Serious PC thread

[Moxie]

How am I not being clear? I am being as objective as it is possible.

The general rule I think is correct is: Before the 12 weeks threshold (or any other value decided upon technically, which stands for where life starts) is legal, after it is illegal. It is legal for anencephaly and any other case where the fetus have zero chance of survival. It is legal at anytime when pregnancy poses a considerable threat to the mother's life.

The only case for which I exposed my honest doubt is rape. In this case I think the state should do everything it can to ensure that you can terminate it before the 12 weeks threshold. Gun to my head, if I had to chose between terminating or not such a pregnancy, say, in the fifth month, I would say it should not be terminated. So, yes, my ultimate value in this case is human life. My two ultimate values in general are human life and freedom, but in this case you have one party deciding the fate of another -- so this is not about freedom. By the way, there is zero religion in my position as I am an atheist.

About trivialization of abortion, we disagree. I think this already happens at least to a limited extent in some specific regions. And, again, even if it is not the case, if legislation opens the door, my whole point is that it can become trivialized.

I really did not understand the last part of your post. I brought it up as I was giving a list of topics which are obviously important for women and thus should be priorities to any good faith feminists. I do not have an agenda, if that was your point. Neither am I interested in "winning" the debate. I am not being an hypocritical when I say that we are all winning here as long as we are reading what each other writes with attention.

You know that I don't like or use to go personal, but it is curious that in your line of thought you always seem to assume that people are inherently good and honest (I am simplifying, but you got my point) -- while your approach to debate is very often focused on your interlocutor's ultimate (sometimes hidden) agenda, or motives to say the least. I am not saying that it is impossible to have both things somehow being coherent with each other, but it takes a complex world view to make it work. I say that as lighthearted as I can, as I can sense how much those topics mean to you.

Abortion is a complicated issue, and there is already a lot on the table, but before I myself bail on it, I will honor your post with a response. As to the topic being "trivialized," I think we're talking about 2 different things: in the context of politics, which I think is what you're talking about, I agree with you...that a very important, and personal, issue, gets thrown around in the political arena like a football, with point values assessed to politicians, depending on how they want to appeal to their bases. I was only talking on the personal level of a woman or couple deciding on whether or not to have one, and at that level I don't think most (though not all) women or couples take the decision lightly.

The concept of when life begins is a huge part of the debate, and so we're already on uncertain ground with that one. I notice that you don't really mention the decision of the woman who is pregnant in your above. Now, please don't jump off a cliff attacking my feminism for saying so, but I believe that the first decision goes to the mother (or the mother and father,) for their own reasons, without qualification, if it comes within the legal time limit.

As to the notion of later-term pregnancy terminations, obviously this is where things get very complicated. You have mentioned when the life of the mother is in danger, when a fetus is inviable. Also, in incidences of rape (incest also often gets mentioned here,) and as I think we all recognize, there are often very young women involved here, who may not realize they are pregnant, or are in denial for various reason until very late. All of these circumstances are deeply tragic, and I agree with you, that a society should make accommodation. Where things have become over-politicized in the US is that, because of the intransigence of this "trivialization" and bean-counting mentioned above, many states are passing laws that make even these cases not eligible for abortion. And because access to abortion has become so limited in some states, women and girls who are poor are essentially denied the right to it, because they can't afford to go where it is legal. I'm not being sensational to say that young girls who are pregnant via rape or incest in certain states, and are poor, are basically forced to give birth to children they may or may not keep, because of lack of access to safe and legal abortion.

You tell me that you don't usually get personal. But, it seems, in my case you'll make an exception. I don't seek out an agenda in other people's opinions, generally, though on an internet forum it's hard not to. On this thread, to me, it seems clear what some people think. To you all it seems clear what I think. I think I'm being reasonable in discussion, you and the others think that you are. I'm not the only one that jumps to conclusions about where the other is coming from. These are complicated things we're discussing and, as you say, we can only hope that at least we read each others posts. What we ultimately gain, I'm not sure, but perhaps a little insight.

