The subject of transexuals and gender reassignment in and of itself is one of the few truly controversial subjects left out there. There's still so much that we don't know or understand regarding as to what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.
We used to think it all boiled down to simple biology. A man has a penis, a woman has a vagina. Sounds simple and easy but, unfortunately, it's not. I can't say that I understand what it's like for someone to look at themselves in a mirror and say "this is completely wrong". I doubt very many people have looked at their reflection and said "this isn't me and it's not who I'm supposed to be". We might say that if we're looking at ourselves and wishing that we were a few inches taller or a few pounds lighter but how many can actually look at themselves and feel at the very core of their being that what they see in a mirror isn't what they feel that they're supposed to look like or feel like? Quite honestly, thinking about it boggles my mind and would probably scare the crap out of me if I'd had those thoughts about myself.
Some say that it's all just a matter of choice and in some ways that's true. People who feel that they're the wrong gender and go on about their lives as if nothing is wrong. They can pretend that everything is fine and put on a show for the rest of the world. People who are gay can do the same thing and I'm certain that there are many out in the world that do for various reasons. That fascade, however, doesn't erase what they really feel about who they are and the pain that they're feeling.
As for this situation, I don't know that it's so cut and dry as far as discrimination goes. While I don't doubt that some of the people involved are disgusted and against the idea altogether, there are some that are probably also just completely taken by surprise. When the rules for these beauty contests were decided upon, I don't think anyone ever had the slightest realistinc inkling that a situation like this would ever come about. I don't know when the rules were first decided upon, who came up with them, how or if these rules have changed over the years, but it's not unreasonable for those in charge to be caught completely off guard.
On the surface, beauty contests do come off as these extremely shallow institutions in which physical appearance is regarded as the way to determine who the best quality of people are. At the same time, however, all some women do have is their beauty. Maybe they don't have the intelligence or feel the deep down desire to be a doctor or a lawyer. Maybe they don't want to or couldn't be come the first female President of the United States. Some women also probably don't have the fiscal means to attain these lofty goals & dreams even if they want them. These contests can potentially help the contestants get what they're looking for out of life. As an outsider, they might not seem like a big deal to me but that doesn't invalidate how they feel about them.
I'm sure you've also got some of them thinking along the lines of "what would it say about me if I lost a beauty contest to a woman who wasn't biologically born a woman?" It's a shallow thought but, let's face it, I think it's a thought that a lot of women would probably have. As I said, there's so much we simply don't get or understand about what it is in someone's mind and soul that tells them that they're in the wrong type of body.
I think automatically going the route of discrimination is a little too simple. I'm sure it plays a part in this controversy in the minds of some people but I don't think that can be reasonably assumed in the case of everyone. As far as my personal stance on it, like most people, I just always assumed that female beauty contests were for women who were born as women. I'd never really considered the possibility that something like this would pop up or happen. I honestly don't know because both sides have credible and valid points.
The IOC rules state that she would have had to gotten the surgery before puberty, and she didn't get it until she was 19. She would not have been eligible under those rules.
I knew I wasn't clear what I meant, but I didn't feel like going back and clarifying it.
Of course I knew that SHE couldn't, but I was using Jenna as a representative of the group, not her situation specifically. I was saying that transgendered people can compete in the Olympics, but not Miss Universe Canada. I used her name specifically to put a face on it, but I was really using her as representation. Had Jenna had her surgery a couple years before, she could have competed in the Olympics as a woman, which she has always felt that she is, but no matter when she had surgery, she couldn't compete in Miss Universe.
The point remains the same. For the people talking about how if she was allowed to compete in the pageant, it would affect the Olympics (which I've yet to understand how the two are related), the fact is the Olympics have already given it the okay. The Olympics, at least in this case, recognize people for who they are, not what they were born with, but Miss Universe Canada does not.
That was the point I was trying to make. I'll blame the wife and her wanting me to watch Workaholics with her for not clarifying that better.
When the rules for these beauty contests were decided upon, I don't think anyone ever had the slightest realistinc inkling that a situation like this would ever come about. I don't know when the rules were first decided upon, who came up with them, how or if these rules have changed over the years, but it's not unreasonable for those in charge to be caught completely off guard.
I understand what you're saying, but the phrase "natural born woman" seems to disagree. If they didn't see this as a possibility, why wouldn't the rule simply be "a woman"? Somebody, somewhere, saw this as a possibility, even if they didn't think it would ever manifest into reality.
I'm sure you've also got some of them thinking along the lines of "what would it say about me if I lost a beauty contest to a woman who wasn't biologically born a woman?" It's a shallow thought but, let's face it, I think it's a thought that a lot of women would probably have.
In my opinion, THIS is why Jenna was disqualified. I don't think it was about adhering to rules, I think it simply came down to future participants saying, "I don't want to lose to a tranny, so I'm just not going to compete". The pageant did not want that, so that's why Jenna was disqualified.
I think automatically going the route of discrimination is a little too simple.
I think it's spot on. The pageant discriminated against Jenna because they were worried what people would think of them for allowing a transgendered woman to compete. Just like restaurants and shops refused to service black people all those years ago, because they were afraid what their neighbors might do or say.
You've got two sides on a coin here and Miss Universe Canada is dammed if they do, dammed if they dont. If they kick the transsexual out its "discrimination". If they dont kick the tranny out its undermining the female aspect of the contest and bringing the definition of woman into question. I think that in society you should be referred to by whatever you please and have equal opportunities as that of someone who hasnt tampered with their body in any way if you are transsexual. We arent born with labels that define us as male, female, gay, straight, etc. If you can edit it then the definition should be determined by you, not by anyone else. But its Miss Universe Canada's right to set the qualifications for their contests. Participating in a contest isnt a necessity its a luxury. I dont think we need a special rights group to get involved or a protest to be done for this issue. It is what it is and if the transsexual community feels so strongly about being in a pageant they can start their own. I think that would take care of this issue nicely.
I think automatically going the route of discrimination is a little too simple. I'm sure it plays a part in this controversy in the minds of some people but I don't think that can be reasonably assumed in the case of everyone.
Would have to agree with this, although conversely I'd make the case this isn't as simple as "she was a boy. sorry"
I think it just comes down to your own personal definition of a what a woman is. Unfortunately its very subjective, everyone has their own view it seems like.
To me, I have no problem with this. I don't see Jenna as a woman, but instead what she is actually referred to as -- which is, *drum roll*, a transsexual. I think he can do everything in his power to become what he wants to be but will always be the man he is deep down inside. I just can't see why someone's gender should be found on a foundation of what they think or try themselves to be. So if I seriously believed myself to be animal, I'm an animal?
Hm, I'll try to see why. So maybe I can see why people believe Jenna is a woman. Maybe that way of thinking is based upon that transgendered females are never who they believe and try to make of themselves because they still have a penis whereas thanks to the modern day consummations transsexual females are who they are because they are surgically altered and fit a flawless look of what they claim/want to be? There's still a common denominator here, they were both born with dicks.
Not buying the so called fact about people being born as mentally or physically transsexuals despite being born as a man/woman at the same time. An individuals feelings from a young age about not being the gender that they are can be completely acquired, consequently founded on a number factors. I don't think they're "born" with those thoughts. Many things in society can influence their thoughts such as bullying, abuse, phobia, fears, societal elements, growing up fatherless, etc. I can definitely see why anyone would, and quite frankly should, make an argument about a mental disorder. Hell, even physically. My younger brother tends to have a considerable amount of fat storage in his hips. There are men out there with high-pitched voices. I'm sure many turn out fine, not develop those kind of thoughts, and not having to get vaginas. Which is why I tend to believe the individuals that don't turn out fine and grow aspirations to become a transsexual could have acquired, mental disorders. They have the freedom to do whatever they so please about themselves ofc and nobody is stopping them but just because they simply have an emotional outlook of themselves (that, again, easily can be a mental condition), doesn't make them what they truly are not. All that does is make them just who/what they think they are (cue the term 'emotional'), but not who they really actually are
Just made a clear case right there why someone could believe a transsexual isn't a woman. So, in turn, while it could be a case of discrimination about transsexuals and inequality with women... it could be just the opposite -- they aren't saying "the transsexual isn't a natural born women" as an excuse to justifiably discrminate. It's not clear cut and dry as 'transsexuals are just as equal to woman. This is discrimination', like JH noted.
No, I'm quite positive. If I'm aware there is a thread where people are being discriminated against for reasons outside their control that doesn't impact what they do, I'm usually there. Are you really going to argue about THAT with me, about my habits on the wrestling forum I administrate?
I don't think there IS any arguing with you at this point. You are very belligerent and oblivious to any and all points being made, and the entirety of your argument is based on things you hold true, or what you say it is true, not what is plainly and accurately true. Still you just go on dismissing anything that is said to you except what you can try to twist into something being wrong with the person you are arguing with in the absence of anything else to support your claims. It's very trying to continue this with you or to try and have any kind of conversation with you as a result.
It's discrimination in the true sense of the word.
Perfect example of exactly what I explained above. You just keep calling it discrimination, you continually insist so no matter how many times or how many ways it is explained to be otherwise. I don't think I can quite emphasize to you enough how frustrating it is to deal with you because of that. It is very off putting, very annoying, and in reality it makes you look extremely dumb because you can't recognize the obvious or what is being laid out in plain sight for you because you are too stubborn to acknowledge anything but your own opinion as valid or accurate. Of course you will claim otherwise but you've shown far too much that this is true to refute it.
Uhh, they are pretty much the same. The only difference is you've been conditioned to think black discrimination is wrong, but that transgender discrimination is not important enough to care about.
That's your own assumption and a false one at that. I've never condoned any type of discrimination at any point, but you are going to state whatever creeps into your head as fact regardless so I guess that doesn't matter. What does matter is that this is not a case of discrimination against transgenders, it is merely a case of one person not fitting the specified criteria needed to compete in a beauty pageant.
Also, the situations are not at all the same. Do you know why??? Clearly you don't so I will explain. You see, Jenna WAS born a man, he is still a man by all accounts who simply looks like a woman, and has had surgical procedures done to be as much like a woman as possible. Underneath it all though the DNA shows that Jenna is STILL a man. It was Jenna's choice to go about those procedures, and it was Jennas choice to change his appearance to be as close to a womans' as possible.
This is where the glaring difference between the two situations comes into play. Black people didn't have a choice about being born black, the women did not have a choice about being born women. Jenna DID have a choice about being transgender and chose to go that route via the surgical procedures he went through to change his appearance. If Jenna had not changed his appearance, there would be no question as to whether or not he was able to compete in the beauty pageant, regardless of what Jenna identifies himself as, since the competition is for women only and he is a man and would then appear as a man making him completely ineligible to compete before you could even dream of calling it discrimination. That is the bottom line of the issue, that Jenna IS a man, and that basis has no link to discrimination unless you are trying to argue that men should be able to compete in women's beauty pageants, and that it is discriminatory against men transgender or not, because Jenna IS a man, regardless of his appearance from all the surgeries to remove as many identifying traits as possible.
No, my usage for the term is completely correct, your understanding of the word is what appears to be lacking.
I understand it quite clearly, you have just tried to use it in a very clever way to support your argument, but that has been debunked already, please stop trying to play this card, it is getting pathetic. It is only correct in your mind because of the stance you already hold on the matter, your inability to see it any other way is the only thing creating any misunderstanding here, and that's coming from your end not mine. I get what you've been saying, how you've tried to explain it, and I've also went through the trouble of explaining why it just isn't so no matter how much you believe it is.
Wasn't trying to be harsh, was trying to illustrate how outdated your views are. Doesn't surprise me, though, you didn't understand that.
I understood it perfectly but it was such a stupid thing for you to say I didn't feel it deserved much of a response. Clearly you were trying to be harsh or you wouldn't have been trying to "illustrating my views as outdated", trying to make me look like the image of a 1950's Christian conservative that you clearly have an issue with and want desperately to label anyone who doesn't share your views.
This coming from the person who flew off the handle and left the forum for a while because the United States is slowly moving towards banning smoking in public places. Quite amusing when you think about it, isn't it?
This just shows how little you know. I got pissed at you and left. It wasn't about the issue itself, it was the way you address it, like continually saying "I am killing you by smoking" when I've never been around you, I don't know where you live (and you should only be so happy), when I smoke in my own house, in one room, where it can't get to anyone else, and you continually make it like I am doing something to harm people. Or by insinuating that someone smoking out in the open is "killing you" when it doesn't even go near you, it just dissipates in the air, not effecting you in any way. And on that issue, I still feel that it's no ones right to tell me when and where I can have a cigarette. It's my right to buy them, it's my right to smoke them, and as such it's my right to decide when and where I will do it, not someone like you who doesn't like it. This is America Jack, you can't decide my rights for me, or take mine away because I do something you don't like. Rather than having a reasonable conversation, you just pulled the same bullshit antics you have here, driving me up a freakin' wall to the point that with that and the other horseshit I was dealing with on here, I simply didn't care to come on here for a little while.
If I only had a dollar for the number of times people have told me this over the years.
I'm glad you think it's funny that you've been so deplorable over the years that you've caused people to lose any and all respect they may have had for you. Unfortunately your own admission here shows that I am not alone in my thoughts, nor are they off base. You are a very anti-social person and shouldn't be in control of a magnadoodle let alone a whole forum. It's the equivalent of the inmates running the asylum.
Uhh, I was a LOT harsher towards people back then than I am now, what are you talking about? Just because you weren't on the receiving end, doesn't mean this isn't how I've posted the entire time I've been here. I've actually mellowed some over the years as I've grown older.
