Yeah, after further consideration, I think I'm on the wrong side of this issue. I'm going to have to say that if the top brass value the contributions of trans people (or anyone else), then it's not my place to object either. Here's a pretty unequivocal statement about the issue right out of the horse's mouth:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/t...index.html

My position now is that I'd rather support the people, and resist the free speech-related legislation.

Still against penises in women's locker rooms for right now, though-- if we're going there, I'd rather not have separate changing rooms at all, and head more toward a full acceptance of the human body in ALL its forms: breasts and breast-feeding, penises and vaginas, nudity at beaches, people with changed body parts or other modifications. It's the reconciliation of traditional values (Eeeeek! A penis) with changing values that makes the issue uncomfortable. Better just drop the old altogether IMO and accept the human animal for what it is.

(August 9, 2017 at 12:05 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 8, 2017 at 11:24 pm)Jesster Wrote: Fuck it. Welcome to the ignore list. You're not here to address the actual point of this thread.

lol yeah cuz this thread has absolutely nothing to do with people's attitudes about transsexuality

---

(August 8, 2017 at 11:30 pm)Javaman Wrote: You admit you have no knowledge of the rules an arbitrator must follow when making decisions, but simultaneously conclude that the arbitrator is wrong because the decision cost the gym owner money... umm... what? It doesn't matter what I think is a lie or the truth. That's the whole point of the arbitration process. The arbitration process is very specifically about the application of relevant legislation by independent, knowledgeable experts. The arbitrator concluded the gym was in the wrong. Don't turn the decision into a whole "OMG the LGBTQ community is conducting a Coup of society and everything!" That makes you look like an idiot. The gym owner was in the wrong... no conspiracy needed.

"Independent, knowledgeable experts," huh?  And who, pray tell, would those be?

Err.... I'd have figured the descriptor was pretty much self explanatory. Unless, of course, you have some prejudice against independent and knowledgeable experts.

(August 9, 2017 at 12:11 am)bennyboy Wrote: As I said early on, I'm fine with any individual trans person who is competent-- so long as other special considerations need not be made.  The problem is that once you fully endorse ANY group, it implies that you are willing to take whatever measures you'd need to accommodate them: payment of hormone therapies, perhaps, special living accommodations, difficulty with relationships in the field, and so on.

The costs, as mentioned above, pale in comparison to the costs of Viagra therapy for heterosexual males ... but no one complains about those outlays, yourself included.

---

(August 9, 2017 at 12:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Seems like you're the snowflake in this thread, kid. Everyone else is talking, and you're throwing a hissyfit.

(August 7, 2017 at 7:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, I'm hysterical.

Of course you are. Here, a couple of posts back -- and, ironically, in the same goddamned post -- you posted this:

(August 7, 2017 at 7:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm actually having an emotional reaction right now, and it's this: FUCK OFFFFFFFFF!!!

[irrelevancies redacted]

We don't need to make every social institution all about accommodating everyone's special snowflake status.

Pretty hysterical to me. I mean, we've got ALL-CAPS, we've got exclamation points, we've got a long, drawn-out tail to the insult. And then we have you complaining about "snowflakes".

Tell me again how you're not being hysterical. No one cares if you're having an "emotional reaction". Get over yourself, and learn how to deal with people who don't share your little views.

(August 7, 2017 at 7:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: But let me ask you-- why do you think Trump said this?  Is he just pandering to the right?

That's a small part of it, in my opinion. The larger part is that, I think, the announcement of the change in policy was used to try and turn the conversation from the investigation into Russian contacts. That's what I think.

Oh, the other thing I think when he does shit like this: here's your shovel -- keep digging.

(August 9, 2017 at 12:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Oh, the other thing I think when he does shit like this: here's your shovel -- keep digging.

No, I think I'd rather not. I think you were already deep into typing when I changed my last post. For posterity's sake, let me just repost it here so it doesn't get buried.

---


Yeah, after further consideration, I think I'm on the wrong side of this issue. I'm going to have to say that if the top brass value the contributions of trans people (or anyone else), then it's not my place to object either. Here's a pretty unequivocal statement about the issue right out of the horse's mouth:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/t...index.html

My position now is that I'd rather support the people, and resist the free speech-related legislation.

Still against penises in women's locker rooms for right now, though-- if we're going there, I'd rather not have separate changing rooms at all, and head more toward a full acceptance of the human body in ALL its forms: breasts and breast-feeding, penises and vaginas, nudity at beaches, people with changed body parts or other modifications. It's the reconciliation of traditional values (Eeeeek! A penis) with changing values that makes the issue uncomfortable. Better just drop the old altogether IMO and accept the human animal for what it is.

(August 9, 2017 at 12:32 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 12:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Oh, the other thing I think when he does shit like this: here's your shovel -- keep digging.

No, I think I'd rather not.  I think you were already deep into typing when I changed my last post.  For posterity's sake, let me just repost it here so it doesn't get buried.

---


Yeah, after further consideration, I think I'm on the wrong side of this issue.  I'm going to have to say that if the top brass value the contributions of trans people (or anyone else), then it's not my place to object either.  Here's a pretty unequivocal statement about the issue right out of the horse's mouth:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/t...index.html

My position now is that I'd rather support the people, and resist the free speech-related legislation.  

Still against penises in women's locker rooms for right now, though-- if we're going there, I'd rather not have separate changing rooms at all, and head more toward a full acceptance of the human body in ALL its forms: breasts and breast-feeding, penises and vaginas, nudity at beaches, people with changed body parts or other modifications.  It's the reconciliation of traditional values (Eeeeek! A penis) with changing values that makes the issue uncomfortable.  Better just drop the old altogether IMO and accept the human animal for what it is.

You're right, I was knee-deep in refining by edit and missed your own. My apologies for that.