Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 11:42 a.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 4 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Yes, mutilating people should be illegal. And mutilating people to get them to conform to an oppressive system (gender) is not resistance--it's complete accommodation to that unjust system. Would letting people chose their race or class be any kind of answer to racism or capitalism? Gender is not a "binary," it's a hierarchy that needs to be dismantled until the categories have no meaning. Just like race and class. And what the medical establishment--egged on by the "trans" lobby--is doing to children is appalling. Literally, it's medical experimentation that permanently sterilizes children. We were supposed to have learned something from the history of the eugenics movement and Nazi Germany. People, please think past the current trendiness of this insanity. Drugs and surgery are not an answer to an oppressive social condition. Gender needs to be dismantled, NOT conformed to, Best website if you want more information: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/
But isn't it a personal decision? My point is, we have to be sensitive to taking away ANY personal freedoms. If we target personal freedoms of the 1%, might we lose personal freedoms of our own in that process?
Godwin's Law sadly proven once more.
It is good that you're asking the question, "who benefits?" from transgenderism. For people who have surgery or take hormones, the medical establishment definitely benefits. Does turning a man's penis inward really make him a woman, with the life experiences since day zero that go along with it? I think not. I love to see men who are not stereotypically manly and woman who break out of the confines of femininity, but who are still willing to fight for the oppressed class--women. Gender is not a spectrum, because it is not something that you can play around with anymore than a while person can "play" a black individual or an American Indian. Just because you WANT to be the opposite gender doesn't mean you ever will. And I think deep down, trans people know that.
I really agree with "Catsanddogs."
Yes, theoretically everyone should do what they want "if it doesn't hurt anyone." But the "trans" movement is hurting plenty. And it is like a cult. People can't change sex any more than they can change race because "they feel like it."
Why is it just assumed and said that "trans are a "marginalized" group and "oppressed minority?" It's not true. If anyone dares to think about the issue and questions even a little bit the cult lines and myths, they are shouted at, censored, and given death and mutilation threats.
The men claiming to be women are appropriating the identity of those they oppress. They don't have a clue what being female is, if you ask them or read or listen to them. It's all about fetishizing, pornifying, and appropriating us. They have gotten into power positions in the Lesbian community, are re-writing our history, and trying to destroy the tiny bit of remaining female-only space, including getting access to women's restrooms and be allowed into women's prisons. And 80% of these men aren't having surgery, but are still trying to get laws passed so they are considered female.
They are also appropriating Intersex people too, by falsely identifying with them.
The "trans" movement is so a right wing that in fundamentalist Iran, the government pays for "sex change" operations while executing Lesbians and Gay men.
"Transphobia" is a myth, but is used as a charge against anyone who feels oppressed by those identifying as "trans." That charge completely stops discussion and thinking. You don't want to hear someone speak who has just been called a "bigot," do you? So, in this case, the privileged silence those they are harming.
If it was just someone's choice to mutilate themselves, the liberal position of "it's their body" would make sense. But they are appropriating the identity of an oppressed group and harming us on many levels. These men are actually raising the statistics of "violence committed by women," because so many of them commit violent crimes. And yes, they are trying to get as many young children as possible to start having surgery and taking drugs.
Would those who support women's identity being appropriated support surgery and drugs for "race" or "species" changes?
(I am only talking about men claiming our identity here. The issue of women claiming to be men is more complicated. I have an article about both at my blog.)
I really agree with "Catsanddogs."
Yes, theoretically everyone should do what they want "if it doesn't hurt anyone." But the "trans" movement is hurting plenty. And it is like a cult. People can't change sex any more than they can change race because "they feel like it."
Why is it just assumed and said that "trans are a "marginalized" group and "oppressed minority?" It's not true. If anyone dares to think about the issue and questions even a little bit the cult lines and myths, they are shouted at, censored, and given death and mutilation threats.
The men claiming to be women are appropriating the identity of those they oppress. They don't have a clue what being female is, if you ask them or read or listen to them. It's all about fetishizing, pornifying, and appropriating us. They have gotten into power positions in the Lesbian community, are re-writing our history, and trying to destroy the tiny bit of remaining female-only space, including getting access to women's restrooms and be allowed into women's prisons. And 80% of these men aren't having surgery, but are still trying to get laws passed so they are considered female.
They are also appropriating Intersex people too, by falsely identifying with them.
The "trans" movement is so a right wing that in fundamentalist Iran, the government pays for "sex change" operations while executing Lesbians and Gay men.
