Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The transgender insanity movement

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1. Well, I said HRCs and carbon taxes are ridiculous.   You are the one who said (implied) that the justice system was ridiculous.  Because I said it should treat citizens equally, I think.

2. I'm not currently a victim of crime either.  I would hope to get the same consideration as a Muslim if I was, though.

3. Do you disagree with my position on the Liberals motives with that motion?  If so, fine.  We disagree.

 

1.  Exactly.  Why trust one branch of government 100 PERCENT and not another ?

2.  Yeah, but you know what ?  You're not so don't worry about it.

3.  I don't care to guess at the motives of people I don't know.  If you have evidence, go for it.  Otherwise your position is: "Wow, they want to prevent that minority from being killed.  Heh heh, they just want to get votes, no need to protect them ... the justice system is there after all"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

1. It's called perspective. If First Nations people experience more hate, then that might be a bigger issue to tackle before we tackle the LBGQT (how many more letters should I add)?

2. I'd also like to see stats for Canada and compare.

3.Yep, that person was born a man and is at least a foot taller than the women in that picture and has them by about 100, possibly 150 lbs. That person in physical contact sports would destroy most women.  As in many sports, things would only change once severe injuries are sustained on a regular basis.

 

1. We don't do things one at a time.  And most of the time, we do things zero at a time.

2. I saw a Toronto report that said 100 percent of trans women they interviewed had been assaulted.  That made me very sad.

3. And yet that person wasn't even the best performer in the league.  The idea that they dominated all other women isn't true.   That person was already a career athlete, as I understand, before the transition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Exactly.  Why trust one branch of government 100 PERCENT and not another ?

2.  Yeah, but you know what ?  You're not so don't worry about it.

3.  I don't care to guess at the motives of people I don't know.  If you have evidence, go for it.  Otherwise your position is: "Wow, they want to prevent that minority from being killed.  Heh heh, they just want to get votes, no need to protect them ... the justice system is there after all"

1) I don't trust any branch 100%.  I would like to be treated equally as well or badly as anyone else though.  To get back to my original point:  Everybody deserves protection from crime.  That's what the justice system is for.  If the justice system is crap, at least it is crap to everyone.  I hope, anyway.

2)  I don't, until I am.  We're agreed that then I should get the same consideration right? 

3) Of course you do.  You just do it selectively, the same as everyone else.  Otherwise you wouldn't worry about rampant Islamophobia. The Liberals did something out of the goodness of their hearts,  without any kind of  ulterior motive that was designed to win votes from minorities.  Sure, if you want.  That's what opinions are all about, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) I don't trust any branch 100%.  ... Everybody deserves protection from crime.  That's what the justice system is for.  If the justice system is crap, at least it is crap to everyone.  I hope, anyway.

2)  I don't, until I am.  We're agreed that then I should get the same consideration right? 

3) Of course you do.  You just do it selectively, the same as everyone else.  Otherwise you wouldn't worry about rampant Islamophobia. The Liberals did something out of the goodness of their hearts,  without any kind of  ulterior motive that was designed to win votes from minorities.  Sure, if you want.  That's what opinions are all about, after all.

1) Good.  So maybe the justice system alone can't be counted on to protect groups who are demonized by Canadian media, movies and US politics.  Hint: It can't.

2) If you're Muslim ?  Sure.  Anybody who is targeted as being part of a group should be given protection.

3) Go ahead and find a situation where I made an assumption around hidden motives for people.  I will retract it, as I consciously resist that behaviour.  I didn't say they did something for goodness either.  There's no reason to think a minority group shouldn't be given protection, or that a President or Prime Minister shouldn't make a statement in support of Muslims.  The US President has done that in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

 I'd also like to see stats for Canada and compare.

http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Trans-PULSE-Statistics-Relevant-for-Human-Rights-Policy-June-2015.pdf

Here's a report.  54% of trans people report being threatened, harassed or assaulted.  24% say they have been harassed by the police.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Good.  So maybe the justice system alone can't be counted on to protect groups who are demonized by Canadian media, movies and US politics.  Hint: It can't.

