An argument over dinner

Raymond Lin said:
Who is qualified? Doctors, psychologists, a panel of them. Yes, there is a panel of them to judge the merit of the applicant in order to be a transgender.
Not you, not us in our armchairs.
Click to expand...
Even then, opinion seems divided on what qualifies, as mentioned above...

But what happens if we, whichever gender in question, still do not accept them as one of our own?
 
ttaskmaster said:
Even then, opinion seems divided on what qualifies, as mentioned above...

But what happens if we, whichever gender in question, still do not accept them as one of our own?
Click to expand...

Whose opinion?

It’s not up to you or a gender to accept, this isn’t some tribal dispute, there is no “one of our own”.

They will become the new gender in intends and purposes. Really, go read the law and the debate that leads up to it, all your concerns are answered there, people much smarter than us have debated this, considered questions you don’t think of i.e. where to send a transgender to prison.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It’s not up to you or a gender to accept, this isn’t some tribal dispute, there is no “one of our own”.

They will become the new gender in intends and purposes. Really, go read the law and the debate that leads up to it, all your concerns are answered there, people much smarter than us have debated this, considered questions you don’t think of i.e. where to send a transgender to prison.
Click to expand...

A lot of people might disagree there, appealing to authority and the law might not help very much.

If you're going to assign a person from a specific group within society, in the interests of equality - to argue and legislate based on the thoughts and experiences of that group at large, does it not stand to reason, that any such person would be far better suited if they themselves have experienced those same issues, rather than someone who hadn't?

As an example, how would you expect a trans woman, to deal with considering health legislation for breast cancer screening? what would make them any more qualified than a man to consider that sort of issue? (based on the premise that a woman would be in such a position, because breast cancer screening is a female issue)
 
Raymond Lin said:
Whose opinion?
Click to expand...
The opinions of those doctors/psychologists who suggest the dysphoria is more a symptom of the changing perceptions of gender and gender roles in society, with the desire to change a reaction to gender-related social pressures and expectations, rather than feeling that you're actually missing any body parts...

Raymond Lin said:
It’s not up to you or a gender to accept, this isn’t some tribal dispute, there is no “one of our own”.
Click to expand...
Question, then: When a transwoman's male chromosomes start kicking off, or they get prostate cancer, are they either ignored because it's not medically possible (because they're medically female now, no dispute, end of) or just ruled as breaking the law?

Raymond Lin said:
They will become the new gender in intends and purposes. Really, go read the law and the debate that leads up to it, all your concerns are answered there, people much smarter than us have debated this, considered questions you don’t think of i.e. where to send a transgender to prison.
Click to expand...
Not really concerns, just challenges to something that's pretty much a non-issue, in my world.

Do you have a link to a convenient quick-ish summary version of this law?
Does it also cover things like cis and non-cis Genderflux and Genderfluid?
 
robfosters said:
That’s all far too sophisticated for my dinner time chats. The last argument I had at dinner was whether or not a bear could beat a tiger in a fight. I said a bear would crush a tiger and my brother disagreed. Almost turned quite nasty.
Click to expand...

I remember having a similar argument over dinner about who would win in a fight between a tank and a dinosaur,
turns out there are far too many variables for a conclusive answer...
 
Svack said:
I remember having a similar argument over dinner about who would win in a fight between a tank and a dinosaur,
turns out there are far too many variables for a conclusive answer...
Click to expand...

Well it depends how silly the variables are!
 
Svack said:
I remember having a similar argument over dinner about who would win in a fight between a tank and a dinosaur,
turns out there are far too many variables for a conclusive answer...
Click to expand...

what variables? with the exception of tanks that don't carry artillery guns (which arguably could be classified as apc's or ifv's) then the tanks a clear winner, even the mk1 tanks 6 pounders are more than a match for any dino's armour
 
adolf hamster said:
what variables? with the exception of tanks that don't carry artillery guns (which arguably could be classified as apc's or ifv's) then the tanks a clear winner, even the mk1 tanks 6 pounders are more than a match for any dino's armour
Click to expand...
Tank has no ammo.
 
ttaskmaster said:
FV432 APC can be fitted with a RARDEN turret shooting 30mm AP or HE rounds.... Like to see a dinosaur stand up to that.
Click to expand...

i was thinking specifically the female variants of the ww1 british tanks, as with only .303 machine guns its arguable they'd have a hard time (although not impossible) penetrating dino skin.

anything bigger than conventional big game calibers (so .50 and above, or the occasional oddball like the pzb 39) is going to do the job nicely.
 
The argument rapidly descended into chaos based on factors like "what if it was in a forest?" or "what if was a kaiju?"

My heart said dinosaur, but my brain said tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom