Norm... Gay... Straight... Trans...

QP! said:
Again stop stuffing strawmen and try to comprehend what you read.,

When i say society is 'wrong to judge it negatively' i am speaking of the OCCURANCE of an anomaly and not the specifics. One should EXPECT anomalies to occur and thus accept that as NORMAL when they do.

I am not arguing Cancer occurring has to not be judged but rather that you should EXPECT and not judge that it occurs as the wrong.

I am addressing the often pushed position that trans people should not exist and their very existence is some sort of offense.

I am not getting into the subjective of whether zymurgy or person XYZ thinks of it because i see no point in that just as arguing with people currently why gay people should or should not exist or have rights is kind of pointless. Each person will have a subjective view regardless.

My point is a important layer up from that an argument that people SHOULD accept such anomalies will emerge and accept that as normal. Not just label them as abhorrent based on their existence which a lot do here.
Click to expand...
"I am addressing the often pushed position that trans people should not exist and their very existence is some sort of offense."

Cite examples of someone saying, "trans people shouldnt exist" and that "their very existence is some sort of offense".
 
zymurgy said:
It is not a straw man when I am responding to the conclusion you actually wrote. You said it is “WRONG” to judge something negatively when it falls within biological/evolutionary variation. I pointed out that the biological fact of variation does not, by itself, establish that normative conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes it does as again, my use of wrong their is about is very existence and NOT about any subjective judgement of it.

You have now clarified that you mean only that the mere occurrence or existence of an anomaly should not be condemned. Fine. I was never arguing that atypical human traits should not occur or that someone’s mere existence is offensive.
Click to expand...

Yes I confirmed the thread after you tried stuffing a strawman.

My objection was, and still is, much narrower: “natural variation” does not settle the downstream social and policy questions. Privacy, consent, boundaries, competing rights, sports, medicine, and similar issues still have to be argued on their own merits.
Click to expand...

Good for you. That is a secondary discussion and I already said I agree with all of that being discussed which should be discussed even if society was 100% homogeneously heterosexual.

I see your point as basically a non point as in all instances it needs to be discussed. It is a truism.
And that is entirely consistent with my very first reply to you: “Natural variation doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights.”

My position has been consistent from the start. Yours has required repeated clarification and narrowing.
Click to expand...
Yes a consistent strawman trying to impose your secondary question while ignoring my top level one and then you arguing as if I'm arguing your question when I am not
 
Why the point and distinction I'm making a opposed to the argument zymurgy is trying to push matters.

My argument is addressing the top level argument which is based on logic and science before you get a layer below where you arguing judgements which may be religion based or other.

What i am saying in this thread is the most common push premise used against gays and trans is that they are not normal. That normal is the heterosexual people who procreate and those others are abnormal and thus wrong.

While heterosexual is the core of the norm, I am saying gay and trans existing in the fringe of the norm are also NORMAL and expected.

I think that is important as it takes away a key top level argument used to hate.

They will still use their religion or other reasons to hate but subjective reasons (chocolate tastes better than vanilla) are lesser arguments to one of facts and science such as should a person exist.
 
Yakuda said:
"I am addressing the often pushed position that trans people should not exist and their very existence is some sort of offense."

Cite examples of someone saying, "trans people shouldnt exist" and that "their very existence is some sort of offense".
Click to expand...
Not interested in that game that we have not argued a thousand times here that the purpose of people is to procreate and have children and thus being gay is wrong and the variants of that argument
 
QP! said:
Why the point and distinction I'm making a opposed to the argument zymurgy is trying to push matters.

My argument is addressing the top level argument which is based on logic and science before you get a layer below where you arguing judgements which may be religion based or other.

What i am saying in this thread is the most common push premise used against gays and trans is that they are not normal. That normal is the heterosexual people who procreate and those others are abnormal and thus wrong.

While heterosexual is the core of the norm, I am saying gay and trans existing in the fringe of the norm are also NORMAL and expected.

I think that is important as it takes away a key top level argument used to hate.

