Of course you know about the religious right...

[rjs330]

Why not just give everyone the same respect? How does it oppress you if someone wants a different pronoun than you think they should have?

What we "think"? Is this another thing where he/she pronouns are no longer linked to sex?
If you refer to someone as a male who is not one then you are lying. Why would people demand that others lie about them?

 

[Bradskii]

What we "think"? Is this another thing where he/she pronouns are no longer linked to sex?
If you refer to someone as a male who is not one then you are lying. Why would people demand that others lie about them?

So Mary in accounts turns out to have been a Dave. Well, I'll be...

What do you do? 'Sorry, I'm going to have to refer to you as he from now on. You see, I just found out'. Is that how it works? Or do you think 'Hey, she looks just like a woman to me. I'll stick with she'.

 

[rjs330]

Thanks for posting this. Things have gotten so out of whack that you don’t know what normal means

That's so true. The left's game is to change the language. Confuse it so badly that words are actually meaningless. Like the word normal. We all have known forever what normal is. But if there is no normal then everything is normal and nothing is normal. Abnormal becomes meaningless because there must be normal in order to have abnormal. And since everything is normal and nothing is abnormal the two words don't exist because they cannot be defined. The definition normal becomes irrelevant. It's like the definition of woman. There is no definition of woman that satisfies the left b cause men can be a woman. Nothing is normal. Pronouns become meaningless. Everything becomes what anyone wants it to be at any given moment. Nothing is solid or real. Except for climate change. We can define normal for that. We can have abnormal weather patterns, it can be hotter and colder than normal.

We just apparently can't have abnormal or normal behavior.

 

[rjs330]

So Mary in accounts turns out to have been a Dave. Well, I'll be...

What do you do? 'Sorry, I'm going to have to refer to you as he from now on. You see, I just found out'. Is that how it works? Or do you think 'Hey, she looks just like a woman to me. I'll stick with she'.

This is all about the language police. I bloody can't stand the language police. If I want to call Mary a he because Mary is a male I'll darn well do it. If you want to call Mary a she, be my guest. If you are confused about sex that's up to you to figure out. Call Mary a she, I won't stop you and I'm not going to jump in and say "he, he". By the same token I don't need you or anyone else being the pronoun police yelling "she, she!" if I say he.

Gender self ID today is nothing more than "gender bossing people around what to say".

To me sex means something. To you it doesn't. So I'll let you call Mary a she and you let me call Mary a he. I'm not confused. If you and/or Mary is, well that's up to you to work on. Live and let live.

Now if we want to alter the English language and do away with he, she altogether and just come up with a word that means male or female like zen and we all just used that because there is no sex associated with it, I'm on board. I think the Fins have the word "han" which is for both sexes. That way people can't push the trans ideology on anyone through language control.

 

[KCfromNC]

A cassock is not a dress.

I'd imagine calling the dress something different in the post I initially responded to wouldn't change the opinion presented there either.

 

[BPPLEE]

Like all safety issues, it's a matter of probabilities. The evidence we have, indicates that ministers are more likely to be pedophiles than transgendered people.

Let’s apply your reasoning across the board.
Of the murders in America, 53.5% are committed by black people, yet black people only make up 14.4% of the population.
Therefore, because it’s a matter of probability, the evidence indicates that it’s not safe to be around black folks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let’s apply your reasoning across the board.
Of the murders in America, 53.5% are committed by black people, yet black people only make up 14.4% of the population.
Therefore, because it’s a matter of probability, the evidence indicates that it’s not safe to be around black folks.

Hmmm....

FBI data:
"Of the murder victims for whom race was known, 53.3 percent were Black or African American, 43.8 percent were White,"

Expanded Homicide

ucr.fbi.gov

Nice try. Rarely do we see such blatant victim-blaming. I'm not thinking that was your dishonesty; I suspect you were fed that lie by others who correctly assumed that you'd never check the numbers. Fact is, you need to worry about people of your own race; the vast majority of murders are committed by people of the same race as the victim:
However, the share of black-on-black homicides as a proportion of black people killed actually fell by just under 1 percentage point, to 89.3 percent. This undoubtedly fractional decrease – which marked the third straight year of incremental reductions – still meant that for the first time since the start of the 21st century, the percentage of black victims killed by another black person stood below 90 percent of the total of black people killed.

Often less discussed – to the consternation of experts and columnists – is the phenomenon of white-on-white homicides. The number of white people killed by other whites rose 3.5 percent to 2,574 victims in 2015.

White-on-white killings as a percentage of all homicides involving a white victim also fell, to 81.3 percent, marking the lowest share of such killings since 2001.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

In fact, a totally color-blind black killer would chose a black victim about 20 percent of the time. It turns out that blacks kill whites at a significantly lower rate than chance would indicate, while whites kill blacks at a significantly higher rate than chance would have it. Would you like to see how we know?