 

[DarthFed]

The WHO link was an example of anything extreme, or it wasn't meant to be. You were talking about XX/XY as the binary definition of female/male, and I was simply offering to the conversation that there really are people that don't fit those exact chromosomal molds. You, on the other hand, posted an example of a criminal trying to escape in a disguise, which has nothing to do with transgenderism.

@DarthFed, I just have to say that I can't believe you decided to jump in and be yet another who is freaked out about the notion that trans women would go into a women's bathroom. I am sick to death of explaning this, but, news flash, they already do, and according to an article from Time that I posted a while back, without incident. Anyway, I can't really talk about the bathrooms any more. Worry about it, if you must.

The problem is you are treating the bathroom/locker room issue as though it is a typical majority rules vote. If even 1 out of 100 women in my above example had a serious issue with privacy then that'd be a problem. And we aren't even talking about a post-op trans-woman in this example. I'm saying what if I stroll into the ladies locker room and say "I'm a woman" You seriously don't see this as a problem?

Also, how about the sports issue? What if a guy ranked around 200 struggling to make a living decided to chop off his bits and compete with the women. After "she" won the calendar year slam (and "she" would) would you see that as minimal impact?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The problem is you are treating the bathroom/locker room issue as though it is a typical majority rules vote. If even 1 out of 100 women in my above example had a serious issue with privacy then that'd be a problem. And we aren't even talking about a post-op trans-woman in this example. I'm saying what if I stroll into the ladies locker room and say "I'm a woman" You seriously don't see this as a problem?

Also, how about the sports issue? What if a guy ranked around 200 struggling to make a living decided to chop off his bits and compete with the women. After "she" won the calendar year slam (and "she" would) would you see that as minimal impact?

Bro, if Roger came out like that today , he would win all the slams until he is 50 ! THAT would put some distance between him and Nadal, no?

 

[Moxie]

The problem is you are treating the bathroom/locker room issue as though it is a typical majority rules vote. If even 1 out of 100 women in my above example had a serious issue with privacy then that'd be a problem. And we aren't even talking about a post-op trans-woman in this example. I'm saying what if I stroll into the ladies locker room and say "I'm a woman" You seriously don't see this as a problem?

Also, how about the sports issue? What if a guy ranked around 200 struggling to make a living decided to chop off his bits and compete with the women. After "she" won the calendar year slam (and "she" would) would you see that as minimal impact?

I'm not treating the bathroom issue like anything, other than the non-issue that it is. What "majority rules?" I don't quite understand this point. Transwomen use women's bathrooms. It's a fact and has been for decades. There really aren't any problems with that. You strolling into a women's bathroom or changing room is NOT the same thing. It feels to me like you and the other guys are conflating transpeople and perverts. If I'm wrong about that, then you are worried that perverts will use the option to dress as women and go into their spaces and abuse them. My point has been that men find lots of ways to invade women's spaces and abuse them. I think you guys are ringing the wrong alarm bell. Note that I'm not worried about trans women using my designated "women's" spaces, and neither is Federberg's partner, nor is my sister-in-law. Yet, Federberg thinks he knows better, and so do most of you guys. I'm going to say this again: we women know a lot about where we need to put our radar up. We have a lot more to fear navigating this world that you guys do. For you guys to keep telling me what I ought to be afraid of, when I keep telling you I'm not, is a bit over-determined. (If I say "paternalistic," I'll never hear the end of it.) I keep telling you guys what we're afraid of, and you guys keep going back to something we're not. *sigh*

As to the sports issue, I prefer not to participate. Most of you guys have a hard enough time with equal pay for cis-women. I can only imagine where the rest of it would be headed. EDIT: See Murat's post above.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I'm not treating the bathroom issue like anything, other than the non-issue that it is. What "majority rules?" I don't quite understand this point. Transwomen use women's bathrooms. It's a fact and has been for decades. There really aren't any problems with that. You strolling into a women's bathroom or changing room is NOT the same thing. It feels to me like you and the other guys are conflating transpeople and perverts. If I'm wrong about that, then you are worried that perverts will use the option to dress as women and go into their spaces and abuse them. My point has been that men find lots of ways to invade women's spaces and abuse them. I think you guys are ringing the wrong alarm bell. Note that I'm not worried about trans women using my designated "women's" spaces, and neither is Federberg's partner, nor is my sister-in-law. Yet, Federberg thinks he knows better, and so do most of you guys. I'm going to say this again: we women know a lot about where we need to put our radar up. We have a lot more to fear navigating this world that you guys do. For you guys to keep telling me what I ought to be afraid of, when I keep telling you I'm not, is a bit over-determined. (If I say "paternalistic," I'll never hear the end of it.) I keep telling you guys what we're afraid of, and you guys keep going back to something we're not. *sigh*

As to the sports issue, I prefer not to participate. Most of you guys have a hard enough time with equal pay for cis-women. I can only imagine where the rest of it would be headed. EDIT: See Murat's post above.

What, fun is banned now too?

 

[Moxie]

What, fun is banned now too?

Not at all! Though I don't think there has been much "jokiness" on this thread. Serious topics. Maybe this thread has been fun for you. I have been feeling like an outlier, though, and been made to feel responsible for the end of the world. Not so much fun for me. So what about that response you were going to come up with on major reasons why women have abortions, which was your question. Not so much fun anymore?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I cannot guarantee you that . I wish I could. All I know is my experience and some other people that went through the same process as us. There is a huge waiting list for a newborn baby when you want to adopt. It is a painful process.
BUT let me say this. It is a huge ask to tell a woman to carry a baby to term when rape is involved. I have no right to do that. But I am also not fooling myself with euphemisms like "Right to choose" "Women's health issues" or "Reproductive Freedom" etc. A potential life is being terminated. I am aware of that.

OK but that's the problem now isn't it? What you guys did was beautiful and I admire it so much, but I think it's safe to say you're the minority. It's not that there aren't many parents looking to adopt, it's that the "supply" far exceeds the "demand" (I hate using those terms for this topic but you know what I mean).

 

[mrzz]

Abortion is a complicated issue, and there is already a lot on the table, but before I myself bail on it, I will honor your post with a response. As to the topic being "trivialized," I think we're talking about 2 different things: in the context of politics, which I think is what you're talking about, I agree with you...that a very important, and personal, issue, gets thrown around in the political arena like a football, with point values assessed to politicians, depending on how they want to appeal to their bases. I was only talking on the personal level of a woman or couple deciding on whether or not to have one, and at that level I don't think most (though not all) women or couples take the decision lightly.

The concept of when life begins is a huge part of the debate, and so we're already on uncertain ground with that one. I notice that you don't really mention the decision of the woman who is pregnant in your above. Now, please don't jump off a cliff attacking my feminism for saying so, but I believe that the first decision goes to the mother (or the mother and father,) for their own reasons, without qualification, if it comes within the legal time limit.

As to the notion of later-term pregnancy terminations, obviously this is where things get very complicated. You have mentioned when the life of the mother is in danger, when a fetus is inviable. Also, in incidences of rape (incest also often gets mentioned here,) and as I think we all recognize, there are often very young women involved here, who may not realize they are pregnant, or are in denial for various reason until very late. All of these circumstances are deeply tragic, and I agree with you, that a society should make accommodation. Where things have become over-politicized in the US is that, because of the intransigence of this "trivialization" and bean-counting mentioned above, many states are passing laws that make even these cases not eligible for abortion. And because access to abortion has become so limited in some states, women and girls who are poor are essentially denied the right to it, because they can't afford to go where it is legal. I'm not being sensational to say that young girls who are pregnant via rape or incest in certain states, and are poor, are basically forced to give birth to children they may or may not keep, because of lack of access to safe and legal abortion.

You tell me that you don't usually get personal. But, it seems, in my case you'll make an exception. I don't seek out an agenda in other people's opinions, generally, though on an internet forum it's hard not to. On this thread, to me, it seems clear what some people think. To you all it seems clear what I think. I think I'm being reasonable in discussion, you and the others think that you are. I'm not the only one that jumps to conclusions about where the other is coming from. These are complicated things we're discussing and, as you say, we can only hope that at least we read each others posts. What we ultimately gain, I'm not sure, but perhaps a little insight.

