info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: The transgender question...
124 views
Skip to first unread message
Sawfish
Jun 17, 2019, 11:54:53 AM6/17/19
to
In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
for it now.
Related to this is the current trend toward gender self-identification.
Among the emergent generation it is accepted, among many educated
urbanites, that an individual born with female reproductive organs, but
who for reasons of their own are convinced that they'd be happier and
more complete living out the male gender role, can dress and act as a
traditional male, and even undergo medical procedures to enhance the
masculine aspects of their physiques.
The same holds true for biological males who would feel better in the
female role, and it seems that the spectrum of trans expression is
anywhere from simply declaring one's self to now be a member of the
non-traditional gender, to dressing and acting in ways conventionally
associated with that gender, to complete medical transformations.
But the important part is that *any* of the above is sufficient to
become "trans", and that in fact, the vast majority will simple act or
dress as their chosen gender, since medical reassignment is both costly
and painful.
Living where I do, in Portland, OR, and having spent time on my
daughter's college campus on the east coast--a well-known small liberal
arts college--such transitional individuals seldom look, or act,
convincingly like the gender they ascribe to. Few heterosexuals would
accept them as their chosen gender, and they appear almost as a melded
halfway attempt. Almost like a young child dressing up like Mommy or
Daddy. You can see that this is what they'd *like* to portray, but few
if any actually would be fooled.
Given this, that few trans individuals would be accepted by heteros as
legitimate members of the trans' chosen gender, *who* exactly, are the
trans people seeking to convince of their gender legitimacy? Is it a
subset composed solely of other trans people (a trans male and a trans
female [or vice-versa]? two trans males? two trans females?) Is it trans
people plus homosexuals of the same gender (trans woman pairing with
homosexual men, and vice-versa)? Is it all of the above, plus the
distant hope of actually fooling a heterosexual into initiating a
flirtatious pass?
It seems as if the answer is that it's for others of the trans
community, mostly, and this implies that they are seeking to live in a
very small selected subset of the general population. Like a small tribe.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
for it now.
Related to this is the current trend toward gender self-identification.
Among the emergent generation it is accepted, among many educated
urbanites, that an individual born with female reproductive organs, but
who for reasons of their own are convinced that they'd be happier and
more complete living out the male gender role, can dress and act as a
traditional male, and even undergo medical procedures to enhance the
masculine aspects of their physiques.
The same holds true for biological males who would feel better in the
female role, and it seems that the spectrum of trans expression is
anywhere from simply declaring one's self to now be a member of the
non-traditional gender, to dressing and acting in ways conventionally
associated with that gender, to complete medical transformations.
But the important part is that *any* of the above is sufficient to
become "trans", and that in fact, the vast majority will simple act or
dress as their chosen gender, since medical reassignment is both costly
and painful.
Living where I do, in Portland, OR, and having spent time on my
daughter's college campus on the east coast--a well-known small liberal
arts college--such transitional individuals seldom look, or act,
convincingly like the gender they ascribe to. Few heterosexuals would
accept them as their chosen gender, and they appear almost as a melded
halfway attempt. Almost like a young child dressing up like Mommy or
Daddy. You can see that this is what they'd *like* to portray, but few
if any actually would be fooled.
Given this, that few trans individuals would be accepted by heteros as
legitimate members of the trans' chosen gender, *who* exactly, are the
trans people seeking to convince of their gender legitimacy? Is it a
subset composed solely of other trans people (a trans male and a trans
female [or vice-versa]? two trans males? two trans females?) Is it trans
people plus homosexuals of the same gender (trans woman pairing with
homosexual men, and vice-versa)? Is it all of the above, plus the
distant hope of actually fooling a heterosexual into initiating a
flirtatious pass?
It seems as if the answer is that it's for others of the trans
community, mostly, and this implies that they are seeking to live in a
very small selected subset of the general population. Like a small tribe.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
The Iceberg
Jun 17, 2019, 12:18:42 PM6/17/19
to
soccerfan777
Jun 17, 2019, 12:32:14 PM6/17/19
to
bob
Jun 17, 2019, 12:53:42 PM6/17/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>for it now.
i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
socially preferable (by some straights) to straights. not sure what's
the big deal.
>Related to this is the current trend toward gender self-identification.
>Among the emergent generation it is accepted, among many educated
>urbanites, that an individual born with female reproductive organs, but
>who for reasons of their own are convinced that they'd be happier and
>more complete living out the male gender role, can dress and act as a
>traditional male, and even undergo medical procedures to enhance the
>masculine aspects of their physiques.
yeah, it's become "hip." if you are, or pretend to be, "gender fluid"
you are one of the "in crowd." not sure why.
>The same holds true for biological males who would feel better in the
>female role, and it seems that the spectrum of trans expression is
>anywhere from simply declaring one's self to now be a member of the
>non-traditional gender, to dressing and acting in ways conventionally
>associated with that gender, to complete medical transformations.
>
>But the important part is that *any* of the above is sufficient to
>become "trans", and that in fact, the vast majority will simple act or
>dress as their chosen gender, since medical reassignment is both costly
>and painful.
