Politics - your views

[ScalieDan]

No, the only right thing is to tell them to deal with the fact that people they don't like exist.

Of course they exist, but don't you want to ensure the proper functioning of the military system?

Transitioning doesn't protect you from harassment.

I never made that claim. Transgenders who are unhappy with the surgeries exist, and even if they weren't harassed there still is higher chance they kill themselves if they feel like sexual reassignment ruined their lives.

so ban all blacks cause racists exist, ban all muslims because Muslim hating people exist, ban all gays cause homophobes exist. Ban all non blue eyed humans as Aryan supremacists exist (ww2 nazis), ban all atheists as religious extremists exist. Ban all older people as people who hate olds exist, ban all relatively young ones 21-28 cause some older ones hate youth.
Ban all woman cause sexism exist? (some of those might sound familiar).

your 2nd statement is, if their state of mind is worse than before, suicide is more likely. that's a tautology.

You may as well say, those that regretted to not have done it are more likely. Cause regretted implies a worsen state on top of current one.
redundant.
The reason why it should be best to move is because the statements I made are earlier reflect a current standing of knowledge and if you look into them, you see many holes of "we don't know". Research in transgender and gender dysphoria and transsexual is lacking a lot and that transitioning helps is a surface level information. It's like saying drinking beer helps with depression. Sure it helps on a superficial level. But does it actually? The research we have that goes into the actual meat is to my knowledge not conclusive yet. We try our best and use whatever looks most successful at the moment. We may find out transitioning never really helped but created an illusion like state of improvement. (which I doubt).
edit: oopsy this last bit talks about what "help" actually is. A bit philosophical and has some quite disagreements. Is an illusion of happiness really helping? etc.

I mean, it wasn't me who brought up people with missing limbs in the first place, so I'm not the one making comparisons other than speculating on things others have said.

My bad then, it might have come in to your mind to use that point but there are only some aspects which are analogical while others like getting used to it are very different aspects. Be careful in tjis area. Physical to mental analogies can be quite a bad thing if mixed up.
P.S. can I merge my own comments somehow? cause like, I kinda don't want to be that one person that just can't multi quote different people lol

Edit: a comment

I mean, it wasn't me who brought up people with missing limbs in the first place, so I'm not the one making comparisons other than speculating on things others have said.

As for necessities, it's necessary to be free of serious illnesses in order to survive, but a person who is suicidal on the other hand is different, since they're physically healthy but simply don't want to live. In that kind of way, a physically healthy person wants to give up their life, while a seriously ill person wants to live on, but they don't have the option. This is why I'm saying I prioritise terminal illness, because those people actually do want to survive. Don't take that up as me not caring about mental illnesses though, it's just a priority, and that's my opinion.

Edit: (the actual quote not paraphrased) "[...] those people actually do want to survive" really seem to not be aware of how mental illnesses work or mental challenges... A mental issue forces you to it. A saying I heard long ago about suicide is,
You do not commit suicide, you got killed. they are not to blame, society is to be blamed as we let it happen.

Mental issues can lead to death even if the person who has it sincerely wants to survive. If you tell a trans who killed themselves right before they did it, you don't want to live, they will probably say not nice words to you.

also, serious illnesses, you mean lethal illnesses or terminally ill.

And also, the reason for suicide in trans case is a physical cause which extends to mental health. Your mind dies... not your heart...

[The Jonster]

I'd suggest editing one of your posts and pasting the comments from the posts you want to merge together in it.

[Сым]

ban all muslims because Muslim hating people exist

ok.gif (12.21 KiB) Viewed 2235 times

[ScalieDan]

I'd suggest editing one of your posts and pasting the comments from the posts you want to merge together in it.

Smart idea lmao

[Steo]

I've done it, but normally you can just use the edit button. Even if using a phone, you can still have the message typed out, then press the pencil icon to edit the other post, and paste it at the end of it. Also, in the full editor & preview, you can scroll down and quote multiple posts that way still.

[ScalieDan]

I've done it, but normally you can just use the edit button. Even if using a phone, you can still have the message typed out, then press the pencil icon to edit the other post, and paste it at the end of it. Also, in the full editor & preview, you can scroll down and quote multiple posts that way still.

ok, this websites layout and functions are a challenge to wrap my head around. I will try this...

