Dylan Mulvaney

[TexasTiger 12,947]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I have given you my opinion.  And again, I am sorry you do not care for it.  This is in no way a political issue.  I am curious as to what is driving you though.  I cannot imagine what is causing you to be so hateful.  It certainly is not Jesus.  I ask again, what is causing you to view transsexuals with such raw emotion?  What is the significance of this issue to you.

If you do not care for my manner, my posting here.  You can easily remedy that.   But please, do not dictate the thoughts are acceptable to you.  Please moderate using the guidelines of the forum.

 

Do you think sexism is a political issue? Sexist stereotypes?

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

40 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Men aren’t the only folks focused on ridiculous stereotypes. But this organization specifies it is focused on gender based violence, not sex based violence. Violence against women based on their sex is a huge issue that is increasingly being diminished. How does this organization define gender based violence?

Well, it is Canada, unfortunately this stuff has a tendency to flow down hill.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you think sexism is a political issue? Sexist stereotypes?

Not particularly.  I think traditional roles have changed over the past 50 years and, it creates a situation that  for some people, is difficult to deal with.  I think there is still a wage disparity that needs work but, the trend is in the right direction.

Will you explain why you, yourself, believes that transsexual acceptance is an issue.  You are obviously passionate about the subject.  Can you explain why?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

9 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Not particularly.  I think traditional roles have changed over the past 50 years and, it creates a situation that  for some people, is difficult to deal with.  I think there is still a wage disparity that needs work but, the trend is in the right direction.

Will you explain why you, yourself, believes that transsexual acceptance is an issue.  You are obviously passionate about the subject.  Can you explain why?

That totally mischaracterizes my position. If someone wants to be transsexual, fine. If someone wants to be transgender that’s fine, too, but don’t equate living in accordance with gender stereotypes as being the same sex as the person one attributes those stereotypes to. That diminishes the lived experience of most women.
 

Thanks for answering my question. The fact that you don’t think sexism is much of an issue outside of wage disparity is not surprising, but helps me understand your views.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That diminishes the lived experience of most women.

How so?  Is it the same as,,,  gay marriage diminishes the concept of traditional marriage?

Is this the sole basis of your position, you are defending womanhood?  If I treat a transsexual female, as a female human being, am I hurting women?

I have no reason, no interest in mischaracterizing your position.  I would like to understand why you believe this is such an important issue and why, you obviously have such a highly charged emotional reaction to any sort of response that does not support your own beliefs.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I have given you my opinion.  And again, I am sorry you do not care for it.  This is in no way a political issue.  I am curious as to what is driving you though.  I cannot imagine what is causing you to be so hateful.  It certainly is not Jesus.  I ask again, what is causing you to view transsexuals with such raw emotion?  What is the significance of this issue to you.

If you do not care for my manner, my posting here.  You can easily remedy that.   But please, do not dictate the thoughts are acceptable to you.  Please moderate using the guidelines of the forum.

 

Your opinions are not at issue. Your dishonest tactics are. You even do it here in this post with the “what is causing you to be so hateful” and “causing you to view transsexuals with such raw emotion” silliness. It’s an attempt to tilt the debate field by casting it as an emotional thing, thereby allowing you to evade discussing facts and to try and put someone on the defensive. I’m sorry you don’t like having it called out for what it is. 

Fix that or stop wasting our time. 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

How so?  Is it the same as,,,  gay marriage diminishes the concept of traditional marriage?

Not even remotely. No analogy whatsoever. Marriage is an institution. Ideally, a partnership between two consenting adults, but that's not what it has always been and is not that in all cultures. I don't see marriage as diminished because of the sex of the participants, although I understand some religious folks see a religious element to marriage, civil, legal marriage recognized by the state is no different for same-sex couples in my mind.

I would say any man that's ever really listened to women, particularly after they hit midlife and can reflect back on their experience with greater perspective will know that their biology shaped much of their lived experience. What was it like to move from girlhood into puberty and suddenly become seen by males as a sexual object? To worry about being raped because your biology made you more vulnerable to attack by a male? What was it like to experience their first period? Their monthly period? To worry about getting pregnant, knowing ultimately it would be their responsibility. What was it like to try and breastfeed your infant outside of the home? To have their opinion ignored or diminished because of sexism (which most of them believe exists big time whether you do or not). What was it like to return to the work place after raising children? What was it like to balance and job and being, in the vast majority of cases, the primary care giver? What was it like to have a career impacted or stalled due to having a child or having an employer concerned that you might have a child and therefore be a less reliable investment? You seem to dismiss all these biologically driven experiences as irrelevant. It's only in recent years, I've truly listened to women who express these views and I've come to better understand their frustrations.