Maybe you were more vitriolic WHEN you decided to be, that much I can agree with, but you never used to act the way you do now. You were sharp, you were cunning, and you were easily one of the best posters, debaters, and minds on this forum. In some ways you still are or could be, but it's antics like you've displayed here that have taken all the polish off of who you once were. It's not just me, and it's not just because I am on the receiving end. My responding is due to being on the receiving end, but my statements in response are more for you than anything. In your position you should be above all the stuff I've seen from you, but here you persist to act like an idiot. You should be the example of what a poster is supposed to be, but you are the polar opposite anymore. I might not be the shining example, nor did I ever say I was, but I'm not an admin either, and if I was I wouldn't go about as you do making a mockery of my title, my responsibility, my role, and my own dignity. You should uphold a higher standard of yourself than anyone here, in your position. Instead you act like a 12 year old who just discovered the internet, going about trolling people because you think it's funny, and because you don't have to face any real life consequences. No one should take the internet TOO seriously, but you don't seem to take what you should, seriously at all. That is, unless it gives you an opportunity to treat someone like shit or mock them, you are very dedicated to that it seems.
We must be, because your ignorance of the simplest of things has been prominently on display.
And because you say it, it must be true too right? You are the one who acts like a child, I have tried to have a reasonable conversation, but you do not seem mature enough to do that. Thus I ask, "are we in elementary school or something?". I have been in no way "ignorant" of anything, you just have nothing better to say, as usual.
Just like you "think" you are mentally and emotionally a male, right?
No, actually. I've never had to put any thought into it because I've never had an identity crisis. I am a guy, but I don't "Thing like a guy" per-say or have "Male-Emotions", they just are what they are. I, like any man or woman can feel a whole range of emotions and experience a whole range of thoughts, I am not defined by them, nor is Jenna. Jenna just has identity issues and a negative self image as a man and felt the need to change his image to one more preferable to him, that doesn't make him any less man or any more woman. He is still a man and the two genders aren't purely defined by what they think or feel. What does define male and female emotionally and mentally comes down to scientific factors, such as the chemical responses to situations that equate to thoughts or feelings, testosterone vs estrogen, and some of that isn't entirely due to that either, an individuals personality as it develops plays a role in those reactions. However, a man changing the testosterone levels in his body and increasing the estrogen levels does not make him a woman, merely a man manipulating the natural processes of his body that he was born with.
Anorexia is also a mental disorder, are we disqualifying people for anorexia, a well known and fairly common problem on the pageant circuit?
That's in a completely different ballpark not even relevant to the situation and you know it. It is a well known and common problem though I agree with you there. Being manic-depressive or having adhd is also a mental disorder but that doesn't have anything to do with it. Completely irrelevant point man.
Seriously, what's your point here? This person is a female. She has always thought of herself as female, she has changed her body to be a female, she lives as a female, and she has competed as a female. In every way, with the exception of how she was born, Jenna is a female.
Your missing the most important point here though, read the underlined. How he was born is everything, than makes him a man not a woman. As has been stated, you can think of yourself as Jabba The Hutt for all I care, you can change everything about your appearance to look like Jabba The Hutt, you can live just like Jabba, it doesn't matter, you will not then be a Hutt. How do you not understand this? This is not a caterpillar turning into a butterfly my friend.
I'm not arguing this private company doesn't have a right to create their own rules and enforce them. I've said all along they do. But that doesn't change the fact their rule is discriminating against this woman.
And herein lies the impasse. You insist that Jenna is a woman and that as a result this is discrimination. I and almost every single other person who has posted clearly see's that Jenna is a man, and as a result this is not, and can not be discrimination. If Jenna was born a woman, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, I would be in full agreement with you that it is discrimination for the pageant to say she can't compete, even if Jenna had man parts from being the process of trying to go from female-male and was born a woman, I would even support you there, but a man trying to become a woman is still a man, an a woman trying to become a man is still a woman no matter what they try to do to change their identity.
I never said you were arguing against the company's ability to make their own rules either. I just wanted to be clear on that, there was no disagreement there and I was never suggesting you said anything but that.
Well, if that's all you were looking for, why did you even bother responding to me in the first place? I said this EXACT same thing in my very first paragraph of my very first post in the thread.
Because you continue to state that Jenna is a woman when Jenna is only such in appearance, continually trying to say it's some flagrant case of discrimination and make martyrs of transgenders who undergo these procedures at their own volition, like someone or anyone who disagrees is trying to oppress transgender people like their black in the 1950's pre-civil rights era, and do so belligerently to the point of complete exacerbation of the issue.
Seriously, is this you trying to overcome an inferiority complex? Is THAT why you decided to word fort a response to me, when I already agreed to what you said was "end of discussion"? What's the matter with you?
Seriously, no. It's not. I merely tried to respond as well and as in depth as I could to try and explain to you why this person is not a woman, why this is not discrimination, and why your hyperbole is completely false.
Actually, it's quite relevant, you just didn't understand the significance.
No actually, it wasn't relevant at all because you are talking about a person having an ideology or philosophy regarding religion in comparison to a person's sexual identity. I understood perfectly the point you were trying to make, you just made it rather poorly which I will show here in just a second where you mention your comparison again.
People are not simply the products of who they are physically. The same men who fight in wars, will come back and dress up as women. The same women who will nurse a newborn, will also pick up a sniper rifle and waste an enemy. Your problem is that you don't understand that gender exists on a spectrum. It's not an "A" or "B" thing, it is a far reaching spectrum, upon which people fall some where between "A" and "B".
Go back and read my response where you ask about me "Thinking" I am emotionally and mentally a male and you will see how false your statements towards me are.
Your problem is that you think I am looking at it as an "A" or "B" thing and that I can't grasp "the same men who fight in wars, coming back and dress up as women. Or the same women who will nurse a newborn, also picking up a sniper rifle and wasting an enemy" I'm not defining anyone by roles or actions, nor am I saying that people are simply products of who they are physically. If I were than I would be in agreement that Jenna is a woman because Jenna has changed her physical appearance to look like a woman. What I am saying is that regardless of looks, feeling, thoughts, or actions, because Jenna was born a man, He will always be a man, no matter what mental gender identity, role, or appearance he tries to assume. It's kind of inescapable. How this simple concept doesn't click in your mind is rather baffling.
This person, who was born male, has always been a female in her own mind, which is where it matters most. And as her mind and emotional state evolved, she changed her body to fit her mentality. You can call it a "disorder" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact this person is not a man in any way. She is a woman, she lives as a woman, she thinks as a woman, she responds as a woman.
(sigh) Ah shit, here we go again. This is like being on a fucking hamster wheel with you.
Okay, let me rephrase your quote to make it correct.
This person who was born male, has always had a gender identity disorder leading them to identify more with a woman than his own gender. As this GID progressed, He changed his body to fit him mentally. It is a disorder, documented and proven, but nothing he does can change the fact that he is a man. It doesn't matter if he think he is a woman, lives as he perceives a woman to live, tries to think as he perceives a woman to think, or responds as he perceives a woman to respond, he is a man.
You can't tell her she's not a woman, just because you don't think she is, just like you can't tell an atheist they're not really an atheist because you don't think they are. The example was spot on, you just didn't understand it.
Wrong and Right. I can tell Him he is not a woman because he is not, and it has nothing to do with what I think, it's just an inescapable fact. Now on the other hand, I can not tell someone they are not really an atheist, and I never said I could. The reason I can tell Jenna he is is not a woman though and not tell the atheist that they are not an atheist are two different things. Being an atheist is the doctrine or belief that there is no God, if someone believes there is no God and that is where their faith lies, obviously I can't tell them "You don't actually believe that" as it comes down to a personal thought. When it comes to a man trying to say "I am actually a woman" the simple fact that they were born a man automatically negates that statement. If they say that they "Think and Feel" they are mentally and emotionally a woman, I can't refute what they profess to think or feel because I don't posses that persons thoughts or feelings to judge for myself, but I can point out that-that is emblematic of a mental and emotional disorder known as a GID which goes hand in hand with transsexualism, that-that is why they think or feel that way even though they are still a man, and in doing so I would be completely correct.
This seems to be the key sticking point in our discussion.
I want to let people decide who they are, and you're trying to decide for them. There's only one person who knows who Jenne is, and that's Jenna herself. So I don't really see where it is your place to tell her she's not a woman, when she obviously is, not just in her own mind, but in her heart and body as well.
I'm not trying to decide anything for anyone, I am only stating the out-right truth. Here we are and you're the one trying to tell someone what someone else is, and the truth is Jenna doesn't even know who he is, that's why he's trying to be a woman, because he has identity issues as a man. You can run that mind, body, soul line of bullshit on some people but I'm not the one. Let's get down to science, at the end of the day Jenna is a man. So is it also not the place of science, the one thing that can REALLY identify who Jenna ACTUALLY is to tell him that although he's went to every measure to try and be a female, he is indeed a male? I'd like to hear this one.
This shows just how silly you are. Using that same theory, when one of my former basketball players changed his last name to "Smith" (alias) from "Jones" because his real father was a deadbeat and his stepfather has been his true dad for all these years, he will always be a Jones, and never a Smith, because when he was born, he was arbitrarily assigned that name, without any consent from him.
And again, this is an apples to oranges comparison and you're still wrong about it. Look at your own post, his ALIAS is Smith, his actual last name is Jones, because his fathers last name was also Jones. This is pretty simple stuff. He changed it, but on his birth certificate, on his social security card, and by his own bloodline, he will always be a Jones. Once again, just because he hates his own identity, and has an identity crisis as a result, and wants to change it doesn't make him any different once he goes about trying to do just that. It only appeases him, in his mind, and changes nothing else but the name of which he is addressed when someone calls his last name.
No I actually dismantled it rather nicely and easily above, refer back to that for future references.
Ahh, here we go again, you telling people who they are, not letting them tell you. You and Rick Santorum must be buddies. Both inflexible Christian nutjobs.
Weeeell, at least you came right out and said it here so I didn't have to go into explanation on what this whole thing from you is really about. Right here it is:
"You and Rick Santorum must be buddies. Both inflexible Christian nutjobs"
This all boils down to your agenda against anyone you perceive to be Christian, and you base that perception on whether or not someone takes a far left stance or not as you do. When they do not, you resort to shit like this, saying me and Rick Santorum must be buddies, because in your mind people like him are the enemy, they are evil, you don't like them because of their religion which is an extension of your own issues, mostly mommy/daddy issues for forcing religion on you, aka making you go to church when you wanted to stay home and jerk off or something, which led to a great deal of unwanted pressure to obey(the worst thing anyone could ask of you) and you developed a great deal of resentment as a result. Look shithead, I'm not a Christian or a nutjob and I'm pretty fucking tired of you calling me one or the other because I happen to disagree with your far left shit. If it will clear it all up and make you stop trying to label me I will go ahead and tell you exactly where I stand.
First of all I can't fucking stand Rick Santorum. I admire that he's got the balls to stand up for what he believes in and is unapologetic about it, but I also don't agree with a lot of what he believes, at least not much of anything I have heard him talk about, and I'm not Catholic or any other denomination of protestant Christianity. I was raised in a Christian/Catholic home, but much like you and many others I shied away from the organized religion of it all because of the extreme and intolerant views of many within that group(or as you put it Inflexible nutjobs) as I began to understand the teachings of The Holy Bible in a way that was not in line with what I was being taught much to the disapproval of church members, family, and friends since you want to get personal. I explored a lot of other religions like Buddhism and Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, I looked into the ancient polytheistic religions, and even Satanism to get a better understanding of it. From almost all of them I've gathered my own views and my own stance on God, religion in general, and what is morally acceptable/ right and wrong as it pertains to mankind. SO, now that you know that, you can kindly piss off and never try to compare, associate, or call me one of those you have a personal axe to grind against.
Wow...if you don't understand the difference between these two examples, then perhaps you need to start seeing a professional.
As much as you are trying to make it look like I somehow am not or can not follow the conversation or that I can not understand what you are saying, I have been ahead of you every step of the way. That must also be why you only quote certain parts of my post and completely ignore a lot of the other areas where I've made perfectly valid statements and points that left you making ******ed statements and accusations like the above.
You made your "Atheism" example and your "Ron Artest/Meta World Peace" example, both of which I've demolished and neither of which made any sense, as I already explained thoroughly.
No, not at all. One is a distortion of provable facts, and the other is a state of mind and emotions dictating her place on the large spectrum of gender. Not even close to the same thing.
I have not distorted any facts of any kind. Let's see anything to prove any "facts" you say I have distorted of that I have done so. You seem to think that state of mind and emotions dictate "gender" but you couldn't be further off. It's simple, you are born, you pop out of the whom, the doctor takes a look, if you have a penis, the gender is male, if you have a vagina the gender is then female, and that's that. At that point what emotion or state of mind is dictating anything? As the person gets older certain traits may develop or become more evident, like having a GID, but the state of mind and emotions do not dictate at all that the person is male or female. It's only upon gender confusion or Gender Dysphoria that any of this is even at question in any way even though the obvious is prevalent. There is no gender spectrum, you are either male or female, and don't try to use hermaphrodites here either, that is a genetic defect.
I've already responded to that nonsense on multiple occasions. I find it amusing your posts in this thread towards me have been almost nothing but low brow insults, but you accuse me of "resorting to childish antics". Pot, meet kettle?
I just gave back in spades what I received so you would know for certain how it felt. And what a falsehood you make stating that my posts have been almost nothing but low brow insults. Why don't you go back and look at all the stuff you left out that wasn't, and even some of it that was. I love how you pick and choose what you'll respond to, trying to make it look like you haven't been getting pwned left and right, but that's what you do right? You misrepresent peoples arguments to make them look one way, and mostly resort to nothing but your childish antics as you've done here.
Actually, I was agreeing with what you said. I was doing it sarcastically, of course, but I was agreeing with what you said. How can I be distorting what you said by agreeing with it?
"Yes, judging people based on the kind of person they are, and not on their skin color, religion, sexuality genetics is such a bad thing."
which I then stated
"And once again you basically are putting words in my mouth and distorting the meaning of what I was saying because you have nothing legit to fire back with. I was referring to your pathetic display of idiocy stating "They can't compete because they aren't beautiful enough" as if that actually has anything to do with it. "
And in your sarcasm you were implying that I am condoning judging people based their skin color, religion, sexuality, or genetics, which is what I was addressing. That's how you distorted what I was saying unless this is what you were agreeing with since you quoted that right before the judging on skin color, religion, etc... line
ME
"You can look like a woman, talk like a woman, dress like a woman, and even mimic what you perceive to be the feminine traits that identify the characteristics of a female, but the truth will always be that you are in fact a male with identity issues, striving to be something you are not."
