Trans activists failing to persuade people on the sports issue

Why don't we just ask the white women if they want to have black women participating in their sports because I am sure they won't be prejudiced at all. Perhaps asking the bigots about segregation is not the best way to eliminate prejudice.

You do not ever ask the bigoted majority to oppress the minority in a democracy, because they will. the oppression of the minority is exactly what democracy is great at. Of course, Karens love that shit so we should trust them with the ability to participate according to you. Wonder what side you are on. Thanks for showing your true color.

So, should we get the two together, or would that be incredibly bad like getting the keymaster and gatekeeper together and all of a sudden we have right wing neked Gozer in Ottowa?

I think I just predicted the plot for lady woke ass ghostbusters 2: strange brew boogaloo.

It'd be incredibly bad -- you'd need the combined powers of Steve, Bindi, and Robert Irwin to document and balance it out... and we don't have Steve

So maybe @Rimjob Bob and @Demiurge can explain what was so wrong with a trans woman exposing her breasts like any cis male seems to be allowed to? Since there is no physical difference between a trans woman and cis male then why is biden pitching a fit over a trans woman exposing her male breasts at the white house like any other male chest? If she cannot become equal to females physically then those are simply some moobs and we all know as large as some male chests might happen to be it is legal to be exposed.

Or does the physical differences only count when you want it too?

Well, you certainly summarized the far right's conceits, which I've expressly rejected numerous times.

I'm still not sure when I become a genocidal monster.

Can you update my calendar? I need to know when I can put my first trans person in the oven.

I'm honestly surprised that you refuse to consider that someone can disagree with you on this issue.

No, I don't support destroying trans people.

Why? Because I have a basic moral system, I want good outcomes for people. But I'm allowed to include people other than trans people there. It isn't the group you view as most oppressed get the most rights, even at the detriment of others.

I am cognizant that there are numerous bills against trans rights in far right states. I don't support the overwhelming majority of them, especially those so cruel as to deny gender affirming care for people who need it.

I continue to vote against those who would impose those initiatives in my state, certainly will in the Presidential election, and actively fund those organizations.

The same reason I believe that transathletes can cause unfair outcomes in sports is the same reason I believe that gender affirming care saves lives - there are several reputable scientific studies that have come to that conclusion.

Nothing you said here remotely touches that.

Somehow you think that if I disagree with any aspect of trans rights I will ultimately help in the destruction of their group.

It's a ridiculous assertion.

The 'you must be with us in all things or you are against us' crowd sure has changed over the years. LOL.

I don't think that this is going to happen on a national level. What we might see if laws that delay gender affirming care in minors, but I have a hard time seeing that get through any congress to pass nationally. At this point in time it would take a full fascist takeover, which is in theory possible, but seems less and less likely at the moment. No one is showing up for Trump any more, and even his own cabinet officials are saying he's fucked and going to jail. Which is a very good thing.

There is a very real problem at the state level, where large swathes of the US are attempting to destroy trans rights. I think we'll see a mass exodus of people from those places - which is ultimately what the religious right wants. There will be increased deaths as well as the social pressure increases, largely through religious expression.

And with the morons allowing Trump to win in 2016 we have a supreme court that will not stop it.

I get why people are afraid. Anyone living in those areas should be, and we all should have empathy with them and help protect them.

Just because they are afraid doesn't mean they get to lessen other groups rights. And that's clearly what a significant portion of TRAs want to do at this point, because their entire point is that gender identity is the only thing that matters, and therefore they want to diminish the concept of sex entirely. It's a profoundly unscientific conceit, but it's repeated as a mantra.

Again, in the overhwhelming majority of cases that isn't much of an issue and gender identity can freely be substituted. But there are still a couple where it should matter.

And in that apprehension, too many think that means anyone who disputes them on any topic is no different than those who want to destroy them.

Clearly that's not the case.

But the 'either you are with us or against us' propaganda has clearly taken hold.