2) If you're Muslim ?  Sure.  Anybody who is targeted as being part of a group should be given protection.

3) Go ahead and find a situation where I made an assumption around hidden motives for people.  I will retract it, as I consciously resist that behaviour.  I didn't say they did something for goodness either.  There's no reason to think a minority group shouldn't be given protection, or that a President or Prime Minister shouldn't make a statement in support of Muslims.  The US President has done that in the past.

1) I guess I just don't see the demons you do.  I expect all Canadians to be protected equally by whatever systems we have.

2) No, if I'm a victim of crime.  You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me, probably because you are making assumptions about my motives.

3) We all resist that behaviour when it's not obvious, because sometimes it would just be unfair.  But then, I'm one who has opinions.  Unashamed, life experience influencing, cite less opinions.  No minority group should be given protection against criticism or offence, any more than I should.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) I guess I just don't see the demons you do. 

2) I expect all Canadians to be protected equally by whatever systems we have.

3) No, if I'm a victim of crime.  You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me, probably because you are making assumptions about my motives.

4) We all resist that behaviour when it's not obvious, because sometimes it would just be unfair.  But then, I'm one who has opinions.  Unashamed, life experience influencing, cite less opinions. 

5) No minority group should be given protection against criticism or offence, any more than I should.

1) You sure don't. They're not demons though, they are real crimes and murders that happen in real life.

2) And if they're targeted, or under additional risk... you say "all Canadians should be equally protected".  No special treatment for them, got it.  If the government says we should protect groups who are target you ridicule that.

3) Ok, and if a group doesn't get justice, do you care ?

4)  If it's "obvious' then people will agree on it, even regardless of politics.  

5)  And if they're targeted and killed, you would do nothing.  That goes for Muslims and Trans people.  But if the government makes a simple *statement*, you will engage the political machine to register your offense.  Sadly, this actually works.  People are more upset about a damn statement then a targeted killing.  I think it's immoral actually.

---

The trans people I know are harassed, threatened with violence and miserable.  Your response is to make a joke by saying Im trans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) You sure don't. They're not demons though, they are real crimes and murders that happen in real life.

2) And if they're targeted, or under additional risk... you say "all Canadians should be equally protected".  No special treatment for them, got it.  If the government says we should protect groups who are target you ridicule that.

3) Ok, and if a group doesn't get justice, do you care ?

4)  If it's "obvious' then people will agree on it, even regardless of politics.  

5)  And if they're targeted and killed, you would do nothing.  That goes for Muslims and Trans people.  But if the government makes a simple *statement*, you will engage the political machine to register your offense.  Sadly, this actually works.  People are more upset about a damn statement then a targeted killing.  I think it's immoral actually.

---

The trans people I know are harassed, threatened with violence and miserable.  Your response is to make a joke by saying Im trans.

I don't know where you get half that.  I remember the typical response, from the left,  to Islamic terrorism in Canada was something to do with lightning.  I remember thinking that was quite offensive, but I've never been one to forbid offense.  So, while tragic, the same does apply to the killings of Muslims in Canada.  I would much rather no-one got hurt.  But I'm not going to advocate for special protection for anyone.  As an Englishman and European, my views are often formed as much by what happens over there as what happens in my adopted country.  Lightning is either less common, or violence of a certain nature is more common, over there.  No motions to protect anyone exist, as far as I know.

It wasn't a joke.  If you read your post, you'll see why I said that.  I think Trans people should have the same rights as everyone else.  Still, much of the violence and torment I have read about has been aimed at non trans women.  TERFs, I think they are called.  I sympathize with much of what I have read of their concerns.  To many Trans activists, that marks me as evil.  Nevertheless...

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

1.  I remember the typical response, from the left,  to Islamic terrorism in Canada was something to do with lightning.  I remember thinking that was quite offensive, but I've never been one to forbid offense. 

2. So, while tragic, the same does apply to the killings of Muslims in Canada.  I would much rather no-one got hurt.  But I'm not going to advocate for special protection for anyone. 

