The Honesty of Transgender Identity

[Archie Moses]

You expect that all transgendered people should immediately identify themselves as transgendered before a first date, but the cisgendered only need to so identify if there is a question of some sort.

I don't think that this is unfair nor a double standard.

It's a very small percentage of people who identify as as trans, so to expect cisgender people to identify that not only do they look like the gender they are but they have the biological parts too is unreasonable and probably not needed. I have no problem doing it if I were asked because I want to be on the same page as someone I'm dating. It's just not a dating norm in my experience. I'd be interested in hearing otherwise too.

Breaking down sexuality is more than just being attracted to a certain gender someone identifies with. It also has to do with physical and biological traits, parts, and chemistry. Online dating sites (a lot of them in my experience) asks you to list both your gender and sexual preference so you can match with people with similar expectations.

The trans girl I went on a date with, I met on Tinder. She never communicated to me she was trans prior to meeting and her pictures were 100% doctored/photoshopped to hide her more masculine traits. She looked pretty to me and I asked her to get coffee with me. Granted, I never asked if she was trans, nor have I ever asked that to anyone in the past I've gone on a date with . I have to believe she knew this was a big thing for most people and most people would want to know this before going out. I understand why she hid it from me and it must suck when you tell people you're interested in that your trans and they immediately say no thanks. At the end of the day though, it should be communicated to see if you're on the same page because it is different. Denying that, or turning a blind eye to it is deceptive. Once I brought this up to the girl she initially denied it, got upset and slammed my door. I have to believe she knows it's a big deal and was deceptive about it because of fear of rejection. I would suggest to her to be her and to what someone who accepts her for her. If she tells someone and they're not interested, she should want someone different.

 

[Gameface]

I don't think that this is unfair nor a double standard.

It's a very small percentage of people who identify as as trans, so to expect cisgender people to identify that not only do they look like the gender they are but they have the biological parts too is unreasonable and probably not needed. I have no problem doing it if I were asked because I want to be on the same page as someone I'm dating. It's just not a dating norm in my experience. I'd be interested in hearing otherwise too.

Breaking down sexuality is more than just being attracted to a certain gender someone identifies with. It also has to do with physical and biological traits, parts, and chemistry. Online dating sites (a lot of them in my experience) asks you to list both your gender and sexual preference so you can match with people with similar expectations.

The trans girl I went on a date with, I met on Tinder. She never communicated to me she was trans prior to meeting and her pictures were 100% doctored/photoshopped to hide her more masculine traits. She looked pretty to me and I asked her to get coffee with me. Granted, I never asked if she was trans, nor have I ever asked that to anyone in the past I've gone on a date with . I have to believe she knew this was a big thing for most people and most people would want to know this before going out. I understand why she hid it from me and it must suck when you tell people you're interested in that your trans and they immediately say no thanks. At the end of the day though, it should be communicated to see if you're on the same page because it is different. Denying that, or turning a blind eye to it is deceptive. Once I brought this up to the girl she initially denied it, got upset and slammed my door. I have to believe she knows it's a big deal and was deceptive about it because of fear of rejection. I would suggest to her to be her and to what someone who accepts her for her. If she tells someone and they're not interested, she should want someone different.

Not to mention the very very real possibility that many men could become violent if they feel they were tricked into intimacy with a trans person. Even just kissing, hugging, holding hands. I think a trans person, for their own safety, should be upfront about it.

 

[Archie Moses]

Not to mention the very very real possibility that many men could become violent if they feel they were tricked into intimacy with a trans person. Even just kissing, hugging, holding hands. I think a trans person, for their own safety, should be upfront about it.

It's happened before too, sadly. All I could think of when I picked her up was I'm 99.9% sure she is a trans woman and what to do. I didn't want to offend her and wanted to be as level-headed and understanding as possible, but I still kind of panicked. I'm glad with how I handled it though. Had this been years earlier in my life, I probably would have been a super big jerk and said some unkind things out of frustration. With that said, when I was 21 I was catfished on myspace - it's a long story, but ultimately I found someone who went to school with the girl I was talking to online and they showed me the real picture of her. I called the girl who catfished me and called her out. I remember feeling really bad for her (she was morbidly obese and not the best looking) and understanding of why she did it. I told her she was a really sweet person and had a beautiful personality and it was a shame she had to lie to me and steal someone's pics. I asked her not do it and to try and find someone she could talk to to help her.

