Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Searching Existing Topics

Originally posted by SD_Destroyer:

To be honest, who cares? Most people won’t anyways and if you do you’ll get bitched out for necro’ing one.

The source notwithstanding, there is a lot of truth there.
I’d think a better search method would be to simply look over the more recent threads (2-4 pg.s back) and check the date.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by teh_hobo:

I’m just saying some of the people scared shitless of ebola are the same ones refusing to get flu shots.

Ignorance tends to observe few boundaries.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Political Correctness as a Barrier to Communication

OP, you appear to be confused about a few things.
You were representing the university as an orientation leader.
THEY had the right to dictate the manner in which you engaged the newbies.
They are fully aware of how innocent “microaggression” can be;
yet can have serious impacts.

I doubt the university made any micro’s against you for being “born into white skin”.
I imagine they either did or should have touched on issues regarding born into “comfortable wealth”. A lot of ppl don’t have the same economic means as some. Ergo, a little sensitivity (PC?) can go a long way to keep one from looking/sounding like a complete asshole.

Your making very superficial/formal interaction the same as being in a much more informal/social setting—in regard to using various “clues” as springboards for inquiry about culture interests—is something you should see as being hugely flawed.

You might want to consider this dichotomy when being in the workplace; as opposed to having a few drinks w/ coworkers AFTER work. The one is of a voluntary attendance nature where a person can leave at any time; the work place isn’t. I suggest ya do some research on what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace.

I suggest you do it w/ the thought in mind that ya just might have a touch of entitlement/privilege working for you (regardless of your gender/race). The very fact that you feel that you have a “right” to ask anyone anything could be a hint. If you truly want to make good inroads to others for communication, you will best be served by developing a workable “insight filter” that does a good job of previewing the things you are asking.

Lack of intent to be an asshole doesn’t at all mean that ya can’t be astoundingly good at it.

I see this word – microagression" as not accurately describing the issue. I think it should be: microassumption of personal data ….. sometimes coupled w/ micropresumption or microassertive that one has the right to ask.

Here is something that stanwise is talking about: “Assuming that he must be from a difficult culture because of his skin color is already something you’ve done that’s racist, and you haven’t even opened your mouth yet.”

Yes…yes, it IS difficult to not jump to biased conclusions when it comes to ppl who “appear different”. But, there is an old adage that well fits this: It is far better to keep thoughts to self and have others wonder if you are “lacking” than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Tell me, is your “people radar” truly all that accurate? Do you not wade in hip-deep often to find out that the river is teeming w/ piranha?

PC, for all of its failings—most of them merely perceived because of the scathing backlash from the assholes it so greatly impugned (everyone loves a hater)—is the attempt for our society to finally pull its head outta our asses and actually live up to what we tout ourselves as being when it comes to justice, rights, and liberty FOR ALL.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

I no longer call myself a feminist because I disagree with modern feminists on nearly all of their modern day “issues”. When asked for my position, I usually just say I’m for “equal rights” between men and women.

Usually, I just say I’m for hamburgers.
This doesn’t mean that I think all burger joints are going to give equal effort & taste & price in their burgers.

A weebit of better application of understanding of the methods those burgers are presented/manifested just might be a good idea.

AND, just who are these “modern feminists” that you so disagree with?
Why do you think they are so much in charge of what feminism is?
Could you be listening to the wrong sources?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

There are millions of poor people who gather in large, dense population clusters along the Ganges river. They bathe, brush their teeth, and drink from the river.

And, they have been doing this for years & years. If this is so deadly….well, they would ALL be dead.
.

Ebola does not need to travel through water to infect large populations in that setting. Ebola would spread like a wildfire in any setting where large numbers of people gather together.
Says who?
.
Ebola is not hard to transmit.
Subjective.
.
It can spread through short distances in the air when somebody sneezes, through mucus droplets. It can survive on surfaces for days in cold climates, in the absence of direct sunlight.

Um, not according to the many sources I scoured over and the medicos I’ve talked to.

So, where do YOU get your data?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Originally posted by Aleazor:

Is it a valid excuse, or used as an excuse? These are too separate questions.

I think I agree with you.
I see valid excuse as an explanation that tries/hopes to mitigate a particular “negative” opinion.
verb: attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.
noun: a reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.

That other kind of excuse is more often this
.

I approach the concept of excuses something like this
For me, I can offer only reasons for my position on an issue.
It is up to others to offer a valid excuse for it….or not.
I might respect either position of theirs….or, I might not.
I have my reasons and those are why I invest my time & energy;
and, I make no excuses.
I will explain my reasons….if I feel there to be some merit in so investing my time and energy.
Far too often special treatment and reverse discrimination become misappropriations of the term EQUALITY.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is my being a white, cisgender, heterosexual male a bad thing?

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:

No, if you can be hated for being a person who was descended from some people who happened to lord their power during a period of time,

Perhaps ya’re overthinking this part – extending to heritage rather than the more simple being white in a society that is/has very recently experienced of some rather unsociable things because of some Whites.
.
… being part of a certain half of the populationSo, tell me why your opinion of being male and the OP are connected and what might made White males “hated”.
.

…and (There is no way to put this out without offending someone) being sexual in a way that enures the survival of humanity,
Isn’t that the same way as saying being a male HETERO-sexual?
From what I can tell, cisgender and being heterosexual are pretty much the same.
But, have ya ever heard of selling sperm?
I doubt there is any real concern that humans will survive.
However, I’m really worried about humanity being with us; at least in a form which one typically might view it: compassion, brotherly love, fraternity, fellow feeling, philanthropy, humaneness, kindness, consideration, understanding, sympathy, tolerance; leniency, mercy, mercifulness, clemency, pity, tenderness; benevolence, charity, goodness, magnanimity, generosity.
.
…then it is just as okay to hate someone for being a black lesbian.

Why?
What are Black lesbians doing that is supposed to coincide w/ the behavior of White, heterosexual males?
I’m not seeing a connection.
Well, other than someone wanting to simply be completely hateful.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill?

