RB vs. the World: Trangenderism (split from Policy Change thread)

[redbaron]

It's not related solely to you, but your words in a best case scenario were still repulsive and wrong. Worst case they were potentially very hurtful.

That's even removing the 'fucked up' comment. Maybe reflect on that and consider why we would prefer you to actually back up your opinions with something tangible before sharing them.

 

[QuickTwist]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

It's not related solely to you, but your words in a best case scenario were still repulsive and wrong. Worst case they were potentially very hurtful.

That's even removing the 'fucked up' comment. Maybe reflect on that and consider why we would prefer you to actually back up your opinions with something tangible before sharing them.

Why do I feel like its your job to "put me in my place"?

You are def not going to garner any sympathy from me if your sole purpose is to tell me how wrong I am.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I have to say though - how do people get this hysterical about that "fucked up" line from QT? I'm sure one can read all kinds of things into it, but come on... Why this intense, selective sensitivity about it

The rest of that thread was just people using a lot of energy telling QT how stupid and ignorant he is, while adding next to nothing to the subject matter

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I have to say though - how do people get this hysterical about that "fucked up" line from QT? I'm sure one can read all kinds of things into it, but come on... Why this intense, selective sensitivity about it

The rest of that thread was just people using a lot of energy telling QT how stupid and ignorant he is, while adding next to nothing to the subject matter

Are you trans or do you have close trans friends?

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

In any case there's really no reason this policy will be a problem and it's not going to be hard either to follow or enforce.

Sure, I am more concerned that you will abuse it by dictating what consitutes evidence. I do recall asking you for information while you threatened me first thing whithout first exploring why I have the opinion I have and what I based it on.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Sure, I am more concerned that you will abuse it by dictating what consitutes evidence. I do recall asking you for information while you threatened me first thing whithout first exploring why I have the opinion I have and what I based it on.

When pretty much all evidence that isn't reported by fundamentalist religious institutes dressed up in science pants is pointing to the fact that there's a biological basis (or strong correlation) for being transgender, then at some point yes, I wonder what kind of evidence people are going off when they start devaluing trans people and insisting that they're just somehow 'incorrect' or 'confused'.

The reason you have the opinion you have is quite simply, because you're ignorant about this issue. You can choose to be less ignorant or to continue to be ignorant, and if you continue being ignorant and arguing about it you'll probably get banned - because in this case, your right to be an ignorant bigot does not outweigh the potential damage and hurt that is so often caused by it.

And just to beat anyone to the punch:

Yes, I'm taking an official stance as a moderator that I'm intolerant of the sort of views that have been expressed as of late, because those views are intolerant.

It's not bigoted to be intolerant of...intolerance. At least in this portion of the internet, I'd quite like people of all races, genders and sexual orientations to be welcome to be whatever they want to be, and free of the toxic shit they endure on a daily basis at least in this one small part of The Interwebs™.

We have a lot of atypical characters here, and I think the place is better for it. So if I have to choose between removing the people who make them unwelcome, or removing the ignorant people making them feel unwelcome, I know which choice I'm making.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

When pretty much all evidence that isn't reported by fundamentalist religious institutes dressed up in science pants is pointing to the fact that there's a biological basis (or strong correlation) for being transgender, then at some point yes, I wonder what kind of evidence people are going off when they start devaluing trans people and insisting that they're just somehow 'incorrect' or 'confused'.

The reason you have the opinion you have is quite simply, because you're ignorant about this issue. You can choose to be less ignorant or to continue to be ignorant, and if you continue being ignorant and arguing about it you'll probably get banned - because in this case, your right to be an ignorant bigot does not outweigh the potential damage and hurt that is so often caused by it.

Now you only defend your position which only points out that you have no intention of keeping an open mind first, ask questions, explore before you regard the individual automatically as ignorant. This is toxic behavior that prevents discussion from occurring that could have otherwise eliminated ignorance.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Sorry Grayman but can you specify at what point you held the intention of keeping an open mind, asking questions of trans people and exploring them as individuals before spouting your ignorant beliefs?

Like I said, it isn't bigoted to be intolerant of other people being intolerant. Improve as a person or get banned. I don't really care which.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Are you trans or do you have close trans friends?

If you are the expert on the subject then I suggest start spreading this knowledge, as opposed to just trying to belittle people every time they say anything on the matter.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

If you are the expert on the subject then I suggest start spreading this knowledge, as opposed to just trying to belittle people every time they say anything on the matter.

