Canadian Pastor accused of hate-motivated crimes at drag storytime won't commit to staying away from LGBTQ events

[rambot]

I think by asking the questions I did regarding your first hypothetical would be able to guide you in this case.

If the kid puts on a dress, no big deal. But if the teacher is telling Johnny, hey Johnny you can be a girl if you want to be and let's change your name and call you she. And when you get older we'll give you drugs to alter your genetic make up and you can even have surgeries to correct your body cause you might actually be a girl, then we have problems. I'm actually more concerned about that. That if Johnny puts on a dress all the leftists will circle around him and try and convince him he might be a girl in a boy's body and so they are going to "help" him along the path.

How much time have you spent in a classroom, by the way?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They've already done that.

That's why I picked that particular example.

The FL "Parental Rights in Education" bill had some areas of vagueness that I was critical of (and many of the same ilk who are none-too-thrilled with me in this thread were giving me likes and "winner" reacts in some of those other threads when I mentioned how the vagueness of some of the wording could lead to issues causing faculty members to get set up)

I actually defended some of the teachers' concerns with regards to some (what I felt) were particularly vague/weak clauses of the bill that could set them up for getting entrapped based on conservative parents' own interpretations of things that weren't explicitly defined and enumerated in the bill.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Due process and legal specificity are good things, even when they're being done for the benefit of people who I may not agree with. But many folks have taken the stance of "whatever puts the other side in their place...the ends justify the means"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Gender and who you find sexually attractive are not the same.

I don't recall ever saying they were... perhaps an accidental duplicate post aimed at someone else? (I see where you posted that exact same reply to someone else)

 

[Larniavc]

I don't recall ever saying they were... perhaps an accidental duplicate post aimed at someone else? (I see where you posted that exact same reply to someone else)

The what did you mean by this?

I think that's where some folks want to have it both ways with regards to societal constructs.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think that's where some folks want to have it both ways with regards to societal constructs.

They refer to it as a "just a construct" (dismissively) when other people state their preference for the previous societal gender norms.

Yet, in other facets, they speak of those constructs as having utmost importance.


Ex:

"Gender and pronouns are just constructs and words, so why do you care so much what someone wants to call themselves or what pronouns they want to use?"

Yet, if someone calls someone "the wrong one", all of the sudden "Gender/Pronouns are a deeply personal matter that are integral to one's body, mind, and soul and it's bigotry if you use the wrong one when referring to them"


It can either be a inconsequential arbitrary construct that has no bearing on anything, or it can be "super important...so important, in fact, that people need undergo sensitivity training in order to make sure they use the right ones and get punished and labelled a bigot if they don't"

...but it can't be both.


When someone uses the dismissive "they're just constructs, why do you care so much?", the proper response is "because you wanted me to, you're just upset that my 'caring' didn't lead me to the same conclusion as yours"

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by a "construct". Gender being a construct doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter. It means that trying to hold the idea of gender to a rigid definition is pointless - what has been considered "masculine" or "feminine" has changed many times throughout history and across cultures. In other words, all that really matters is how you see yourself - trying to project your views of what makes a "man" or a "woman" onto others is rude and insensitive.

Based on that, it's not contradictory to share your opinions about gender being a construct - especially when discussing gender roles with others - while still insisting that others refer to you as you've requested.

 

[rambot]

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by a "construct". Gender being a construct doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter. It means that trying to hold the idea of gender to a rigid definition is pointless - what has been considered "masculine" or "feminine" has changed many times throughout history and across cultures. In other words, all that really matters is how you see yourself - trying to project your views of what makes a "man" or a "woman" onto others is rude and insensitive.

Based on that, it's not contradictory to share your opinions about gender being a construct - especially when discussing gender roles with others - while still insisting that others refer to you as you've requested.

This is a REALLY important post for many antitransgender folks to read to make sure they understand the concept.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by a "construct". Gender being a construct doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter. It means that trying to hold the idea of gender to a rigid definition is pointless - what has been considered "masculine" or "feminine" has changed many times throughout history and across cultures. In other words, all that really matters is how you see yourself - trying to project your views of what makes a "man" or a "woman" onto others is rude and insensitive.

Based on that, it's not contradictory to share your opinions about gender being a construct - especially when discussing gender roles with others - while still insisting that others refer to you as you've requested.

I'm not saying that it doesn't matter...quite the opposite. I think certain gender expressions and roles manifested for a reason.

I'm suggesting that when people saying things like "well, why do you care so much?" (usually as a means to make the conservative side look nitpicky), they're the ones trivializing the concept or making it seem like an unimportant distinction.


