Bus With Anti-Transgender Message Banned

[Sovjetia]

"Hurr durr under the lead of Fidel Obama the united soviet states of Poland into a genocide of their own people called the hall darr and in that 200 gorrilion died hurt durr communism is bad"

But wait look at Cuba since Castro took power they've only increased their literacy rate massively ended racism nearly entirely fixed the wealth divide and had one of the best healthcare systems in the world

Mao's Great Leap Forward killed between 18 and 55 million people in a meager four years. Stalin's reign in the USSR was responsible for between 34 to 49 million deaths, out of the USSR's 56 to 62 million unnatural deaths. Castro wasn't responsible for nearly as many deaths, but he certainly did many thousands - estimates range between 2 and 100. Still bad.

Also why are we discussing communism

There is more to the story than just mao did this and Stalin did that in mao's case any country no matter the system if one day they just decided to jump forward like 200 years in technology there would be problems not to discredit what happened but it isnt always as simple as he did this or he did that but either way mao and Stalin don't represent communism as a whole they represent Maoism and Stalinism by their are so many communist and radical left ideologies that aren't authoritarians most of the far leftist community I know aren't authoritarian communism isn't inherently authoritarian just because two shitty representations in history and not that I agree with it but the arguement can definitely be made that Stalin and mao don't reflect communist views and that's why they have their own separate ideologies

[Proctopeo]

Mao's Great Leap Forward killed between 18 and 55 million people in a meager four years. Stalin's reign in the USSR was responsible for between 34 to 49 million deaths, out of the USSR's 56 to 62 million unnatural deaths. Castro wasn't responsible for nearly as many deaths, but he certainly did many thousands - estimates range between 2 and 100. Still bad.

Also why are we discussing communism

There is more to the story than just mao did this and Stalin did that in mao's case any country no matter the system if one day they just decided to jump forward like 200 years in technology there would be problems not to discredit what happened but it isnt always as simple as he did this or he did that but either way mao and Stalin don't represent communism as a whole they represent Maoism and Stalinism by their are so many communist and radical left ideologies that aren't authoritarians most of the far leftist community I know aren't authoritarian communism isn't inherently authoritarian just because two shitty representations in history and not that I agree with it but the arguement can definitely be made that Stalin and mao don't reflect communist views and that's why they have their own separate ideologies

Please avoid extremely run-on sentences. They're hard to read.

As for the actual content, yes, Mao and Stalin don't represent all of communism. However, they represent the two most major attempts at a communist country - the USSR and China, who ended up causing, directly or indirectly, smaller attempts around the world. And yes, going forward in technology at a rate of about 50 years per year will obviously cause complications, but 18 to 55 million, with many of them being caused by things like executions, is inexcusable.

[Mechanisburg]

No, I'll be very happy to have people tell me I am wrong, and what the truth is. It seldom happens, though, because before opening my mouth or lying my fingers on the keyboard in front of me I'll research the hell out what I will say.

And, in my dream, I can't see the State's monopoly of the truth being a bad thing because the State will be Truth, and because the State's policies and truth will be based on evidence, and evidence only, and manipulation of evidence will be a crime.

>tfw when they're trying so hard but even them don't believe in it
Yeeeeaaaaah, sure...
Also,
>tfw when they literally admit that their dream is to go full 1984
Tis both disheartening and quite unsurprising...

Oh, ok. Thank you for telling me what I actually think and believe. Being my own brain and living in my own cranium wasn't enough for me to know what my thoughts actually are, and I require your precious insight to be able to know myself.

If it wasn't apparent, this reply was sarcastic. Sarcasm is usually used in reply to something like your answer, which not only addresses nothing of mine, completely misrepresents what I say, but is not even wrong in doing so. What happens in 1984 is extremely far from the actual, proper, unbiased application of the scientific method to find out what the truth is - 1984, in fact, features the manipulation of evidence and history itself to fit the views of those in power. Which I said I consider criminal.

