Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[Moroniland]

Ah, yes, it was the LGBT movement that politicized things, not the ignoramuses (ignorami?) that outlawed queerness to begin with.

I know there were laws against sodomy. I don't think "queerness" was a concept in the law and I could be wrong but I don't think that particular term has made it into the law even now. It seems like one of those "inside baseball" terms.

[Moroniland]

when you have warped your worldview so badly you start thinking that people who write scifi should be ostracised.

I really like Orson Scott Card but I'm not sure his existence manages to counter-balance the madness of Margret Atwood and a hundred thousand other lunatics who have been writing this trash.

[Aggicificicerous]

There really seems to be absolutely no end to the madness. So, apparently, gender means nothing to a species that lacks sexual dimorphism, except when it's time for them to be transgender, at which point they suddenly develop all of the necessary concepts of both genders in order to meaningfully transition from one gender they totally don't have to the other gender they totally don't have.

I sometimes begin to think that science fiction was a mistake and I'm not even sure that stops with the fictional variety.

"Science is bad because it explores things I don't like."

Anyhow, I want to raise an important question that came up on the American politics thread. This question is for people who support LGBTQ+ acceptance: (or however you want to phrase what it is you support: sorry if I am not using the latest batch of terms)

What is the appropriate age to begin teaching LGBTQ+ acceptance?

This matters because the Florida law bans it from schools below the fourth grade level. So you can still start it at the fourth grade level but you can get fired or even prosecuted for starting it in third grade in Florida.

The objection from many seems to be that the bill is banning something which is not actually happening in kindergarten through third grade. But if that is the case, should it be happening at that level? If not, why not?

What exactly do you think is and is not appropriate to be covering in kindergarten through third grade?

Well here's a question I've posed to two people so far and got no answer, so maybe you'll be able to do better.

All my primary school teachers at some point mentioned their spouses. It's normal since teaching children involves talking to them, telling them stories and so on. For example, my third grade teacher would often tell us about the places she'd visited with her husband. Do you think that's a bad thing? Tell me, do you have a problem with a teacher telling her students either of the following sentences?

"Last summer, my husband and I went hiking in Alaska."

"Last summer, my wife and I went hiking in Alaska.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

when you have warped your worldview so badly you start thinking that people who write scifi should be ostracised.

I really like Orson Scott Card but I'm not sure his existence manages to counter-balance the madness of Margret Atwood and a hundred thousand other lunatics who have been writing this trash.

Lol.

[Moroniland]

"Science is bad because it explores things I don't like."

Oh, be honest. You're really not all that fond of explorers such as Christopher Columbus. You'd rather that Europe have remained largely ignorant of the existence of the New World for as long as possible.

All my primary school teachers at some point mentioned their spouses. It's normal since teaching children involves talking to them, telling them stories and so on. For example, my third grade teacher would often tell us about the places she'd visited with her husband. Do you think that's a bad thing? Tell me, do you have a problem with a teacher telling her students either of the following sentences?

"Last summer, my husband and I went hiking in Alaska."

"Last summer, my wife and I went hiking in Alaska.

I want a Christian society where marriage means the Christian concept of marriage. Period.

So this would be a privilege that I want for members of my tribe and to deny to members of your tribe. It's that simple.

I believe that answers the question you asked. I've said what I want. Now what about the question I asked? What do you want?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

when you have warped your worldview so badly you start thinking that people who write scifi should be ostracised.

I really like Orson Scott Card but I'm not sure his existence manages to counter-balance the madness of Margret Atwood and a hundred thousand other lunatics who have been writing this trash.

since when is Atwood a scifi writer? what is this "madness"?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

"Last summer, my wife and I went hiking in Alaska.

I want a Christian society where marriage means the Christian concept of marriage. Period.

So this would be a privilege that I want for members of my tribe and to deny to members of your tribe. It's that simple.

so you admit you want a theocracy or at minimum the lack of freedom of religion, then? cool, nice. now when you pretend to care about civil rights, I'll know you don't mean it.

[Moroniland]

since when is Atwood a scifi writer?

Since my "Science Fiction as Literature" course in college spent a significant amount of time discussing Oryx & Crake as if it was a masterpiece.

what is this "madness"?

Well in Warhammer, they call it Slaanesh, but in real life its name is Moloch.

[Aggicificicerous]

"Science is bad because it explores things I don't like."

Oh, be honest. You're really not all that fond of explorers such as Christopher Columbus. You'd rather that Europe have remained largely ignorant of the existence of the New World for as long as possible.

This might be the strangest non sequitur I've ever seen.

I want a Christian society where marriage means the Christian concept of marriage. Period.

So this would be a privilege that I want for members of my tribe and to deny to members of your tribe. It's that simple.

I believe that answers the question you asked. I've said what I want. Now what about the question I asked? What do you want?

Predictably boring, but I guess at least you're honest? Really highlights why nobody takes your opinions seriously though.