@Moxie, about trivialization, good point spotting the two different approaches. But, and again this is part of my point at least, you probably agree that politicians (and public figures) trivializing the matter can only push towards more and more people trivializing it at home. As you know, there are a lot of people who are basically echo chambers of public opinion. They will follow some more guide/code, and if abortion is trivialized at that level, it only pushes them in that direction.

We actually in complete agreement over your second and third paragraphs (we are kind of two stupids bricks arguing over something we ultimately agree upon). I made no mention of the woman's decision because it is basically completely equivalent to it being legal. If it is legal, it follows directly that it is her decision. Even for a married couple, common sense tells you that they will discuss it, but she won't be tied up to do what she does not want to one way or another. For me it really goes without saying, and I understand that in your political climate over there you want to see it mentioned. Anwyay, see how our discussion (in which we basically agree on a lot of things) shows that the pro-choice/pro-life distinction is an idiotic push to the extremes? Life and choice are completely entangled in any rational response to such a matter.

You raised an important point about young women being raped "inside the house" (actually most rape cases involve known parties), and that is a tough nut to crack (regarding abortion). Yes, I can see the problem there, and for sure that I agree with you that extreme no-abortion laws that you mentioned just make this already horrible situation worst. These extremist people are really a big part of the problem.

Only thing is, this is a pretty fucked up situation. There is no magic wand for it, unfortunately.

Finally, about "getting personal". As I said I was trying to be objective. You did question me directly and things started to entangle a bit too much. I see that you are engaging multiple posters at the same time, and you probably have the political climate over there in the back of your head. So I am basically trying to take one step back to take two forward... I understand that if you are arguing with some radical you simply cannot compromise, if you sense that if you lower your bar your adversary will only use your common sense against you. Well I think that is not the case here (to begin with we are not "adversaries").

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not treating the bathroom issue like anything, other than the non-issue that it is. What "majority rules?" I don't quite understand this point. Transwomen use women's bathrooms. It's a fact and has been for decades. There really aren't any problems with that. You strolling into a women's bathroom or changing room is NOT the same thing. It feels to me like you and the other guys are conflating transpeople and perverts. If I'm wrong about that, then you are worried that perverts will use the option to dress as women and go into their spaces and abuse them. My point has been that men find lots of ways to invade women's spaces and abuse them. I think you guys are ringing the wrong alarm bell. Note that I'm not worried about trans women using my designated "women's" spaces, and neither is Federberg's partner, nor is my sister-in-law. Yet, Federberg thinks he knows better, and so do most of you guys. I'm going to say this again: we women know a lot about where we need to put our radar up. We have a lot more to fear navigating this world that you guys do. For you guys to keep telling me what I ought to be afraid of, when I keep telling you I'm not, is a bit over-determined. (If I say "paternalistic," I'll never hear the end of it.) I keep telling you guys what we're afraid of, and you guys keep going back to something we're not. *sigh*

As to the sports issue, I prefer not to participate. Most of you guys have a hard enough time with equal pay for cis-women. I can only imagine where the rest of it would be headed. EDIT: See Murat's post above.

Ah but I'm not talking post-op trans people here in the locker room discussion. I'm talking about regular joes like me that can legitimately gain access to the locker room by claiming I'm a woman or that I'm in the process of becoming a woman. It's nice that you named 3 women that are comfortable with the situation, I guess that means they all feel the exact same way.