>Living where I do, in Portland, OR, and having spent time on my
>daughter's college campus on the east coast--a well-known small liberal
>arts college--such transitional individuals seldom look, or act,
>convincingly like the gender they ascribe to. Few heterosexuals would
>accept them as their chosen gender, and they appear almost as a melded
>halfway attempt. Almost like a young child dressing up like Mommy or
>Daddy. You can see that this is what they'd *like* to portray, but few
>if any actually would be fooled.
i'll repeat, yeah, it's become "hip." if you are, or pretend to be,
"gender fluid" you are one of the "in crowd." not sure why.
>Given this, that few trans individuals would be accepted by heteros as
>legitimate members of the trans' chosen gender, *who* exactly, are the
>trans people seeking to convince of their gender legitimacy? Is it a
>subset composed solely of other trans people (a trans male and a trans
>female [or vice-versa]? two trans males? two trans females?) Is it trans
>people plus homosexuals of the same gender (trans woman pairing with
>homosexual men, and vice-versa)? Is it all of the above, plus the
>distant hope of actually fooling a heterosexual into initiating a
>flirtatious pass?
>
>It seems as if the answer is that it's for others of the trans
>community, mostly, and this implies that they are seeking to live in a
>very small selected subset of the general population. Like a small tribe.
my opinion: it's just a fad, a passing phase. like bell bottoms.
but...fwiw, nowadays when i'm in a gas station for ex, and the men's
bathroom (individual stall) is in use, i just go into the women's
bathroom (if empty), lock the door, do my business and go on my way.
that's my contribution to the trans folks.
saw, read this, tell me if it doesn't sound like pure comedy. trans
pilots, lawrence welk, etc:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-simpson-chase-bronco-helicopter-20190617-story.html
bob
wrote:
>In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>for it now.
legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
socially preferable (by some straights) to straights. not sure what's
the big deal.
>Related to this is the current trend toward gender self-identification.
>Among the emergent generation it is accepted, among many educated
>urbanites, that an individual born with female reproductive organs, but
>who for reasons of their own are convinced that they'd be happier and
>more complete living out the male gender role, can dress and act as a
>traditional male, and even undergo medical procedures to enhance the
>masculine aspects of their physiques.
you are one of the "in crowd." not sure why.
>The same holds true for biological males who would feel better in the
>female role, and it seems that the spectrum of trans expression is
>anywhere from simply declaring one's self to now be a member of the
>non-traditional gender, to dressing and acting in ways conventionally
>associated with that gender, to complete medical transformations.
>
>But the important part is that *any* of the above is sufficient to
>become "trans", and that in fact, the vast majority will simple act or
>dress as their chosen gender, since medical reassignment is both costly
>and painful.
>Living where I do, in Portland, OR, and having spent time on my
>daughter's college campus on the east coast--a well-known small liberal
>arts college--such transitional individuals seldom look, or act,
>convincingly like the gender they ascribe to. Few heterosexuals would
>accept them as their chosen gender, and they appear almost as a melded
>halfway attempt. Almost like a young child dressing up like Mommy or
>Daddy. You can see that this is what they'd *like* to portray, but few
>if any actually would be fooled.
"gender fluid" you are one of the "in crowd." not sure why.
>Given this, that few trans individuals would be accepted by heteros as
>legitimate members of the trans' chosen gender, *who* exactly, are the
>trans people seeking to convince of their gender legitimacy? Is it a
>subset composed solely of other trans people (a trans male and a trans
>female [or vice-versa]? two trans males? two trans females?) Is it trans
>people plus homosexuals of the same gender (trans woman pairing with
>homosexual men, and vice-versa)? Is it all of the above, plus the
>distant hope of actually fooling a heterosexual into initiating a
>flirtatious pass?
>
>It seems as if the answer is that it's for others of the trans
>community, mostly, and this implies that they are seeking to live in a
>very small selected subset of the general population. Like a small tribe.
but...fwiw, nowadays when i'm in a gas station for ex, and the men's
bathroom (individual stall) is in use, i just go into the women's
bathroom (if empty), lock the door, do my business and go on my way.
that's my contribution to the trans folks.
saw, read this, tell me if it doesn't sound like pure comedy. trans
pilots, lawrence welk, etc:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-simpson-chase-bronco-helicopter-20190617-story.html
bob
The Iceberg
Jun 17, 2019, 1:56:07 PM6/17/19
to
Sawfish
Jun 17, 2019, 3:17:35 PM6/17/19
to
On 6/17/19 9:53 AM, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>> contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>> about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>> gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>> this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>> with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>> for it now.
> i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
> legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
> socially preferable (by some straights) to straights.
Certainly if the track record is any indicator, I am far better off
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>> contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>> about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>> gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>> this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>> with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>> for it now.
> i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
> legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
> socially preferable (by some straights) to straights.
renting to gays.
We can always find the exception, but the *trend* is pretty clear to me.
You know the worst group? College athletes, male or female, obviously,
but right after that is single hetero young women. I could speculate on
the reasons for this...
Weird...
showing trans reversals. Since this would indicate that the bulk of the
episode was driven by narcissism, and not by biological/psychological
dictates, there won't be many funded, nor will the findings be widely
distributed for years. Then later, it'll be like reading about the legal
consumption of laudanum--what were they thinking? How could people of
the past era be so...?
>
> but...fwiw, nowadays when i'm in a gas station for ex, and the men's
> bathroom (individual stall) is in use, i just go into the women's
> bathroom (if empty), lock the door, do my business and go on my way.
