I’m not the one saying they’re less of a person because I think, and state, they’re wrong about reality.
Z, are you an atheist, as I suspect by the sky fairy comments?
So now you are going to tell me what my identity is?
No, that was a question.
If an atheist sneezes and someone says “god bless you,” should he tell that person to take his sky fairy and shove it up his mentally ill ass? Or should he just say thank you?
Do you debate the existence of God with believers?
I’ve had that conversation once. He said thank you, then clarified that he’s an atheist. Then we talked about that Seinfeld episode and turned it in to an inside joke.
Hey, you sneezed!
Oh, I am very polite about how I reject their request to pretend with them. “No, I’m sorry, I don’t believe that.” If you choose to indulge whatever gender on bi-gender or non-gender he figures out…You’re free to, I’m not going to harass you two about it… You reverted to he and him, by the way. Does he not prefer gender neutral pronouns along with the name you have to call him so he won’t get upset?
Yes that was deliberate. He hasn’t exactly declared his gender yet, at least not to me. So it’s a he for now until he tells me otherwise, and I call him by the gender-neutral variation on his given name at his request.
No he doesn’t make that big of a deal out of it. We value each other’s friendship and it goes a lot deeper than any of that stuff. That happens when you train with people over long periods.
That’s what I mean about being polite, considerate and remembering my manners. You are, of course, free to reject their request. I’m not sure how that’s good manners. I don’t see calling someone what they want to be called as unreasonable, and it doesn’t cost me anything to indulge my friend’s request.
Am I missing something here?
1 Like
Ok, thank you.
Hope he clears it up for you.
Not me. I am hetero to a fault. I don’t care what you think you are. If your thoughts don’t match your biological, identifiable marker, I am not interested.
Keeps it simple for me…
Now, does that mean you will only have sex with women? Or, that you will only will have sex with those that identify themselves as women?
Not you, speaking in general, by the way.
I may debate the existence of God but that isn’t insulting someone as they have a choice when it comes to making their beliefs a subject for debate.
I don’t tell believers that they are silly because, as you say, it’s reality. You’ve identified yourself as a believer. Since you cannot prove the existence of God you are not basing what you believe on reality, by definition. So you are no different, according to your reasoning, than the transexual you call mentally ill. That, is reality.
You aren’t 15 and just read Atlas Shrugged.
1 Like
To who? You? Maybe it is insulting to me. Or, maybe it isn’t insulting to me, yet it’s insulting to someone else.
But, beside that, I am very polite in rejecting their belief.
And so does the man who believes himself to be a woman, when he asks the public to adopt his belief. We are talking about public interactions, not about posing in front of one’s mirror in heels.
Further, I ask because I thought suicide was an issue? If so, what does it matter if they want to debate it? Shouldn’t you concede to them out loud (if not in your heart) since religion seems to be protective against suicide? Humor them.
“Sky fairy.”
Let me know when you falsify God.
We can show that the he claiming to be a she is a he. Don’t. You surrendered that argument up above when you admitted to crucial differences.
No, we are different according to my reasoning. Also, it seems to me that you imply they’re mentally ill.by suggesting they will basically hold their lives ransom in order to force compliance. I’ve got to adopt their position or they’ll go killing themselves. A position that in your private life (see marriag/dating question) you don’t practice. You humor them so they won’t go committing suicide.
Let me emphasize that last part.
Though they are free to go home and put the pumps on (heck, or out in public), surround themselves with compliant friends, go out to clubs dressed as they please, hold shows and turn on the catwalk, be featured on TV, my non-compliance will push them to kill themselves.
Seems that I expect more rational behavior out of them than you do.
Now, you all have fun with it. Me? I spent too much time already.
I still don’t see a problem in being somewhere alone with a woman. I in fact often am alone with good looking women - either coworkers or my boss, or bos of my boss. I’m simply friend to all of them, and I never went into discussing politics with any of them. They all treat me really nice, most of my friends are also girls (I just have few male friends) so I guess we are different on that one, or it’s just because of my age…
Then trans people… they are born either male or female, and no matter how much they insist they are of opposite gender - they are their born gender at least to a degree. Why? - because of physiology, hormones, the way their body develops… so even if they mess with hormones - they won’t change genetic materials. And I wouldn’t let them compete in sports, or I’d have them make their own league.
In my opinion they either took some fantasies too far or they are mentally ill the same way like people who think they are Jesus or someone like that.
Sexuality is sometimes scary, at least for me, there’s ton of weird stuff there. Like crosdressers, necrophillia, zoophillia, pedophillia…
So I just indentify as straight male. And I don’t really want to tangle with rest of those stuff and principles.
And I’ll just put this here 
2 Likes
I think @pat nailed the crux of this discussion - a core issue in this argument is who gets to determine definitions.
Option 1 proposes that each individual determines their own reality and has a right to expect society to conform, even if the individual reality differs from the traditionally accepted view. If I’ve read correctly, this is the view of the majority of posters in this thread.
Option 2 says society as a whole sets the definitions according to the majority’s perception, and those individuals with differing perspectives have to confirm to the majority view or hold their differing views privately.
Option 3 implicitly believes the majority and the minority both should defer to experts’ views, such as leaving it to scientists to decide what qualifies as a man or a woman.
We each gather information using our senses, including intuition, and arrive at conclusions based on that info. Sometimes we’ll receive new info that may change our conclusions. When the new info contradicts our own conclusion, and reassessment leads us to reject the new info, should we trust our own judgment or reject our analysis and accept the outside info and its differing conclusion?
1 Like
I am SO ready to blow the metaphorical roof off of whatever Thread decides to get created concerning that very topic and things that relate to it. I’m patiently waiting.
Who’s this we you’re referring to? You got a mouse in your pocket?
If a trans-woman wins the American presidency, should that person be celebrated as the first woman president?
Honest question.