3. As an Englishman ad European, my views are often formed as much by what happens over there as what happens in my adopted country.  Lightning is either less common, or violence of a certain nature is more common, over there.  Still, no motions to protect anyone exist, as far as I know.

 

1.  Yes, those weren't reasonable responses. I'm guessing that you support additional monitoring of Muslims, and profiling them for screening at the airport ?  Due to additional risk to you ?

2. See question #1.

3. Don't know what this refers to.  UK crime ?  Ok.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Yes, those weren't reasonable responses. I'm guessing that you support additional monitoring of Muslims, and profiling them for screening at the airport ?  Due to additional risk to you ?

2. See question #1.

3. Don't know what this refers to.  UK crime ?  Ok.

I support additional monitoring and profiling of anyone if it can be reasonably shown to be necessary.  To not do so would be utterly irresponsible, I think.

Yes.  And European, as I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I support additional monitoring and profiling of anyone if it can be reasonably shown to be necessary.  To not do so would be utterly irresponsible, I think.

But not additional measures and expressions of official concern of any group if they are targeted, if they are shown to be at risk.  

Your principles seem to reflect additional monitoring of Muslims when 'reasonably necessary' and no benefits or assistance to them or trans people when reasonably necessary.  So, clearly, government is there to provide more help to some groups than others.  Your concerns that the justice system provide you necessary support are met, and it seems exceeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What's the point ?  You seem to be implying that this person would dominate because they were born a man but I don't see that as being true, after taking a few minutes to look at it.  

The point is that it perfectly illustrates the point of the OP, and the insanity of the movement.  The fact that you can’t see that illustrates your devotion to ideology over logic and reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More insanity here as this man/woman is crushing the female competition at 6' 3" and 250 lbs.    this sh.t is going too far, there are injuries in many of these games where heavy transgendered males play, just not fair game at all.  

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39158/transgender-player-dominating-womens-handball-amanda-prestigiacomo

Mouncey has been vocal about the alleged oppression he's endured as a transgender athlete in Australia, since he wasn't allowed to play in leagues with biological women due to his testosterone levels and other physical factors.    well yeah!      
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scribblet said:

 Mouncey has been vocal about the alleged oppression he's endured as a transgender athlete in Australia, since he wasn't allowed to play in leagues with biological women due to his testosterone levels and other physical factors.    well yeah!      
 

Yeah, we addressed this above.  Try to keep up.  There's already a dialogue going on about these things, please join it.

Also - be aware that misgendering people is a hallmark of those who reject transgender rights completely, and likely a barrier to being included in a full public discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Truth Detector said:

The point is that it perfectly illustrates the point of the OP, and the insanity of the movement.  The fact that you can’t see that illustrates your devotion to ideology over logic and reason.

I'm devoted to dialogue more than anything else.  The fact that you see me as being on some side other than yours indicates to me that you may not be as devoted to dialogue as I am.

What is 'dominating' ?  I would say someone dominates if they are far above the pack, like Gretzky in the 1980s.  I don't think 2nd place dominates.  And the 'insanity' of the movement is subject to rulings and dialogues that includes reasonable people so why try to derail that, or post as if nothing of the sort exists.  Why is it 'insanity' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But not additional measures and expressions of official concern of any group if they are targeted, if they are shown to be at risk.  

Your principles seem to reflect additional monitoring of Muslims when 'reasonably necessary' and no benefits or assistance to them or trans people when reasonably necessary.  So, clearly, government is there to provide more help to some groups than others.  Your concerns that the justice system provide you necessary support are met, and it seems exceeded.

Not just Muslims.  Anyone.  (This is that racist thing from the Conservatives thread.  It simply has to apply!)

Certainly if a lesbian was beaten up for not wanting to have a relationship with a girl with a penis, I would be okay with the authorities concentrating their efforts on the Trans community.  Or Antifa personnel. And vice versa, of course. If a Trans person was beaten up, I would be more than happy for the police too remove you from their list of suspects without any investigation whatsoever.