And nice cop out on the sports question. I think you see very clearly the problem there but don't want to backtrack

 

[Federberg]

I'm not treating the bathroom issue like anything, other than the non-issue that it is. What "majority rules?" I don't quite understand this point. Transwomen use women's bathrooms. It's a fact and has been for decades. There really aren't any problems with that. You strolling into a women's bathroom or changing room is NOT the same thing. It feels to me like you and the other guys are conflating transpeople and perverts. If I'm wrong about that, then you are worried that perverts will use the option to dress as women and go into their spaces and abuse them. My point has been that men find lots of ways to invade women's spaces and abuse them. I think you guys are ringing the wrong alarm bell. Note that I'm not worried about trans women using my designated "women's" spaces, and neither is Federberg's partner, nor is my sister-in-law. Yet, Federberg thinks he knows better, and so do most of you guys. I'm going to say this again: we women know a lot about where we need to put our radar up. We have a lot more to fear navigating this world that you guys do. For you guys to keep telling me what I ought to be afraid of, when I keep telling you I'm not, is a bit over-determined. (If I say "paternalistic," I'll never hear the end of it.) I keep telling you guys what we're afraid of, and you guys keep going back to something we're not. *sigh*

As to the sports issue, I prefer not to participate. Most of you guys have a hard enough time with equal pay for cis-women. I can only imagine where the rest of it would be headed. EDIT: See Murat's post above.

I don't know what part of my telling you she's on my side in this case tells you that she's supportive of chicks with dicks using the ladies

But that's by the by... your continuous attempt to interpret our legitimate concerns as fear based can easily be re-framed as a contest between our realism and your faith in best case outcomes. Consider another topical issue where the best case outcome is promoted, what is it they say? "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

You would thing this is a joke. It is not. That woman is Canadian, came up with the term in 2013. There is even a hashtag for fartrape on Twitter. One wonders who would come up with a concept like this, like what kind of sick twisted mind...There you go. When you are an entitled spoiled brat, this is what you come up with. Women in the rest of the world worry about real rape.

 

[calitennis127]

I think you guys are ringing the wrong alarm bell. Note that I'm not worried about trans women using my designated "women's" spaces, and neither is Federberg's partner, nor is my sister-in-law. Yet, Federberg thinks he knows better, and so do most of you guys. I'm going to say this again: we women know a lot about where we need to put our radar up. We have a lot more to fear navigating this world that you guys do. For you guys to keep telling me what I ought to be afraid of, when I keep telling you I'm not, is a bit over-determined.

The issue with you is not that you may or may not have fears about sexual harassment or mistreatment in certain places or contexts. That is understandable. The issue with you is that you deify those whom you regard as victims of historic discrimination, such as the transgendered, and you place them above any criticism whatsoever. You talk of trans people as if not only are they their own species, but that they are angelic and should be treated like a beautiful form of whale that might go extinct if we don't take adequate measures to protect it.

I personally think the "logic" of transgenderism is absurd. But you take your social advocacy to an even more absurd level than most people do by describing the transgendered as if they are the finest pieces of jewelry in the world and should be revered like religious relics.

Also, for the record: while I think the #metoo movement was a case of excess and very often hypocrisy, I do think there is some truth in the assertion that many women have been sexually mistreated by men in recent years, especially by Democratic Party predators such as Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and Justin Fairfax. It's mostly a Democratic male problem.

 

[calitennis127]

You would thing this is a joke. It is not. That woman is Canadian, came up with the term in 2013. There is even a hashtag for fartrape on Twitter. One wonders who would come up with a concept like this, like what kind of sick twisted mind...There you go. When you are an entitled spoiled brat, this is what you come up with. Women in the rest of the world worry about real rape.View attachment 2522

Lol.....that is funny murat. You are absolutely right about white women in the West today. While men focus almost entirely on sports, they are polluting the general culture with irrational nonsense like this. It is the result of material comfort mixed in with educational degradation and the absence of any kind of intellectual rigor or high culture in Western societies anymore.

 

[calitennis127]

It is interesting to see Darth now being tough on the transgender issue, but to be honest, the kind of arbitrary and nihilistic reasoning that Moxie and others demonstrate on this question is predictable in light of gay marriage being sanctified - which Darth said many times in the past that he supported. The problem is that the logic of gay marriage is entirely absurd and it is bound to lead to dozens of mutations that are not going to stop until society completely degenerates into a herd of aimless and self-destructive individuals.