You
What's it like to live in such a closed mind. I'm guessing it's quite dark.
see, another lame response to something you can't respond to as I stated, and then you went on to put the words in my mouth as I described above. I've been following this whole thing just fine. It seems to be you who can't even get what your responses, and what you agreed with correct.
It has everything to do with it. And how was it idiotic? If they were beautiful enough, then they could compete, I have no problem with that. But if they are not beautiful enough to compete, then they don't make the cut. That's what stops drag queens from competing.
It was idiotic because you make the ill-informed and broad assumption that drag queens aren't beautiful enough to compete in a legit beauty pageant, which is very very far from the truth. You just don't know any better because obviously by making a statement like that, it shows that you really aren't in touch with the LGBT community, or have never been to a single drag show in your life or else you would know otherwise. Even in the above quote you say "That's what stops them from competing" which is the other majorly idiotic statement because what stops them from competing isn't what they look like, it's the same thing that stopped Jenna from competing, they are men.
It's amazing how my "idiocy" is really the result of your lack of reading comprehension. If only you actually UNDERSTOOD what I was saying, I imagine I would appear much less idiotic to you. So, do yourself a favor, and take time to comprehend what I'm saying.
No actually you are the one who has been misunderstanding or just plainly ignoring what has been said and acting as if I am misunderstanding something in an weak attempt of side stepping valid points and arguments you aren't equipped to answer or counter. So, you make statements like this thinking it's cute and that on-lookers will think you have this in control which you clearly don't.
And I do. As does the dictionary. I'm glad you've finally come around to agreeing with me and the dictionary.
I know this, you won't shut up about it, but regardless, it is not discrimination. Only if Jenna was a woman would it be, but He is not, and only under the loosest terms and application of the definition of discrimination does it fit even at that point. I outlined this earlier, the only way this is accurate as you've applied it is if your argument is that it's discriminatory against men. Nice to see you've not run out of smart ass comments to make though, your arguments thrives off of it.
Uhh, sure it is. It's discrimination. It may not be of the same severity as not permitting black people to vote, but it's still discrimination, no matter how you look at it.
I was the only one MAKING the point, that by your logic, since it is based mostly on looks and what a person thinks or feels, that a drag queen should be able to compete in a beauty pageant like the one Jenna was kicked out of for actually being a man. Oh, and you're differences between Jenna and a drag queen we also already went over and showed how dumb that statement of yours was, as you were stupid enough to state originally "Jenna is beautiful enough to compete, Drag Queens are not and that's why they can't compete." Gee Ghomer you come up with that all on your own?
In what way is Jenna a man? Outside of the chromosomes she was born with, which I'm sure you'll agree was outside of her control, how is Jenna a man? Please point to mental, emotional or physical traits which support your position she is a man.
Only by natural birth but that's overrated right? Apparently being born a man doesn't count if you have a GID and Transsexualism and then undergo surgery to look like a woman. I did and do agree that being born a certain way was out of his control, but simply thinking " I feel more like what I identify a woman being" or saying "That's how you feel" or even changing your appearance to look like a woman does not in any way make you a woman. How is that so hard to understand? I'd say how is Jenna NOT a man, other than in appearance? You can talk all that "Mentally and Emotionally" crap all you want but that proves nothing, only that the person is confused, because they were actually born a man. Just because they've done everything they can to erase that identity doesn't mean that's not what they are.
You obviously didn't study up on (or understand) Circular Reasoning. If you had, you would understand that my response completely defeated your statement there, as your statement failed the test of logic. Which means it made no sense, and was not at all valid. You cannot state a "fact" and then support it with the same "fact", in this case, say men can't compete at the pageant because the pageant said they can't compete. It's called Circular Reasoning.
No I understood and I studied up. I just happened to show how you've been doing exactly what you've accused me of with "circular reasoning". Once again it's not me having some inability to understand, or making no sense, or failing a test of logic, or anything to that degree which you have claimed. It is actually you who have spun yourself into a tizzy to the point that you don't even seem to know what you are and aren't arguing against, and keep trying to just turn it all on me since you have no other defense.
I was making the point that I am not the extremist you are trying to make me out to be, and explaining that despite your beguilement, it is possible for someone like myself who personally doesn't agree with being LGBT, to still be friends with those that are, to care for them, and to even stand up for their rights. I noted how I understand that-that is hard for you to comprehend because you are such an extremist and such a concept seen to slip by you which clearly it did as you couldn't comprehend it and said
"Wow...this paragraph reads like you need to seek some counseling. You are flying off the deep end."
as you had no response. Why do I have to keep reminding you of what you said, what you said it in response to, interpret everything I said for you again, and then show you why you are failing miserably here???? I then said after that response:
"What's that??? I can't hear you??? You once again have nothing to say in the face of facts??? Okay."
Being sarcastic myself since you just dodged the whole thing once again. you then replied with your above quote TO THAT. And I am the imbecile?
This is what I had said that you responded to with your Circular Reasoning comment:
Secondly, what stops them is that MEN CAN'T COMPETE, and that's the bottom line because the Canadian Miss Universe Pageant Officials Said So.
and once again I was just trying to be kind of funny with the "Because the CMUPO said so" line and that was where you said to look up circular reasoning. So, so far you've failed to even quote me correctly here or respond to the right shit. Man you suck. You see it was to your circular reasoning response that I posted this later to point out how you in fact were the one making that mistake:
"You REEEALLLY should never tell me to look something up, especially in this case as it's about to completely backfire on you. I did go ahead and look up "Circular Reasoning" and after learning what exactly it is, it dawned on me that-that is exactly what you have been doing all along. Let me show you. Here is the definition:
Quote:
a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic
Whether you are too stupid to have caught it yourself, or you just thought I was either too stupid or lazy to actually look it up, this describes perfectly what you have been doing the whole time as your repeatedly reasoning that Jenna IS a woman by all definitions, making Jenna then eligible for the women's only pageant, when the whole controversy is that Jenna in all actuality is a man, and the pageant directors ruled that men or someone who appears to be a woman but is by nature a man, are not allowed in women's only beauty pageants. "
You see, your conclusion is dependent on your original logic being true, thus using said logic to validate the conclusion, one depends on the other. Circular Reasoning. You did it, not me. I just pointed out that you were the one actually doing that. I made the logical point that since Jenna is a man, the one fact we can state, he is not able to compete in the womens pageant. Plain Reasoning.
No you didn't. You went off on a wild tangent, completely irrelevant to what I said.
No once again you are picking and choosing, and are all over the place. I did respond to you in depth, the "And then some" was part of what you called my "Wild Tangent" which was nothing of the sort. I did blow off a little steam but a wild tangent it was not. It probably seemed pretty wild because I busted you out left and right, made a lot of good points and explained more about myself illustrating why you were way off on your assessment of me, and explained exactly why I can't stand you. You are just too lazy to have responded sufficiently and I once again you've only quoted this and that, here and there so as not to highlight the ass beating you've been getting.
No it's just been your own lack of understanding, refusal to admit the accuracy of my statements, and pointing and claiming my post makes no sense that is at fault. If you could follow it, I've been perfectly coherent and on top of every point and word you've said. You know it too, you just seem to think that you can "fake it till' you make it" but I don't let chumps like you get off that easy.
Wow, you wrote a word fort because you "have issue" with someone on an Internet forum? Allow me to suggest you have a chat with a trained psychologist, to help you through this.
Yep, Slyfox said it so it must be true, call up a therapist. I give a shit enough about my stances to support them, this fuck-head's antics piss me off enough that I've determined I don't like him which means I've formed a negative opinion of him, I must have problems since I've not licking his scrotum like a lot of other lap dogs here who want to suck up to him for attention and approval. Yep, clearly I have a problem because I disagree with him and don't let him talk me down or "humiliate" me into submission.
Is this still because I'm in favor of legislation that prevents you from killing me?
No, this is a whole other issue, but now that you mention it that just uncovers a whole other hatred I have for you because you think you can dictate my rights and personal liberties through legislation because you don't like what I do, and insist "I'm killing you" because I smoke thousands of miles away from you, either in a confined room or in wide open space outdoors.
Really, it's because you are the most belligerent, incorrigible, stubborn, smart-ass, argumentative, and petty person I have ever seen. I can't stand most of your bullshit far left views, I can't stand your condescending manner, I can't stand your audacity, I can't stand how you act like your so much better than people and how you talk down to people, and I can't stand the fact that you act the way you do knowing that because you're an admin, no one can really do anything to you for your actions, which is the most deplorable trait of all. You hide behind your position and a keyboard knowing that such conduct would leave you broken in real life by anyone with a modicum of self respect, as no one would tolerate your attempts at humiliation, and your continual practice of simply calling people stupid, making fun of them, and trying to push their buttons.
It's the perfect argument when people say stupid things. If I've already explained WHY it was stupid (and I usually do, a multitude of times), then what's left but to be blunt and call the argument stupid?
No, actually it's not the perfect argument it's childish. You just can't refrain from being blatantly disrespectful and rude which shows that really you just have no manners or class. I do myself a disservice my even compromising to lower myself to your level and dish it back to you, but no one else will or seems to be able to, so I do it and I don't mind getting a little dirt on me.
I think you and shattered dreams ought to hook up. In your attempts to overcome your inferiority complexes, you've both played amateur psychologist on me recently, and both of you have cracked me up while doing it. You would make a great comedy pair.
Yeah, very funny, you're the only one amused by your shit. I don't even know who that is, but clearly both of us have stuck too close of a chord or you wouldn't bother mentioning it. You know what, people like you are easy to figure out, I've dealt with assholes like you my entire life. Normally it ends with them getting the shit beat out of them when they continually taunt me like you have, but obviously nothing of that sort is going to be happening, so instead of doing it with fists I'll do it words as I have here. You're the only one I've seen with an inferiority complex, otherwise you wouldn't treat people the way you do, hide behind your position and keyboard like a bitch, or work so hard at placing everyone you conversate with below you as you do.
And yet, here you are hurling insults and childish antics...pot, meet kettle?
Call it what you will, I am only dealing back to you in spade what you have dealt out to me. You will find out that often in life you get what you give, and you better figure out now that with me you'll get back 10X what you give.
I love when you tell people who they are. It's so much better than allowing them to tell you who they are. Right, Rick?
More of you're Rick Santorum bullshit and accusation. I've never told anyone who they are as you've tried to say, I've only stated the obvious. You just can't seem to handle that which is pretty lame.
Uhh, it's not backpedaling when you failed to comprehend my original statement.
No, I busted you out and you quite clearly started to backpedal from your statements and try to explain "what you really meant" when it was laid out in plain English for anyone to read. You can say "You didn't comprehend" but it wasn't that complex. It wasn't like anyone reading needed to decipher the fucking DaVinci code to get what you said. You clearly have a bias against drag queens, you seem to prefer tranny's that's fine, you've got your preferences and I respect that.
Seriously, reading comprehension. It's fundamental to a debate with me. You should try it.
Yeah, because I'm not gay. You got a problem with that? What are you Heterophobic? You got a problem with someone whose straight not wanting to be accused of engaging in homosexual acts? Gee, you're narrow minded. Why do you have to keep oppressing me, I just want to be treated fair like everyone else. I have no protections under the law, I'm not a protected class, so you think you can bully me??? Heterophobics like you are what's wrong with America (See it sucks doesn't it)
Don't give yourself that much credit. This is a tired and useless argument from you. It's clearly your only ace in the hole and what you solely rely on to get around legit responses. That's fine, your weak, I get it.
*sigh*
No, you just made an idiotic inference on what I said. If I said, "I'm not good enough to play in the NBA", does that mean I'm not a good basketball player? No, it simply means I'm not good enough to play in the NBA. If I was good enough to play in the NBA, then I should have the chance to compete in the NBA.
Do you think you get it now? Do I have to break it down into even smaller words for you?
No actually I just pointed out exactly what you said, the fallacy within it, and now as I said you've went into damage control and need to try and draw up another example to save face. I knew exactly what you were saying, but unfortunately you didn't quite understand the idiocy of it. You just blurted it out basically without thinking of what it actually implied and have since, tried to blame your shitty example and flagrantly discriminatory statement as something else. It's really sad actually.
I wish I didn't have to, but your ignorance is nearly overwhelming.
In your dreams. I've been all over this thing while you've just been all over the place. You've misquoted me, left a ton of stuff out that to save face and further misrepresent my statements, and the main point in your posts has been "You don't understand, you can't comprehend, you're stupid" Ya know, all that non-fact based fledgling bullshit that you've put in place of an actual argument.
Yeah, you clearly don't understand what our debate is about.
Yet at no point have you been able to show this to be true, or even support your own claims, or counter my main points with anything meaningful or true, or stay on track as you've bounced around quotes here and there in places, or keep track of what you were quoting and responding to, or anything else to show a single semblance of intelligence through this whole thing.
I've never once said the pageant doesn't have the right to make rules and enforce them. I said that from the very beginning. You even quoted me on it, I believe.
And yet you can't show how or why that is even when you've tried to use the dictionary definition to support your claims.
I argue it is because Jenna is a woman, and she is being prohibited from competing simply because of something which is genetic, outside of her control (which you have since agreed with), and doesn't impact her performance in any way.
And therein lies the whole hole in your case, because Jenna is most definitely a man. You keep trying to squirm and weasel an explanation that she is a woman but nothing yet of relevance has surfaced. You just keep going on about what he "Thinks and Feel" and seem to be confused that what lies and I mean it in both ways "LIES" on the surface makes THIS MAN any more woman than the day he was born A MAN. The one point I did and do concede is that the thinking and feeling is basically a genetic thing, some of that is also derived from social constructs, perceptions, and perceived norms, and the desire to be something else or rather the feeling of being in the wrong body is out of their control, nor does it effect performance, but neither does it make Jenna a woman. Especially due to the fact that this false perception is due to a mental disorder of at least one or two kinds, not counting any other issues that might arise or be discovered upon psychological evaluation.
You're arguing it's NOT discrimination because...well, I'm not really sure
And THAT much has been evident for a long time dude. You have been so blinded by your personal biases and agenda that you refused to actually listen and consider what I've tried to explain to you or anything else I've said beyond the petty personal shit I've thrown at you in response to your own personal and petty shit you've thrown at me.
but I think you said because, even though it TECHNICALLY is discrimination, it doesn't count because it's not severe enough.
Not quite. I said that it was only discrimination in the sense that the judges pick and choose what the qualifications are, in more or less words, and that goes back to my example "I like European Sports Cars, so if I go to a dealership and the salesman tries to offer me an American Mid-Size Sedan, I will discriminate against them because it does not meet my criteria for what I would like to drive", much in the same way that the Judges of the competition "discriminate" as you put it, against having anyone that is a naturally born man but looks like a woman compete. That's why I said, technically it is discrimination in the loosest sense of the word, but not in the malicious way that you have tried to present it. How about we meet on common ground and agree that in some ways under certain logic and circumstances it both is and isn't discrimination??? I think that's fair. And you call me inflexible.
I might have your position a little messed up, but considering the amount of stupidity you've allowed to run rampant throughout your posting, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little cloudy on what your actual argument against discrimination is.
I will ignore your little insult there and just answer, the reason it IS NOT discrimination is because of the fact that regardless of what changes have been made to make Jenna look more like a woman, Jenna is still underneath it all, a man. And, without all those alterations, Jenna could never compete anyways because then he most certainly would also look like a man, making it plain and obvious to the pageant people, and it wouldn't even be a consideration no matter what how he "felt, thought, or identified with"
So, not only did you completely NOT understand the logical fallacy of Circular Reasoning (by the way, I meant to mention that your post here does not at all describe Circular Reasoning), you also don't seem to even understand what our argument is about. Seriously, why do you post?
Wrong Wrong Wrong. I posted the definition of Circular Reasoning, I understood it and showed how that was in fact something you had done, and it has in fact been YOU who has not understood what my argument has been about even though it was toe and step in line with everything you said as I responded virtually line by line, and I've been on point this whole time. You are slipping Fox. Like I said, you're nothing like you used to be. To think at one time I was cautious to avoid getting into a conversation like this with you? What a joke.
Well, I'd love to continue pointing out the ignorance and stupidity in your post, but I'm out of time, and quite frankly, you don't even seem to comprehend what the argument is about. Throw in the fact that as I glanced over the rest of your post, it seemed to be mostly the same "childish antics" and "insults" you accuse me of, which is okay if you have any basis for it, but since you don't understand basic things like what we're debating, circular reasoning and the definition of the word "discrimination", you're probably not in any position to hurl insults inside your glass house.
Oh how funny this is to read after all of the above.
I'll tell you what. You look back over the stuff I'm skipping, strip away the "childish antics and insults" and if you feel you've made a valid point I haven't already addressed, feel free to copy and paste it into the next post you'll undoubtedly make. And I'll respond to it next time.
Remember now...only stuff I haven't already addressed...I'm tired of having to explain things to you multiple times.
I think you've had enough. Clearly you've already been defeated and you didn't even have the desire to finish what you started, so I'll let you off on the rest of it. I think any on looker will see fine enough that you've been thoroughly dealt with. I am now satisfied. Don't bother responding.
Amusing, but false. I didn't throw one insult your way in my first post.
But that's not the point, certainly I've rightfully mocked you on numerous occasions. However, the point is you're making a hypocrite out of yourself. You act like my posting in "child antics" is bad, but then every post you've made to me has been exactly the same thing.
That's what "pot, meet kettle" means. You have heard the original expression and understand its meaning, right? You're a hypocrite, that's the point.
I love how you pick and choose what you'll respond to, trying to make it look like you haven't been getting pwned left and right
I pick and choose the stuff that deserves responding. If I don't respond to it, it is either because it is inconsequential, I have already responded to it before, I agree with some or all of it, or it is so ridiculously stupid I don't want to bother with it.
When you post a 5 page response, most of it blathering on random tangents and insulting me, I'm not going to go line by line and respond to everything. The fact you think I'm doing it to avoid getting "pwned" is hilarious. You seem to have completely lost your grasp on reality.
Actually go back and look, you quoted me saying
"You see, this is what makes you so intollerable"
and responded by saying
"Yes, judging people based on the kind of person they are, and not on their skin color, religion, sexuality genetics is such a bad thing."
which I then stated
"And once again you basically are putting words in my mouth and distorting the meaning of what I was saying because you have nothing legit to fire back with. I was referring to your pathetic display of idiocy stating "They can't compete because they aren't beautiful enough" as if that actually has anything to do with it. "
And in your sarcasm you were implying that I am condoning judging people based their skin color, religion, sexuality, or genetics, which is what I was addressing. That's how you distorted what I was saying unless this is what you were agreeing with since you quoted that right before the judging on skin color, religion, etc... line
Now who is conveniently leaving out important parts of the conversation? Have you forgotten what YOUR first response was to?
Me: The rules are discriminatory. I understand that people of your "ilk" have no problem discriminating against people for things they never had a choice in, but for those of us who recognize the concept of all people having the right to choose who they are, and letting their actions determine the person, it's hard to accept discrimination.
I had just said I let people choose who they are and let their actions determine the person, and you respond with that's why I'm an intolerable.
You are seriously bad at this.
ME
"You can look like a woman, talk like a woman, dress like a woman, and even mimic what you perceive to be the feminine traits that identify the characteristics of a female, but the truth will always be that you are in fact a male with identity issues, striving to be something you are not."
You
What's it like to live in such a closed mind. I'm guessing it's quite dark.
see, another lame response to something you can't respond to as I stated, and then you went on to put the words in my mouth as I described above. I've been following this whole thing just fine. It seems to be you who can't even get what your responses, and what you agreed with correct.
You might have a point if I HADN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS ON 235325235207870 PREVIOUS OCCASIONS.
So what, you're incapable of comprehending an argument unless I repeat it verbatim after every single one of your comments? Good God, learn some reading comprehension. I addressed your comment in a serious fashion on numerous occasions.
I disagree, I think there are far more things which make a woman a woman. Their mental and emotional state, their genitalia, their behaviors and characteristics, their hormonal levels, and most importantly, how they honestly identify themselves.
Using "X" and "Y" to determine a woman is as simplistic as saying killing people is bad. It doesn't take into account the variety of reasons which make up the actual person/decision.
So my "your mind is in the dark" comment isn't a lame response because I couldn't reply, it was me choosing to mock you for such a stupid statement, knowing full well I had already responded to that on numerous occasions, even before you posted it.
Seriously, reading comprehension. Work on it.
It was idiotic because you make the ill-informed and broad assumption that drag queens aren't beautiful enough to compete in a legit beauty pageant, which is very very far from the truth.
You dumbass, I never said such a thing. Seriously, how can anyone be as stupid as what you are appearing to be right now.
Let's put it this way. I have a sister. Pretend my sister wants to be in the Miss America pageant. What stops my sister from participating? She's not beautiful enough. Does that mean she's not a beautiful girl? Of course not, she's found to be very attractive by guys. She's tall, thin, pretty, and has an easy going personality. I know of at least two guys who had big time crushes on her for a long time.
But is she beautiful enough to compete in Miss America? No, she is not. If she was, she would compete.
Do you understand now? Do I need to continue to hold your hand through this argument? Are you finally finished getting indignant about something you misunderstood from the very beginning?
No actually you are the one who has been misunderstanding or just plainly ignoring what has been said
No, I understand EXACTLY what you've been saying. You've been saying that I'm out of touch with LGBT because I don't go to drag shows. Ignoring for a moment the ludicrous nature of that statement (as if the only way to be in touch with LGBT is by going to drag shows, and as if all drag queens are gay), you're saying that there are people who dress up and become beautiful women. That's great, I'm happy you go to drag shows and find people there to be physically attractive. Good for you and good for them.
But that was COMPLETELY irrelevant to MY point. My point was twofold. One, drag queens are completely different from Jenna, because drag queens are still men physically, and many times mentally and emotionally as well. Jenna is not, she is a woman in EVERY way except for the chromosomes which were given to her before birth. Second, just like my sister, a drag queen can be extremely attractive, but being the most beautiful woman in an entire country is simply not something most people can claim.
Are we finished with this yet? Are you ready to admit you completely misunderstood what I said, that I never once said anything negative about your drag queen friends? Good God, you have turned a complete non-issue into something that has wasted our time for no reason. Do you finally get it and can we put this to rest now?
I know this, you won't shut up about it, but regardless, it is not discrimination.
Wow, you managed to contradict yourself in the span of 15 words. You know what happened to Jenna is considered discrimination by me and the dictionary, but it's not discrimination? How can that possibly make sense?
Only if Jenna was a woman would it be, but He is not, and only under the loosest terms and application of the definition of discrimination does it fit even at that point.
You moron, if Jenna was born a woman, she wouldn't have been disqualified! Because she was born a man, she was disqualified! That is a TEXTBOOK case of discrimination. How can you be this dull?
I outlined this earlier, the only way this is accurate as you've applied it is if your argument is that it's discriminatory against men. Nice to see you've not run out of smart ass comments to make though, your arguments thrives off of it.
When I have to constantly reply to someone who regularly fails at reading comprehension, who constantly makes a hypocrite out of himself and then contradicts himself in the span of 15 words, I tend to mock that individual. You do remember the quote I used to have in my sig, right?
No. No, actually it isn't, I've been over this enough with you, you should have figured it out by now.
Yes, but no one argued that point. I never once said that prohibiting a drag queen from competing isn't discrimination or that an attractive person shouldn't be able to compete.
Oh, and you're differences between Jenna and a drag queen we also already went over
Actually, you conveniently ignored the part where drag queens are still physically, and many times mentally and emotionally, men, whereas Jenna is not.
You claim Jenna only feels way because of what the DSM-IV says, but it doesn't change the fact she DOES feel, act and look like a woman, in every way possible. Drag queens cannot claim the same thing.
But don't worry, I know you're never one to let facts stop you from making a ridiculously long argument.
Well, America certainly thought so when they gave black people and women the right to vote.
I find it astonishing you have no problem with discrimination against people because of how they were born.
I did and do agree that being born a certain way was out of his control, but simply thinking " I feel more like what I identify a woman being" or saying "That's how you feel" or even changing your appearance to look like a woman does not in any way make you a woman. How is that so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand, it's just close-minded and insensitive, not to mention, it leads to discriminatory practices like this contest.
I understand fully you think Jenna is a man because, as someone who doesn't live her life, doesn't know what she thinks and feels, and doesn't have her experiences, it's easy for you to just stick to your beliefs without having to consider the person you are so casually dismissing.
I'm not that way. I will never belittle someone for being who they truly are, not with what genitalia they were born with. So, as I said before, the difference between us is that one of us is okay with discrimination and casually dismissing who a person truly is, and I'm not.
And as far as your DSM-IV goes, keep in mind homosexuality was always once considered a disorder. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not completely sold on your argument.
Then you did it poorly, because what you tried to give as an example was not at all circular reasoning.
I just happened to show how you've been doing exactly what you've accused me of with "circular reasoning". Once again it's not me having some inability to understand, or making no sense, or failing a test of logic, or anything to that degree which you have claimed. It is actually you who have spun yourself into a tizzy to the point that you don't even seem to know what you are and aren't arguing against, and keep trying to just turn it all on me since you have no other defense.
I can't believe I actually have to explain fallacies to you as well.
If I had said "Jenna is a woman, because she competed in women's pageants" that would be Circular Reasoning. That's not what I said, nor even what you claimed I said.
You claimed my position is that "Jenna IS a woman by all definitions, making Jenna then eligible for the women's only pageant". For there to be a Circular Reasoning fallacy, I would have to support my position with an argument that basically says the same thing in reverse, such as "Only women compete in women's pageants, so Jenna must be a woman". THAT would have been circular reasoning.
However, that's not what I said, nor what you claimed I said. You said:
You said:
the whole controversy is that Jenna in all actuality is a man, and the pageant directors ruled that men or someone who appears to be a woman but is by nature a man, are not allowed in women's only beauty pageants.
That is the topic, or in this case, real life example which lead to the argument. So here is how the argument breaks down:
Topic: The pageant says only natural born females can compete. Is this discrimination against Jenna?
My argument: Yes, because Jenna is a woman because she is physically, emotionally and mentally a woman.
That's not Circular Reasoning. I'm not supporting my argument by assuming my premise is correct, but rather with reason for why she is actually a woman. Now, let's look at your argument.
You: Jenna can't compete in the pageant because the pageant says she can't compete.
That is Circular Reasoning, in that we are arguing whether or not the pageant should allow Jenna compete, and you say Jenna can't compete because the pageant won't let her.
Does this make sense now?
I was making the point that I am not the extremist you are trying to make me out to be, and explaining that despite your beguilement, it is possible for someone like myself who personally doesn't agree with being LGBT, to still be friends with those that are, to care for them, and to even stand up for their rights. I noted how I understand that-that is hard for you to comprehend because you are such an extremist and such a concept seen to slip by you which clearly it did as you couldn't comprehend it and said
"Wow...this paragraph reads like you need to seek some counseling. You are flying off the deep end."
as you had no response. Why do I have to keep reminding you of what you said, what you said it in response to, interpret everything I said for you again, and then show you why you are failing miserably here???? I then said after that response:
"What's that??? I can't hear you??? You once again have nothing to say in the face of facts??? Okay."
Being sarcastic myself since you just dodged the whole thing once again. you then replied with your above quote TO THAT. And I am the imbecile?