There's been quite a few people who've weighed in that I haven't 'belittled'. So clearly my issue is not with people saying 'anything', but rather saying ignorant and hurtful things on the matter.

I've also shared the commonly accepted expert consensus that being transgender has a basis in biology. I actually linked to I think five separate studies in Reluctantly's thread, and in the past in discussions on this I've shared many more and gone into greater depth about the issue.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

There's been quite a few people who've weighed in that I haven't 'belittled'. So clearly my issue is not with people saying 'anything', but rather saying ignorant and hurtful things on the matter.

I've also shared the commonly accepted expert consensus that being transgender has a basis in biology. I actually linked to I think five separate studies in Reluctantly's thread, and in the past in discussions on this I've shared many more and gone into greater depth about the issue.

The articles you linked to, btw, showed that there are brain differences. There are clear anatomical brain differences between taxi drivers and regular people as well, however. The brain changes can appear after someone decides to go transgender. I believe this point was even made in the articles you linked to.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Sorry Grayman but can you specify at what point you held the intention of keeping an open mind, asking questions of trans people and exploring them as individuals before spouting your ignorant beliefs?

Like I said, it isn't bigoted to be intolerant of other people being intolerant. Improve as a person or get banned. I don't really care which.

2015 example:
https://www.infjs.com/threads/agender-cannot-relate-to-gender-identity.29975/#post-820460

I have tried to ask around and get information with real people as well as look at articles and watch videos. There is a lot of data and it can be difficult to pick out the misinformation. Many of the articles you listed indicated 'studies that may lead to proof' and not proof itself but the combined evidence of the various studies does suggested something is there. The most convincing story is the boy who they tried to make a girl but later he claimed he was a boy even though he was brought up a girl. There are also studies that show that men's and women's brains are different.

In any case the thread wasn't about proving whether transgenders are right in the belief about their gender. The thread, and i suggest you go back and read it, was about why people have issues believing transgenders claims. I haven't been going around spreading my ignorant opinions or trolling transgenders or calling them he/she irregardless of their prefered sex just to piss them off. I do not vote in regards to transgender issues because I have yet to learn enough about it.

I cannot recognize the concept of 'gender identity' existing within myself. Consequently I cannot understand through experience. It is like trying to explain to a blind man 'the color red' vs 'the color blue'. To state that there exists something within me that I cannot see would require a highly substantial amount of evidence. I still have more to read about it but the first scientific link you provided contains a lot of experiments "that may/probably/might prove" that gender identity is real. Have those test came out with more positive results? IDK I posted the question on another forum and received absolute silence. Science may be able to disprove what to me, looking within myself, is observably untrue. If I could find white papers on the gray/white matter tests that show the existence of the 'transgender brain' that has a average ratio of male to female white/gray matter brain that is peer reviewed has more tests.
See questions: https://www.infjs.com/threads/scien...egards-to-gender-identity.34263/#post-1022176

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

You very clearly stated that transgender isn't a thing, it's a result of someone misunderstanding that they're actually a man or a woman.

Therefore:

Once you provide a shred of evidence for your beliefs, then we can have a conversation about whether that evidence holds water. I'll talk to you then o/

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

The articles you linked to, btw, showed that there are brain differences. There are clear anatomical brain differences between taxi drivers and regular people as well, however. The brain changes can appear after someone decides to go transgender. I believe this point was even made in the articles you linked to.

The question here is: if a person of normative gender who just genuinely wants to understand what transgender is: why the fuck would they start making someone on the internet jump through 27 arbitrary hoops just to find out this information?

If such a person actually gave a shit and was genuinely curious, they'd just be reading and compiling evidence of their own and understanding it. Not having a pissing contest at the expense of every trans person unfortunate enough to witness their steaming ignorance.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I cannot recognize the concept of 'gender identity' existing within myself. Consequently I cannot understand through experience. It is like trying to explain to a blind man 'the color red' vs 'the color blue'. To state that there exists something within me that I cannot see would require a highly substantial amount of evidence.

Which brings us back to Reluctantly's point that people who have a problem with transgender are simply people who can't understand and aren't willing to entertain that perhaps a reality exists outside of their own limited views, now doesn't it?

Moreover, how about you do the research and then present your findings here when you're done rather than continue to say ignorant things on the topic? Thanks.

Even if you can't understand it, that doesn't mean transgender people are wrong - simply different.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

You very clearly stated that transgender isn't a thing, it's a result of someone misunderstanding that they're actually a man or a woman.