Arrest guns — not people.
LOL

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

While not an infectious “disease” in&of itself, the lack of and pathetically poor health care for the “lesser” ppl in the U.S. kills & greatly disables & reduces the life-value of a huge number of ppl.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill?

I was recently “enlightened” on just how bad this dirty little secret is by an episode of John Oliver

I well knew of the legality of it. Here in Wichita, our local police obtained a Corvette this way. A former city manager lost his personal vehicle merely because he was caught buying some personal-use pot while sitting in it.

But, the piece Oliver presents is eye-opening. If one isn’t able to understand how a police force can abuse this law, go to the middle of the video and see how the police chief “explains” to the city counsel where/how he uses the money from asset forfeiture.

I am talking about: " Civil and administrative asset forfeiture, or forfeiture without a conviction and sometimes in the absence of evidence."

This new police thuggery makes the ol’ speed trap of yore look like Barney Fife and the one bullet that Sheriff Andy would let him carry w/ his gun.

Often, the assets from such seizures doesn’t even make it to the level of scrutiny by AUTHORITIES above the police force.

Isn’t America aware of how abuse of, NAY…the very existence of, asset forfeiture looks to other countries; especially when we tout ourselves as a bastion of justice? Do anyother first-world countries do anything this vile?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

BigUgly, as previously stated, I’ve lost interest in actualizing in looooong discussions.
However, I want to give more insight why I’ve taken that position.
I all ready stated: merry-go-round.
This is because that while I might find to be some sense in the reasoning above (as you infer), we’ve been over&over&over it too many times…hence: stalemate.

Or, looking at it from a position of it not being a concise win/lose issue, any continued going back & forth on that road doesn’t really get us anywhere even though one could call us well-traveled.

It is points like that black/white and win/lose that you want to keep bringing up, even though I have several times agreed is the case, which brings me no longer wanting to participate. Your repetition of intellectually eloquent arguments that pull in wildly-wide and largely obtuse supporting points (Newspeak) merely causes an information highway to be even crazier if all the travel on it is merely too & fro for short distances.

To confirm my position that I was actually “finished” w/ our discussion, I went back and reread some of those points of yours. I found some interesting ones that I might have overlooked before.

“The way I see it, changing the grammar of a language just so that a minority would feel better falls under this bit I’m quoting. In 1984, much like in any modern totalitarian country, it’s a small group of people benefiting from such changes: they reformat people so that they would express themselves in a way that suits those responsible for said alterations.”

That was in reference to your Newspeak argument. The point you are failing to present is that this minority are the ppl in charge of that society. Their reaped benefits are far, FAR greater than those of the more popularly-held concept of a minority — such as transgenders. In fact, those huge benefits are typically AT THE EXPENSE OF the minor groups. I call that the “bully-effect”.

“By extension, I should be now legally forced to address this woman as “mare”, just because she wishes to be treated like a horse. Well, too bad. If refusing to give a cube of salt to an adult woman is what it takes to get me locked up, so be it.”

Agrumentum ad absurdum really isn’t that effective when we are talking about a few minor additions to a language — additions that will be noticed/used by an extremely small percentage of society.

Either you just like to debate; and this transgender-pronoun thing is the latest you see as being a good point to ride. OR, as has been pointed out several times and rebutted by you via overkill, all of this extensive & huge effort by you just might belie a lot more bias against “trans” than your “middle-of-the-road” neutral position might truly be?

Here is another example of why I think you doth protest too much:

“Tolerance, sure. Acceptance, sure. But some consider it bad manners when someone “new” to a society demands special, beneficial, treatment just for being new (transsexuals, in this context, are relatively “new”, both factually and as legal subjects).
I’m phrasing it very awkwardly, I realise that, but to give you a hint as to what I mean, please check this link. In a politically correct world, local (in the case of the linked article: continental) tradition always loses to the feelings of “outsiders”.”

“I think that transsexuals, and also most other minorities, should be given more “slack”, that they deserve tolerance, but I hate this demanding attitude (speaking of e.g. those willing to implement said alterations in the language). Tolerance should be “given”, not “demanded”, although some dialogue is required. Dialogue, not shouting, and screaming and monologues or endless manifestos on either of the sides.”

Really now?
Seriously?
Aren’t we swatting flies with 20 pound sledge hammers here?
Aren’t you don’t a bit of “off-handed demanding” yourself?
Saying you are neutral, but carrying around a bullhorn spouting a lot of far-flung, weak “logic”, doesn’t exactly Teflon your hands from getting a little blood on them.

It is my respect for your intellect and the way you brought it to bear in discussing feminism that generated an interest in discussing your take on the “pronoun thing”. However, as the discussion degenerated into something essentially described (strongly worded/frustration-vented?) by BSG above, I find that I agree w/ him, to varying levels, on all his points.

Especially: “….but you actually think that you’re fighting the very thing you’re doing to others with your logic.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by donseptico:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the infection gets into humans through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs and other bodily fluids from a number of species including chimpanzees, gorillas and forest antelope.

The fruit bat has long been considered the natural reservoir of the infection. But a growing body of experimental evidence suggests that pigs, both wild and domestic, could be a hidden source of Ebola Zaire – the most deadly form of the virus.

Researchers from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the country’s Public Health Agency have shown that pigs infected with this form of Ebola can pass the disease on to macaques without any direct contact between the species. In their experiments, the pigs carrying the virus were housed in pens with the monkeys in close proximity but separated by a wire barrier. After eight days, some of the macaques were showing clinical signs typical of ebola and were euthanised.

One possibility is that the monkeys became infected by inhaling large aerosol droplets produced from the respiratory tracts of the pigs. So, it would seem that airborne transmission, in one form or another, is already possible (in extremely limited circumstances – if it were easier / more normal, ebola would be far more widespread than it already is).

don, something that gives the data you present quite a different picture.

1) That particular study was in 2012.

2) There was possibly a chance that the airborne spread was due to the water droplets from the cleaning of the pig pen making it to the monkeys.

3) Even if pigs can transmit the virus by air, they may be unique in the ability.

