Sign In

flametitan

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
1-Mar-2016
Last activity
21-Aug-2018
Posts
580

Post History

Post
#1235167
Topic
Is <em>Revenge of the Sith</em> the Best or Worst Prequel?
Time

SilverWook said:

I think most people were expecting Anakin to be put in the Vader suit at the end. Where we got stiffed is we didn’t get to see Vader do much of anything. Vader was so prominent in the advertising and merchandising, that the fact he was barely in the movie was a bit of a letdown.

I sort of regret never trying these as I just didn’t want to think of Anakin burning over breakfast.

Is it just me, or does it say, “wild gerry filling,” in the corner?

Post
#1233259
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Mrebo said:

This article helped me understand the intense dislike some have for Jordan Peterson.

I read that entire article and still have no idea what this Peterson guy is on about or why people dislike him.

The easiest way to put it is to say that he’s the conservative version of Neil deGrasse Tyson, and disliked by the left for much the same reason as any other conservative pundit. Not sure how his dislike characterizes some inherent weakness of the left.

Post
#1232873
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

to them[, heterosexuality] is a structure built to reinforce misogyny.

I don’t understand how that is supposed to work.

I won’t pretend to understand the ins and outs of it, but to my understanding, it has a bit to do with the culture of the 60’s and 70’s (when the movement gained traction), where men were assumed to take an authoritative role and the women a subservient role in relationships, on top of the fact that marital rape was still legal at the time.

Again, I’m having a hard time finding more details on how this manifests/ gets justified in the modern day, so much as the roots of the movement, so I can’t say what forces persist their justification of these beliefs (Though I do know that they’re not necessarily held by mainstream feminism).

Post
#1232834
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

flametitan said:

Looking through their tenets of gospel, it seems like they aren’t really about lesbians as commonly understood, either (women being attracted to women,) so much as lesbian feminism, which seems to be more about rejecting heterosexuality as a misogynist structure.

I honestly wonder how many of those women are genuine lesbians as opposed to misandrists with internalized heterophobia.

I’m not going to go into the misandry/heterophobia subject; however, there’s a reason why it’s called political lesbianism. The group is explicitly defined as using lesbianism as a means to escape heterosexuality, which to them is a structure built to reinforce misogyny. They consider themselves “lesbian by choice,” and at some of the more extreme ends reject sexuality altogether.

Unfortunately, I need to find more sources on how this movement manifests in the modern era, as most of the readings I’ve found limit themselves to the perspective of the '70’s.

Warbler said:

flametitan said:

So… about that religious freedom stuff that’s been going on lately. Y’know how I said it was more a license to discriminate than anything? Well, how do we define this springing up in the wake of the religious liberty movement?

(NOTE: Despite the headline, this article is mostly about TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Lesbians themselves aren’t really a focal point.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2018/08/03/lesbians-want-a-church-of-their-own-and-irs-approves/#76bac1f621c2

Well, they have the same right to form a church as any other group.

That’s not the problem. The problem is that this is most likely TERFs just piggybacking off the religious liberty bills (bills that I disliked to begin with) as a means of justifying transphobic discrimination.

Post
#1232772
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

So… about that religious freedom stuff that’s been going on lately. Y’know how I said it was more a license to discriminate than anything? Well, how do we define this springing up in the wake of the religious liberty movement?

(NOTE: Despite the headline, this article is mostly about TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Lesbians themselves aren’t really a focal point.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2018/08/03/lesbians-want-a-church-of-their-own-and-irs-approves/#76bac1f621c2

Post
#1229925
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

Handman said:

Interesting. This is all beyond my comprehension, I’m just a simple man. But you have my support nonetheless. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.

Oh definitely! I’ve been meaning to start a thread specific to this stuff, in the vein of the “Interrogate the X!” threads that popped up a while back.

Post
#1229786
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m in favor of your transition and I do validate it. I was pointing out to him why surgery isn’t what determines someone’s gender.

Oh definitely. Like I said, I get that you were on my side. I was mostly trying to politely tell you that your phrasing wasn’t the best way of going about it. The aspect of cost was more of the crux, rather than the, “never be a biological man or woman,” angle.