[Sovjetia]

"Hurr durr under the lead of Fidel Obama the united soviet states of Poland into a genocide of their own people called the hall darr and in that 200 gorrilion died hurt durr communism is bad"

But wait look at Cuba since Castro took power they've only increased their literacy rate massively ended racism nearly entirely fixed the wealth divide and had one of the best healthcare systems in the world

Cuba is still shit, mate. And a quick glance at what used to be Yugoslavia or the Eastern Europeans, Asians and Africans that did went Communist will tell you that they all do overall worst than their neighbors.
Don't ascribe to me a lack of culture you're yourself guilty off, thanks. :^)

Lmao a lot of the reason for those countries being different or behind is because the west cut them off Cuba was stuck in the middle of the west with no trade partners while being blockaded it's pretty hard to even survive as an island nation under those circumstances by they did that shows how valuable self reliance can be and your putting it up to a bad standard of course Africa and Asia are gonna be behind they have been behind and oppressed for hundreds of years until they were either abandoned by their coloniel power or they broke free and your comparing it to Western Europe and America the forefront of technology for a good portion of modern history it's not like in a day these Asian and African and Eastern European countries can jump very far ahead in tech especially with their governments having to throw money away for things like the arms races and or coups lead by the west to try to undermine soviet power and influence

[Hashirajima]

Cuba is still shit, mate. And a quick glance at what used to be Yugoslavia or the Eastern Europeans, Asians and Africans that did went Communist will tell you that they all do overall worst than their neighbors.
Don't ascribe to me a lack of culture you're yourself guilty off, thanks. :^)

Lmao a lot of the reason for those countries being different or behind is because the west cut them off Cuba was stuck in the middle of the west with no trade partners while being blockaded it's pretty hard to even survive as an island nation under those circumstances by they did that shows how valuable self reliance can be and your putting it up to a bad standard of course Africa and Asia are gonna be behind they have been behind and oppressed for hundreds of years until they were either abandoned by their coloniel power or they broke free and your comparing it to Western Europe and America the forefront of technology for a good portion of modern history it's not like in a day these Asian and African and Eastern European countries can jump very far ahead in tech especially with their governments having to throw money away for things like the arms races and or coups lead by the west to try to undermine soviet power and influence

Just to point out, that's 5 and 2/3 lines long on my screen with zero full stops. Do try to break your thoughts up into digestible chunks, thanks.

[Sovjetia]

There is more to the story than just mao did this and Stalin did that in mao's case any country no matter the system if one day they just decided to jump forward like 200 years in technology there would be problems not to discredit what happened but it isnt always as simple as he did this or he did that but either way mao and Stalin don't represent communism as a whole they represent Maoism and Stalinism by their are so many communist and radical left ideologies that aren't authoritarians most of the far leftist community I know aren't authoritarian communism isn't inherently authoritarian just because two shitty representations in history and not that I agree with it but the arguement can definitely be made that Stalin and mao don't reflect communist views and that's why they have their own separate ideologies

Please avoid extremely run-on sentences. They're hard to read.

As for the actual content, yes, Mao and Stalin don't represent all of communism. However, they represent the two most major attempts at a communist country - the USSR and China, who ended up causing, directly or indirectly, smaller attempts around the world. And yes, going forward in technology at a rate of about 50 years per year will obviously cause complications, but 18 to 55 million, with many of them being caused by things like executions, is inexcusable.

like I said I don't personally agree with either of them but you can't label the entire ideogly as just that just because they were the only two major attempts at "communism" Stalin and mao represent stalinists and maoists plain and simple they dont represent marxists or Trotskyists or any other communist ideolgy

[Aelex]

If it wasn't apparent, this reply was sarcastic. Sarcasm is usually used in reply to something like your answer, which not only addresses nothing of mine, completely misrepresents what I say, but is not even wrong in doing so. What happens in 1984 is extremely far from the actual, proper, unbiased application of the scientific method to find out what the truth is - 1984, in fact, features the manipulation of evidence and history itself to fit the views of those in power. Which I said I consider criminal.