[Adsolution]

Where's the threshold then?

I am turning this question back to you.

None, I think non-cosmetic surgery should be covered. And you?

Of these, 25% were so happy with transition they probably wanted to go back, and faced atrocious psychological consequences the surgeries caused. In the end they still killed themselves. Don't you think their motives for transition could have been different than gender dysphoria in this case?

No. Maybe a very small percentage as well (like <1%) will attempt to transition "for the thrill", but the surgery requires psychological evaluation.

When it comes to military other soldiers may be bothered by the presence of transgenders alone.

So if the army ever has a sudden influx of white supremacists, we ban blacks from the army again?

Don't use disability analogy of something where a body part is missing as a direct analogy to a whole identity mismatch. It's insanely disrespectful

I wasn't analogising the entire struggle, only the case where you want to do something with the missing important part of your body pretty much everyone else can but you can't because it's missing. There's nothing wrong with that comparison I think.

ban all muslims because Muslim hating people exist

ok.gif

Still got no idea what's running through that noodle of yours right now.

[ScalieDan]

Don't use disability analogy of something where a body part is missing as a direct analogy to a whole identity mismatch. It's insanely disrespectful

I wasn't analogising the entire struggle, only the case where you want to do something with the missing important part of your body pretty much everyone else can but you can't because it's missing. There's nothing wrong with that comparison.

No worries, I did read through and didn't respond to yours.
"direct analogy" is what made it a distinction. Your wasn't a direct analogy to whole mismatch of body identity but if I can shorten it like this, quality of experience is a shorten I guess.

analogies like these are tough as a mistake may imply way more than wanted x3

[Сым]

None, I think non-cosmetic surgery should be covered.

Then you must unconsciously agree transition shouldn't be covered.

No. Maybe a very small percentage as well (like <1%) will attempt to transition "for the thrill", but the surgery requires psychological evaluation.

I'm pretty sure the actual figure is much higher.

So if the army ever has a sudden influx of white supremacists, we ban blacks from the army again?

What would resolve this issue in your opinion? I don't think separating, or banning people over their ethnicity would resolve it. If anything that would make things worse between both parties.

[ScalieDan]

None, I think non-cosmetic surgery should be covered.

Then you must unconsciously agree transition shouldn't be covered.

No. Maybe a very small percentage as well (like <1%) will attempt to transition "for the thrill", but the surgery requires psychological evaluation.

I'm pretty sure the actual figure is much higher.

So if the army ever has a sudden influx of white supremacists, we ban blacks from the army again?

What would resolve this issue in your opinion? I don't think separating, or banning people over their ethnicity would resolve it. If anything that would make things worse between both parties.

1st
non cosmetic is covered. Transitioning isn't cosmetic.

2nd the number for just for the thrill may approach 0% as it's not a fun thing to do in of itself. I have heard of a lot of "false diagnosis" that lead to it but faking 1 year+ of psychological disharmony over your body and maybe going so far as to dress differently to show it further... I never even heard of such a case...

3rd how come ethnicity makes it wors but trans not?
If you ban blacks, blacks can't complain. They are banned (assuming you follow the hypothetical).
Same for trans.
In both cases society may uproar and in fact, USA did on thebtrans case and last numbers I saw were with 70% pro trans in army.
And the ban didn't sit well. People just slowly forgot because of like, hundred other issues.

Oh and in case of a rise of white supremacists in fact, as their hypothetical stated, it wouldn't be an issue as most are behind it.

Oh yeah right that actually happened, racial segregation, and later down the line society disliked discrimination.
Given US already has a good support for trans.. well... your own argument would conclude don't ban trans.

Edit: stumbled upon this, I gues trans was never an issue to begin with. Just transphobia in politics.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-00437-x

oh and while military didn't record how many trans got discharged
I found this statement "In April 2015, the Palm Center stated that at least a dozen individuals had been discharged in the past six months for being transgender."

[Adsolution]

None, I think non-cosmetic surgery should be covered.

Then you must unconsciously agree transition shouldn't be covered.

You haven't even given one single argument in favour of it being cosmetic.

I'm pretty sure the actual figure is much higher.

Why do you think that? Can you please explain the basis for your arguments when you make them so I don't have to make entire posts just asking you to?