Therefore:

Yes, in science a thing doesn't exist until you can prove it to exist. Many people people believe in God and even claim to haveexperience him. I denounced that pattern of thought in favor of emperical evidence. Transgender identy should require the same. So, you seem to care about about transgenders and claim to have a full understanding so maybe you can explaine where I whent wrong on my studies of the document you linked and can answer my questions in INFJs that I linked.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Like I said if you actually cared, you'd be researching it yourself instead of making strangers on the internet jump through hoops for you.

This thread wasn't even explicitly about that, so that's enough for now.

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319144/
http://www.ozy.com/pov/check-the-science-being-trans-is-not-a-choice/69726
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-the-science-of-gender-identity-idUSKBN1AJ0F0
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

All this from a 10 second Google Search: "evidence for transgender"

I haven't combed any of this stuff yet, because I frankly don't really care what conclusions it brings. The current level of your understanding is close to zero, so anything helps at this point I'm sure. Get more informed, then speak. Otherwise, drop this topic. I'm serious.

That you can't understand someone doesn't give you the room to invalidate them. You probably can't understand a schizophrenic either, and you probably don't go around insulting them for their condition just because the mechanisms are poorly understood and in your own mind it's difficult to grasp (well, maybe you do) - so don't do it for transgender people either.

Your issue seems primarily to be with how I've treated you, so if you have a problem with that feel free to bring it up with me and disconnect it from this transgender topic.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Like I said if you actually cared, you'd be researching it yourself instead of making strangers on the internet jump through hoops for you.

This thread wasn't even explicitly about that, so that's enough for now.

So you are only pretending to know. If you knew you wouldn't need to research. You compare me to a flat earther and call meignorant but you don't actually know anything; hence you have to research it. Got it thanks.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I literally said that transgender has a basis in biology, prenatal hormone exposure and brain structure being two major things.

And your response basically amounts to, "but I can't understand it because I'm not trans". Again, if you actually cared you'd be looking up these things instead of asking people on the internet to spoon-feed you years of neuroscience and biological research.

Uhh and yes, I tend to often do research and try to understand issues through having an up to date understanding of scientific research. I guess that's where we differ, since you apparently stop at "well I can't seem to figure it out in my head so therefore transgender doesn't exist and they are just confused!"

 

[washti]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Smokes and mirrors.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Can someone give me a tldr version of this drama..

 

[Black Rose]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Like I said if you actually cared, you'd be researching it yourself instead of making strangers on the internet jump through hoops for you.

This thread wasn't even explicitly about that, so that's enough for now.

Here you go:

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5319144/
http://www.ozy.com/pov/check-the-science-being-trans-is-not-a-choice/69726
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-the-science-of-gender-identity-idUSKBN1AJ0F0
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

All this from a 10 second Google Search: "evidence for transgender"

I haven't combed any of this stuff yet, because I frankly don't really care what conclusions it brings. The current level of your understanding is close to zero, so anything helps at this point I'm sure. Get more informed, then speak. Otherwise, drop this topic. I'm serious.

That you can't understand someone doesn't give you the room to invalidate them. You probably can't understand a schizophrenic either, and you probably don't go around insulting them for their condition just because the mechanisms are poorly understood and in your own mind it's difficult to grasp (well, maybe you do) - so don't do it for transgender people either.

Your issue seems primarily to be with how I've treated you, so if you have a problem with that feel free to bring it up with me and disconnect it from this transgender topic.

If the links you provided would have a positive effect on changing another person's mind, I would think that jumping through hoops would be worth it rather than insulting people for not using Google. The point is to make them understand not criticise them for being ill-informed. The opinions people have may not be as extensive in the knowledge of the subject in question (trans) but that is not an intentional condemnation of trans people. Your who argument is: Stop spreading your hurtful ignorant bullshit, do research then you will be qualified to discuss this subject.

My approach is that if I am wrong on any subject I will not prevent myself from voicing my opinion. I will respond to any criticism I receive even if I have negative responses from others. The point of making a thread is to receive feedback, that way the person can adjust their beliefs. The intentionality of questions most times comes from Ignorance, that is why statements are made questioning things. To think that before questions are asked that they must be heavily researched is too high a standard. You cannot force people to be less ignorant by constantly telling them that is what they are. Think of teenagers that do not know everything and may not be that good at research.

The only way to change a persons mind is by meaningful dialog and sound argumentive asursions. To fill in the gaps of what they don't know and the implications.