It sure doesn't ringed like sarcasm the way it came out of your mouth, but rather like something you do believe in and are just now trying to backpedal from.
And lol no. Actually believing in an """utopia"" where not only the State has a monopoly on the truth but is also, in your own words, "the Truth" definitely give 1984 vibes.
Absolute power corrupt absolutely and the power you wish to give to the State is nothing short of absolute, meaning that any factuality of the Truth the State would proclaim would be unlikely to be more than wishful thinking.

[Vassenor]

Pretty sure the discussion on the nature of communism goes in its own thread.

[Republic of Canador]

Ok so you said absolutely nothing on this reply but "You aren't a transgender so you don't know about it". I suppose you need to understand that one doesn't need to be a transgender to know about transgenderism. If you want to set a strawman here, good luck because we gonna stump it.

"Don't need to be an educated nuclear engineer to know about running a nuclear plant."

I didn't realize that being Transgender requires a degree in Nuclear Physics.

That's a stupid analogy and you know it.

You don't have to be involved with something to know about it. Otherwise, history is a lie.

[Vassenor]

"Don't need to be an educated nuclear engineer to know about running a nuclear plant."

I didn't realize that being Transgender requires a degree in Nuclear Physics.

That's a stupid analogy and you know it.

You don't have to be involved with something to know about it. Otherwise, history is a lie.

I don't follow your logic here.

[Republic of Canador]

I didn't realize that being Transgender requires a degree in Nuclear Physics.

That's a stupid analogy and you know it.

You don't have to be involved with something to know about it. Otherwise, history is a lie.

I don't follow your logic here.

Gauthier's attempt to equate being transgender with being a nuclear engineer.

[Vassenor]

I don't follow your logic here.

Gauthier's attempt to equate being transgender with being a nuclear engineer.

Was not the equivalence being made. Given that the statement was about a lay person being considered equally knowledgeable and qualified to an expert in the field.

[Mechanisburg]

If it wasn't apparent, this reply was sarcastic. Sarcasm is usually used in reply to something like your answer, which not only addresses nothing of mine, completely misrepresents what I say, but is not even wrong in doing so. What happens in 1984 is extremely far from the actual, proper, unbiased application of the scientific method to find out what the truth is - 1984, in fact, features the manipulation of evidence and history itself to fit the views of those in power. Which I said I consider criminal.

It sure doesn't ringed like sarcasm the way it came out of your mouth, but rather like something you do believe in and are just now trying to backpedal from.
And lol no. Actually believing in an """utopia"" where not only the State has a monopoly on the truth but is also, in your own words, "the Truth" definitely give 1984 vibes.
Absolute power corrupt absolutely and the power you wish to give to the State is nothing short of absolute, meaning that any factuality of the Truth the State would proclaim would be unlikely to be more than wishful thinking.

I'm not backpedaling from anything. That reply, as in the one you are now replying to, was sarcastic. The sarcasm involved me thanking you for telling me what I believe and do not believe in.

The state, having a monopoly on truth, would be a technocracy where policies are decided on the weight of evidence, and where this evidence would be obtained from the application of the scientific method and of observation to reality. Manipulating policy to fit evidence is a fair bit different than the Orwellian manipulating evidence to fit policy.

[Republic of Canador]

Gauthier's attempt to equate being transgender with being a nuclear engineer.

Was not the equivalence being made. Given that the statement was about a lay person being considered equally knowledgeable and qualified to an expert in the field.

I'd hardly call being transgendered "an expert in the field", as many are confused enough as to their feelings, let alone the legal, psychological, and broad social impacts that transgenderism involves. Not being transgendered doesn't somehow mean you can't be knowledgeable on the subject. Trans individuals will have knowledge about themselves, but not necessarily of the whole issue and the factors that play in it.

If we are going to use analogies, a historian doesn't have to serve in a war to have knowledge of the war.

[Mechanisburg]

Was not the equivalence being made. Given that the statement was about a lay person being considered equally knowledgeable and qualified to an expert in the field.

