Before modification by Joel at 20/06/2015 09:38:16 AM
But you CANNOT claim to be the scientific ideology, when you run around proclaiming a human being with a Y-chromosome is a woman!
"Liberals claim to be objective and scientific, yet are willing to call a person with a Y chromosome a 'woman.'"
You worded his thesis slightly differently, but his was in no way difficult to find or grasp.
hint It was the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph.
Easy to grasp, maybe; to find, not so much. It was buried amid far too much condescension, insult and provocation, which I suspect is what most people took exception to (but I may be projecting there.)
Also, his thesis ignored the distinction between gender and sex, which is curious, because I suspect he is sufficiently familiar with foreign languages to be well aware of it. In a sense, one could argue the difference between APPEARANCE or USAGE and NATURE is exactly the difference. To take an example many Americans would recognize, "el pollo" is Spanish for "the chicken" and "la gallina" for "the hen." Of course, a hen is both a chicken and one of the female variety, but if one were to reference a hen generically in Spanish as a chicken it would NOT be correct to say, "la pollo," because the word "pollo" is NEVER of feminine gender even though hens are EXCLUSIVELY SO. By accident or design, the term transGENDER is precisely accurate.
Listen, I know it sounds bad to be called a racist, or a homophobe, or a transphobe, or anything else like that, but... I mean, it is what it is. I'm anti-frozen yogurt and anti-treating-cheerleading-as-a-sport. There may not be any popular celebrities currently on the other side of that issue, but that doesn't mean I'm any less prejudiced against froyo. Just eat some goddamn ice cream!
No, dude, he's not. Just because you don't like something, or someone, doesn't mean you're a -phobe or an -ist. This is one of those stupid things liberals have pulled. You don't like Obama? Racist. You don't like gays? Homophobe.
But the thing is, that's not what we are. We are people who have our own opinions and beliefs, and we are just as free to express them as anyone else, but labeling people is the way to write off those opinions and beliefs as something to be ignored.
I will be the first to admit that the right has been dicks to LGBT people; labels were used to write them off for years, and that was terribly wrong. The one great thing about this whole movement is that it has done a good job of making us see the LGBT community as people, instead of shadows in the dark to be feared or ignored.
But now, liberals are just writing off any dissent to their opinions, the same as the right used to do. EVERYONE is people, and EVERYONE deserves to be heard. But liberals have been trying to bump anyone who disagrees with them, out of being 'EVERYONE'.
Nah, everyone still has the right to be heard: Including those disgusted by some things they hear from some others. Likewise, everyone remains entitled to their own opinions and beliefs--which in no way precludes bigotry, something almost entirely a matter of opinion, often in defiance of fact. Simply disliking one INDIVIDUAL, or even several, does not prove bigotry (at least not beyond being a "Frankist")--but disliking ALL people with a certain attribute DOES prove one bigoted against that attribute. So does disliking all people with that attribute "except my [token] friend so-and-so; s/he is one of the good ones." Anyone who feels a group so CATEGORICALLY bad that the "few" exceptions merit special notice simply for BEING exceptions to that bigotry remains a bigot.
I am prescriptivist enough to dislike the term "-phobe" (although fear is a common cause of hatred, or hatred a common cloak for fear, if one prefers) but someone who "dislikes gays" (i.e. not a particular incidentally gay person disliked for something that particular person did, but ALL gays, even those of whose existence they are unaware) is definitely a "homoist." I DISAGREE with homosexuality, but neither fear nor hate homosexuals. Like all decent people, my bigotry is against conservatives. 
A trans person is a person who feels like a person of a different sex than they were born as. I mean, if you want to invent some new, third word for that, you can? It doesn't make the concept go away.
There's a couple points here I'd like to address.
First, it is not irrelevant. If I call an elephants tail a leg, how many legs does the elephant have? It still has 4, because calling something, something else, does not make it so.
Right, Cannoli already attributed that analogy to Lincoln, and several people have already addressed it: Call an elephant COW "LA elephante" rather than "EL elephante" and any fluent Spanish speaker will assume you an idiot.
Correct: Changing "gender"s ACTUAL meaning because it squicks a small minority would not change that ACTUAL meaning a bit (just screw up English.)
If a schizophrenic believes there's spiders in his skin, would you implant actual spiders into his skin so he wouldn't be wrong?
Look, I know this isn't a popular thing to say, and we'll end up with you writing me off as a -phobe, which you probably already have. But the fact is that these people need help, not 'support' being who they are, and all of this hullabaloo nowadays is simply destroying any chance of actual mental health professionals being able to help these people, which is what they truly need.
Correct again: The problem emerges with declaring people fundamentally and inherently wrong and dysfunctional. They ARE, but no more than anyone, so no more worthy of censure. One should certainly seize any OCCASION and opportunity to state their case on MERIT and with the same basic universal respect and consideration every person deserves. Note that does NOT include (and actually PRECLUDES) vicious insults and belittling. Not only does such an approach "persuade" no one of anything (except that the speaker is an ass) and instead prompt justified angry dismissal of deeply offensive remarks, it would be wrong regardless because one should not speak to fellow human beings like a stray dog that just sprayed their carpet.
The bottom line is always the same: Rational consenting adults are entitled to do as they please individually and collectively. I have never heard of anyone who PREFERRED hallucinating bugs beneath their skin, but if someone who does finds a doctor who believes implanting them is consistent with the hippocratic oath, I wish them both all the luck they shall need. If one of them mentioned it to me I would certainly do my best to talk them out of it, but not by calling them deranged perverts (in fact, I would consciously avoid that because rather than hearing me out they would THROW me out, and be justified.)
It spun off into a side conversation. Have you never been on a message board before? Cannoli said something that people wanted to discuss, and the format of this message board meant that it became its own sub-discussion.
___
I guess what I'm saying is, you're not making a lot of sense.
You're upset that people are "nitpicking," but people are just responding to what Cannoli is saying. And he says a lot of things, in different ways.
Oh, I've been on messageboards before, and I get how conversations go, but when I see this exact same derailment every time anywhere liberals and conservatives are "discussing" something, I feel that I should step in where I can and call people out on it. If you're not going to discuss the point of what someone says, why even bother acknowledging that they said anything?
Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, and I still have yet to see any cohesive argument against Cannoli's thesis.
Again, several people have given the response I have twice repeated: Gender and sex are not synonymous, so one can change even though the other cannot, and there is nothing unscientific about that.
Which is fine, people are allowed to have different opinions. But don't act like arguing and trying to change other people's minds is some kind of moral affront.
Actually, yeah, I would, because then we could actually have a discussion about the whole point of the original post, instead of scattering to the winds and arguing about nothing.
Addressing a thesis' supporting arguments is not arguing about "nothing," it is arguing about the thesis. If someone disputed Cannolis point without addressing ANY of his supporting arguments, he would (enthusiastically) shred them for closed minded denial that ignored his logic and evidence.
"Theses," and which cannot be constructively debated without also addressing their supporting arguments. Since those arguments are (ideally) the bulk of arguments of which the thesis is only the principal one, and since that principal argument stands or falls SOLELY on those supporting arguments, those are the primary ones responders have addressed. No one has ignored the thesis, only defeated it in detail, as it advanced in detail, as is proper.
Oh, that last part required no aid, but few (if any) people have ignored Cannolis pointS, not even his thesis. People have simply addressed far more of his pointS than JUST the thesis, because simply shouting, "NUH UH!" is in no sense debate (even if Monty Python makes the case it IS an argument. 
)