Get more informed, then speak. Otherwise, drop this topic. I'm serious.

This could be said of any topic so in essence no one is allowed to discuss subjects to learn more. I believe a person can speak on any subject no matter what level of understanding is at because what I believe about your approach Red Baron is that antithesis of learning and to suppresses it. Jumping through hoops is much better than the constant whining that people are so ignorant rather than fixing that ignorance at the beginning. The sensitivity of this issue may not allow it but at least we now have the links to properly understand trans people after all that drama.

 

[Pyropyro]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Can you? Because he wasn't. He made explicit statements about trans people here and elsewhere.

I'll admit such an event is a possibility in the future, where someone makes ambiguous statements that could be interpreted as a criticism of a belief or it's adherents. But this case is clear-cut. How can:



Be interpreted as a criticism of an idea? He's clearly making claims about the characteristics attributable to a class of people. It seems bizarre to me that you think you could argue otherwise.

He's talking about the his perspectives about transexuality's origins in that particular thread. It is also why i asked him to look at the anatomical perspective about the thing so that he can see it on his own that his views are wrong.

I exepcted you guys to do the same but no. You went OMG you are so hurful Any other topic then it will either be ignored or answered with a bunch of rationally thought cites and arguments (such as the m iur threads).

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Your problem pyro is that you want to be independent, but are incapable of it. You think you understand yourself, but actually you don't. The expert scientists that say you might know what you're talking about... well I haven't read them and they're just kowtowing to their SJW overlords. It's simple. You're just wrong. The reason I don't like you is that you're more fucked up than I am.

Hear me out!

I once met someone that shares a single categorical facet with you so yeah, I feel pretty confident I've gotten to the root of the issue. There's no need to overcomplicate it. There's no overt sign that you're right that I can see with my own two eyes, so I'll trust myself on this one thankyouverymuch.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I didn't know that the thread I replied to was a reaction of a previous thread. Total mine field.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Yeah, I think you and QT walked into a shitstorm you weren't prepared for. I'm aware both of you probably reacted to RB's aggression. I was having a good chortle to myself when QT apparently didn't think RB was being serious.

 

[Black Rose]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

They desire independence, but don't have the capacity for it.

This brings us back to biological vs psychological. The example Hadoblado makes in post 69 as to the way it can be viewed is a projection on how QT was judging trans people. The message was "I know better because I had this experience with a sing trans person." The whole thing revolves around people becoming angry that QT seems to be acting superior to trans people thus marginalizing them by telling them what they are. QT is not familiar with the biology of trans people and he is limited in his social group involving mental health issues. The message sounded judgmental and felt like it was condescending from a person with a sense of superiority.

If we can separate what the message seems to be from what it projects and look at the reason QT wrote the message it can be seen that the intentions behind it were not a superiority complex nor to marginalize a group by saying QT knows better than trans people. Then and this is what I think happened. Is that QT has been to many therapy sessions and is isolated much of his time. He was expressing himself in a way that I would not say is normal. It was an attempt to seek clarification but the way he thinks is not socially acceptable(by interpretations). I believe he said he was schizotypal. Hadoblado interpretive summary in post 69 is something QT did not see the implications or its interpretations. QT thought he was just figuring out a problem and that the logic of it made sense.

If you do not get how isolated he is due to his mental illness are familiar with his past posts trying to find logical answers, then you will miss the reasons his message was so offensive. QuickTwist does not think he is superior to trans people nor is he telling them who or what they are. His unfamiliarity with medical and cultural understandings or trans people lead him to certain conclusions. He has changed his mind about what he originally thought was the cause of transsexuality. He said that to redbaron. The mistake is to read into his original thread post an intentional demeaning of trans people.

My final point is that schizotypical as I have seen several of QT's videos reinforces my disagreement that Hadoblado interpretive summary in post 69 accurately represents the kind of person he is nor the way he thinks. (I mean nothing negative towards Hadoblado)

Your problem pyro is that you want to be independent, but are incapable of it. You think you understand yourself, but actually you don't. The expert scientists that say you might know what you're talking about... well I haven't read them and they're just kowtowing to their SJW overlords. It's simple. You're just wrong. The reason I don't like you is that you're more fucked up than I am.

Hear me out!

