Sorry, but no amount of surgery, chemicals or wishful thinking will turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. I could not care less if men want to pretend that they are women or women pretend they are men. We are all a little bit weird in one way or another, so who am I to judge? However, when we start allowing men into private spa…
Sorry, but no amount of surgery, chemicals or wishful thinking will turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. I could not care less if men want to pretend that they are women or women pretend they are men. We are all a little bit weird in one way or another, so who am I to judge? However, when we start allowing men into private spaces for women and allow men to compete in women's sports, I draw the line. This nuttiness that has infected the Democratic Party will prevent me from ever supporting them.
Huzzah to J.K. Rowling! Too few public figures today are willing to stand behind their convictions...
Not caring less about men saying they are women and vice versa open the door to men into women's private spaces and sports. This crap is personified misogyny.
Tell me Sofia, what would you do? Would you make cross-dressing illegal? If I changed my name from Charlie to Charlene and informed you that my preferred pronouns are she/her, would you toss me in prison?
Under the non aggression principle, everyone is free to do as they like as long as they do no harm to others or infringe upon the freedom of others. In other words, people need to mind their own damn business until someone violates the non aggression principle. Invading private spaces violates the non aggression principle. Engaging in unfair competition violates the non aggression principle. Allowing a child to make stupid, life-altering decisions violates the non aggression principle. Pretending to be the opposite sex does not.
BTW, my preferred pronoun is "M'Lord" or "My Lord, Protector of the Realm" if you're not into the whole brevity thing. :-)
I wouldn’t toss you in prison for asking me to call you something I’ll never actually call you, but I also won’t participate in your delusion. You come and tell me you are a “she/ her” when you are clearly born with a penis and I’ll respond “no dude, I don’t play the pronoun game.” I don’t care what adults do because we are all a little weird, but I won’t participate in any way in any part of their delusions either.
I agree, Lynne! Apparently, you did not read my first post in this thread where I clearly stated, "However, when we start allowing men into private spaces for women and allow men to compete in women's sports, I draw the line."
Charles, you can call yourself Charlene, wear a lace pinafore, prance through life in high-heeled shoes and shout to the world that you’re a woman. You can adopt an all-fish and krill diet, wear a black dinner jacket and a white shirt and identify as an Emperor Penguin. I don’t care. But your “civil rights” don’t include insisting that I pretend that your delusion is the real deal, so I won’t be doing that.
You did not clarify that demanding others recognize you as Charlene as violation of the non-aggression principle. Which might be debatable, I do not think so, but I'll give you a might. But it does violate the give them an inch . . . principle a/k/a known as the slippery slope principle. For example if sex is changed legally and proper pronounce is required by virtue thereof where failing to do so risks a hate crime offense, how can you then deny the newly minted woman the ability to compete as a woman? This query is illustrative of why I cannot Tweet. I have thoughts longer than 4 characters. 😉
You made the comment about changing your name then informing others of your new pronouns....... why would you be informing anyone about your new pronouns if you don’t expect them to participate in your delusion. For me that’s where the line gets crossed and my response becomes “whatever dude”
Seems CPhillips you just want to argue or maybe be right. I couldn't care less about explaining anything to you. It's just not important at this point. For one thing I don't even remember what you accused me of.
I didn't see anything in her post that was objectionable or offensive or implying people shouldn't be allowed to dress up and act like whatever sex they want. She was merely objecting to allowing them to "invade private spaces" as you put it. Calm down.
"Not caring less about men saying they are women and vice versa open the door to men into women's private spaces and sports..."
Maybe I'm wrong Jeff, but the way I read it, she's saying that my (and presumably others) not caring if men pretend to be women in public directly results in men invading women's private spaces and sports. That's a leap of illogic I couldn't let pass.
She’s right. For years most of us didn’t bother to care. Then we turned around an male rapists are in women’s prisons. We can not feel the need to interfere with adults doing weird things while caring enough to say we won’t participate or normalize your weirdness.
When I first read it I didn't take it the way he did. When he defended it I looked at it again and realized that as written it's literally ambiguous and so I gave him a conditional response, meaning that IF that's actually what you intended, then I agreed with him that it didn't follow. But that's a big IF.
I don't care if men want to pretend to be women or vice versa so long as they don't shove it down my throat - I think they're largely suffering from mental problems. But I emphatically don't want to see biological men invading women's spaces. I also don't want women invading private spaces for men. But that's not generally an issue of safety as the former is. And in sports its just asinine. In some ways its similar to (but an order of magnitude worse) than what we'd have if we allowed skies-the-limit steroid use among athletes. The winners in all competitions would evolve into these rapid burnout and die young monstrosities who aren't even remotely representative of real people. Why would anyone care about that? The freak Olympics. That's what women's sports will turn into with men being able to pretend to be women competing.
Perhaps you should have asked what she meant instead of leaping to the conclusion that allowed you to draw the most negative possible inference and virtue-signal about your reverence for the “nonaggression principle.” You were actually pretty aggressive.
Perhaps you are right, David. Having said that, then maybe you shouldn't assume that my explanation of the non-aggression principle is "virtue signaling," eh?
Sorry, but no amount of surgery, chemicals or wishful thinking will turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. I could not care less if men want to pretend that they are women or women pretend they are men. We are all a little bit weird in one way or another, so who am I to judge? However, when we start allowing men into private spaces for women and allow men to compete in women's sports, I draw the line. This nuttiness that has infected the Democratic Party will prevent me from ever supporting them.
Huzzah to J.K. Rowling! Too few public figures today are willing to stand behind their convictions...