I'd hardly call being transgendered "an expert in the field", as many are confused enough as to their feelings, let alone the legal, psychological, and broad social impacts that transgenderism involves. Not being transgendered doesn't somehow mean you can't be knowledgeable on the subject. Trans individuals will have knowledge about themselves, but not necessarily of the whole issue and the factors that play in it.

If we are going to use analogies, a historian doesn't have to serve in a war to have knowledge of the war.

And this confusion leads many to think and read up a lot about this, to help dispel this confusion, which is something the average layperson will hardly do. Also, trans* person != expert on gender dysphoria except their own, but expert == person informed about what gender dysphoria involves, and person who knows neither sex nor gender are so simple as to be easily synthesized in ten words, and that doesn't actually go around saying this.

When you put up an ad saying "there's only men and women, and men have penises and women vaginas" you are not an expert in the field. You might be an expert in a field, possibly of edible roots or gravitational forces, but you are not an expert in the field. You have not even done a cursory search on the argument. You are just stating your own uninformed opinion as fact.

[Republic of Canador]

I'd hardly call being transgendered "an expert in the field", as many are confused enough as to their feelings, let alone the legal, psychological, and broad social impacts that transgenderism involves. Not being transgendered doesn't somehow mean you can't be knowledgeable on the subject. Trans individuals will have knowledge about themselves, but not necessarily of the whole issue and the factors that play in it.

If we are going to use analogies, a historian doesn't have to serve in a war to have knowledge of the war.

And this confusion leads many to think and read up a lot about this, to help dispel this confusion, which is something the average layperson will hardly do. Also, trans* person != expert on gender dysphoria except their own, but expert == person informed about what gender dysphoria involves, and person who knows neither sex nor gender are so simple as to be easily synthesized in ten words, and that doesn't actually go around saying this.

When you put up an ad saying "there's only men and women, and men have penises and women vaginas" you are not an expert in the field. You might be an expert in a field, possibly of edible roots or gravitational forces, but you are not an expert in the field. You have not even done a cursory search on the argument. You are just stating your own uninformed opinion as fact.

Unless the trans individual has pre-existing extensive knowledge of the fields of psychology, biology, and sociology, or devote a considerable amount of time in researching said fields in aspects beyond transgenderism, the knowledge they receive from their own research will be somewhat limited. They'll grasp a basic understanding, or maybe even a strong understanding. To label them as inherently being experts though isn't quite accurate.

My issue with the original statement made by Gauthier wasn't with the bus ad, but with the notion that one cannot understand transgenderism more than a transgender person. The bus ad clearly was ignorant in its grasp of the issue, but this doesn't mean other cisgendered people can. Trans individuals don't by default have sole knowledge of the issue. I never brought up the layman's understanding as being superior, that was Vassenor's doing.

[Ceresnia]

People have their right to an opinion on gender issues. The belief written on that bus is just as correct as the belief that you can change your gender.

[The Serbian Empire]

People have their right to an opinion on gender issues. The belief written on that bus is just as correct as the belief that you can change your gender.

Well, one can change the physical exterior but not the genetic material underneath much to my disappointment as a trans woman. Gender can't be changed to fit my assigned at birth status as I denied being trans, but reached mental breakdown a couple years ago because of such. The mental anguish pretending to be someone else is as correct as the bigots who put such ads on the bus. The answer is it never felt right in the first place.

[Mechanisburg]

People have their right to an opinion on gender issues. The belief written on that bus is just as correct as the belief that you can change your gender.

Yes. They are both incorrect, as you can't change your gender. Your gender is what you were born with, and develops early in utero, and can be different from sex.

People have a right to their informed opinion. They don't have a right to their facts.

[The V O I D]

People have their right to an opinion on gender issues. The belief written on that bus is just as correct as the belief that you can change your gender.

Except, you know, gender identity and sexual reassignment surgery exist and have evidence to support them, and all science points to SRS being a valid treatment for gender dysphoria, as well as acceptance.

You know, meaning that the belief on the bus is incorrect.