> that's my contribution to the trans folks.
>
> saw, read this, tell me if it doesn't sound like pure comedy. trans
> pilots, lawrence welk, etc:
> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-simpson-chase-bronco-helicopter-20190617-story.html
it off as part of the price to pay for living there--even view it as a
benefit...a part of the entertainment package--it's a good place to live
as a young, single adult--a sexual Disneyland, sorta. It doesn't seem to
me to be a real great place to raise kids, however.
The Manson thing in '69 was like this, the Night Stalker, and those two
Italian weirdos--Hillside Strangler guys. Wonderland murders...
Even the riots are like that, no shit.
Jerry Dunfy the news guy, Cal Worthington, Elvira, Moona Lisa.
The beat goes on...
And this is without the trans pilot and Lawrence Welk III...
>
>
> bob
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Calimero
Jun 17, 2019, 3:24:57 PM6/17/19
to
Max
—
"She was an ungainly 'bunny-hopper'".
(Stephen Jaros on Steffi Graf, rec.sport.tennis, May 26th, 2004)
Hey Guys
Jun 17, 2019, 3:25:14 PM6/17/19
to
You might be stuck with 150 years of rainbow flags...
Calimero
Jun 17, 2019, 3:26:06 PM6/17/19
to
What makes you think so? Him denigrating Graf or what?
Sawfish
Jun 17, 2019, 4:01:43 PM6/17/19
to
be much better to have no reaction.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with prayer...
"Petition the lord with prayer...
"Petition the lord with prayer...
"YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!"
--Sawfish
bob
Jun 17, 2019, 4:04:45 PM6/17/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:17:32 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 6/17/19 9:53 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>>> contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>>> about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>>> gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>>> this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>>> with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>>> for it now.
>> i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
>> legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
>> socially preferable (by some straights) to straights.
>
>
>Certainly if the track record is any indicator, I am far better off
>renting to gays.
yes - but you're doing that for personal financial gain. i'm talking
strictly on a social level. i know a number of young straight men and
women who gush over gays or trans. they're just the "coolest" ya know.
>We can always find the exception, but the *trend* is pretty clear to me.
>You know the worst group? College athletes, male or female, obviously,
>but right after that is single hetero young women. I could speculate on
>the reasons for this...
yeah, don't doubt that a bit.
trans reversals - is that covered on an HMO? :-)
>> but...fwiw, nowadays when i'm in a gas station for ex, and the men's
>> bathroom (individual stall) is in use, i just go into the women's
>> bathroom (if empty), lock the door, do my business and go on my way.
>> that's my contribution to the trans folks.
>>
>> saw, read this, tell me if it doesn't sound like pure comedy. trans
>> pilots, lawrence welk, etc:
>> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-simpson-chase-bronco-helicopter-20190617-story.html
>
>
>It's fuckin' LA in nutshell. It's a triage: if you can watch it, laugh
>it off as part of the price to pay for living there--even view it as a
>benefit...a part of the entertainment package--it's a good place to live
>as a young, single adult--a sexual Disneyland, sorta. It doesn't seem to
>me to be a real great place to raise kids, however.
>The Manson thing in '69 was like this, the Night Stalker, and those two
>Italian weirdos--Hillside Strangler guys. Wonderland murders...
>Even the riots are like that, no shit.
>Jerry Dunfy the news guy, Cal Worthington, Elvira, Moona Lisa.
>The beat goes on...
>
>And this is without the trans pilot and Lawrence Welk III...
good assessment of it. been doing some work for a company in pasadena,
the guy keeps trying to get me to take it full time and move back out.
tells me pasadena isn't like L.A. sure. i guess the drug addicts i see
walking down colorado blvd is a giveaway. :-)
bob
wrote:
>On 6/17/19 9:53 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>>> contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>>> about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>>> gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>>> this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>>> with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>>> for it now.
>> i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
>> legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
>> socially preferable (by some straights) to straights.
>
>
>Certainly if the track record is any indicator, I am far better off
>renting to gays.
strictly on a social level. i know a number of young straight men and
women who gush over gays or trans. they're just the "coolest" ya know.
>We can always find the exception, but the *trend* is pretty clear to me.
>You know the worst group? College athletes, male or female, obviously,
>but right after that is single hetero young women. I could speculate on
>the reasons for this...
>> but...fwiw, nowadays when i'm in a gas station for ex, and the men's
>> bathroom (individual stall) is in use, i just go into the women's
>> bathroom (if empty), lock the door, do my business and go on my way.
>> that's my contribution to the trans folks.
>>
>> saw, read this, tell me if it doesn't sound like pure comedy. trans
>> pilots, lawrence welk, etc:
>> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-simpson-chase-bronco-helicopter-20190617-story.html
>
>
>It's fuckin' LA in nutshell. It's a triage: if you can watch it, laugh
>it off as part of the price to pay for living there--even view it as a
>benefit...a part of the entertainment package--it's a good place to live
>as a young, single adult--a sexual Disneyland, sorta. It doesn't seem to
>me to be a real great place to raise kids, however.
>The Manson thing in '69 was like this, the Night Stalker, and those two
>Italian weirdos--Hillside Strangler guys. Wonderland murders...
>Even the riots are like that, no shit.