They will still use their religion or other reasons to hate but subjective reasons (chocolate tastes better than vanilla) are lesser arguments to one of facts and science such as should a person exist.
Click to expand...
pussy lost the argument so he always does this

talks about me instead of to me

I never argued that gay or trans people “should not exist.” My first reply was literally:

“Natural variation doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights.”

That has been my position from the beginning.

If your claim is merely that human variation exists naturally and should be expected, I already agreed with that. What I rejected was the attempt to make that biological observation do work it cannot do—settle the social and policy questions downstream from it.

So address the argument I actually made, not the easier one you are now explaining to everyone else.
 
zymurgy said:
pussy lost the argument so he always does this

talks about me instead of to me

I never argued that gay or trans people “should not exist.” My first reply was literally:

“Natural variation doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights.”

That has been my position from the beginning.

If your claim is merely that human variation exists naturally and should be expected, I already agreed with that. What I rejected was the attempt to make that biological observation do work it cannot do—settle the social and policy questions downstream from it.

So address the argument I actually made, not the easier one you are now explaining to everyone else.
Click to expand...
Once again this is my thread and my OP.

You told me I was wrong and you were wrong in doing that and you no longer even deny it.

Instead you are saying I should have been arguing your point, one i basically agreed with the first time you stated it but pointed out it was NOT what I was discussing.

This is a constant theme with you. You want to argue something else and misread OP,s, claiming the person is wrong. You retreat from that claim when they prove their point was accurate and then instead you switch to saying 'well you should ignore your Op and address my sideline arguments '.
 
QP! said:
Once again this is my thread and my OP.

You told me I was wrong and you were wrong in doing that and you no longer even deny it.

Instead you are saying I should have been arguing your point, one i basically agreed with the first time you stated it but pointed out it was NOT what I was discussing.

This is a constant theme with you. You want to argue something else and misread OP,s, claiming the person is wrong. You retreat from that claim when they prove their point was accurate and then instead you switch to saying 'well you should ignore your Op and address my sideline arguments '.
Click to expand...
“This is my thread” is childish. Yes, you can take your ball and go home—but I can still remain in the thread and critique the argument you posted publicly.

I challenged the conclusion you drew from your premise. You then narrowed that conclusion, accused me of straw-manning, and now want to declare the original challenge illegitimate because it was not the discussion you preferred to have.

That is not me retreating. My first reply is still exactly where I am now: natural variation does not settle the downstream social and policy questions.

If you want to discuss only the uncontroversial proposition that human variation exists, fine. But then stop pretending I lost an argument I never made.
 
QP! said:
Not interested in that game that we have not argued a thousand times here that the purpose of people is to procreate and have children and thus being gay is wrong and the variants of that argument.
Click to expand...
Its not a game to expect you to show evidence for your claims. If its too hard for you to do that then thats just how it is.

The "purpose" of people is not to procreate but people do procreate and that requires the sperm from one half of those people and the egg from the other half of those people.

Being gay is NOTHING like being trans. Gay people dont pretend to be something other than what they actually are. Trans people claim they are a different gender. Then they expect to invade private spaces and violate the rights of others.
 
Yakuda said:
Its not a game to expect you to show evidence for your claims. If its too hard for you to do that then thats just how it is.

The "purpose" of people is not to procreate but people do procreate and that requires the sperm from one half of those people and the egg from the other half of those people.

Being gay is NOTHING like being trans. Gay people dont pretend to be something other than what they actually are. Trans people claim they are a different gender. Then they expect to invade private spaces and violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...
Who? The fake transwomen? Agreed.
 
AProudLefty said:
If you don't care for the discussion/debate then why are you here?
Click to expand...
To remind people that things arent true simply because you believe they're true. A man who thinks hes a woman isnt actually a woman will never actually be a woman thats why they're called trans woman. If you arent an actual woman you're a fake woman thereby rendering "fake trans woman" redundant
 
zymurgy said:
“This is my thread” is childish. Yes, you can take your ball and go home—but I can still remain in the thread and critique the argument you posted publicly.

I challenged the conclusion you drew from your premise. You then narrowed that conclusion, accused me of straw-manning, and now want to declare the original challenge illegitimate because it was not the discussion you preferred to have.

