Colorado club shooter is non-binary, CNN repeatedly misgenders them.

[TomC]

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

THE IRONY! IT BURNS!
Tom

Truly ironic..

Thanx for sharing.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

So, when you refuse neopronouns, why are you acting like a toddler? Or have I mistaken your stance. Do you in fact mean to say we need to learn neopronouns as well?

Because you're refusing a simple request for no particular reason, when it would cost you nothing to just be polite about it.

No. I'm not refusing it for no particular reason, and no, it would not cost me nothing. In fact, it beggars belief you think this after all I've written about exactly what the cost is.

 

[ZiprHead]

So, when you refuse neopronouns, why are you acting like a toddler? Or have I mistaken your stance. Do you in fact mean to say we need to learn neopronouns as well?

Because you're refusing a simple request for no particular reason, when it would cost you nothing to just be polite about it.

No. I'm not refusing it for no particular reason, and no, it would not cost me nothing. In fact, it beggars belief you think this after all I've written about exactly what the cost is.

Is that cost in Yen? Rubles, Pounds, Rupees?

Quatloos?

I bet it's Quatloos.

 

[Metaphor]

So, when you refuse neopronouns, why are you acting like a toddler? Or have I mistaken your stance. Do you in fact mean to say we need to learn neopronouns as well?

Because you're refusing a simple request for no particular reason, when it would cost you nothing to just be polite about it.

No. I'm not refusing it for no particular reason, and no, it would not cost me nothing. In fact, it beggars belief you think this after all I've written about exactly what the cost is.

Is that cost in Yen? Rubles, Pounds, Rupees?

Quatloos?

I bet it's Quatloos.

No.

 

[Arctish]

Anyone interested in learning more about gender expression in different cultures, and the sometimes terrible punishments gender conformists in our Western culture inflict on them, might want to watch this Independent Lens documentary: Two Spirits.

You can watch a short clip about the four genders in Navajo culture here. You can keep watching for more clips from the documentary, but I recommend watching the whole thing.

 

[Metaphor]

We trust that you have the skills to do both at the same time.

Laughing dog accused me of virtue signalling, which is such a ridiculous inversion of reality it beggars belief LD believes it.

To virtue signal is to make a show of having the correct beliefs, to an audience who thinks similarly and will approve of your beliefs. You build up social capital by doing so.

It should be quite obvious to anybody in the Anglosphere that I do NOT have the correct beliefs, that revelation of my beliefs would NOT gain me social capital, and in fact would COST me social capital.

So whatever it is I'm doing by making posts on this forum, it is not virtue signalling.

 

[Toni]

Anyone interested in learning more about gender expression in different cultures, and the sometimes terrible punishments gender conformists in our Western culture inflict on them, might want to watch this Independent Lens documentary: Two Spirits.

You can watch a short clip about the four genders in Navajo culture here. You can keep watching for more clips from the documentary, but I recommend watching the whole thing.

Thank you for bringing this. I hadn't had time to look to see if I could find something about Two Spirited people. There are many civilizations and cultures throughout the world and history that recognized and even revered people we would consider gender non-conforming.

 

[Toni]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

We are not using the power of the state to force anything upon you.

That is false wherever there are State-imposed penalties for pronoun usage. That includes the jurisdiction where I live and work.

They/them is readily available for you to say something which requires NO belief.

Of course it requires a belief: it requires the belief that I think pronouns refer to gender of the target. I do not believe that and that is at odds with the use of pronouns in English.

You do not need to believe someone is not a man to use "they/them". You do not need to believe someone is not a woman to use "they/them". You can always use it and unless someone is being unreasonable about demanding validation: a statement of positive belief.

I have already explained how it is a violation of a positive belief.

They/them does not even validate that someone is not a man or woman, by whatever definition. It is agnostic in its entirety.

It is, of course, not agnostic to sex at all, except in specific circumstances when sex is unknown.

If I am forced to use 'they/them' when the sex of a person is known to me, that is forcing me to utter things I do not believe.

When you demand the power of the state be leveraged to call people "women" or "men", to demand people do not even call themselves "women" or "men" or even "neither woman nor man", you are imposing on folks.

