When TRANNIES kill people...Were they born that way???

[DirtyDishSoap]

Well, given your stance on the subject isn't gong to change, and mine won't either, you can view this thread again and reminisce all your talking points.

viewtopic.php?t=239356&hilit=Bud+light&start=250

[Pack Rat]

This is Amerikkka right? Don't tread on me right? Get government off my back!


https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTAaj5ETm/


Just another distraction by pedos and other real crimes by Trump.

[Apatheist]

I don’t think a person (any person) needs to have the “right” to FORCE their business or employment into a space that doesn’t want them. I don’t think one’s irrational belief should be forced upon other people. If a business can legally exclude a man from a “woman only” gym or pole-dancing studio then they should be allowed to exclude a transwoman.. because a transwoman IS a man. PERIOD. Seems pretty basic and straightforward to me.

How do you feel about ultra-orthodox bakers refusing to make cakes for gay couples?
Which side is forcing their "irrational belief" on other people?

[jimboston]

https://youtu.be/Za0Qr4NWB-g?is=D6c7bRN2nKL36cOM

SkyNews is pretty far Right… but on this issue I agree with them.

A private woman only / woman centered business like this should be maintain that status as “woman only”.
This business is likely NOT viable if the government forces the owner to accept Transwomen (i.e. Biological Men).
Many women just will choose to NOT go to classes if there’s a Transwoman in attendance… it’s just a fact.

Maybe it varies by country, but Sky News is one of the furthest LEFT of the UK mainstream media, along with the BBC (with one or two exceptions) and the Guardian.
The Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph are much further to the right.
GB News is the only main TV/radio news outlet that airs the right wing view too, although they have had some left-leaning presenters, but most of their discussion programmes do include commenters from both sides of the spectrum.

SkyNews Australia was the link… i’ve seen a lot of pretty far Right content from them. Maybe it’s the same program and not the whole channel… I see like 5 or 6 different faces.

[jimboston]

I don’t think a person (any person) needs to have the “right” to FORCE their business or employment into a space that doesn’t want them. I don’t think one’s irrational belief should be forced upon other people. If a business can legally exclude a man from a “woman only” gym or pole-dancing studio then they should be allowed to exclude a transwoman.. because a transwoman IS a man. PERIOD. Seems pretty basic and straightforward to me.

How do you feel about ultra-orthodox bakers refusing to make cakes for gay couples?
Which side is forcing their "irrational belief" on other people?

I think the answer is “it depends”…

*I think if a gay couple walks in and wants to buy a pretty standard cake, then the owner should have no right to refuse.
*I think if a couple (any couple… gay, straight, black, trans, disabled, etc) walk in and want a custom cake that has elements the baker finds offensive, then that baker should have a right to refuse. The baker doesn’t have to be ultra-orthodox…
- let’s say a couple wanted a picture of an erect cock on the cake… doesn’t matter if they are gay or straight, I think the baker has the right to refuse.
- let’s say the couple wanted a cake made in the shape of a swastika… I think the baker has a right to refuse.
Like pornography I would say “community standards” should prevail.
*I also think that a baker does this at his/her own peril… and that the person refused service can appeal to Social Media. Social Media can shut down the bakery… we don’t need the government to be involved.

This holds true with the pole dancing class… let the community decide, not the courts.

[Apatheist]

I don’t think a person (any person) needs to have the “right” to FORCE their business or employment into a space that doesn’t want them. I don’t think one’s irrational belief should be forced upon other people. If a business can legally exclude a man from a “woman only” gym or pole-dancing studio then they should be allowed to exclude a transwoman.. because a transwoman IS a man. PERIOD. Seems pretty basic and straightforward to me.

How do you feel about ultra-orthodox bakers refusing to make cakes for gay couples?
Which side is forcing their "irrational belief" on other people?

I think the answer is “it depends”…

*I think if a gay couple walks in and wants to buy a pretty standard cake, then the owner should have no right to refuse.
*I think if a couple (any couple… gay, straight, black, trans, disabled, etc) walk in and want a custom cake that has elements the baker finds offensive, then that baker should have a right to refuse. The baker doesn’t have to be ultra-orthodox…
- let’s say a couple wanted a picture of an erect cock on the cake… doesn’t matter if they are gay or straight, I think the baker has the right to refuse.
- let’s say the couple wanted a cake made in the shape of a swastika… I think the baker has a right to refuse.
Like pornography I would say “community standards” should prevail.
*I also think that a baker does this at his/her own peril… and that the person refused service can appeal to Social Media. Social Media can shut down the bakery… we don’t need the government to be involved.