>Jerry Dunfy the news guy, Cal Worthington, Elvira, Moona Lisa.
>The beat goes on...
>
>And this is without the trans pilot and Lawrence Welk III...
the guy keeps trying to get me to take it full time and move back out.
tells me pasadena isn't like L.A. sure. i guess the drug addicts i see
walking down colorado blvd is a giveaway. :-)
bob
bob
Jun 17, 2019, 4:05:13 PM6/17/19
to
>Doesn't mean that there are a few hundred poor souls like that in Europe, too.
bob
Jun 17, 2019, 4:05:47 PM6/17/19
to
bob
Hey Guys
Jun 17, 2019, 4:48:45 PM6/17/19
to
But the answer to his original question is people use all types of visuals to indicate their interests and identity. Scuba divers have their own symbol, so do cops (a flag even), gold star military families, etc. They all display them proudly (as they should). I don't think the pride flag is really that much different.
*skriptis
Jun 17, 2019, 4:49:52 PM6/17/19
to
Hey Guys <heyg...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Scuba diving is not cursed in Bible.
So it's different.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
So it's different.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Hey Guys
Jun 17, 2019, 4:52:31 PM6/17/19
to
Calimero
Jun 17, 2019, 5:42:32 PM6/17/19
to
Anything in it about Russians?
Max
--
Jaros: "2002 Capriati would have destroyed 1988 Graf. Crushed her."
Max: "You mean the 2002 Capriati who lost 3 matches against Alex Stevenson, one of them 16 16?"
Jaros: "Exactly that Capriati. She would have blown Graf off the court."
bob
Jun 17, 2019, 7:39:32 PM6/17/19
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Hey Guys
is there a straight flag? or were you associating that with the
confederates?
bob
confederates?
bob
Whisper
Jun 17, 2019, 11:01:13 PM6/17/19
to
On 18/06/2019 2:53 am, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>> contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>> about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>> gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>> this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>> with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>> for it now.
>
> i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
> legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
> socially preferable (by some straights) to straights. not sure what's
> the big deal.
>
We have 2 in our club that have lived together as partners for 20 yrs,
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:54:49 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In keeping with my post yesterday, about how I am not "getting"
>> contemporary sexual and gender sensibilities, I expressed my puzzlement
>> about why openly gay people would feel the need to prominently display a
>> gay pride flag (rainbow flag) in their front window. I can understand
>> this sentiment *before* gay relationships had gained full legal parity
>> with heterosexual domestic relationships, but cannot see the reason(s)
>> for it now.
>
> i see no reason for it now at all. they are accepted socially and
> legally. in fact, in many places they are not only accepted they are
> socially preferable (by some straights) to straights. not sure what's
> the big deal.
>
the younger guy is vice president. I get on great with them. When
they're not around some other guys make crass jokes but they are
accepted no big deal.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Hey Guys
Jun 18, 2019, 12:09:08 PM6/18/19
to
Sawfish
Jun 18, 2019, 1:19:17 PM6/18/19
to
etc. But I think that there are two deeper considerations here...
1) If it's an interest, one that you've optionally acquired, for gay
folk to display the flag for this reason implies that at least a part of
their orientation is optional, not innate. It is indeed a conscious
selection, like one make when one becomes a scuba diver. One is not born
a scuba diver, but later becomes one, by conscious selection; or
2) If it's to signal an innate condition, like blue eyes, think about
what this means. It means that you're purposefully identifying and
emphasizing differences. So to have a blue-eyed flag implies those
displaying the flag think there's something specially about blue eyes,
something to be proud of, also implying that those without blue eyes
will never share in this pride.
And one thing for sure: differences and equality and are conceptually
very hard to resolve. One cannot be different and still be equal in all
ways. And I'm sad to say this, but the instant that differences are
identified, it's only a matter of time before some--perhaps most--begin
to want to rank the differences as more desirable/less desirable. It's
impossible to stop this sort of comparison; it seems to be a part of
human nature. Many have tried to stop it and have failed. It's still
here, and will be until mankind changes substantially.
Now given these considerations, what would be the purpose for displaying
such a flag or symbol in a public place?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
bob
Jun 18, 2019, 2:22:35 PM6/18/19
to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Hey Guys
you mean like "straight"?
bob
bob
*skriptis
Jun 18, 2019, 3:01:31 PM6/18/19
to
The Iceberg
Jun 18, 2019, 6:55:22 PM6/18/19
to
bob
Jun 18, 2019, 8:42:52 PM6/18/19
to
Hey Guys
Jun 19, 2019, 11:09:05 AM6/19/19
to
Sawfish
Jun 19, 2019, 11:16:08 AM6/19/19
to
I mean, if indeed legal protections are in place, what more can one
expect? So far as I know, it's still lawful for one person to not like
another, for any reason, and also to want to rescind laws, so long as
they obey the current laws.
Do you think that it's possible to legislate a general public liking or
admiration for gays? One would think that tacit acceptance of gay
behaviors and legal recourse would be sufficient, and any public esteem
will need to be earned over time.
soccerfan777
Jun 19, 2019, 11:29:52 AM6/19/19
to
>
> I mean, if indeed legal protections are in place, what more can one
> expect?
Why do you think women talk about women's rights? Do you think women are equal in this country? Bill O Reilly thinks so... so much that he would like to harass some of them to see how they react.