Something interesting I saw on Twitter just yesterday. Ana Kasparian (very progressive reporter for the Young Turks) is the middle of a circular firing squad at the moment over this tweet she made.

She's now catching a bunch of flak for it by people on her own side.

Like I touched on before, the dialog has become structured around the premise that one particular viewpoint wants to have it both ways and wants the conversation centered around "whatever position happens to favor the trans person in this particular context"


A biological male who's trans says "I want to be called a woman, and I don't want to be called anything else"
--"you have to call them what they want to be called or you're a bigot and saying that trans women aren't real women"

A biological cisgender female says "I want to be called a woman, and I don't want to be called anything else"
--"you're being a TERF! you wanting to be called 'woman' is actually offensive because you as a cisgender female saying that is exclusionary to trans women"


Think if the roles were reversed here...If someone started referring to a transwoman as "person with a prostate" instead of "woman", how well would that be received?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The what did you mean by this?

I was referring to the debates about pronouns and gender designations.

Nothing to do with sexual attraction.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm not saying that it doesn't matter...quite the opposite. I think certain gender expressions and roles manifested for a reason.

I wasn't talking about your personal beliefs, but rather your characterization of the beliefs of others. You present the position of "gender is a construct" as gender being "a inconsequential arbitrary construct that has no bearing on anything". That is not accurate.

I'm suggesting that when people saying things like "well, why do you care so much?" (usually as a means to make the conservative side look nitpicky), they're the ones trivializing the concept or making it seem like an unimportant distinction.

"Why do you care so much" is aimed at people who hyperfixate on other people's gender. In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter what gender another person identifies with. If you meet someone who looks male but asks you to refer to her as "she," there's no reason to get into an argument about it. Just try your best to use her preferred pronouns - and apologize if you screw up.

Something interesting I saw on Twitter just yesterday. Ana Kasparian (very progressive reporter for the Young Turks) is the middle of a circular firing squad at the moment over this tweet she made.

I think you're reading pretty far into a few people getting outraged (wrongly, I would say). Reading through the responses to her tweet, I see some agreement with her position (even from people on the left) - as well as other people pointing out that those are hardly common ways of referring to people outside of a medical context (where they are actually relevant - "person with a uterus" could refer to a trans man or a cis woman) and wondering why she brought it up.

 

[Larniavc]

I was referring to the debates about pronouns and gender designations.

Then I can have it both ways.

 

[rambot]

I'm not saying that it doesn't matter...quite the opposite. I think certain gender expressions and roles manifested for a reason.

I'm suggesting that when people saying things like "well, why do you care so much?" (usually as a means to make the conservative side look nitpicky), they're the ones trivializing the concept or making it seem like an unimportant distinction.

I disagree. I don't think we are trivializing it when we say that. We say that because, we want them to realize it's none of their bloody business to begin with. I've taken a more direct tact with giving that message.
Just doing my part to avoid misunderstandings! You're welcome

Something interesting I saw on Twitter just yesterday. Ana Kasparian (very progressive reporter for the Young Turks) is the middle of a circular firing squad at the moment over this tweet she made.

View attachment 329342

She's now catching a bunch of flak for it by people on her own side.

View attachment 329343
View attachment 329344
View attachment 329346


Like I touched on before, the dialog has become structured around the premise that one particular viewpoint wants to have it both ways and wants the conversation centered around "whatever position happens to favor the trans person in this particular context"


A biological male who's trans says "I want to be called a woman, and I don't want to be called anything else"
--"you have to call them what they want to be called or you're a bigot and saying that trans women aren't real women"

A biological cisgender female says "I want to be called a woman, and I don't want to be called anything else"
--"you're being a TERF! you wanting to be called 'woman' is actually offensive because you as a cisgender female saying that is exclusionary to trans women"


Think if the roles were reversed here...If someone started referring to a transwoman as "person with a prostate" instead of "woman", how well would that be received?

I think the issue they are talking about wasn't what she wanted for HERSELF. I think when she was suggesting no one should get that title; that's the problem.

I don't know or really care to spend MASSIVE amounts of time whether I agree with that outlook. It just all seems to boil down to "I want to referred to how I want to be referred".
It seems kinda as basic as that.

 

[rjs330]

Gender and who you find sexually attractive are not the same.

That's not what I asked. I asked why do so many say and have said that gender is a construct?

I'm guessing here that homosexual men are still men. Yet so many in your side claim gender is a construct. If it's a construct you can't be born that way. So then why do say you are born a certain gender even if it's opposite of the sex you are?

 

[rjs330]

Turns out this Pastor is a violent ex con and probable mentalist.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-pastor-derek-reimer-bail-released-breach-criminal-history-1.6787194

Who is more dangerous- a guy who dresses as a woman or this this aggressive thug?

