No.12436[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1692881828290.jpg (88.45 KB, 982x1024, 491:512, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Gender Egalitarianism a movement for equal opportunity for the different genders, as applicable. I don't think that people of different genders have to be equal, just that they should have the option if they prefer equality. Are you in favor or do you have negative opinions about this general notion?
No.12439
File: 1692906851397.jpg (25.73 KB, 474x266, 237:133, cmcshowstoppers.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Sure. People should be free to do what they want without feeling like they are the wrong gender for what they are doing.
In an ideal society, I think people would be supported for being who they are (or finding out who they are), without regard to gender or any other outside appearance.
I think that everyone prefers equality, but that people have different ideas about what equality is and how to get there.
No.12441
>>12439>Sure. People should be free to do what they want without feeling like they are the wrong gender for what they are doing.I think that would follow.
>In an ideal society, I think people would be supported for being who they are (or finding out who they are), without regard to gender or any other outside appearance.I'm always cautious about talking generally. Some people prefer gender inequality. I think my idea of gender egalitarianism, like all my ideas, involve the possibility of private spaces where these things are true.
>I think that everyone prefers equality, but that people have different ideas about what equality is and how to get there.A competing belief is that men and women are inherently different and should have different freedoms, restrictions, and responsibilities -- that roles must be unequal. See, for example, the controversy around a proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution of the US.
No.12442
>>12441>I'm always cautious about talking generally. Some people prefer gender inequality. I think my idea of gender egalitarianism, like all my ideas, involve the possibility of private spaces where these things are true.I guess it could be said that on some level people prefer gender inequality.
>A competing belief is that men and women are inherently different and should have different freedoms, restrictions, and responsibilities -- that roles must be unequal. See, for example, the controversy around a proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution of the US.Interesting. I would like to believe that most people that anymore, and I think that maybe the controversy around the ERA amendment is about Section 2: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" instead of just leaving it up to the Supreme Court when a violation of the amendment occurs.
(What kinds of laws do you think might be made?)
No.12443
>>12442Overreach was part of the controversy. I feel like that part of the proposed bill is standard, in that making something unconstitutional does not automatically cause enforcement, but some of those who opposed believed in gender equality but thought there might be negative consequences of the particular amendment yes.
>What kinds of laws do you think might be made?Well, social movements exist in the freedom people have after their compliance with the state is complete, and I think it's important to understand lay people must comply with law but are not able to understand it. But where it is respectful, appropriate, and legal I'd like laws to not inhibit the freedom of people to have gender equality amoung those who consent to that kind of thing, to the extent a person like me can even understand such things.
No.12444
It's a nice idea, but i don't think it works out in the long-term, due to women's dating preferences. I think both gender egalitarianism and feminism overall ar, unfortunately, a doomed concept, as women, given the choice, will form preferences for powerful men, whose attraction will give them even more power, leading over time to either slow death by depopulation (as we're already seeing in countries with large gender egalitarianism), or simply repeating cycles of egalitarianism leading to a small group of powerful men having control over those women, leading to uprisings of male disempowered masses, leading to restrictive female roles, which fade with time, and so the cycle repeats forever.
It's not a solvable problem. The problem is women's inner conflict between their sexual desire for men more rich and powerful and influential than them, and their platonic desire for equality with men. That conflict isn't going anywhere. It's an innate biological desire, and it's a paradox. It will be with us forever.
Given all that, let people be free. Their place on the cycle will determine their actions and they will act accordingly. There is no escape.
No.12445
File: 1692968034433.jpg (198.88 KB, 1280x968, 160:121, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12444This is good. I might never have thought of it that way without a discussion.
So, maybe, heterosexual people who value a happy relationship, and accept their inherent nature, should not really be part of gender egalitarianism. Or at least, those heterosexuals that see the ideal romance in the way you describe: men needing weak women, women needing powerful men. This seems to be a big gender related difference you see in heterosexual people who want romance.
No.12446
>>12444Perhaps gender egalitarianism and feminism are concepts that are inherent in general equality, and such movements can be seen as a sort-of medicine for the world, which once taken and the lessons having been absorbed, cease to be useful.
But I think it's going to be a while (100s of years at least) before society as a whole reaches a point of general equality, where everyone feels free to be themselves and people who are not themseles are not the norm, and therefore easily helped by the many who know themselves. Until the world starts looking more like Equestria, I don't think we're close.
Different societal medicines have different levels of effectiveness and are best applied at diffferent times in response to different situations to have the most helpful effect.
No.12458
>>12436I am for equality of treatment, which does not result in equality of outcome it should be noted.
Whether this would apply to your subject here varies wildly depending on who you speak to.
Ultimately, people ought be free to do as they, personally, wish, so long as it isn't directly harming others.
But a consequence of people doing what they wish is that society will be inequal. A society with equal opportunity will inevitably give rise to inequal outcomes.
Some find those outcomes unacceptable. I do not.
No.12460
>>12459That creates something of a pickle. If a rule is created that says women must be paid no more than half for the same work as men, knowing that rule is the source of men's higher income, wouldn't that similarly mute the sexual appeal?
There seems to be no good solution except perhaps to indoctrinate women as deserving members of a lower financial class. I suppose we need to accommodate negative opinions of these kinds about every group of people and they exist, but I generally don't share these ideas, except where required to respect state power.
No.12461
>>12460>There seems to be no good solution except perhaps to indoctrinate women as deserving members of a lower financial class.It's exactly that. This is largely what happens and what has happened throughout history and the world. Women have been financially, legally and socially restricted across the world and throughout history. It's inherently immoral, but it's also the system that works, that being, the one that's functional to encourage enough reproduction to ensure the survival of those cultures and those people. I mean, systems of oppression don't come from nowhere. They serve purposes. Black people were oppressed because southern farmers wanted lots of cheap labor to work the land. Jews were oppressed because they made a good scapegoat to justify increased German state power. These systems of oppression are often portrayed as mindless hate or emotional outburst, but no system gets that far off the ground without someone at the top having cold, calculated goals. They're bad, obviously, but if you look close enough, they tend to have a goal in mind based in cold calculation.
As for solutions, i don't think you can really approach it from a "Change women" angle. I think that's flawed. Best approach is to mute or redirect male heterosexual desire, which i think is far more feasible. It makes more sense to divert the flow of a river than to try and will water into existence, after all. Internet porn, sexbots, more male/male pairing, or encouragement of non-sexual passions. stuff like that. On some level, that's already happening. I don't think it's deliberate or conscious, but i think on some level people recognize the problem and the need and end up finding solutions.
No.12462
>>12461>I mean, systems of oppression don't come from nowhere. They serve purposes. Yes, this is true in the sense that some benefit from these systems and tend to try to preserve them. The purpose is to benefit some group over another, usually. The germ of difference that determines who is the benefiting group is probably arbitrary (although opinion vary), but once these systems get going they have economics and tradition behind them.
I guess in my life, I have heard many people complain about their romantic situation. I feel like a degree of dissatisfaction is pretty normal for a wide range of reasons, and I'm not sure how much weight to place on dissatisfaction due to economic equality between partners.