4) A new study, published July 25 in Scientific Reports by Kobinger and a different group of collaborators, found no evidence that sick macaques could give the virus to healthy monkeys through airborne particles.

5) But Ebola is not nearly as easily transmitted as many people assume, he says. Even if an infected person were to hop on a plane and fly to the United States, Europe, or elsewhere, Leendertz says, tight health care measures would ensure that Ebola “will never get far.”

My long years tend to cause me to filter any information that comes from news media—whose more recent goal is to sell rather than truthfully inform—because of a BAM-SPIN factor. The information might be based on the truth; but likely the WHOLE truth is woefully lacking. And, the tone in which it is delivered can be hugely amped up.

Think Fox News.
And, that Aids also came out of Africa a few years back and that was supposed to be the end of America. I’m betting that Ebola will be faaaar less serious than Aids.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

At least be a whooole lot more PRO-active in how we behave/operate in the various concentric rings surrounding a confirmed case (or even moderately/highly suspected one) of Ebola.

I completely agree CROW, there should be an appropriate level(s) of quarantining for those who, IN ANY WAY, come into direct and indirect contact w/ the virus.

On the surface, one could see Obama as either the dumbest person on the planet, or is the bravest.

However, upon reading further, one sees that: “Ebola patient Amber Vinson is currently being treated at Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital, where Obama kissed the nurses. But Obama kissed the nurses weeks ago and had no chance of contracting the disease at that time.

The thing that makes me sick AND shows just how sick/depraved particular commentators are is that they won’t give out the TRUTH. No, they want to “lie-by-omission”. I find there to be much more to be concerned about w/ THAT kind of infestation and spread of “illness” than w/ one like the Ebola.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Granted we need to take discussions seriously here......

SD_Destroyer’s account has been perma-banned.
I hope this thread will be locked – per my request.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’m disgusted by the way ya twist things to support your position. The bold above puts a whole “shades-of-gray” qualifier on your only black/white “with-or-against”.

So why aren’t you letting me stay in the gray area? I want to be neither black, nor white.

Okay, fair enough.
I won’t stand on the point that I think ya’re supporting a particular position – one that is seen by me (and others?), but don’t really have (although I’ll reserve the right to have strong suspicions to the contrary) because of a failure, due to various factors, for there to be a much better understanding of what your actual position actually is.

Or, perhaps less confusing: I’m entirely comfortable w/ you having this position about a very minor aspect of how transsexualism should be addressed AS LONG AS you are promoting such for ONLY YOU to exercise.

My thought, throughout this discussion, is that you were thinking all of society should be (forced?) to share it.

As an example, and the one that sparked discussion of a very, VERY minor aspect, I’ll use this “pronoun” thing. I took it that you meant some effort given, for & by the few ppl that would be most directly effected by the use of a more TRANS-gender term to refer to this very small segment of society, would also affect the whole of society to some DEGREE of “forcing” it to adapt its lexicon to include that “pronoun” or something similar that would/will address the uniqueness-of-gender for these ppl.

That this effort and any results of it, would in varying degrees negatively affect the larger part of society is the position I thought you were maintaining.

I was failing to understand that it is mostly just YOU that wants to be in this gray area of most-central neutrality. Absolutely, I haven’t a problem w/ your desire to hold that opinion. I support it and am NOT endeavoring to keep you from holding that position. I’m also okay w/ you believing that society as a whole wants to have a similar neutrality; or, even that some parts of it would actually have varying degrees of negative response to this POSSIBLELY great erosion of its core/root lexicon.

I’ll even go so far as to agree that there would likely be this negative reaction. But, this doesn’t mean that I think that reaction is reasonable and just. Nor should you so automatically assume this support-in-numbers for your position that this negative reaction somehow establishes a validity for your it beyond that group. Maybe this group is a very small percentage of society; making your concerns for society as a whole somewhat moot?

As I’ve pointed out, I just don’t believe that many ppl will be negatively impacted by any small “changes” wrought by those wanting a more definitive addressing of a very small area of society. There is NO huge domino-effect here that will lead to any serious, let alone lasting, degree of negative impact.

Short version: I fully support your right to hold those opinions. I don’t agree w/ your efforts to think society should agree w/ you – regardless of how passionate you believe them and are able to eloquently defend them.
.
.

And, pray tell me O hyperboliser, how often are you going to run into “some bearded guy wearing a dress and has painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off”? How often is ANYONE going to experience this?

Why does it matter? It’s about frequency now?

Absolutely it is about frequency – along w/ the degrees of it. Only those “purists” for the sanctity of our lexicon should have any interest in any additions (likely NOT “changes”) to any parts of our informal terminology.

BigO, I’m simply not able to understand your “neutral” angst over this.
.

Well fuck, if necessary, just talk to them like they are a typical person….until they give cause to indicate otherwise.
To me, mental issues are such indicator.
THAT is a “neutral” position?
.

If I don’t know them, I call them by what is predominately presented.

Precisely.

UNLESS it is the result of a “mental disorder”…right?.
Hell, that are some (too many) that think homosexuality, of any nature, is a mental disorder.
But, upon a very casual knowledge of anyone, I’m certainly not going to assume any seriousness of a psychological assessment that would render me any at all concern about how to address anyone that is somewhat ambiguous in what the gender is that they’re projecting.

I’ll just try to not use any terms that offend him/er to the point s/he kills me….lol.
.

However, the way I’m seeing your position is that your solution to the pronoun thing is that there are only two…he & she. You are being a stickler about not “allowing” for the “special case” of the whole “blur-gender” issue.
Yes, I am. You can’t have a gray area here, you can’t coin half a pronoun. You can either allow it or not. I don’t want to allow it. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “forbidding”, either, but that’s beyond the case.
I’m sorry that you are yet to grasp a concept that I’ve made abundantly clear. I’m NOT wanting to “coin half a pronoun”. Show me where I’ve promoted that. It is your near-constant obfuscations of this issue that allows you to see this.

AGAIN, I’ve merely promoted that a small group can do whatever they want, for their own use/needs, in the way they want to determine how to address transgenders, and any other areas that aren’t mainstream enough to have generated a widely held nomenclature.
.

