goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2015, 01:40:37 PM
-
It has been revelaed that the newly elected president of an NAACP chapter is actually a white. Outrage ensues, prompting an official investigation. http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/did-naacp-president-lie-about-her-race-city-investigates/33533026 (http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/did-naacp-president-lie-about-her-race-city-investigates/33533026)
SPOKANE, Wash. -
The City of Spokane announced Thursday it's investigating whether the president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP violated the city's code of ethics in her application to serve on the citizen police ombudsman commission.
Rachel Dolezal serves as chair of the independent commission, in addition to her work as an adjunct faculty member at Eastern Washington University and president of the NAACP local chapter. On her application to serve on the commission, she identified herself as African-American. But public records, including Dolezal's own birth certificate, list her biological parents as Ruthanne and Lawrence Dolezal of Montana. The Dolezals told KXLY Thursday that Rachel is their biological daughter and that they are both white.
"We are committed to independent citizen oversight and take very seriously the concerns raised regarding the chair of the independent citizen police ombudsman commission," Mayor David Condon and City Council President Ben Stuckart said it a joint statement Thursday. "We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated. That information will be reviewed by the City Council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions."
On the NAACP Spokane Facebook page, a picture was posted earlier this year showing Dolezal and an African-American man. In the post, he's identified as Dolezal's father. KXLY4's Jeff Humphrey asked Dolezal about that claim Wednesday afternoon.
"Ma'am, I was wondering if your dad really is an African-American man," Humphrey asked.
"I don't understand the question," Dolezal answered. "I did tell you [that man in the picture] is my dad."
"Are your parents white?" Humphrey asked. At that point, Dolezal removed the microphone, ended the interview and walked away.
KXLY4 was interviewing Dolezal Wednesday about several hate crimes she's reported over the last several years. Most recently, Dolezal said she received a packet of hateful letters and pictures at the NAACP post office box in North Spokane. That crime led to rallies of support outside Spokane City Hall.
Police are still investigating, but say in reports that whoever placed the mail must have had access to the box, as it was not processed through the regular mail. Dolezal denied any implication that she was responsible.
Dolezal says she's been the victim of eight documented hate crimes in Idaho; a public records request filed by KXLY yielded just three reports. Each was closed by police because of insufficient evidence to prosecute.
Btw, I struggled coming up with a good thread title for this one. I'll entertain other suggestions.
-
Btw, I struggled coming up with a good thread title for this one. I'll entertain other suggestions.
The anti-Clayton Bigsby?
-
You should have discussed with renocat, he's great at titles. And he already mentioned this in his hypocrite thread.
-
ZOMG this story gets so much better! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/?tid=hybrid_content_2_na (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/?tid=hybrid_content_2_na)
A controversy is raging over whether a prominent Washington state civil rights activist and Howard University graduate who claimed she was African American is actually white.
Rachel Dolezal, 37, is the president of the Spokane NAACP and has claimed to be the victim of a number of hate crimes. As questions were raised about the veracity of some of her reports this week, a white couple from Montana came forward to claim that Dolezal is their daughter.
Earlier this week, KXLY4 asked Dolezal about a photo posted to the NAACP chapter’s Facebook page of a black man identified as Dolezal’s father.
“I was wondering if your dad really is an African American man,” Jeff Humphrey of KXLY4 asked Dolezal.
“That’s a very … I mean, I don’t know what you’re implying,” Dolezal said.
“Are you African American?” Humphrey said.
“I don’t understand the question,” Dolezal said. She walked off-camera as Humphrey asked: “Are your parents, are they white?”
Dolezal did not return requests for comment.
In a telephone interview with The Washington Post and others, Lawrence and Ruthanne Dolezal of Troy, Mont., said Rachel Dolezal is their daughter, and that they are Caucasian.
“There seems to be some question of how Rachel is representing her identity and ethnicity,” Lawrence Dolezal said. “We are definitely her birth parents. We are both of Caucasian and European descent — Czech, German and a few other things.”
The Dolezals provided The Post with family photos of Rachel as well as what they said was her birth certificate.
Lawrence and Ruthanne Dolezal say this is Rachel Dolezal’s birth certificate. (Courtesy of the Dolezal family)
Lawrence and Ruthanne Dolezal, a Christian couple who adopted four young children — two of whom are black — while Rachel was a teenager, said her decision to misrepresent her racial background, if that’s what she’s doing, may be related to her family and social justice work.
