Red Mosquito

lol

.

washing machine wrote:

Mickey wrote:"Project DROC" has around 1000 Twitter followers and their reply has 142 likes; the OP has 16k followers and the tweet itself has 122,000 likes. Do you think that reply is in good faith? Do you think posting it here was done in good faith? Do you think this interaction is worth spending time thinking about?

If you are asking me if I think this tweet was done in good faith, then yes I do. Small scale advocacy group 100% has an incentive to engage in this way in lieu of meaningful resources.

You're on to something with bi3 posting it here though.

BurtReynolds wrote:

washing machine wrote:

Mickey wrote:"Project DROC" has around 1000 Twitter followers and their reply has 142 likes; the OP has 16k followers and the tweet itself has 122,000 likes. Do you think that reply is in good faith? Do you think posting it here was done in good faith? Do you think this interaction is worth spending time thinking about?

If you are asking me if I think this tweet was done in good faith, then yes I do. Small scale advocacy group 100% has an incentive to engage in this way in lieu of meaningful resources.

You're on to something with bi3 posting it here though.

It's always possible to find lunatics like this to misrepresent the other side, so you have to be careful about that. Still, it has a lot of entertainment value to "punch down" at these idiots.

unrelated:

Shit's got layers, but a bit TERFish.

It's unfortunate this is from Walsh, who is a major asshole and frequently a bigot, but worth hearing if somehow you are still in the "fringe groups on campus" camp. This type of loony tunes nonsense does more to hurt at-risk LGBT+ folks than all the DeSantis' (DeSanti? DeSantises?) in the country.

I have no problem with what she said.

It doesn't hurt anyone to allow them to choose their own gender identity regardless of their physical sex.

Let's start letting 6 years olds vote

B wrote: It doesn't hurt anyone to allow them to choose their own gender identity regardless of their physical sex.

If you mean 'It's doesn't hurt to allow them to choose their own gender identity regardless of their biological sex', 100% agree. The terms physical sex and biological sex are potentially different because the presence of a gene doesn't mean it's outwardly expressed and one can undergo surgery to gain the outward appearance of the other biological modal. The social construct "gender", the signalling of biological sex, is absolutely fluid and evolves with society. Whatever people may choose for themselves is valid and should be explicitly protected in both communal and legal senses. I doubt anyone here would argue that. But that is not the distinction in the video, because there isn't one. Semantic games are used to avoid committing to the distinction between gender and biological sex even when the d-bag interviewer is referring to biological sex. That's why she says things like "whose reality?", then goes to the "we must reject objective reality to avoid harm" fallback... because an acceptance of biological reality throws the dogma of modern gender ideology out the window. "Does a chicken commit suicide?" is not reason to reject the biological reality of distinct chromosomal structures that evolution has spent millions of years building. The truly sad part of this is that this very rejection damages trans people in particular, because it ties their identity into something that is not, instead of building long-overdue love and acceptance for what is.

I think she's evasive because he gives no reason for wanting the distinction.

She owes him no distinction between the sexes. He just wants a definitive definition of woman, why?

So he's sure he isn't one? So he knows who he can safely be aroused by?

Follow the science.

macphisto wrote:Follow the science.

The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

.

That's well done. But stupid.

.

BurtReynolds wrote:

B wrote:
So he's sure he isn't one? So he knows who he can safely be aroused by?

It's weird to me that the biggest woke dogma defenders always believe that the bad people attacking them are homosexuals. Talk about homophobia!

Fair. I resorted to mockery.

But I'm pretty sure he's not a doctor attempting to provide sex-specific treatment, an NCAA official trying to craft fair rules for competition in women's sports, or a judge, attempting to suss out eligibility for some sort of sex-specific compensation, so he really has no reason to demand a definition of "woman" that excludes trans-women.

B wrote:I think she's evasive because he gives no reason for wanting the distinction.

She owes him no distinction between the sexes. He just wants a definitive definition of woman, why?

So he's sure he isn't one? So he knows who he can safely be aroused by?

You’re off the deep end.

.

BurtReynolds wrote:crazy how this insane shit spread so fast. oh well

Nobody outside of Twitter gives a shit about this type of thing. Get off Twitter and you'd probably never hear any of this stupid liberal shit you hate ever again.

.