"Transphobia" is a myth, but is used as a charge against anyone who feels oppressed by those identifying as "trans." That charge completely stops discussion and thinking. You don't want to hear someone speak who has just been called a "bigot," do you? So, in this case, the privileged silence those they are harming.
If it was just someone's choice to mutilate themselves, the liberal position of "it's their body" would make sense. But they are appropriating the identity of an oppressed group and harming us on many levels. These men are actually raising the statistics of "violence committed by women," because so many of them commit violent crimes. And yes, they are trying to get as many young children as possible to start having surgery and taking drugs.
Would those who support women's identity being appropriated support surgery and drugs for "race" or "species" changes?
(I am talking about men claiming our identity. The issue of women claiming to be men would take too long to answer here, but I have in an article at my blog.
That's the most ridiculous and fallacious argument I have read on this forum. Bravissimo! You win the Nonsense Cup.
I second you motion!
It was sorta meant to be that way to open a discussion. The point is - are we setting ourselves up to consider taking away personal liberties just to "get the 1%ers"? I read so much hate and desperation that I fear people will sacrifice their own liberties in the process.
There's no need to specifically target the transgendered to make that point.
I'm not bashing anyone. I'm fine with the procedures. It was just an example of a cosmetic procedure that transfers wealth. I guess I could have brought up Breast Implants instead. It's beside the point - would we be willing to give up personal freedoms to affect the 1%?
You're questioning whether or not the transgendered should have a legal right to get sex changes. If that's beside your point, then it shouldn't be the only focus of your title. Why don't you change it to "Should Jews have a right to perform circumcisions." Jews are already being bashed around here, so there's no need to bash another minority. Use the same punching bag that all the other trolls are using.
I think it's healthy to remember that we all have aspects of our lives that could be targeted by someone. I think I should start a new thread with a different personal freedom example. This one is getting off track. Maybe you could start a new one for us. You are much better with words. I always look for your posts because they are interesting and tend to be non-biased.
The main idea your post is good, it's your title that targets much too strongly a particular minority in society. You should have given an example of a personal liberty that applies to everyone and which isn't taboo in any way. You threw everyone off with the presentation of your argument. Now that I understand your point, it does make sense. Using punchy titles is good, but your argument can't be hidden so far behind.
Personally, I don't believe we should limit how much money someone can make. This seems counter-productive. The problem in America is not that some people are rich, it's that money is intertwined with politics so tightly that it's inevitable that corruption takes place. It's not because Bill Gates is rich that your bank is engaging in dubious activities. It's because the whole system is rusted with a thick coat of corruption. If someone gets rich legitimately because of hard work or good ideas, by all means let him get rich. Making money is a major motivation for some people. It's what fueled so many inventions in the US.
Why are you posing this question here? What does this possibly have to do with OWS?
We could outlaw the medical practice of mutilation but then we'd also have to outlaw all aesthetically based plastic surgery.
Agree. I am never for limiting personal freedoms. Isn't starting a company and earning as much profit as the market will bear a personal freedom also?
Well if it's not then we're not "free." One cannot be free if the desire to live, through means of economic logic, is suppressed.
Agreed. That's why I think OWS has good intentions but is chasing the wrong beast.
all women being treated for breast cancer, should stop treatment, this will also stop transfer of wealth,and makes as much sense , that is lack of sense'
It's not so much that people dont have the right to be rich. We live in a world that insists on using a monetary system, so of course people have the right to make money. But they shouldnt take advantage of those who are not rich. They shouldnt seek power and control over others. Actors and musicians for example, can be rich, but they dont lobby for self interests, they dont dictate or seek to influence or control financial or governmental policy to suit their needs, they don't play the system 'cause they know how it works from the inside (wall street & bankers), and they dont take advantage of their fans the way banks and other big financial institutions take advantage of the general public. That's the difference between the 1% and the rest of the rich folk out there.
This is by far the stupidest question I have ever heard. It's like asking whether or not cancer treatments should be illegal. Do you think people are having sex changes for the fun of it??? That's it's somehow the same as buying an overpriced SUV? Sex changes are for the sole purpose of aligning a person's physical sexual characteristics with their gender, which is not physical but rather emotional. I am amazed at how many people confuse sex and gender.
A Daily Kos, we have a "Stupid Article Thursdays". Is there a similar thing here?
This topic does not belong on this forum. There are many other forums on the internet that you can pose this question to.
