P
Pattylt
Guest
Me neither!
- Status
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Well done.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
I pondered on your post (before this one) and I guess here’s the thing.
If I found out that so-and-so down the street is living as the opposite sex, it’s really none of my business. I wouldn’t dream of confronting them or questioning them or even spreading the story around.
I would still privately believe this is a psychiatric issue, but unless the person asked me to my face what my opinion is, I would mine my own business.
This is how it was in the “olden days” (ie maybe 10 years ago).
But where the problem lies is that this is no longer a person’s private business and I’m no longer allowed to have my own private feelings about it. Powerful lobbying groups decided to make this everybody’s business, to the point that only one point of view is permitted publicly and a person with a dissenting point of view can be punished.
Furthermore, this has been forced on the public despite the science not even close to being settled. Some studies suggest a biological basis, while other studies dispute that claim. And so on.
Also the gaslighting and silencing of findings that refute the transactivists’ opinion. And the lawsuits and the sensitivity training.
All discussion is being shut down.
Left to my own, I would never give any of this a second thought.
If I found out that so-and-so down the street is living as the opposite sex, it’s really none of my business. I wouldn’t dream of confronting them or questioning them or even spreading the story around.
I would still privately believe this is a psychiatric issue, but unless the person asked me to my face what my opinion is, I would mine my own business.
This is how it was in the “olden days” (ie maybe 10 years ago).
But where the problem lies is that this is no longer a person’s private business and I’m no longer allowed to have my own private feelings about it. Powerful lobbying groups decided to make this everybody’s business, to the point that only one point of view is permitted publicly and a person with a dissenting point of view can be punished.
Furthermore, this has been forced on the public despite the science not even close to being settled. Some studies suggest a biological basis, while other studies dispute that claim. And so on.
Also the gaslighting and silencing of findings that refute the transactivists’ opinion. And the lawsuits and the sensitivity training.
All discussion is being shut down.
Left to my own, I would never give any of this a second thought.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I agree that society is often over reacting and over reaching on the issue. The gender dysphoria are a tiny minority getting a lot of attention and I’d agree that there are some that are mimicking dysphoria for some personal reasons. I’d also agree that some dysphorics are being louder than necessary.
I’m hoping time settles much of it down. Those dysphorics that dress as the opposite sex and live as the opposite sex usually aren’t ever screaming their dysphoria to the masses. They just quietly live as the opposite sex. I also think that if everyone just ignored the loud ones, accepted the quiet ones and just behaved themselves, we’d all be better off. But human are humans and millions of people have to express their opinions on it. Look! I’m doing it, too!
I don’t want them discriminated against. I also don’t want males competing in sports as females. I want people to live in society as comfortable as possible without fearing for their lives and I want those that religiously feel its wrong to be able to think so. I just hope it all gets sorted. Certainly, nothing I say is going to change anything.
I’m hoping time settles much of it down. Those dysphorics that dress as the opposite sex and live as the opposite sex usually aren’t ever screaming their dysphoria to the masses. They just quietly live as the opposite sex. I also think that if everyone just ignored the loud ones, accepted the quiet ones and just behaved themselves, we’d all be better off. But human are humans and millions of people have to express their opinions on it. Look! I’m doing it, too!
I don’t want them discriminated against. I also don’t want males competing in sports as females. I want people to live in society as comfortable as possible without fearing for their lives and I want those that religiously feel its wrong to be able to think so. I just hope it all gets sorted. Certainly, nothing I say is going to change anything.
S
Sean
Guest
Yeah yeah yeah men can get periods and women can be priest.
S
Sean
Guest
They are trying to break down anything that relates to Christianity it makes me so mad. This is being normalized and smart people are accepting it. While people are leaving catholicism is droves. They claim to be people of science yet are some of the most irrational people. This is the new religion.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I try to ignore things like this.
Mark121359
Well-known member
Report: Men get periods and give birth.
Yeah. And I’m really a shark and I eat seals and sea lions!
Yeah. And I’m really a shark and I eat seals and sea lions!
Last edited:
C
CTBcin
Guest
Wow… you can’t make this stuff up. It’s a strange world we’re living in.
C
ConsistantlyBaffled
Guest
The ACLU should probably stick to free speech cases and leave the gender politics to twitter
T
TK421
Guest
Does this mean I get to take maternity leave? I could go for some paid vacation to take care of my imaginary baby.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Including fighting for the Religious Freedom that we hold so dear:
Catholic Worker house allowed to stay open
Faced with complaints from her neighbors that threatened her ability to operate House of Hagar Catholic Worker in Wheeling, West Virginia, Kate Marshall took it as an affirmation that she was "on the right track."
www.ncronline.org
https://www.aclu-nh.org/en/node/374
ACLU tells Virginia Community College System That Campus Demonstration Policies are Unconstitutional
Richmond, VA -- On Friday, the ACLU of Virginia sent a letter to the Chancellor and Board of the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) informing them that VCCS's policies limiting the right to protest on Virginia's community college campuses violate the First Amendment. The letter called upon...
acluva.org
These are only a few from many, many others
JoeFreedom
New member
In related news, cheese barks like a dog and the color green cried today.
O
OKComputer
Guest
Seriously, things like this are why I’ve drifted away from the democratic party. Complete madness.
W
Welshrabbit
Guest
Well then…you good sir, are NOT welcome in my swimming pool!
C
Cricket13
Guest
ACLU: “Men can get pregnant too!”
Me:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Me:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
C
CTBcin
Guest
They certainly do some good work, and I admire them for the good that they do.
Then there’s this “men can get pregnant” craziness.
P
PetraG
Guest
This debate always reminds me of a passage from C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?”: or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. (cont)
People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?”: or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. (cont)
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
(cont) When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
You can make it impolite to admit you can tell the difference between blue and green, because some people are blue-green color blind. That doesn’t mean people will stop being able to tell or that they won’t care about the difference between blue and green any more. That doesn’t mean blue is better or worse than green. It means people can tell and they know they can tell and they care that there is a difference and they’re going to rebel against being told to pretend they can’t tell or shouldn’t care.
Likewise, you can tell people it would be kind if they’d act as if they don’t know the difference between a man and a woman. They might do it to be kind, but they still do know the difference and they still do care. When the ability to tell the truth is supressed in favor of pretending one doesn’t or can’t know the truth and the truth itself is made into something offensive or criminal, though, people are going to rebel.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
You can make it impolite to admit you can tell the difference between blue and green, because some people are blue-green color blind. That doesn’t mean people will stop being able to tell or that they won’t care about the difference between blue and green any more. That doesn’t mean blue is better or worse than green. It means people can tell and they know they can tell and they care that there is a difference and they’re going to rebel against being told to pretend they can’t tell or shouldn’t care.
Likewise, you can tell people it would be kind if they’d act as if they don’t know the difference between a man and a woman. They might do it to be kind, but they still do know the difference and they still do care. When the ability to tell the truth is supressed in favor of pretending one doesn’t or can’t know the truth and the truth itself is made into something offensive or criminal, though, people are going to rebel.
Last edited:
- Status