This holds true with the pole dancing class… let the community decide, not the courts.

In the case I have in mind: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 it was complicated by being in Northern Ireland, where religious beliefs have been the cause of much strife. Probably not the best idea to "let the community decide". They wanted a slogan and some logos, which went against the baker's beliefs.

[jimboston]

A local bakery here posted a picture of a recent cake they made, I don’t know if was a kid’s or adult birthday.

The customer asked for an image of Cartman from Southpark where a nazi-like uniform and having a Hitler-like mustache.
It’s from some episode I guess… but I don’t recall which one.

The baker did the image, but did not include a swastika… IDK if the was on Cartman’s coat or not in the show, and IDK if it even matters or not for the story. The image was clearly “Cartman as Hitler”.

Obviously Southpark is not pushing white supremacist ideology. They are making fun of it.

Apatheist customer is a Southpark fan, so one would assume they also get the joke.

Some people on the Facebook page were blasting the baker for doing, some just for posting it, and some couldn’t care or were defending him.

I think the baker can do what he/she wants… and if they cross a line they’ll lose business. Simple.

[jimboston]

In the case I have in mind: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 it was complicated by being in Northern Ireland, where religious beliefs have been the cause of much strife. Probably not the best idea to "let the community decide". They wanted a slogan and some logos, which went against the baker's beliefs.

I’d say… bake the cake. I don’t think the government should be able to MAKE someone write “Support Gay Marriage” if they don’t agree with the statement. PERIOD.

I would say they must bake the cake, but they can give the customer the Piping Bag and let them write the slogan.

I would say if they deny this customer and the local people support gay marriage then the business will lose… but that’s their decision. Why do the courts need. to be involved.

I also would say that the business was dumb… they should have denied the business based on the use of copyrighted images (i.e. Bert & Ernie). Furthermore I think that the copyright owner should now be able to sue both the other bakery that made the cake AND the person who requested it, for using their copyright image.

I also think that a cake saying “Support Gay Marriage” is less offensive than one that says that combined with images from a children’s puppet show.

Bert & Ernie have never been portrayed as gay and have always slept in separate twin beds… this gay rights organization has NO right to misuse a children’s puppet without the copyright owner’s permission.

How come that is ignored, and everyone seems upset about nothing. The customer found another baker easy enough.

[HitRed]

Apatheist, you and symm would have been great friends.

[2dimes]

No idea why I was compelled to play.

Here's a question on the trans issue that no-one has so far been able to answer in a way that makes sense to me:
When a person says that they identify as a woman, what exactly are they identifying as?
How do they differ in terms of outlook from a gay or bi man?

It’s someone who doesn’t feel like their biological gender.

If a person is gay they are presumably engaging in sex with someone of the same gender. In your example of a gay man, their sex would be with another man.

If someone believes they are a woman (to what degree that makes them one is a somewhat separate debate) to be gay they would be with another woman. If they were with a man, there would (sort of) only be one man, (arguably) that is Heterosexual sex.

One obvious and real difference between a post op transgendered person having sex with a man and a homosexual having sex with a man, is the number of penises present.

My writing is probably not completely related because even though you did not specify, I suspect you mean a pre-surgical biological male, who considers themselves to be a woman. I suppose your premise is complicated and it is something between those involved. I suspect one or both of them believe there’s a woman. So wether it’s true or not, one man, one woman.. Not gay.

Separately:
Do you believe that identification trumps biology when it comes to being allowed into women-only spaces or sports?
Is it even a thing that bio men should be allowed to have any input to at all?
Should it just be about sports science as far as sports goes, and biology as far as the rest of safe spaces are concerned?
Do you believe that "trans women are women" and there's nothing more to be said?

No, a biological male who has their reproductive organs removed for whatever reason shouldn’t be dominating biological females in competition, that’s silly.

Somewhat unfortunately that’s just my opinion. I have no say or solution.

[Apatheist]

Unusual for this time of year, that was a bad spell of "whether"

You haven't quite got the point of my question though (not a surprise though, no-one ever has).
What quality of a woman does a pre-op bio man feel that makes them identify as a woman?

[jimboston]

Unusual for this time of year, that was a bad spell of "whether"

You haven't quite got the point of my question though (not a surprise though, no-one ever has).
What quality of a woman does a pre-op bio man feel that makes them identify as a woman?