Some have the notion that womanhood is --- just a feeling? A self-perception? Someone like Dylan can just decide, "Tomorrow will be my first day of Girlhood!" and after midnight there is no longer any difference in Dylan and all the women who've experienced these things? Who've lived these things? Dylan can live as she wishes. If I encountered her I'd treat her with the same respect I do anyone else I encounter. But I understand why some women are offended by her portrayal of "girlhood" and her being seen as representation of "womanhood." Frankly, I think the cultures that have a "third gender" category, such as the "two spirit" designation some indigenous people have, for folks who want to live like Dylan make more sense. My understanding is many cultures see such a category as an acceptable identity.

Is this the sole basis of your position, you are defending womanhood?  If I treat a transsexual female, as a female human being, am I hurting women?

Treat or believe?  If I encounter a person that's pretty apparently a trans woman I will treat them as I'm sensing they wish to be treated, i.e. call her ma'am, use she/her, etc. Same kind of respect I usually practice for anyone. But will I tell myself she's a woman no different any biological woman? No. My view of reality won't change.

If you choose to personally buy into the ideology that that there is no distinction between biological women and trans women, go ahead. You want to believe that? Okay. The problem I have is with folks that critique those who don't believe that. It's a  fundamentalist view of reality. No different than a religious fundamentalist who insists I adopt their view of reality or I'm a sinner. Under this ideology if you don't accept that view of reality you're a bigot-- a secular sinner. The primary basis of my position is a rejection of fundamentalism in all forms, secular or religious.

There's a false narrative now that asserts that any one not buying totally into this belief system is denying that trans people exists. That's ridiculous and is designed to short circuit discussion. Years ago most transsexual women didn't insist they were no different than biological women. That's an ideological view that has developed more recently.

Biological women have legitimate concerns about their safety which is a key basis for single-sex spaces based on biology. Biological women have legitimate concerns about fair competition in sporting competitions. I think those that dismiss those concerns out of hand are being misogynistic, uncaring and woefully lacking compassion-- and most claim to be progressive. That said, I have no problem with shelters for trans women, separate detention spaces for trans women to keep them safe, a gender neutral bathroom option and separate sporting categories so trans women can compete in athletic competition if they choose. Corporate sponsorship shouldn't be an impediment. Treat trans people with respect. Just don't insists biology is irrelevant.

I have no reason, no interest in mischaracterizing your position.  I would like to understand why you believe this is such an important issue and why, you obviously have such a highly charged emotional reaction to any sort of response that does not support your own beliefs.

From my perspective, you just mischaracterized my reactions after claiming you had no interest in doing so. In fact, I suspect most folks on this forum would likely think your last sentence describes you far more than me on this topic.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Your dishonest tactics are

That is a lie.  I have in no way been dishonest.  I do not see transsexuals as a political issue.  Therefore, I am curious as to why you believe it is such an important one.  At some time, you may explain?

Look at your own responses.  You have been angry, confrontational, insulting, rude, threatening.  Why?  Why the rabid responses?  Your responses are your own.  Blaming me is illogical.

I am not evading at all.  Why are you so busy being attacking?  What is it in your heart that is driving you?

I have explained to you, more than once, my thoughts, feelings.  Can you explain yours?  Without attacking?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 

Thank you for the explanation.  For the most part we are in total agreement.  The only real disagreement is probably in that, I see no reason to play into the irrational, extreme ends of the debate.  I would prefer this to remain a social issue because,,, there is no need for it to become a political one.

 

Again, thank you.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

15 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That is a lie.  I have in no way been dishonest.  I do not see transsexuals as a political issue.  Therefore, I am curious as to why you believe it is such an important one.  At some time, you may explain?

Look at your own responses.  You have been angry, confrontational, insulting, rude, threatening.  Why?  Why the rabid responses?  Your responses are your own.  Blaming me is illogical.

I am not evading at all.  Why are you so busy being attacking?  What is it in your heart that is driving you?

I have explained to you, more than once, my thoughts, feelings.  Can you explain yours?  Without attacking?

You're still doing it.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

9 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Thank you for the explanation.  For the most part we are in total agreement.  The only real disagreement is probably in that, I see no reason to play into the irrational, extreme ends of the debate.  I would prefer this to remain a social issue because,,, there is no need for it to become a political one.

 

Again, thank you.

I would say any issue involving regulations or allocation of resources is by definition political. For example, adding gender neutral restrooms to new or renovated construction, how people are detained/protected in custody, government funded shelter, statistical categories for crime or victims require governmental decisions. And more broadly speaking, political matters aren’t solely in the realm of governments. But these issues are being made political by advocates on different sides. For example, the Obama administration’s Title IX regulations redefined biological sex as the less defined concept of gender. That actually preceded most actions from the right.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're still doing it.

Well Titan,,, I apologize. 

If you want to be angry and, argue about arguing,,, that's all I can do.  I sincerely apologize.  But please, in the future, let's not freak out over a face palm.  Just know, I think this is not worth the energy.  I see no reason in furthering the extremists' arguments.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Well Titan,,, I apologize. 

If you want to be angry and, argue about arguing,,, that's all I can do.  I sincerely apologize.  But please, in the future, let's not freak out over a face palm.  Just know, I think this is not worth the energy.  I see no reason in furthering the extremists' arguments.