This is what I had said that you responded to with your Circular Reasoning comment:
and once again I was just trying to be kind of funny with the "Because the CMUPO said so" line and that was where you said to look up circular reasoning. So, so far you've failed to even quote me correctly here or respond to the right shit. Man you suck. You see it was to your circular reasoning response that I posted this later to point out how you in fact were the one making that mistake:
"You REEEALLLY should never tell me to look something up, especially in this case as it's about to completely backfire on you. I did go ahead and look up "Circular Reasoning" and after learning what exactly it is, it dawned on me that-that is exactly what you have been doing all along. Let me show you. Here is the definition:
Quote:
a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic
Whether you are too stupid to have caught it yourself, or you just thought I was either too stupid or lazy to actually look it up, this describes perfectly what you have been doing the whole time as your repeatedly reasoning that Jenna IS a woman by all definitions, making Jenna then eligible for the women's only pageant, when the whole controversy is that Jenna in all actuality is a man, and the pageant directors ruled that men or someone who appears to be a woman but is by nature a man, are not allowed in women's only beauty pageants. "
You see, your conclusion is dependent on your original logic being true, thus using said logic to validate the conclusion, one depends on the other. Circular Reasoning. You did it, not me. I just pointed out that you were the one actually doing that. I made the logical point that since Jenna is a man, the one fact we can state, he is not able to compete in the womens pageant. Plain Reasoning.
Because I know you'll think I'm "ignoring points I can't respond to", I'm quoting this section of your post, and respond to it by saying read what I just wrote regarding Circular Reasoning.
No once again you are picking and choosing, and are all over the place. I did respond to you in depth, the "And then some" was part of what you called my "Wild Tangent" which was nothing of the sort. I did blow off a little steam but a wild tangent it was not. It probably seemed pretty wild because I busted you out left and right, made a lot of good points and explained more about myself illustrating why you were way off on your assessment of me, and explained exactly why I can't stand you. You are just too lazy to have responded sufficiently and I once again you've only quoted this and that, here and there so as not to highlight the ass beating you've been getting.
No it's just been your own lack of understanding, refusal to admit the accuracy of my statements, and pointing and claiming my post makes no sense that is at fault. If you could follow it, I've been perfectly coherent and on top of every point and word you've said. You know it too, you just seem to think that you can "fake it till' you make it" but I don't let chumps like you get off that easy.
Yep, Slyfox said it so it must be true, call up a therapist. I give a shit enough about my stances to support them, this fuck-head's antics piss me off enough that I've determined I don't like him which means I've formed a negative opinion of him, I must have problems since I've not licking his scrotum like a lot of other lap dogs here who want to suck up to him for attention and approval. Yep, clearly I have a problem because I disagree with him and don't let him talk me down or "humiliate" me into submission.
No, this is a whole other issue, but now that you mention it that just uncovers a whole other hatred I have for you because you think you can dictate my rights and personal liberties through legislation because you don't like what I do, and insist "I'm killing you" because I smoke thousands of miles away from you, either in a confined room or in wide open space outdoors.
Really, it's because you are the most belligerent, incorrigible, stubborn, smart-ass, argumentative, and petty person I have ever seen. I can't stand most of your bullshit far left views, I can't stand your condescending manner, I can't stand your audacity, I can't stand how you act like your so much better than people and how you talk down to people, and I can't stand the fact that you act the way you do knowing that because you're an admin, no one can really do anything to you for your actions, which is the most deplorable trait of all. You hide behind your position and a keyboard knowing that such conduct would leave you broken in real life by anyone with a modicum of self respect, as no one would tolerate your attempts at humiliation, and your continual practice of simply calling people stupid, making fun of them, and trying to push their buttons.
No, actually it's not the perfect argument it's childish. You just can't refrain from being blatantly disrespectful and rude which shows that really you just have no manners or class. I do myself a disservice my even compromising to lower myself to your level and dish it back to you, but no one else will or seems to be able to, so I do it and I don't mind getting a little dirt on me.
Yeah, very funny, you're the only one amused by your shit. I don't even know who that is, but clearly both of us have stuck too close of a chord or you wouldn't bother mentioning it. You know what, people like you are easy to figure out, I've dealt with assholes like you my entire life. Normally it ends with them getting the shit beat out of them when they continually taunt me like you have, but obviously nothing of that sort is going to be happening, so instead of doing it with fists I'll do it words as I have here. You're the only one I've seen with an inferiority complex, otherwise you wouldn't treat people the way you do, hide behind your position and keyboard like a bitch, or work so hard at placing everyone you conversate with below you as you do.
Call it what you will, I am only dealing back to you in spade what you have dealt out to me. You will find out that often in life you get what you give, and you better figure out now that with me you'll get back 10X what you give.
More of you're Rick Santorum bullshit and accusation. I've never told anyone who they are as you've tried to say, I've only stated the obvious. You just can't seem to handle that which is pretty lame.
No, I busted you out and you quite clearly started to backpedal from your statements and try to explain "what you really meant" when it was laid out in plain English for anyone to read. You can say "You didn't comprehend" but it wasn't that complex. It wasn't like anyone reading needed to decipher the fucking DaVinci code to get what you said. You clearly have a bias against drag queens, you seem to prefer tranny's that's fine, you've got your preferences and I respect that.
Seriously, no one is buying that argument from you.
Yeah, because I'm not gay. You got a problem with that? What are you Heterophobic? You got a problem with someone whose straight not wanting to be accused of engaging in homosexual acts? Gee, you're narrow minded. Why do you have to keep oppressing me, I just want to be treated fair like everyone else. I have no protections under the law, I'm not a protected class, so you think you can bully me??? Heterophobics like you are what's wrong with America (See it sucks doesn't it)
And you'll be both bias and wrong again as you were the first time.
Don't give yourself that much credit. This is a tired and useless argument from you. It's clearly your only ace in the hole and what you solely rely on to get around legit responses. That's fine, your weak, I get it.
No actually I just pointed out exactly what you said, the fallacy within it, and now as I said you've went into damage control and need to try and draw up another example to save face. I knew exactly what you were saying, but unfortunately you didn't quite understand the idiocy of it. You just blurted it out basically without thinking of what it actually implied and have since, tried to blame your shitty example and flagrantly discriminatory statement as something else. It's really sad actually.
In your dreams. I've been all over this thing while you've just been all over the place. You've misquoted me, left a ton of stuff out that to save face and further misrepresent my statements, and the main point in your posts has been "You don't understand, you can't comprehend, you're stupid" Ya know, all that non-fact based fledgling bullshit that you've put in place of an actual argument.
Read everything you said in the paragraph I quoted. Notice how not ONE thing you said is relevant to this topic, but rather you repeating yourself time again, and finding as many ways to insult me as you can possibly think of.
Who is being childish now?
Yet at no point have you been able to show this to be true, or even support your own claims
It's really simple. The pageant says Jenna can't compete because she was born a man.
BAM! That's discrimination. I thought I had made this clear a long time ago. You can try to deny the fact it's discrimination, but you'd be wrong. When you exclude someone purely on the basis of a group he or she belongs to, without any regard for their individual merits, that's discrimination.
The problem you have is not that you disagree this is discrimination. You know it is. You just agree with the pageant's decision, and discrimination has such an ugly connotation, you struggle with the idea you have no problem with such an ugly sounding word.
You know this was discrimination. Just say that you are okay with it and move on. I'm not one personally to understand how people can be okay with gender discrimination, but at least you won't have to be called stupid for pretending like this isn't.
And therein lies the whole hole in your case, because Jenna is most definitely a man.
No, Jenna was most definitely BORN a man. Jenna is most definitely NOT a man now.
The one point I did and do concede is that the thinking and feeling is basically a genetic thing, some of that is also derived from social constructs, perceptions, and perceived norms, and the desire to be something else or rather the feeling of being in the wrong body is out of their control, nor does it effect performance, but neither does it make Jenna a woman.
You think people are defined by factors outside of their control when they are born, regardless of the person they currently are. I think people are defined by who they truly are, not the genitalia they were born with.
One of us is okay with discrimination, and the other isn't. That's basically the way to sum up this entire argument.
And THAT much has been evident for a long time dude. You have been so blinded by your personal biases and agenda that you refused to actually listen and consider
No, I've understood you fine. The problem here is not me understanding what you've said, but rather your understanding of discrimination. You want proof? Look what you say next:
Not quite. I said that it was only discrimination in the sense that the judges pick and choose what the qualifications are
...
the reason it IS NOT discrimination is because of the fact that regardless of what changes have been made to make Jenna look more like a woman, Jenna is still underneath it all, a man.
Let's play the "Find and Replace" game. Instead of using the word "man", let's use the word "black" and see how it alters your statement.
You said:
Not quite. I said that it was only discrimination in the sense that the judges pick and choose what the qualifications are
...
the reason it IS NOT discrimination is because of the fact that regardless of what changes have been made to make Jenna look more like a white woman, Jenna is still underneath it all, a black.
So now the judges have set the qualifications as only allowing white women, and Jenna was removed because she was black. Would you call that discrimination? Of course you would, or at least I hope you would. Because I certainly don't want to use my restaurant example again.
I say Jenna is a woman. But, just for the sake of this example, let's say she's not. Being disqualified for no reason OTHER than because she is a man is discrimination. Just like not hiring someone for a job because they are a woman, not allowing a man to compete because he is a man is discrimination.
I don't understand how you can possibly say, with any shred of credibility, this is not discrimination, regardless of what gender you say Jenna is. Do people get in an uproar because a man can't compete in Miss Universe? No, they don't, because people are okay with that kind of discrimination, they have no problem with it. It doesn't mean it's not discrimination though.
Throw in the fact that MANY people consider Jenna a woman, a woman who was talented enough and beautiful enough to be a finalist before being disqualified for being born male, and THAT'S why this has been such a big deal.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. I posted the definition of Circular Reasoning, I understood it and showed how that was in fact something you had done, and it has in fact been YOU who has not understood what my argument has been about even though it was toe and step in line with everything you said as I responded virtually line by line, and I've been on point this whole time. You are slipping Fox. Like I said, you're nothing like you used to be. To think at one time I was cautious to avoid getting into a conversation like this with you? What a joke.
This is normally something I would ignore, but since you think me not quoting everything of yours is somehow me ignoring valid points you made, I'm just going to respond to this by saying read my examples of Circular Reasoning above.
Oh how funny this is to read after all of the above.
The difference between you and I is that I'm not a hypocrite. I don't belittle you because you insult people, and then go on massive rampage using every insult I can think of.
I insult you and fully expect (and have no problem with) you insulting me back. I'm not a hypocrite. I also understand a few basic logical fallacies, know what we're actually debating and understand the true meaning of words.
When you catch up to me, then perhaps we can both laugh at how ridiculous you've looked in this thread.
I think you've had enough. Clearly you've already been defeated and you didn't even have the desire to finish what you started
Wow, your ego has really taken a beating in this thread hasn't it? Your last comment just SCREAMS your insecurity of debating with me, and you hoping beyond hope that I wouldn't reply again and completely destroy you some more.
You want to know how to keep me from making you look like a total idiot? Don't say stupid things. The less stupid things you say, the fewer times I call you stupid. Do yourself a favor. Admit you were wrong about my drag queen remark, and admit I'm right that this is a clear example of discrimination. If you want to go on and say you have absolutely no problem with the pageant discriminating against people who were born male, then fine, I'll leave you alone. I'm fine with the idea you feel people are the person they are when they were born, even though I'm completely against that type of thought.
All you have to do, to avoid me handing your ass on a silver platter once again, is admit you made a mistake about my drag queen comment, and admit this is discrimination. You do that, and I'll leave you alone in this thread. Who knows, do it without throwing an entire page of insults, and someone reading the thread might actually grow a little respect for you showing a little bit of maturity.
It's your call, kid. You can end this, or you can have me continue to rip you apart.
"The Miss Universe Organization will allow Jenna Talackova to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions," Michael D. Cohen, Trump's executive vice president and special counsel, said in an email.
But this statement was not enough for Talackova and Allred, who called it "confusing."
"It isn't just about her being able to compete," Allred said. "It's about the elimination of the rule for others. Jenna is standing up for others, not just herself."
Trump's organization issued a statement saying, "Gloria Allred's statements to the press [Tuesday] pay no mind to the fact that Mr. Trump and the Miss Universe Organization made the fair and just decision in allowing Jenna to compete in the Miss Universe 2012 Canada pageant."
I had crafted a very nice response to this whole thing over the course of the last few days, but someone restarted my computer and I lost the whole thing. I'm not going to re-type that whole thing. What I will do now is make a general response to the main things in this post.
Amusing, but false. I didn't throw one insult your way in my first post.
But that's not the point, certainly I've rightfully mocked you on numerous occasions. However, the point is you're making a hypocrite out of yourself. You act like my posting in "child antics" is bad, but then every post you've made to me has been exactly the same thing.
That's what "pot, meet kettle" means. You have heard the original expression and understand its meaning, right? You're a hypocrite, that's the point.
So that was a compliment I take it? You get what you give, and now that you're getting, you're not to happy about it and I am supposedly a hypocrite for that too. That's right, it's always everybody else right? It's never you.
I pick and choose the stuff that deserves responding. If I don't respond to it, it is either because it is inconsequential, I have already responded to it before, I agree with some or all of it, or it is so ridiculously stupid I don't want to bother with it.
When you post a 5 page response, most of it blathering on random tangents and insulting me, I'm not going to go line by line and respond to everything. The fact you think I'm doing it to avoid getting "pwned" is hilarious. You seem to have completely lost your grasp on reality.
That's a convenient story, but it doesn't change the fact that you've heavily avoided a lot of what I've responded with as it pointed out your less than flattering conduct and avoidance of making responses to legit arguments.
You dumbass, I never said such a thing. Seriously, how can anyone be as stupid as what you are appearing to be right now.
First of all, drag queens are completely different from this situation, for reasons I believe SalvIsWin mentioned. Second of all, what stops them? The fact they aren't beautiful enough to be there. This woman obviously was.
Let's put it this way. I have a sister. Pretend my sister wants to be in the Miss America pageant. What stops my sister from participating? She's not beautiful enough. Does that mean she's not a beautiful girl? Of course not, she's found to be very attractive by guys. She's tall, thin, pretty, and has an easy going personality. I know of at least two guys who had big time crushes on her for a long time.
But is she beautiful enough to compete in Miss America? No, she is not. If she was, she would compete.
Do you understand now? Do I need to continue to hold your hand through this argument? Are you finally finished getting indignant about something you misunderstood from the very beginning?