If Newspeak is such a bad thing, why use it? BSG didn’t bring it up. Why contemptuously reply to BSG’s post when you have previously chastised Sharangir for doing likewise? Is this not hypocrisy?
I don’t think you understood me there. And if anyone was contemptuous, it was BSG, whether you like it or not.
For me, the issue isn’t about whether or not BSG was being contemptible (one can easily see it that way…should they desire) or whether I like it. It is about the way you choose to rebut a serious, involved point he made. Sharangir only tossed a terse negative rejoinder; and you responded w/ a more lengthy, eloquent chastisement.

But, such evaluations are highly subjective. Ergo, I’ve lost interest in/am also tired of playing this game.
.

I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain my views.

Interestingly enough, YOU DON’T HAVE TO.
And, any such refusal should be seen (by us?) as you having lost the argument and/or that we have “won” it.
.

I don’t mind questions or constructive critique (I actually enjoy that), but the last several posts are neither, so if you guys want to keep it on such track, I’d rather we all returned to the topic of Newspeak (if you feel it needs that) or whatever was being discussed before screening me.

Yes, I imagine you would like to talk about Newspeak.
However, I don’t think such applies here.
Likely, from what I can see, neither does anyone else.

And, that you see the more recent posts by them (me included?) as being less than you desire just might be that the tone of them is a reflection of the frustration these posters have – which has been generated BECAUSE OF how you are conducting yourself in the discussion. I don’t know about them, but as I stated just above, that is why I’ve grown tired of this discussion.

Example:
You claim any new nomenclature coined by a small group for use by them will have a huge negative effect on society at large.
I contend that it won’t and ask you for support of your position.
You respond w/ Newspeak and talk of professional philologists being of great importance in this issue.
I disagree about the issue being all that great.
You say it is.
Stalemate.

I’m certainly not trying to change your mind. I’m merely responding to your positions on how you want to view the issue. I’m also adamantly challenging your positions that there are any real, large, or damaging effects from the efforts to address a minor part of society.

That you feel you HAVE TO EXPLAIN your views is utterly odd to me.
WHAT?
You think we should accept your views as being valid without you telling us/EXPLAINING why they are?

You think “screening” is a bad thing?
Screening: to select, reject, consider, or group (people, objects, ideas, etc.) by examining systematically.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
This is the first known female penis. It doesn’t belong to a human.

For a guy that is such a stickler about word usage, ya certainly like to cherry-pick the ones ya wanna use and those ya wanna ignore. That link is a SCIENTIFIC one. vika & I are talking about a COINED term a particular group of ppl are using to describe a situation they AND society are grappling with. I’ve brought this distinction up several times, yet, as vika points out, you’re very adept at side-stepping/ignoring that which presents a solid challenge to your position.
.

KKK: To some degree or another, you are either a part of the problem or you are a part of the solution.
You then replied with:
Yeah, I called that “you’re either with us or you’re against that”. I still don’t want to be either.
I’m disgusted by the way ya twist things to support your position. The bold above puts a whole “shades-of-gray” qualifier on your only black/white “with-or-against”.

And, btw…I’m talking about a bell-curve here. Hence the point I made about how the top of that bell-curve was so broad, like a very widely-rounded knoll, that the true apex would be very difficult to ascertain. And, that the ppl in that gray area would likely know so very little of the issue (if know about it at all) that they wouldn’t be able to tell what “side” of it they were on…were a flag be there to indicate the actual dividing point, the grays of either side of the flag being so extreeeeeely similar.

Take down the flag, blindfold a person, walk them this way and that, take the blind fold off and tell them to stand on their original position.

Yes, I can call that “grassy knoll” something very akin to YOUR “neutrality” on an issue. However, when you go to the lengths (and use the methods you do) to promote a lot of bluster over a simple expansion of some dialogue for a very small area of society’s evolvement, I’m gonna say that ya’re making a significant trek towards that area that is known as bias-heading-to-the-more-repugnant-bigotry.
.
Speaking of bigotry:A bigoted person will never see they’re bigoted. I can call you bigoted, and you won’t be able to argue against it, either.

Karma, really. If you want to call me a bigot, I can deal with it. We’re both grown ups. If you don’t see me as a bigot, don’t compare me to bigots like that. I can’t be a bigot just partly.
A bigoted person may never see that they’re bigoted; BUT, they certainly can know that they are deemed a bigot by other ppl. As far as a bigot “arguing” against being called one; THAT is so patently absurd as to not be worthy of addressing. Every bigot I know does a damn fine job of arguing to support their major bias.

I’m not comparing YOU to “bigots like that”; I’m comparing your ideological position as having a taint or being akin to theirs….OR: degrees & shades-of-gray. Can you not see how you cherry-pick a persons post to discredit it to better support your position?

And, YES….one can not only be a bigot “partly” (having prejudice/bias in only one/few areas), they can be “partly” because of degrees (not full-blown bigot).
.

KKK: But, they [a list of none-hot-button words] are no longer “needed”, no longer of value.
Walk up to a ghetto kid and ask him what the value of “nigger” is.
Words come and go, but they don’t just disappear leaving no residue.
Hyperbolising won’t cut it as a rebuttal to my point. And, there are many, many shades-of-gray for “residue” of words; some of them so gray that they will essentially just disappear into the blackness of forgotten history.
.
KKK: What constitutes a “game” they are playing?
Why not play their game?
There are transvestites who don’t want to be their opposite sex 24/7. I don’t want to address some bearded guy as “lady” just because he put on a dress, painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off. But not, as vika insists on believing, just because he has a penis.
So what if a trans doesn’t want to static their chosen/preferred gender? Do ya not know of having a job where such activity might be cause for some serious repercussions? Do you not change into more “comfortable” clothes upon getting home from the job? Do you not wear the appropriate attire for whichever area you will be in the public?

And, pray tell me O hyperboliser, how often are you going to run into “some bearded guy wearing a dress and has painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off”? How often is ANYONE going to experience this?

