JK Rowling vs. History

[henry quirk]

Don't even look at it, unless you have a strong stomach. But it certainly makes the point.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... mates.html

Mr Can, you old drama queen you. The point henry quirk and vegetariantaxidermy were making is essentially that reasonable people don't get too worked up by freaks, but won't be told what to think. But to Mr Can I have the Apocalypse now? *the behaviour of one nutjob

...shows very clearly that those who doubt our women need protection from these kinds of people are living in a fool's paradise.

**What sort of preemptive legislation would you introduce to protect women from their own children?

Mannie won't answer, but I will...

*It's a little more than that: a man, who declares himself woman, is locked up with actual women. He's an incestuous rapist. Practically, he's a fox in the henhouse. Lock his ass up with men.

**No such legislation in possible among free men. What is possible: to reject nut jobbery as merely alternative; to hold, for example, rapists consistently accountable, to severely punish them, to never cut 'em a jot of slack (mebbe, instead, just cut 'em...til they stop kickin').

[SpheresOfBalance]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?

You're only addressing half the equation. You've omitted the physical side. There exists hermaphrodites, which physically have any partial/complete random combination of both male and female sex organs. So in such a case what are they? Where does physiology and psychology meet? You don't know and how could you decide, if it were actually up to you? So since you're neither a psychologist, biologist or biochemist, how can you possibly nail down any sort of supposed flaw? Is someone born of a physical handicap flawed? Do you have children? Are you going to tell a child that either he/she is flawed because they're physically/psychologically different. I'm thinking of the word humane. And I'm wondering what it actually means, according to some people. I mean, what is it actually worth? Apparently not much in some scenarios.

You see the truth is nature does what nature does. From certain individual perspectives of course someone can use any particular term to express any negative emotional response to something that they decide is less than themselves, but is it universally speaking? Remember that from the universal perspective all human conceptualizations mean absolutely nothing. So largely humans are only capable of seeing things only from their own self serving perspectives.

Such is this case!

[uwot]

Mannie won't answer...

I know. What a wimp, eh?

...but I will...

*It's a little more than that: a man, who declares himself woman, is locked up with actual women. He's an incestuous rapist.

Where did you hear that? According to the Daily Mail article he has not been convicted of anything yet.

Practically, he's a fox in the henhouse. Lock his ass up with men.

He's weird as fuck, I'll grant you, but that doesn't make him a criminal. For anyone who hasn't read the article, which I have to say appears to include you henry quirk, this is what it says:"Chandler's arrest came just days after a phone call was leaked on an instant messaging platform, on which a person believed to Chandler seemingly admitted to having sex with her elderly mother, who is believed to have dementia.

The authenticity of the audio recording hasn't been confirmed.

During the eight-minute conversation, Chandler apparently tells a friend that it was her mother, Barbara, who 'made the first move,' leading the two to kiss, according to the audio file, which Newsweek reported." Now, as distasteful as that may be, it doesn't suggest that this individual, even if guilty, poses quite the threat you imagine.

**No such legislation in possible among free men.

Yeah, that was kinda my point.

What is possible: to reject nut jobbery as merely alternative; to hold, for example, rapists consistently accountable, to severely punish them, to never cut 'em a jot of slack (mebbe, instead, just cut 'em...til they stop kickin')

If someone is a nutjob, they're a nutjob. That is their prerogative, no one should be compelled to like nutjobs, but there is no logical nor causal link between being a nutjob and being a rapist.

[henry quirk]

Where did you hear that? According to the Daily Mail article he has not been convicted of anything yet.

My mistake: he hasn't been convicted; he was arrested and is bein' housed, or will be housed, with women (a fox in the henhouse).


He's weird as fuck, I'll grant you, but that doesn't make him a criminal

You're right: he's just an accused man bein' housed with, or soon to be housed with, women (a fox in the henhouse).

The fox ought to be sequestered with foxes, not hens.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?

You're only addressing half the equation. You've omitted the physical side. There exists hermaphrodites, which physically have any partial/complete random combination of both male and female sex organs. So in such a case what are they? Where does physiology and psychology meet? You don't know and how could you decide, if it were actually up to you? So since you're neither a psychologist, biologist or biochemist, how can you possibly nail down any sort of supposed flaw? Is someone born of a physical handicap flawed? Do you have children? Are you going to tell a child that either he/she is flawed because they're physically/psychologically different. I'm thinking of the word humane. And I'm wondering what it actually means, according to some people. I mean, what is it actually worth? Apparently not much in some scenarios.

You see the truth is nature does what nature does. From certain individual perspectives of course someone can use any particular term to express any negative emotional response to something that they decide is less than themselves, but is it universally speaking? Remember that from the universal perspective all human conceptualizations mean absolutely nothing. So largely humans are only capable of seeing things only from their own self serving perspectives.