I do not demand the power of the State for any such thing. You are so hellbent on imposing on others you don't even realise when you are projecting.

You can call yourself whatever you want. You have zero right to make me call you that.

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

 

[laughing dog]

We trust that you have the skills to do both at the same time.

Laughing dog accused me of virtue signalling, which is such a ridiculous inversion of reality it beggars belief LD believes it.

To virtue signal is to make a show of having the correct beliefs, to an audience who thinks similarly and will approve of your beliefs. You build up social capital by doing so.

It should be quite obvious to anybody in the Anglosphere that I do NOT have the correct beliefs, that revelation of my beliefs would NOT gain me social capital, and in fact would COST me social capital.

So whatever it is I'm doing by making posts on this forum, it is not virtue signalling.

You are virtue signalling about  Virtue_signalling!!! You make an idiosyncratic definition (par for your course) to defend your position. The puritanical condescension drips from your posts, Metaphor. It is almost as if you are deliberatly parodying  The_Church_Lady.

BTW, there are true believers of your religion in these threads.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I don't seek things out in the U.S. I seek out instances of gender ideology's negative effects and I find them and I post about them. Gender ideology is permeating the Anglosphere.

Also, I've already related some of my personal experiences. That did not gain more "weight" for my concerns. I was accused by Rhea of being selfish because I didn't want to be discriminated against.

 

[Jarhyn]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

We are not using the power of the state to force anything upon you.

That is false wherever there are State-imposed penalties for pronoun usage. That includes the jurisdiction where I live and work.

They/them is readily available for you to say something which requires NO belief.

Of course it requires a belief: it requires the belief that I think pronouns refer to gender of the target. I do not believe that and that is at odds with the use of pronouns in English.

You do not need to believe someone is not a man to use "they/them". You do not need to believe someone is not a woman to use "they/them". You can always use it and unless someone is being unreasonable about demanding validation: a statement of positive belief.

I have already explained how it is a violation of a positive belief.

They/them does not even validate that someone is not a man or woman, by whatever definition. It is agnostic in its entirety.

It is, of course, not agnostic to sex at all, except in specific circumstances when sex is unknown.

If I am forced to use 'they/them' when the sex of a person is known to me, that is forcing me to utter things I do not believe.

When you demand the power of the state be leveraged to call people "women" or "men", to demand people do not even call themselves "women" or "men" or even "neither woman nor man", you are imposing on folks.

I do not demand the power of the State for any such thing. You are so hellbent on imposing on others you don't even realise when you are projecting.

You can call yourself whatever you want. You have zero right to make me call you that.

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I think it's hard though because it boils down to some people insisting that they have the right to call other people "women" or "men" on the basis of their beliefs over what makes other people "women" or "men".

Many women I know and many men I know would all take offense at being called the other. In fact it's almost a sure way to make just about anyone furious.

Publicly spoken it could be deemed a slander over BELIEF.

It creates a situation where the most correct action seems to be compelling those who do not accept the beliefs of others to remain silent about or treat agnostically those beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not violate a material concern, at least in situations where the served has no choice of service (government and healthcare).

Masks in a time of disease? That is a material concern. The ability to forcibly impregnate someone? That is, in at least a few situations, a material concern. Hormone exposure? That is a material concern too, on occasion.

The government at least in the US is not allowed to discriminate on belief, and they sure as shit shouldn't be discriminating on the basis of an innate self-image, and they shouldn't allow persecution on those bases either.

That's what Australia's law was most likely attempting to address: something that has much similarity to persecution in an ethical sense. It didn't address it in a very useful way, but the fact is that publicly contradicting someone's self image within that bounds is a form of persecution.

Does it rise to the level of a need for government intervention? It IS a form of persecution which, when given leave to happen, often leads to deadly results.

Still, I would prefer merely sticking to the consequences offered by a society of individuals capable of spotting and rejecting such persecution through castigation and other social means, and through responsive (never preemptive) and temporary ejection from private places where there is an expectation of polity.