I think only a transsexual could answer that… and there’s probably no universal answer because it’s subjective by definition.

[jusplay4fun]

Unusual for this time of year, that was a bad spell of "whether"

You haven't quite got the point of my question though (not a surprise though, no-one ever has).
What quality of a woman does a pre-op bio man feel that makes them identify as a woman?

I think only a transsexual could answer that… and there’s probably no universal answer because it’s subjective by definition.

So the matter of trans-sexual person, as per JimB, has no universal truth and is subjective, based on the "feelings" of the transgender person. In other words, CRAZY, as I said earlier.


very simply: transgender women are not real women. PERIOD.

I posted earlier:

They were previously called "cross-dressers" or transvestites or gay or weirdos or crazy or mental cases.

[Apatheist]

Unusual for this time of year, that was a bad spell of "whether"

You haven't quite got the point of my question though (not a surprise though, no-one ever has).
What quality of a woman does a pre-op bio man feel that makes them identify as a woman?

I think only a transsexual could answer that… and there’s probably no universal answer because it’s subjective by definition.

So the matter of trans-sexual person, as per JimB, has no universal truth and is subjective, based on the "feelings" of the transgender person. In other words, CRAZY, as I said earlier.


very simply: transgender women are not real women. PERIOD.

I posted earlier:

They were previously called "cross-dressers" or transvestites or gay or weirdos or crazy or mental cases.

From you, this is a disappointing lack of understanding of your fellow humans.
Because someone has different feelings from you, you call them crazy (sorry, CRAZY)...yet you believe in an imaginary friend and follow questionable words made up almost 2000 years ago. It's easy to see that as not being sane.
As mentioned, people used to see black people as not "proper" people (the example that really gets me is the West Indies not selecting a black cricket captain until the 1950s); similarly gay people were seen as being in need of "curing" with things like electric shock therapy. Now, while still nowhere near 100%, the world is generally more tolerant towards both, and other people with differences (including the disabled - and even how women were seen as second-class citizens).
Can you not accept the same might apply to people who feel the need to transition?
Or does your world order only comprise straight white middle-aged able-bodied Christian men, and everyone else is secondary? Not a particular Christian attitude, I would have thought.
There have always been homosexuals and transvestites, it's just that these days, more is medically possible.

[jimboston]

Up until very recently gender dysphoria was considered a serious mental health issue, with gender reassignment drugs/surgery being an absolute last resort. In the last decade or so a small minority of the extreme Left has pushed hard to get the majority of people to accept the as a lifestyle to be accepted as opposed to a mental disorder that should be treated. These same “advocates” have changed their arguments, pushing for even more extreme views to be considered “acceptable” or “normal”.

First… they claimed gender and sex were two different things. Now they claim that one’s “gender identity” should be used in replacement of one’s biological sex for basic things like what sex you play sports with, what sex locker room you use, and what sex jail you go to. I don’t think it’s reasonable to force illogical or false beliefs on other people. We don’t accept that religions should force their beliefs on the general public, why should we accept these other beliefs being forced on us?

They demand that Insurance and/or the government should pay for drugs, reassignment surgery, and even cosmetic surgery. Obviously tax payers foot the bill when the government pays, but even when private insurance pays all that does is raise our insurance rates. I don’t think these fiscal burdens should be forced upon me the tax payer or me private insurance payer. They claim that “gender affirming care” is life-saving… this is not factually accurate. They equate this to treatment for high blood pressure, heart surgery, broken bones…. it’s JUST NOT. If you show up at the ER with a heart attack and you don’t get treated you die. If you show up at the ER believing you are a woman, and they refuse to cut off your dick, then you will NOT die. Trying to equate this to medical issues is ridiculous, it has become a self-fulfilling cycle… the treatments exist so they demand the treatments, so then industry creates more treatments.

Other mental disorder are not AFFIRMED… you don’t tell a woman with body dysmorphia who is already too skinny that she “should lose more weight”. You give her someone to talk to and help her accept the reality that she isn’t actually fat. Perhaps if a man thinks he’s “really a woman” we shouldn’t AFFIRM this and cut off his dick, or give him drugs that he will need to take for the rest-of-his-life thereby making him beholden to big pharma. Perhaps we should explain to him that he is in fact a biological man, and THAT’S OK… and it’s also OK if he “feels” feminine and doesn’t need to be a “Gym Bro”, that he can be a biological man and he can dress anyway he wants, and feel anyway he wants, but he doesn’t need to be addicted to a cocktail of drugs for the rest of his life and he doesn’t need to cut off body parts that nature gave him. His “feelings” do not and can not change that fact that he is indeed a man.