What would resolve this issue in your opinion? I don't think separating, or banning people over their ethnicity would resolve it. If anything that would make things worse between both parties.

You prioritise the ~comfort~ o3o UwU of the army as a whole over and above the rights minority groups have to join. If the army is filled with transphobes as you claim and thus banning trans people from service is ideal to make the soldiers more comfortable, then if the army suddenly became largely white supremacist, you would also be in favour of a ban on non-whites from service, as it would also make the soldiers more comfortable.

Why do you think non-whites, gays and women were finally allowed in? Because the majority of recruits suddenly felt "ready" to accept them? Does that mean you find the way in which those bans were lifted unethical?

Obviously there should be restrictions of some kind, but can't you use the same argument to deport homeless people?

The last bit about having nothing to bring to the table was just an additional comment. I also find it baffling that some people believe they're entitled to moving wherever they want regardless of what they have to offer. It's up to to the people to decide who joins the country they have built, and nobody else.

Forgot to respond to this:

Canada's development started with the import of Chinese immigrants and slaves to build our railway. If we freely exploited these people in the past, I don't see anything wrong with letting their kids have some of the cake their families worked hard to make through no willingness of their own. They don't need a reason to come here and live a better life than the one they probably currently are, we as citizens largely welcome them with open arms and see no reason not to. The country is huge and only has 30 million people in it.

European countries probably feel very differently about their identity given it's far more than 150 years old and the country was built by a bunch of fellow Euros duking it out instead. It's a nationalistic mindset I genuinely have a hard time understanding as it's 100% nonexistent here (except for the one weird kid who hangs a Canadian flag in their window) and mocked to death, to our country's benefit in my opinion.

I only bring this up because I think Canada and France are probably some of the two most opposite countries in this way, and it's just amusing to me, especially because a chunk of our country is French and wants nothing to do with the rest of it... the prideful bastards.

[Сым]

You haven't even given one single argument in favour of it being cosmetic.

Transition is purely cosmetic since its goal is to modify your physical appearance.

You prioritise the ~comfort~ o3o UwU of the army as a whole over and above the rights minority groups have to join. If the army is filled with transphobes as you claim and thus banning trans people from service is ideal to make the soldiers more comfortable, then if the army suddenly became largely white supremacist, you would also be in favour of a ban on non-whites from service, as it would also make the soldiers more comfortable.

I prioritize the comfort of non-transgender soldiers regardless of their ethnicity. Is there anything wrong with it?

Gender and ethnicity are two different things.

you.jpg (19.93 KiB) Viewed 2083 times

[Adsolution]

Random: We need a new poll!

Transition is purely cosmetic since its goal is to modify your physical appearance.

Incorrect. It modifies far more than your physical appearance, including your body's physiology and your mind itself, including providing functional differences, voiding it of the cosmetic label. This has been explained a number of times directly to you but you haven't responded to any of these points again.

Gender and ethnicity are two different things.

Well, I understand now you think different populations should have different levels of privilege:

I prioritize the comfort of non-transgender soldiers regardless of their ethnicity. Is there anything wrong with it?

Why do you prioritise the comfort of non-transgender soldiers over transgender soldiers'? Without further explanation, that's the dictionary definition of discrimination, which is considered wholly unethical in first-world societies.

So -- do you value the comfort of non-trans members of the Rayman Reddit community above that of trans members'?

You.jpg

Us vs your train of thought:

[Сым]

Incorrect. It modifies far more than your physical appearance, including your body's physiology and your mind itself, including providing functional differences, voiding it of the cosmetic label. This has been explained a number of times directly to you but you haven't responded to any of these points again.

It's correct though. If someone was going to modify any other element of their physical appearance they didn't feel comfortable with by surgery the same things would go for them, and that shows how important it is.

Thanks for proving my point.

Why do you prioritise the comfort of non-transgender soldiers over transgender soldiers'? Without further explanation, that's the dictionary definition of discrimination, which is considered wholly unethical in first-world societies.

What you see as discriminatory treatments doesn't make much sense, because if a part of the population could be a disadvantage to others both professionally and personally I don't see why they should be given access to the job function even if they wanted it.

So -- do you value the comfort of non-trans members of the Rayman Reddit community above that of trans members'?

Poor Reddit members, they must have went through a lot. The white supremacist mod bad.