No.12463
>>12462>Yes, this is true in the sense that some benefit from these systems and tend to try to preserve them. The purpose is to benefit some group over another, usually. The germ of difference that determines who is the benefiting group is probably arbitrary (although opinion vary), but once these systems get going they have economics and tradition behind them.I don't think the purpose is always so nefarious. I think a lot of the time it's an attempt to preserve a structure that people see as working. There's a whole lot of social models out there that just result in death and despondence. To preserve what, to some degree, works, rather than charge blindly into what might be total destruction. It's not a view i really agree with, i think you can be amenable to lots of ideas without abandoning things that have historically worked, don't throw the baby out with the bath water and all that, but it's a logical enough position.
>I guess in my life, I have heard many people complain about their romantic situation. I feel like a degree of dissatisfaction is pretty normal for a wide range of reasons, and I'm not sure how much weight to place on dissatisfaction due to economic equality between partners.Well, it wouldn't really be a socially acceptable thing in most circles. I suppose it's becoming more acceptable to just be mad that your partner is poor, or a guess a "scrub", "immature" or "looser" is often code for that these days, and that's the game, really. Women speak in code when referring to poor men, so i think you'll find it's a lot more prevalent when you read between the lines.
No.12464
>>12463You offer an interesting observation on systems of inequality. I don't know if I quite agree, but I do think systems of inequality are often perpetuated by people who see themselves as good and people who are generally seen as good. The systems have rationale. A lot of people would judge these systems, especially in their time as working, although "worked" objectively only means "existed."
Slavery worked by this definition. It had a rational. Free labor was not available for necessary economic activity. Black people might not have been safe outside the protective custody of an owner, and if slave people were receiving protection, housing, and food, expecting a bit of labor in return wasn't so cruel. Many good people were involved in maintaining slavery, or whatever other example we can come up with that is generally considered oppression.
>charge blindly into what might be total destructionI'd say...nothing can be relied on to stay the same. Continuing traditional habits in a world that changes around you is also charging blindly.
No.12468
I'm not sure how to say this nicely, so I'll just flatly say it openly.
Discrimination and prejudice against women is so much of a smaller and weaker social issue in the U.S. compared to basically any other way that people are knocked down: race, religion, age, skin color, sexual orientation, accent, national origin, and so on. And there's also the fact that discrimination and prejudice against men is a parallel problem existing at the same time. This shouldn't be denied.
Thus, throughout much of America today it's flatly an advantage to be a woman. And in many cases it's a complex and mixed situation. This obviously doesn't make bigotry less harmful on an ethical level. And in practical terms, well, it's still devastating for ideals such as expanding economic liberty and relative prosperity.
What's happening is sort of like if a hospital decided that the number one priority is to help people who're having nosebleeds. And if new wings full of specially dedicated beds arose with expensive machinery for those who're experiencing them right now. This all comes at the direct cost of taking away time and resources to treating cancer, treating diabetes, treating heart attacks, and so on. Yet the orders have come in. Orders are orders.
I'm absolutely worried that what's going to happen as a result of modern feminism is that really powerful, wealthy, and connected people who happen to be women (and also some men of that type of status) will accumulate more for themselves at the expense of not just America in general but especially those at the bottom (particularly men).
Giving a $5 bill from a homeless black man sleeping on a park bench in New York City to Paris Hilton as she's coincidentally passing by and then screaming "I'm helping! I'm socially progressive! I'm so helping! Patrick, we've saved the city!"...
No.12469
>>12468Yep. It's the victim industrial complex at work. As soon as a problem gets an established organization to take care of it, you've effectively secured that problem to exist forever, as fixing the problem renders your organization, and your personal paycheck, at risk. That's why we see these things crop up, but never see them solve anything. Doesn't matter if you're a corporation, government committee, or local grassroots group. It's the problem of power, and some of the smartest people in history have tried many times with many different methods to solve it, but to no avail.
In this case, the grift is to overstate the plight of women, drum up money for "support", allocate most of it to "administration expenses" (aka you pocket it yourself) and then rake in the cash. This tends to work because people don't have the emotional energy to audit every segment of an organization they see as "doing good". It's why charities are so often used as tax evasion tools. It's the people who know how to weaponize bureaucracy using it for their own gain, and it's basically always been the parasite that sucks at the flesh of any organized society.
No.12471
>>12468Granted there are cases for triage, but healthcare as an industry generally handles a wide range of problems at the same time. But I don't think that's really your argument.
I specifically avoided mentioning feminism, as I consider saying it's about gender egalitarianism would be a sweeping generalization. I think your argument is that we have reached gender egalitarianism -- it's not a problem. But you are also against the idea somehow.
No.12475
I'll be more flatly open.
If you're a straight white cisgender woman in America today who's not disabled and is also middle-class or upper-class, to be blunt, then you're more advantaged, blessed, and gifted by the society around you more than basically any other collection of human beings in world history other than literal royalty and nobility.
It's hard enough to accept this extreme superiority complex in the abstract, but in practice hearing the likes of Ivanka Trump, Paris Hilton, Kylie Jenner, and Taylor Swift being brought up like "OH! NO! THEY"RE SO OPPRESSED!" and "THEY SUFFER SO MUCH!"... it's all too much.
If you wanted a fairer society, then you'd be taking from (certain) women and giving it to (certain) men at the exact same time as (certain) women. Which is a fact. Even if you basically aren't allowed to say this.
>>12469Agreed with every word. Absolutely. It's such a shame.
No.12619
File: 1698461200809.jpg (32.52 KB, 399x512, 399:512, 9d4208fc90b3d733e42a2b1622….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12618Some people go off the deep end of gender equality and get offended by men being strong and faster on average than women or by the standard deviation of the distribution of certain traits being greater for the population of males than the population of females.
No.12620
File: 1698502451850.png (173.29 KB, 458x599, 458:599, Screenshot_20231022-152930….png) ImgOps Google
>>12619Most or some men get to be physically bigger and stronger. All women get to have the only lifeboats on a sinking ship.
What I'm saying is that the dubble standards are there to equalize and balance out. The suicide rate for men is astronomical by comparison to women. Sure, a woman might need help heavy lifting, but a man might need help to not kill himself.
And of course, there's exceptions to the typicality like with trans people, medically intersex people, people that just don't fit gender norms, ECT ECT....
But overall, men and women need each other.
Just don't be sexist. Men have hard enough lives as it is. That's why so many of them transmaxx and start taking hormones because they want to be the gender that doesn't want to kill themselves as much.
It's not easy to be a man.
Let them have the few benefits of being a male that they have without stripping them of their masculinity or self respect, or making them feel bad just because they're men.
No.12621
>>12618>really something people disagree withIf my memory serves, some animals feel it would be better if men and women were financially unequal for more satisfying heterosexual dating. And some feel feminism has gone way to far.
I know in general some opposition to transgenderism is based on ideas about essential inequality in the genders, or that separate roles are most appropriate. But that's not the only road to opposition to transgenderism.
Although it's a debate whether gender ineqalitarianism is a denial of one of both gender's value as human beings.
The point is the thread has not turned out to be inane.
No.12623
File: 1698548256060.jpg (364.1 KB, 795x855, 53:57, feminized-societies-fail-1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12621>... it would be better if men and women were financially unequal ...Oh, that reminds me of pic related.
No.12624
File: 1698550203984.jpg (103.27 KB, 896x281, 896:281, 1439764195765.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
No.12625
>>12618>>12619>>12620>>12621>>12622>>12623>>12624I think the core matter here is the conflict between philosophical and psychological positions:
A)Prejudice against anybody due to any core aspect of their identity is wrong, no matter what they are (men, women, gay people, straight people, tall people, short people, etc).