That's great, congratulations for your sister, but that is completely irrelevant to the conversation. The point was you made a grossly inaccurate broad generalization about a group of people that you clearly didn't think through. That's discrimination by the way, so it's actually YOU who've condoned the discrimination in this conversation, even though you keep trying to affix that accusation to me.
No, I understand EXACTLY what you've been saying. You've been saying that I'm out of touch with LGBT because I don't go to drag shows
Ignoring for a moment the ludicrous nature of that statement (as if the only way to be in touch with LGBT is by going to drag shows, and as if all drag queens are gay)
I wasn't suggesting that SIMPLY because you don't go to drag shows, that you are out of touch with the LGBT community. You tried to turn it into a ludicrous statement.
It was an observation that you must not be very in-touch because if you were you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement that they aren't beautiful enough. If you actually hung out with anybody within the LGBT community it's rather inevitable that you'd have been to a gay bar or two, which is where a lot of these drag shows are hosted. It would also then be virtually inevitable that you would have seen one at some point whether you were seeking it out or not. But, because you clearly do not hang out with people in the LGBT community, especially within the confines of places catered to them which you would at some point if you did hang out with them, you've simply never seen a drag queen in person that actually IS beautiful enough to be in a pageant like that. I have. I have actually known several that DO compete in pageants for drag queens specifically because they ARE that beautiful in their full regalia. You wouldn't be able to tell one of them from Jenna whose had all the surgery.
That's great, I'm happy you go to drag shows and find people there to be physically attractive. Good for you and good for them.
Oh, what a cheap shot. Trying to insinuate that I am attracted to drag queens, and therein men, also insinuating that I am gay. I am not, I am not attracted to them either. I am just secure enough with my sexuality to not be intimidated by those settings, situations, or the people within them.
But that was COMPLETELY irrelevant to MY point. My point was twofold. One, drag queens are completely different from Jenna, because drag queens are still men physically, and many times mentally and emotionally as well. Jenna is not, she is a woman in EVERY way except for the chromosomes which were given to her before birth.
That's the thing, they aren't all that different, you're just too far out of touch to realize that. Take away a couple surgeries and they are the same. It's funny though that you try to diminish one of the biggest factors here though, the fact that Jenna is actually a man when all is said and done. That's like saying "My kit car is a Ferrari in every way except for the fact that it's actually a Pontiac Fiero under the kit".
Second, just like my sister, a drag queen can be extremely attractive, but being the most beautiful woman in an entire country is simply not something most people can claim.
Okay, and......that's kind of a general statement, no real point there.
Are we finished with this yet? Are you ready to admit you completely misunderstood what I said, that I never once said anything negative about your drag queen friends? Good God, you have turned a complete non-issue into something that has wasted our time for no reason. Do you finally get it and can we put this to rest now?
I understood what you said just fine, it wasn't that complex. It is a legit issue because of the precedent that is set by allowing a man who looks like a woman to compete in womens only pageants. If all the matters is that they look like a woman, there should be no problem in letting drag queens compete, but obviously that doesn't make sense does it? Neither does allowing someone to compete who has had multiple surgeries to look like a woman but is in fact a man.
Wow, you managed to contradict yourself in the span of 15 words. You know what happened to Jenna is considered discrimination by me and the dictionary, but it's not discrimination? How can that possibly make sense?
I make no contradictions. What happened to Jenna was disqualification, not discrimination. The rules are the rules, and if they state "Natural Born Women Only" that's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with discrimination, that's just all you can understand, that's the only way it can be with you because you can't accept rules. It doesn't make sense because for your statement to be true it would have to be discrimination against men in general which it is not. It's a pageants constructed for women to compete in, naturally born women. No naturally born man qualifies, it's common sense.
You moron, if Jenna was born a woman, she wouldn't have been disqualified! Because she was born a man, she was disqualified! That is a TEXTBOOK case of discrimination. How can you be this dull?
See the above. I already understood that had WALTER been born a woman it wouldn't have been an issue. But, as Walter was born a man it most certainly is, but not to any point of discrimination in the way you are trying to apply it. Only in the loosest sense of the word, twisting the definition to suit your case does it even remotely apply, and even then it's clear to see that you are stretching very far to make it seem as such.
When I have to constantly reply to someone who regularly fails at reading comprehension, who constantly makes a hypocrite out of himself and then contradicts himself in the span of 15 words, I tend to mock that individual. You do remember the quote I used to have in my sig, right?
My reading comprehension is well intact, I am no hypocrite, I have made no contradictions. You mock anyone you disagree with, and you sought out to do just that to me before I had said anything to you. You are a bully in every sense of the word, and a pathetic one at that. You just troll people knowing full and well that no one can reprimand you for it, and that makes you even more pathetic.
Yes, I've figured out you don't understand what discrimination is, even though you agree by the dictionary's definition this is discrimination.
I know what it is, you display it perfectly towards anyone you perceive as being a Christian, a conservative, against anything you are for, etc... and you go to mercilessly humiliate them and question their intelligence, their person, and their character.
I agreed that "technically" you could call it that, as you've made the stretch to say it is so, but I've also showed why it is not. Technically you could say that the MLB is discriminatory to women, because they are excluded due to being women and it's a men's league, but we both know that is not so in this case or the latter, it's just rules.
Yes, but no one argued that point. I never once said that prohibiting a drag queen from competing isn't discrimination or that an attractive person shouldn't be able to compete.
Did I say you argued that? No. But as I DID say, I was making a point with it, you just failed to either comprehend it or acknowledge it at all.
Actually, you conveniently ignored the part where drag queens are still physically, and many times mentally and emotionally, men, whereas Jenna is not.
Okay, I am tired of this "mentally and emotionally" bullshit. You can't prove one way or the other. What we can prove is that Walter is a man under all that surgery, and without those surgeries this wouldn't even be a conversation because Walter would appear as he was born and is, a man.
You claim Jenna only feels way because of what the DSM-IV says, but it doesn't change the fact she DOES feel, act and look like a woman, in every way possible. Drag queens cannot claim the same thing.
And you can't prove that either. The other fact that is a constant and doesn't change is that Jenna/Walter is a man at the end of the day, and regardless of how you feel, act, or look, that disqualifies you from entering a womens only pageant as you are at the end of the day a man who simply looks or acts or feels like a woman. You don't seem to understand how permanent it is. Jenna/Walter wants to be something he is not, but Walter/Jenna even in his own mind knows that no matter how much he tries to make himself a woman, he is man still. The DNA doesn't lie.
But don't worry, I know you're never one to let facts stop you from making a ridiculously long argument.
No, I've been using facts to support my argument the whole time, where are yours? Oh, your manipulation of the definition of a word to serve your argument that you say makes it fact. Nice word gumshoe.
Well, America certainly thought so when they gave black people and women the right to vote.
And once again that is a completely different issue not relative to this one. Jenna was born a man, and had the option to change his appearance to look more like a woman. Black people never had the option to change their skin color and features to look like and be white people, making them free of the REAL discrimination they faced. They never did anything to put themselves in a situation where they could be discriminated against as Jenna did, and even then Jenna was never discriminated against, Jenna simply didn't fit the criteria for the pageant.
I find it astonishing you have no problem with discrimination against people because of how they were born.
I never said that or suggested that, but what people actually say never stop you from trying to spin it into something else. You have to make the person you are arguing with out to be any slew of slanderous things because without that you are nothing.
It's not hard to understand, it's just close-minded and insensitive, not to mention, it leads to discriminatory practices like this contest.
The truth might be insensitive and you might find it close-minded but that's just too bad. The truth stands and there isn't much you can do to argue against it.
I understand fully you think Jenna is a man because, as someone who doesn't live her life, doesn't know what she thinks and feels, and doesn't have her experiences, it's easy for you to just stick to your beliefs without having to consider the person you are so casually dismissing.
I know Jenna is a man. His DNA says so, the fact that Jenna was born as a boy named Walter says so, and the fact that without all those surgeries and hormone replacement Jenna would still look like who he really is (Walter) also says so. It has nothing to do with beliefs and everything to do with facts. You just want to make it about "Beliefs" so you can damn me as a radical Christian or something, but that's not even apart of the discussion.
I'm not that way. I will never belittle someone for being who they truly are, not with what genitalia they were born with. So, as I said before, the difference between us is that one of us is okay with discrimination and casually dismissing who a person truly is, and I'm not.
Oh, how touching. This is just stupid. Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not belittling anyone for being anything. I am not discriminating against anyone, and I'm not dismissing anyone. The facts are the facts. You have no facts to your support. You just continue with "Thinking and Feeling" which can not actually be proven, your manipulation of dictionary definitions that don't apply to this scenario due to the nature of it's founding, and try to diminish me as much as possible to illegitimize my arguments. That's the difference between us. I can back it up, you can't.
And as far as your DSM-IV goes, keep in mind homosexuality was always once considered a disorder. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not completely sold on your argument.
And it should still be, the only reason it is not is because enough people bitched about it to get it removed. If it were still considered a mental disorder(which it is), we could have continued valuable research to find some definitive answers about it. When you look at it scientifically from unbiased research, it fits the bill to be a mental disorder in every way. That's just not P.C. so we can't go there anymore and actually get to the bottom of it.
I'm not even going to waste my time any further with this "Circular Reasoning" thing by responding to that entire section. You tried to turn a simple statement I made into this whole "circular reasoning" thing, probably because I nailed you on the drag queens and you wanted to get me back. Unfortunately I never committed any acts or made any statements of circular reasoning. I merely made the observation that the rules are the rules, and as such they don't allow Jenna to compete because she as a man does not fit within the criteria of the rules.
You however did make comments that relied on themselves being true. You continue to say that Jenna is a woman, however, Jenna is a man, and your argument is dependent on Jenna being a woman which you do not prove. So you end up with: "Because Jenna is a woman, the pageant directors have discriminated against her for not allowing her to compete in a womens only pageant" Which fits the bill for circular reasoning, a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises, in this case that premise is that Jenna is a woman.
Read everything you said in the paragraph I quoted. Notice how not ONE thing you said is relevant to this topic, but rather you repeating yourself time again, and finding as many ways to insult me as you can possibly think of.
And go back to look at what I was responding to, your idiocy on full display. Also, a lot of what I said was relevant to the topic as I was busting you out for ducking and dodging arguments by simply making smart ass comments or insults at me. There was TONS of relevant stuff in there, you just think you can dictate what is and isn't. If I really were stupid I would allow you to do just that, but I am not. You were getting your ass handed to you and you decided to completely overlook that as it was such.
Uhh..yes I did.
It's really simple. The pageant says Jenna can't compete because she was born a man.
BAM! That's discrimination. I thought I had made this clear a long time ago. You can try to deny the fact it's discrimination, but you'd be wrong. When you exclude someone purely on the basis of a group he or she belongs to, without any regard for their individual merits, that's discrimination.
Boom! No you dirty jockstrap, it's not discrimination. So should cats then be allowed to participate in the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show??? After all, cats are being excluded purely on the basis of the group they belong to without any regard for THEIR individual merits. No, it's not discrimination because the competition is strictly for dogs, just as the pageant is strictly for naturally born women. Going off of your logic then there is no point in there being any distinction, it would be a pageant for anyone men or women. But, obviously we see why that doesn't make sense. Men compete against men, women against women, and not just people who look like women but are actually men or vice versa, dogs against other dogs, etc....It's common sense but that seems to have completely fled from your thinking and logic.
The problem you have is not that you disagree this is discrimination. You know it is. You just agree with the pageant's decision, and discrimination has such an ugly connotation, you struggle with the idea you have no problem with such an ugly sounding word.
You know this was discrimination. Just say that you are okay with it and move on. I'm not one personally to understand how people can be okay with gender discrimination, but at least you won't have to be called stupid for pretending like this isn't.
You are beating a dead horse here. It's not discrimination. If you are seriously suggesting that it's gender discrimination, then what you are implying is that men should be able to compete in beauty pageants next to women, and even though the pageant was structured to be women only, that should change to include men, changing the nature of the competition altogether. How fucking dense are you? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you have men and women competing in the same beauty pageant when common sense says they should be separate due to the drastic differences between the two, which would obviously confuse the judging criteria ?
No, Jenna was most definitely BORN a man. Jenna is most definitely NOT a man now.
That's not what science would tell you. Appearances aren't everything, and surgeries can't change what the natural make-up already is, that being, the natural genetic make-up of a man. That can not be changed. You can never be completely changed to one or the other, only in appearance.
You think people are defined by factors outside of their control when they are born, regardless of the person they currently are. I think people are defined by who they truly are, not the genitalia they were born with.
No actually, I explained exactly how I feel people are defined, go back and look for yourself. It was when you asked me if I identify mentally and emotionally as a man.
I, like any man or woman can feel a whole range of emotions and experience a whole range of thoughts, I am not defined by them, nor is Jenna. Jenna just has identity issues and a negative self image as a man and felt the need to change his image to one more preferable to him, that doesn't make him any less man or any more woman. He is still a man and the two genders aren't purely defined by what they think or feel. What does define male and female emotionally and mentally comes down to scientific factors, such as chromosomes, the chemical responses to situations that equate to thoughts or feelings, testosterone vs estrogen, and some of that isn't entirely due to that either, an individuals personality as it develops plays a role in those reactions. However, a man changing the testosterone levels in his body and increasing the estrogen levels does not make him a woman, merely a man manipulating the natural processes of his body that he was born with.
No, I've understood you fine. The problem here is not me understanding what you've said, but rather your understanding of discrimination. You want proof? Look what you say next:
Let's play the "Find and Replace" game. Instead of using the word "man", let's use the word "black" and see how it alters your statement.
So now the judges have set the qualifications as only allowing white women, and Jenna was removed because she was black. Would you call that discrimination? Of course you would, or at least I hope you would. Because I certainly don't want to use my restaurant example again.
If it were an issue of black or white in a pageant where no distinction was made in the rules that would be a completely different situation nor relative to this one, and it would be discrimination. However, there are such things as Black Only beauty pageants. So what if a white woman wanted to enter? Would that be discrimination? According to you it would, but according to common sense it wouldn't. Why? Because the parameters were already set for it to be Black Only. Just the way the Westminster Kennel Club's contest are for Dogs Only, and how the Miss Canada Pageant is for Naturally Born Women Only.