“The adoption of the children definitely fueled her interest as a teenager in being involved with people of color,” Ruthanne Dolezal said. “We’ve always had friends of different ethnicities. It was a natural thing for her.”
Lawrence Dolezal said his daughter was involved in Voice of Calvary, a “racial reconciliation community development project where blacks and whites lived together,” while at Belhaven University in Jackson, Miss.
“You speak and sound and act and take on the mannerisms of the culture you live in,” he said. When Rachel applied to Howard University to study art with a portfolio of “exclusively African American portraiture,” the university “took her for a black woman” and gave her a full scholarship.
“You’ve got a white woman coming in that got a full-ride scholarship to the black Harvard,” Lawrence Dolezal said. “And ever since then she’s been involved in social justice advocacy for African Americans. She assimilated into that culture so strongly that that’s where she transferred her identity.”
He added: “But unfortunately, she is not ethnically by birth African American. She is our daughter by birth. And that’s the way it is.”
In telephone interviews with The Post, two of the Dolezals’ adopted sons confirmed she is white as well.
Ezra Dolezal, 22, compared his sister’s decision to conceal her race to blackface.
“Back in the early 1900s, what she did would be considered highly racist,” said Ezra Dolezal, who described himself as “25 percent black.” He added: “You really should not do that. It’s completely opposite – she’s basically creating more racism.”
Zach Dolezal, 21, said when he visited his sister in Spokane, he was told not to speak of Lawrence and Ruthanne as their parents.
“It’s a farce, really, is what it is,” he said, adding he thought Rachel had posted a photo of a black couple from Spokane on her Facebook page and referred to them as her parents.
The Dolezals, it should be noted, are a family divided. Parents Lawrence and Ruthanne and brothers Ezra and Zach do not speak with their sister because, they say, she alleged abuse in the family and obtained custody of her 21-year-old brother Izaiah. Izaiah, who is black, lives with Rachel Dolezal in Spokane — and Rachel says he is her son, the family alleged.
“Izaiah always was her favorite child,” Ezra Dolezal said. “… She turned Izaiah kind of racist. Told Izaiah all this stuff about white people, made him really racist toward white people.”
More than Rachel’s claims of African American heritage, the custody of Izaiah seems to have driven the Dolezals apart.
“I can understand hairstyles and all that,” Zach Dolezal said of his sister’s alleged attempts to appropriate black culture. “Saying her brother is her son, I don’t understand that.”
Rachel Dolezal did not return requests for comment. However, she dodged questions about her race this week after allegations that some hate crimes she had reported were fabricated.
“That question is not as easy as it seems,” Dolezal said after being contacted by the Spokane Spokesman-Review at Eastern Washington University, where she is a part-time professor in the Africana studies program. “There’s a lot of complexities … and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.”
She added: “We’re all from the African continent.” :lol:
The Spokane NAACP has offered limited response to the allegations about Dolezal’s race.
James Wilburn, past president of the Spokane NAACP who was replaced by Dolezal, said Thursday that a few members of that group discussed her background before her election late last year.
“It was discussed among close members to me, and we kept it like that,” he told the Spokane Spokesman-Review.
Rachel Dolezal, center, with Joseph M. King of King’s Consulting, left, and Scott Finnie, the director and senior professor of Eastern Washington University’s Africana Education Program, in January. (Tyler Tjomsland/The Spokesman-Review via AP)
Postal workers, meanwhile, told police that hate mail Dolezal said she received at the NAACP’s post office box in Spokane was not processed by a post office, as it had no date stamp or bar code. Postal workers suggested the mail was put there by someone with a key to the box. The Spokesman-Review noted, however, that similar mail was sent to that newspaper and the Spokane Valley Police Department postmarked from Oakland, Calif.
The city of Spokane is also investigating whether Dolezal misidentified her race in an application to the Office of Police Ombudsman Commission, on which she serves. Dolezal said she had several ethnic origins on the application, including white, black and American Indian.
“We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated,” Mayor David Condon and Council President Ben Stuckart said in a joint statement, as the Spokane Spokesman-Review reported. “That information will be reviewed by the City Council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.”
Social media has responded to the controversy with the hashtag “#RachelDolezal.”
“#RachelDolezal figured if oscar Jenner could do it … what the hell,” conservative radio host Wayne Dupree wrote. (Such controversial comments comparing Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner found a home at the hashtag “#transracial.”)