Funny, these are the same people that used to ridicule that concept

Well at least we know that these positions were reached in the complete absence of a multi-billion $$ funded propaganda effort working in tandem with ~25 legislatures spending virtually their entire session laying aside all manner of other issues in order to pass draconian laws that had never crossed their minds two years ago.

So confident none of this could possibly have affected public opinion.

I mean, literally yes.
It was less than a decade ago that they tried to the bathroom bans and/or defeating equality ordinances because of "bathroom panics."

Trans folks been pissing according to their presentation since forever and with the approval of law in some places for 30ish years, and no one gave a SINGLE fuck in terms of lawmaking before 2014.

And none of these other things had crossed anyone's mind. In 2017 MS passed a law that says "you can discriminate against people based on your religious bigotry as long as you claim Jesus forced you to. But it was still a very rare ani- bill that wasn't about restrooms. NO ONE on about sports, NO ONE on about "mutilated kids, certainly no one going so far as Florida's doing now to try to stop all transitioning. Go back as briefly as 2020 and no legislature is much worried about all this stuff.

But liuterally in each of these cases the right and their mouthpieces would say "Oh don't be hysterical, We just care about fairness in sports and that will be all of it" (nevermind the text of the law undermines their claim) and "We're just protecting kids, adults can do what they want" and so forth. Every bill is always the last one until it's not.

Claiming a slippery slope argument here is a fallacy ignores that we've been slipping down the slope for a few years no, with a shit ton of lies at every mile marker.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I'll be attending Danica Roem's fundraiser for her state senate campaign on Sunday. She called yesterday to offer a personal invitation because of our previous support for her campaign.

You might remember Ms Roem. She's the first openly transgender politician to be seated in a state legislature.

If anyone cares to donate, you can do so here, under 'unable to attend.' https://secure.actblue.com/donate/danicamanassasjune2023

I'll be sure to tell her when I see her that I'm secretly a genocidal madman that can't wait to send her to the ovens because I think that we need to follow the science when it comes to women's sports. At least my secret shame will be over a delicious Chicken Tandoori - halal, no less.

Oh, and I understand if you can't afford to donate, we are all at different places in life. But maybe you should reconsider implying that anyone with any difference in opinion from yours at all is helping the Nazis.

For one thing, that's a right wing caricature of left winger, and I really fucking hate it when you prove Tucker Carlson right. You'd think you'd reflexively avoid that, but I guess that would take some level of self-reflection.

No, you're not a genocidal madman.
You're just utterly fucking worthless in the face of them.

Also, fun fact: TJ Kirk and his Drunken Peasants buddies donated to women's abuse charities to show off how much they cared about women more than Anita Sarkeesian. They were still fucking CHUDs.

Right, helping elect people to my state senate that I know will oppose my state turning into a nazi hellhole is of much less value than purity tests on the internet.

I believe you, TJ!

Yeah, I've stated this openly for years now. Dicky, your opinion is completely and utterly not worth me lying over.

This is just about your ego. And the fact you live your entire life on the internet, so it's what is real to you.

We always get to the "Dicky is a doody head!" portion of the conversation with you guys.
But you're not alike though.

Ok, Dicky. LOL.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

How would you feel if I started a thread about who really owns Hollywood and the banks?

Or about higher rates of gun violence and sexually transmitted diseases in certain urban communities?

Or how so much of the child abuse occuring among Catholic clergy appears to be committed by men against boys?

Or maybe a mathematical breakdown of how plausible the alleged death toll of the Holocaust truly is?

Or my cool new "it's okay to be white" t-shirt?

Or do you understand how those seemingly reasonable discussions are actually dog whistles and bad faith arguments intended to soften support for certain minority groups?

Remember when I ran away for years over a South Park cartoon?
Oh, wait, no, who was that?
But yeah, do continue to tell yourself you have the social capital around here to condescend to me.
Please.

I could picture all of those being started by Oldfella.

And here you immediately go wrong. No, I'm not looking to garner support from anti-trans right wing religous nutjobs by discussing this. A dog whistle isn't any attempt to discuss a topic you disagree with, it's a specific attempt to garner support by appearing to be reasonable while actually attempting to focus on tangibly worse things. It doesn't apply here.

