Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Randy, Mar 27, 2012.
This. Thank you.
Then don't misconstrue mine by saying I said he said they were animals (and I know that we're mammals/animals, no need for condescension). I said he COMPARED them to animals.
I never expressed my opinion on if the pageant was right or not in booting her, and honestly I'm sort of on the fence (private pageant so they can set the rules they want, but the rule is vague and discriminatory so of course I disagree with it on that), but that's beside the point anyway. I pointed out that his argument was slippery slope, and offensive by COMPARING LGBT people to animals that have, as we perceive it, a lesser or at least not the same sort of cognition that humans do. That's offensive, and in my opinion (and to a lot of other people) demeaning. Sex and species are not even something that's close to the same. That was my entire point. So if you're trying to argue about what this thread is actually about, you're addressing the wrong person (with a strawman argument of your own).
EDIT: I can agree with your basic premise, but disagree with the validity of an argument you're using to support it.
I apologize and correct myself to comparison, my point still stands though, in what way did he compare LGBT people to animals?
Also, I would not dream of being condescending, that we are animals is pretty much 100% known outside fundie circles, what I did was that I saw it fit to be mentioned.
I agree that it is an unjustified slippery slope, but I can still not see where he compared LGBT people to animals.
I adress you because I believe that you are wrong here and overly confrontational. He has not 100% watertight argument, but you pull it to its extreme, and make him out so say things that he haven't.
If this pageant has rules that that says you have to be born biologically female to compete, while a dog pageant says that you have to be born biologically a dog to compete, can you not see the reasoning behind the argument? It is in both cases arbitrary rules set based on biological principles.
While I agree that sex and species is not comparable (which is not what he did either), it works quite well to hammer in the point that the pageant can set whatever rules they like.
This is interesting, so he did also say that LGBT people are stupid according to you? Animals often also has fur to a greater extent than humans, so by the same reasoning I can claim that he believes gays have a lot more body hair than the average other human. But then, that would be riddiculous, right? Yet that has the same factual support as your conclusion about cognitive functions.
TL;DR, I believe you are over-interpreting.
I actually compared them to people/fetishists/whatever heading you like that live their lives, at least in part, as animals. Since my actual point is that the fact that that's how they choose to live their lives does not actually make them whatever animal that may in the eyes of many institutions, I cannot, in fact, be comparing lgbt individuals to animals.
Further, I know a number of individuals that do live their lives as such that would likely be insulted by the fact that you call the comparison demeaning. Many LGBT individuals with any ties to the bdsm/kink scene would probably feel much the same. They would also probably disagree with my stance on such inclusions, though; so, let's call that a wash, shall we?
Because feeling/saying you are another species, is a very different thing from feeling/saying you are a different sex. There's a lot of sexual identity issues that we're well aware of and we even have means (surgically, and chemically/hormonally) to affect what we know of as sex and how we treat the concept of sex (and there are things such as hermaphrodites, homosexuals, transexuals, etc) but not ways to change the species of something.
And about the pageant, I don't really have more to say about it other than the opinion I expressed in my last post.
And no, but but by comparing them to furries, who themselves claim to be animals (the wannabe transpeciationist) it is similar to comparing them to animals. If someone wants to be another sex, or feels that they are another sex, they have means to do that. It is something that is possible. If someone wants to be another species, it won't (and can't) happen. (and honestly, most furries, at least the ones I'm familiar with, are a joke in if, if they really want to be animals, they never move out into the woods, let go of all of their things, stop using language and become part of a pack, etc. or do any of the other things that being an animal entails. Being a furry in a purely sexual manner is a different story entirely).
It's not that he called them stupid, but that that sort of comparison is often used in a way to demean/belittle LGBT so it's not one that I've seen used in a positive light.
And I guess I did over-interpret a bit. And to both of you.
Furries as a sexual fetish is different than what I took it as (people who legitimately want to be/believe that they are other species). So, I apologize for the misinterpretation.