I say Jenna is a woman. But, just for the sake of this example, let's say she's not. Being disqualified for no reason OTHER than because she is a man is discrimination. Just like not hiring someone for a job because they are a woman, not allowing a man to compete because he is a man is discrimination.
No it's not. The two comparisons here aren't even relative to each other, but somehow in your mind you've convinced yourself they are. You can't possibly be serious can you? So now you're saying that even with you taking it as fact that Jenna is a man, that is still discrimination? There is no getting through to you. Also, depending on the job it wouldn't be discrimination to not hire a woman. They are called "requirements" or in this case "Rules", if you can't meet either or for any reason, that is not discrimination.
I don't understand how you can possibly say, with any shred of credibility, this is not discrimination, regardless of what gender you say Jenna is. Do people get in an uproar because a man can't compete in Miss Universe? No, they don't, because people are okay with that kind of discrimination, they have no problem with it. It doesn't mean it's not discrimination though.
It's not because people are okay with any type of discrimination, it's because people aren't stupid enough to even consider it discrimination. You're trying to say that men not being allowed to compete in womens only competition is discriminatory, but you can't explain how, you just keep going back to the most literal interpretation of the dictionary definition, without any consideration for the given situations and the circumstances involved. You've got this narrow minded, singularly fixed idea and are not taking a lot of other things into consideration that weigh very heavily upon the situation. Is it discriminatory too then that men can not bear children as women do? Fuck. I'm just waiting for you to try and argue that too. That's how ridiculous this argument of yours is.
Throw in the fact that MANY people consider Jenna a woman, a woman who was talented enough and beautiful enough to be a finalist before being disqualified for being born male, and THAT'S why this has been such a big deal.
And those people are simply humoring Jenna because if they didn't they'd likely find out how much man Walter actually is. I get why this is such a big deal, but your missing a lot of the equation. The whole point is for it to be women only, so being a naturally born man disqualifies you. This person was just lucky enough to be able to fool them long enough to go that far, and congratulations on being talented and beautiful enough to do so, you made asses out of a lot of people, but the truth caught up to Walter for being what he is, a man, and he had to face the music.
The difference between you and I is that I'm not a hypocrite. I don't belittle you because you insult people, and then go on massive rampage using every insult I can think of.
I'm not being hypocritical, I am merely the purveyor of justice giving you a taste of your own medicine which you clearly do not like to such an extent that you have resorted to calling me a hypocrite for doing it. Sorry, I'm not the one to be intimidated or bullied by assholes like you, I dish it back. What? Was I supposed to just take it with a smile and be okay with it?
I insult you and fully expect (and have no problem with) you insulting me back. I'm not a hypocrite. I also understand a few basic logical fallacies, know what we're actually debating and understand the true meaning of words.
Obviously you do have quite a problem with it or you wouldn't be trying to call me a hypocrite for giving you back in spades what you've given me without provocation. You did provoke me, I did nothing to you but utter my views on it which you felt the need to come back and belittle me for, so fuck you.
When you catch up to me, then perhaps we can both laugh at how ridiculous you've looked in this thread.
And this is the problem with you, you think you are above anyone, but you are not. You constantly feel the need to place yourself above people, or more importantly to place them beneath you. I think it's rather telling and that you must be very insecure, and that you are extremely intolerant of views not in line with your own which makes you the biggest hypocrite of all. Your condescending demeanor and attitude towards people is disgusting and loathsome at best.
Actually, it's called "having a job". I told you if you had any relevant points you made that I didn't address, then to repost them.
You didn't repost them, so clearly you made no valid points in the areas I didn't respond to.
Your avoidance of the points and arguments I made was all I needed to show how full of shit you are. I didn't need to re-post anything, you would just ignore them again, so why waste my time. You already showed that you had no interest in answering me in the many areas I called you out, so you concede those points by default.
Wow, your ego has really taken a beating in this thread hasn't it? Your last comment just SCREAMS your insecurity of debating with me, and you hoping beyond hope that I wouldn't reply again and completely destroy you some more.
Actually no, it's not an ego thing with me, which it clearly is for you or you wouldn't mention it. It's a "Your an asshole who constantly tries to fuck with people" thing. In any real debate I will crush you. Not some discussion where you can make all your smart ass remarks, avoid half of the argument, and simply make false accusations of me to try and illegitimize my logic. In a real debate, I will own you.
You want to know how to keep me from making you look like a total idiot? Don't say stupid things. The less stupid things you say, the fewer times I call you stupid. Do yourself a favor. Admit you were wrong about my drag queen remark, and admit I'm right that this is a clear example of discrimination. If you want to go on and say you have absolutely no problem with the pageant discriminating against people who were born male, then fine, I'll leave you alone. I'm fine with the idea you feel people are the person they are when they were born, even though I'm completely against that type of thought.
All you have to do, to avoid me handing your ass on a silver platter once again, is admit you made a mistake about my drag queen comment, and admit this is discrimination. You do that, and I'll leave you alone in this thread. Who knows, do it without throwing an entire page of insults, and someone reading the thread might actually grow a little respect for you showing a little bit of maturity.
It's your call, kid. You can end this, or you can have me continue to rip you apart.
I will do nothing of the sort because you are wrong. You are asking me to simply concede that you are right on all accounts which you are not, not even close. I have done all that is necessary to show as much, I have wasted enough time on you in doing so, and I will waste no more time with you. The people who have been reading can see for themselves that you are full of shit, and many have contacted me to let me know that they agree with me and to cheer me on in handing you YOUR ass on a silver platter, as that's all that's been going on here.
You seem to think trolling me is handing me my ass, but you couldn't be any further off. That's what your whole argument has amounted to. You have no legs to stand on, you have no new argument that you can make, and you have no facts to back you up. Just quit. I am tired of this. This is the second time I've had to type all of this and I will not be responding any more. You can go on and do what you think you must to "Continue ripping me apart" and I'm sure you need to do that to satisfy your own bruised ego, and insecure self. I do not. I have said all I need to say, I know I've got your ass over and over and over, and everyone who reads knows that you have lost this argument too. I'm not going to respond any further anyways so you will be wasting your time. It is over. Just walk away and agree to disagree.
You guys both make some pretty good points, and I want to highlight something in Bomb's argument that I had touched on as well, but I want to elaborate more on it. The reason why this isn't discrimination is because of the actual situation, the context. It is a beauty pageant (a contest, a rule-based competition) for women only. If it weren't, then men could and would be in this competition as well... but they're not for obvious reasons. Same reason why women aren't in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Same reason why cats aren't in that Westminister dog competition that Bomb pointed out. It's just the rules that govern the competition, no different from a rule in the NFL that states steroids can't be used. They're just rules that govern the competition and outline what features the competition will... well, feature. In this case, it is what makes a beauty pageant..... a beauty pageant. The line in order to make it such is that only BORN women can participate. Now, will a few exceptions like Jenna (even though she will be in it) miss out because they could arguably be in it? Sure, but a line had to be drawn somewhere, and drawing that line at BORN women makes sense and seems like the obvious and practical answer, as there's more transexuals (those close to the line) that wouldn't fit than those that would. Just the simple fact that for this competition, in order to have its identity, a line had to be drawn somewhere. Rules had to be dictated in order to clearly identify the competition, and that's what happened.
To say that discrimination is going on and comparing it to discrimination that a black person would face by not being allowed to eat at a restaurant due to his skin color MAY literally be the same thing due to the textbook definition... but when you add logical thought to the situation and actually analyze and weigh both contexts, anyone can see that in one case, you have a contest being offered to a certain group because that's who they're looking for and what the identity-based rules call for, just like the NFL is looking for young, athletic males, and on the other hand you have cold-hearted, bigoted, ill-intenioned discrimination for no logical reason other than the pure dislike and distain for a person's "difference". That's the difference between the two scenarios when you break them down. Is it literally discrimination by the textbook definition? You could argue that. But if you ask if discrimination is really going on here, it's just simply not when you actually consider and weigh the scenario.
In order to illustrate the difference that I was talking about in those previous last few sentences, let's look at a parallel situation. Let's say in one scenario, a person intentionally commits suicide (shoots himself in the head). In another scenario, a person unintentionally kills himself (cleaning his gun, accidentally shoots himself in the head). Intentional suicide and accidental suicide. Both can be loosely deemed "suicide" on the surface, but when you closely look at the scenarios, although the textbook term "suicide" (the killing of one's self) can be arguably applied to both, you can realistically see that suicide can really only be assigned to the first scenario.
I'll reply to Ba-Bomb when I have more time, but yours is pretty quick. I'm also going to try and start my "less harsh" transition, but it's going to be SOOO hard to do when I get to Ba-Bomb's post.
Do you have a VALID reason men can't compete, other than because what hangs between their legs when they were born? Are men not capable of competing, do they not have the talents or the charms to do so? If you feel so, do you have any proof of it, do you have any evidence that a man cannot be beautiful?
There is NOTHING to justify preventing anyone who was not born a female from competing, other than gender. That is EXACTLY the case of discrimination.
Same reason why women aren't in the NFL, NBA, or MLB.
Completely wrong. The reason women aren't in the NFL, NBA or MLB is because they are not good enough to be. Women have played college football (see Katie Hnida). But they are simply not athletic or skilled enough to play in the pros. It has nothing to do with being a woman. If there was a woman who was good enough to play professionally, and could prove she was good enough to play professionally, then a professional team would allow her to play.
Same reason why cats aren't in that Westminister dog competition that Bomb pointed out.
Which might be relevant if we weren't talking about human beings, not entirely different species. A man and a woman are both human beings. A cat and a dog are completely different species.
Your example has absolutely no relevance.
It's just the rules that govern the competition, no different from a rule in the NFL that states steroids can't be used.
Wrong again. NFL rules say steroids cannot be used because they are against the law. Last time I checked, a person who was born with male chromosomes but is a female in every other way was not a crime.
In this case, it is what makes a beauty pageant..... a beauty pageant. The line in order to make it such is that only BORN women can participate.
And there are far more women who want to compete in the beauty pageant who don't meet the standards of beauty and grace and are told they cannot compete. What's your point?
Just the simple fact that for this competition, in order to have its identity, a line had to be drawn somewhere.
Rules have to be dictated in order to clearly identify who is allowed in my restaurant, and that's what happened.
I find it so amusing you keep trying to say this isn't discrimination, and then when given a parallel example, you say it's not the same thing.
To say that discrimination is going on and comparing it to discrimination that a black person would face by not being allowed to eat at a restaurant due to his skin color MAY literally be the same thing due to the textbook definition
No, it IS literally the same thing. You may disagree on how serious the social ramifications of such discrimination are, but it is the same thing.
anyone can see that in one case, you have a contest being offered to a certain group because that's who they're looking for and what the identity-based rules call for
Exactly. NOW you understand why I won't let black people eat in my restaurant. I have food that I'm offering to a certain group because that's who I'm looking for and what my race-based rules call for.
just like the NFL is looking for young, athletic males
Just like MLB used to look for young athletic white men.
and on the other hand you have cold-hearted, bigoted, ill-intenioned discrimination for no logical reason other than the pure dislike and distain for a person's "difference".
That's exactly how I and many others see the contest's initial decision to disqualify Jenna.
What reason did they have for a rule denying her the right to compete, especially since she had already proven she was good enough to be a finalist? It was bigoted, it was completely inconsiderate of her feelings and hard work, and it was discrimination for no logical reason other than pure dislike and ignorance of Jenna's "difference".
It's the exact same thing.
But if you ask if discrimination is really going on here, it's just simply not when you actually consider and weigh the scenario.
No, it IS discrimination. The difference is you've been conditioned all your life not to be racist, but you HAVEN'T been conditioned all your life to accept transgender people for who they are. Transgenders still have a social stigma and are not openly discussed as the men vs. women and white vs. black subjects are. It's still something our society hides from our children and something we don't put on television on a regular basis, primarily because so many in our society consider it a "sex" (fornication) thing, not a gender thing.
THAT'S the difference between these two situations.
In order to illustrate the difference that I was talking about in those previous last few sentences, let's look at a parallel situation. Let's say in one scenario, a person intentionally commits suicide (shoots himself in the head). In another scenario, a person unintentionally kills himself (cleaning his gun, accidentally shoots himself in the head). Intentional suicide and accidental suicide. Both can be loosely deemed "suicide" on the surface, but when you closely look at the scenarios, although the textbook term "suicide" (the killing of one's self) can be arguably applied to both, you can realistically see that suicide can really only be assigned to the first scenario.
Yeah...you need to spend some time studying a dictionary as well. The very definition of suicide includes the INTENTION of self-destruction. If you do not INTEND to kill yourself, it is not considered suicide, by the very definition of the word.
Your example fails, because your understanding of the word suicide is incorrect.
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but isn't the easy solution to make a Miss Transgender Universe Canada competition and retroactively award this person the award for 2011 / 2012 for "being brave, etc."?
First it would reward the person in question, which, ultimately, is what that person wants. Second, it will prevent it from happening in the future. Third, it will give a partial solution to the problems facing Miss Universe Canada organizers and participants - certain entrants receive extra attention for factors beyond the organization's control. Fourth, it will allow the organizers to claim to be progressive and, accordingly, allow them to encourage tolerance and acceptance of the LGBT community (who admittedly have been subject to a lot of overt and subversive discrimination because of this issue).
It doesn't have to be as well funded as the Miss Universe Canada competition, it doesn't have to be televised or advertised nationally. Have an online feed and charge advertisers to put their banners beside the feed.
I don't know about anyone else, but this seems like a simple solution to an unnecessarily complex problem.
How was that insult? You are actively seeking to prohibit someone from a competition they are qualified for, simply upon the basis of the gender they were born with.
That wasn't an insult, that was a fact.
That's a convenient story, but it doesn't change the fact that you've heavily avoided a lot of what I've responded with as it pointed out your less than flattering conduct and avoidance of making responses to legit arguments.