Such is this case!

Are you suggesting that the only difference between a man and a woman is genitalia?

[SpheresOfBalance]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?

You're only addressing half the equation. You've omitted the physical side. There exists hermaphrodites, which physically have any partial/complete random combination of both male and female sex organs. So in such a case what are they? Where does physiology and psychology meet? You don't know and how could you decide, if it were actually up to you? So since you're neither a psychologist, biologist or biochemist, how can you possibly nail down any sort of supposed flaw? Is someone born of a physical handicap flawed? Do you have children? Are you going to tell a child that either he/she is flawed because they're physically/psychologically different. I'm thinking of the word humane. And I'm wondering what it actually means, according to some people. I mean, what is it actually worth? Apparently not much in some scenarios.

You see the truth is nature does what nature does. From certain individual perspectives of course someone can use any particular term to express any negative emotional response to something that they decide is less than themselves, but is it universally speaking? Remember that from the universal perspective all human conceptualizations mean absolutely nothing. So largely humans are only capable of seeing things only from their own self serving perspectives.

Such is this case!

Are you suggesting that the only difference between a man and a woman is genitalia?

Not at all. It's both the physical and the psyche as they join in agreement as to which sex they identify. If there is disagreement between the two then they that experience it must decide with which they identify. Which is why those that have no disagreement fail to understand the problem with those that do, which most often is why their plight is even more problematic.

Intolerance born of ignorance, as they've had no experience, as they judge others by the only measure they know, the self projected, selfish indifference!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You're only addressing half the equation. You've omitted the physical side. There exists hermaphrodites, which physically have any partial/complete random combination of both male and female sex organs. So in such a case what are they? Where does physiology and psychology meet? You don't know and how could you decide, if it were actually up to you? So since you're neither a psychologist, biologist or biochemist, how can you possibly nail down any sort of supposed flaw? Is someone born of a physical handicap flawed? Do you have children? Are you going to tell a child that either he/she is flawed because they're physically/psychologically different. I'm thinking of the word humane. And I'm wondering what it actually means, according to some people. I mean, what is it actually worth? Apparently not much in some scenarios.

You see the truth is nature does what nature does. From certain individual perspectives of course someone can use any particular term to express any negative emotional response to something that they decide is less than themselves, but is it universally speaking? Remember that from the universal perspective all human conceptualizations mean absolutely nothing. So largely humans are only capable of seeing things only from their own self serving perspectives.

Such is this case!

Are you suggesting that the only difference between a man and a woman is genitalia?

Not at all. It's both the physical and the psyche as they join in agreement as to which sex they identify. If there is disagreement between the two then they that experience it must decide with which they identify. Which is why those that have no disagreement fail to understand the problem with those that do, which most often is why their plight is even more problematic.

Intolerance born of ignorance, as they've had no experience, as they judge others by the only measure they know, the self projected, selfish indifference!

How do you define 'identify'? What is this 'thing' that people are supposedly 'identifying' with?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you suggesting that the only difference between a man and a woman is genitalia?

Not at all. It's both the physical and the psyche as they join in agreement as to which sex they identify. If there is disagreement between the two then they that experience it must decide with which they identify. Which is why those that have no disagreement fail to understand the problem with those that do, which most often is why their plight is even more problematic.

Intolerance born of ignorance, as they've had no experience, as they judge others by the only measure they know, the self projected, selfish indifference!

How do you define 'identify'? What is this 'thing' that people are supposedly 'identifying' with?

To "identify" as either male or female, the physical affect, which is primary is during the prenatal hormonal environment. Secondarily the psychological affect is during the postnatal social environment. So while the physical is the majority of sexual identity, and the psychological the minor, they both play a role. It's also true that epigenetic, thus genetic differentiation plays a role, which is physical as well.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not at all. It's both the physical and the psyche as they join in agreement as to which sex they identify. If there is disagreement between the two then they that experience it must decide with which they identify. Which is why those that have no disagreement fail to understand the problem with those that do, which most often is why their plight is even more problematic.

Intolerance born of ignorance, as they've had no experience, as they judge others by the only measure they know, the self projected, selfish indifference!

How do you define 'identify'? What is this 'thing' that people are supposedly 'identifying' with?

To "identify" as either male or female, the physical affect, which is primary is during the prenatal hormonal environment. Secondarily the psychological affect is during the postnatal social environment. So while the physical is the majority of sexual identity, and the psychological the minor, they both play a role. It's also true that epigenetic, thus genetic differentiation plays a role, which is physical as well.