I guess I could have given more background, initially, but I figured that outing myself as bi AND deeply involved with the bdsm scene would have seemed somewhat pandering.
I've met all types. From people who just do the sexual fetish furry thing to people who actually act as animals totally separate from anything sexual (you are correct in your assessment about the practical non-existence of individuals that would take it to the full extent). There are varying degrees of "silliness" depending, but I do know plenty of individuals that have my utmost respect in their choices. While I have not specifically had a discussion and dog show/horse race type situations, I do know some individuals that believe they should be allowed to play, as their animal, in dog parks and such. Much like my stance about this woman competing in the pageant, I just can't support that, as much as I respect their individual Lifestyle choices.
Ah, no bad blood at all, funny 'ol world if no one disagreed on anything
Am I the only one that didn't know that being a "Furry" was a real thing until coming into this thread?
Haha. I doubt you're the only one. To be fair, I'm generalizing with the term a bit. Furries are different than people who do animal play are different than people who do pony play are different than... Etc. if furries Wong real surprises you, trust me, there's a whole lot more out there.
Ya had never heard of that either.
I can see why there was issue with the analogy. Analogies don't only try and rationalize another topic they tend to invoke an emotional response as well. As an example Santorum did make the analogues connection between Beastiality and gay marriage so in some cases analogies are meant to invoke an emotional response and most do in the process of trying to prove a point.
That being said after knowing what a furry is that analogy did no such thing, it was a fair comparison, albeit a stretch.
I would like to point out that y'all are saying that male and female are concrete and that man and woman are not so much (or it least one person said that). So that being said the rule really is unclear since if I'm not mistaken it in fact says woman not female. Nimgoble has a good point they could have avoided all of this with better definitions in their rules. Laws/rules should be more ironclad than there were. I'd say there shouldn't have been such a media storm from this, but when success is achieved it does set the precedence that people should turn things into a media storm. Whether someone feels like she should compete is moot because she can now.
As for the reference to the pageant being a "who I'd like to stick my dick in" competition, that is tad bit demeaning to the contenders and people who watch (even if true). Also, that is a poor reason IMO to exclude someone from something. Under that presumption I could say beach volleyball is just to watch women in tight clothes and see there boobs bounce around so ugly women and men shouldn't be a part of it. This is a beauty pageant if someone is hot or sexy is all they are really measuring anyways and while I'd probably never sleep with a transsexual I can admit that the lady of this topic is pretty hot. Again these are my personal perceptions and others have theirs and in both instances it definitely doesn't matter because the competition can do whatever they want.
Well, with the "who I'd like to stick my dick in" comment, I did specifically say "at it's base element." it's a beauty pageant, beauty is a measure of attractiveness and attractiveness, at it's core is about, yes, sex. So, yes, beauty pageants are kind of about picking out people we'd want to bang. Hence me calling into question including someone that most of the target audience would not consider to meet that base standard (the female portion of the audience does, potentially, throw a wrench in this opinion, but I'm not sure that can't be chalked up to primitive instinct as well). I think she's beautiful. I'd fuck her, but I'm not the norm, and I'm sure as hell not part of the pageant audience.
Also, your beach volleyball analogy doesn't fly. That's a sport. It happens to be a sport that often includes the ogling of participants, but, he'll, women dig football players' asses in their uniform pants too. That's entirely different than a competition based solely around the aesthetic attractiveness of the contestants.
I think sometimes, when we try to remain politically correct and not say anything that may be interpreted as insulting or demeaning, we potentially lose some very basic truths in the process.
I can agree with pretty much all of that. And yeah I suppose being politically correct does seem to hide what people really think. Honestly, I'm not 100% what my full opinion is on this since I don't have much stake in it and I dont have anything to gain either being what is defined societally as a normal straight male.
To this I say :
Your lifestyle choices are you own, I (And no one else should for that matter) will NEVER personally judge a person based on that fact. However, your body is what it is. If you were born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina you are a woman. There's no surgery, no hormonal treatment, no nothing that will ever change that fact.