I've told you TWICE, I believe, to re-post anything you feel you made a valid point about, and that I haven't addressed. If I haven't addressed it, you have only yourself to blame for not re-posting it.
I haven't avoided anything, it's just that I have already replied to most of the things you've said multiple times.
That's great, congratulations for your sister, but that is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Only because you refuse to admit you completely misunderstood what I said. Once you admit you simply misunderstood, then my example makes a lot more sense.
The point was you made a grossly inaccurate broad generalization about a group of people that you clearly didn't think through.
I might have to ban you if you call me a liar again. Why? Because I can, and I'm not a liar. You misunderstood what I was saying. You still don't seem to understand what I'm saying, even though I have tried to explain it to you multiple times.
I'll try one more time. What stops me from entering a male beauty pageant? I'm not attractive enough. If I was attractive enough, then I could be in a beauty contest. What stops a drag queen from entering the contest (assuming the rule wasn't in place)? Only their looks. If they were attractive enough, AND considered themselves truly a woman (as Jenna does), then I have no problem with them being in the pageant.
This is the last time I'm saying it. I highly suggest you not call me a liar again.
That's discrimination by the way, so it's actually YOU who've condoned the discrimination in this conversation
I didn't insinuate that at all. If that is what you inferred from my statement, that's a you problem. You said they were physically attractive, and I said good for you.
Anything else you read into that is all on you.
That's the thing, they aren't all that different, you're just too far out of touch to realize that. Take away a couple surgeries and they are the same.
Those surgeries are part of what makes up the difference. That's like saying take away most of Bill Gates money, and he's just like any other person. Well, of course, but you're removing one of the most important aspects of what makes Bill Gates different from the rest of us.
It's funny though that you try to diminish one of the biggest factors here though, the fact that Jenna is actually a man when all is said and done.
Because Jenna is not a man. She may have been born male, but she is not a male now.
I understood what you said just fine, it wasn't that complex. It is a legit issue because of the precedent that is set by allowing a man who looks like a woman to compete in womens only pageants.
The two are not exclusive of one another. She was disqualified by a rule which practices discrimination.
Discrimination is not simply limited to race. I'm not exactly sure why you don't understand that gender discrimination is also a type of discrimination, but it is.
The rules are the rules, and if they state "Natural Born Women Only" that's just the way it is.
And I said from the very beginning they have the right to make that rule. Which you have acknowledged me saying. But making that rules doesn't exempt it from being a sexist rule.
No, it has everything to do with discrimination. If I made a rule that black people couldn't eat in my restaurant, that would be discrimination. Being a rule doesn't mean the rule cannot be discrimination.
It doesn't make sense because for your statement to be true it would have to be discrimination against men in general which it is not.
I'm going to need you to clarify this statement for me.
According to you, for this rule to be discrimination, it would have to be discrimination against men in general. Last time I checked, men are not allowed to compete, simply because they are men. Would that not mean this rule is discrimination? Again, I'm asking you to clarify.
I already understood that had WALTER been born a woman it wouldn't have been an issue.
So if Jenna had been born a woman she could compete, but because she was born male, she can't. If Al Sharpton had been born white, he could eat in my restaurant, but since he was born black, he cannot.
How can you say that's not discrimination?
I agreed that "technically" you could call it that, as you've made the stretch to say it is so, but I've also showed why it is not.
You've said it's not discrimination, because it prevents men from competing...which is what makes it discrimination in the first place.
Technically you could say that the MLB is discriminatory to women, because they are excluded due to being women and it's a men's league, but we both know that is not so in this case or the latter, it's just rules.
Because something is a "rule", it cannot be discrimination? Because MLB had a "rule" that only white people could play baseball before Jackie Robinson, MLB wasn't practicing discrimination? When white people made a "rule" that black people couldn't sit in the same place on the bus as white people, that wasn't discrimination?
You seem to be arguing that rules cannot be classified as discrimination. As little credit as I've given your intelligence throughout this debate, even I cannot believe you truly think that. I'll ask you again to clarify your meaning.
Okay, I am tired of this "mentally and emotionally" bullshit.
Agreed. But I'm not calling her a liar. Do you know she DOESN'T think and feel that way? Of course you don't. So unless you're willing to stand up and call her a liar, you're going to have to take her word for it.
What we can prove is that Walter is a man under all that surgery
But neither does it tell the whole story. That's the point.
Like I said, you want to look at ONE factor, which was completely out of Jenna's control, and say it's the only thing that matters when it comes to determining who Jenna is. And I'd much rather look at the person Jenna currently is, and use that to decide who she is.
No, I've been using facts to support my argument the whole time
Actually...no you haven't. In this entire argument, I believe the ONLY relevant fact you've presented is that Jenna was born a man, which I agreed to a long time ago. Otherwise, your arguments have been to claim Jenna isn't who she currently is, and that even though this is a classic case of discrimination by the definition listed in the dictionary, it isn't REALLY discrimination because this is a rule the pageant had.
When it comes to this debate, you've had only one relevant fact, which I stipulated to in my very first post.
And once again that is a completely different issue not relative to this one.
making them free of the REAL discrimination they faced. They never did anything to put themselves in a situation where they could be discriminated against as Jenna did
What did Jenna do to put herself in a position to be discriminated against? Jenna isn't being discriminated against because she is a transgender, she is being discriminated against because she was born male.
Ironic, coming from the person who got so upset about smoking bans in public. When the situation is against you, the world is unfair, even though it is your DECISION to smoke. But when the situation is against someone else, even when they never got to make a decision, it's "just too bad".
What do you call it when you refuse to allow someone competent to compete for a job, based solely upon the way they were born? If Jenna was black, it would be discrimination, why is it not because she was born male?
You know, the fact she looks and claims to think and feel like a woman. The fact she lives like a woman. The fact she was good enough to be a finalist in the pageant. And don't forget the fact the dictionary definition agrees with me.
Backing up with fictitious statements and misunderstanding of word definitions doesn't win an argument.
And it should still be, the only reason it is not is because enough people bitched about it to get it removed. If it were still considered a mental disorder(which it is), we could have continued valuable research to find some definitive answers about it. When you look at it scientifically from unbiased research, it fits the bill to be a mental disorder in every way. That's just not P.C. so we can't go there anymore and actually get to the bottom of it.
Because it was. Your statement failed the logic test. There are actually other fallacies in your posts, but given your inability to understand this one, there's no reason to point out more of them.
probably because I nailed you on the drag queens and you wanted to get me back.
The very fact you committed a logical fallacy disqualifies you from "nailing" someone. You cannot "nail" someone when your statement fails the test of logic.
And that's not even getting into the fact you completely misunderstood what I said about drag queens.
You however did make comments that relied on themselves being true. You continue to say that Jenna is a woman, however, Jenna is a man, and your argument is dependent on Jenna being a woman which you do not prove.
I HAVE supplied arguments to support my thesis. Remember the physical, mental and emotional arguments? Those are argument to support the statement Jenna is a woman.
So you end up with: "Because Jenna is a woman, the pageant directors have discriminated against her for not allowing her to compete in a womens only pageant" Which fits the bill for circular reasoning
God, it is SO hard to continue not insulting your intelligence here. I'm saying the pageant shouldn't discriminate against Jenna, because she IS a woman, even though she was born with male chromosomes. The pageant is not discriminating against Jenna because she is a woman, they are discriminating against her because she was born male.
That is not circular reasoning. At all.
a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises, in this case that premise is that Jenna is a woman.
But that's not why the pageant is discriminating against her. You do understand that right? The pageant isn't discriminating against her because she is a woman, they are discriminating against her because she was born male.
So the statement you are trying to attribute to me and call circular reasoning is false, even before you begin. You are so desperate to try and show you understand this logical fallacy, you seem to have forgotten what actually happened.
I highly suggest you drop this, as you said you were going to do. You clearly do not understand logical fallacies.
Also, a lot of what I said was relevant to the topic as I was busting you out
The fact it excludes men, based solely upon their gender, is what makes it discrimination.
You are MORE than welcome to say you have no problem with this kind of discrimination. If you want to say you want beauty pageants to be for women only, then fine. But it's still a rule which discriminates.
You are beating a dead horse here. It's not discrimination. If you are seriously suggesting that it's gender discrimination, then what you are implying is that men should be able to compete in beauty pageants next to women, and even though the pageant was structured to be women only, that should change to include men, changing the nature of the competition altogether.
Except Jenna is not a man, so your paragraph has no relevance to THIS discussion.
But if we're talking only men and women, and ignoring the large spectrum upon which gender falls, if one gender is allowed to do something, and the other isn't, simply based upon their gender, it is discrimination. By the very definition of the word.
I am beating a dead horse, but I'm beating the CORRECT dead horse.
That's not what science would tell you. Appearances aren't everything, and surgeries can't change what the natural make-up already is, that being, the natural genetic make-up of a man.
I find it amusing how you cling to this, as it is the ONLY leg you have to stand on.
People are their entire life who they are when they were born. That's your position. You refuse to look at the person they become, only who they were when they were born.
No actually, I explained exactly how I feel people are defined, go back and look for yourself.
I've seen you say it many times in this thread. In relation to this instance, you claim people are defined by the genitalia between their legs when they were born. That's it.
If it were an issue of black or white in a pageant where no distinction was made in the rules that would be a completely different situation nor relative to this one, and it would be discrimination.
But what if there was a distinction in the rules? What if the rules said, "Only naturally born white people can compete"? Would that not be discrimination?
However, there are such things as Black Only beauty pageants. So what if a white woman wanted to enter? Would that be discrimination?
But the parameter is what is doing the discrimination!
Being parameter or a rule doesn't exclude something from being racist or sexist. In fact, it is the rules and parameters which usually DETERMINE if something is racist or sexist.
No it's not. The two comparisons here aren't even relative to each other, but somehow in your mind you've convinced yourself they are. You can't possibly be serious can you? So now you're saying that even with you taking it as fact that Jenna is a man, that is still discrimination? There is no getting through to you. Also, depending on the job it wouldn't be discrimination to not hire a woman. They are called "requirements" or in this case "Rules", if you can't meet either or for any reason, that is not discrimination.
No, that's not it at all. Just like people in the 1800s were okay with racism against non-whites, people are okay with discrimination against men in beauty pageants.
You're trying to say that men not being allowed to compete in womens only competition is discriminatory, but you can't explain how, you just keep going back to the most literal interpretation of the dictionary definition
I understand the point. You're not understanding the point Jenna is a woman, in mind, body and emotions.
This person was just lucky enough to be able to fool them long enough to go that far, and congratulations on being talented and beautiful enough to do so, you made asses out of a lot of people, but the truth caught up to Walter for being what he is, a man, and he had to face the music.
She didn't hide anything. She has competed in transgendered pageants before. And the pageant actually said she can be allowed back in.
I'm not being hypocritical, I am merely the purveyor of justice giving you a taste of your own medicine which you clearly do not like to such an extent that you have resorted to calling me a hypocrite for doing it.
I'm calling you a hypocrite, because that's what you have done. You claim to be upset that I insult people, then you proceed to insult me. That makes you a hypocrite, by the very definition of the word. I know you're not big on taking definitions at the their true meaning, but most people will realize you are being a hypocrite.
Sorry, I'm not the one to be intimidated or bullied by assholes like you, I dish it back.
You are a hypocrite. That's not an insult, it's an apt characterization of what you have been in this thread. Being a hypocrite has negative connotations because it reflects poorly upon the one being hypocritical, but the word itself is not an insult. I don't call you a "hypocrite" for the same reason I called you "stupid".
Your avoidance of the points and arguments I made was all I needed to show how full of shit you are.
I'll say the same thing I've said before...re-post them, and if I have not already responded to them, I will do so. At this point, if you refuse to re-post them, then I will consider that you saying you cannot produce a single valid and relevant statement I have not addressed. And if you do, then I will respond to it.
This IS a real debate, and your argument is basically summed up with, "I know what the definition of the word discrimination is, but that's not really what it means".
If this were an in-person debate, I daresay I would not be the only person laughing at you.
You are asking me to simply concede that you are right on all accounts which you are not, not even close.
No, I'm asking you to admit you don't know what I meant when I posted what I did, and that you're okay with discriminating against those who were not naturally born females, in order to preserve an integrity you feel the pageant deserves.
That's not me asking you to admit I'm right, that's asking you to drop all the statements you're wrong about, and simply admit you feel differently about discrimination in THIS case than I do.
You seem to think trolling me is handing me my ass, but you couldn't be any further off. That's what your whole argument has amounted to. You have no legs to stand on, you have no new argument that you can make, and you have no facts to back you up. Just quit. I am tired of this. This is the second time I've had to type all of this and I will not be responding any more. You can go on and do what you think you must to "Continue ripping me apart" and I'm sure you need to do that to satisfy your own bruised ego, and insecure self. I do not. I have said all I need to say, I know I've got your ass over and over and over, and everyone who reads knows that you have lost this argument too. I'm not going to respond any further anyways so you will be wasting your time. It is over. Just walk away and agree to disagree.
First off, I hate you all, in general yes, but specifically after reading all these redundant posts. So hey, what's one more? Moving on
Let's be clear, it's an obviously discriminatory practice. But to be fair that's all a beauty pageant is. An opportunity to discriminate based on whatever criteria the presenters see fit. That said, all the other contestants are trying to "cheat the system": Hair straightening/curling/styling/extensions, plucking/tweezing/waxing/, extreme dieting, tanning, skin-lightening, make-up, dermatological procedures, exercising, breast-implants, teeth whitening, laser hair removal, etc., etc., etc. "Nature" has nothing to do with the women presented on that stage. What's wrong with just adding one more procedure to the list? Sex reassignment. Bam! She just took it to the nth degree is all.
If this were to be a contest based purely on the visually observable results of what your chromosomal dependent phenotype declares then I suspect many of these women wouldn't meet the beauty pageant's baseline requirements.
Also, I would like to reserve a table at Sly's restaurant. It sounds like a great place. I think I'd start by ordering some klu klux klams. Maybe play some 8 ball.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