I once met someone that shares a single categorical facet with you so yeah, I feel pretty confident I've gotten to the root of the issue. There's no need to overcomplicate it. There's no overt sign that you're right that I can see with my own two eyes, so I'll trust myself on this one thankyouverymuch.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

@AK
It was actually an amalgamation of Gray's and QT's posts. You really seem to want to defend QT, which is fine. But my focus is not on QT, outside of the relevance it holds to moving forward. 69 was to demonstrate that there was nothing about what happened that could be mistaken as 'criticism of an idea'.

I honestly think QT is getting punished well beyond the extent of his faux pas, but it's necessary in order for the forum to develop. I imagine it's pretty unpleasant for him, but think he will be better for it once all is said and done.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Ad-homs are cool as long as one is on the right side of history, amiright, folks?

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Gopher you're welcome to actually try and find a credible source refuting that transgender is biological in basis. It's not like I haven't looked and I just pick the evidence I want, it's all either funded by religious fundamentalists or is very outdated and not corroborated with new evidence.

By all means, google "evidence against transgender" and see what comes up.

But also, I'm not the one here trying to push an agenda that can potentially harm people or making arguments that invalidate what trans people go through.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Gopher you're welcome to actually try and find a credible source refuting that transgender is biological in basis. It's not like I haven't looked and I just pick the evidence I want, it's all either funded by religious fundamentalists or is very outdated and not corroborated with new evidence.

By all means, google "evidence against transgender" and see what comes up.

But also, I'm not the one here trying to push an agenda that can potentially harm people or making arguments that invalidate what trans people go through.

You are actually pushing an agenda that can potentially harm people. E.g. that transgenderism is biologically determined. If that is wrong, it is obvious this can be harmful. I haven't seen you providing any good argument/evidence for this claim (apart from linking to random pop-science news articles and blogs off the top of a google search)

 

[The Gopher]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Gopher you're welcome to actually try and find a credible source refuting that transgender is biological in basis. It's not like I haven't looked and I just pick the evidence I want, it's all either funded by religious fundamentalists or is very outdated and not corroborated with new evidence.

By all means, google "evidence against transgender" and see what comes up.

But also, I'm not the one here trying to push an agenda that can potentially harm people or making arguments that invalidate what trans people go through.

Why? I don't have a dog in that fight. I'm merely pointing out that the way you phrase the search will influence the results predominately one way making whatever bias the searcher has affirmed. I did, out of curiosity. Neither am I?

Just to be obvious. Since it seems I've somehow been connected to people against transgender people. Despite not being involved in the last thread and only referencing it here as an example based off the current argument. I have nothing against transgender people. I've spent the majority of my life wishing I was female and I'm very comfortably bisexual at this point.

Now personally I don't care if my sexuality is inherent or not it doesn't matter to me. However I understand it matters to others and I haven't done the research to make a claim one way or the other. I am merely discussing the issues I have with the policy "Change" since it appears to be open for abuse in it's current state.

Edit: In fact thinking about it this is part of my problem. If you can't read and correctly understand what I'm saying either due to my inability to translate my thoughts accurately or your inability to separate the views of people who happen to agree on one thing for very different reasons. (or both) Why should I be happy with you having the power to make those kind of judgement calls?

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

You are actually pushing an agenda that can potentially harm people. E.g. that transgenderism is biologically determined. If that is wrong, it is obvious this can be harmful. I haven't seen you providing any good argument/evidence for this claim (apart from linking to random pop-science news articles and blogs off the top of a google search)

lol is this real

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Gopher have you even fucking read the threads being referred to, because we literally just had people making those kinds of arguments.

Legit is this even real? As if we have some diabolical criminal masterminds just waiting around to usurp INTPf policies that will somehow lead to the forum's collapse because we aren't allowing people to vilify others based on sex/gender/race.

What the fuck even.

 

[The Gopher]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Gopher have you even fucking read the threads being referred to, because we literally just had people making those kinds of arguments.

Legit is this even real? As if we have some diabolical criminal masterminds just waiting around to usurp INTPf policies that will somehow lead to the forum's collapse because we aren't allowing people to vilify others based on sex/gender/race.

What the fuck even.

No I haven't. I saw the rule, saw potential issues and raised them. What arguments? My arguments? What was your response?

Oh nice a straw man/absurdism. I'm not talking about allowing people to vilify others based on sex/gender/race I am against that, I am just not convinced this method of control is without fault. If you are continually misinterpreting me as someone who's supposed to moderate and read social context that's frustrating. Although to be fair Cavalier was the last person who did that well but they burned out due to it iirc.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

....

"hi there i havent read any of the content that this policy change is aimed to address but im going to tell you why this change wont achieve your goals anyway"

Hey Serac I wonder at what point you think trans people get sick of having to justify their fucking existence to people and decide that actually, they arent gonna just start doing research on their condition for every single person that asks on the internet?

If you actually care to understand trans people, you'd already be reading about it.

 

[The Gopher]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

....

"hi there i havent read any of the content that this policy change is aimed to address but im going to tell you why this change wont achieve your goals anyway"

If you told me there was a policy change to address issues with pink elephants appearing and I happened to notice it also banned Grey elephants I wouldn't need context to realise it was maybe not the best solution.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Never mind, just double down on your ignorance that's fine too.

Should I get the aeroplane noises out while I spoonfeed you next to Serac?

 

[The Gopher]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Never mind, just double down on your ignorance that's fine too.

Should I get the aeroplane noises out while I spoonfeed you next to Serac?

I prefer not to eat shit when I can help it. Just continue to insult me in the normal fashion.

Edit: Just clarifying an above point about context. (in short) There was a thread. Which happened to be on the topic of transgender people a while back when Sinny was still around. Sinny came in and did her ignorant thing but then Jenny corrected her and she started to realise and change and understand. Then CC came in and like went on a flame war with Sinny for the previous points ignoring any and all change in the thread and herself and pushing her to revert into a defensive closed mindset. Sinny was then temp banned.

I feel that banning lacked context and fought against it. However I did fight for her eventual perma-ban because in that case the context seemed against her.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm all for banning that kind of behaviour and having the policy in place when context is understood. However I simply feel that, maybe due to the forum being primarily INTP based some people maybe aren't as socially savvy as they might need to be to pull off this without bias and misunderstanding playing a part.

Due to that I want to extrapolate on how the rule will be enforced to ensure it is done correctly. I am not against the rule in theory I'm against the potential implementation so in order to make sure the forum is a good place to be I wanted clarification. Apparently this makes me a toddler.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

....
Hey Serac I wonder at what point you think trans people get sick of having to justify their fucking existence to people and decide that actually, they arent gonna just start doing research on their condition for every single person that asks on the internet?

If you actually care to understand trans people, you'd already be reading about it.

I have never said a single thing against trans people. You're losing your mind at this point, dude. It's this mindless self-righteousness of yours -- which apparently has convinced you that you get a free pass to call people stupid and ignorant while providing nothing constructive yourself -- that is starting to look pretty idiotic. I don't know if you are too emotional to see the real picture here or what, but once again, if you think you have supplied anything of value to the subject matter, I believe your are fooling yourself. You are not really helping anyone's cause with this shit.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I have never said a single thing against trans people.

They percieve people who argue the 'possibility' of gender disphoria being psychological as apposed to biological as being against transgeders.
RB argued that it invalidates them and hurts their feelings but RB has never shown the capacity for concern of peoples feelings so either this topic is personal for him or he is using it toward some agenda.
Whether it is psychologial or not does not invalidate their experiences it just alters how it should be handled.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Wow,

Anyone with a critical mind can see that there is not 100% conclusive evidence for either argument and it's entirely possible that both sides can have truth. Sometimes people can have a psychological problem and sometimes it can be biological. The only time I've ever found fault is when Grayman, QT, and similar ilk present this idea of the psychological as representative of ALL gender disphoria (whether they think that or not) when there isn't even conclusive proof. And yes, they are just stirring shit when they do that. And yes, the ignorance is mildly antagonizing.

They percieve people who argue the 'possibility' of gender disphoria being psychological as apposed to biological as being against transgeders.
RB argued that it invalidates them and hurts their feelings but RB has never shown the capacity for concern of peoples feelings so either this topic is personal for him or he is using it toward some agenda.
Whether it is psychologial or not does not invalidate their experiences it just alters how it should be handled.

And pleeasee. RB at least looks at the arguments for both sides and comes to his own conclusions. You start all this shit by presenting your one-sided ignorance as fact. And this says SO MUCH about you and VERY LITTLE about transgenders. So at least there is that.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Wow,

Anyone with a critical mind can see that there is not 100% conclusive evidence for either argument and it's entirely possible that both sides can have truth. Sometimes people can have a psychological problem and sometimes it can be biological. The only time I've ever found fault is when Grayman, QT, and similar ilk present this idea of the psychological as representative of ALL gender disphoria (whether they think that or not) when there isn't even conclusive proof. And yes, they are just stirring shit when they do that. And yes, the ignorance is mildly antagonizing.