I would support assistance and benefits when reasonably necessary.  After all, where would the welfare state be without them?  If I look back to my first statement, I said everyone deserves protection.  And I said the Liberal's motion on Islamophobia was ridiculous and self serving.  Still both true, as far as I'm concerned.

I've also offered practical solutions to the bathroom problem 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, we addressed this above.  Try to keep up.  There's already a dialogue going on about these things, please join it.

Also - be aware that misgendering people is a hallmark of those who reject transgender rights completely, and likely a barrier to being included in a full public discussion.

I don't reject them completely.  I do believe in a level playing field where possible and this is nowhere near level or fair..        taller, much heavier with high testosterone levels ...

 

You try to keep up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I would support assistance and benefits when reasonably necessary. 

If I look back to my first statement, I said everyone deserves protection. 

And I said the Liberal's motion on Islamophobia was ridiculous and self serving.   

Hard to reconcile these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, scribblet said:

You try to keep up 

You didn't respond to my points completely or read my link.  The article said her testosterone levels were in the acceptable range.  There are also rules in place to decide when trans women may compete - and that's part of dialogue.  And she didn't dominate.  

I''m not going to restate points over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hard to reconcile these.

No it's not.  I was differentiating between assistance and benefits, and protection.  Should we all  get equal welfare payments?  No.  Should we all get equal protection under the law?  Yes.  No trick at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also - be aware that misgendering people is a hallmark of those who reject transgender rights completely, and likely a barrier to being included in a full public discussion.

Mis-gendering might also be nothing more than a simple mistake as well.  Not only that they cannot seem to understand what gender they are, hence the desire to transition. One day I could be trans, one day non-binary, another, I could identity as a spoon.  That's a problem. They have an identity crisis that is perpetuated by social media conditioning.

How do you feel about compelled speech ingrained into Canadian law via Bill C-16? Making it a hate crime if I do not use whatever pronoun you decide to apply to yourself today? And what you select tomorrow could be different based on the fluidity of all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

No it's not.  I was differentiating between assistance and benefits, and protection.  Should we all  get equal welfare payments?  No.  Should we all get equal protection under the law?  Yes.  No trick at all.

If everyone deserves protection, then groups who are especially at risk deserve special protection.  So are the PM's statements valid but also political self-serving ?  And how can they be ridiculous ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

1. Mis-gendering might also be nothing more than a simple mistake as well.   

2. How do you feel about compelled speech ingrained into Canadian law via Bill C-16? Making it a hate crime if I do not use whatever pronoun you decide to apply to yourself today? And what you select tomorrow could be different based on the fluidity of all this.

1. Agreed.  A major publication would probably know better.

2.I thought Professor Peterson's points against 'compelled speech' were worth discussing.  We didn't get far enough into that debate before both sides muddied the waters and discussion  became impossible.  I will say that it was never clear that 'compelled speech' was part of the law, and it seemed to me that it wasn't part of the law.  The idea that someone could be charged for making a mistake is pretty ridiculous and part of muddying the waters.  I'm not accusing you of doing this, but others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If everyone deserves protection, then groups who are especially at risk deserve special protection.  So are the PM's statements valid but also political self-serving ?  And how can they be ridiculous ?

To say someone deserves special protection is to say someone else deserves less.  I don't agree with that.  That would apply to the PM's statements too.  Ridiculous is an opinion, based on my other opinion that the PM couldn't give a toss about anyone except as a way of assuring votes and staying in power.   They invite my derision!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Agreed.  A major publication would probably know better.

2.I thought Professor Peterson's points against 'compelled speech' were worth discussing.  We didn't get far enough into that debate before both sides muddied the waters and discussion  became impossible.  I will say that it was never clear that 'compelled speech' was part of the law, and it seemed to me that it wasn't part of the law.  The idea that someone could be charged for making a mistake is pretty ridiculous and part of muddying the waters.  I'm not accusing you of doing this, but others.

Should someone be charged for doing it deliberately?

Actually charged, for being a bit of an arse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...