Oh so now you are for labeling people as violent thugs after they have paid their debt to society? If that's the case so these violent thugs have to be provided jobs. After all they are dangerous. I sure thought you were for giving breaks to the violent thugs who paid their debt.

It sounds like you are more on our side now.

 

[rjs330]

Is this fever dream what you are asserting is happening? You believe teachers are saying this to kids?

Or is this an if? With an 'if' anything is possible!

Like 'if the pastor says to Johnny, "hey Johnny you will go to hell if you want to be anything other that what I want you to be. And let's stuff those feeling deep, deep down and always make sure you're always what I want you to be. And when you get older we'll do an ostracism on you and make sure you're depressed and suicidal because you might actually be happier being a girl,"'

Which of these two fever dreams do you think actually happens?

Yes they have done this to kids. Where have you been?

 

[rjs330]

Then I can have it both ways.

You personally want whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But no you cannot force society to have it your way. I hate to break it to you but you don't always get what you want. Just like some believe it's a construct and others don't.

The only thing we really have is reality and far too many want to ignore reality for their own.

 

[rjs330]

How much time have you spent in a classroom, by the way?

I gave you my answer. What's your point?

 

[rjs330]

I don't think we are trivializing it when we say that. We say that because, we want them to realize it's none of their bloody business to begin with.

It used to be none of our business, and we used to not really care. But the transactivists and their supporters made it our business by demanding that we be part of their business. For years we pretty much left them alone. Until they decided we had to bow to their ideology and allow them into every aspect of our and our childrens lives. They made it out business when they told us we had to be part of their business. We had to let men be in womens bathrooms and locker rooms and we had no right to notice. We had to allow men in women's sports and had no right to notice. We had to allow them to teach our kids that they might not be the sex they were born as. We had to allow our kids to take body chemical altering castration drugs and chop off body parts or we would lose our kids to the state. We were told if you weren't willing to date a transperson you were a terrible person and a hater. We had teachers and schools transing kids without the parents knowledge or consent. We were told if we don't use whatever pronoun the person used we should be fired from our jobs.

You DRUG US into their business. They made their business our business. You don't get to do that and then demand we stay out of their business. There's an insanity to that.

 

[rjs330]

think the issue they are talking about wasn't what she wanted for HERSELF. I think when she was suggesting no one should get that title; that's the problem.

I don't know or really care to spend MASSIVE amounts of time whether I agree with that outlook. It just all seems to boil down to "I want to referred to how I want to be referred".
It seems kinda as basic as that.

You see this is the problem. She is doing exactly what the trans activists are doing. Don't call me this, call me that. All the trans supporters had to do was say okay. But that's not how they operate. They demand that you refer to them how they want, but when you tell them to stop calling you a person with a uterus and call you a woman instead that is utterly rejected and you are a tERF.

See, there is no middle ground with them. You are either all in or you are out. Does this sound at all like "it's not of your bloody business?"

You do not get to tell us it's none of our business and then force us to be part of your business.

 

[Pommer]

It used to be none of our business, and we used to not really care. But the transactivists and their supporters made it our business by demanding that we be part of their business. For years we pretty much left them alone. Until they decided we had to bow to their ideology and allow them into every aspect of our and our childrens lives. They made it out business when they told us we had to be part of their business. We had to let men be in womens bathrooms and locker rooms and we had no right to notice. We had to allow men in women's sports and had no right to notice. We had to allow them to teach our kids that they might not be the sex they were born as. We had to allow our kids to take body chemical altering castration drugs and chop off body parts or we would lose our kids to the state. We were told if you weren't willing to date a transperson you were a terrible person and a hater. We had teachers and schools transing kids without the parents knowledge or consent. We were told if we don't use whatever pronoun the person used we should be fired from our jobs.

You DRUG US into their business. They made their business our business. You don't get to do that and then demand we stay out of their business. There's an insanity to that.

Everything was fine until they became public about their “affliction”?
Now, it seems, if they won’t “go away” on their own, you’d like society to “put them away” with legislation and shunning.
Count me out.

 

[rjs330]

Everything was fine until they became public about their “affliction”?
Now, it seems, if they won’t “go away” on their own, you’d like society to “put them away” with legislation and shunning.
Count me out.

Is all of what I said mean the same thing as "becoming public?"

You don't really think it is do you? We were told it was no e of our bloody business. If it's none of our business then why do they need to become public?

If they just want to go public why do they have to do all the other things. Isn't that far beyond becoming public?

Putting them away? What do you mean by that?