greg1647545532

I'm not offended, I'm choosing to think less of you. Like someone driving slow in the left lane, it's not offensive, it's just a sign of poor character.

Does it matter? I told you tranny is offensive to the transgender community, you've declared that you're going to continue to use it. I'll think less of you for that. Should I not? I'm not saying don't use the word, it's your right to keep using it, and it's my right to judge your character for doing so. Let's leave it at that.

K, I'll keep thinking less of you for doing so.

A transvestite is a cross-dresser; that is, say, a man who thinks he's a man who likes dressing like a woman. Transgender is someone who's birth-assigned gender does not match their gender identity. Tranny is considered offensive in the transgender community. Keep using that word if you want, just know that it's their version of "faggot." Intersex means having physical markers of both genders. I don't know if Caitlyn Jenner is intersex. From the wiki: I don't know if she's had any genetic testing done, and if so I don't know the results, so I'm not going to say that she's definitely not intersex. Gender dysphoria is indeed a mental illness per DSM V, yes. Which is why it's strange that so many people think it's a choice.... (eta: You are indeed correct that not everyone with GD is intersex, at least based on current definitions. Still, the blatant existence of intersex people completely debunks the "there are only two genders, black and white, no one in between" argument)

Indeed, apologies, but I feel that in a lot of cases people who support bathroom bills really haven't thought enforcement through. I don't know the exact shower situation for transgender women who haven't had sex reassignment surgery. I don't much care, I'm sure they work it out somehow. When I was getting corralled through the showers in BMT I didn't have a lot of time to look at crotches. I don't know what you mean by "accept" it. I just think transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom that they want, and I'm glad that they can serve openly in the military now. I don't think anyone should be allowed to discriminate against other people who are transgender. If you agree with all of that, great, we agree. If you can agree with that while still somehow not "accepting" their gender, fine, they suffer no consequences from that.

So turn the lights on 'em? Lie detector? What? You want the state to have the authority to do a genital inspection and/or invasive genetic workups? Doesn't sound small government to me.... The military is ahead of you on this one. Been the law of the land since 1 Oct. Just like when the military allowed black people, women, and homosexuals to serve, the sky has not fallen.

I don't know, who should check?

Biology is messy. I can't answer your question, all I can say is that I'm willing to give wide latitude to people based on how messy the biology of gender is and how little we understand it. You're right, the majority of conservatives don't really care. Neither do the majority of liberals. However, some "family values" conservatives got their goddamn panties in a bunch when some boy at their kids' school wanted to transition and use the girl's room, and now this is a conversation we have to have. Several states have either passed or tried to pass "bathroom bills." Guess which party is behind them? Who, exactly, should just "shut up and move on" in response to those laws? The poor girl who has to use the boys room because she lives in a conservative state? That's a shitty thing to do to a kid with a medical condition. So yeah, I'm not going to shut up about that. Call it a hissy fit if you want, it just seems like the right thing to do.

Ok, fine. "Plenty" being a value that you've admitted to sorta pulling out of your ass based on some general idea that you think people are more attention whorish than they used to be. People faking medical conditions for attention is a thing. I think there are probably "plenty" of people who fake needing a wheelchair for the attention. I don't think we should stop building ramps because of them.

Being transgendered is not a choice, being active in the body-modification community is. Does that help? Maybe ask why people who have been actively bullied and shunned by society writ large might gravitate towards a community that welcomes "freaks".

The short answer is that, yes, I believe trans people have been hiding it since forever. The push for gay rights over the last 30 years has finally opened the door for them to be accepted by their families and communities. Sometimes.

I don't know what you mean by "act like it's normal." If you accept that there are legitimate medical conditions that can result in people wanting to identify as the opposite gender, then all we're asking you is to do is accommodate someone's medical condition. Getting polio isn't "normal" either but we still build ramps for people. Observing that there are medical conditions that result in intersex humans is "pushing their beliefs on you?" Do you not believe that these medical conditions exist? Help me out here, this is something you can see with your own two eyeballs. So being born with a well-documented sexual development disorder is a choice? Do you refuse to accept people with ALS too? Fucking Lou Gherig, choosing to get a disease just so he could name it after himself....

http://i.imgur.com/5ChWA.jpg I'm not familiar with any such cases. There are cases, however, of women born with vaginas and raised as women who are later discovered to have male genes as I've described above. I don't know what trangender rights have to do with this though. If someone was assigned "female" at birth, raised female, and identifies as female, then Ben Shapiro should have no problem letting them crush the female competition... As the wiki article should cover, top minds are working the issue, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. If we can't give people equal rights because we're worried about sports, then what kind of a pathetic country are we? This is America goddamn it, we're better than that. In theory you can do that right now. I've got 2 girls in soccer right now, nobody's checked to see if they have vaginas. Seriously though, we'll be fine.