I have a lot of really weird dating stories I could write a book about. With my last job, I used to travel to SoCal practically every other week. One time while I was in Irvine, someone sent me a PM on instagram saying they were being catfished by me. Basically, she had been talking to some dude from Canada who said he was a cop and was using my pictures. She found me on tinder (because her friend saw and recognized me) when I was there and knew one of us was lying. She looked up my IG afterward she saw my tinder account and knew that I was the real me because of all of the pics I had. The other guy only had a few of my pics (don't know how he got them to this day) and told her he couldn't put pictures online because of his job. She sent me a PM explaining she fell in love with a guy who catfished her using my pics. She talked to him for 8 or 9 months and almost and hour or more each day. She was absolutely devastated, furious and shocked. I sent a few messages to her basically saying wow and her story was crazy. Then I noticed she was pretty cute and we ended up talking and I asked her out. Basically, the guy who catfished her did all the hard work for me.

 

[babe]

Ya harassing those poor parents of the dead children is the truth. stfu with that trash.

Here's a rational view on the subject:

http://theconversation.com/falsehoods-sandy-hook-and-suing-alex-jones-97056

I should sue you for falsely implying, online, that I said something relevant or supportive of Jones' questions about Sandy Hook being staged and the characters in the drama being "actors". I saw a lot of stuff fer an' agin online back when Sandy Hook was news. I understood Jones' evidence was weak, but I thought it worth looking at for a few minutes. Some folks can discuss stuff they don't know without being malicious, deliberately lying, or hating anyone. A lot of things get suspected of being political "False Flag" events run by psy-op units of guvmint, so I guess in your world nobody gets to talk about any of that.

Transgendered or whatever folks should sue everyone in this thread for questioning or discussing stuff that could hurt their feelings too.

So, you are a bit perturbed that I said something about your enthusiasm for AI technology and the possibilities for the future? You do know people with enough money to access cutting edge medical applications are doing stuff to their bodies, right? So sue me for talking about you. It's a lot more effective than just discussing stuff online when somebody says something wrong.

People like the Sandy Hook parents have gone online to push for political results. Anyone who cares whether their kids are alive can do about three clicks to get enough information to settle the question in their minds about the realities of the case.

It will be interesting to see what happens in court, but I suspect the case will be settled outta court.

Stuff like fb or Google taking actions to limit Jones' access is also going to be interesting, legally. At some point in time, when private online enterprises act arbitrarily or without evidence to suppress free speech, the Courts will make them eat the damages in million-dollar bites.

 

[MVP]

On the other hand, if I just mark a person male or female as I see them, without regard to their preference (which was the behavior you objected to), it's all good?

No, I did not object that. They can identify as whatever legal gender definition is in their respective country. And you as official worker should fill the paperwork according to the law. Why are you trying to make it so complicated? If O or X is not legal definition than they should identify as F or M.

 

[MVP]

Thus, according to your logic above, the university would be right to fire him for it.

Not unless university has a law about made up pronouns.

 

[babe]

And this is why I've given up on having meaningful conversations with you.

nah, you haven't given up on that. You just gave up on posting your extensive file of actual relevant news CNN does, because it's too much trouble sifting through all the trash to find some that aren't.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-and-msnbc-ratings/

some say CNN still ranks above most, as this 2014 graph.... still high in the google search.....

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3

and oh, wow.... here is a report everyone already knows is true....

https://knightfoundation.org/reports/perceived-accuracy-and-bias-in-the-news-media

Clearly, credulity is a partisan game, but CNN viewership has declined.

https://deadline.com/2018/01/cable-2017-network-ratings-rankings-scorecard-1202235144/

 

[MVP]

This map shows countries which officially recognize 3d gender. Blue - Nonbinary / third gender option available as voluntary opt-in Yellow - Opt-in for intersex people only Orange - Mandatory for some born intersex, and opt in Red - Mandatory for some born intersex Grey - Nonbinary / third gender option not legally recognized / no data

 

[Gameface]

nah, you haven't given up on that. You just gave up on posting your extensive file of actual relevant news CNN does, because it's too much trouble sifting through all the trash to find some that aren't.

