Today is Bi/Pan Invisibility Day.

If you are only able to process that word in a purely pejorative sense, we can use a different, "friendlier" word.

That's the definition of the word, my interpretation has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I know. I didn't presume it to be correct.

It's not uncommon for words to have different connotations in different contexts.

Do you remember who gturner was before he got banned from TBBS?

Soma is him, minus the legendary bot-like post count. and also a self loathing gay Hindu that used to jerk off the most blatant racist from Wordforge 1.0 by the name of Tasvir81 aka @Megatron

Soma is....a wee bit special.

Ha ha. It's Soma they're arguing with? No wonder the thread makes no sense.

The guy is a one dimensional troll who acts out a false "conservative" persona, but in reality just makes short troll posts. He's not here to debate anymore than buffoons like Flashtard are.

On the way, drop by for a couple drinks.

*straightens tie*

these threads always get weird for me when they get Soma'ed because I have him on ignore and it's just folks speaking rationally to an unknown idiot until someone says his name.

Again, it really should be a Canadian who explains it, I'd have to look up the particulars. My comment was basically me relaying what I've heard said by Canadians of my online acquaintance.

As I understand it there are broad equality standards that apply universally (except perhaps in some religious settings) but the specific provisions about speech are targeted towards necessary public activities - which is to say if you are sitting around your grill some summer afternoon badmouthing trans people there's no consequence for that. If you say the same thing to a trans co-worker there would be.

Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that trans people are in fact physically defective.

My reaction would be...
1. so what?
2. there are a considerable number of people born "defective" in one way or another. When we have the medical skill to "repair" said defect thereby improving quality of life we consider it basically a moral obligation to do so (which is what transition would then be, a "repair" - to the extent our current medical arts make possible - of the "defect" in order to improve quality of life) and where we cannot, we do not penalize the person in question legally and socially for their "deficiency". Thus, under the "defect" model, transition is a moral good, a medical necessity, and an example of medical care at it's best and most successful.
3. if being trans is a manifestation of a physical "defect" then all arguments that it is a "sinful lifestyle choice" are null and void.

So...sure...if "defective" helps you sleep at night, whether it's accurate or not, roll with it. Still doesn't give you a right to be an asshole about it anymore than recognizing that being born blind is a "defect" give you license to go around tripping blind people.

It's a power play, that's all it is. It's so someone who feels morally superior to a minority group can expound on how "defective" someone is while knowing they will never be affected by it, and take their free license to be an asshole as far as they can, and use things like "biology," and "science" to mask it as legitimate criticism.

Remember, there was a time when it was morally wrong to consider black people as equal to white people, or even human at all. This is no different, they just use more pseudo-science instead of religiosity.

He was talking about people with genetic disorders also called genetic abnormalities. Acknowledging abnormalities and disorders are not good or normal but defects in the biological process (I.E. having XXY instead of XY or XX) just seems like accepting reality to me but feel free to continue spinning whatever conspiracy theory you want.

You tried to spin "wetback" as being non-racist.

"Wetback" doesn't refer to ethnicity, but rather mode of transportation.

@Soma forgets that, until 1987, he was considered "defective."

Objectively it is not racist. It means a person who swam across the Rio Grande to enter illegally. Fact.

It is not my fault you are poorly educated and do not understand the definition of common English words.

I've always asked them, if it's okay to verbally pick on people you find mentally defective, then would you physically bully the physically handicapped?
Push someone in a wheelchair down a stairwell?
Tip an old lady with a cane over?
Make off with a blind person's guide dog?
If not, why not?
"Superiority", grants you the right to be an asshole in the first case, why not the second?

I get crickets for my trouble.

Because the answer is, they're as moral as what they can get away with.
If they had a mob telling them it was okay to hurt the physically disabled, they'd go along.
If lynching came back, they'd join in.

And on a side note, the company I work for supports and participates in the Atlanta Pride Parade. I volunteered to join and participate in the parade to show support. And that's where I'm at today.

So much ass covering. Good thing you've got Flashy to help you.

It's not a scientific term.
It's slang.
It's a slur.
An ethnic based slur.
Made up by bigots.
And no one else but bigots.
It has no clean innocent connotation.
I don't care which of your role models you fucking heard it from, they're bad now.

Pointing out an objective truth, that it is a genetic abnormality/defect, is not picking on someone or being mean to anyone. It is simply stating the objective truth.

No one is picking on anyone but they are pointing out we should not make policy based upon extremely rare genetic defects. Trying to us genetic defects as an example of how thing ought to be is retarded.

Okay, then call heavy people fat, and little people midgets, and dark skinned people negro, and see how far you get without a kick in the balls.
Report back to us on that.

What policies would these be?

He'll do it, but only from the safety of his keyboard.

I'm sure he has a fantastic solution, maybe several; there will be one for this genetic aberration, one for that, and then a final one for the genetic aberrations he finds disagreeable.

And that makes it not racist how?

All slurs have historical origins, that doesn't stop them being slurs.

Several poor choices of words there when discussing Down's Syndrome really, do people often throw drinks over you in real life? Or are you referring to transgender people, in which case you ought to re read the abstract provided which actually says nothing about it being a genetic defect....

Shins...

(Fantasyworld rep from Dinner)

What part, Din-Dins?
That it's not a scientific term?
Go open a biology text, you won't find "wetback", in there.

Y'know where you will find it?
Here.
When you get there, click down to "consequences", and read the first sentence.
No, you're a resistant prick, so I'll paste it for you.

"The name "wetback" was a disparaging term applied to illegal entrants who supposedly entered the United States by swimming the Rio Grande".

Do you think white Americans make disparaging terms for other ethnic groups that are lovable and cute?
Do you think we have a history of doing that?
Since when?
Since when did this happen?
Come on, you fucking know better, and you know we know you know better.
Stop playing this game.

Speaking as someone who actually lives in the state where the river is, the term most definitely is racist, especially when used by non-Hispanics.

There are tons of US citizen Hispanics who us it to refer to illegal aliens. No, I do not buy into the racial privilege theory that some people get to use some words while others do not. It is and always has been a term for illegal aliens which is not a race.