[Keane]

Apparently I'm the one who made this topic (figures) so I'll put in a new poll if someone can suggest one to me.

What you see as discriminatory treatments doesn't make much sense, because if a part of the population could be a disadvantage to others both professionally and personally I don't see why they should be given access to the job function even if they wanted it.

[Adsolution]

If someone was going to modify any other element of their physical appearance they didn't feel comfortable with by surgery the same things would go for them, and that shows how important it is.

No, I mean literally. Getting a rhinoplasty doesn't cause your body to go through a literal second puberty. Something cosmetic cannot do that or it isn't cosmetic.

What you see as discriminatory treatments doesn't make much sense

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

I prioritize the comfort of non-transgender soldiers because if a part of the population could be a disadvantage to others both professionally and personally I don't see why they should be given access to the job function even if they wanted it.

That not even a "because"... that's just you justifying why you think discrimination is okay after.

So -- do you value the comfort of non-trans members of the Rayman Reddit community above that of trans members'?

Poor Reddit members, they must have went through a lot. The white supremacist mod bad.

Pussy

[ScalieDan]

Umm election as a topic, anyone?

I gave responses to the topic above. No interest in seeing it further. Not positive.

or maybe another topic?

[Сым]

No, I mean literally. Getting a rhinoplasty doesn't cause your body to go through a literal second puberty. Something cosmetic cannot do that or it isn't cosmetic.

Won't you just admit it's cosmetic? Your argument is flawed, and it shouldn't be considered valid.

Lying to yourself to the point you start to believe in your own lies is pretty concerning.

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

What a genius, you looked up a definition in a dictionary.

If I was going to make a discriminatory statement it would be something like this:

typical british.jpg (58.42 KiB) Viewed 1937 times

No hard feelings, this only an example.

Pussy

I'd happily blow your head out with a shotgun to prove you wrong.

To summarize this discussion, I will quote a famous philosopher I have a lot of admiration for:

See? Faggots can't get their facts straight.

Duh, why would I say inaccurate things.

Because you're a faggot?

Well yes, Rayman502 actually has a point, because that would make Rulez a faggot. Burn him on the crest of dusk.

[ScalieDan]

No, I mean literally. Getting a rhinoplasty doesn't cause your body to go through a literal second puberty. Something cosmetic cannot do that or it isn't cosmetic.

Won't you just admit it's cosmetic? Your argument is flawed, and it shouldn't be considered valid.

Lying to yourself to the point you start to believe in your own lies is pretty concerning.

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

What a genius, you looked up a definition in a dictionary.

If I was going to make a discriminatory statement it would be something like this:

typical british.jpg

No hard feelings, this only an example.

Pussy

I'd happily blow your head out with a shotgun to prove you wrong.

To summarize this discussion, I will quote a famous philosopher I have a lot of admiration for:

See? Faggots can't get their facts straight.

Duh, why would I say inaccurate things.

Because you're a faggot?

Well yes, Rayman502 actually has a point, because that would make Rulez a faggot. Burn him on the crest of dusk.

we get it, condescending usage of homosexual referencing language.

Also, don't use language that suggests killing, Sym.


besides that, this comment has no substance. Just "I disagree" or other irrelevant stuff.

[Steo]

Mental issues can lead to death even if the person who has it sincerely wants to survive. If you tell a trans who killed themselves right before they did it, you don't want to live, they will probably say not nice words to you.

I don't think this is the case. For example, me having ADHD is basically something I can't help. It's classed as a disorder more than an illness; however, if a sex change is classed as non-cosmetic, then I'll class ADHD as a mental illness. Regardless, I'm pretty happy in general and have no intention of killing myself. If you don't want to die while having some sort of mental illness, then you simply won't. Only a physical illness could kill someone who doesn't want to die.

also, serious illnesses, you mean lethal illnesses or terminally ill.

I'm aware of this, I can use alternative phrases without the need for perfect wording.

And also, the reason for suicide in trans case is a physical cause which extends to mental health. Your mind dies... not your heart...

Well this can happen for so many other reasons other than being trans. How about people who suffer from strokes, or hemorrhages? I'm pretty sure this also kills their mind much more than being upset about their gender. It makes sense to not think so selfishly and realise that other people outside of LGBT still matter too.