B)Prejudice is good if it's against groups I don't like and bad if it's against groups that I like, which works out to men being inferior to women, straight people being inferior to gay people, and so on.
B)Prejudice is good if it's against groups I don't like and bad if it's against groups that I like, which works out to women being inferior to men, gay people being inferior to straight people, and so on.
A) is "the opposite of" B) and C). Yet B) and C) are also in conflict with each other. However, still, B) and C) are almost exactly the same belief system just with a mirror like swapping of angles.
Discussions about gender identity and biological sex become basically impossible because if you want equality and freedom [as in being an A)] you have to fight two gigantic coalitions at once: a left-wing one for ripping straight men to shreds due to supposedly being subhuman monsters and a right-wing one for putting straight men into impossible positions as supposed saints that they can never live up to. As well, people who're a B) will straight up lie and claim to be an A). Same thing with a C) type claiming to be an A). It's a total mess.
I don't know how this ends.
Making a whole category of people that you disdain worse off isn't supportive of either freedom or equality. It's just empty, mindless revenge. Same as having your neighbor accidentally run over your mailbox, therefore you burn his house down. It's not "justice" in any sense of that moral term. The solution is cooler heads prevailing.
No.12626
>>12624I see. Kind of insulting nicknames are typically used by men for other men who are beginning to play Magic the Gathering online.
Women, I guess, would have a different play mode if it were only them, perhaps.
No.12629
File: 1698680551808.png (498.83 KB, 998x1080, 499:540, Screenshot_20231028-102516.png) ImgOps Google
>>12628They have a disability pertaining to gender.
I wouldn't ask a def man what he thinks of music.
I never said gender based failure, you dense and defensive person. Don't put words in my mouth.
No.12630
File: 1698693410720.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Once again, /townhall/ further erodes my trust in people of this community
No.12631
File: 1698694133705.jpg (303.02 KB, 1218x980, 87:70, Screenshot_20210129-100015….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12620>Just don't be sexist. Men have hard enough lives as it is. That's why so many of them transmaxx and start taking hormones because they want to be the gender that doesn't want to kill themselves as much.That doesn't have
anything to do with why I am transgender. That's really presumptuous.
The reason people like me identify as trans is when what's in the outside is
counter-intuitive. That's basically all there is to it. It's not just a reaction against the negatives of any social role. It's not a means to an end either, it's an end into itself that rooted in something unconscious and intuitive and mysterious to us.
No.12633
File: 1698696956635.png (691.05 KB, 650x610, 65:61, Screenshot_20231017-184052.png) ImgOps Google
>>12631You have a mental illness. You are mentally unwell, and believe in delusions regarding gender.
Take your hormones, because that's how you treat gender dysphoria.
Are you happier now? If so, good. You will never be a real woman. Just eat your estradiol and accept that fact.
>The reason people like me identify as trans is when what's in the outside is counter-intuitive. No, it's not. It's because people like you are delusional about themselves and want to change the outside to match their delusional inside. Most transpeople will never get to truly look-max, anyway, but that's what's going on.
You're susceptible to the mind poison that gender and sex are different. Sex is what you're born with, gender is a role concept. So because you're mentally ill, we'll pump you up with hormones and change your legal gender status, but you will still never ever be a real woman.
You can get a fancy surgery, and you'll still be a sexualised bastardisation of what a real woman is. I don't care how big the silicone you want in your chest is, or how "authentic" your surgical neo-vagina looks; it is still a downright insult to real womanhood to consider you as a woman.
Letting men actually believe in the delusion that they are women is a slippery slope. Do you think a person should be allowed to have sex with a twelve year old because they delusionally think they are children themselves? Because that's what it looks like when the mentally ill encroach on women's bathrooms, changing spaces, sports and safe spaces. You do not belong in a woman's space, no matter how many hormones you pump yourself with.
The world is under no obligation to partake in your gender role play.
Just be happy with it, you were born a man. Deal with it.
No.12635
File: 1698700976583.jpg (288.29 KB, 1306x1228, 653:614, Screenshot_20210412-192221….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12632Unfortunately it's not doing a good job at containing shit if these people are also posting in /pony/.
>>12633>No, it's not. It's because people like you are delusional about themselves and want to change the outside to match their delusional inside.So you're telepathic now? Do you not understand the distinction between a belief and an intuition? A belief and a feeling?
You're just making yourself look like an idiot fighting against a strawman here. Despite what you've heard in your echo chambers, we're not motivated by ideology or a detachment from external reality, the only thing that motivates us are the nerve-racking feelings of our bodies and lives just feeling wrong. I never thought of myself as a girl when I was a kid, but as a boy who
felt like they were supposed to be a girl, and no real way to explain why. A delusion is a kind of belief, not a feeling.
>Most transpeople will never get to truly look-max, anyway, but that's what's going on. I don't care if I do, most of us don't. I am 100% at peace with the fact that that I wouldn't pass as a particularly attractive woman.
>You're susceptible to the mind poison that gender and sex are different.Sex is male and female (or some stare in between). Gender is masculine and feminine. This tired rhetoric is disengenuous as shit, and is really fucking cowardly.
>So because you're mentally ill, we'll pump you up with hormones and change your legal gender status, but you will still never ever be a real woman.Personally I don't give a shit if anyone thinks I am a real woman or not and it just reflects your gullibility if you think I do cause some youtube chud or someone else in your echo chamber thinks that saying something like "archeologists will find your bones and know you're not a real woman" as if any of us care about a future we'll be too long dead to experience.
>>12633>Letting men actually believe in the delusion that they are women is a slippery slope. Do you think a person should be allowed to have sex with a twelve year old because they delusionally think they are children themselves?Those don't logically follow each other. Slippery slopes have a tendency to be fallacious, especially when they assume cause and effect relationships as self-evident when they are not.
>Because that's what it looks like when the mentally ill encroach on women's bathrooms, changing spaces, sports and safe spaces. You do not belong in a woman's space, no matter how many hormones you pump yourself with.What things look like on the surface don't matter. Especially when those who encroach on those spaces have
never used being trans as an excuse to do so, most of the time it's men with power and status who just presume the right to do so given thar status. Leaders like politicians, executives and religious leaders are far more likely to be threats to women than powerless scapegoats those same authorities use like trans women or other minorities.
And even if the gender dysphoria I am treating is a mental illness, I am still human and have a fundamental human dignity that cowards like you, enslaved by knee-jerk disgusts as you are, cannot take away.
>The world is under no obligation to partake in your gender role play.Okay, and the world has no right to deny me the inalienable right to the pursuit of my own happiness no matter how much it may disgust people so over-entitled to deny me that right merely cause they find me kind of creepy or icky. I'm not in any way a threat to others, I am just trying to exist comfortably in my own skin.
>Just be happy with it, you were born a man. Deal with it.Well apparently you're an expert on my life without even knowing me, so
how exactly would I deal with it? I dealt with it for over 30 years, until I couldn't take it anymore. Taking hormones
is dealing with it.
No.12636
>>12629I apologize for being a "dense and defensive person." I will try to provide direct quotes in the future and not paraphrase.
You have written "You have a mental illness. You are mentally unwell, and believe in delusions regarding gender." in the case where "you" refers to a transgender person?
No.12637
File: 1698702480756.png (409.25 KB, 542x628, 271:314, Screenshot_20231022-151848.png) ImgOps Google
>>12635I think you're a little confused about who's in an echo chamber here.