Hmm. How do I know I haven't been 'identifying' as male all this time? I wouldn't know, because I'm not male, so I don't know what 'identifying as male' would feel like. Heck, I don't even know what other women 'feel like'. How does this 'identifying feeling' manisfest itself?
People claim to 'identify' as all kinds of things. What about those who 'identify' as amputees, and long to have their limbs removed? It's a serious mental disorder.

[SpheresOfBalance]

How do you define 'identify'? What is this 'thing' that people are supposedly 'identifying' with?

To "identify" as either male or female, the physical affect, which is primary is during the prenatal hormonal environment. Secondarily the psychological affect is during the postnatal social environment. So while the physical is the majority of sexual identity, and the psychological the minor, they both play a role. It's also true that epigenetic, thus genetic differentiation plays a role, which is physical as well.

Hmm. How do I know I haven't been 'identifying' as male all this time? I wouldn't know, because I'm not male, so I don't know what 'identifying as male' would feel like. Heck, I don't even know what other women 'feel like'. How does this 'identifying feeling' manisfest itself?
People claim to 'identify' as all kinds of things. What about those who 'identify' as amputees, and long to have their limbs removed? It's a serious mental disorder.

Hey I never said I was a sexual orientation expert. I just know that no one should blame anyone for their sexual identity. Observing from the outside today, one cannot distinguish the causals that were on the inside and/or outside yesteryear such that one is ignorant of the facts that lead to their identity. Plus it's not your life anyway, it's theirs. Why people feel they have to put down others for no apparent reason says more about them than it does the object of their ridicule. I just don't get those that have to put others down for any reason that really doesn't effect them, just so they can feel better about their lives, to feel superior. They're actually pretty pathetic.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

To "identify" as either male or female, the physical affect, which is primary is during the prenatal hormonal environment. Secondarily the psychological affect is during the postnatal social environment. So while the physical is the majority of sexual identity, and the psychological the minor, they both play a role. It's also true that epigenetic, thus genetic differentiation plays a role, which is physical as well.

Hmm. How do I know I haven't been 'identifying' as male all this time? I wouldn't know, because I'm not male, so I don't know what 'identifying as male' would feel like. Heck, I don't even know what other women 'feel like'. How does this 'identifying feeling' manisfest itself?
People claim to 'identify' as all kinds of things. What about those who 'identify' as amputees, and long to have their limbs removed? It's a serious mental disorder.

Hey I never said I was a sexual orientation expert. I just know that no one should blame anyone for their sexual identity. Observing from the outside today, one cannot distinguish the causals that were on the inside and/or outside yesteryear such that one is ignorant of the facts that lead to their identity. Plus it's not your life anyway, it's theirs. Why people feel they have to put down others for no apparent reason says more about them than it does the object of their ridicule. I just don't get those that have to put others down for any reason that really doesn't effect them, just so they can feel better about their lives, to feel superior. They're actually pretty pathetic.

So now it comes down to 'be nice' ?

Is this 'woman' being 'nice'? Wow, that must have been some 'hormone mixup' in the womb. Btw, some women have naturally high testosterone levels. There were a couple of athletes in this olympics who couldn't compete because they failed the testosterone test which was patently unfair when a biological male was allowed to compete as a woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm03Nc ... heDCShorts

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hmm. How do I know I haven't been 'identifying' as male all this time? I wouldn't know, because I'm not male, so I don't know what 'identifying as male' would feel like. Heck, I don't even know what other women 'feel like'. How does this 'identifying feeling' manisfest itself?
People claim to 'identify' as all kinds of things. What about those who 'identify' as amputees, and long to have their limbs removed? It's a serious mental disorder.

Hey I never said I was a sexual orientation expert. I just know that no one should blame anyone for their sexual identity. Observing from the outside today, one cannot distinguish the causals that were on the inside and/or outside yesteryear such that one is ignorant of the facts that lead to their identity. Plus it's not your life anyway, it's theirs. Why people feel they have to put down others for no apparent reason says more about them than it does the object of their ridicule. I just don't get those that have to put others down for any reason that really doesn't effect them, just so they can feel better about their lives, to feel superior. They're actually pretty pathetic.

So now it comes down to 'be nice' ?