[Mechanisburg]

And this confusion leads many to think and read up a lot about this, to help dispel this confusion, which is something the average layperson will hardly do. Also, trans* person != expert on gender dysphoria except their own, but expert == person informed about what gender dysphoria involves, and person who knows neither sex nor gender are so simple as to be easily synthesized in ten words, and that doesn't actually go around saying this.

When you put up an ad saying "there's only men and women, and men have penises and women vaginas" you are not an expert in the field. You might be an expert in a field, possibly of edible roots or gravitational forces, but you are not an expert in the field. You have not even done a cursory search on the argument. You are just stating your own uninformed opinion as fact.

Unless the trans individual has pre-existing extensive knowledge of the fields of psychology, biology, and sociology, or devote a considerable amount of time in researching said fields in aspects beyond transgenderism, the knowledge they receive from their own research will be somewhat limited. They'll grasp a basic understanding, or maybe even a strong understanding. To label them as inherently being experts though isn't quite accurate.

My issue with the original statement made by Gauthier wasn't with the bus ad, but with the notion that one cannot understand transgenderism more than a transgender person. The bus ad clearly was ignorant in its grasp of the issue, but this doesn't mean other cisgendered people can. Trans individuals don't by default have sole knowledge of the issue. I never brought up the layman's understanding as being superior, that was Vassenor's doing.

Shrug. There are of course different levels of knowledge between cis and trans* people, but I'd argue that the layman's understanding of transgender issues is inferior to the understanding of transgender issues from a transgender person - everything else being equal - because the latter actually experienced first-hand what being trans* involves.

[Ceresnia]

People have their right to an opinion on gender issues. The belief written on that bus is just as correct as the belief that you can change your gender.

Except, you know, gender identity and sexual reassignment surgery exist and have evidence to support them, and all science points to SRS being a valid treatment for gender dysphoria, as well as acceptance.

You know, meaning that the belief on the bus is incorrect.

You can't disprove it. There are and were billions of people who did not feel trapped because of their gender and were born and died the same gender

[Mechanisburg]

Except, you know, gender identity and sexual reassignment surgery exist and have evidence to support them, and all science points to SRS being a valid treatment for gender dysphoria, as well as acceptance.

You know, meaning that the belief on the bus is incorrect.

You can't disprove it. There are and were billions of people who did not feel trapped because of their gender and were born and died the same gender

One instance of something happening, when an absolute statement says the opposite, is enough to disprove that statement.

For example, I could say "things fall down", but were I to assist to something falling up that statement would be false and would have to be amended to say "things usually fall down".

That means one instance of someone's gender being different from their sex is enough to disprove the absolute statement, "sex and gender are the same". There is at least one recorded instance of this. One instance of someone's gender being female when male genitals are present - which can happen even only with intersex conditions - is enough to disprove the absolute statement "women have a vagina". There is at least one recorded instance of this.

In fact, intersex people make up about 1% of population, and transgender people 0.3% (Gates, 2011).

[The V O I D]

Except, you know, gender identity and sexual reassignment surgery exist and have evidence to support them, and all science points to SRS being a valid treatment for gender dysphoria, as well as acceptance.

You know, meaning that the belief on the bus is incorrect.

You can't disprove it. There are and were billions of people who did not feel trapped because of their gender and were born and died the same gender

That's because the mutation and such which causes nonstandard gender identity is very rare. It only exists in about 1% of the population, IIRC.

So, yeah, no. I just did disprove it - science has disproven these claims already. Like, you literally just need to use google and boom, you have the information.

On the other hand, most sources to the contrary that support this bus' statements are usually biased in some way (e.g. funded or run by conservative groups, etc.)

[Internationalist Bastard]

You can't disprove it. There are and were billions of people who did not feel trapped because of their gender and were born and died the same gender

That's because the mutation and such which causes nonstandard gender identity is very rare. It only exists in about 1% of the population, IIRC.

So, yeah, no. I just did disprove it - science has disproven these claims already. Like, you literally just need to use google and boom, you have the information.

On the other hand, most sources to the contrary that support this bus' statements are usually biased in some way (e.g. funded or run by conservative groups, etc.)

Man I'm the worst X-Man aren't I?