Trump

[wufan]

Transgenderism is still a mental disorder. The root disorder being the same as BIID; Body dysmorphic disorder. The specific disorder is gender dysphoria in the DSM-5, though the American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."

On my earlier BIID comments, a certain Robert Smith has amputated limbs for people in Germany, Scotland, and America.

And again, I repeatedly mentioned that surgery is used after therapy and other medication. So yes, depression medication and other treatments usually happen first. And as far as physical proof, there are a couple studies showing differences:

Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain?
Transexual differences caught on brain scan.

Thank you for clarifying the discussion. I don't believe our two posts disagree, but words are important, and you much more clearly articulated some important differences:

Gender dysphoria is a disease.

Open bathroom policies extend to those that are non diseased and that exhibit gender nonconformity. This is accomplished by grouping the dysphoric and the nonconformists as persecuted for their expression of gender identity.

I'm more concerned about the nonconformist policies that are being put in place, and the reasons for their advancement.

[wufan]

Following up my own post:

Why do we now have a preponderance of non- gender dysmorphic individuals ascribing new gender expressions as gender non-conformity? I think it is because of intersectionality. Under this supposition, the greater your degree of persecution, the greater value your observations have and the greater weight that your opinion has. If you believe in intersectionallity, and are a white male, then you must choose two possible paths:

Believe in white fragility and admit that you are of no value because everything was given to you.

Identify with an oppressed group (via gender expression) and obtain the views of the oppressed such that your speech is valid.

[shockfan89_]

It was a stinker of a law which focused on enlarging the coverage tent without sufficient focus on mitigating the rise in premiums, or heaven forbid, actually lowering them.

But weren't we told premiums would go down an average of $2,500? I guess we see why the Democrats lied to pass the bill. Nobody would have wanted it had the entire truth been known. That is also why the Republicans aren't having any success replacing it, you would have to lie to make it look like a good idea! And no, I am not saying Republicans don't lie, I am saying it is pretty unlikely either party working alone is going to be able to pass a bill without focusing on the real issue which is the cost of healthcare, not trying to make insurance affordable.

[jdshock]

I think it is because of intersectionality. Under this supposition, the greater your degree of persecution, the greater value your observations have and the greater weight that your opinion has.

You mentioned intersectionality in a prior post, and I didn't correct it because it wasn't really a big deal, but I think it's worth pointing out now. That's not at all what intersectionality means. Intersectionality is just the recognition that someone might have different experiences based on different characteristics. For example, a black male might have experiences different from a black female. I've certainly never thought of it as a controversial theory.

If you believe in intersectionallity, and are a white male, then you must choose two possible paths:

Believe in white fragility and admit that you are of no value because everything was given to you.

Identify with an oppressed group (via gender expression) and obtain the views of the oppressed such that your speech is valid.

Not even close. White males who think intersectionality offers helpful insights just accept that it's possible someone else may have had different experiences. And race and sex are far from the only two intersections to look at. White males who grew up in rich families in big cities have different experiences than white males who grew up in rich families in rural communities.

If you ignore intersectionality, you're just ignoring a very helpful tool for talking about people's experiences. Barack Obama's children will experience prejudice in a very different way than a black person growing up with parents who are in and out of jail. That doesn't mean Barack Obama's children have nothing of value to say or even that what they say is less valuable than someone whose parents are in and out of jail. It's just a recognition that they probably faced different challenges.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@jdshock:, you seem to have a reasonable viewpoint and use for intersectionality.

Unfortunately, I think there is a large piece of the left (look at the leadership of the women's march) that is indeed using the theory to tell others (such as white men) that their opinions are meaningless and irrelevant.

I think the biggest problem in politics today is that you have Rush Limbaugh arguing from the right, yelling about how screwy some on the far left are. Meanwhile, you have many on the left acting like everyone who voted for Trump is a giant MAGA Trump lover. I think there are MANY on the right and the left who are much more reasonable, but their policy arguments get lost in the shuffle between Ann Coulter and Linda Sarsour.

[jdshock]

@jdshock, you seem to have a reasonable viewpoint and use for intersectionality.

Unfortunately, I think there is a large piece of the left (look at the leadership of the women's march) that is indeed using the theory to tell others (such as white men) that their opinions are meaningless and irrelevant.

I think the biggest problem in politics today is that you have Rush Limbaugh arguing from the right, yelling about how screwy some on the far left are. Meanwhile, you have many on the left acting like everyone who voted for Trump is a giant MAGA Trump lover. I think there are MANY on the right and the left who are much more reasonable, but their policy arguments get lost in the shuffle between Ann Coulter and Linda Sarsour.

Agreed on all accounts. I am personally very fond of the theory since I think it provides a much more nuanced discussion than just saying "all white people have it easier than all people of color," so I wanted to make it clear that it's not the theory's fault or purpose.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The left: "You aren't pro-life, you just want to control women's bodies"
*Provides example of Westboro Baptist idiots saying something stupid that 99% of the right would condemn*

The right: "You aren't really concerned about racism, you just want to play the victim"
*Provides example of random black guy faking accusations about being mistreated by a white guy, ignores numerous true examples of ongoing racism*

...and on... and on... and on...

[Guest]

But weren't we told premiums would go down an average of $2,500? I guess we see why the Democrats lied to pass the bill. Nobody would have wanted it had the entire truth been known. That is also why the Republicans aren't having any success replacing it, you would have to lie to make it look like a good idea! And no, I am not saying Republicans don't lie, I am saying it is pretty unlikely either party working alone is going to be able to pass a bill without focusing on the real issue which is the cost of healthcare, not trying to make insurance affordable.

I know it's just one example but when I switched from just purchasing a policy outright and moved to the ACA I saved about $200 per month. Same coverage and provider, no subsidy. I might be the only person that benefitted, but I doubt it.