As for what I want, well I think already hinted at it. There's no difference between the two sentences I posed. Mentioning you have a husband or wife is not harmful or inappropriate. So if your definition of LGBTQ+ acceptance is acknowledging LGBTQ+ people exist, I would say no age limit.


Oh, and Oryx and Crake is a great book. Masterpiece? I dunno, but it's up there.

[Moroniland]

so you admit you want a theocracy or at minimum the lack of freedom of religion, then? cool, nice.

Ever since atheists in the 20th century twisted the First Amendment from a provision that protected the people from the government into a provision that protected the government from the people, the concept of "freedom of religion" in American jurisprudence has lost all practical meaning. We've lost the parts of it that protect us so why the hell should we keep any parts of it that protect you?

[Neutraligon]

when you have warped your worldview so badly you start thinking that people who write scifi should be ostracised.

I really like Orson Scott Card but I'm not sure his existence manages to counter-balance the madness of Margret Atwood and a hundred thousand other lunatics who have been writing this trash.

Why am I not surprised you like the violent racist homophobe?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

so you admit you want a theocracy or at minimum the lack of freedom of religion, then? cool, nice.

Ever since atheists in the 20th century twisted the First Amendment from a provision that protected the people from the government into a provision that protected the government from the people, the concept of "freedom of religion" in American jurisprudence has lost all practical meaning. We've lost the parts of it that protect us so why the hell should we keep any parts of it that protect you?

You are entirely welcome to move to Waziristan if you hate freedom this much.

[Bear Stearns]

so you admit you want a theocracy or at minimum the lack of freedom of religion, then? cool, nice.

Ever since atheists in the 20th century twisted the First Amendment from a provision that protected the people from the government into a provision that protected the government from the people, the concept of "freedom of religion" in American jurisprudence has lost all practical meaning. We've lost the parts of it that protect us so why the hell should we keep any parts of it that protect you?

There is something that's quite strange. The people who struck down anti-obscenity restrictions on speech tend to also support restrictions on "hate speech".

[Moroniland]

This might be the strangest non sequitur I've ever seen.

You brought up scientific exploration as if shocked that anyone could dislike any scientific exploration in any context, so I brought up a scientific explorer you dislike to show that you also dislike scientific exploration in at least some contexts. I could have reached for the Nazi medical experiments but I figured you'd rather I get a different example.

Predictably boring, but I guess at least you're honest? Really highlights why nobody takes your opinions seriously though.

What specifically do you think freedom of religion should consist in?

So if your definition of LGBTQ+ acceptance is acknowledging LGBTQ+ people exist, I would say no age limit.

Existence is a question of metaphysics and our educational system generally doesn't do metaphysics until at least freshman college level. Are you trying to change that to get metaphysical questions like existence introduced into the curriculum earlier?

Oh, and Oryx and Crake is a great book. Masterpiece? I dunno, but it's up there.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree on that one.

When I signed up for the course, I figured it would be doing themes in the actual science fiction literary giants like Wells, Verne, Bradbury, Clarke, Gibson, Asimov and Heinlein. They did do Heinlein but Atwood was the other biggest name they did. Everything else was obscure and entirely one-sided in how the books were trying to persuade you to vote.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

colombus was not a scientific explorer in any sense of the word lmao

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

so you admit you want a theocracy or at minimum the lack of freedom of religion, then? cool, nice.

Ever since atheists in the 20th century twisted the First Amendment from a provision that protected the people from the government into a provision that protected the government from the people, the concept of "freedom of religion" in American jurisprudence has lost all practical meaning. We've lost the parts of it that protect us so why the hell should we keep any parts of it that protect you?

i'm not even talking about the first amendment. you're literally saying you want to force your moral beliefs on other people, presumably because your religion deems them superior. how is that not a violation of freedom of religion? nobody is stopping you from practicing your religion. don't stop other people from practicing theirs.

[Moroniland]

colombus was not a scientific explorer in any sense of the word lmao

Discovering that there's a huge landmass between Europe and China which Europe wasn't previously aware of (because that's what "discovery" means) is a very large discovery and it most definitely is a scientific discovery.

[Aggicificicerous]

This might be the strangest non sequitur I've ever seen.

You brought up scientific exploration as if shocked that anyone could dislike any scientific exploration in any context, so I brought up a scientific explorer you dislike.

That you think Christopher Columbus was a "scientific explorer" is a more damning indictment of your understanding of science than anything I could come up with. Oh, and no, accidentally finding something is not a scientific process, nor did Columbus personally further the field of science.

What specifically do you think freedom of religion should consist in?

The freedom to practice your religion provided it doesn't infringe on the freedom of other people to live their lives.

Existence is a question of metaphysics and our educational system generally doesn't do metaphysics until at least freshman college level. Are you trying to change that to get metaphysical questions like existence introduced into the curriculum earlier?