Nah, I find stuff every day. I've never once sifted through it, I pick stuff from the front page of their website.
You're a joke and this stupid *** response to my post is a perfect example of what kind of joke you are.

 

[Siro]

Here's a rational view on the subject:

http://theconversation.com/falsehoods-sandy-hook-and-suing-alex-jones-97056

I should sue you for falsely implying, online, that I said something relevant or supportive of Jones' questions about Sandy Hook being staged and the characters in the drama being "actors". I saw a lot of stuff fer an' agin online back when Sandy Hook was news. I understood Jones' evidence was weak, but I thought it worth looking at for a few minutes. Some folks can discuss stuff they don't know without being malicious, deliberately lying, or hating anyone. A lot of things get suspected of being political "False Flag" events run by psy-op units of guvmint, so I guess in your world nobody gets to talk about any of that.

Transgendered or whatever folks should sue everyone in this thread for questioning or discussing stuff that could hurt their feelings too.

So, you are a bit perturbed that I said something about your enthusiasm for AI technology and the possibilities for the future? You do know people with enough money to access cutting edge medical applications are doing stuff to their bodies, right? So sue me for talking about you. It's a lot more effective than just discussing stuff online when somebody says something wrong.

People like the Sandy Hook parents have gone online to push for political results. Anyone who cares whether their kids are alive can do about three clicks to get enough information to settle the question in their minds about the realities of the case.

It will be interesting to see what happens in court, but I suspect the case will be settled outta court.

Stuff like fb or Google taking actions to limit Jones' access is also going to be interesting, legally. At some point in time, when private online enterprises act arbitrarily or without evidence to suppress free speech, the Courts will make them eat the damages in million-dollar bites.

If you don't find harassing parents of murdered children in order to drive up the profits from his ignorant audience malicious, then you're too far lost in your dogma to have a meaningful conversation with. Sorry.

 

[Gameface]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

"Defamation of character" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages.
Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same opinions or beliefs. For instance, political opponents often reach opposite conclusions from the same facts, and editorial cartoonists often exaggerate facts to make their point.

What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

• published
• false
• injurious
• unprivileged

Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be

 

[babe]

If you don't find harassing parents of murdered children in order to drive up the profits from his ignorant audience malicious, then you're too far lost in your dogma to have a meaningful conversation with. Sorry.

you've got nothing to be sorry about. You still get to think and say what you want. Me being here means I'm open to comments and should not be too sensitive about stuff people think. Same with anyone who goes online with political opinions or advocacy. Even when you're using your child's death to push your cause. It's called free speech.

 

[babe]

Nah, I find stuff every day. I've never once sifted through it, I pick stuff from the front page of their website.
You're a joke and this stupid *** response to my post is a perfect example of what kind of joke you are.

I didn't say you didn't believe CNN is good news. I supported my barb about CNN with a little objective reporting from elsewhere. It's a matter of opinion since CNN's reporting is objectively one-sided, whether you believe it or not.

 

[Siro]

you've got nothing to be sorry about. You still get to think and say what you want. Me being here means I'm open to comments and should not be too sensitive about stuff people think. Same with anyone who goes online with political opinions or advocacy. Even when you're using your child's death to push your cause. It's called free speech.

They wanted better gun control only because their children were murder. How horrible of them. You're being totally reasonable here. You don't come off at all like an ideologue who will defend his heroes regardless of their actions.

 

[Zombie]

Same with anyone Even when you're using your child's death to push your cause. It's called free speech.

With all due respect, go **** yourself with this ****. “Using your child’s death to push your cause”...what an absurd thing to think, much less say.

 

[babe]

They wanted better gun control only because their children were murder. How horrible of them. You're being totally reasonable here. You don't come off at all like an ideologue who will defend his heroes regardless of their actions.

I get it that you're sorta cool with strong ideas of conformity to societal norms, not much like the oldtime American backwoodsmen who felt crowded when someone started chopping a spot in the woods within a day's walk, anxious to move on to where you needn't be bothered by what someone else thinks. Circa the 1790-1820s east if the Mississippi and west of the Appalachians.

Some of those folks would as soon take a scalp as give one, but if anyone wanted to barter they'd look for some advantage in doing so, whether with red, black or white. The Cherokees tried to adopt mainstream values but hey, their lands had some rivers you could pan for gold, so they were marched out west of the Mississippi where nobody cared about those semi-arid sand dunes with grass and buffalo. yet....... and still knew nothing about oil.....