BUT, more importantly…..SO FUCKING WHAT if it happens? Very likely one isn’t even going to have to address him using any pronoun. I’m assuming we are still “working on” that initial premise? Hence, my “tempest-in-a-teapot” assessment of your angst-objections here that have this TAINT of a similarity of ppl who harbor an even stronger “concern” about such individuals existing to a degree that they might encounter them and not know what to say to them.

Well fuck, if necessary, just talk to them like they are a typical person….until they give cause to indicate otherwise. If you can’t say anything nice; don’t say anything at all.

I gave you a somewhat “black/white” method for handling this whole pronoun thing. If I know them, I call them what they want to be called….she, he, name,whatever. If I don’t know them, I call them by what is predominately presented. OR, in talking to someone else about them, I said I will use a PROPER noun….even if it weren’t correct (leaving it open to be corrected later).

There are ppl out there that are fully heterosexual. HOWEVER, they are so androgynous (NOT having a beard….lol) that using a pronoun for them is going to have the same issues.
.

Ask your questions, if you have any – I hope you know I’ll answer them best I can, and I appreciate your effort in taking various approaches – but, to be honest, the line between you just investigating my views and you confronting them with yours has become blurry to me. This isn’t one of those topics that have one and only solution.
I totally agree with: This isn’t one of those topics that have one and only solution.

However, the way I’m seeing your position is that your solution to the pronoun thing is that there are only two…he & she. You are being a stickler about not “allowing” for the “special case” of the whole “blur-gender” issue.

The reason it has become so blurry, beyond the obviousness that the issue is diverse & complicated, is that it is YOU who is doing the blurring.
.

I bellyfeel your assessment. If we had doubleplus more people who could crimestop like you, we’d rid the world of oldthinkers in no time.
Ya really luv Newspeak as being some “proof” re think much more simple issue of a new pronoun.. If Newspeak is such a bad thing, why use it? BSG didn’t bring it up. Why contemptuously reply to BSG’s post when you have previously chastised Sharangir for doing likewise? Is this not hypocrisy?

Other than later quoting a couple of relevant posts (BSG’s & ImplosionOfDoom’s), I think I’ve ridden this merry-go-round long enough to see that I’ll NEVER even touch the brass ring, let alone snatch it….lol

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Yes, upon paying the $7.00 membership fee and learning the secrete feminist handshake, a woman can honestly be called a BITCH. That’s just the way things are in good ol’ virtuous America….a place for everyone and an attitude tailor-made for those too dumb to know what to think.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

DannyD, I won’t deny that I share your position that evolution tends to put this spin on men & women.

What I do want to know is just how MUCH does this come into play as to: take the combatants away from the mission?

Seriously, ya’re not trolling me?

What about the simple fact that the guy/gal next to ya is someone whom you’ve developed comaraderie?
What about the simple fact that if one doesn’t have their back, your own back isn’t very protected?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Maybe I’m just sick of seeing page after page of your textwalls.

Protip: Grow the fuck up and DON’T LOOK….eh?
lol
I’ve seen only 8 other ppl my whole life (discounting masochists) that endeavor so mightily to find things that upset them. I highly recommend professional help.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

My issue here is that you by your prior words, would not consider these individuals to be women, and would treat them with a masculine pronoun, solely because their health prevents the full surgivcal rectification from being carried out. That they present as fully female otherwise, is irrelevant to you, as you say “they might pretend to be a man someday”.

Anyone can pretend to be a man or a woman someday. You’re overgeneralising my stance.
I guess I am guilty of seeing that you are overgeneralizing this whole “forceful damage” to our deep-rooted language.
.
I just want to be somehow certain – if that’s possible – that I’m not drawn into other people’s mental issues. Some mental issues are more visible than other, and if I can detect them, I won’t willingly engage with them.
How often does this possibly happen?
How committed to an encounter are you that any of that is of any real importance?
It being a boss, fellow worker, client, or some other more formal involvement….I see that.
.
That’s why I said I wouldn’t check anyone’s genitals.
Not a Crocodile Dundee would probably be best.
LOL
.
With someone visibly feminine if they wish to be female, or masculine if they wish to be male, my default stance is to call them whatever they wish to be called.
Makes perfect sense to me.
That is how I roll.
.
If I find out it’s a game for them, and if I need to function with them, I’ll play my own game and change my behaviour accordingly.
What constitutes a “game” for them?
Why not play their game?
I find I don’t have to typically “invest” a lot to do so;
and, the “returns” from my being able to manifest diversity w/in myself can often be quite valuable/interesting/amusing.
.
With men and women “invisibly” masculine or feminine, it depends on each individual, I can’t generalise that properly to post it as my formal guideline, since that’s what this seems to be about.

I’ve found that the more I know about ppl, the more I shouldn’t assume that I know all that much about them.

So, I tend to tread lightly in those unknown areas.
Seems to be working quite well…..so far.
lol

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

No, BSG. Now you’re just trying to convince biguglyorc he’s secretly bigoted. 8000 words and counting.

OH, BSG.
Sure, why not? Unlike YOU, I hold the man to be a paladin.
What the fuck problem do YOU have w/ my referencing a thought he has that well supports mine?
Jealous?

Are ya sure you can count that high?
LOL
Man, ya sure do have weird hobbies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
As said above, I HAVE been giving you links that show examples. Maybe vika is right about how ya’re failing to “educate” yourself in order to protect your (her words) bigotry. Have you not taken my advice and given some thought as to how your “Newspeak-comparison” is coming across a tad bit “excessive”?

Your whiteknighting is the only thing that looks excessive to me.