In the last 10 years or so trans-activists and their extreme Left allies have pushed society for more and more… to the point where they have started demanding that pre-pubescent people should be allowed access to “gender affirming care”… meaning 12yo’s should be given drugs that prevent puberty and put them on a path to a life-time of drugs and possibly medical surgery to remove or modify body parts. Body parts that are operating 100% normal and do not need to be removed or modified to save the child’s life. In most states a person needs to be 18yo to vote, to get a tattoo, to smoke, and 21yo to drink alcohol. Yet these people want to allow 12yo’s to take drugs that ARE NOT NECESSARY to physically save their lives… but to which they will become (essentially) addicted to for the remainder of their lives. How does this make sense?

Luckily is seems that society is waking up from the most extreme ideas pushed by these activists.

At the end of the day I do NOT CARE what an adult does to his or her body. I don’t want to pay for it, and I don’t want to be forced to “agree” with it… but so long as the adult does it to themselves and leave me alone… knock yourself out.

To me this is really no different than people who go to extreme lengths with their body piercings. I’m not paying for it. I’m fine. I don’t have to associate with you if you have extreme tats or facial piercings. If it makes you happy great. At the same time, you have to accept that people will judge you based on how you “look”. I have seen videos of people complaining they can’t jobs because their tats or piercings…. I have NO sympathy for these people. There was one dude who was complaining because he got fired from a daycare or maybe kindergarten… the guy had face piercings and devil/demon tattoos and even had something with his eyes (maybe just contacts) so his eyes had no color. He looked like a fucking monster and he was complaining why people didn’t want him to watch their 5yo kids. Give me a break.

To me this is no different than (mostly men) who are over 6ft tall over 250lbs bald and then cry why people “misgender” them.

[mookiemcgee]

'You don't tell a blind person they should learn to live without sight, you tell them to learn how to see' - basically Jim Boston

'transgendered people are crazy, I passed one at the grocery store while shopping once so I'm effectively an expert on the subject' - basically Jusplay

It's crazy you guys still talk about this shit like your extremely warped and sheltered opinions on trans people matters to the other 5 people here who may read it here who aren't trans lol.

My opinion? I'm not dating a trans person, none of my friends are trans nor are my family members. Ultimately I'm gonna let them go about their lives and live it how they want as long as they let me live mine. As an authentically curious person, It would be kinda cool to get a reach around from a hot chick who i feel get hard through the buttcrack off my jeans just to see if I like it but only for research purposes and to give me some

Anyway, I just paid $7 at the pump because our president starting bombing a country in the middle east to distract from the epstein files. Hopefully my kid won't have to be boots on the ground there someday... but let's talk about the 5 trans athletes in the NCAA!!! They, she, him, her and it are the real problem with this country!

[Apatheist]

You guys would have some interesting discussions on another forum that I'm on, which is predominantly on the "trans women are women" side and always criticises the likes of JK Rowling for her stance on the issue.
When I first went there, they had a rule that if you got 10 downvotes, you were banned from posting for a day; do it again, it became 3 days, then a week, then permanent.
They assumed that the downvotes were for spam or insults, rather than just different opinions; but with polarising threads on Trump, Rowling and Charlie Kirk, they would have wiped out their entire user base, so they made the sensible decision not to continue. It would be interesting to see the number of up and down votes on the forum posts in here

[jimboston]

'You don't tell a blind person they should learn to live without sight, you tell them to learn how to see' - basically Jim Boston

Blindness is a measurable and objective physical issue with the body.
It is NOT a subjective feeling.
Your analogy fails.

A better analogy might be…
What would you do if a person who had perfectly good eyes walked into the doctor a claimed that he felt as though he should have been born blind? If you follow the logic of Transactivists you would give him drugs that would render him blind or BETTER cut out his eyes. In my world you would give him counseling to explain that he was born with eyes and THAT’S OK. Maybe if he refused to accept counseling you’d give him a blindfold. You certainly wouldn’t cut off perfectly healthy and properly functioning body parts.

Also calling me “sheltered” is wrong. You have NO idea how this issue impacts me / my family. If I am personally impacted by the issue, directly… or i’m just a “keyboard warrior”. You have no idea.

