A Political Thread

[TRF_Olyy]

There's now a significant boom in property prices in Poland. I've bought a small flat 3 years ago (that was really cheap) and now it costs twice as expensive! Crisis influenced on people's desire to have their own property (and to feel themselves protected like that). We saw it in Russia during huge crisis in the 90s for example. It wasn't safe to rent an apartment, that's why it's a "Russian dream" now to have your own place, people's main aim. I think it's always growing during crisis time,in every country : maybe same reason for a "housing boom" in the UK in the 80s.

(Yes, I suck at rugby, politics, English language, I'm not from the UK/the US and,what is the worst, I'm a girl, but I'm bored and also want to participate in the conversation at least by talking about Poland/Russia).

Always good to get another perspective/see how things are in a different environment - your English is spot on as well

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Surely denying their existence is denying their rights?

Calling someone by another name is by no means denying their existence. Not even close.
You can call me whatever you want, that doesn't mean i cease to exist. It can be rude, impolite, uncalled for, ridiculous, even illegal, but saying that someone's words deny someone else's existence, well, that's a statement that needs a hell of a lot of evidence to be supported. I see none. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", you know.

Anyone posting here or anywhere else on this forum should take account for what they post. As they run the risk of being warned/posts deleted/banned based on what they say. Us moderators also fall in this bracket, as we are first and foremost also just posters, and we are also human, with both objective and subjective views.

I think we try our best to handle each confrontational topic to the best of our abilities without the need to be overly excessive in the punishment. if a post is reported we will investigate. If not, then the possibility is that it might completely slip our radar, so it really all depends on other members and how they perceive posts and whether a post is breaching a rule or moral value contradictory to their own views.

I understand what you mean but i am not sure you got my point.
First, i understand the grey area between posting and moderating. My thought is quite straightforward: once you engage in a subject, you should give up your moderating duties during that topic. No exceptions.
Second, and this is the big one, is when a topic comes up and a mod thinks that that topic is not up for debate. Which topics are those topics is not always clear. For instance, I think not many people here would second guess to engage in a conversation about the existence of god (i'm a rabid atheist btw) and i think no mod would even consider warning or modding the subject for its content, no matter how offensive it might be to one of the parties involved. But you ask for the crystal clear definition of what constitutes a woman, disagree with it, and alarms start ringing. That does not sound right.

In my experience, half of the problems are because one party (or both) never asks hi/herself: "ok, i disagree with him, but why is he thinking that way?" A lot of the times the difference is about semantics.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Calling someone by another name is by no means denying their existence. Not even close.

Misgendering is denying that person's existence is transphobia.
There's no two ways around it.

Deliberate misgendering is considered a hate crime.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

[

Misgendering is denying that person's existence is transphobia.
There's no two ways around it.

Deliberate misgendering is considered a hate crime.

How is it denying that person's existence? It may be rude, but saying it is denying that person's existence is just plain wrong... A clear acknowledgement of the fact they exist is even having the opportunity to misgender them in a conversation?

Or am I interpreting "denying their existence" too literally?


(I would also question whether it was actually a hate crime but it looks like you've edited that)

 

[ncurd]

The bit thats missing from the sentence "denying the existance" trans people exist.

By deliberately misgendering a trans person you are making a clear statement you do not belive trans people exist or that person is trans. And lets be absolutely clear here science overwhelming supports the existence of trans people.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The bit thats missing from the sentence "denying the existance" trans people exist.

By deliberately misgendering a trans person you are making a clear statement you do not belive trans people exist or that person is trans. And lets be absolutely clear here science overwhelming supports the existence of trans people.

Aye, put more eloquently than I was trying to.

Obviously I'm not saying misgendering is denying their physical existence as a person stood in front of you, but if someone is living their life as one gender and you repeatedly call them by one that they are transitioning away from then you're saying that the life they're currently living isn't real.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

*disclaimer first off: not necessarily my opinion but I'm open to debate to better formate my opinion*


Is it not possible that some people just don't differentiate between gender and sex and thus don't recognize that any amount of hormone therapy or surgery can change one's fundemental sex ie. XY/XX ?

That would be to say that they aren't suggesting that the transgender individual doesn't feel like the opposite sex / have some characteristics of it but simply that they use one's biological sex as wholly determinative of one's gender.