YOU think I would "whiteknight for vika?
Man, you ARE weird.
lol

But, if anyone knows about being on a high horse, if would be YOU.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

A continuation of my post replying to BigUglyOrc’s post because of how a really long post screws up the formatting.
Just ignore jan’s usual bullshit.
It’s excessive as usual.
lol

No, I don’t think I’m a hypocrite because I want to remain neutral. In my understanding, what LGBT fights for is social neutrality: they want the same social and legal rights as everyone else. In this sense we have the same goals – we don’t wish to be bothered because of our views/who we are. I don’t think, however, that many of their actions prove it: they, in a way, want to have more than “straight people”, or whoever else is not in their group, do – for reference, please watch this poorly acted, unfunny skit, that kind of shows what I mean. I want them to be equals. But some demand, as the video points out, that others accept who non-heterosexuals are, even if they invade everyone else’s private space. It is now socially acceptable that the “openly homosexual man” from the video be allowed crass behaviour that others are not allowed. It’s unfair. Especially to those who have never discriminated anyone for their sexuality. I don’t want them to hide, nor do I want them to show “what they are” as it’s shown in the video. Such people stigmatise themselves. It’s not self-expression, it’s crass. Do you think someone bedecked with whatever heterosexual symbols might be, would be met with social acceptance? Someone with a t-shirt picturing a vagina and a penis would be fined at best. But that’s not to say that I want to be crass. I don’t. And I’d rather “they” (whoever “they” are) weren’t, either.
What I’m seeing above is something akin to prejudice. Or, a judging of the whole based upon the more overt actions of the (likely) few. I went round-&-round w/ this concept w/ Kasic in our discussion about feminism. He kept wanting to transfer the tenets of the radicals to be inclusive AND representative of the greater number of moderates.
.
I want moderation in the way people express themselves, that’s all.
This I understand.
It is something I typically prefer, also.
And, this is because that is where the most beneficial progress is usually made.
BUT, can you not apply my American Revolutionary WAR to the ideology that there are times that “moderation” just ain’t gonna cut it.

Such is why Suffragists Alice Paul and Lucy Burns left NAWSA and founded the National Women’s Party (NWP), in their minds effecting a better way to fight for women’s rights which involved some much more “proactive” measures than were previously being used. The women’s movement was simply bogged down by “moderation”.

I find the situation pictured in the video a bit similar to that of having someone agree to changes to a language. Language is a means of expressing oneself, if you change the language, you change the way someone expresses themselves. Question is, how much do you change that person when you change the way they express themselves?

YET, you are so adamantly & weakly promoting that this small group of ppl refrain from being able to express themselves. Those ppl aren’t wanting to change their views of themselves. They are wanting to enlighten/enhance the views others have of them. A growth I see as being very beneficial….if not necessary.

From that link:
In addition to the secret language employed by government officials, there were the numerous issues of Sprachregelung (language regulations). One part of them dealt with the “Germanization” of the language by replacing foreign words (Fremdw–rter) with German ones: e.g. Lichtbild instead of Photo, Fernsprecher instead of Telephon, Fernsehrohr instead of Teleskop. However, not all the official suggestions were accepted by the public and some of them never established themselves in the German vernacular. Others entered common usage and remained beyond the Nazi period. For instance, Fernsprecher has only recently been changed to the more international term Telefon on public phone booths in Germany.

Changes to a language take roots very deep. They should be thought-through.

From all of that: merely digging deep to yet remain very shallow about the simplicity of an issue.

NOT ALL “changes to a language take roots very deep”. Good grief. This is a bit of the hyperbole you are engaging that likely creates this taint-0-bigotry some see. Words come and go….both colloquially & formal. My many years can attest to that. When did you last hear slide rule, beatnik, computer punch card , etc.?

Yes, those words/terms are still “with us”.
BUT, they are no longer used, no longer “needed”, no longer of value.
Such will be the case for most of the “transgender movement” upon it having “moved on” and hopefully attained its goals. Maybe even better than those of ending racism.
.

Do you truly think a very tiny—for the most part, completely hidden from a huge percentage of society—change/addition to language is all that seriously oppressive?

Could you define “seriously oppressive”?

NO.
I’ll leave that up to YOU.
You seem to be the one promoting gloom & doom should some minor words/terms “takes roots very deep”.
.
I don’t feel oppressed as such, if that’s what you mean. But I do think that imposing artificial vocabulary on people is oppressive.
AGAIN.
Where is this “imposing”…being “forced”…etc. coming from?
Just because a few in the movement might be “hyper” certainly doesn’t equate someone coming to my door like Jehovah’s Witnesses and DEMANDING that I join their movement by using their Newspeak.
.
In case that isn’t clear, I can estimate the weight of an item, but I don’t need to describe it as heavy. The thing is, I want to be the one who decides what I am supposed to carry, regardless of its weight. If it’s something I don’t wish to touch, I won’t lift it up, if I don’t have to.NO…you don’t.
Again, where the hell are ya getting this notion that anyone is INSISTING that you personally adhere to their agenda….esp. in the area of using THEIR “language”?
.
I’m just not yet able to rectify this strong objection you are showing to modification/evolution of “labels” for things that are very public and need some “handles” by which a modicum of rational discussion can be had by the largest amount of ppl possible.

I thought we agreed that if it must be done artificially, rather than naturally, philologists should be the ones to do it?

Nope…didn’t agree to anything like that.
I’m for a progression. Ppl coin words (I’ll limit it to the positive side of the coin) to create a language for themselves. That language CAN evolve and GROW to be picked up by ever-growing areas of society. THEN, there are some that even make it the mainstream. Some even become “official”.
.
Also, sorry, but I’m a bit confused as to how you can call the problem simultaneously “very public” and “completely hidden from a huge percentage of society”. Aren’t these expressions mutually exclusive?
Perhaps I should/could have said: this transgender issue is one that is rapidly becoming very public; BUT, it isn’t likely to be all that mainstream public simply because most ppl really don’t give a fuck. Hell, I well imagine that the most interest it will garner will come from the more anti groups than those who could do the movement some good.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
While a GYN-OB should NOT engage in any terminology that the patient wouldn’t understand—esp. if it is limited in scope as in the case of intersex that the patient likely knows nothing of,

I know sexual education may vary from country to country, but I can hardly imagine a woman that would know what a “female penis” is, but wouldn’t know have a clue what a clitoris is. And even if you could find such a woman, the gynecologist still should not use such terminology. It’s informal. It’s a bit (not completely, since “female penis” isn’t even a valid term) like calling the vagina “a pussy” and breasts – “boobs”. Most women would feel insulted when asked to show their boobs, so that they could be examined with a mammograph. It’s informal and inappropriate.