You are using it to shut down conversation with a bad faith interpretation of that term, and I'm not letting you.

As to the rest:

I can recognize that Jewish people have a disproportionate impact in those areas AND be against anti-semetism. That doesn't mean they are bad people - hell, the bank issue is because Christians refused to commit usury for centuries so there was a huge hole that Jewish people recognized and it was actually advantageous for both groups that they fill because of Christian prejudices.

They do. That doesn't mean racism is morally correct.

Again, absolutely correct. That appears to largely be access. And scientific studies have shown that pedophilia is in no way related to homosexuality.

OK, now you've lost me. There's nothing plausible about that argument.

Meh, somebody with shitty social skills. But the constant attacks by the far left on the concept of 'whiteness' is going to get a push back. We are talking about people's identity, and it's pretty hypocritical to say only minorities have a right to their own concept of identity.

So no one is allowed to speak about them? On a discussion website no less? Sorry, don't agree there. And I'm a bit tired of extremists on either end of the spectrum trying to dictate what acceptable speech is.

Do you understand this is yet again one of the actual Nazis criticism of 'leftist' culture, and is in fact a valid criticism? Stop giving them ammo.

You mean when I went off to focus on my family and my career because stupidity on the internet wasn't worth my time at that moment?

Yeah, you sure got me. Clearly I focus too much on the internet. LOL.

Like calling a stupid cartoon kiddie porn?
Yeah, that would be pretty embarrassing for the person who did that.
They'd probably have to bald-faced lie about why they really left.
Like, not George Santos level lying, but some nice plausible deniability shit.
Sprinkle it with some sneer-faced arrogance, and he'd be home free.
On a board of idiots with no memory.

Good thing I never said no one was allowed to speak about them. I'm proud of you for taking a principled stand against something I never actually said, though. That took courage.

I'm not the boss of the internet, and in a vacuum I'd have no problem discussing those subjects with someone raising them in good faith.

But in the real world I know those issues are not being raised in good faith, and they're little more than a Trojan horse for far more harmful ideas, so I'm refusing to engage.

When you're walking down the street and an obvious panhandler or a sketchy salesman says "hey, can I ask you a quick question?" do you stop and engage with them since they're just trying to ask you a question and questions are harmless, or do you ignore them and keep walking because you know it's just a segue into being hit up for money?

Ah yes, the "intolerance of intolerance is the real intolerance" approach. I've heard it before, I remain unimpressed.

No, I made it pretty clear that I didn't want that image on my computer when I had a young child nearby.

If you don't understand that, that's your limitation, not mine.

All right, I guess your brain is telling you digging a hole to China is easier somehow than "yeah, that was stupid; my bad".
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

Ah, more bad faith arguments. You are clearly stating that I should not make dogwhistle arguments, when in fact I'm not making them. Yes, this is an attempt to alter how I post to fit your conceits. It's ridiculous to continue to be disingenous about that after you clearly made the attempt.

Then stop trying to be the boss of the internet, and I am explicitly discussing in good faith.

Then stop engaging. Instead, you are trying to show how immoral it is to disagree with you while misusing political terms to twist them so you appear righteous. Not a good take.

Right - I tried to recruit you to the Christian Right Wing White Alliance almost immediately after I put forth my opinion on this topic.

You really should drop the 'bad faith' argument. You are the one arguing in bad faith.

And if you put forward any idea as intolerant that you personally don't agree with, you get to ignore it by making bad faith claims against it. How much integrity you have.

Again, all this when I punctured your self-righteousness because I can actually hold an opinion what constitutes a right different from your concept while I'm actively supporting that group in other ways.

Your guys reaction to this is clinical. Sorry, you aren't the only moral arbiters in the discussion.

Care to call me Santos again because I took time away from Wordforge and that makes me stupid and I should admit I was wrong for doing that? LOL.

I'm sure I'm not the first nor will be the last, but you may want to seek professional help.

Well, at least Uncle Albert loves you.
Edit: And Bill Carson.
WF's best and brightest.

You are a sad little drama queen.