Still if someone finds themselves unwelcome at their favorite bar, disliked by most people, and unable to hold a job because they keep violating expectations of polity, that's a self inflicted injury I take little pity on except to teach the willing how to stop fucking up.

 

[Metaphor]

I think it's hard though because it boils down to some people insisting that they have the right to call other people "women" or "men" on the basis of their beliefs over what makes other people "women" or "men".

Of course we have the right. The words are not magical. There's nothing in those words that are slanderous. Tell me, do you have the right to believe I am white? Or, if I insist that I am not white, than I am black, do you have to call me black because I demand it?

Many women I know and many men I know would all take offense at being called the other. In fact it's almost a sure way to make just about anyone furious.

Publicly spoken it could be deemed a slander over BELIEF.

It creates a situation where the most correct action seems to be compelling those who do not accept the beliefs of others to remain silent about or treat agnostically those beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not violate a material concern, at least in situations where the served has no choice of service (government and healthcare).

Masks in a time of disease? That is a material concern. The ability to forcibly impregnate someone? That is, in at least a few situations, a material concern. Hormone exposure? That is a material concern too, on occasion.

The government at least in the US is not allowed to discriminate on belief, and they sure as shit shouldn't be discriminating on the basis of an innate self-image, and they shouldn't allow persecution on those bases either.

That's what Australia's law was most likely attempting to address: something that has much similarity to persecution in an ethical sense. It didn't address it in a very useful way, but the fact is that publicly contradicting someone's self image within that bounds is a form of persecution.

Does it rise to the level of a need for government intervention? It IS a form of persecution which, when given leave to happen, often leads to deadly results.

Still, I would prefer merely sticking to the consequences offered by a society of individuals capable of spotting and rejecting such persecution through castigation and other social means, and through responsive (never preemptive) and temporary ejection from private places where there is an expectation of polity.

Still if someone finds themselves unwelcome at their favorite bar, disliked by most people, and unable to hold a job because they keep violating expectations of polity, that's a self inflicted injury I take little pity on except to teach the willing how to stop fucking up.

This coming from somebody who openly objected to a males-with-natal-penises only camping ground.

 

[laughing dog]

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

THE IRONY! IT BURNS!
Tom

Truly ironic..

Thanx for sharing.
Tom

Too bad I cannot say the same.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course we have the right

The right to, with impugnity, persecute others?

There's nothing in those words that are slanderous

So if I were to call you a "woman" wpuld you consider it slanderous?

That's a trick question, I did once and you did consider it slanderous.

do you have to call me black because I demand it?

I think I've laid out a case that I don't. I just have to not call you "white". I don't have to affirm your identity, so long as I can simply not address it.

If you claim rights of passage which you have not earned to a cultural identity, then beware that culture's response to claiming unearned rites of passage.

Of course I would again lean on a social resolution. The government won't generally arrest you for it.

This coming from somebody who openly objected to a males-with-natal-penises only camping ground

Yes. I openly socially castigated it.

Which if you read this part, you might understand how silly your response is:
Still, I would prefer merely sticking to the consequences offered by a society of individuals capable of spotting and rejecting such persecution through castigation and other social means, and through responsive (never preemptive) and temporary ejection from private places where there is an expectation of polity

It is the difference between individual social response, and uniform legal response.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course we have the right

The right to, with impugnity, persecute others?

I reject the premise of your question.

So if I were to call you a "woman" wpuld you consider it slanderous?

No.

That's a trick question, I did once and you did consider it slanderous.

I don't know to what you are referring, and what you think slander is.

I think I've laid out a case that I don't. I just have to not call you "white". I don't have to affirm your identity, so long as I can simply not address it.

You have the right to call me white, even if I object. Feel free.

If you claim rights of passage which you have not earned to a cultural identity, then beware that culture's response to claiming unearned rites of passage.

I see. So, ethnic cultures are allowed to gatekeep, but the people in a sex class by birth are not.

Yes. I openly socially castigated it.

Which if you read this part, you might understand how silly your response is:
Still, I would prefer merely sticking to the consequences offered by a society of individuals capable of spotting and rejecting such persecution through castigation and other social means, and through responsive (never preemptive) and temporary ejection from private places where there is an expectation of polity

It is the difference between individual social response, and uniform legal response.