You know nothing about me, either. You think I'm coming up with this from some right wing echo chamber?
If only you knew.
Just eat your hormones. You're right, that's dealing with it. You're still never going to be a real woman.
>>12636Yeah. Transgenderisim is suffering from gender dysphoria. An illness of the mind.
(VIOLATION OF TOWNHALL RULES, DEHUMANIZING RHETORIC, POSSIBLE BAN EVASION) No.12643
File: 1698704199747.png (787.83 KB, 1157x648, 1157:648, Screenshot_20231020-143436.png) ImgOps Google
>>12641I think a genderless society is something that only exists in the minds of the most altruistic of progressives.
It's not functionally applicable to 99.999% of lifeforms to profess genderlessness, as you'll confuse the reproductive crowd that starts families and stuff.
And I'm against things that discourage family building. It's not for me, I know, but damnit, am I wrong to have hopes and wishes that others live happier than me and don't end up as miserable as I sometimes am?
No.12645
>>12643Your post contains the text "I think a genderless society is something that only exists in the minds of the most altruistic of progressives." I don't think most people seek a genderless society, but the proportion "in the minds of the most altruistic of progressives" I do not know.
Do you see "genderlessness" as related to OP's "Gender Egalitarianism"? I ask because you write "It's not functionally applicable to 99.999% of lifeforms to profess genderlessness" following Astonishing Dragon's "other than not knowing how it relates to Gender Egalitarianism" at the end of
>>12641.
No.12646
File: 1698705133683.png (498.41 KB, 532x578, 266:289, Screenshot_20231019-120755.png) ImgOps Google
>>12645My apologies, I guess my thoughts are all over the place and I'm having a difficult time communicating it. Comprehensively and articulately.
I guess I'm not entirely sure about what gender egalitarianism entails, as the OP simply says that it states that all gender should have equal opportunity. Which, I guess in terms of money making is a very valid thing to believe. As it pertains to the workforce.
I'm just not sure if it's pertaining to more than just financial opportunities. What opportunities is the OP talking about?
I don't understand, how can you possibly say that in 2023 men and women don't have equal opportunity? Please enlighten me cuz I'm in the state of confusion.
No.12647
File: 1698706740911.jpg (367.04 KB, 1373x936, 1373:936, Screenshot_20210118-120213….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12637>You know nothing about me, either. You think I'm coming up with this from some right wing echo chamber?I mean, you're basically quoting eecent right wing rhetoric borrowed from gender criticals
to a T.
>If only you knew.Goddamn are you hypocritical.
So I will continue treat turnabout as fair play.
>Just eat your hormones. You're right, that's dealing with it. You're still never going to be a real woman.That doesn't ultimately matter though so I don't get why you keep asserting it. It doesn't really matter if
anyone is "real" woman or man, being recognized as one or the other is just a social convention and being recognized
socially as one or the other is just a practical thing. Also a survival thing in a transphobic society.
>Yeah. Transgenderisim is suffering from gender dysphoria. An illness of the mind.Do you even understand what a mental illness even is? Cause you seem to equate having *any* mental illness with having delusions. Only a small subset of mental illnesses involve delusions they can't control, and mentally healthy individuals can have delusions as a product of a lack of discipline against wishful thinking or denial. I mean, you've got mental disorders that involve anything fundamentally mental working in a dysfunctional way, like emotions with the anxiety or mood disorders, attention and behavioral self-regulation with ADHD, awareness and memory recall with dissociative disorders, traumatic memories with PTSD and CPTSD. None of which intrinsically involve delusions.
Gender dysphoria is essentially like having a brain that is constantly rejecting the sex of the body, and that feeling is like constantly writing your name with your other hand, like having a stone in your shoe and being unable to take it off, or like needing to sit down but your legs don't bend. No amount of logic makes those feelings go away, they're just ... there.
>>12643>>12646You have an astonishingly circular logic here if you on one hand dismiss the idea that biological sex and gender refer to different things, but then respond to a position that is held by people who
do distinguish between the two, gender abolishionism, as if it means sex abolishionism to those who would advocate for it. AND that it discourages family building when the acknowledging the distinction between sex and gender would not logically imply the abolishing gender would discourage or oppose family building.
>It's not for me, I know, but damnit, am I wrong to have hopes and wishes that others live happier than me and don't end up as miserable as I sometimes am?Ironic.
No.12648
File: 1698708104873.png (539.16 KB, 1055x1080, 211:216, Screenshot_20231030-184257.png) ImgOps Google
>>12647>That doesn't ultimately matter though so I don't get why you keep asserting it. It doesn't really matter if anyone is "real" woman or manWomanhood is sacred and should be kept as such, not something to allow trans people to have. I don't believe trans women belong in the women's room. Or women's bathrooms. Or conversations between women about women's health.
It matters because you shouldnt take away from women what makes them special and cheapen it to allow some man in a dress to consider themselves a woman.
Same with the sacridity of manhood, it insulting to see a woman call herself a man and demand male pronouns.
But again, they have a mental illness so America
acomidates. You should be grateful for those accommodations, they're a privilege, not a right. Down to the pronoun thing.
I know a little bit about mental illness. And I know a little bit about gender dysphoria.
I'm not saying all mental disorders are delusional, I'm saying that this specific issue is related to a delusion or a disassociation from reality. Like you said, your brain is telling you that you're something else that's not real. It's a delusion.
You treat it with HrT, I agree.
Whoopdie do, now you have someone that will never start a family because they can't reproduce.
I guess
that kind of person can be genderless and live outside of the structure of male and female that was created. But most trans people don't want that, they want to be the specifically opposite gender, implying a respect for gender norms.
Do you know how much loving your friends and lovers you need to do just to not want to kill yourself by supplementing the love that is missing from not starting a family?
You're lucky if your family sticks around to support you through HRT and gender related stuff. Maybe get a partner in your life.
I dono, but after you get on the road of transgenderisim, the game becomes a matter of supplementing love and the will to live that would otherwise come naturally from starting a family.
If you wanna live like that, fine, it's an adult's consenting choice to get on gender treatments.
Look, lemme just ask you one thing, if a child came up to you and said "I wanna be just like you when I grow up" how would you respond?
No.12649
>>12646>I don't understand, how can you possibly say that in 2023 men and women don't have equal opportunity? Please enlighten me cuz I'm in the state of confusion.Hey, I am still OP in this thing. I think I've gotten a new ISP in the interim. Anyway, OP (me/I) was frustrated arguing with strangers on the internet and was trying to create a thread where everyone could agree on something at least in general. I don't remember making assertions about the history or current state of gender equality, but maybe I did, it's been awhile.
I'm glad I don't have a psychology license and don't have to think about all the rest of the things, and that the state does not seem to force people to interact with state approved psychology people. It's not a kind of so-called science that's for me, I find.
No.12651
File: 1698712818541.jpg (398.36 KB, 1429x1216, 1429:1216, Screenshot_20210214-193050….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12648>It matters because you shouldnt take away from women what makes them special and cheapen it to allow some man in a dress to consider themselves a woman.Wow, you just insulted and devalued
all women there!
>Same with the sacridity of manhood, it insulting to see a woman call herself a man and demand male pronouns.... and the entire human species to boot if one's sex is the only thing you think makes one valuable.