Still doing it.

Apologies are meaningless when you just keep using the same intellectually dishonest tactic you're supposedly apologizing for.  And if it's just one of those "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies -that's not an apology either.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I would say any issue involving regulations or allocation of resources is by definition political. For example, adding gender neutral restrooms to new or renovated construction, how people are detained/protected in custody, government funded shelter, statistical categories for crime or victims require governmental decisions. And more broadly speaking, political matters aren’t solely in the realm of governments. But these issues are being made political by advocates on different sides. For example, the Obama administration’s Title IX regulations redefined biological sex as the less defined concept of gender. That actually preceded most actions from the right.

I agree.  Society is getting there on it's own.  I do see the effort to stop bullying these people as positive but,,, that too often creates a counter effect which is not positive,,, for anyone.

Reminds me of why I became a Republican,,, I wasn't against progressive ideas or, ideals.  I just wanted them implemented with a conservative approach that does not create societal upheaval. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Still doing it.

Apologies are meaningless when you just keep using the same intellectually dishonest tactic you're supposedly apologizing for.  And if it's just one of those "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies -that's not an apology either.

 

I cannot force you to accept my apologies.  However, they are sincere.  I have no desire to upset you,,, none.

[homersapien 11,385]

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If you want to discuss it, discuss it.  If you don't and just want to repeat mindless drivel like "I'm sorry I offended you" to avoid having to say anything that matters, then just go back to emoticons.

Like this?

"You’re a fundamentalist with mindless mantras. If you were actually a thinking person, instead of someone wishing to seem erudite, and yet clueless about where to begin, you’d know the crap you just stated doesn’t apply to anything I’ve said on the subject. You consistently demonstrated you’re incapable of true discussion. You just repeat positions and mantras ad nauseum." 

You and TT can proclaim you are making emotionless arguments all you want, but your posts show otherwise. 

Edited April 22, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,947]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like this?

"You’re a fundamentalist with mindless mantras. If you were actually a thinking person, instead of someone wishing to seem erudite, and yet clueless about where to begin, you’d know the crap you just stated doesn’t apply to anything I’ve said on the subject. You consistently demonstrated you’re incapable of true discussion. You just repeat positions and mantras ad nauseum." 

You and TT can proclaim you are making emotionless arguments all you want, but your posts show otherwise. 

Just my partial response, as if I’m responding to nothing. Way to go, homie! 

[homersapien 11,385]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Just my response, as if I’m responding to nothing. Way to go, homie! 

Do you mean this?

21 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Probably because transsexuals comprise .47% of the U.S. population.  They represent no threat to you and, all they wish to do is exist with equal rights.  They are not in any way a REAL issue.

Now, how about your obsession/preoccupation.  What is that based upon?  I understand the prejudice, the politicalization, the irrational fears, even the sexual cacoethes.  What's driving your interest?

The first paragraph seems self-evident.

If it's the last sentence you are referring to, I didn't take it to say you exhibit those qualities.  He's just asking why you think this is sooooo important. 

Regardless, you clearly upped the emotional ante with the quoted response. I think it shows a little hypocrisy to accuse ICHY of being the one who is emotional and avoiding rational argument.

(Maybe ICHY can help us out with "cacoethes".  WTF is that??  )

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

ICHY thinks Dylan is a role model for women & trans women. Or he reflexively and mindlessly facepalmed. Latter is more likely.

Perhaps ICHY didn't actually read it?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you mean this?

The first paragraph seems self-evident.

If it's the last sentence you are referring to, I didn't take it to say you exhibit those qualities.  He's just asking why you think this is sooooo important. 

Regardless, you clearly upped the emotional ante with the quoted response. I think it shows a little hypocrisy to accuse ICHY of being the one who is emotional and avoiding rational argument.

(Maybe ICHY can help us out with "cacoethes".  WTF is that??  )

 

Run with whatever you wish, Homie. I think it’s pretty clear I’m trying to have a substantive conversation here.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps ICHY didn't actually read it?

If so, that would make it reflexive, would it not? 

[homersapien 11,385]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Run with whatever you wish, Homie. I think it’s pretty clear I’m trying to have a substantive conversation here.

Well, if you are referring to the original article, I (think) I agree with you.  It was a good piece. 

I seriously doubt Dylan is truly gender dysphoric.  I suspect he's just gay and jumped on a good money-making scheme using his natural "theatrical proclivities".

(I thought Sullivan's take on how both sides was taking him seriously was hilarious.)

Edited April 22, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

If so, that would make it reflexive, would it not? 

Yep.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, if you are referring to the original article, I (think) I agree with you.  It was a good piece. 

I seriously doubt Dylan is truly gender dysphoric.  I suspect he's just gay and jumped on a good money-making scheme using his natural "theatrical proclivities".

(I thought Sullivan's take on how both sides taking him seriously was hilarious.)

Did you watch the video?

[homersapien 11,385]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Did you watch the video?

No.  Didn't notice it.  I'll go back and look.