[shockmonster]

Transgenderism is still a mental disorder. The root disorder being the same as BIID; Body dysmorphic disorder. The specific disorder is gender dysphoria in the DSM-5, though the American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."

On my earlier BIID comments, a certain Robert Smith has amputated limbs for people in Germany, Scotland, and America.

And again, I repeatedly mentioned that surgery is used after therapy and other medication. So yes, depression medication and other treatments usually happen first. And as far as physical proof, there are a couple studies showing differences:

Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain?
Transexual differences caught on brain scan.

You sound like a medical doctor. I'll allow you Scientists and Medical Doctors to argue regarding the merits of each of these mental disorders and illnesses. There is are reasons that these diseases have exponentially increased in the past 50 years and while there are theories, no one knows for sure. But our society is literally going "crazy". You can define it all you want to, but your definitions and cures aren't making it better. Just trying to keep the discussion a little simpler. From one of the deplorables. :)

[pinstripers]

@jdshock:, you seem to have a reasonable viewpoint and use for intersectionality.

Unfortunately, I think there is a large piece of the left (look at the leadership of the women's march) that is indeed using the theory to tell others (such as white men) that their opinions are meaningless and irrelevant.

I think the biggest problem in politics today is that you have Rush Limbaugh arguing from the right, yelling about how screwy some on the far left are. Meanwhile, you have many on the left acting like everyone who voted for Trump is a giant MAGA Trump lover. I think there are MANY on the right and the left who are much more reasonable, but their policy arguments get lost in the shuffle between Ann Coulter and Linda Sarsour.

I wish this were so, but I do not agree.

[MoValley John]

6219df50cf1e473d6c3b0874ded54e5f--snl-skits-adam-sandler.jpg

[MoValley John]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4823[/ATTACH]

This is the problem with trollvalley john, you try to have a serious discussion about human sexuality and he posts inappropriate pictures of Chris Farley and David Spade dressing as women. Totally offensive. Where are the mods?

[wufan]

You mentioned intersectionality in a prior post, and I didn't correct it because it wasn't really a big deal, but I think it's worth pointing out now. That's not at all what intersectionality means. Intersectionality is just the recognition that someone might have different experiences based on different characteristics. For example, a black male might have experiences different from a black female. I've certainly never thought of it as a controversial theory.



Not even close. White males who think intersectionality offers helpful insights just accept that it's possible someone else may have had different experiences. And race and sex are far from the only two intersections to look at. White males who grew up in rich families in big cities have different experiences than white males who grew up in rich families in rural communities.

If you ignore intersectionality, you're just ignoring a very helpful tool for talking about people's experiences. Barack Obama's children will experience prejudice in a very different way than a black person growing up with parents who are in and out of jail. That doesn't mean Barack Obama's children have nothing of value to say or even that what they say is less valuable than someone whose parents are in and out of jail. It's just a recognition that they probably faced different challenges.

Intersectionality, and more broadly, post-modernism; start from a TRUE premise. I despise these philosophies, but will start with supporting the fact that many absolutely brilliant people believe in them. The issue isn't that they aren't self-evident; they are. The issue is that the philosophy leads believers to determine that interpretation of the world is completely subjective. It is so subjective that if you haven't lived the experience, then you can't speak on the subject. Why is this wrong? Because it concludes that every possible interpretation of events is equally justified based on perception; therefore there is no natural law, or common morality.

Intersectionality should be a footnote to be considered along with things like motive. It should not be the premise by which ideas are judged.

[wufan]

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

There are other sources, but this is an overview. It's pretty clear that intersectionality is much more than a tool to help understand perspective, rather it is the way in which we define systematic oppression. Value is not placed on an individual because he is human, but is placed on an experience as viewed by the oppressed.

White cop shoots black suspect...

Intersectionality says white people oppress black people.

Natural law says cops shoot criminals that resist arrest.

Intersectionality vs natural law is why democrats and republicans can't speak to each other towards a common good that says crime is wrong and racism is wrong.

[jdshock]

It's pretty clear that intersectionality is much more than a tool to help understand perspective, rather it is the way in which we define systematic oppression. Value is not placed on an individual because he is human, but is placed on an experience as viewed by the oppressed.

Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first. Yes, intersectionality is interested in systemic oppression. I mean, that's kind of the point. It looks at how different people might experience prejudice in different ways.

I don't believe there is anything about value being placed on "an experience as viewed by the oppressed." Admittedly, there's a great deal of weight given to subjective experiences in terms of describing prejudice. But that, also, is kind of the point. A white male has a different experience from a black female has a different experience from an Asian male with physical disabilities. It's helpful to hear perspectives from other points of view. I'd do a really bad job describing the experience of a black female growing up in a big city.

None of that has to do with the value of a person. It's just a recognition that someone who faces a different type of prejudice might be a good source of information on that type of prejudice.

White cop shoots black suspect... Intersectionality says white people oppress black people.

I do not understand why intersectionality is involved in the discussion at this point. You either believe black people face prejudice in society or you don't, but you do not have to subscribe to intersectionality to believe that. In fact, intersectionality was created with the intent of getting rid of phrases like "white people oppress black people" because other characteristics can help inform discussions of oppression.

Natural law says cops shoot criminals that resist arrest.

This sentence suggests the fact that someone was shot by a cop is evidence that they were a criminal resisting arrest. That specifically cannot be evidence of that fact. If a cop is accused of wrongfully shooting someone, you don't get to respond "but, he was shot... so obviously he did something wrong."

The statistics show that black people are much more likely to get shot by cops than white people. If you're right about the premise behind natural law, then that means you can't accept that the cause of these statistics should be investigated.