Thus, whilst they may be living life as the opposite gender, and an onlooker may be perfectly accepting of that, they may, at the same time, not believe that it is possible for one to "transition" in a biological sense, should the onlooker be forced to abandon their basic principle that sex and gender are biologically determined?

Again, this isn't necessarily my view, but I think it's important to be able to debate these things in order to format ones opinion more thoroughly.

 

[ncurd]

*disclaimer first off: not necessarily my opinion but I'm open to debate to better formate my opinion*


Is it not possible that some people just don't differentiate between gender and sex and thus don't recognize that any amount of hormone therapy or surgery can change one's fundemental sex ie. XY/XX ?

Quick one, Sex determination isn't that simplistic. We are taught that in schools admittedly but the reality is it doesn't work that way. Plus sex isn't binary either as intersex people definitely exist an that is a purely a simple biological standpoint. And still ignored the fact than your brain chemistry is part of your biology. Trying to distill it down to sexual organs ignores all the other parts of your body.

That would be to say that they aren't suggesting that the transgender individual doesn't feel like the opposite sex / have some characteristics of it but simply that they use one's biological sex as wholly determinative of one's gender.

Thus, whilst they may be living life as the opposite gender, and an onlooker may be perfectly accepting of that, they may, at the same time, not believe that it is possible for one to "transition" in a biological sense, should the onlooker be forced to abandon their basic principle that sex and gender are biologically determined?

Again, this isn't necessarily my view, but I think it's important to be able to debate these things in order to format ones opinion more thoroughly.

I disregard this point of view on one self deterministic lived experience. Not only are flying in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence in this regard, your along the edge of people like climate change deniers or anti vaxxers there outliers in science but usually by people with agendas. Plus the hypothetical person regardess of their opinion is not having their rights as a person denied whereas the trans person is. It does not effect the non trans person in any meaningful sense to call someone by how they wish to be addressed it does effect the trans person. In that regard the trans person wins out in who's rights matter more by an extreme margin.


I think of it this way if someone introduces themselves as Andy to yourself you don't start calling him Andrew and claiming well thats his name.

 

[Reiser99]

*disclaimer first off: not necessarily my opinion but I'm open to debate to better formate my opinion*


Is it not possible that some people just don't differentiate between gender and sex and thus don't recognize that any amount of hormone therapy or surgery can change one's fundemental sex ie. XY/XX ?

That would be to say that they aren't suggesting that the transgender individual doesn't feel like the opposite sex / have some characteristics of it but simply that they use one's biological sex as wholly determinative of one's gender.

Thus, whilst they may be living life as the opposite gender, and an onlooker may be perfectly accepting of that, they may, at the same time, not believe that it is possible for one to "transition" in a biological sense, should the onlooker be forced to abandon their basic principle that sex and gender are biologically determined?

Again, this isn't necessarily my view, but I think it's important to be able to debate these things in order to format ones opinion more thoroughly.

The real problem is that we haven't developed our language to properly distinguish between physical/biological gender (as in what your body physically is) and the psychological/emotional gender. We have tried to adapt to two very basic binary terms of male and female and that simply doesn't cover it anymore. Personally for me we need to develop new terminology that separates the physical and the psychological because this is where many issues occur when people discuss the topic.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Quick one, Sex determination isn't that simplistic. We are taught that in schools admittedly but the reality is it doesn't work that way. Plus sex isn't binary either as intersex people definitely exist an that is a purely a simple biological standpoint. And still ignored the fact than your brain chemistry is part of your biology. Trying to distill it down to sexual organs ignores all the other parts of your body.
I disregard this point of view on one self deterministic lived experience. Not only are flying in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence in this regard, your along the edge of people like climate change deniers or anti vaxxers there outliers in science but usually by people with agendas. Plus the hypothetical person regardess of their opinion is not having their rights as a person denied whereas the trans person is. It does not effect the non trans person in any meaningful sense to call someone by how they wish to be addressed it does effect the trans person. In that regard the trans person wins out in who's rights matter more by an extreme margin.


I think of it this way if someone introduces themselves as Andy to yourself you don't start calling him Andrew and claiming well thats his name.

What is the "overwhelming scientific evidence" you're talking about cause I do want to better educate myself in order to form my own opinion?