[Dukasaur]

You guys would have some interesting discussions on another forum that I'm on, which is predominantly on the "trans women are women" side and always criticises the likes of JK Rowling for her stance on the issue.
When I first went there, they had a rule that if you got 10 downvotes, you were banned from posting for a day; do it again, it became 3 days, then a week, then permanent.
They assumed that the downvotes were for spam or insults, rather than just different opinions; but with polarising threads on Trump, Rowling and Charlie Kirk, they would have wiped out their entire user base, so they made the sensible decision not to continue. It would be interesting to see the number of up and down votes on the forum posts in here

I had a friend who unfriended me on Facebook because I defended J.K. Rowling. Later on, it turned out he had become a tranny. The Facebook algorithm regularly brings him ("her") up as someone I should befriend.

Irrelevant, I know. But your post brought it forward in my mind.

[Apatheist]

Okay, I'm going to put this to bed. My views, for what they're worth, are:
a) It's entirely for bio women to say whether or not they are comfortable allowing trans women with male bodies into women-only areas, and men should have no say. It seems to me, after the initial wave of enthusiasm, that there has been some settling of opinion; since there is no clear and overwhelming majority in favour, it seems that biology must remain the determining factor (until someone comes up with a definition of a woman that suits ALL).
b) It's for sports scientists to determine at what point a trans person has an unfair advantage as a result of being born male; they seem to have settled on going through puberty as the dividing line. Worth noting that in some sports, women can and have always been able to compete against men, but simply aren't good enough. Even when the east Europeans were doping themselves silly, none of them would ever have made an Olympic final. We have seen the odd one beating men in snooker and darts, where power is less important. Equestrianism is the main solo sport which is unisex - of course mixed doubles in racquet sports, and team events, involve both sexes.
c) Just because you want something, it doesn't mean you're entitled to it, particularly if this adversely affects others.
d) To answer the original question: the only objective evidence that I have seen, which I referred to previously, suggests that the profile of crimes committed by transwomen follows the same profile as that of bio men (albeit in the UK and based on the prison population). Therefore I think it reasonable to conclude that yes, they are "born that way", because transitioning doesn't make any difference. A criminal is a criminal regardless, and sexuality or gender identification is not a factor.

[jimboston]

Okay, I'm going to put this to bed. My views, for what they're worth, are:
a) It's entirely for bio women to say whether or not they are comfortable allowing trans women with male bodies into women-only areas, and men should have no say. It seems to me, after the initial wave of enthusiasm, that there has been some settling of opinion; since there is no clear and overwhelming majority in favour, it seems that biology must remain the determining factor (until someone comes up with a definition of a woman that suits ALL).
b) It's for sports scientists to determine at what point a trans person has an unfair advantage as a result of being born male; they seem to have settled on going through puberty as the dividing line. Worth noting that in some sports, women can and have always been able to compete against men, but simply aren't good enough. Even when the east Europeans were doping themselves silly, none of them would ever have made an Olympic final. We have seen the odd one beating men in snooker and darts, where power is less important. Equestrianism is the main solo sport which is unisex - of course mixed doubles in racquet sports, and team events, involve both sexes.
c) Just because you want something, it doesn't mean you're entitled to it, particularly if this adversely affects others.
d) To answer the original question: the only objective evidence that I have seen, which I referred to previously, suggests that the profile of crimes committed by transwomen follows the same profile as that of bio men (albeit in the UK and based on the prison population). Therefore I think it reasonable to conclude that yes, they are "born that way", because transitioning doesn't make any difference. A criminal is a criminal regardless, and sexuality or gender identification is not a factor.

All seem reasonable… though the Transactivists would argue about #1.
They would say that because “Transwomen ARE women” they should also get a vote… and maybe their vote should count MORE than Bio Women.

Kinda circular agreement… but the point being made is that because they “feel” their women they would have a say there as well.

No man is threatened by a transman (woman converting to man) competing as a man.

[2dimes]

A Best Buy here has solved the public toilet issue. They have six or eight rooms with a toilet and sink in each one. It does not matter what gender you are, you get a nice comfortable place all to yourself.

I am terrible at spelling but I don’t know how wether got in there. I was going for whether.

Unless one of you has something to confess, I presume we are all guessing about what trans people are thinking. I suspect they are not all thinking the exact same thing.

I’m not convinced they are any more crazy than people who choose to put sweet corn on pizza. It’s different and perhaps I don’t understand but that doesn’t make it crazy.