>But again, they have a mental illness so America acomidates. You should be grateful for those accommodations, they're a privilege, not a right. Down to the pronoun thing.Who the fuck do you think you are to trwmeat others like America owns them if they have a mental illness? Where do you come off with that attitude and who the fuck are you to presume to speak for all of America? What the fuck is wrong with treating all humans with dignity even if they're suffering?
>>12648>m saying that this specific issue is related to a delusion or a disassociation from reality. Like you said, your brain is telling you that you're something else that's not real. It's a delusion.You're just asserting something arrogantly that no one can know. Fellings. Are. Not. Beliefs and only
one concious mind can have access to their own feelings. Again, no trans person is in denial that they are
transgender they do not believe they are literally women. I believe that I
feel how I feel, I have no delusions about my male body. How the fuck could anyone prove or disprove what I feel if I am the only person who can feel them. How can I trust anyone who claims to feel one way or another if I don't have physical proof beyond their word that they feel what they do? How can
anyone?
>>12648>I dono, but after you get on the road of transgenderisim, the game becomes a matter of supplementing love and the will to live that would otherwise come naturally from starting a family.You
do understand one doesn't have to have their own children to have a family right? You
do understand that many transgender people wait til
after they have kids to transition? You
do understand that happiness and fulfillment in life can be subjective right? There are plenty of people who follow a different path and can find happiness as well. People are
individuals, and as a consequence there is no
universal path to true happiness, right?
>>12648>Look, lemme just ask you one thing, if a child came up to you and said "I wanna be just like you when I grow up" how would you respond?I'd first ask them in what way they want to be like me. If they were transgender I would inform them of everything transition involves, all risk and sacrifices and then let them decide when they are old enough to make that decision. They are ultimately human beings who will have the right to do what they will when they are adults.
No.12655
Really not liking the "being transgender is a disability, and therefore it's a classification of humanity that should be eliminated because the perfection of the species means getting rid of those with disabilities in order to advance our collective health" argument here.
I'd just like to point out that about twenty to twenty-five percent of Americans have some kind of a disability. If you succeed in creating a biologically "enhanced" society, then you're going to need to genocidally exterminate as many people as, say, the Black Plague did in the history of Medieval Europe. It's that big of a thing.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.htmlI'd also like to say that as somebody who's not an atheist, not a utilitarian, and not a rationalist, this idea that the scientific well-being of the overall species is the only thing that matters, all ethics be dammed, seems like a philosophy that would lead to a tiny clique of scientists ruling over a totalitarian dictatorship by sitting on mountains of skulls.
I honestly think that if I was an atheist, a rationalist, and a utilitarian, all at once, I'd still find the idea of "SCIENCE ABOVE ALL" to be a horrible way to live life.
Even if you personally have a gigantic hang-up about transgender people existing in your mind, my God, understand the logical implications of your arguments if you're seeking to remake humanity with an iron fist in a black glove.
No.12656
File: 1698718493481.jpg (438.76 KB, 2295x2059, 2295:2059, ca78cd4b4c52bf7ade7fefbc95….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12655Eugenics doesn't have to involve killing people with disabilities! Tech like embryo selection and gene editing can help the next generation. And advances in robotics and medical tech can help rid the current generation of their disabilities.
No.12657
>>12656What if I'm not an atheist, not a rationalist, and not a utilitarian, and thus I believe that human life and human existence is inherently meaningful and sacred for all no matter what our supposed personal strengths?
What then?
What will people like you do to inferiors like me when you people take over?
And what if I don't even agree with the belief that human beings are just piles of meat that can be scientifically sorted out into more or less valuable individuals with better or lesser worth to society... what if I oppose your ideological philosophy in the first place?
No.12660
File: 1698719272524.jpg (275.04 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, sample_e32ea3be1c0b05c5fc0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12657>What will people like you do to ... me when you people take over?Offer you tech to help with problems that aren't currently solvable! Lost a leg? I want tech to let you grow a new one! For transgender individuals, I want nanobot surgery to enable flawless passing as the desired gender! And so forth!
No.12661
>>12659>>12660Are the two of you really not aware that the last political faction to base their identity on eugenics and scientific morality literally caused a world war that claimed the lives of millions upon millions of people, including vast swaths of individual civilians killed in the Holocaust?
Why do you want to bring the central element of Nazi ideology back?
No.12663
>>12662Do you really not understand that the inherent moral claim being made is a problem?
That the assertion made by rationalists that blind people are inherently ethically inferior to people with great eyesight because being blind makes you a worse member of society because you're not productive enough is itself a viewpoint of negative bigotry?
What if that claim is just plain wrong?
What if being blind is a physical characteristic that likely involves being unhappy and wishing to change things, with that being it? So, it doesn't invoke inherent ethical failing and inherent moral inferiority, with it being seen as a problem for you to solve in order to be worth being loved by other people?
What if love is inherently good, and people should just be loved by themselves, no matter what?
What if human beings deserve kindness even if they're not productive enough for others' in their opinions?
What if inherent decency and dignity exists in most or even all living things due to a fundamental sacredness in existing?
No.12664
File: 1698719926520.jpeg (232.86 KB, 2048x1722, 1024:861, F5mW7TPWMAAgPev.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>12661Huh? I want great improvements in medical technology -- how is that related to the Holocaust???
Hitler: "I'm going to scapegoat the Jews for causing Germany's economic problems and try to kill them all."
Me: "I want advancements in medical technology to cure people's illnesses and disabilities."
No.12669
File: 1698720250696.jpg (24.27 KB, 341x341, 1:1, pIWD4h2A_400x400.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12663Who has claimed that blind people should be considered to have less moral worth than other people? Certainly not me!
No.12670
>>12668Why are you unable to understand the difference between allowing somebody the free choice to change themselves based on the idea of them being loved and cared about no matter what they choose, on the one hand, versus forcing somebody to change no matter what they think because that's the only way that they'll be perceived as being a person worth being alive, on the other hand?
Why are you unable to understand that these two things are not the same?
No.12672
>>12667I don't know where this is coming from. My first post here should indicate I don't have any problem with you being religious or anything. I'm an agnostic and Have been religious throughout my life not even an atheist. Though being an atheist wouldn't imply I have something against your beliefs either... maybe you're seeing people saying this elsewhere and it's coming out in a strange way but I don't have anything against you being religious or believing in God.
>>12670>Why are you unable to understand the difference between allowing somebody the free choice to change themselves based on the idea of them being loved and cared about, on the one hand, versus forcing somebody to change no matter what they think because that's the only way that they'll be perceived as being a person worth being alive, on the other hand?Uh I do understand the difference because I never advocated the latter. I don't know what gave you the impression that I think they are the same.
No.12676
>>12674None of those things are a negative to me. There's like one poster here who arguably sees any of those things as a negative from what I read and it's no one you're currently talking to. I think there's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of definitions going on here.
>>12675Because no one is advocating taking away a person's right to choose what they do with their own body?
No.12677
File: 1698721135449.png (489.38 KB, 620x372, 5:3, Master-Race-of-Scientifica….png) ImgOps Google
I'll say this, though, given current socio-economic trends... this likely is the future of humanity (and nobody who isn't in this picture will be allowed to exist):
No.12680
>>12678What makes you think racial prejudice, ethnic prejudice, homophobia, transphobia, religious prejudice, classism, biphobia, and the like won't exist in the near future, though? Especially when they're pervasive in the U.S. now and recently have more or less not improved over the 2000 to 2010 to 2020 timeframe (with America not at all radically becoming a nicer place to live during that time)?