Post
#1229776
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Handman said:

I don’t think it’s shocking for me to say that I am a total dumbass when it comes to this kind of thing, but since I have the opportunity, I’ll ask. Why is requiring surgery to declare yourself a male or female a bad thing? From my perspective, it seems like the logical thing to do, if a man is defined as being, you know, biologically a man, and a woman the same. I don’t mean to be provocative, I’m just genuinely curious.

Nothing can make a biological man a biological woman or vice versa, and for that reason (as well as for cost and other restrictions), a lot of transgenders aren’t interested in or able to go through such invasive and expensive surgeries. That’s why it’s about identifying as one gender or the other, not whether or not someone wants or can afford those surgeries.

I get that you’re trying to help my point, but…

That phrase hurts. It’s a phrase used by those who oppose my transition to invalidate it and try to convince me to stop. More than that, it’s one of the deepest dreads I have, the very thing that drives many other trans people to suicide. The fear that no matter what we do, in the end it’s all meaningless, because it’ll just not matter; we’ll never really be the gender we identify with.

Would it be too much to try to avoid that turn of phrase in the future? (also technically “Transgenders,” isn’t really a correct way of referring to trans people; it’s an adjective, not a noun.)

Post
#1229660
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

Handman said:

I don’t think it’s shocking for me to say that I am a total dumbass when it comes to this kind of thing, but since I have the opportunity, I’ll ask. Why is requiring surgery to declare yourself a male or female a bad thing? From my perspective, it seems like the logical thing to do, if a man is defined as being, you know, biologically a man, and a woman the same. I don’t mean to be provocative, I’m just genuinely curious.

TL;DR: It’s an expensive and laborious process with a lot of checks and balances to keep it from being easily accessible, while some trans people don’t need it to feel comfortable, but do need the legal system to acknowledge them as their preferred gender.

For a lot of trans people it is a concern they want dealt with, but not for all of us. Some of us don’t necessarily feel strongly one way or another about our genitalia. Some might actually like the apparent mismatch. I don’t have hard statistics on this front to say how many of each category exists, though; I just know from knowing other trans people that it’s a wide pool of what needs to be done in order to feel comfortable in our bodies.
For some of us, however, it’s a low priority on the to-do list compared to everything else we need in order to be seen as our preferred gender identity. Unless you intend to get in bed with them, what’s between your legs isn’t going to be how people judge you, so much as what’s on your ID, how your face looks, body shape, etc…

Not only that, but there’s a lot more gatekeeping with bottom surgery than with the other steps in transition (though stuff like laser and facial feminization surgery will often end up being classified as “cosmetic,” and not be covered by insurance.) Currently, the Standards of Care published by WPATH puts it at being forced to wait at least a year after beginning HRT in order to qualify. Depending on where you live, you also have to be out and presenting as your preferred gender for a year before you’re allowed HRT, which is… dangerous. Now, my area isn’t like this, but I still had to wait an annoyingly long time between first talking to a psychiatrist and being prescribed hormones, because of some other dumb red tape like requiring at least two psychs to sign off on your papers in a province where if you don’t live in the city everything’s a multi-hour drive.
Luckily on that front, there’s been “informed consent” clinics popping up, which are more about telling you what the effects and side effects of the hormones are without judging how “trans you are,” and therefore skips a lot of the stress and anxiety on that front. However, the year between starting HRT and being able to procure surgery is still part of the global Standards of Care for transgender individuals.

Oh, and on that part about how things like FFS and laser being cosmetic. Guess what? Insurance companies might not necessarily cover bottom surgery anyway, so you’re SOL if you can’t afford to get it done yourself. Again, in my part of Canada, it sounds like it might be part of our healthcare plan, assuming you fly to Montreal (the other end of the country from me) to get it done, but I’m not sure if they cover the flight expenses.

Post
#1229607
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

I know there’s one state in the US where it’s just, “No, nothing will let you legally change the gender you’re registered as.”

You got me curious, so I looked it up. https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/state-by-state-overview-changing-gender-markers-on-birth-certificates

The answer is: Tennessee.