In the past, Dolezal has spoken fondly of her time in the nation’s capital.
“The only place I’ve ever lived where I felt like I could relax and just be myself was Washington, D.C.,” she told the Easterner, a student-run publication at Eastern Washington University, last year. “I am in love with the East Coast area, because it is much more international and you can find cultural company and kind of blend into the mix of people better than areas where there is either an absence of a strong black community or an extreme divide that sets up rifts equivalent to segregation.”
She added: “Probably one of the reasons I love D.C. the most, though, is because I was at Howard University. As a school that exists to promote Black values … it is definitely an oasis.”
Transracial! I guess that's the new, new normal.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/06/girlsjpg-1024x826.jpg&w=1484)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/06/NAACP_PRESIDENT-09838small.jpg&w=1484)
-
She shouldn't be lying about stuff, but who really gives a crap
-
"My prob w/ #Transracial: Black folk cant decide to be white when the cops raid their pool party. But a white woman can be NAACP president," wrote hip-hop artist Lizzo.
-
Bill the Thrill fallout. Black guy in a white guy body. If I claim an inner black man, can I get some special things; kind a like Bruclyn Genderthing.
-
she has a fresh cut in that last pic.
-
she has a fresh cut in that last pic.
Confirmed member of the gE hive mind.
-
i did not know that:
white person + shitty over-the-top 'do = black person
like that actually worked for her. amazing.
-
her: you think i'd wear my hair like this if i weren't black? i'm rough ridin' black.
seattle: okay.
-
Related, I thought smash's girlfriend was black until the whole interracial dating storyline
-
comparing herself to jenner was really clever.
-
"We all come from Africa"
=
"We are all black"
=
"RACISM SOLVED!"
Gonna win 'em all!
-
comparing herself to jenner was really clever.
Conservative radio host Wayne Dupree did that I think.
-
Neocon radio is completely enraged about this lady omg
-
comparing herself to jenner was really clever.
Conservative radio host Wayne Dupree did that I think.
you're right, i didn't read very carefully. she should run with it, if she's smart.
-
"We all come from Africa"
=
"We are all black"
=
"RACISM SOLVED!"
Gonna win 'em all!
Yes, this was my favorite part.
-
Neocon radio is completely enraged about this lady omg
You're confusing "amused and entertained" with "outrage and anger"
-
Btw, I struggled coming up with a good thread title for this one. I'll entertain other suggestions.
The reverse-Clayton Bigsby?
My goodness.
Some people probably love the indication that goodwill was not enough for her to elevate herself within the NAACP like there was some sort of inherent bias against her. That doesn't seem to be the motivation for the deception from what the article states.
She seems to be a crazy person. It does put the "you are whatever _______ you think you are" crowd in a kinda funny spot though. I'd appreciate a ruling from the ge black caucus - is this any different than pretending to be a woman?
-
It does put the "you are whatever _______ you think you are" crowd in a kinda funny spot though. I'd appreciate a ruling from the ge black caucus - is this any different than pretending to be a woman?
i dunno who you mean by the ge black caucus, but i'd be more interested in seeing the mental gymnastics (i admit, i'm anticipating some, it's possible none would materialize) from any of the posters that think that jenner's actions were brave or heroic.
-
It does put the "you are whatever _______ you think you are" crowd in a kinda funny spot though. I'd appreciate a ruling from the ge black caucus - is this any different than pretending to be a woman?
i dunno who you mean by the ge black caucus, but i'd be more interested in seeing the mental gymnastics (i admit, i'm anticipating some, it's possible none would materialize) from any of the posters that think that jenner's actions were brave or heroic.
Not sure who would think that. Maybe Edna?
-
It does put the "you are whatever _______ you think you are" crowd in a kinda funny spot though. I'd appreciate a ruling from the ge black caucus - is this any different than pretending to be a woman?
i dunno who you mean by the ge black caucus, but i'd be more interested in seeing the mental gymnastics (i admit, i'm anticipating some, it's possible none would materialize) from any of the posters that think that jenner's actions were brave or heroic.
Not sure who would think that. Maybe Edna?
i think there were a lot in the jenner award thread. don't remember individual posters, but it seemed to me like majority opinion.
-
You guys, this Rachel Dolezal story was already awesome, and it's getting so much awesomer!!!!