That is not me retreating. My first reply is still exactly where I am now: natural variation does not settle the downstream social and policy questions.

If you want to discuss only the uncontroversial proposition that human variation exists, fine. But then stop pretending I lost an argument I never made.
Click to expand...
It is not childish. You just need to be less stupid.

This is the second time you have come in to a thread i have made and made a point that did not follow the OP while telling me i was wrong as i was not arguing your point in your post that followed as i was staying on topic.

The ONLY point of discrepancy we had in this thread, was not over your points, but on you saying 'I was wrong, when i was not because of your mis reading and mis applying what i said WRONGLY.

I never narrowed my premise, that is a flat out lie from you. You cannot quote me narrowing my premise. You quoted my premise and then gave YOUR interpretation which was wrong and not what i said or intended but you continue to push as if i have to argue against YOUR interpretation (strawman) when it was NEVER my point.

I do not care if natural variation does not settle the downstream social and policy questions. Read my prior post 23 and you will see why if you are capable of comprehending what you read. That is not me saying your point is wrong. It is me saying IT WAS NOT MY POINT and i am discussing the TOP LEVEL and not DOWNSTREAM issue.

I am allowed to do that no matter how much you would rather discuss the downstream issues.

You DID lose the only argument we had, as the only thing i argued with you was when you said i "i narrowed my claim" when i did not. You were wrong. You lost on that. We never had any dispute of 'downstream issues' despite you trying to strawman that we did.
 
Yakuda said:
To remind people that things arent true simply because you believe they're true.
Click to expand...
You mean reminding them of your opinion?
Yakuda said:
A man who thinks hes a woman isnt actually a woman will never actually be a woman thats why they're called trans woman.
Click to expand...
Um you just said it. It's why they're called trans women.
Yakuda said:
If you arent an actual woman you're a fake woman thereby rendering "fake trans woman" redundant
Click to expand...
No. A fake transwoman pretends to be one.
 
AProudLefty said:
You mean reminding them of your opinion?

Um you just said it. It's why they're called trans women.

No. A fake transwoman pretends to be one.
Click to expand...
No its a fact that things arent true simply because you believe they are.

Right trans because they arent actual women no matter how much they believe it.

Just like a trans woman. Its all pretend. AGAIN things arent true simply because you believe they're true
 
Yakuda said:
Its not a game to expect you to show evidence for your claims. If its too hard for you to do that then thats just how it is.
Click to expand...
Ya if someone tells me to prove this forum is based on partisan arguments, i am not doing that either. Those are just games to deny the obvious.

Yakuda said:
The "purpose" of people is not to procreate but people do procreate and that requires the sperm from one half of those people and the egg from the other half of those people.
Click to expand...
And i have been in all sorts of arguments here where people have tried to define the purpose as procreation. That not being a person who can procreate or in a relationship that is for procreation is wrong. When we throw out infertile couples who want to have a child but cannot they mostly give them a pass as they 'want' and 'try'.

Again i am not going to prove those discussions exist as they are so common here you are trolling to pretend they do not.

Yakuda said:
Being gay is NOTHING like being trans.
Click to expand...
In the history of issues that people and groups deal with trying to push the view that either the issues are the "exact same or they don't count" is never a winning argument.

No one is claiming they are same. But the discrimination and demonization that resulted is pretty near identical.

Yakuda said:
Gay people dont pretend to be something other than what they actually are. Trans people claim they are a different gender. Then they expect to invade private spaces and violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...
And yet very similar arguments were leveled at gays. Some claim they are fake gay and do it for attention or other reasons and should just stop being gay. Some claim they need to convert. Some used to claim having gays in change room with straight people was a violation of the hetero persons rights.
 
Yakuda said:
No its a fact that things arent true simply because you believe they are.
Click to expand...
Who claimed that they are real biological women?
Yakuda said:
Right trans because they arent actual women no matter how much they believe it.
Click to expand...
The real transwomen know their biological sex.
Yakuda said:
Just like a trans woman. Its all pretend. AGAIN things arent true simply because you believe they're true
Click to expand...
Going back to my post... There are fake transwomen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top