> So far as I know, it's still lawful for one person to not like
> another, for any reason,
You are free to put a sign which says "Jews not allowed in my property" on your front door. But be prepared for consequences.
> and also to want to rescind laws, so long as
> they obey the current laws.
>
> Do you think that it's possible to legislate a general public liking or
> admiration for gays?
> One would think that tacit acceptance of gay
> behaviors and legal recourse would be sufficient, and any public esteem
> will need to be earned over time.
>
*skriptis
Jun 19, 2019, 11:41:27 AM6/19/19
to
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
naturally they want to destroy everything that is beautiful and
holy, or at least normal.
It's really that simple.
First they wanted tolerance, then "legal protection", then full
acceptance, and now openly demand total submission of normal
people.
Which of course results in the collapse of entire social order.
After gays, come trans, etc.
Few are those who wanted to just mind their own business. In every
group, such percentage is always small and negligible and is not
worth considering.
When dealing with groups one must always be aware of the fact that
just like individuals, groups/collectives want to advance its
interests too, and impose their views and reorder society to suit
them.
You in America have death penalty for treason, right?
So, if you betray an artificial state entity and its people, the
law say you must be put to death?
What if you commit betrayal of natural order and commit a crime
against entire nature? Is it not reasonable to put that person to
death too?
Is betraying nature (God) not an even bigger crime than betraying
America?
soccerfan777
Jun 19, 2019, 11:46:46 AM6/19/19
to
Devil... lol... you believe in devil? How old are you?
I think if there is a devil, you are truly possessed by him, since he taught how to hate.
The Iceberg
Jun 19, 2019, 12:04:34 PM6/19/19
to
The Iceberg
Jun 19, 2019, 12:07:58 PM6/19/19
to
*skriptis
Jun 19, 2019, 12:16:03 PM6/19/19
to
soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Alexander the great was from Macedonia and he was Hellenized I
guess. With his conquests he he spread the glory of ancient
Greece, but died young and his empire collapsed soon.
But to your point, he wasn't gay in a way you/we assume today. The
gay of today is a modern invention.
Two guys exploring each other anuses and pretending they're
heterosexual couples, in fact demanding same rights which
humanity traditionally bestowed man and woman is relatively a new
thing.
The homosexuality in antiquity was similar to gay sex in prisons.
It's about establishing dominance and using scarce resources.
Antiquity was brutal, hyper macho, fascist like society. No
Christian morality back then.
It was acceptable for older men in power to screw young
defenseless boys.
Romen emperor Nero liked a boy once and ordered to have his balls
and dick cut off and he screwed him?
Bible is critical of such practices, so you have story of Sodom
and Gomorrah, lesson about the debauchery and hedonism that broke
cities, families and civilizations.
The fact there was no technology, doesn't mean all people were
stupid back then. They were keen observers of life, culture, and
tradition.
They learned to recognize harmful and wrecking patterns in society
and thus made them taboo.
But then in 1968 one generation of people started thinking they're
smarter than everyone in history.
>
> Devil... lol... you believe in devil? How old are you?
If you don't, it means you're immature.
> I think if there is a devil, you are truly possessed by him, since he taught how to hate.
Nobody hates. Everyone loves.
It's just a matter of what and whom you love.
>
> Were they sick back in the Roman ages too? Wasn't Alexander the Great, gay?
He wasn't Roman. He was older than that. But yes it's antiquity.
> Were they sick back in the Roman ages too? Wasn't Alexander the Great, gay?
Alexander the great was from Macedonia and he was Hellenized I
guess. With his conquests he he spread the glory of ancient
Greece, but died young and his empire collapsed soon.
But to your point, he wasn't gay in a way you/we assume today. The
gay of today is a modern invention.
Two guys exploring each other anuses and pretending they're
heterosexual couples, in fact demanding same rights which
humanity traditionally bestowed man and woman is relatively a new
thing.
The homosexuality in antiquity was similar to gay sex in prisons.
It's about establishing dominance and using scarce resources.
Antiquity was brutal, hyper macho, fascist like society. No
Christian morality back then.
It was acceptable for older men in power to screw young
defenseless boys.
Romen emperor Nero liked a boy once and ordered to have his balls
and dick cut off and he screwed him?
Bible is critical of such practices, so you have story of Sodom
and Gomorrah, lesson about the debauchery and hedonism that broke
cities, families and civilizations.
The fact there was no technology, doesn't mean all people were
stupid back then. They were keen observers of life, culture, and
tradition.
They learned to recognize harmful and wrecking patterns in society
and thus made them taboo.
But then in 1968 one generation of people started thinking they're
smarter than everyone in history.
>
> Devil... lol... you believe in devil? How old are you?
> I think if there is a devil, you are truly possessed by him, since he taught how to hate.
It's just a matter of what and whom you love.
*skriptis
Jun 19, 2019, 12:19:10 PM6/19/19
to
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
and go against his own beliefs, even though you can buy flowers
everyone, but he doesn't want to force Facebook to provide
services to Alex Jones.
> you are obviously very gay and a regular at these parades, but how can you agree with lawsuiting a shop that refuses to sell stuff to gay people(aka bans gays), YET you support youtube/Facebook/Twitter banning right-wing Alex Jones types?