First, if you haven't seen it... you just gotta see it. Pretty much sums up the state of the story.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/xk8faw/the-nightly-show-crazypants-white-lady-pretends-to-be-black?utm=share_twitter (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/xk8faw/the-nightly-show-crazypants-white-lady-pretends-to-be-black?utm=share_twitter)
...at least, as of two days ago. But the story is EVEN BETTER. She's now making the TV rounds questioning the validity of her own birth certificate!! And, borrowing the language of oscar Jenner and all the other crazy "you are whatever the hell you want to want to be" no-judgment nut jobs, she "identifies as black" so that's all that matters! :lol:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article24677989.html (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article24677989.html)
NEW YORK
Rachel Dolezal's daylong media blitz in which she denied that she is a white woman posing as a black woman culminated Tuesday night with a claim that she's not sure her white parents are her real parents.
"I haven't had a DNA test. There's been no biological proof that Larry and Ruthanne are my biological parents," Dolezal said in an appearance on "NBC Nightly News."
"There's a birth certificate that has your name on it and their names on it," responded interviewer Savannah Guthrie.
"I'm not necessarily saying that I can prove they're not," Dolezal said. "But I don't know that I can actually prove they are. I mean, the birth certificate is issued a month and a half after I'm born. And certainly there were no medical witnesses to my birth."
...
"I identify as black," a composed, smiling Dolezal said during a 10-minute interview on "Today," less than 24 hours after she resigned as president of the NAACP's chapter in Spokane.
-
i agree that it's an awesome story. it's both great for the weirdness of the story details. and it also raises really interesting points. i'm a little disappointed it hasn't generated more discussion here. i wonder if you'd have gotten a better response on the combofanning board? but probably it's just that all these white midwesterners are scared to opine on the subject.
-
I think it's great, too. The lady should probably get psychiatric help.
-
The lady should probably get psychiatric help.
should all people that desire to be something they are not get psychiatric help?
-
Coming soon to a school near you? Actually, I'd like to think no, but to the extent there is a culture war this is the kind of crap we have to be on the lookout for. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/17/italian-families-protest-forced-cross-dressing-of-schoolchildren/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/17/italian-families-protest-forced-cross-dressing-of-schoolchildren/)
-
She must hate the crap out of her parents
-
The lady should probably get psychiatric help.
should all people that desire to be something they are not get psychiatric help?
Not to distract from the very interesting debate you're trying to raise - and it is interesting...
:runaway: BUT ZOMG THERE'S A SEXTAPE!!!!!!!!!! :runaway:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3127173/Rachel-Dolezal-SEX-TAPE-ex-husband-forced-perform-sex-acts-camera-against-claimed-court-papers.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3127173/Rachel-Dolezal-SEX-TAPE-ex-husband-forced-perform-sex-acts-camera-against-claimed-court-papers.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus)
-
The lady should probably get psychiatric help.
should all people that desire to be something they are not get psychiatric help?
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
-
:runaway: BUT ZOMG THERE'S A SEXTAPE!!!!!!!!!! :runaway:
:love:
shitty american newspapers should write more like this.
The frizzy-haired faker demanded a divorce... His former flame furthermore accused him...
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
-
What a ridiculous amazing story.
A big difference between Jenner and Dolezal is that one is blatantly lying.
There is also science that could support gender identity differences being real and nothing that supports racial identity differences existing but I know how some political parties hate science.
-
There is also science that could support gender identity differences being real and nothing that supports racial identity differences existing.
what does this mean?
-
In 2002 she sued for discrimination for being white, so when did her race actually change?
-
There is also science that could support gender identity differences being real and nothing that supports racial identity differences existing.
what does this mean?
There is scientific studies that show a difference in the brains of males/females. Given that this difference exists, it is possible that someone could be born a man that identifies as a female. I'm not sure that they have studied transgendered people's brains to show a link or not and really don't care to research it. To me it is the same as homosexuality which I believe they are physiologically attracted to a certain gender and they do not choose. Transgender people are physiologically the opposite of what they were born as and do not choose.
Meanwhile, there is not scientific evidence that shows a black person's brain is different from a white person's brain. A person would be making a choice in Dolezal's case.
-
a. if true (biol one sex with brain characters of other sex, obviously brain diffs btwn sexes is true) and is a prevalent feature of transgender persons, that very much argues that the condition of transgender is a disease.
b. it is not necessary that there be any racial difference in brain characters in order for a person to believe themselves to be of a race that they are not. it is only necessary that 1) race be a component of a person's identity, and 2) that it is possible for there to be discordance between what others consider to be your race and what you believe it to be. whether you consider the font of that discord to be subject to voluntary control or not is not particularly relevant to the consideration of whether it is possible for someone to believe themselves to be a race that is not the same as the race society believes them to be (i'm being a little careful with language, since race, as constructed in the us, does not align completely with groups of distinct genetic lineages; however, in most cases the difference is probably not material).