Not caring less about men saying they are women and vice versa open the door to men into women's private spaces and sports. This crap is personified misogyny.
Tell me Sofia, what would you do? Would you make cross-dressing illegal? If I changed my name from Charlie to Charlene and informed you that my preferred pronouns are she/her, would you toss me in prison?
Under the non aggression principle, everyone is free to do as they like as long as they do no harm to others or infringe upon the freedom of others. In other words, people need to mind their own damn business until someone violates the non aggression principle. Invading private spaces violates the non aggression principle. Engaging in unfair competition violates the non aggression principle. Allowing a child to make stupid, life-altering decisions violates the non aggression principle. Pretending to be the opposite sex does not.
BTW, my preferred pronoun is "M'Lord" or "My Lord, Protector of the Realm" if you're not into the whole brevity thing. :-)
I wouldn’t toss you in prison for asking me to call you something I’ll never actually call you, but I also won’t participate in your delusion. You come and tell me you are a “she/ her” when you are clearly born with a penis and I’ll respond “no dude, I don’t play the pronoun game.” I don’t care what adults do because we are all a little weird, but I won’t participate in any way in any part of their delusions either.
Not when "doing what they like" means having an intact penis and competing in women's competitive sports, or using women's locker rooms and restrooms.
I agree, Lynne! Apparently, you did not read my first post in this thread where I clearly stated, "However, when we start allowing men into private spaces for women and allow men to compete in women's sports, I draw the line."
I did. Just wanted to emphasize it.
Charles, you can call yourself Charlene, wear a lace pinafore, prance through life in high-heeled shoes and shout to the world that you’re a woman. You can adopt an all-fish and krill diet, wear a black dinner jacket and a white shirt and identify as an Emperor Penguin. I don’t care. But your “civil rights” don’t include insisting that I pretend that your delusion is the real deal, so I won’t be doing that.
That's amusing, if rather irrelevant. At what point did I demand you agree with me and what did I say that you find delusional?
You did not clarify that demanding others recognize you as Charlene as violation of the non-aggression principle. Which might be debatable, I do not think so, but I'll give you a might. But it does violate the give them an inch . . . principle a/k/a known as the slippery slope principle. For example if sex is changed legally and proper pronounce is required by virtue thereof where failing to do so risks a hate crime offense, how can you then deny the newly minted woman the ability to compete as a woman? This query is illustrative of why I cannot Tweet. I have thoughts longer than 4 characters. 😉
You made the comment about changing your name then informing others of your new pronouns....... why would you be informing anyone about your new pronouns if you don’t expect them to participate in your delusion. For me that’s where the line gets crossed and my response becomes “whatever dude”
Seems CPhillips you just want to argue or maybe be right. I couldn't care less about explaining anything to you. It's just not important at this point. For one thing I don't even remember what you accused me of.
Funny.
Since you can't be civil. F U.
You're accusing me of being uncivil? I suppose being logical and respecting people's civil liberties must be a real mind-blower for you.
I didn't see anything in her post that was objectionable or offensive or implying people shouldn't be allowed to dress up and act like whatever sex they want. She was merely objecting to allowing them to "invade private spaces" as you put it. Calm down.
Thanks Jeff C.
"Not caring less about men saying they are women and vice versa open the door to men into women's private spaces and sports..."
Maybe I'm wrong Jeff, but the way I read it, she's saying that my (and presumably others) not caring if men pretend to be women in public directly results in men invading women's private spaces and sports. That's a leap of illogic I couldn't let pass.
She’s right. For years most of us didn’t bother to care. Then we turned around an male rapists are in women’s prisons. We can not feel the need to interfere with adults doing weird things while caring enough to say we won’t participate or normalize your weirdness.
The leap was yours.
If that's what she meant, then I agree with you. It was, perhaps, ambiguous.
Really Cunningham? If that's what she meant.
When I first read it I didn't take it the way he did. When he defended it I looked at it again and realized that as written it's literally ambiguous and so I gave him a conditional response, meaning that IF that's actually what you intended, then I agreed with him that it didn't follow. But that's a big IF.
I don't care if men want to pretend to be women or vice versa so long as they don't shove it down my throat - I think they're largely suffering from mental problems. But I emphatically don't want to see biological men invading women's spaces. I also don't want women invading private spaces for men. But that's not generally an issue of safety as the former is. And in sports its just asinine. In some ways its similar to (but an order of magnitude worse) than what we'd have if we allowed skies-the-limit steroid use among athletes. The winners in all competitions would evolve into these rapid burnout and die young monstrosities who aren't even remotely representative of real people. Why would anyone care about that? The freak Olympics. That's what women's sports will turn into with men being able to pretend to be women competing.
Well said.
Perhaps you should have asked what she meant instead of leaping to the conclusion that allowed you to draw the most negative possible inference and virtue-signal about your reverence for the “nonaggression principle.” You were actually pretty aggressive.
Perhaps you are right, David. Having said that, then maybe you shouldn't assume that my explanation of the non-aggression principle is "virtue signaling," eh?
Thank you, David 1964.
Huge leap, C.Phillips.
Fair enough, Sophia. I apologize. What did you mean by your comment?
Every word you write is made up assumptions. You're a troublemaker.
Charles Phillips
Bravo. I might’ve said I am with you, but that was open to misinterpretation.
Terence,
I strive for clarity, but frequently fall short. What part of my comment did you see as needing clarification?
An earlier female author exposed the horror of the experiments our medical and legal establishments are pushing today - Mary Shelley.