Ooopps, I did it again. I failed to make a contraction where I should have….damn. Correction made above in bold. That should “counter” your reply.
.
this medical situation alone doesn’t segue to mean that the term FEMALE penis, in all of its informal/colloquial meanings, is limited to being ideological.

That’s because the expression “male penis” is a tautology.

Ooooops….too early in the morning to be typing. Correction above in bold.
.
If it were as easy as renaming it to “female penis”, aka clitoris, it wouldn’t be much of a problem.
THAT is what I was going for. And, just and FYI here, it HAS BEEN a bona fide “name” for some time now. I’m guessing you aren’t reading the many links I’m providing where the medical community and others—BESIDES those more intimately involved and shouting the “ideology” of trans the loudest—are commonly using that term….esp. in the area of intersex individuals.
.
What I have yet to get a good grasp of is why you have such a problem with it?
It’s because I find it “Newspeakly”, as you phrased it. Expressions like “female penis” make no sense and refer more to ideologies than they do to things/ideas they’re supposed to describe. That’s a quality of Newspeak.
Lol, I’m not gonna let ya do something akin to “answer a question with a question”. Telling me that very minor changes/additions, in a very limited area, to an enormous & fast-growing lexicon is anything at all like the degree to which Newspeak is comes across and trying to counter my flea of a point by running an nonexistent herd of buffalo over it. OR, Newspeak just doesn’t apply here. Yes, I do see a very, Very, VERY limited “resemblance”; but, a pile of shit resembles lasagna in than at one time it could have been lasagna.
.
In case you disagree – can I ask you to give some examples as a counterargument of when one should refer to the clitoris as the “female penis”? I would especially appreciate an example that by mentioning “female penis” would remain ideologically neutral.

As said above, I HAVE been giving you links that show examples. Maybe vika is right about how ya’re failing to “educate” yourself in order to protect your (her words) bigotry.

Have you not taken my advice and given some thought as to how your “Newspeak-comparison” is coming across a tad bit “excessive”? Here is a link that gives a MEDICAL insight on how the event of a clitoris can be “viewed” to be a penis: “46, XX Intersex. The person has the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male. This usually is the result of a female fetus having been exposed to excess male hormones before birth. The labia (”lips" or folds of skin of the external female genitals) fuse, and the clitoris enlarges to appear like a penis."

If a group of ppl (and friends, family, supporters, etc.) who are dealing w/ issues involving their rather unique gender identity want to “coin” a term for their use in how they discuss it amongst themselves and thusly present it to the world (the small part that actually gives a shit); who am I to try to rain on their parade by being overly “Newspeakishly” about it?

Let me clarify, ONCE AGAIN, my rebuttal to your Newspeak position. The whole of society is NOT being FORCED to use ANY coined terms that are applied, without or within, to this very small area of our population. I am aghast that any American wouldn’t be interested in moving a slight bit from the “middle-of-the-road” (neutrality) and show the rest of the world that we are in full support of equal rights, equal respect, equal tolerance of our fellow citizens that comprise a minority that has yet to establish a mainstream recognition….which could be greatly enhanced via some descent, overt terminology that is both scientific and colloquial.
.

why does a society need to be held to a similar, somewhat similar, whatever standard as opposed to just letting the public at large kick it around until the media settles on those terms it finds most expedient for its uses?

It doesn’t. But, on the other hand, who coins those terms? Not society, but its groups or individuals.

SO?
I think I’ve already addressed this position above.
I’m not aware of any convention where society all get together and decide on what this year’s new words are going to be. Most all words, both formal & informal, are integrated into society from very “humble origins”.
.
It isn’t as simple as it was for Shakespeare to make up the word “alligator” – he used licencia poetica and then people decided they want to use that word, at first informally, then formally. It’s different now. The word “nigger”, for instance, is now informal (and at that derogatory), because it’s historically/ideologically biased – people decided it refers too strongly to slavery and racial oppression, so they don’t formally use it anymore. Etymologically though, it has nothing to do with slavery, but it’s derived from “niger” or “negro” which means “black”. It leads, however, to other nonsensical debates, such as those on the appropriateness of the word “niggardly”.
I think I can agree w/ all of that….lol
But, to substantiate my own personal efforts at communication and how I moderate it for various reasons, I RARELY use the word “niggardly”. I will do so ONLY in a setting where I DO KNOW that the definition of it is absolutely understood. Why be an ass and show off a vocabulary to those who don’t understand it….esp. when it is highly likely to be mistaken?
.
Do you not see how Sharangir (assuming she is a “colony”) might see your attitude here as being that of “Straight privilege” (King G.) and therefore feeling very comfortable in your position of neutrality (disinterest) in regard to her situation?
I’m not at all saying I think you are “bigoted” here;
The thing with bigotry is that it isn’t very descriptive; etymologically, the word “bigot” is just an insult, and in practice one can’t really argue against being called a bigot. It’s a bit (although not as emotional) like calling someone “stupid” as opposed to calling them “uneducated” – except “uneducated” can be argued for and against; “stupid” as such cannot, although one can argue someone is stupid because they’re uneducated. Calling someone a bigot is not an argument, but a conclusion. That’s why I’ll go with what I think is in this context the closest synonym to bigotry – hypocrisy.

Good grief, are you not able to see how all of this splitting frog hairs about words, their origins, their “rightful” validity, their harm to society’s general lexicon doesn’t have a taint of BIGOTRY (having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others) to it?

But, if you prefer hypocrisy, I can see a particular area of hypocrisy going on here. It is how you want to say you have no issue w/ and are “neutral” about the social movement/efforts of a particular SMALL group of ppl; YET, you toss out some very lame “reasons” why they should place ridiculous limits on those efforts.

The BSG said something recently on the “male privilege” thread. Of course, he says it much better than I; but, it amounts to this: To some degree or another, you are either a part of the problem or your are a part of the solution. Those who are in the gut-of-the-bell-curve typically don’t see this. They don’t even know where the “division line” is.

