Y'all kinda leaped on an aside there...
I'm not trying to argue, like I said I haven't done the research on anything transgender. Just want to give you something you may not have thought about. This isn't an issue of a "tyranny of the minority," the current system we have is already problematic (see below).
killacross wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:09 pm
I always jump at this "justification" here
It's so inconsequential. It's so rare. Essentially, an anomaly does not disprove the norm.
And even then...we are talking about trans people (who are say <1% of the general population...and then the percentage of them that are criminals so another <1%....and then violent
criminals [ie rapists] <1%....and then the percentage of them that are actually in prison...so another <1% of them]
...practically speaking, why give them ANY special consideration?
We don't. Violent criminals aren't eligible for transfer based on being transgender. But let's say you're born female and identify as male - you've been taking testosterone for years. You're sentenced to prison for 6 months for whatever reason. You - on all of your testosterone - are thrown in with female criminals and lose any treatments you're on until you're released. That seems like a pretty harsh penalty for whatever you did that only got you 6 months, even assuming you had 0 withdrawal. If the prison provides either testosterone or some treatment to assist/prevent withdrawal, you're still effectively putting a testosterone-laden individual in a female cell block. If a person has already had their sexual organs swapped as well, do we still send them to their genetic sex's block? We have to draw a line, and this issue is just trying to decide where to draw it.
Digital Masta wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:58 am
Society isn't designed around extremes, it can't be.
What is that phenomenon where a minority can get everyone to bend to their well because most people want to "go along to get along" it's essentially the MO of the woke but it's basically this idea:
-Your daughter decides to be vegan but nobody else in the house is.
-Your wife decides that instead of making two different meals, she'll just make vegan meals because it will placate her daughter and it's not like everyone else is anti-vegan food so it's just a mild inconvenience to them.
-You guys go to a block party and you let them know beforehand that you're gonna eat vegan because of the daughter.
-The block party organizers now have choices, they can go through the trouble of have two menus, you can tell the family to either bring their own food or just not eat at the party but you may not want to do that because it may look bad or you can have a vegan block party.
-Suddenly you have a vegan block party because of one little girl.
Now if these were black people it wouldn't have gotten that far because back when the daughter said she was vegan and therefore not eating any of their family's food her mother said something like this:
"Guess you gonna starve to death."
That really doesn't happen, especially once you leave the household level. Maybe if the cook goes vegan, but from what little I've seen at that point someone else starts cooking for the rest of the family. This scenario is expecting one person to be so selfish that he/she is going to make everyone change their plates without any of the people forced to change being selfish enough to push back. Humans aren't that nice, especially at a neighborhood level. It's also (imo) a terrible parent move for the mother to do what she did in this scenario.