Is this 'woman' being 'nice'? Wow, that must have been some 'hormone mixup' in the womb. She's so feminine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm03Nc ... heDCShorts

That person has definitely taken the wrong approach in dealing with the situation. If the clerk used visual cueing to initially address the customer, then he made an honest mistake, and shouldn't be met with such hostility. The customer should take an honest look in the mirror and decide if their outward appearance is more like a male or female, and if they decide male, like I've decided, then they should expect such errors and not hold people accountable for them. I mean let's be real here. The other option is to have work done so that they look more like a female, at which time, if they're successful, the errors should diminish.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hey I never said I was a sexual orientation expert. I just know that no one should blame anyone for their sexual identity. Observing from the outside today, one cannot distinguish the causals that were on the inside and/or outside yesteryear such that one is ignorant of the facts that lead to their identity. Plus it's not your life anyway, it's theirs. Why people feel they have to put down others for no apparent reason says more about them than it does the object of their ridicule. I just don't get those that have to put others down for any reason that really doesn't effect them, just so they can feel better about their lives, to feel superior. They're actually pretty pathetic.

So now it comes down to 'be nice' ?

Is this 'woman' being 'nice'? Wow, that must have been some 'hormone mixup' in the womb. She's so feminine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm03Nc ... heDCShorts

That person has definitely taken the wrong approach in dealing with the situation. If the clerk used visual cueing to initially address the customer, then he made an honest mistake, and shouldn't be met with such hostility. The customer should take an honest look in the mirror and decide if their outward appearance is more like a male or female, and if they decide male, like I've decided, then they should expect such errors and not hold people accountable for them. I mean let's be real here. The other option is to have work done so that they look more like a female, at which time, if they're successful, the errors should diminish.

Why should she have to change her appearance? I mean, it's all about how she 'feels' and 'identifies'. How transphobic of you to even suggest that she change her appearance to be more like a 'woman'...

[SpheresOfBalance]

So now it comes down to 'be nice' ?

Is this 'woman' being 'nice'? Wow, that must have been some 'hormone mixup' in the womb. She's so feminine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm03Nc ... heDCShorts

That person has definitely taken the wrong approach in dealing with the situation. If the clerk used visual cueing to initially address the customer, then he made an honest mistake, and shouldn't be met with such hostility. The customer should take an honest look in the mirror and decide if their outward appearance is more like a male or female, and if they decide male, like I've decided, then they should expect such errors and not hold people accountable for them. I mean let's be real here. The other option is to have work done so that they look more like a female, at which time, if they're successful, the errors should diminish.

Why should she have to change her appearance? I mean, it's all about how she 'feels' and 'identifies'. How transphobic of you to even suggest that she change her appearance to be more like a 'woman'...

Come on veggie I thought the logic was clear enough for you to understand. She/he obviously were having a problem on how they were addressed. Visual cuing is what we all use to initially choose a pronoun when not knowing ones name. I've made the error many times, but it's usually on the phone, as we also use aural cuing in such circumstances. Nobody's a damn fortune teller, nor does anyone have the ability to read peoples minds. So it was her/his responsibility to either make sure they look completely like a woman or accept the errors associated with having a man's face. I can see it now, "Can I help you sir?" Duh!!! The would be woman was definitely at fault, as they should only ever expect such mistakes. All they have to do is look in the mirror to see why they are initially addressed as a man. It's HER/HIS responsibility to make sure it never happens again, as absolutely no one can read peoples minds so as to know what others believe they are and how they should be addressed.

That's my final argument for this particular example, no rebuttal will be entertained. Under the circumstances, I'm correct, considering what's fair and can be expected from all parties involved.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That person has definitely taken the wrong approach in dealing with the situation. If the clerk used visual cueing to initially address the customer, then he made an honest mistake, and shouldn't be met with such hostility. The customer should take an honest look in the mirror and decide if their outward appearance is more like a male or female, and if they decide male, like I've decided, then they should expect such errors and not hold people accountable for them. I mean let's be real here. The other option is to have work done so that they look more like a female, at which time, if they're successful, the errors should diminish.

Why should she have to change her appearance? I mean, it's all about how she 'feels' and 'identifies'. How transphobic of you to even suggest that she change her appearance to be more like a 'woman'...

Come on veggie I thought the logic was clear enough for you to understand. She/he obviously were having a problem on how they were addressed. Visual cuing is what we all use to initially choose a pronoun when not knowing ones name. I've made the error many times, but it's usually on the phone, as we also use aural cuing in such circumstances. Nobody's a damn fortune teller, nor does anyone have the ability to read peoples minds. So it was her/his responsibility to either make sure they look completely like a woman or accept the errors associated with having a man's face. I can see it now, "Can I help you sir?" Duh!!! The would be woman was definitely at fault, as they should only ever expect such mistakes. All they have to do is look in the mirror to see why they are initially addressed as a man. It's HER/HIS responsibility to make sure it never happens again, as absolutely no one can read peoples minds so as to know what others believe they are and how they should be addressed.

That's my final argument for this particular example, no rebuttal will be entertained. Under the circumstances, I'm correct, considering what's fair and can be expected from all parties involved.

No need for a rebuttal. Your response has nothing to do with my previous one.