If anything, I expect to keep seeing the rationalist movement and other social movements in the U.S. ruinously shaming and guilt-tripping victims more and more in order to make themselves "perfect" and "worth being loved" in the eyes of stereotype-filled regular people.
No.12681
>>12680I think it always will. It's possibly the price of people being able to think for themselves but people should be able to think for themselves none the less, the day we get into literal thought policing and literally trying to mind control should never come. But those things existing shouldn't be an excuse to take away people's choice to do what they want with their own body..
>If anything, I expect to keep seeing the rationalist movement and other social movements in the U.S. religiously shaming and guilt-tripping victims more and more in order to make themselves "perfect" and "worth being loved" in the eyes of stereotype-filled regular people.Well if that happens I will resist it. Just as I hope you would resist religious tyranny within an authoritarian theocracy.
No.12684
>>12681>>12683If a dude is a Muslim person who is totally opposed to actions by ISIS and other terrorist organizations related to certain small and notorious subgroups of Islamic thought, then I would tell him to call himself "a Muslim" and never, ever "an Islamist" and/or "a jihadist" because those more specific terms have justified baggage in people's minds.
Similarly, if some woman is a regular atheist person who wants universal health care to help everybody, and she has nothing to do with anybody who would kill anybody else, I would tell her to call herself "a universal health care advocate and an atheist". Not "a rationalist" and/or "a eugenics advocate".
Or, to be blunt, somebody who works on a charity for children shouldn't call themselves "a pedophile" even if technically that term applies if you're somebody who just happens to like children emotionally. The one very specific sub-definition of the term (as somebody sexually interested in children, of course, and not just being a friend to children) is what people first think of. And that makes sense.
No.12686
>>12685>I don't even know where this idea comes from that rationalists are prone towards this kind of extremism though.Uh... over a hundred years in which tens of millions of innocent people have been killed through rationalist doctrines? I really don't know what to tell you. Same thing for eugenics advocates..
Again, "jihadist" for most of history meant a monk type person reading religious books alone in a library trying to spiritually connect with their friends. Almost all jihadists in history have been peaceful Islamic reformers making life better (really). The word being dirty is an extremely recent trend. Yet, well, its meaning has changed.
No.12688
>>12687"Rationalist movement" doesn't mean "everybody who acts out of reason over emotion". Most people act out of reason over emotion. The "rationalist movement" is a specific international grouping of social and political factions based on very specific ideological positions, such as enacting changes in charity laws and such. It's like comparing "being a religious person" and "the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church", which relates to actual people in palaces in Rome inside of Italy. Whereas anybody anywhere can just be spiritually interested in whatever on their own time.
Similarly, "the eugenics movement" is not at all the same thing as "the public health movement", which itself even isn't the same thing as "people who think about medicine a lot". I'm not sure how to better explain this. I'd actually maybe visit Wikipedia.
No.12689
File: 1698726143987.jpg (945.08 KB, 1064x1024, 133:128, 5d30e833-1aee-4c65-a477-19….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12686>over a hundred years in which tens of millions of innocent people have been killed through rationalist doctrines?Lol, when I say I'm a 'rationalist', I'm referring to the internet subculture founded by Yudkowsky less than 20 years ago at LessWrong. Nothing at all to do with mass murder, well, except lots of rationalists are worried about AI commiting genocide against the human race and want to prevent that from happening.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/27/why-i-am-not-rene-descartes/ No.12690
>>12689I'd like to point out that contrarily to presentation, Eliezer Yudkowsky did not intend to start a cult around himself and has found the notion of being perceived as being like that as unfortunate.
See:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/o9dnstYoc7cwpgdhg/unwitting-cult-leadersThe man has even said half-jokingly: "[I]f you tell your doting followers not to form a cult, they will go around saying ‘We Must Not Form A Cult, Great Leader Mundo Said So’."
No.12691
File: 1698727407404.png (1.43 MB, 1024x1024, 1:1, DALL·E 2023-10-13 16.23.36….png) ImgOps Google
>>12682Also, the Rationalist (in the Yudkowsky sense) community has lots of Jews and transgirls.
>>12690It's not a cult! And although Yud is influential, his word is certainly not taken as gospel.
No.12692
>>12691That's exactly the point. Being "a member of the rationalist movement" as an advocate for a social and political grouping pushing for legal changes in different governments isn't at all the same thing as just "being a person who wants to be rational in their life choices". I wouldn't call the movement a cult, but it's closer to a cult than any random collection of most people. The same way that everybody who's a political campaigner giving money to the U.S. Democratic Party is closer to being in something like a cult than a random person picked off of the street. I'd vastly prefer "club" and "movement" over "cult".
What about this aren't you getting?
No.12693
File: 1698728366960.jpg (486.14 KB, 1068x1024, 267:256, 8bd5c81b-7a8c-4038-b806-72….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12692>pushing for legal changes in different governmentsAre you referring to the push for laws preventing the creation of superhuman AI? That's the main legislative push I've seen from the Rationalist community. Oh, and also legalizing prediction markets.
No.12694
>>12693This is starting to feel exasperating.
Look, if you're a part of a political and social faction that's doing a ton of things in terms of funding politicians, funding political parties, funding political media, and the like with the explicit arguments made in public against people such as myself in the vein of "Either you quit and start voting for us, or you're a retarded loser" that involve a gigantic variety of laws from not just everything to do with AI but everything to do with health care, everything to do with adoption, everything to do with charity work, everything to do with the free expression of religion, and so on... like you can say that the movement is overall positive, and I'd disagree, but that argument could have some merit.
But if you're going to pretend that being a "rationalist" only means "being somebody who values being rational in your life", that's basically straight-up lying.
I'd call it a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy, but it's so much more glaring than a usual fallacy with that label that it simply appears to me to be lying.
For me in particular as a disabled person who's bisexual and transgender, I don't like having my very existence being viewed by rationalists as a social problem that needs to be corrected in order to eugenically cleanse American society, with rationalists fighting nail, tooth, and claw to make sure that health care resources don't go to "the undeserving".
No.12696
>>12695I suppose you can cheer up in that, because of genetic engineering and gene editing based measures, neither of us will be around that much longer.
Then, nobody will need a "safe space" because only a higher evolved species who can take anything from anybody will exist.
When that superior race comes about that replaces us both, I do wonder what they'll think of us.
No.12697
File: 1698747589376.jpeg (33.1 KB, 376x315, 376:315, F9feSmBXcAATIpi.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>12694>But if you're going to pretend that being a "rationalist" only means "being somebody who values being rational in your life"Huh? I do no such thing! Read again what I said in
>>12689 :
>when I say I'm a 'rationalist', I'm referring to the internet subculture founded by Yudkowsky less than 20 years ago at LessWrong. No.12698
>>12695Try posting on
>>>/pony/ !
No.12699
>>12696My field is software applicationeering and physics. I don't want to try to paraphrase what you have written so can only thank you for commenting.
>>12698When they made townhall, I moved to townhall since it seemed out of the way. Someone invited me back to pony, but when I visited I got the impression animals would prefer I stay here on townhall if anywhere.
And here, I don't really want to debate my existence or really much of anything political. And now I question whether this site is really a good fit for transgender ponies.
No.12700
File: 1698752763910.jpg (245.64 KB, 850x1202, 425:601, sample_6211d89f05c85f4a572….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12699>I got the impression animals would prefer I stay here on townhall if anywhere.Nah, you're welcome on /pony/!