Why do you socially castigate people's sexual preference?

 

[Toni]

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I don't seek things out in the U.S. I seek out instances of gender ideology's negative effects and I find them and I post about them. Gender ideology is permeating the Anglosphere.

Also, I've already related some of my personal experiences. That did not gain more "weight" for my concerns. I was accused by Rhea of being selfish because I didn't want to be discriminated against.

Ok, but you come across as seeking out things to rage about. I think you get exactly the kind of responses you want from these exchanges. I was hoping you might want a different kind of conversation.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I don't seek things out in the U.S. I seek out instances of gender ideology's negative effects and I find them and I post about them. Gender ideology is permeating the Anglosphere.

Also, I've already related some of my personal experiences. That did not gain more "weight" for my concerns. I was accused by Rhea of being selfish because I didn't want to be discriminated against.

Ok, but you come across as seeking out things to rage about. I think you get exactly the kind of responses you want from these exchanges. I was hoping you might want a different kind of conversation.

No. Strawmen, ridicule, hate, insinuations and slander concocted from whole cloth, and mocking dismissal are not the kind of responses I want.

 

[Toni]

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I don't seek things out in the U.S. I seek out instances of gender ideology's negative effects and I find them and I post about them. Gender ideology is permeating the Anglosphere.

Also, I've already related some of my personal experiences. That did not gain more "weight" for my concerns. I was accused by Rhea of being selfish because I didn't want to be discriminated against.

Ok, but you come across as seeking out things to rage about. I think you get exactly the kind of responses you want from these exchanges. I was hoping you might want a different kind of conversation.

No. Strawmen, ridicule, hate, insinuations and slander concocted from whole cloth, and mocking dismissal are not the kind of responses I want.

I’m writing this with absolutely nothing but the best intentions: maybe change your approach a little?

 

[Metaphor]

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I don't seek things out in the U.S. I seek out instances of gender ideology's negative effects and I find them and I post about them. Gender ideology is permeating the Anglosphere.

Also, I've already related some of my personal experiences. That did not gain more "weight" for my concerns. I was accused by Rhea of being selfish because I didn't want to be discriminated against.

Ok, but you come across as seeking out things to rage about. I think you get exactly the kind of responses you want from these exchanges. I was hoping you might want a different kind of conversation.

No. Strawmen, ridicule, hate, insinuations and slander concocted from whole cloth, and mocking dismissal are not the kind of responses I want.

I’m writing this with absolutely nothing but the best intentions: maybe change your approach a little?

Toni, I did not solicit your advice, and neither am I inclined to take the advice of somebody who misrepresented my views continually for years, despite being corrected dozens of times.

 

[Toni]

I'm just going to throw this out there but:

I think your concerns would have a great deal more weight or at the very least might garner more sympathy if instead of seeking out something in the US that irritates you in Australia, you simply laid out your case: This is what is happening in Australia/my part of Australia/my employer/whatever the case may be and here are the ill effects I see and how it negatively impacts me.

And something like: This is how it could play out for all of you on your side of the world.

People might still not agree with you but you might get some to see your point of view, even if ultimately they don't agree or fully agree.

I don't seek things out in the U.S. I seek out instances of gender ideology's negative effects and I find them and I post about them. Gender ideology is permeating the Anglosphere.

Also, I've already related some of my personal experiences. That did not gain more "weight" for my concerns. I was accused by Rhea of being selfish because I didn't want to be discriminated against.

Ok, but you come across as seeking out things to rage about. I think you get exactly the kind of responses you want from these exchanges. I was hoping you might want a different kind of conversation.

No. Strawmen, ridicule, hate, insinuations and slander concocted from whole cloth, and mocking dismissal are not the kind of responses I want.

I’m writing this with absolutely nothing but the best intentions: maybe change your approach a little?

Toni, I did not solicit your advice, and neither am I inclined to take the advice of somebody who misrepresented my views continually for years, despite being corrected dozens of times.

Cool. My advice was unsolicited, that's true. It was still genuinely and kindly meant.