Same Christian Colorado Baker In The News Again For Not Making Cake CELEBRATING TRANSGENDERISM
" You do realize business's refuse to serve Christian's all the time, for the same types of reasons as baker, and nothing is burned to the ground, and it barely makes the news. Alot of examples of Christians being refused service were used as evidence in the last case against this baker. | |
|
I've shifted a bit further right on how I view "transgenderism," and I wasn't exactly embracing it in the first place. I don't like linking YouTube, but here's an important video that lays out the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exlZ85VbPbk&t=3m00s
Simply put: if you are born XX, you have an XX brain. If you block estrogen even during brain development, you still have an XX brain. If you are born XY, you have an XY brain, even if you add estrogen or block testosterone. You are mentally your biological sex, and there is nothing you can do to change this core fact of your biology. That said, I don't have any problem with people pretending. Where I draw the line is the point at which the pretend persona begins to threaten the authentic core, when someone is told (even if it's them telling themselves) that their biological self is wrong and it is the pretend self in which they must live. For example, it is not mentally unhealthy to crossdress. It isn't mentally unhealthy to have a drag persona while crossdressing or, in some circumstances, while not crossdressing. It isn't mentally unhealthy to consistently and continuously appear in drag during unsexed public activities (such as school or work). It's not necessarily enabling of mental illness to refer to people who are in drag by their drag names and pronouns. However, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. It is mentally illness to reject your biological sex to such an extent that one's drag persona becomes one's only persona. It is enabling of mental illness to allow biological males into women's bathrooms to prevent the risk of a break in immersion of someone's drag persona. It is enabling of mental illness to insist that one be called by their drag names and pronouns rather than their given name and pronouns representing their biological sex, or to be bullied into acceptance of such an insistance. Transgenderism as it is now is either normalized mental illness or the illusion thereof. HRT is drug abuse. SRS is as unethical as FGM. I should emphasize that I have no hatred whatsoever for anyone who is suffering from a mental illness. If anything such people have my compassion. Furthermore, I don't have any objection to crossdressing or the public use of drag personas, although my argument for them stems purely from a libertarian, rather than an identitarian, justification. But identitarian claims for civil rights are all the rage now, so the activist-leaders of the drag queens and kings — whose cause I would otherwise support — have latched onto a false "born this way" narrative for political expediency. (Not saying that sufferers of gender dysphoria are not born that way, just that the vast majority of "transgender" people were not.) Because this ideology preaches rejection of the biological reality of self — because its leaders promotes mental illness while pretending at it themselves, all the while claiming that such self-hatred is not mental poison but instead its antidote — it is immoral to spread such beliefs. I say: Love your biological self, as you are, without lies. If you cannot, get professional help until you do. So in short, I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't bake that cake either. Which is a shame, because I don't know how I'd defend myself in court without Jesus to lean on. —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Edit: There are not only two genders. For example, let's say a human was born a bilateral hermaphrodite, just as the bird in the linked video. I would support such a person's efforts to maintain a relatively consistent public male persona, just as I would support their efforts to maintain a relatively consistent public female persona; as I said before, I have no issues with a person pretending a gender other than their own in public, provided that it is understood to be pretending. But in truth, they, mentally speaking, would never be male nor female. They would always be something else; unlike all of the fully-XX and fully-XY posers, as a hermaprodite, they would have one of the rare legitimate claims to nonbinary gender. And hermaphrodites have the same right and, arguably, the same obligation to self-love as any other human, devoid of self-deceit. It's okay to be a gender other than male or female, provided that such is the biological reality of the situation. And because it is indeed okay, there is no need nor excuse for hormone injections or self-mutilation to change that natural state of affairs. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Aug 16, 2018, 5:35:01 PM
|
|
" At work, so can't watch video. But I've seen other scientific studies that purport that it is, indeed, possible for an XX individual to have an XY, or an XXY, brain, or for an XY individual to have an XX brain. They were preliminary results, nothing definite, but there were definite signs in the study I ran across that point to the possibility of a brain being caught between the two states, or being flipped entirely the other way. Given how enormously complex and fluid biochemistry is/can be, I find it hard not to believe that individuals can end up not completely 100% ironclad aligned with one or the other gender. We've got every other possible variation of human brain out there, why not nonbinary or wrong-gendered ones? Dysphoria is seen as a mental illness; the individual suffering from dysphoria is usually suffering intense distress, with the only treatment options available at this time being an attempt to correct the dysphoric individual's gender enough to alleviate that distress. There