>And here, I don't really want to debate my existenceRemember,
cogito ergo sum!>or really much of anything political.Try coming to /pony/!
>And now I question whether this site is really a good fit for transgender ponies.Oh, ignore that Communist-rabbit poster. Everyone else here is fine with transgender people
No.12701
>>12700>Nah, you're welcome on /pony/!Thank you for writing "you're welcome on /pony/!", Bright Rabbit.
>Oh, ignore that Communist-rabbit poster. Everyone else here is fine with transgender peopleYou might get upset if I try to associate your text "Communist-rabbit poster" with an animal here.
I'll have to think about your invitation. Ideally I'd be in a place where I wouldn't have to ignore ponies. I know, social media in general contains a wide range of opinions on every political topic and I've become habituated to things like negative opinions about people's genders. I look at mainstream media like Facebook because a part of me likes to keep tabs on what society is saying, so I'm prepared. But a part of me also wants a group of like minded people/ponies.
What will probably happen is a month or two break, then maybe I'll give /pony a second try.
No.12702
File: 1698756208782.jpg (142.43 KB, 800x526, 400:263, FHC2uAyVEAADCPx.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12701>You might get upset if I try to associate your text "Communist-rabbit poster" with an animal here.The Communist rabbit is a character from the Chinese propaganda anime *Year Hare Affair*.
No.12703
File: 1698769854740.png (456.47 KB, 1417x954, 1417:954, Screenshot_20231030-202242.png) ImgOps Google
I'm no longer at liberty to respond to the thread. Thankyou for your time.
No.12704
>>12699>>12700>>12701I don't want to be rude, but since a gigantic percentage of people in Western countries such as the United States don't believe that LGBT people should be allowed to be alive (and this isn't a small fringe, to be clear, it's over 15% of the population at least), you're going to have to accept the fact that your right to exist isn't a given. It's a debate. If you want to be alive, then you have to fight to be alive. This is just reality as much as that two plus two equals four and that the sky is blue.
I do really wish you well in all of that. Life is beautiful. It really is. Fighting for life doesn't make it less beautiful.
No.12705
>>12704Thank you for the response. I agree some people want others dead. But if everyone got their wish, the human population would be zero. For most who want others dead it's just fantasy, and I guess I'm also skeptical of how much online debate changes hearts and minds. I'll probably die of cancer, heart failure, or pneumonia in about 35 years. I suppose there is privilege in that, I don't get around very much to see how others live.
I wish you all the best as well. Life is mostly working, but it can be nice once in awhile.
No.12706
File: 1698799627276.png (1.58 MB, 1024x1024, 1:1, DALL·E 2023-10-12 23.31.08.png) ImgOps Google
>>12705I worry that I'll be killed by an AI turning me into a paperclip in 5--15 years.
No.12708
File: 1698802731390.png (1.36 MB, 1193x670, 1193:670, star_swirl.png) ImgOps Google
...got bored so i thought id do a little meta-analysis and spruce up the thread a bit. other than what i noted, everything else looks pretty good
>>12444"...as women, given the choice, will form preferences for powerful men..." [citation needed]
"...(as we're already seeing in countries with large gender egalitarianism)..." [citation needed]
"It's an innate biological desire..." [citation needed]
>>12447[not an academic source]
>>12456"I'm not sure that's the case in most circumstances." [citation needed]
>>12461"...but no system gets that far off the ground without someone at the top having cold, calculated goals." [citation needed]
>>12463"Women speak in code when referring to poor men..." [citation needed]
>>12468"Discrimination and prejudice against women is so much of a smaller and weaker social issue in the U.S. compared to basically any other way that people are knocked down..." [citation needed]
"Thus, throughout much of America today it's flatly an advantage to be a woman." [does not follow - citation needed]
"obviously" [not academic language - should drop "obviously" or state what appears obvious to you, in case it is not obvious to others
"Giving a $5 bill from a homeless black man..." [good analogy but needs more formal framing for /townhall/"
>>12469"It's the victim industrial complex at work." [citation needed]
"...and some of the smartest people in history have tried many times with many different methods to solve it, but to no avail." [citation needed]
"...'support'..., ...'administrative expenses'... ...'doing good,'..." [citations needed if using quotations]
"...it's basically always been the parasite that sucks at the flesh of any organized society." [citation needed]
>>12474"Honestly, a bounty system might be more productive, or at least, it might be a reasonable way to encourage dissolve." [possible jargon - elaboration needed]
>>12475"...more than basically any other collection of human beings in world history other than literal royalty and nobility." [citation needed]
>>12545[OP indicates the thread may be getting off-topic]
>>12586"...obvious..." [use of word "obvious" shouldn't be used in an academic context - either drop the word or state/restate what appears obvious to you in case it is not obvious to others
"You don't need a master's degree to recognize they're two topics that share a lot of overlap." [Possible Rule 2b violation - Snark]
>>12618[discussion entered into informally - should be more formal in /townhall/]
No.12709
File: 1698802884308.jpg (79.36 KB, 827x1076, 827:1076, star_swirl1-5.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12708>>12619[informal entry prompts casual reply]
>>12623[interesting but not from a peer-reviewed journal]
>>12624[anecdotal - needs better citation]
>>12625[good]
>>12627"...but I literally don't care..." [non-academic tone]
"Just like I don't want a blind person's opinion on colour, and I don't want a dyslexic person's opinion on stage directions." [ultimate position too uncivilly-stated for /townhall/; poster is taking an epistemological position but it is unclear in the post."
>>12628"Some have the opinion that transgender people are gender-based failures, I think. I gather that's your perspective." [poster did not understand the argument being presented, as it was poorly and uncivilly presented; possible bad-faith response?]
