(January 7, 2025 at 12:39 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(January 7, 2025 at 12:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Trans people violate his right to not be offended.

This was my suspicion as well, that their very existence being acknowledged publicly even by themselves, somehow violates his Christian right to adhere to archaic religious bigotry and prejudice. 

Until he honestly answers this:

Why does the idea of trans people living their lives according to their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, bother you at all? 

All we can can do is draw a rational inference.

Because it spits in the face of their godthings man/woman rule.

Bel, once again, proves he has no thoughts of his own. He read a thing. Here's some name dropping and some quotes. Are you not impressed?

(January 7, 2025 at 1:14 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Bel, once again, proves he has no thoughts of his own.  He read a thing.  Here's some name dropping and some quotes.  Are you not impressed?

I heard that last sentence picturing Russel Crowe in Gladiator, very good. 

ARE...YOU...NOT..IMPRESSED!!!?

Parenthetically, Bel's claim that Richard Dawkins is on one 1 side of "the trans debate", is a false dichotomy fallacy if ever there was one.

I am waiting for, but not holding my breath, the day when Bel has an original thought. It's soooooooo bougie to let other do the thinking and then quote it.

And yeah, that's how I meant it...Are you not impressed?

(January 7, 2025 at 1:13 pm)h4ym4n Wrote:

(January 7, 2025 at 12:39 pm)Sheldon Wrote: This was my suspicion as well, that their very existence being acknowledged publicly even by themselves, somehow violates his Christian right to adhere to archaic religious bigotry and prejudice. 

Until he honestly answers this:

Why does the idea of trans people living their lives according to their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, bother you at all? 

All we can can do is draw a rational inference.

Because it spits in the face of their godthings man/woman rule.

Another reasonable inference, I'd say.

(January 7, 2025 at 9:07 am)Belacqua Wrote:

Quote:the "cost" of someone on society is determined by their actions, not by their sex or gender - or any other stereotype you want to try to fit them into.

Though I think I would use different language than @TheWhiteMarten here, there is a serious discussion to be had.

Should there be an open season on bigots and do their pelts have any value?

The rights that bigots think are being taken away from them is nothing more than their fragile egos unable to allow themselves to be held accountable for their ignorance.

If the cost for acceptance of diversity means being more open minded, then it's a price I'm willing to pay.

Here's what I need to hear to even begin to believe that their fear comes from a real place - I, my relative, my friend was attacked by a trans person. I can have a bit of sympathy for that, perhaps.

Ask the women in your life how many of them have been the victim of unwanted advances from biological men...bet that number is a fuckton higher.

(January 7, 2025 at 1:10 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Now explain why I should give two shits about what a dead man would have thought about trans rights. Why not Dante? Could we discuss what Vercingetorix thought about this? Maybe we could conjure up the ghosts of Socrates, Columbus, and Saladin and have them debate it.

Christ on a crutch.

Boru

Trotting out big atheist names as if every atheist follows them like some Middle-Eastern demigod is typical projection, innit? I've got disagreements with all the major atheists on this or that topic, Hitchens included.

I'm also unsure why what @Belacqua "suspects" Hitchens might feel about something reflects upon Hitchens rather that himself.

(January 7, 2025 at 9:08 pm)Silver Wrote: If the cost for acceptance of diversity means being more open minded, then it's a price I'm willing to pay.

The only cost to bigots is changing their minds. The cost to the rest of us in sacrificing rights we all share is much larger.