No, I still don't get it. Being trans is not a choice. And unlike the question of whether or not being gay is a choice, the science that allows us to (sometimes) understand intersex people and people with sexual development disorders is older, better, and like, way more obvious. It should be pretty easy to explain to people that there are people born with vaginas who are raised as girls, but later testing reveals that they have a Y chromosome, non-functional ovaries, male-ish genes, and a hormone balance that's much more in-line with men. This is an actual, observable, documented medical condition, and it seems patently obvious to me that people like that should be allowed to "switch" their gender to the one that more closely matches their internal biology, rather than being the stuck with one they were assigned at birth. Because that's waaaay cheaper than subjecting every newborn infant to a battery of genetic testing, right? And since it's so obvious to me that rights for transgendered people should follow naturally from a basic understanding of medical science, I don't understand people who can't see it my way. It's not enough to say that Ben Shapiro doesn't think gender identity is a thing. Why doesn't he see it?

I don't want to listen to all of this but I popped open the 2nd video and listened for a bit. Help me out here. There are dozens of known developmental disorders that can result in intersex individuals. Does Ben Shapiro deny that those medical conditions exist? Or does he just not think that people with ambiguous gender indicators should be allowed to choose an identity different from what their parents/doctors picked as a child? And if so, isn't that kind of a "dick move?" Pun in ten did.

Just like Trump himself, the spin from Trump voters seems to be, "JK, we didn't actually want to repeal and replace Obamacare after all!" We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Aye, that's the rub, right? Poll taxes and literacy tests in the post-war south didn't directly discriminate against a particular race, but it's a well-accepted fact of American history that those laws were racist as fuck. The devil, as always, is in the details. Sometimes the lawmakers tip their hands; reference the NC voter ID law that was overturned, in part, because of evidence that decisions were crafted as a direct result of inquiries into racial voting patterns. But was that specific voter ID law unique in that regard? Or were NC lawmakers just sloppy in hiding their tracks? Laws can be unintentionally discriminatory as well. Tough sentencing guidelines for crack (compared to blow) devastated black communities, even though they applied equally to whites. I think those guidelines were a well-meaning attempt to curb drug use in troubled neighborhoods, but at some point you need to take step back and look not just at equality of the law, but disparity in outcomes.

On it.

That's fair, I'll provide some. You can measure polarization in politics -- that is, how willing politicians are to vote against the majority of their own party. All indications are that polarization is getting worse. That is to say, Republicans and Democrats are increasingly "falling in line" behind a single position on an issue, and less likely to dissent and/or reach across the aisle. This is what I mean by team sports. There are my links to back it up. This is my opinion, based on evidence that I've seen. I will change my opinion if presented with convincing evidence to the contrary.

To be clear, I said team sports is ruining politics, by which I mean that even people who aren't card-holding Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians still pick a "team" to side with, which makes it easier to group, stereotype, and ultimately dehumanize your opposition. Issues that should have a smattering of opinions from all walks of life end up getting distilled down into two sides, and people often have either no opinion on an issue, or a nebulous position, until their team picks a position, then they fall in line. This is just part of being human, but it's a part that we need to strive to overcome. I didn't literally mean that sports are ruining politics. I will note that you seem awfully sure of your opinion that participation trophies have caused some sort of entitlement problem in the face of a complete dearth of evidence. Why are you so convinced you're right? What would change your mind?

I think he means, prove that it has the sweeping deleterious effects that you think it has. I'm sure participation trophies are a thing because my kids have them on their dressers, and I have some in a landfill somewhere. But we're all fine. My kids are smart as shit and highly motivated to do well. Those trophies have not broken them.

Great! Common ground -- participation trophies are dumb! Where I disagree with you is all of the conclusions you're drawing from that. I'm 37, which means I grew up in the 80s sometimes getting participation trophies from well-meaning baby boomers. Even as a child I knew they were stupid, so they all ended up in the trash. They affected me not one whit. I didn't grow up not know the difference between winning and losing. On the contrary, no participation trophy could ever make up for the crushing embarrassment of literally never making contact with a pitched ball in the 2 years I played baseball, or never having my teammates pass me the basketball because, honestly, I'd just fuck it all up. Of course, the trophies I earned didn't affect me one whit either. When my high school chess team was doing well, what was satisfying was looking into someone's eyes the moment they knew they were done. The medal we got at the end of the day is now also in the trash, because it was just a dumb medal. If we're basing opinions on anecdotes, I'd say that trophies in general hold absolutely no power over how children grow up to view the world. If we're going to draw sweeping conclusions about the effect they have on whole generations of children growing up in vastly different environments, we're going to need some data. Sadly, the data is pretty thin, but I don't think it supports the position you're taking here. Here's an example. In short, yes, I agree with you that trophies are silly, but I don't smash my kids' participation trophies because I don't think they're a big deal.

You can generalize all you want, but that doesn't change my personal opinion. The liberals I have met are not nearly as extreme as the libertarians I have met. My personal interactions with libertarians have been mostly negative. They are some of the most judgmental, hateful and smug people I have interacted with. I know I have generalized a lot but I don't believe all libertarians are bad people. Ron Paul is probably a very nice old man and I do believe he has good intentions and a good heart. I apologize for generalizing if my opinion effects you that much, but I base my opinions on real life interactions and that is how I feel about the majority of libertarians I have met and discussed politics with. ^^^ Is that a useful contribution to any political discourse, even if the poster genuinely believes it? Would that prompt you to reflect on your own beliefs and how those around you act? Or would it make you defensive and less likely to engage in a serious discussion with that person? Team sports are killing politics, let's help fix it.

It's a good rule though, right? Or are you OK when people make sweeping generalizations about libertarians based on the actions of a few?

...