Good question. He'd force Sawfish to sell flowers to homosexuals
and go against his own beliefs, even though you can buy flowers
everyone, but he doesn't want to force Facebook to provide
services to Alex Jones.
soccerfan777
Jun 19, 2019, 12:24:25 PM6/19/19
to
Yes I am with Alex Jones being banned and also getting his balls cut off. Because he is spreading hate.
All hate spreaders should be hanged.
The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
All hate spreaders should be hanged.
The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
*skriptis
Jun 19, 2019, 12:51:18 PM6/19/19
to
soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Yes I am with Alex Jones being banned and also getting his balls cut off. Because he is spreading hate.
>
> All hate spreaders should be hanged.
>
> The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
How about you, your wife, and your good looking female colleague
>
> All hate spreaders should be hanged.
>
> The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
from work.
Why the three of you, if you wanted it of course, can't get get
married?
If gay marriage is derived from some human right abstract, why are
you not free to enjoy such right?
Second, if we accept the existence of hate speech then someone has
to define hate speech right?
For my taste e.g. Pelle, TT and Max are using hate speech when
discussing Russia. For bob's taste, you are engaging in hate
speech against Texans. Etc.
So bottom line, you either have free speech (something which was
obviously best thing about America) or you don't.
If you don't have free speech, ok, then omeone has to do the
censoring. Who is going to be that?
I still feel it's 1000 times better that the state/government does
that, and not a private company.
People can change their elected officials, who in turn can change
the laws. So people have a say.
Otoh they're entirely helpless and at the mercy of big tech.
People can't vote to have Facebook rules of service changed.
So I choose government censorship over private company censorship
as it's less oppressive.
But choose free speech over both of that.
Anglo-America was made great by the free speech. Now immigrants
and illegals and imposing their customs, and showing their lack
of devotion to free speech.
That's why all those hate speech discussions in recent decades,
especially years.
It's the consequence of America's changing demographics.
But back to the so called hate speech, can you even tell against
whom is Alex Jones allegedly spreading hate?
I don't think he was taken down using that argument, I think they
said he was a conspiracy theorist?
But so what? Are we living in freedom or not? CNN is constantly
publishing conspiracy theories about Trump, Russia etc and
Facebook hasn't banned them.
Even after Mueller report, many sites and media companies
continued propagating Russia hoax and Facebook and YouTube
haven't banned them.
So it's clear Alex Jones was banned not because of his conspiracy
theories, but because he attacks political segment of fake news
media.
Morever, as soon as Trump tells CNN or NYT that they're liars,
they cry about censorship, meanwhile Alex Jones literally got
purged from the internet and the same media celebrating...
In the land of the free...
soccerfan777
Jun 19, 2019, 1:05:10 PM6/19/19
to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Yes I am with Alex Jones being banned and also getting his balls cut off. Because he is spreading hate.
> >
> > All hate spreaders should be hanged.
> >
> > The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
>
>
> How about you, your wife, and your good looking female colleague
> from work.
>
> Why the three of you, if you wanted it of course, can't get get
> married?
Because only two of us are allowed. If three were allowed, I would go for it...lol
> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Yes I am with Alex Jones being banned and also getting his balls cut off. Because he is spreading hate.
> >
> > All hate spreaders should be hanged.
> >
> > The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
>
>
> How about you, your wife, and your good looking female colleague
> from work.
>
> Why the three of you, if you wanted it of course, can't get get
> married?
It is allowed in Islam and the guys do it. I wouldn't blame them.
>
> If gay marriage is derived from some human right abstract, why are
> you not free to enjoy such right?
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, if we accept the existence of hate speech then someone has
> to define hate speech right?
>
> For my taste e.g. Pelle, TT and Max are using hate speech when
> discussing Russia. For bob's taste, you are engaging in hate
> speech against Texans. Etc.
The Iceberg
Jun 19, 2019, 1:47:23 PM6/19/19
to
The Iceberg
Jun 19, 2019, 2:06:36 PM6/19/19
to
On Wednesday, 19 June 2019 18:05:10 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> > soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > Yes I am with Alex Jones being banned and also getting his balls cut off. Because he is spreading hate.
> > >
> > > All hate spreaders should be hanged.
> > >
> > > The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
> >
> >
> > How about you, your wife, and your good looking female colleague
> > from work.
> >
> > Why the three of you, if you wanted it of course, can't get get
> > married?
> Because only two of us are allowed. If three were allowed, I would go for it...lol
>
> It is allowed in Islam and the guys do it. I wouldn't blame them.
>
>
> >
> > If gay marriage is derived from some human right abstract, why are
> > you not free to enjoy such right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Second, if we accept the existence of hate speech then someone has
> > to define hate speech right?
>
> Generalizing a minority and spreading hateful nonsense about them is hate speech.
>
> >
> > For my taste e.g. Pelle, TT and Max are using hate speech when
> > discussing Russia. For bob's taste, you are engaging in hate
> > speech against Texans. Etc.
>
>
> LOL... I was joking. And Pelle and TT are just being spektical. Putin is not exactly trustworthy. And give his KGB associations...
Pelle said genocide on Russians would be good, also when asked again, he said it would be again, how on earth is that not hate speech??
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> > soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > Yes I am with Alex Jones being banned and also getting his balls cut off. Because he is spreading hate.
> > >
> > > All hate spreaders should be hanged.