It's really not. If you want to make the statement "I have a wife" out to be a matter of metaphysics, I can only conclude you are intentionally obfuscating a very simple matter to make an absurd political point.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree on that one.

When I signed up for the course, I figured it would be doing themes in the actual science fiction literary giants like Wells, Verne, Bradbury, Clarke, Gibson, Asimov and Heinlein. They did do Heinlein but Atwood was the other biggest name they did. Everything else was obscure and entirely one-sided in how the books were trying to persuade you to vote.

You can dislike the book all you want, but Atwood is a literary giant, and Oryx and Crake was extremely well received, both by critics and the public. It absolutely qualifies as great science fiction.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

colombus was not a scientific explorer in any sense of the word lmao

Discovering that there's a huge landmass between Europe and China which Europe wasn't previously aware of (because that's what "discovery" means) is a very large discovery and it most definitely is a scientific discovery.

should've not expected anything more from the american education system who views this deluded italian as some sort of demigod.

[Bear Stearns]

colombus was not a scientific explorer in any sense of the word lmao

Discovering that there's a huge landmass between Europe and China which Europe wasn't previously aware of (because that's what "discovery" means) is a very large discovery and it most definitely is a scientific discovery.

i don't think this is entirely true. portugal seems to have known about the existence of brazil since the 1430s and english and basque fishermen had known about newfoundland since the 1470s.

also correspondence between german authorities in the 1300s makes reference to prior viking voyages to the new world. i think people who were "in the know" in europe had known about the americas for quite some time before columbus.

still, columbus's voyage was the most important historically, which is why we honor him

[Moroniland]

you're literally saying you want to force your moral beliefs on other people

That's what laws are. The only people who don't want that are anarchists.

how is that not a violation of freedom of religion?

Oh, it may very well be. But why is it wrong?

nobody is stopping you from practicing your religion.

Actually, you are. You see, a "religion" is different from a mere spirituality. It's possible to have spirituality without religion and even to have religion without spirituality. While no one infringes on my sense of spirituality, my ability to maintain a religion actually is seriously imperiled by my religious community's inability to indoctrinate their children to continue to support the religious community so that the the religious community will continue to survive. By making the public schools secular, you have effectively made the public schools atheist. So the religious community just to survive is now forced to pay taxes for atheist schools they don't use and then to pay for private schools on top of that. This financial burden, combined with the total domination of your belief system over mainstream popular culture, really is killing our ability to maintain a religion, because that requires maintaining a community.

You see, we've realized that we're losing. We can't stay with the liberal status quo because we are not surviving under it. We have to change or die and it is not going to be a change further in the same direction that's been killing us.

And by "my religious community" here I mean Christians in the Untied States generally, not my specific sect. And I mean actual Christians, not the fully infiltrated left wing mainline Protestant social clubs calling themselves Christians.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

meh, go join the Waziris or the Amish.

[Bear Stearns]

meh, go join the Waziris or the Amish.

Not sure about the Waziris but the Amish are based and lead more fulfilling and happier lives than typical urban Americans. They also don't watch TV, consume seed oils, or financially rape people. Heroes.

[Aggicificicerous]

meh, go join the Waziris or the Amish.

Not sure about the Waziris but the Amish are based and lead more fulfilling and happier lives than typical urban Americans. They also don't watch TV, consume seed oils, or financially rape people. Heroes.

Probably shouldn't look into how Amish women are treated then. But this seems divorced from the topic of the thread.

[Thermodolia]

you're literally saying you want to force your moral beliefs on other people

That's what laws are. The only people who don't want that are anarchists.

how is that not a violation of freedom of religion?

Oh, it may very well be. But why is it wrong?

Because the constitution governs the US not your religion or it’s holy texts. Besides as a person who’s not a member of your religion I shouldn’t be forced to follow what I don’t believe in. Much like you say you shouldn’t be forced into believing or following the liberal ideals or LGBT rights neither should I be forced to believe what you believe.

nobody is stopping you from practicing your religion.

Actually, you are. You see, a "religion" is different from a mere spirituality. It's possible to have spirituality without religion and even to have religion without spirituality. While no one infringes on my sense of spirituality, my ability to maintain a religion actually is seriously imperiled by my religious community's inability to indoctrinate their children to continue to support the religious community so that the the religious community will continue to survive. By making the public schools secular, you have effectively made the public schools atheist. So the religious community just to survive is now forced to pay taxes for atheist schools they don't use and then to pay for private schools on top of that. This financial burden, combined with the total domination of your belief system over mainstream popular culture, really is killing our ability to maintain a religion, because that requires maintaining a community.

You see, we've realized that we're losing. We can't stay with the liberal status quo because we are not surviving under it. We have to change or die and it is not going to be a change further in the same direction that's been killing us.

If you can’t afford to pay for private schools or refuse to homeschool then that’s on you. Not anyone else. If you can’t figure out how to keep your religion going than maybe it shouldn’t