is no convincing a dysphoric individual to 'love their biological self'; they physically cannot. Attempts to do so only increase their distress, often leading to Unfortunate Ends. Not all people who put themselves on the nonbinary curve identify as trans. I specifically and intentionally do not, as I believe that particular label should be reserved solely for individuals who've taken physical steps to correct dysphoria. I'm fortunate in that I don't suffer acute dysphoria and can cope well enough with my current hideous meat shell, though you know from previous discussions that it's not my preference. Some people cope more or less well, and yes, there are occasionally poser assholes out there who invent weird terms and pull awkward gender identities out of their butts to try and grab attention for themselves. The 'did you just assume my gender?!' crowd is not helping anyone. But I'll tell ya something, Scrotie. I like myself more in recent days, after acknowledging to myself and eventually others where I sit on the spectrum than I did when I was coasting along on the societal ingrained assumption that I was just a really, really terrible male of the species. I've got my theories as to why that is, but I'm neither a psychologist nor a biochemist so theories are all they are. Nevertheless. This notion of "you can pretend, but no matter what you do you'll never be what you'd prefer to be" shouldn't be something to scourge people and try to bring down the entire LGBT segment of society with, but instead something to lament. We can only hope that science continues to progress to a point where flipping biological sex - properly, the whole way, not just hackjobbing a body until it superficially resembles the target sex - is perfectly doable. After all. You can get tattoos to express yourself. You can dye your hair, change your style. Cosmetic surgeries are becoming cheaper and more commonplace every day. Why should one's inborn biological self be the beginning and ending of their own personal identities? We modify everything else, why not our own skins, ne? Or skip the entire process and go straight to Ghost in the Shell. Hot-swappable android chassis for everybody - be whatever you feel like on any given day. That's the real home-run Ideal Situation right there. Gimme a workshop full of robot bodies built to taste or purpose and I'll be perfectly satisfied forever. | |
"I disagree. If anything, SRS seems to increase the risk of said Unfortunate Ends. "Your "meat shell" is not hideous. It especially shouldn't be to you. "Agreed. "Truth hurts. The necessary correlate of that is that the proper evasions have a narcotic effect. "I'm only after the T part. The LBG (or LBGD, where D is for drag) is fine by me. "As an option, from a libertarian perspective of "the only victim is oneself," then yes, I obviously would never want to criminalize tattoos. But I would never get a tattoo, and never have. Frankly even the increasing popularity of tattoos rubs me the wrong way, as it indicates (to me, anyway) a certain lack of self-love, just as a piece of graffiti seems to imply a certain disrespect for the wall or traincar it is painted on. I don't really approve of tattoos or boob-jobs or any of these other body modifications. People should love themselves more. "You seem to be actively desiring a dystopian hellscape. Have you actually forgotten about corporations for a moment? When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Aug 16, 2018, 7:02:51 PM
|
|
" Primarily in the U.S., which has an absolutely atrocious system that's custom-tailored to make dysphoric folk feel like the only option they have left is suicide. Other countries make much less of an issue over it, and they have a correspondingly much higher rate of success with reassignment. Not that reassignment should be easy, it is the sort of change one needs to be more than 100% sure of before undertaking, but the American system is specifically designed to shame people trying to fight through it into suicide. Bad form, Murica. Bad form. " It's also not anything special. It's a bunch of calcium, protein, and Dihydrogen Monoxide in a haphazard configuration that managed to make it through evolution's filters. I'd trade it out for some proper chrome (proper chrome, mind, which we will sadly not see for many years yet) without a care in the world. Transhumanism all the way - there is nothing special about this species. " Heh. Cute. I'll put that down to what I've tentatively determined as a "the body is a temple" attitude I'm getting from a few of your later points, as the full discussion is even less appropriate for this thread than this one is. Not that I care, but Manocean is going to yell at me at some point here eventually and I may as well lessen his stock of ammunition. " Easy enough to say. Until the 'T' part actually goes away and people realize that, say...'G' could be next if they worked hard enough. Everybody's "fine with" LGBT folks - until they aren't, ne? " What about folks who paint intricate designs or murals on the walls of their house? Or folks who make additions to their house to better suit their tastes or desires? Tattoos don't have to be graffiti; much like graffiti itself, they can instead be an artistic expression of the individual's desires or feelings. " Hueh. Check Aim_Deep's latest thread, found an interesting gem on corporations in there. Over here, though? We're already machines. We're simply machines made with substandard materials to a poorly optimized schematic prone to bugs, glitches, failures and errors. If I've got the opportunity to port my personal code over to a better platform, why the hell not? I see absolutely nothing wrong with transhumanism (in its more reasonable variations); we're all functional cyborgs already, utterly dependent on our technology to survive unless we go enormously out of our way to train ourselves otherwise. Admittedly, I don't actually see implanted technology taking off until we