 

[The Barbarian]

What we "think"? Is this another thing where he/she pronouns are no longer linked to sex?

As I said, I just call people whatever they want to be called.

If you refer to someone as a male who is not one then you are lying. Why would people demand that others lie about them?

If I have a neighbor who is under the illusion that he's the Grand Marshal of the Trump Honor Guard for North Texas, I'll happily say "Hey, Marshall, how's it going?" Why should you care? You probably don't care in that case, because fake honor guards don't scare you.

 

[BPPLEE]

Hmmm....

FBI data:
"Of the murder victims for whom race was known, 53.3 percent were Black or African American, 43.8 percent were White,"

Expanded Homicide

ucr.fbi.gov

Nice try. Rarely do we see such blatant victim-blaming. I'm not thinking that was your dishonesty; I suspect you were fed that lie by others who correctly assumed that you'd never check the numbers.

Nice try. Google how many murders they commit
Of the 9,468 murder arrests in the US in 2017, 53.5% were black and 20.8% Hispanic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Clever quip but I'm sure you're familiar with male and female doesn't exist, men can become pregnant, women can impregnate, sex, sexual orientation, gender is all fluid and one is whatever one identifies as ie a total break from reality.

Maybe you don't know what "transvestite" means. Do you think it means all that? Seriously?

 

[Nithavela]

That's so true. The left's game is to change the language. Confuse it so badly that words are actually meaningless. Like the word normal. We all have known forever what normal is.

I'm curious. What exactly was the normal that everyone knew was normal?

You seem to have a good grip on what everyone knew was normal, judging by your posts. Let's take the discussion away from other peoples genitals for a while (I know, boring!) and talk about food. What was the normal regarding people's eating habits that everyone knew was normal?

 

[The Barbarian]

Those ministers are closet homosexuals or something least bisexual if they are doing it to kids of the same sex.

No. They are pedophiles. Pedophiles are attracted to kids below the age of puberty and generally are indifferent to the sex of the child.

Now, if they are attracted to post-pubescent kids, that's another issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not about the abolishment of slurs. It's about the abolishment of many words like "mother" and the establishment of terms like "birthing person" in place of "mother".

I know someone like that. Her biological mother dumped her on relatives right after birth and took off to live whatever life she wanted. "Mother" is her aunt, who took her in and raised her with love and care. Her biological mother is only that.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't have any problems with what they wear, but other posts certainly expressed concern.

I was being a wise guy. The "zone" is a belt used in EO vestments.

 

[The Barbarian]

Please continue to post this line of reasoning.

Sure. As you seem to know, those who are sexually attracted to children often end up in jobs where they are close to kids or in positions of authority over them. They are, of course, a small subset of the others in such jobs, who are merely people who want to be of service to children. But they are there, nevertheless.

If you could show that transgendered people tend to be in such jobs, you would have a valid objection to the conclusion. But I don't think that's the case.

 

[The Barbarian]

Read his last post. Children are not safe around ministers according to him.

No. I merely noted that ministers are more likely to be a hazard to kids than people who are not in child-oriented jobs. For the reasons we discussed. The Catholic Church for example, has implemented controls to make it harder to be alone with or in a position to abuse a child. Some other denominations are following that lead. Those inclined to abuse kids will tend to find jobs that put them in a position to do so. But you don't have to make it easy for them.

Children are statistically safer around transvestites than they are are around ministers, because the data indicate that transvestites are less likely to be pedophiles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nice try. Google how many murders they commit

See the data I posted. You should fear black people if you are black. If you are white, you are nine times as likely to be killed by a white person as by a black person. Think.

 

[BCP1928]

No. I merely noted that ministers are more likely to be a hazard to kids than people who are not in child-oriented jobs. For the reasons we discussed. The Catholic Church for example, has implemented controls to make it harder to be alone with or in a position to abuse a child. Some other denominations are following that lead. Those inclined to abuse kids will tend to find jobs that put them in a position to do so. But you don't have to make it easy for them.

Children are statistically safer around transvestites than they are are around ministers, because the data indicate that transvestites are less likely to be pedophiles.

No, you don't get it. Once you have made the first wicked lifestyle choice (to be gay or trans or whatever) you have repudiated Christian moral compass and the next wicked lifestyle choice becomes easier and it's a slippery slope leading right to pedophilia.

 

[BPPLEE]

See the data I posted. You should fear black people if you are black. If you are white, you are nine times as likely to be killed by a white person as by a black person. Think.

Then it’s not safe to be around either

 

[ozso]

I know someone like that. Her biological mother dumped her on relatives right after birth and took off to live whatever life she wanted. "Mother" is her aunt, who took her in and raised her with love and care. Her biological mother is only that.

In the case of what I'm talking about the aunt being called "mother" would be eliminated. And she wouldn't qualify for the replacement term of "birthing person".