Its a competition for women. Not men who think they are women, not men that dress as women, not men who have surgery to get female parts, but women.
Until they let straight, normal dressing men in beauty pageants, then cross-dressers, and transgenders have no right to be there either. I'd rather see Brad Pitt up there, then some of those broken faced women, anyway.
Think of it like women playing in the NFL or NBA.... Some things just aren't gonna happen.
My 2 cents....
I learned a lot from tnis thread, and most of what I've learned has little to do with the OP. It's a stern reminder that transpeople have many more dark days ahead. It's good to have a bit more clarity on where people stand; not just in this forum but in general. I see victories like what this girl achieved be blackened by hate, narrow-mindedness and just plain mean-spiritedness. It's like watching old footage of the civil rights protests all over again. Same hate, just repackaged and relabeled. It's like the old saying goes: "Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it." Well after gays and transgenders win their equal rights, I can't help but wonder who's gonna be America's scapegoat and punching bag next. Midgets? Senior citizens? I know Muslims are getting some pretty good flak from the right-wingers. Most likely them.
Murrica. Fuck yeah.
That is different. Women just can't perform on the same level as men in those sports. (Women can't dunk and are usually not the size of trucks )
Frankly it'd be more interesting if they let everyone into beauty pageants. Beauty really isn't defined on the gender level IMO. I'm straight and can admit when a dude looks damn good. (most people cover that up by saying they wish they looked more like them, but it is the same in principle) Anyone who feels differently is not necessarily sexually confused, but definitely weak of mind in the department (fear of being turned mentality). Why can't we just determine who is the prettiest of us all no matter the creed, sex, orientation, etc.
Because randys mom would win everytime
Comparing everything to the civil rights movement does not, in fact, make it so. I'm sorry that everyone is not born a beige hermaphrodite, so that we can all be equally the same exact person, but it's just not the case. You may see hate, narrow mindedness, and mean spiritedness, but I, at the same time, do not see this as a victory of any sort, for anyone. I wish, for at least a little while, we could all get beyond trying to be exactly the same and beyond trying to cram every square peg into a round hole and enjoy and appreciate the ways that we are different. Does that sound like I'm looking for a scapegoat to you? I'd have a lot more respect for this woman if she did not use deceit and lies to achieve what you view as a "victory."
None of this... NONE OF IT... means I have slightly less than the utmost respect for how you choose to live your life, or how anyone else chooses to live their lives.
Because that is not the way that brains are wired. And I'm not even speaking of human brains. I'm speaking of brains in general. There's not a single species on this planet that works in a comparable way to what you're talking about. And we can deny the fact that we are a part of nature all we want; it doesn't make it any more true.
Animal brains and human brains may be wired the same, but unlike other creatures we have more time to ponder and thus reach such possibilities I think. In other species only one sex demonstrates overkill beauty usually while trying to attract the other. We've hit a point where both sexes are trying to attract each other (women working arguably harder) so we are not the exact same anyways to other creatures. I've heard plenty of straight dude comment on how certain famous men look damn good so there are some holes in your theory.
That is a poor argument though since I suggested it and there are plenty of bisexual people who are attracted to both sexes and others who are comfortable with there sexuality so that being said wouldn't that mean a competition like that would be possible. Obviously it wouldn't exactly be mainstream popular, but still. you said it yourself that women can be attracted to other women (not necessarily sexually) so I think it is possible.
There's plenty of scientific evidence of actions throughout the animal kingdom that point to us being a lot closer on a basic level. Talking about things like male peacocks is really oversimplifying things, unless we take into account why the male peacocks are designed to try so hard to attract females. It's not actually a one sided thing. It just so happens that one side is more noticeable to us. Yes, we have many cognitive layers on top of those instincts, but it's become increasingly apparent to me over the years that that has as much a tendency to cloud matters as it does to provide us with clarity.