And pleeasee. RB at least looks at the arguments for both sides and comes to his own conclusions. You start all this shit by presenting your one-sided ignorance as fact. And this says SO MUCH about you and VERY LITTLE about transgenders. So at least there is that.

If you are making the claim that it is biological then supply me wth the data. Something you have read, can support, and stand by. Or the data that was instrumental in convincing you that it is in fact biological. I won't make claim to a specific psychological issue without data but I am not required to believe in something without evidence.

I didn't realize you were setting a trap with that thread. I had thought you were genuinely curious as to why people have issues believing that it is bilogical.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I have never said a single thing against trans people. You're losing your mind at this point, dude. It's this mindless self-righteousness of yours -- which apparently has convinced you that you get a free pass to call people stupid and ignorant while providing nothing constructive yourself -- that is starting to look pretty idiotic. I don't know if you are too emotional to see the real picture here or what, but once again, if you think you have supplied anything of value to the subject matter, I believe your are fooling yourself. You are not really helping anyone's cause with this shit.

Right, you're asking me to paint a robust argument for you, for what? I'm not here to debate the point, I'm here to stop a group of people being slandered and hurt by ignorant vitriol.

Do you care about the trans issue? Because it seems you're just upset that someone actually gives a fuck and is making people at the very least backup their claims before making some potentially very hurtful assumptions.

Trans people live their entire lives just having to justify their existence and worth as humans to everyone else. You can't be honest about what you are without endless unforeseen issues in relationships, friendships, family relations etc. On top of all this, there's no real shortage of people who will tell you why you're trans, none of them really giving anything meaningful. Every interaction about it requires painstaking patience, as people make ignorant assumption after ignorant assumption about you, your life, what you must be like, and at no point do they even stop to listen to what you're saying because remember: if you're trans you have the "problem".

But nah, some guy on the internet who clearly doesn't even give a fuck about the issue and just engages in it to score points of logic or some shit, has now requested that trans people once again, for the 179655285th time in their lives, must provide evidence for the basis of their condition!

Stop the presses.

This man cannot look for the evidence himself, you must forcefeed it into his throat through his unwilling lips and clenched teeth as he sets out to ascertain whether or not he will actually respect you as a person or listen to your views, based on whether or not you're capable of providing enough evidence for your condition: as if somehow these two things are linked.

What you believe about trans people should not be dictated by how robust some guy on a forum can make an argument. If you actually give a shit, do your own reaearch. Like you're sitting here telling me nothing I'm saying is valuable or informative so far, but asking me to go and do reaearch for you?

Obviously your goal here is not to reach an understanding of trans people. Your issue is with me, and you're butthurt that I actually take this issue seriously and don't want to see trans people further vilified on this forum than they already have been, and it somehow impinges "free speech".

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Right, you're asking me to paint a robust argument for you, for what? I'm not here to debate the point, I'm here to stop a group of people being slandered and hurt by ignorant vitriol.

Do you care about the trans issue? Because it seems you're just upset that someone actually gives a fuck and is making people at the very least backup their claims before making some potentially very hurtful assumptions.

Trans people live their entire lives just having to justify their existence and worth as humans to everyone else. You can't be honest about what you are without endless unforeseen issues in relationships, friendships, family relations etc. On top of all this, there's no real shortage of people who will tell you why you're trans, none of them really giving anything meaningful. Every interaction about it requires painstaking patience, as people make ignorant assumption after ignorant assumption about you, your life, what you must be like, and at no point do they even stop to listen to what you're saying because remember: if you're trans you have the "problem".

But nah, some guy on the internet who clearly doesn't even give a fuck about the issue and just engages in it to score points of logic or some shit, has now requested that trans people once again, for the 179655285th time in their lives, must provide evidence for the basis of their condition!

Stop the presses.

This man cannot look for the evidence himself, you must forcefeed it into his throat through his unwilling lips and clenched teeth as he sets out to ascertain whether or not he will actually respect you as a person or listen to your views, based on whether or not you're capable of providing enough evidence for your condition: as if somehow these two things are linked.

What you believe about trans people should not be dictated by how robust some guy on a forum can make an argument. If you actually give a shit, do your own reaearch. Like you're sitting here telling me nothing I'm saying is valuable or informative so far, but asking me to go and do reaearch for you?

Obviously your goal here is not to reach an understanding of trans people. Your issue is with me, and you're butthurt that I actually take this issue seriously and don't want to see trans people further vilified on this forum than they already have been, and it somehow impinges "free speech".