Yep. I knew someone brought up in the place where I learned about this article that they happened to live in the one place in America where that was in effect, but I forgot the name. Thanks for finding it; I know where to avoid if I visit America.

Post
#1229593
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

Sounds like he or his doctor could be on the hook for fraud…and yet what should the legal standard be for determining gender identity?

Just… prosecute him for fraud and perjury. We don’t need to bring the standards up to where they were previously. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops in order to be seen under the law and by our peers as ourselves.

Edit: This is more about the strange biases in auto insurance (though there’s good rationale), but throwing us under the bus (and giving ammunition to bigots) is not a good way of going about it.

Generally I think prosecuting him for fraud is what would or will happen. However, there is a point to be made regarding making legal gender status less arbitrary, especially if metrics or statistics businesses use depend on data relevant to gender being accurate.

Ok, I don’t want to turn this into a debate, not in this thread.

But I have to ask: What do you mean by, “making legal gender status less arbitrary?”

I’m not sure how to redefine that. If gender status is fluid or arbitrary, that doesn’t necessarily make it easy to arbitrate cases of fraud or deceit regarding what people report their gender to be. I’m not saying there need to be more hoops. I don’t even know what hoops there are. I guess I’m saying there is a valid argument to have hoops and for them to be well-defined.

Often there doesn’t even need to be concrete legislation (regarding said hoops) where caselaw in the courts establish a precedent for what they consider fraud and what they don’t. So there’s also a legal argument against the need for additional hoops.

I really was making no judgment about whether gender was too easy or hard to change.

Alright then. I think I see where you’re coming from. Obviously I have a stronger stance on it, but when stuff like this happens, it’s hard to justify my position.

As far as pre-existing hoops go, it varies from place to place. I’ve been waiting on finding work before I go through the legal aspects of transition, so most of my knowledge of the hoops are in regards to the medical aspects in my area. That being said, the legal hoops tend to vary from nearly none at all, to doctor’s note, to requiring surgery. I know there’s one state in the US where it’s just, “No, nothing will let you legally change the gender you’re registered as.”

The medical hoops, on the other hand, wow. I’m legitimately surprised he was able to get that Doctor’s note so easily. Most of us have to spend months trying to prove ourselves as, “really trans.”

Post
#1229568
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

Sounds like he or his doctor could be on the hook for fraud…and yet what should the legal standard be for determining gender identity?

Just… prosecute him for fraud and perjury. We don’t need to bring the standards up to where they were previously. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops in order to be seen under the law and by our peers as ourselves.

Edit: This is more about the strange biases in auto insurance (though there’s good rationale), but throwing us under the bus (and giving ammunition to bigots) is not a good way of going about it.

Generally I think prosecuting him for fraud is what would or will happen. However, there is a point to be made regarding making legal gender status less arbitrary, especially if metrics or statistics businesses use depend on data relevant to gender being accurate.

Ok, I don’t want to turn this into a debate, not in this thread.

But I have to ask: What do you mean by, “making legal gender status less arbitrary?” If it means what I think you mean (make more hoops to jump through to get a legal change on your birth certificate), then I have to tell you: I’ve been through those hoops. I’m still going through those hoops. That’s the angle I’m coming from on this.

Post
#1229542
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

Mrebo said:

Sounds like he or his doctor could be on the hook for fraud…and yet what should the legal standard be for determining gender identity?

Just… prosecute him for fraud and perjury. We don’t need to bring the standards up to where they were previously. We shouldn’t have to jump through hoops in order to be seen under the law and by our peers as ourselves.

Edit: This is more about the strange biases in auto insurance (though there’s good rationale), but throwing us under the bus (and giving ammunition to bigots) is not a good way of going about it.

Post
#1228777
Topic
The Something Political Thread (Was: Random Political Thoughts)
Time

I like to believe there’s a difference in patriotism and nationalism. To me being patriotic means you’re proud of the country you were born/live in; being nationalist tends to imply a bit of a superiority complex about being the nationality you are.

I don’t know if I’d classify anyone here under that definition of nationalist, though.