Life has probably always been unjust, and likely will continue to be under your kind of ignorance. You're so full of yourself that you know exactly what everyone else should think or say. Having inviolable human rights like freedom of speech or belief can be a little rough on the tender-hearted. But such strong moral imperatives as yours, driven home with contempt or hate, is no improvement.

I have not defended Alex Jones with one word in this exchange, and the fact is Alex Jones did not murder anyone. He had a guy with some pics taken from news coverage, pointing out inconsistencies in the general story being pushed by the mainstream media.

For all I know, Alex Jones may still think there is reason to doubt the conventional story line. I don't listen to him enough to know.

If I had a show promoting my views of the news, I might get the same guy to come on...… but I'd be a bit slow getting certain about what he says, and I'd be looking to ask questions to see if his view is justified by facts somehow. Then I'd probably get on the horn and call some of the folks who were being filmed by CNN or others, and implore them to come talk to the guy face to face. I might ask some more questions of both groups. Might need some strong bouncers or muscle or security officers of some kind, but I'd insist on courtesy or you don't get paid for showing.

I can understand the natural sympathy people whose kids have been shot by a drugged, psycololgically messed up hollow mesmerized zombie for no reason. I'd probably want to interview the professional psychological professionals who had dealt with him, too. I'd be asking why we don't do something about the medications that are so often in the background of incidents like this.

Don't you know that it is documented science that some drugs do sometimes impair the brain centers responsible for governing choices with feedback about consequences of actions.....

I do seriously believe CNN is responsible for helping, with the assistance of other deranged media outlets, for sensationalizing events like this with the factual consequence of being suggestive to other cognitively, mentally, or decision-impaired younger folks. Not a lot of these shooters are over 40, ya know.

So I will maintain CNN (and others) is just as irresponsible and unworthy of respect as Jones (and others) hell bent on making political hay outta human tragedy.

I call out the media for being wrongly motivated to exploit tragedies, and for putting suffering families in the cross hairs of political debates. What they, and some of the posters in JFC do, is seriously wrong. Just as bad as Alex Jones, bro.

 

[babe]

With all due respect, go **** yourself with this ****. “Using your child’s death to push your cause”...what an absurd thing to think, much less say.

If this case gets to court, there's about a ton of TV footage showing the plaintiffs in front of cameras for the express purpose of making political points. They put themselves in this position, with the assistance of some news crews just as intent on pushing the politics.

I don't really trust courts anymore. too much political utility. But if we lose freedom of speech under a culture of abuse and intolerance of others, as you have exemplified above, it will be your loss as much as mine.

and, btw, the same kinds of abuse and intolerance are what this thread is actually about.

It's kinda hard to tell others what to be, or what to feel. I respect folks who can just make room for others as a matter of principle, even if they are different.

 

[Gameface]

No longer trusts the courts...

Talks about the U.S. Constitution...

America is DEAD if these are the people who think they are saving it.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

No longer trusts the courts...

Talks about the U.S. Constitution...

America is DEAD if these are the people who think they are saving it.

A common trait about the skeptical crowd is they are SKEPTICAL. They cant even trust each other enough to ever organize into anything meaningful. They always splinter and fracture. Babe and James both show that in this thread.

 

[Zombie]

If this case gets to court, there's about a ton of TV footage showing the plaintiffs in front of cameras for the express purpose of making political points. They put themselves in this position, with the assistance of some news crews just as intent on pushing the politics.

I don't really trust courts anymore. too much political utility. But if we lose freedom of speech under a culture of abuse and intolerance of others, as you have exemplified above, it will be your loss as much as mine.

and, btw, the same kinds of abuse and intolerance are what this thread is actually about.

It's kinda hard to tell others what to be, or what to feel. I respect folks who can just make room for others as a matter of principle, even if they are different.

Yes, they put themselves in this position by sending their kids to school, and having them shot to death.

Also you're just being an ***-hole. I have no interest in tolerating or making room for assholes to spew their toxic ****. Not to mention my calling you out, a person who is an ***-hole, for being an ***-hole, is not in any way shape or form curtailing your ability to continue to be an ***-hole. Regardless of whatever you think about the 'culture of abuse and intolerance. ***-hole.