8 ms·

The conclusion of this article I think is overly simplistic and it's driven by a need to justify various forms of bigotry under the guise of free speech, imo. C

The conclusion of this article I think is overly simplistic and it's driven by a need to justify various forms of bigotry under the guise of free speech, imo. Certain ideas shouldn't have an airing since their time has come and gone. We no longer need to 'learn' about eugenics since it's been shown to never fit with the scientific evidence. For example, transphobia has been deliberated in the marketplace of ideas and they lost out to the evidence to the contrary on numerous points (ex. claims that transgender individuals commit more suicide post-GRS has been proven false by numerous studies). There's no more room for debate on such issues. If people want to continue to "teach the controversy" or whatever, they can do it on their own time but not that of other's.

pram 11y ago
lol at this prole defending orthodoxy in the hallowed halls of Wichita State. umm there is NO room for debate heretics, the matter is canon
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Do you care to explain yourself or would you rather heckle and run? It seems people who have a big issue with LGBT issues (especially the T) seem to prefer the latter over the former.
  - pram 11y ago
    explain what, can you not comprehend what i wrote
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      No, what you wrote is was incomprehensible.
- zaccus 11y ago
  I think he's criticizing your idea that: >There's no more room for debate on such issues. There is always room for debate on any issue. It might be a one-sided debate, but you're clearly implying that the debate should be suppressed, which is absurd.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? I don't think so. If that makes me a the "big meany weany" for folks like him then good. I don't have time for it. Being transgender myself and having to deal with all the issues that it comes with on a personal level makes less empathetic towards non-transgender people's concerns. Simply put, if he and others thinks my life should be contingent on his feelings then I'm just not going to discuss the matter with him. I'll just cut them out of the conversation entirely. Nor do I owe them or other people with similar sentiments a say in my life. If I pay my way (which I do) then you get zero authority over my life: fact. I've heard for years that being transgender is bad, evil, and all other kinds of undesirable adjectives without a hint as to how or why. And when something that resembles a coherent argument is made, I often find it's dependent on an irrational belief that's easily dispelled. Even when the arguments are dispelled the opponents refuse to acknowledge it and move on. They just double down on the vitriol and expand their program to deny rights to even access opportunities in the marketplace, be it healthcare or employment opportunities. When it becomes a choice between living in the closet (probably killing yourself in said closet) or living outside the closet and getting abused for being transgender (physically, economically, psychologically, and so forth) then enough is enough. There's literally zero excuses to be made. And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Either you're on board for civil rights or you're not. There's no nuance from the opposition. The opposition made their argument and it was lacking. Deal with it. /rant
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. > And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.
Nadya 11y ago
>We no longer need to 'learn' about eugenics since it's been shown to never fit with the scientific evidence. We've replaced "eugenics" with "editing the human genome". No need to selectively breed and we can still get similar benefits of reducing terminal illnesses and increasing quality of life. It's only a question whether these changes are ethical and many groups oppose these benefits for reasons of "playing god" and secondary effects we may not be aware of. >they lost out to the evidence to the contrary on numerous points (ex. claims that transgender individuals commit more suicide post-GRS has been proven false by numerous studies) Going to need to see those studies. As a trans I opted to not undergo GRS because every single study I've read has shown that increased satisfaction and happiness post-surgery is uncommon and that increased depression, suicidal behavior, unhappiness, and regret are fairly common. Furthermore, I agree with Dr. Paul R. McHugh. Which makes be extremely unpopular among portions of the LGBT crowd. Few doctors would ever agree with Dr. McHugh. I wonder how much of that is out of fear of losing their jobs to a social justice mob if they dared to agree with what he said? This issue is the catalyst for why I'm so vehemently against the PC/SJW crowds. Their bullying tactics and censorship of any information that disagrees with their feelings actively harms people who live in the real world. I can't trust what doctors say when they would be risking their livelihood to make any claims contrary.

pram 11y ago

lol at this prole defending orthodoxy in the hallowed halls of Wichita State. umm there is NO room for debate heretics, the matter is canon

norea-armozel 11y ago
Do you care to explain yourself or would you rather heckle and run? It seems people who have a big issue with LGBT issues (especially the T) seem to prefer the latter over the former.
- pram 11y ago
  explain what, can you not comprehend what i wrote
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    No, what you wrote is was incomprehensible.
zaccus 11y ago
I think he's criticizing your idea that: >There's no more room for debate on such issues. There is always room for debate on any issue. It might be a one-sided debate, but you're clearly implying that the debate should be suppressed, which is absurd.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? I don't think so. If that makes me a the "big meany weany" for folks like him then good. I don't have time for it. Being transgender myself and having to deal with all the issues that it comes with on a personal level makes less empathetic towards non-transgender people's concerns. Simply put, if he and others thinks my life should be contingent on his feelings then I'm just not going to discuss the matter with him. I'll just cut them out of the conversation entirely. Nor do I owe them or other people with similar sentiments a say in my life. If I pay my way (which I do) then you get zero authority over my life: fact. I've heard for years that being transgender is bad, evil, and all other kinds of undesirable adjectives without a hint as to how or why. And when something that resembles a coherent argument is made, I often find it's dependent on an irrational belief that's easily dispelled. Even when the arguments are dispelled the opponents refuse to acknowledge it and move on. They just double down on the vitriol and expand their program to deny rights to even access opportunities in the marketplace, be it healthcare or employment opportunities. When it becomes a choice between living in the closet (probably killing yourself in said closet) or living outside the closet and getting abused for being transgender (physically, economically, psychologically, and so forth) then enough is enough. There's literally zero excuses to be made. And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Either you're on board for civil rights or you're not. There's no nuance from the opposition. The opposition made their argument and it was lacking. Deal with it. /rant
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. > And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.

Nadya 11y ago

>We no longer need to 'learn' about eugenics since it's been shown to never fit with the scientific evidence. We've replaced "eugenics" with "editing the human genome". No need to selectively breed and we can still get similar benefits of reducing terminal illnesses and increasing quality of life. It's only a question whether these changes are ethical and many groups oppose these benefits for reasons of "playing god" and secondary effects we may not be aware of. >they lost out to the evidence to the contrary on numerous points (ex. claims that transgender individuals commit more suicide post-GRS has been proven false by numerous studies) Going to need to see those studies. As a trans I opted to not undergo GRS because every single study I've read has shown that increased satisfaction and happiness post-surgery is uncommon and that increased depression, suicidal behavior, unhappiness, and regret are fairly common. Furthermore, I agree with Dr. Paul R. McHugh. Which makes be extremely unpopular among portions of the LGBT crowd. Few doctors would ever agree with Dr. McHugh. I wonder how much of that is out of fear of losing their jobs to a social justice mob if they dared to agree with what he said? This issue is the catalyst for why I'm so vehemently against the PC/SJW crowds. Their bullying tactics and censorship of any information that disagrees with their feelings actively harms people who live in the real world. I can't trust what doctors say when they would be risking their livelihood to make any claims contrary.