This is because the apex of that curve isn’t a clearly defined, sharp one. It is ever so slightly curved, like a person standing on top of a very rounded knoll, that finding a true apex is near impossible. Most ppl wander around that “knoll-area”, usually very easily influenced by whichever wind is blowing whatever direction.

This is why I say that you aren’t even close to being anything like bigoted.
BUT, these terminology sabots you are lobbing into the machinery of their social movement certainly can’t be viewed as being something helpful.
.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

BUO

The female penis is the clitoris.

And yet only one of these expressions has an ideological ring to it. The word “clitoris” is medical and the only meaning it carries is that it’s a certain part of a woman’s body. “Female penis”, on the other hand, brings up the topic of societal inequalities, etc. If a gynecologist used that term while examining a patient, they would, in a way, engage in a political debate – and it would be very unprofessional of the doctor to use such terminology, as it’s neither medical, nor informal/colloquial, but it’s ideological.
I’m guessing that ya haven’t yet delved much into intersex. I’m not yet board certified in that area…lol. But, I’m not so sure that you are knowledgeable enough to made some of your statements above. While a GYN-OB should engage in any terminology that the patient wouldn’t understand—esp. if it is limited in scope as in the case of intersex that the patient likely knows nothing of, this medical situation alone doesn’t segue mean that the term “male penis”, in all of its informal/colloquial meanings, is limited to being ideological.

I’m not “leaning into” any particular wind on this issue of what to INFORMALLY call most anything that pops up on God’s green earth; I hope I’ve made that clear. What I have yet to get a good grasp of is why you have such a problem with it?

Let me make it clear that I am well aware that the scientific community does need uniformity in it nomenclature. But, why does a society need to be held to a similar, somewhat similar, whatever standard as opposed to just letting the public at large kick it around until the media settles on those terms it finds most expedient for its uses?

Ya know, like how I showed (in a link) how this whole “atypical” sex thing has hugely ballooned to have many new names under the GLBT umbrella. Those terms aren’t jargon or colloquial. They are bona fide terms used to discuss those issue….or so it would appear.
.

If I were transsexual and in charge of their movement(s), I would tone it down (not as in: crawl back under my rock; legal equality should still be addressed, it’s the social acceptance/tolerance that concerns me here) and advise my successors to do so as well; then, to simplify, the problem would just “sink in” the society, and the solution would come up naturally.
And, King George could have avoided America’s Revolutionary War had he simply listened to the more calmer rhetoric of the large amount of beseeching for address of grievances given him by the Colonies.

Do you not see how Sharangir (assuming she is a “colony”) might see your attitude here as being that of “Straight privilege” (King G.) and therefore feeling very comfortable in your position of neutrality (disinterest) in regard to her situation? “I keep saying that I want to be neither an active supporter of that group, nor an active “basher”, I want to be right in the middle, not bothered by either of the parties.”

Would one of the finer (and “funner”) points of privilege be one where a person isn’t “bothered by” any of the turmoil going on around them? No, as I stated, I don’t see you as any form of basher. However, I didn’t see you as being all that passive about social issues. But, I’m wondering why you aren’t able to see how your insistence—that a groundswell, likely transient, set of VERY informal terms is going to somehow do great harm to our formal lexicon—can’t be easily viewed as something along the line of what vika said: “It truly just sound like you’re bringing your own bigotries into this. I didn’t wish to believe it was that simple, but faced with this evidence and the fact you clearly don’t give a shit about actually doing research on the subject, what other conclusion can I be left with?”

I’m not at all saying I think you are “bigoted” here; I’m just not yet able to rectify this strong objection you are showing to modification/evolution of “labels” for things that are very public and need some “handles” by which a modicum of rational discussion can be had by the largest amount of ppl possible.

The cause of my confusion—to continue your statement from that “neutrality” point above:
" I want to use a language unaffected either by “hate speech” (that’s why I mentioned the word “nigger” earlier), nor “love speech” (which is why I won’t use terms like “female penis” when discussing clitorides). One is derogatory and the other nonsensical. My “desires” – regardless of what vocabulary I choose to use – fall short however, if everyone else (including gynecologists mentioned earlier) speaks like that, I’m forced to know what those terms mean and accept them, and the best I can do is turn a blind eye to it. It doesn’t matter which group demands (that a certain set of words be socially accepted, I – and anyone else who wishes to maintain neutrality – lose regardless. It is oppressive. It’s a kind of oppression different to the one various minorities have to deal with, but it’s still oppression nonetheless."

BUO, the bold words above should give you an idea of why some might see a tad of “bigotry” in your position. As I’ve mentioned about how the tempest-in-a-teapot of a small (yet very important to those few) issue, such a tiny minority cause just cannot be viewed as having all that oppressive effect on our society as a whole.

Do you truly think a very tiny—for the most part, completely hidden from a huge percentage of society—change/addition to language is all that seriously oppressive? If so, help me out here…toss me a bone in the form of some well-known example of how this has ACTUALLY happened.
.
.
Okay, enough of the serious crap…lol
I want to clear up something you bring up as a response to how I will use a PROPER noun in place of a pronoun if I’m not sure which one to use. I mean Bill, Mary, Tom, Annett.
Or, Dick for Richard…..NOT Nig for Nigger, even if that is what the person wants me to call them.

You appear to be too invested in this quest of “the involved” to find/establish terminology they feel best describes them. I’m sorry that may have been a reason you mistook my meaning about how I can always use a PROPER noun in place of a pronoun.

But, as I’ve also stated, I haven’t a problem calling most anyone anything…..should that be their preference/request. The key is to find strong/easy communication lines….rather than dither about being overly concerned about terminology. Understanding can be ultimately hashed out if interest is truly there.

Along that line, I present this from Dear Abby today. That asshole FATHER is ignoring the effect his quest for acceptance of his gender proclivity is having on his 6 & 9 y.o. sons. He won’t listen to his wife. Likely the courts can’t do anything. THAT kind of behavior by a “trans” is what certainly does give a huge negative slap for those who don’t deserve it involved in the issue.