> > >
> > > The gays are not spreading hate. They just want to be married.
> >
> >
> > How about you, your wife, and your good looking female colleague
> > from work.
> >
> > Why the three of you, if you wanted it of course, can't get get
> > married?
> Because only two of us are allowed. If three were allowed, I would go for it...lol
>
> It is allowed in Islam and the guys do it. I wouldn't blame them.
>
>
> >
> > If gay marriage is derived from some human right abstract, why are
> > you not free to enjoy such right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Second, if we accept the existence of hate speech then someone has
> > to define hate speech right?
>
> Generalizing a minority and spreading hateful nonsense about them is hate speech.
>
> >
> > For my taste e.g. Pelle, TT and Max are using hate speech when
> > discussing Russia. For bob's taste, you are engaging in hate
> > speech against Texans. Etc.
>
>
> LOL... I was joking. And Pelle and TT are just being spektical. Putin is not exactly trustworthy. And give his KGB associations...
Alex Jones was banned for 'hate speech' but they couldn't give a single example of it, they just banned him.
soccerfan777
Jun 19, 2019, 2:08:31 PM6/19/19
to
I dont have a show. And I dont remember saying anything like that. If I did, I was jesting.
Hey Guys
Jun 19, 2019, 3:01:42 PM6/19/19
to
>
> I mean, if indeed legal protections are in place, what more can one
> expect? So far as I know, it's still lawful for one person to not like
> another, for any reason, and also to want to rescind laws, so long as
> they obey the current laws.
So your view is people aren't supposed to express their views publicly? A pride flag is just short-hand symbol for equal treatment.
> I mean, if indeed legal protections are in place, what more can one
> expect? So far as I know, it's still lawful for one person to not like
> another, for any reason, and also to want to rescind laws, so long as
> they obey the current laws.
>
> Do you think that it's possible to legislate a general public liking or
> admiration for gays? One would think that tacit acceptance of gay
> behaviors and legal recourse would be sufficient, and any public esteem
> will need to be earned over time.
Calimero
Jun 19, 2019, 3:33:17 PM6/19/19
to
Max
—
“Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.”
(AG William Barr, May 31, 2019)
Calimero
Jun 19, 2019, 3:35:25 PM6/19/19
to
Sawfish
Jun 19, 2019, 5:02:17 PM6/19/19
to
divisive, they might understand that there is a negative response as
well as a positive one. So that once the issue has been resolved--and it
has, unless there are to be more demands forthcoming that we don't yet
know about--it would seem like the reason to display it publicly is to
evoke a negative response. Because that's what it does, at this stage.
Just like the confederate flag. Dead issue that will cause a negative
response if displayed publicly. The people who now display it WANT to be
in-your-face...
> A pride flag is just short-hand symbol for equal treatment.
to express a differentiating pride any more than, say, people
significantly over 6 feet tall. If there was a pride flag for this, it
would be viewed as somehow demeaning to others. Blue-eyes, same way.
MENSA--seems a bit silly and almost desperate.
Really, it's a way to look for trouble where there is none, in a diverse
population. Is this the real goal of public display of the gay pride flag?
Are people actually so hungry for some sort of identification that they
find ways to target themselves for backlash? This might make sense as a
rallying cry *before* rights are obtained, but after?
>
>> Do you think that it's possible to legislate a general public liking or
>> admiration for gays? One would think that tacit acceptance of gay
>> behaviors and legal recourse would be sufficient, and any public esteem
>> will need to be earned over time.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with prayer...
>>
>> "Petition the lord with prayer...
>>
>> "Petition the lord with prayer...
>>
>> "YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!"
>>
>> --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Iceberg
Jun 19, 2019, 6:28:37 PM6/19/19
to
The Iceberg
Jun 19, 2019, 6:29:15 PM6/19/19
to
bob
Jun 19, 2019, 7:04:33 PM6/19/19
to
racist.
bob
bob
Jun 19, 2019, 7:05:46 PM6/19/19
to
are. those people should have their balls cut off.
bob
bob
Jun 19, 2019, 7:08:25 PM6/19/19
to
straight to the people - no CNN or NYT filter.
and that's what kills them. they are not in control - he is.
bob
bob
Jun 19, 2019, 7:14:31 PM6/19/19
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:02:13 -0700, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
methinks they just want the attention, drama and all that.
bob
wrote:
bob
The Iceberg
Jun 20, 2019, 4:37:18 AM6/20/19
to
The Iceberg
Jun 20, 2019, 4:38:24 AM6/20/19
to
Hey Guys
Jun 20, 2019, 11:25:57 AM6/20/19
to
Here's an analogy. There's one group of kids who are given ideal food and nutrition from birth. There's another group who, though legislation, are restricted to low nutrition food from birth and suffer developmentally because of it. That law changes when the kids turn 18. Are both groups equal at that point?
A more concrete example. When women got the right to vote, were they suddenly equal to men in political influence? The answer is obvious, as men were able to fully shape the country to that point, and women weren't. So while women now had the right to vote, all of society and all of the other rules were still created by men. Those effects lasted a long, long time (eg, a married woman couldn't get a credit card in her own name before the 70s, women are still a minority of elected officials, etc). The effects of the inequality in voting rights lasted decades, and many women might say are still being felt.
