Assuming that she did that, survived, gained a better understanding of the universality of human suffering and moved back home, how is any of that relevant to her arguing for trans rights? In doing so she is acting locally.

We're going around in circles and it's already my intention to leave this thread, so... Bye?
I've discussed my beliefs, but we are so far removed from each other in terms of morality that the discussion is futile.

Well, there's the way the US treated the native population. There's, for example, the Trail of Tears, where native americans were forced off their land and something like 4,000 of them died. There's other examples as well.

Also, Japanese internment camps during World War 2.

Because she might come to realize that her humanity is of greater significance than her gender identity, and that fighting for universal human rights would be more beneficial in the long-term.

The people I care about are people that put their humanity above all other considerations, and as far as I'm concerned, those that don't are on their own -- and rightfully so because *they're* making the choice to set themselves apart. In no way, shape, or form am I excluding anyone. I'm just not going to be guilt-tripped into supporting a methodology that I think is counterproductive to establishing universal human rights for *everyone*. And I feel the exact same way towards *all* interest groups, be it white nationalism, black nationalism, feminism, environmentalism, whatever.

Can we stop with the political talk?

It's clear people don't even know what they are talking about. This whole debate has to do with Title IX which is a law originally put in place because the government was worried about the lack of women going to college and only concerns education. At the time, colleges were 58% male - 42% female. Ironically, I've seen it reported that they are now 58% female and 42% male, but I don't see many talking about fixing that.

Furthermore, we are talking about a memo asking a legal team to investigate defining the terms of Title IX to match it's original intent which was changed (ironically by presidential memo). Nothing has yet changed, nothing was even that close to changing. So get your facts straight.

Besides there are other issues with redefining the word "sex" to mean "gender" in this law. One of the outcomes of Title IX was that schools are required to give out equal scholarships in sports to both men and women (even though less women have traditionally been interested in sports). This was deemed acceptable because more scholarships would help the gender gap. Does this mean that there should be equal scholarships for trans individuals? How does one enforce that? Do we create trans sports now too? How do you stop just anyone from proclaiming themselves trans in order to get a scholarship since there is no known scientific basis to determine that?

But let's take another tact. How does defining Title IX to be based on biological gender "erase" trans rights under Title IX? Frankly, I don't see how it does. If a trans woman is being discriminated against, aren't they still being discriminated for being a man wearing women's clothes? Wouldn't Title IX still apply? Seems like it to me.

But the problem with all these debates is that none of you want to actually discuss the real situation which is far more complex than people want to make it seem. No one was erased. No one was getting erased. It's just a ridiculous hashtag meme and while there are issues involved that are worthy of such a discussion, it seems no one is actually trying to address them fairly nor objectively and are instead muddying the discussion was a lot of misinformation.

Colonialism by definition is hostile and aggressive. Period.

Please stop replying to me. The notifications are irritating and I can only get rid of them by visiting the thread.

Let's stop beating around the bush. The only rights anyone has are the ones they can defend. If you can't defend them, you don't have them.

You must understand that I had no idea that only my replies triggered notifications for you. Is this the first time this has happened?

If, though, you actually wish to retreat to a Safe Space and cut off any possibility of having to question your beliefs, you can just say so. I won't be offended.

That's not correct. A right is a claim, from whatever authority it derives. You are confusing the inability to enjoy or exercise a right with the right itself. It is true though, that the only rights that one can enjoy are those which he can defend. Which was the purpose of the U.S. government: to protect rights.

EDIT: It is very important to understand this: A government instituted to bestow rights can also take them away.

EDIT #2: I will check back later. Right now I am going to give Dishonored another go and hope that the enjoyment will kick in any time now.

"Rights" are abstract constructs that only have significance when exercised. They are never given, because that which is given can be taken away. So if -- and only if -- you can defend a right, do you indeed have that right.

As for gov't, it is a mistake to conflate interests with rights, because the only interests that have ever mattered are the interests of those who rule, and such a "right" is generally unspoken.


To sum up, rights are something that ties in with the social contract, i.e., it behooves us to treat others in the same manner that we want to be treated, but it only works if ethics holds sway because in the absence of such, the arguing of "rights" becomes an industry that will inevitably eclipse all others.

At the risk of being met with moderation, go *********************. The superiority complex is ridiculous enough but any high ground you feel like you might have is undermined by the childish baiting.



* Moded. I would prefer you wouldn't take such risks and refrain from aggressively attacking other users.

You thought wrong.
That's a lie. Just a few comments ago you have supported dtgreene in her

There was nothing about tea in the comment.
Actually, labor unions have that right. These are organizations that were created specifically to protect workers interests. Equally.
But the problem is not that unions tell a business owner that he can't reject black person that is qualified for a job on the basis of skin color. That is what like right anti-discrimination policy looks like. But today business owners are told to have certain number (quota) of black people, women and LGBT people working for them, regardless if they can find qualified candidates. And that's how anti-discrimination policy turns into discrimination.

They still do.
Are they equally as bad? I mean in terms of proving your point. Because Trail of Tears had nothing to do with racial hatered or with US law.

I think you confused threads. This thread is not about Linko90 support. It's about the guy who made a joke about 'riding' Mersedez.

Yet still, both are about a people's right to make jokes on twitter and a right of people, who felt offended, to make them fired. Which is political topic.