can skip the hooplah and go straight to said robot bodies; technology progresses too fast and there's too much market focus on wearables for any sort of cyberization surgery to make sense. By the time you've paid off said surgery your cybernetics will be obsolete and whatever you've had implanted will be available in a wearable form if it didn't start wearable in the first place; the only time it makes sense at any point in the near future is as a corrective measure for injuries or deformities, a'la the girl with robot hands replacing her malformed limb that's going around pitching at MLG games. But in a hundred years, maybe two? There's no reason to stick to this glitchy meat shell when one can have a stronger, faster, leaner, better android chassis instead, save for sheer lack of resources. Love of self doesn't enter into it - this meat shell is not myself, it's my interface system. The meat is not the mind; the self is in the mind, not the meat. Until the day comes when we can cast off the meat, though? Nobody else has any say in what someone does with their own personal meat. Last edited by 1453R on Aug 16, 2018, 7:06:16 PM
| |
"Saying "SRS is only leading to suicides in the US because Mericuh has bad form" strikes me as intellectually dishonest as "socialism only leads to ruin in Venezuela because Maduro." Not buying it. Frankly, SRS as it is now is a particularly primitive cosmetic surgery — to the point of wanting to find a place to add the prefix "proto." I would be inclined to believe that, were it refined significantly, suicide rates would eventually drop to the point that a transgender person so mutilated would be less, not more, likely to off themselves than a pre-op. But I hold to my FGM comparison; the same kinds of arguments could be made for refinement of that procedure. In both cases, the goal itself, even if medically perfected, is morally dubious. ———————————————————————————————— For the record I don't buy the "born this way" narrative from ANY of the LGBT subgroups, and haven't for some time. To me it's as silly as saying "he was born an ARPG player" or "she is a natural born bacon-lover." I have no doubt that certain biological differences, such as dopamine release amounts and triggers or erotic sensitivity of the prostate, do make some more likely to prefer certain activities more than others, and that such preferences, once forged, are not simply led to the fires of Mordor. But that doesn't mean preferences can't be changed with effort. Hell, just throw a bunch of otherwise straight men into gender-segregated prison for long stretches of time and homosexual behavior — admittedly separate from actual homosexual preference — increases significantly. But the "born this way" argument for non-straight sexual orientation didn't much bother me, because its ends seemed to justify its misleading means. There's nothing wrong from any kind of libertarian perspective with consenting men buggering each other. Because I agreed with the conclusion (except for the tiny quibble that I think natural sexual reproduction is a social good, therefore the normalization of full 100% homosexuality vexes me in a way 99% gay 1% straight, heterosex-isn't-fun-it's-just-for-procreation bisexuality doesn't), I didn't much bother with dismantling the argument. I really should have. Transgenderism is the identity-politics inheritor of the gay rights movement, applying a false "born this way" narrative to large numbers of non-dysphoric crossdressers instead of applying sane libertarian arguments for social acceptance. It's causing real harm now by applying premises that were always false to a new situation, and now with the power of precedent. The moral of the story, it appears, is that the ends do not justify the means; in that sense, I wish I had opposed the LBG movement more strenuously than I did. Oh, and I'm against marriages based solely on mere romantic love, regardless of sexual orientation; I wouldn't legally forbid them, but I consider them a fool's errand and culturally unhealthy. Marriages should be for, and centered on, raising children; they should also be much more difficult to break with divorce. I'm not strictly against gay marriages, but in a hypothetical world where orphans didn't exist and adoption wasn't a thing, I would be (again, culturally, not legally). Even then I'd prefer one parent of each binary gender, but I'm not going to argue with an upgrade over an orphanage; I'll merely lament that we can't seem to do better. ———————————————————————————————— Have you ever watched the Joss Whedon TV series Dollhouse? When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Aug 17, 2018, 11:49:23 AM
|
|
|
Blows my mind that the government can force you to make a cake in a specific way.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
| |
|
I dont get this. Money is money. I'm pretty conservative and think much is deviant behavior (like I dont even like tattoos let alone homosexuality) and do business with anyone unless trust is broken because that effects bottom line. I work in construction and hired former drug addicts former felons etc. As long trust is maintained no problem everyone deserves a shot. I can lien property/customers so it's less issue. Employees are biggest issue. Lie, late, steal, fail drug test, etc you're gone. Must have trust.
I never talk politics or cultural events with customers or employees to avoid potential conflict. My job is to do a job make them happy not introduce conflict. Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Aug 18, 2018, 12:00:31 AM
| |
|
Diabeetus is a real illness!
 Suggested design for the baker in question to use. Last edited by erdelyii on Aug 18, 2018, 4:58:18 AM
| |
"If it weren't for this type of attitude, I would have already posted in the "Democrats are socialists" thread with a post about Milton Strawman. But unfortunately you demonstrate that he's not as straw as I'd like. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
