towards women? Let's either have trans men compete against biological men or lets start a separate trans league and let trans men compete against other trans men?

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Pokebball

[SectionC3]

37 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I think it can be looked at other ways too.  Many see a small but vocal fringe sub-culture attempting to impose their cultural and social norms on the entire society that follows a different set of social rules.  Truthfully, look at the norms and customs of trans culture and tell me a society based on those norms and customs is going to stand up to the Russians and Chinese.  These are damaged and fragile people but their also free to pursue their own course.  But as a standard for any culture its a losing proposition. 

So what?  Who cares.  They have the right to have their say.  If you don’t like it, then that’s on you.  Bud Light is the perfect example.  Bud Light has a right to put whomever or whatever it wants (so long as it is not explicit) on its packaging.  You have the right to break the habit and not drink Bud Light because you don’t like the packaging.  That’s how things work here.  But burning books or banning books because the literature talks about gay characters or articulates the point that Native Americans, not Chris Columbus, “discovered” North America . . . It’s an unamerican viewpoint.  Plain and simple.  

[aristocrat]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

So what?  Who cares.  They have the right to have their say.  If you don’t like it, then that’s on you.  Bud Light is the perfect example.  Bud Light has a right to put whomever or whatever it wants (so long as it is not explicit) on its packaging.  You have the right to break the habit and not drink Bud Light because you don’t like the packaging.  That’s how things work here.  But burning books or banning books because the literature talks about gay characters or articulates the point that Native Americans, not Chris Columbus, “discovered” North America . . . It’s an unamerican viewpoint.  Plain and simple.  

can you still buy the books? If you can it’s not a ban. 

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

So what?  Who cares.  They have the right to have their say.  If you don’t like it, then that’s on you.  Bud Light is the perfect example.  Bud Light has a right to put whomever or whatever it wants (so long as it is not explicit) on its packaging.  You have the right to break the habit and not drink Bud Light because you don’t like the packaging.  That’s how things work here.  But burning books or banning books because the literature talks about gay characters or articulates the point that Native Americans, not Chris Columbus, “discovered” North America . . . It’s an unamerican viewpoint.  Plain and simple.  

I'm kinda in the middle on this book issue. One side needs to quit saying burning and banning books though. That's not what's happening. 

[SectionC3]

Just now, aristocrat said:

can you still buy the books? If you can it’s not a ban. 

Interesting.  We’re going to play the semantics game.  Ban is synonymous with prohibit.  MAGA wants to prohibit books that hurt its feelings from appearing in school and public libraries.  If you’re saying that you don’t want to ban said books in totality, then I suppose you’re correct.  But, ultimately, you’re still talking about a ban.  

[aristocrat]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Interesting.  We’re going to play the semantics game.  Ban is synonymous with prohibit.  MAGA wants to prohibit books that hurt its feelings from appearing in school and public libraries.  If you’re saying that you don’t want to ban said books in totality, then I suppose you’re correct.  But, ultimately, you’re still talking about a ban.  

you’re using hyperbolic words to gas light your base. It’s an age restriction. If the left was in any way reasonable with this stuff maybe a compromise could be had but when you just push and push you’re gonna get an equal or bigger push back. 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

I'm kinda in the middle on this book issue. One side needs to quit saying burning and banning books though. That's not what's happening. 

Burning is hyperbolic.  Funny, and illustrative, but hyperbolic.  No doubt about it. 

 

Banning is a fair characterization, though.  

 

And, as long as we’re on the topic, in terms of things that people should “quit” saying, I’d start with the demonization of anyone who doesn’t agree with MAGA.  Child molester, pedophile, communist, etc.  I’ve been called (anonymously) a lot of nasty things on this board.  I couldn’t care less about it.  It also happens in real life.  There it’s a little more concerning.  There’s definitely room for linguistic moderation on both sides.  But I’d start with the really nasty stuff first and then get into the more semantical disputes.  

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Interesting.  We’re going to play the semantics game.  Ban is synonymous with prohibit.  MAGA wants to prohibit books that hurt its feelings from appearing in school and public libraries.  If you’re saying that you don’t want to ban said books in totality, then I suppose you’re correct.  But, ultimately, you’re still talking about a ban.  

Are the books being prohibited though? I think all of us believe there is an age appropriate metric on all content in our schools. There always has been, hasn't there?

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

you’re using hyperbolic words to gas light your base. It’s an age restriction. If the left was in any way reasonable with this stuff maybe a compromise could be had but when you just push and push you’re gonna get an equal or bigger push back. 

Sorry, but it’s a ban.  Plain and simple.  You want to prevent literature that you deem to consider an objectionable or disagreeable topic from appearing in a public or school library.  That’s unamerican, and it’s a ban.  

[Pokebball]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Sorry, but it’s a ban.  Plain and simple.  You want to prevent literature that you deem to consider an objectionable or disagreeable topic from appearing in a public or school library.  That’s unamerican, and it’s a ban.  

Disagree. If you can get a book on the internet or in a public library the book isn't banned. Is there anything, anything at all, that you believe would be inappropriate in a grade school library?

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

Are the books being prohibited though? I think all of us believe there is an age appropriate metric on all content in our schools. There always has been, hasn't there?

 

That’s sort of the point.  Nobody disputes that something like a playboy magazine shouldn’t appear in a public or school library.  Nobody.  It’s when we get into the removal of non-explicit material covering certain subject areas that I have a problem.  If MAGA wants to say that children shouldn’t have access to explicit materials, and wants to define “explicit” as pornographic, then I’d be on board. (Defining “pornographic” is its own nettlesome issue, but that’s sort of a “know it when you see it” thing.)  But MAGA hasn’t framed its complaint as such. Again to my anecdotal interpretation, the issue doesn’t rest simply with explicit materials, but with a wider swath of literature and thought that is not explicit and which respect to which MAGA simply disagrees.  That is not my America. 

[aristocrat]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Sorry, but it’s a ban.  Plain and simple.  You want to prevent literature that you deem to consider an objectionable or disagreeable topic from appearing in a public or school library.  That’s unamerican, and it’s a ban.  

So no age restrictions on any books? 
 

can you buy the books outside of schools? If so it’s just a restriction