On the last point (I do have an opinion on this), nobody has a fundemental right to be called anything... they just dont. It would be very rude not to call someone by their name and I wouldn't do it, but it's not a violation of their rights.

On the other hand however, forcing people not to say certain things is a violation of the right to freedom of speech surely?

 

[ncurd]

Honestly I really have the time to go seek it all out I reccomend a bit of Google and possibly a video essay or two which actually properly cities their points (usually PhilosophyTube or ContaPoints is an excellent start and they will point you on to other stuff). I can't poibt you at the best stuff because it years of accumulation, watching, reading and listening. Especially from trans friends of mine.



Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence and misgendering in the more complex sense can and does cause psychological damage.

 

[Yulia]

Just for interest: could you have relationship with trans people? Or it's something unacceptable for you?
Me, I respect their choice but not sure if I would have such a relationship..

 

[ncurd]

I'm married to a cis woman so the entire thing is very hypothetical. Honestly I don't think so unless I fell in love with the person before I knew (and it's certainly the case you may not know in some circumstances). Bi or Pan people are far more likely to be accepting on that front and I do think more people will identify as those as these things inevitably become more socially acceptable. I treat it as my hangups about stuff and that's perfectly acceptable nobody is telling me who I have to fall in love or have relationships with.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Personally I think if a trans person wants to make the change and be recognised as such then that's for them to decide but I also wouldn't want to have a relationship with one and would not react well to finding out that was the case afterwards if it was hidden.

 

[The Seeker]

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What's the significance of Trumps tax returns?
Is it just a "Ha, we knew you weren't as rich as you said you were"? Or are there more sinister things that people are looking for?
Surely anything seriously dodgy would be hidden away in dodgy businesses etc?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

What's the significance of Trumps tax returns?
Is it just a "Ha, we knew you weren't as rich as you said you were"? Or are there more sinister things that people are looking for?
Surely anything seriously dodgy would be hidden away in dodgy businesses etc?

Bit of both I think, I'm sure there was some suggestion of tax fraud back in 2016 when this all started as well if I remember correctly?

 

[User1245]

An alt-righter saying this is hilarious

From Wikipedia:

The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States.

What a ridiculous insult. Provide proof for you slandering me with that label or retract your statement.

Also the irony isn't lost on me, or anyone else, that everytime there's a post you disagree with you start complaining about moderators not deleting it - how dare anyone be allowed to think differently from you

Stop making things up. I've never called on the mods for any post to be deleted. But since it happens "everytime" I'll wait for you show me these numerous posts.

I'm making the mods of this forum take a stance on if a member condoning violence against innocent people for a political movement is acceptable on here. A post which you liked by the way.

 

[User1245]

Another "black fascist", Terry Crews, being critical of BLM and its leaders.

 

[TRF_heineken]

*disclaimer first off: not necessarily my opinion but I'm open to debate to better formate my opinion*


Is it not possible that some people just don't differentiate between gender and sex and thus don't recognize that any amount of hormone therapy or surgery can change one's fundemental sex ie. XY/XX ?

That would be to say that they aren't suggesting that the transgender individual doesn't feel like the opposite sex / have some characteristics of it but simply that they use one's biological sex as wholly determinative of one's gender.

Thus, whilst they may be living life as the opposite gender, and an onlooker may be perfectly accepting of that, they may, at the same time, not believe that it is possible for one to "transition" in a biological sense, should the onlooker be forced to abandon their basic principle that sex and gender are biologically determined?

Again, this isn't necessarily my view, but I think it's important to be able to debate these things in order to format ones opinion more thoroughly.

Well I think the science is partly part of the current problem/mess. Things like hyperandrogenism (hope I spelt it correctly) makes it hard for us as a society to understand the concepts surrounding trans-people. And here specifically I want to mention Caster Semenya, the Olympic gold medalist who has had a losing battle it seems with the IAAF on her situation/status. As you mention, she has always been a girl/female, and have always been seen as one. But because of her biological condition, the IAAF is denying her the right to compete naturally, and instead has to be one prescribed medication in order to compete.

To be perfectly honest, I have never in my life personally met a trans-gender person, nor are there that many in town (if any). So it's kinda hard for me to to base an opinion on this without that initial interaction.