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
Transgender people should seek psychiatric help as well. More than 40% of them attempt suicide.
-
I don't think someone can choose race just as they can't choose gender identity or sexuality. Science shows that there can be a disconnect between sexuality and gender. Science doesn't justify the same disconnect on race for me.
As far as this particular case goes, Dolezal has consistently lied about her upbringing which to me shows that she doesn't really believe it is something that you can choose.
The argument for classifying transgender as a disease is for other people. I wouldn't want to classify it as such because of the negative connotations but the definition may say otherwise.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
I mean, believing you are the opposite gender that you physiologically are seems like a psychological disease to me
-
I don't think someone can choose race just as they can't choose gender identity or sexuality. Science shows that there can be a disconnect between sexuality and gender. Science doesn't justify the same disconnect on race for me.
As far as this particular case goes, Dolezal has consistently lied about her upbringing which to me shows that she doesn't really believe it is something that you can choose.
The argument for classifying transgender as a disease is for other people. I wouldn't want to classify it as such because of the negative connotations but the definition may say otherwise.
That is looking at race as a skin color only. In The bigger picture race includes cultural aspects.
-
Why should anyone GAF about this? If she was good at her job and represented the org the way it wanted to be represented, who cares? I am assuming this was just brought up by someone who wanted one of the positions she held.
I mean, I am not defending anything. I don't care enough to get the detail. Why should I care about this? I mean, there are plenty of ppl that adopt the culture of others.
-
I don't have an issue with people wanting to be something that they are not. That's their business, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. However, if she willfully misled others for material gain, then there are legal and ethical issues to be addressed in order to protect the public interest. Props to her for trying to shift the discussion away from concrete issues like fraud to abstract issues like identity.
-
Fraud seems to be the only real thing that could be at play here, other than stupidity, novelty, and her personal embarrassment.
It seems like there are very few things that could be proven, without a doubt, that she received as benefit due to her falsifying race.
-
Lots of people lie about their past like she did and it's maybe not so ethical, but fairly harmless
-
Lots of people lie about their past like she did and it's maybe not so ethical, but fairly harmless
If this was walmart, garmin, etc, it wouldn't even be an ethical issue(unless they have some hiring practices targeting minorities), it would just be rough ridin' weird, which is what it is here, too.
-
Right. I haven't seen a lot of hard evidence that proves she intentionally lied, but in any case if the NAACP supports her, then a fraud charge would not stick. They could easily argue that the misrepresentation of race was not material, or that they did not suffer injury as a result, or that they did not rely on the truth of her misrepresentation in hiring her. It would actually be pretty funny for an organization to admit under oath that had they known she was white, they wouldn't have hired her.
-
The biggest issue I have is the lying, which was done for material gain, and the comparisons to transgender. I think she is purposefully muddying the waters to avoid penalties, or just looking like a piece of crap in general, and it hurts other social groups with more legitimate issues.
Right. I haven't seen a lot of hard evidence that proves she intentionally lied, but in any case if the NAACP supports her, then a fraud charge would not stick. They could easily argue that the misrepresentation of race was not material, or that they did not suffer injury as a result, or that they did not rely on the truth of her misrepresentation in hiring her. It would actually be pretty funny for an organization to admit under oath that had they known she was white, they wouldn't have hired her.
She told people some black guy was her dad. Now she says he was a "father figure." She told her brother to STFU about her being white when he visited. I think I read she checked untrue boxes on race on applications.
Regardless, I would love to see that trial.
-
That lady is right about one thing - the term African-American. You can be black and not consider yourself African-American and you can be African-American without being black.
She is neither.
-
The biggest issue I have is the lying, which was done for material gain, and the comparisons to transgender. I think she is purposefully muddying the waters to avoid penalties, or just looking like a piece of crap in general, and it hurts other social groups with more legitimate issues.
Right. I haven't seen a lot of hard evidence that proves she intentionally lied, but in any case if the NAACP supports her, then a fraud charge would not stick. They could easily argue that the misrepresentation of race was not material, or that they did not suffer injury as a result, or that they did not rely on the truth of her misrepresentation in hiring her. It would actually be pretty funny for an organization to admit under oath that had they known she was white, they wouldn't have hired her.
