Transgender woman maligned for becoming white male LOL

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

One day you are slurping macchiato with your starbucks commies, the next day you ride a cattle train to Siberia.. :>

LOL!

Don't forget to wave your rainbow flag too.

Its probably something more like this

Speaking as someone who doesn't see anything inherently preposterous about this situation, could someone maybe fill me in? Explain it to me like I'm five. I don't get it. Is it the idea that gender is non-binary? Is it the idea that someone can be transgender? Is it that an all-women school might have a lot of people who think that an office dedicated to cultural diversity shouldn't have a white man at its head? Fill me in, I'm a little lost.

For anyone interested in a slightly more level-headed take on what Rogan is talking about, complete with some useful context, try this.

I do feel like characterizing this as an "attack" is kinda bizarre. They're not "eating him alive", any more than the right was eating themselves alive in the 2011 republican primary. What we have here is a disagreement about who should take up a certain position of authority, and whether certain qualities should be disqualifying for that position. How does this qualify as an attack?

"

diablofdb wrote:

Liberals have lost the support of the scientific community, and they are doing the same with every community that was at their core. 1 by 1 the communities are leaving them.

Citation needed on that one. As recently as 2009, the exact opposite was true, and I somehow doubt electing someone who called climate change a hoax invented by the chinese did much to improve that.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

Liberals have lost the support of the scientific community, and they are doing the same with every community that was at their core. 1 by 1 the communities are leaving them.

Citation needed on that one. As recently as 2009, the exact opposite was true, and I somehow doubt electing someone who called climate change a hoax invented by the chinese did much to improve that.

Remember this guy?

"

diablofdb wrote:

Remember this guy?

Spoiler

Yeah, I do. I don't know what the point of posting this is, do you think this somehow constitutes evidence that the scientific community has "gotten sick of liberalism"? Because it doesn't. In fact, I don't even think that that's evidence that Matt Taylor has gotten sick of liberalism. Indeed, I'd like to think most scientists aren't that small-minded, and are bit more "big-picture"-oriented.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

I'd like to think most scientists aren't that small-minded, and are bit more "big-picture"-oriented.

Do you consider political bias, research grant bias, quotas, lies, and even fraud to be small-minded? Because it's there. Just Google it. No one needs to prove anything. Just like the rest of the world, scientists are not above petty acts of deception.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Explain it to me like I'm five.

That's what i always do.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Speaking as someone who doesn't see anything inherently preposterous about this situation, could someone maybe fill me in? Explain it to me like I'm five. I don't get it. Is it the idea that gender is non-binary? Is it the idea that someone can be transgender? Is it that an all-women school might have a lot of people who think that an office dedicated to cultural diversity shouldn't have a white man at its head? Fill me in, I'm a little lost.

For anyone interested in a slightly more level-headed take on what Rogan is talking about, complete with some useful context, try this.

I do feel like characterizing this as an "attack" is kinda bizarre. They're not "eating him alive", any more than the right was eating themselves alive in the 2011 republican primary. What we have here is a disagreement about who should take up a certain position of authority, and whether certain qualities should be disqualifying for that position. How does this qualify as an attack?

You have to admit their is something ironic, even bizarre, about an all girls school with 'men' attending. Moreover, you have to laugh at the fact that a 'white man' would seek a leadership position on DIVERSITY. His counter argument is that he is a 'transgender man' which makes him the smallest minority on campus. No, fuck that, all that matters is that he isn't a woman. I would go so far to say that he shouldn't be at the school, nor should any other non-women, as it is a women only school.

I accept the fluidity of sexuality, I do not accept the fluidity of gender. In other words, gender precedes social context, that is, gender has only four states, male, both, none, and female. Choosing to move between those is a subjective decision, that is fine, but requiring ALL OF SOCIETY to care or be prescient of YOUR subjective fluidity is non-sense, no, it wreaks of delusional levels of self-importance and narcissism.

I'm all for inclusive politics, I support equal rights, equal pay, and so on. I draw the line on superficial subjectivities. People don't attain respect by asking for it, they get it by acting for it--regardless of their immutable, or subjectively shifting, identities.

"

SpanishMonarch wrote:

Spoiler

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Speaking as someone who doesn't see anything inherently preposterous about this situation, could someone maybe fill me in? Explain it to me like I'm five. I don't get it. Is it the idea that gender is non-binary? Is it the idea that someone can be transgender? Is it that an all-women school might have a lot of people who think that an office dedicated to cultural diversity shouldn't have a white man at its head? Fill me in, I'm a little lost.

For anyone interested in a slightly more level-headed take on what Rogan is talking about, complete with some useful context, try this.

I do feel like characterizing this as an "attack" is kinda bizarre. They're not "eating him alive", any more than the right was eating themselves alive in the 2011 republican primary. What we have here is a disagreement about who should take up a certain position of authority, and whether certain qualities should be disqualifying for that position. How does this qualify as an attack?

You have to admit their is something ironic, even bizarre, about an all girls school with 'men' attending. Moreover, you have to laugh at the fact that a 'white man' would seek a leadership position on DIVERSITY. His counter argument is that he is a 'transgender man' which makes him the smallest minority on campus. No, fuck that, all that matters is that he isn't a woman. I would go so far to say that he shouldn't be at the school, nor should any other non-women, as it is a women only school.

I'm not going to disagree. In fact, when faced with this precise issue, a few all-girls colleges took the position that should one of the students begin to transition from female to male, they would assist in finding that person a new position at a different university. This is a bit of a sticky subject, because these are people matriculated at your college, and excluding them for changing their outward appearance is... eh. It's a complex issue, and I don't think we're really in disagreement here.

"

I accept the fluidity of sexuality, I do not accept the fluidity of gender. In other words, gender precedes social context, that is, gender has only four states, male, both, none, and female. Choosing to move between those is a subjective decision, that is fine, but requiring ALL OF SOCIETY to care or be prescient of YOUR subjective fluidity is non-sense, no, it wreaks of delusional levels of self-importance and narcissism.

Well, that helps me make sense of your position at least. The jury is still out on how exactly gender works, but I think it is fair to say that people who identify as genderfluid or non-binary do certainly exist. I'm not sure what accomodations are necessary for someone who identifies as agender, but in the case of this person, they seem to wish to be identified as male, and that's a pretty standard situation - they're a transman, we know how to deal with that. I don't know that I'd call it self-important or narcissistic, any more than I'd say that anyone suffering from gender dysphoria asking for such simple concessions is.

But thank you for explaining your position - it makes a lot more sense coming from you, and not some shock jock.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

The jury is still out on how exactly gender works,

No its pretty well known how genders work(well how biological genders work that is no clue whatsoever how all the unicorn genders work)
And sinds you asked i will explain it to you as if you were a 5 year old.
Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.
Hope this clears things up for you as you seem to be very confused on the subject.

Attribution