This is the logic of gay marriage, which Darth and others expressed support for in the past: that two consenting adults - regardless of sexual orientation or traditional social inhibitions - should have the right to get married if they "love" each other. As we all know, love is very often subjective, whimsical, and fleeting, so the institution of marriage is reduced to mere feelings and nothing else.

In fact, by this logic, it is hard to see how much of anything can be denied. Why can't a 25-year-old woman marry her 55-year-old dad if they "love" each other? Why can't a 20-year-old female marry her 28-year-old male cousin if they "love" each other?

 

[mrzz]

You would thing this is a joke. It is not. That woman is Canadian, came up with the term in 2013. There is even a hashtag for fartrape on Twitter. One wonders who would come up with a concept like this, like what kind of sick twisted mind...There you go. When you are an entitled spoiled brat, this is what you come up with. Women in the rest of the world worry about real rape.View attachment 2522

This fully belongs to PC bullshit thread. It may actually be the GPCBSOAT. The point is that it must not be a joke for the ones who are coming up with this, but it is bullshit for the one who posts it here...

 

[mrzz]

It is interesting to see Darth now being tough on the transgender issue, but to be honest, the kind of arbitrary and nihilistic reasoning that Moxie and others demonstrate on this question is predictable in light of gay marriage being sanctified - which Darth said many times in the past that he supported. The problem is that the logic of gay marriage is entirely absurd and it is bound to lead to dozens of mutations that are not going to stop until society completely degenerates into a herd of aimless and self-destructive individuals.

This is the logic of gay marriage, which Darth and others expressed support for in the past: that two consenting adults - regardless of sexual orientation or traditional social inhibitions - should have the right to get married if they "love" each other. As we all know, love is very often subjective, whimsical, and fleeting, so the institution of marriage is reduced to mere feelings and nothing else.

In fact, by this logic, it is hard to see how much of anything can be denied. Why can't a 25-year-old woman marry her 55-year-old dad if they "love" each other? Why can't a 20-year-old female marry her 28-year-old male cousin if they "love" each other?

Marriage is a civil contract, Cali (might not be using the correct english term), guided by moral standards. I don't kick the doors of my gay neighbors couples if they decide to live together as well as have sex with each other. So if people can live with it, legislation must follow accordingly.

The problem you see here, I suppose, is not the marriage itself, but the next logical step, adoption. This is the uncharted social territory that could be discussed rationally. It won't, though.

 

[DarthFed]

It is interesting to see Darth now being tough on the transgender issue, but to be honest, the kind of arbitrary and nihilistic reasoning that Moxie and others demonstrate on this question is predictable in light of gay marriage being sanctified - which Darth said many times in the past that he supported. The problem is that the logic of gay marriage is entirely absurd and it is bound to lead to dozens of mutations that are not going to stop until society completely degenerates into a herd of aimless and self-destructive individuals.

This is the logic of gay marriage, which Darth and others expressed support for in the past: that two consenting adults - regardless of sexual orientation or traditional social inhibitions - should have the right to get married if they "love" each other. As we all know, love is very often subjective, whimsical, and fleeting, so the institution of marriage is reduced to mere feelings and nothing else.

In fact, by this logic, it is hard to see how much of anything can be denied. Why can't a 25-year-old woman marry her 55-year-old dad if they "love" each other? Why can't a 20-year-old female marry her 28-year-old male cousin if they "love" each other?

lol, man you got enough people giving you attention already. And being the ultimate attention whore that you are, i'm guessing you're a pig in shit right now so why drag me into this? I don't think I've ever talked about gay marriage on here anyways.

 

[Federberg]

It's mostly a Democratic male problem.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

This fully belongs to PC bullshit thread. It may actually be the GPCBSOAT. The point is that it must not be a joke for the ones who are coming up with this, but it is bullshit for the one who posts it here...

There are actual jokes when it comes to PC stuff. But if a person takes it seriously and holds me accountable to their standards, then it is not a joke for me anymore. You should see the cases the Ontario Human Rights tribunal is agreeing to see in Canada. No one is laughing, trust me.

 

[Federberg]

I'll speak for myself... I don't endorse Cali's views