No, but Toshiba should be.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/something-to-think-about-part-2/
The Revolution starts here!
First and foremost it benefits the transexual person, doesn´t it?
Why ask this question? It's none of anybody's business what people do with their lives as long as they're not hurting anyone.
of course it should be legal. It just shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer.
why does it matter? A person is in charge of their own body, let them do what they want
I agree but wouldnt the use of drugs fall into the same category?
no, not at all because with drugs, there is the potential that they may do harm to more than just themselves. Take drug wars for example.
Doesn't alcohol pose that threat? Would the drug wars exist if drugs were legalized like alcohol?
it is not just drug wars, drugs can completely cause an overhaul of your entire personality, Alcohol can to however Alcohol is more controllable and is not nearly as much of a threat as drugs. and there are alcoholic actions that are illegal. There is a reason why there is an age restriction for alcohol, the older you are, the more likely you are to be able to control yourself while consuming. Drugs, you don't really get that option. Trust me, I've have enough drugs in the hospital to know the difference.
As I recovering alcoholic, 2 1/2 years sober I'm not so sure. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think alcohol is really any different.
Try recovering from Drugs, my Uncle is having a much harder time than cousin did with Alcohol, not to mention the other massive issues the drugs caused my uncle
Alcohol is highly addictive and the withdrawal from alcohol is about the worst and most dangerous there is. Including heroin withdrawal.
Benzodiazapene withdrawal is pretty bad too. Legal by Rx. Again, worse than heroin.
Benzo withdrawal is not at all worse than heroin. Please don't exaggerate. In doing so, you minimize the effects of heroin. I've seen people try to get off heroin and it's not a pretty sight. I've also lost a loved one to it.
I have gone on and off of benzodiazapines several times in the last decade. The difficulty getting to sleep for a couple of nights that I experienced is nothing compared to the hell heroin addicts go through when they attempt to quit. I have never heard anyone else say that benzos were anywhere near as bad to quit as heroin, though some do have more difficulty with it than I do.
There are medical references that say it is. Heroin w/d is no walk in the park but benzo withdrawal can be quite dangerous just as alcohol withdrawal can.
I've never experienced either one myself but I've observed both.
I also know first hand the advice that doctors give patients who are addicted to either one of these substances.
Withdrawal from SSNRI's like Cymbalta can be worse than heroin. Some people have to open up the capsules to lower their doses one granule at a time in order to get off them safely. The FDA approves use of these drugs for serious depression and anxiety disorders but doctors are increasingly pushing them on patients for all sorts of things. The way they work is similar to ecstasy. If one misses a dose in 5 hours they can start feeling withdrawal symptoms
People sometimes confuse these with benzos so maybe that is what they were talking about.
How about we work on changing the pharmaceutical, medical and psychiatric/mental health establishment to keep medical and psychological treatment affordable and ethical- check out http://www.ourcollectivementalhealth.org
Anyone?
we are 50 years away from being able to do a sex change with a shot in the arm. As nano tech goes mainstream, it will no longer be a question of what sex you wish to be; but only a question of whether or not you wish to create a designer body fresh from your imagination.
Should we make a second thumb on each hand illegal or not? should we make it illegal for men to give themselves secondary vestigal vaginas? Never mind sex changes, what about technological hermaphrodistism?
should we be allowed to give ourselves tails? eagles vision? Dogs sense of smell? Bat echolation sonar? Neuron Jacks?
Backward pointing sixth toes?
Get real. This is a ludicrous wedge issue, and when the upcoming technologies hit, "sex change" will be the smallest of ethical issues.
Get money out of politics, reinstate Glass Steagall, get rid of too big to fail banks - what does any of this have to do with your truly inane posting?
If you wanna troll, you gotta do better.
Look up RichardGayTits and take lessons.
Fine. Let's use one of your examples. If I want to contribute my life savings to a political campaign, shouldn't I be free to do so? My original silly point was an example of one freedom that "could" be sacrificed to affect the 1%. My point is to be careful about what freedoms get sacrificed in this whole "get the 1%" crusade.
It's a valid point. But why do you have to take a hypothetical swipe at a marginalized group to make that point? And the way you do it is a bit of stretch, anyway. Not the best example.
Now, why shouldn't you be able to you your life savings to get a candidate elected.
Money in politics fucks with the concept of one person, one vote. Does that make sense? You may not agree, but can you understand why I'd say that?