So when a group is finally granted equal rights legally, they are not instantly equal, because there are still the lasting effects of the years of inequality. A gay couple who had been together 40 years didn't suddenly become equal to a straight couple who had been married for 40 years when gay marriage became law. The gay couple still has all the cumulative effects of decades of not having legal benefits of marriage, whether that's extra health care costs by not having joint insurance or whatever. This is why black people do not feel equal today despite being granted equal rights a generation ago, because that legal equality still hasn't fully permeated all of society in terms of fair treatment (all you have to do is look at the criminal justice system to see this).
So your view of things being "resolved" may be true legally, but it didn't result in instant equality. Going back to my original analogy, it basically set the stage for actual equality to exist for the next generation just being born.
I hope that was helpful.
The Iceberg
Jun 20, 2019, 12:45:07 PM6/20/19
to
Hey Guys
Jun 20, 2019, 12:56:50 PM6/20/19
to
The Iceberg
Jun 20, 2019, 3:51:20 PM6/20/19
to
It all just making excuses, blaming anyone else for own laziness.
bob
Jun 20, 2019, 4:23:26 PM6/20/19
to
bob
The Iceberg
Jun 21, 2019, 4:47:12 AM6/21/19
to
*skriptis
Jun 21, 2019, 8:48:50 AM6/21/19
to
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
a look.
Especially the second link, this is kids we're talking about, just
look at that naked dude with a purse?
The pics are absolutely revolting and I have no doubt anymore.
https://dailystormer.name/spiritual-group-claims-85-of-faggots-are
-possessed-by-ghosts/
https://dailystormer.name/about-3-percent-of-us-high-school-studen
ts-are-literally-possessed-by-demons-cdc-reports/
> I mean, if indeed legal protections are in place, what more can one
> expect? So far as I know, it's still lawful for one person to not like
> another, for any reason, and also to want to rescind laws, so long as
> they obey the current laws.
>
> expect? So far as I know, it's still lawful for one person to not like
> another, for any reason, and also to want to rescind laws, so long as
> they obey the current laws.
>
> Do you think that it's possible to legislate a general public liking or
> admiration for gays? One would think that tacit acceptance of gay
> behaviors and legal recourse would be sufficient, and any public esteem
> will need to be earned over time.
Sawfish, it's not long but it's eye opening. If you'd like to take
> admiration for gays? One would think that tacit acceptance of gay
> behaviors and legal recourse would be sufficient, and any public esteem
> will need to be earned over time.
a look.
Especially the second link, this is kids we're talking about, just
look at that naked dude with a purse?
The pics are absolutely revolting and I have no doubt anymore.
https://dailystormer.name/spiritual-group-claims-85-of-faggots-are
-possessed-by-ghosts/
https://dailystormer.name/about-3-percent-of-us-high-school-studen
ts-are-literally-possessed-by-demons-cdc-reports/
Sawfish
Jun 21, 2019, 11:51:40 AM6/21/19
to
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TT
Jun 25, 2019, 2:15:39 PM6/25/19
to
Calimero kirjoitti 17.6.2019 klo 22:24:
> This transgenderism is an uniquely US American thing. Doesn't mean that there are a few hundred poor souls like that in Europe, too.
>
European Union
According to Amnesty International, 1.5 million transgender people live
in the European Union, making up 0.3% of the population.[131]
United States
One effort to quantify the population in 2011 gave a "rough estimate"
that 0.3 percent of adults in the US are transgender.[132][133] More
recent studies released in 2016 estimate the proportion of Americans who
identify as transgender at 0.5 to 0.6%. This would put the total number
of transgender Americans at approximately 1.4 million adults (as of
2016).[134][135][136][137]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Population_figures
> This transgenderism is an uniquely US American thing. Doesn't mean that there are a few hundred poor souls like that in Europe, too.
>
European Union
According to Amnesty International, 1.5 million transgender people live
in the European Union, making up 0.3% of the population.[131]
United States
One effort to quantify the population in 2011 gave a "rough estimate"
that 0.3 percent of adults in the US are transgender.[132][133] More
recent studies released in 2016 estimate the proportion of Americans who
identify as transgender at 0.5 to 0.6%. This would put the total number
of transgender Americans at approximately 1.4 million adults (as of
2016).[134][135][136][137]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Population_figures
Calimero
Jun 25, 2019, 2:56:53 PM6/25/19
to
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:15:39 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> Calimero kirjoitti 17.6.2019 klo 22:24:
> > This transgenderism is an uniquely US American thing. Doesn't mean that there are a few hundred poor souls like that in Europe, too.
> >
>
> European Union
> According to Amnesty International, 1.5 million transgender people live
> in the European Union, making up 0.3% of the population.[131]
According to what??
> Calimero kirjoitti 17.6.2019 klo 22:24:
> > This transgenderism is an uniquely US American thing. Doesn't mean that there are a few hundred poor souls like that in Europe, too.
> >
>
> European Union
> According to Amnesty International, 1.5 million transgender people live
> in the European Union, making up 0.3% of the population.[131]
BTW, "transgender" is not everyone who (sometimes) wants to be of the opposite gender.
Take me for example. When in our firm promotions are handed out each year I would sometimes prefer to be a woman. Am I therefore a "transgender"?
Bullshit!!
Max
—
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLYfjqVQfOM&app=desktop
0 new messages