>>12629"They have a disability pertaining to gender..." [poorly-restated epistemological position]
"I never said gender based failure, you dense and defensive person." [possible bad-faith response]
"Don't put words in my mouth." [bad-faith response, possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
>>12630"Once again, /townhall/ further erodes my trust in people of this community." [generalization]
>>12631"That doesn't have anything to do with why I am transgender." [anecdotal, but what is being replied to had needed a citation]
"The reason people like me identify as trans is when what's in the outside is counter-intuitive... [citation needed]
>>12632">Expecting good things on the containment board" [possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
>>12633"You have a mental illness..." [uncivil reply, citation needed]
"Take your hormones, because that's how you treat gender dysphoria." [citation needed]
"Are you happier now? If so, good. You will never be a real woman. Just eat your estradiol and accept that fact." [poster needs to more clearly articulate philosophical positions, as this is /townhall/; possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
"No, it's not..." [citation needed]
"You're susceptible to the mind poison..." [citation needed]
"So because you're mentally ill, we'll pump you up with hormones and change your legal gender status, but you will still never ever be a real woman." [Possible ad hominim, as point was already made a few lines ago]
"You can get a fancy surgery, and you'll still be a sexualised bastardisation of what a real woman is." [ad hominim]
"...it is still a downright insult to real womanhood to consider you as a woman." [citation needed]
"Letting men actually believe in the delusion that they are women is a slippery slope." [slippery slope fallacy, citation needed]
"Do you think a person should be allowed to have sex with a twelve year old because they delusionally think they are children themselves?" [strawman argument]
"You do not belong in a woman's space, no matter how many hormones you pump yourself with." [ad hominim]
"The world is under no obligation to partake in your gender role play." [strawman]
>>12635"So you're telepathic now?" [possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
"You're just making yourself look like an idiot..." [Possible ad hominim]
"This tired rhetoric is disengenuous as shit, and is really fucking cowardly." [ad hominim]
[(...got tired of analyzing post - remainder of post not deeply analyzed - discussion not up to /townhall/ standards)]
>>12636[appears to attempt to keep the discussion civil]
>>12637[poster implies having academic sources but does not cite them; ad hominem]
"Yeah. Transgenderisim is suffering from gender dysphoria. An illness of the mind." [citation needed]
>>12647"Goddamn are you hypocritical." [probable ad hominem]
[(& etc. (too bored to analyze rest of post))]
>>12648"You should be grateful for those accommodations, they're a privilege, not a right." [citation needed, possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
[poster makes many arguments that need citations, did not read the rest closely]
>>12649[OP expresses a wish for the thread to get back on topic, but it doesn't; all subsequent posts are in violation of Rule 1a; upon reading some more of Rule 1, some (or parts) of previous posts also suspected to be in violation of Rule 1b]
>>12651[multiple suspected rule violations; last point at which thread ought to have been locked, if maximum leniency was granted]
>>12654[poor OP just sitting and watching their thread implode]
>>12655[post with emotionally-charged language and token citation to seemingly try to get thread back on track]
>>12656[the thread is hard to follow as a cohesive whole at this point, but this seems to be doubly off-topic and a casual treatment of a generally serious topic, which somehow came up in the previous post, none of which is up to /townhall/ standards]
>>12657[possible doomposting]
>>12658[discussion continues to branch out and get further off-topic]
No.12710
File: 1698802940212.jpeg (137.44 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, star_swirl2.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>12709>>12661[casual mention of Nazis - thread officially dead]
>>12662>>12663>>12664>>12665>>12666>>12667>>12668>>12669>>12670[too bored to analyze thoroughly, but generally off-topic, or only tangentially related to OP, without anyone discussion relationship to OP, and no citations]
>>12671>>12672>>12673>>12674>>12675>>12676>>12677>>12678>>12680>>12681>>12682>>12683>>12684>>12685>>12686>>12687>>12688>>12689>>12690>>12691>>12692>>12693>>12694[didn't read closely, but appears to mostly be ad-hoc arguments about various tangentially related topics, without citations; anecdotal, but "Precious Grasshopper" says: "This is starting to feel exasperating." which mirrors my sentiment in meta-analyzing this thread]
>>12695[OP appears to get upset, possibly due to a lack of rule enforcement]
>>12696[non-sequitor]
>>12698[non-sequitor]
>>12699[OP appears sad because the rules were not enforced]
>>12704[exaggeration of an exaggeration and citation needed]
Discussion:
After a meta-analysis of this thread, it has been concluded that 1) the rules of /townhall/ are not being adequately enforced. 2) As /pony/ is the board of leniency, it would be a mistake to be lenient on /townhall/, which should act as a rule-refuge for those who like to follow rules and should even err on the side of being too strict. 3) the rules of /townhall/ should be changed to require a citation when making a claim or require one to be requested when a claim is not agreed-upon in order to continue the discussion (unless all parties agree one is not needed) 4) with the leniency of rule enforcement in /townhall/, ponyville.us excludes those who prefer a structured environment in which to communicate and associate
Further Discussion: /townhall/ was created as a board with strict rule enforcement, as its name implies and as Rule 6 states: "As the standards on this board are very high, enforcement measures taken here will not be considered part of your "record" elsewhere on the site, except in the case of First Degree violations." Therefore, there is no reason to be lenient in enforcement. I believe the first rule violation occurrred in post
>>12586 when Whimsical Hare said, "You don't need a master's degree to recognize they're two topics that share a lot of overlap." While this wouldn't be a violation on /pony/, it certainly appears to be snarky, which is a violation of Rule 2b. Leaning towards being too strict, this comment ought to have resulted in a warning. As this comment was on 10/12/23, the entire dynamic of the thread might have been changed by this enforcement. For future /townhall/ threads, a permanent topic ban is not suggested. ponyville.us should instead enforce the rules in /townhall/.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that OP go to /pony/ to discuss things, which has more lenient rules. If /townhall/ is the board of strict rule enforcement, then discussing similar things on /pony/ will most certainly result in even less rule enforcement (although the social dynamic being different may prevent a similar outcome as this thread on /townhall/).
////////
Edit:
////////
Addendum (Meta-meta Analysis and Further Study):
At post
>>12649, OP appears to have made a new thread to discuss the topic of transgenderism specifically, as is suggested in Rule 1a ("...however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred") to try to get the topic back on track. This post, however, was almost immediately locked. This didn't seem to take into consideration the second part of Rule 1a, described above, which OP appeared to be adhering to. OP's post shortly after (
>>12654) in this thread indicated disenfranchisement with /townhall/, as their attempts at getting their thread (or a thread) on track had failed. In the second thread OP had created, it was warned that future rule violations would result in a ban (although this didn't appear in the original thread). After analysis, it would have likely been better to simply lock the original thread at this point instead of issuing a warning in the second thread OP had created (in addition to locking the transgenderism thread), as OP's thread was already off-topic, and continuing the discussion of Transgenderism in the second thread would have likely resulted in a lack of civility there without a break and explanation.
Further study of the second half of the original thread is recommended to see what additional rule violations there may have been, although most posts were at least off-topic, violating Rule 1a.
Given the suspected results of a study of the second half of the thread (and even just considering the violation of Rule 1a, as OP had clearly established was the case), if moderator resources being low are a reason for a lack of moderation in /townhall/, it is recommended to give OP (in /townhall/) some power to moderate their own threads (such as requiring approval by OP for posts to appear until a mod sees it, temporarily hiding posts which are suspected to be against the rules, or to flag certain posts, which would be set up to result in faster consideration by mods).
No.12711
>>12708 This is a pony imageboard.
We're not going to be citing every piece like it's a college essay.
Besides, to be frank, that's bad form anyhow, and teaches folk to merely regurgitate whatever's been said by another.
No.12712
File: 1698804200826.png (363.66 KB, 782x1022, 391:511, bearded.png) ImgOps Google
>>12711And I'm Starswirl.
...The Bearded.
No.12714
File: 1698806039198.png (379.25 KB, 800x1024, 25:32, comment.png) ImgOps Google
>>12713I apologize for being so harsh on your comment (
>>12656). I know I needed to reword it, but I'm just an old unicorn and this thread was making me tired..
I think I should have read the previous post more carefully and simply said that "the thread is hard to follow as a cohesive whole at this point" as I was too tired to read into the thread closely at this point and relied mostly on assumptions.It sounds interesting, though, but that is enough for today.
No.12715
>>12706Cheer up, humans may be worked to death making paper clips before becoming them.
>>12710Best of luck in starting a ponyville academic journal. Sadly I will be on sabbatical for awhile. But thank you for reading my posts, if you did, as I do not have a direct quote with the word "read" from your text.
No.12716
File: 1698812692340.png (364.02 KB, 700x993, 700:993, swirlstar.png) ImgOps Google
>>12715Haha, thank you. Enjoy ~
No.12718
>>12706I'm pretty sure that said AI wouldn't be using snails.
However, that's a scenario that I've never come across in my life in the media (as in "dangerous snails"), and I'd be curious to see that done.
While this is an off-topic post, I suppose it being a sincere message that's complimentary (as in "this is really interesting") means that it's not harmful.