Each of us has the right to vote. 3/5ths of a person was amended out of the Constitution, we are all exactly 1.0 person now. If you're a billionaire, you shouldn't have any more influence in who gets elected than I do.
Ummm, it's still one vote with or without campaign contributions. You can't purchase the ability to vote more than once.
It's a matter of undue influence. Bribery is illegal. Do you think it should be legal?
After all, if you want to be completely free, you should be able to buy policticians and police off if you have the money to do so.
See where that leads?
In fact, right now, I'd like to know how it is legal for NYC to allow big companies to buy police officers @ 37 dollars per hour in the "Paid Detail Unit" when Joe Schmoe the private citizen cannot do the same.
Not to mention, making 4.6 million dollar "donations" to the NYPD proper (not the union).
That should be illegal. It is called graft, bribery, corruption, influence peddling/influence purchasing.
Its your body you should be able to do what you want with it.
I agree but that extends to many levels. What about drugs?
Drugs, for the most part, should be legal. Buying the influence of an elected official or one running for office shouldn't be.
Drugs can cause harm to others, just just the person using them
So can alcohol but I don't do either.
yes but it takes a lot more alcohol to do what drugs did to my uncle.
Was what happened to your uncle his fault?
Personally I feel that drugs should be legalized and that you should be held accountable for any type of rage you go into when on them. To be honest most of the people at my school only smoke marijuana because its illegal
I don't do drugs but I have before. Anytime you make something illegal you create a black market for it.
That part of my reasoning. Personally, if someone says I can't do something I want to do it more. Its like in elementary school. When you ask someone if they are ticklish and they say no you want to try to find out or if they say yes but don't tickle me you want to.
I believe people "deserve" to be rich, as long as they haven't hurt other people or the environment ,to get their money.
People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
When you have the rich, who don't have compassion for their fellow man and let them die because they don't have health care, then in my opinion, they are hurting other people.
But being free goes both ways. You are free to help others in need if you choose to. You can only "force" greedy people to help others by threat. Do we resort to that?
No, I'm not suggesting that. But, I believe if they stay greedy in this environment, they will do it at their own peril.
Ridiculous. I in no way agree with the idea of sex change but I even more disagree with the idea of government stepping into our private lives and ultimately deciding on how to live our lives. So long as the individual is 18 or older he/she should be able to do whatever he/she/it likes so long as it does not bring harm or disrupt the peace.
I agree. You missed the point though. What personal freedoms are we willing to give up to affect the 1%?
We give up personal freedoms to at least minimal extent everytime we dedicate our time, talent and knowledge to any given cause. Whether it be a job or a movement. I have too many responsibilities, too many dependants I care for to give up my time for anything that does not produce a form of income.
Only if you did not enjoy sex with Chastity Bono.
The only thing that should be illegal about it is when tax payers are forced to pay for it.
Agreed. My point is to be careful about what you give up just to try to get at the 1%.
personally, im not against people deserving to be rich. i mean, if you own a business or have a money making idea, you do deserve to make money. thats part of the american way. they dont deserve to have 5 billion $ sitting in the bank, not going around the economy, but they deserve to be ''rich''
So should we set a limit on what you can save and force people to spend the rest? Will we give up personal freedoms in the process?
i think that when your making billions of dollars there should be somthing saying you cant pay your employees shit on a dick and keep destroying your country's economy
If I weren't happy with my pay, I would find a different a different job.
in an economy like this? you act like were in an economy where there arent 100 people applying for the same job
Your argument is nonsensical. For people to change their sex, that's a personal decision that mostly affects them. When people are rich, it affects everyone, including the people that worked very hard to make that person rich, (because no one can become rich by themselves), and including the people that labor for that person, making goods. It's a sophisticated form of modern slavery.
I never said I was against it but the process does involve a transfer of wealth to the 1%ers. As far as the personal decision, I agree. But isn't it also a personal decision to start a company and profit from it?
Ok, so what you're saying is that people who perform labor shouldn't have money taken from them? I agree, but that's what happens in every single company these days. But I guess the 1 percent invested in the equipment to do the procedure, so in some way, they invested and are making profits.
Stop. You're digging your own grave. Delete this posting for logic's sake.
I think Chaz bono is the 1% and had a sex change operation, to answer your question yes it should be beaten with a broom handle til it expires
That seems a bit harsh.
Hey those evil 1% took my money somehow, I don't know how, but they did, Chaz bono itself took my money to turn itself into a thing with man parts. It took that money by being born a 1%er and I'm not talking about it's mom's biker buddies in Mask