What I'm getting at is that you're behaving in a way that looks more like you're taking pleasure in telling people they are stupid rather than actually informing them how they are wrong. Just saying "you're stupid because you can use google to find evidence for my claims" is pretty ridiculous. If it's a complex issue, which it is, then that will be a fool's errand, and if you are informed on the topic then you should try to shed light on the different aspects of it. There is no point in googling random stuff looking for evidence for this or that proposition. I hope we can agree that's not how actual discussion works.

I'm a neutral observer on the trans issue, just like I imagine you are neutral on the topic of Jews and nazism since you have a swastika in your avatar and allow yourself to be insensitive about that topic. What if there are Jews here who get death threats from neo-nazis or something, and now they log onto intpf to see one of their moderators making a joke out of it? I wouldn't start allocating the bulk of my posts to telling you that you are stupid over and over if I had a stake in that issue though. That would amount to me not taking the issue seriously.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

I know Jewish people that laugh at this joke, but if I thought any were seriously offended I'd gladly remove it and I wouldn't be telling them they can't be offended either.

Just like I don't expect people to make sweeping comments about trans people and then act as if it isn't offensive.

I don't really care how stupid anyone thinks I am either, because anyone who thinks my points are stupid clearly isn't trans or is close to and knows some trans people as good friends.

People who think I'm being "stupid" are more likely than not, simply ignorant of the issue. Who am I offending here? You mean the people making ignorant and marginalizing statements feel uncomfortable? Well that's the point - it's not okay to say that shit unfounded.

I'm sorry you find me "stupid" as a result of your ignorance. Feel free to be less ignorant any time.

 

[redbaron]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Thanks for clearing up though that you actually don't give a shit about the trans issue, and are kicking up a fuss at the expense of any trans people in order to tone-police someone on the internet.

Fuckin' A man, you're a true hero. You scored one for the....for the...wait no one cares.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

the trans issue

What. The. Fuck.

Issue? ISSUE? Are you implying that my existence as trans woman is a fucking issue?
You better edit that post ASAP or I sear to almighty God I'll uninvert my dick and slap you across your face with it.

Issue....fucking hell.

 

[Black Rose]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Just like I don't expect people to make sweeping comments about trans people and then act as if it isn't offensive.

Gopher said Quick twist made his statement because he was an idiot that did not know how offensive it would be to make them. It is a purely psychological explanation of transsexuality and it is wrong as to why trans people are they way they are. Red Baron seems the most triggered by all this. He says that trans people do not have to justify who they are. The sounds reasonable. So I have not had to make responses to Red Baron before. It is much like Sinny saying she did not have to explain to Red Baron her actions on the forum. I am sure QuickTwist has changed his mind on trans people.

I am sure Red Baron will continue to need no justification to call people stupid and ignorant. I am sure Red Baron has friends that are trans, on the forum and elsewhere. The issue is near to him. And if I can say something myself. All this stems from Gopher conception of calling QuickTwist an idiot. I do not want to use that word in reference to QT. Hadoblado says I am defending QT and so I need to explain that I do not think he is an idiot but just had little exposure to the area he was analyzing. He is mentally ill and I am mentally ill. I spend 2 years in a halfway house and if you ever see my videos you can tell I am not a balanced person. You are slow and express yourself slow. Your whole thinking and reasoning shut down. When I am in that condition of shutting down, I see it in QT videos and mine. So I see that QT and my thinking processes are similar. I think I less shut down than he is at the moment so I understand that QT is just trying to adjust to his condition and that his experience in mental health groups was just something that happened to aline with his exposure to psychology and his own condition.

This feels really wrong for me to say but: QuickTwist is still in recovery and still influenced by his mental illness and his conception of the world through psychology. He never meant to mischaracterize trans people. He only had poor misrepresentations about them. And that is what I believe should be the main discussion because misrepresentations affect your view on people and the world. That is why telling others that are stupid will not change them in a positive way. I am halfway thinking that QT is an idiot but only because I feel like an idiot myself. I can do really stupid things but I try and learn from them.

I feel that changing people representations is most helpful to them understanding others better and that a forum like this should be about mitigating the differences between people views.

 

[Grayman]

Re: INTPf Policy Change

Well that's the point - it's not okay to say that shit unfounded.

i just now finished enough research to know Transgender is not proven to be biological. So your flat-earther comment proves you to be ignorant.