She told people some black guy was her dad. Now she says he was a "father figure." She told her brother to STFU about her being white when he visited. I think I read she checked untrue boxes on race on applications.
Regardless, I would love to see that trial.
I read the BOMBSHELL article when this story blew up, but a lot of the allegations seemed like hearsay, or at the very least were not yet substantiated by physical evidence. Is there any evidence of the post on Facebook of the black guy as her dad, other than what her adopted brother (who hates her) thinks he remembered seeing?
-
The biggest issue I have is the lying, which was done for material gain, and the comparisons to transgender. I think she is purposefully muddying the waters to avoid penalties, or just looking like a piece of crap in general, and it hurts other social groups with more legitimate issues.
Right. I haven't seen a lot of hard evidence that proves she intentionally lied, but in any case if the NAACP supports her, then a fraud charge would not stick. They could easily argue that the misrepresentation of race was not material, or that they did not suffer injury as a result, or that they did not rely on the truth of her misrepresentation in hiring her. It would actually be pretty funny for an organization to admit under oath that had they known she was white, they wouldn't have hired her.
She told people some black guy was her dad. Now she says he was a "father figure." She told her brother to STFU about her being white when he visited. I think I read she checked untrue boxes on race on applications.
Regardless, I would love to see that trial.
I read the BOMBSHELL article when this story blew up, but a lot of the allegations seemed like hearsay, or at the very least were not yet substantiated by physical evidence. Is there any evidence of the post on Facebook of the black guy as her dad, other than what her adopted brother (who hates her) thinks he remembered seeing?
She claimed some hate crimes that are probably not true, including hate mail that didn't even go through the postal service (i.e. someone with a key to the box put it in there).
-
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. I'd be interested to hear her response to that. Did she file a police report, or did she just tell people about it?
-
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. I'd be interested to hear her response to that. Did she file a police report, or did she just tell people about it?
There were police reports because the police said that in light of recent events, they are suspending all investigations.
-
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. I'd be interested to hear her response to that. Did she file a police report, or did she just tell people about it?
There were police reports because the police said that in light of recent events, they are suspending all investigations.
What?
-
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. I'd be interested to hear her response to that. Did she file a police report, or did she just tell people about it?
There were police reports because the police said that in light of recent events, they are suspending all investigations.
What?
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/14/naacp-leader-hate-crime-complaints-segment-harlow.cnn-ap
-
The comparo to Jenner is dumb. This lady is seems like she might be mentally damaged. I mean, the race thing is whatevs, but the other stuff that she built around that seems like it may just be insanity.
Also, the only damage that the NAACP could maybe claim would be how stupid she made them look by this being leaked.
She either needs help or a podcast. I would listen to that weekly.
-
but...from 2 days ago: "Separately, Dolezal has said she received threatening hate mail in the past, but the Spokane Police Department told CNN's Poppy Harlow that it dropped its investigation of the letters because of a lack of leads.
The investigation was dropped before the controversy about her race became public."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/us/washington-rachel-dolezal-naacp/
-
I don't think someone can choose race just as they can't choose gender identity or sexuality. Science shows that there can be a disconnect between sexuality and gender. Science doesn't justify the same disconnect on race for me.
"science" hasn't shown that there can be a disconnect between sex (i think you mean sex, not sexuality), at least no science that you have mentioned in this thread. the fact that males and females have distinct brain characters does not imply that a disconnect between how someone perceives their own gender and their biological sex exist. all it does is suggest a hypothesis (again, i insert the caveat i restrict my comments to the scientific observations that you have presented in this thread, since i am not well versed on the subject matter) that might explain the origin of empirical observations of such disconnections.
your comment on disconnects in racial identity makes little sense unless you are arguing that dolezal is lying about her preferred racial identity.
As far as this particular case goes, Dolezal has consistently lied about her upbringing which to me shows that she doesn't really believe it is something that you can choose.
one of the things that makes this case interesting to me is that i perceive dolezal to be sincere in her preference to be considered black. i do not perceive her to be doing so for ulterior motives, or to be misrepresenting that preference. i would consider her lies about her parentage to be her realizing that society would not accept her preference for being black if simultaneously confronted with her european ancestry, and inventing a story that allow society's perception of her to correspond to her own preference, rather than something that she needed to invent in order for her to allow herself to believe she is black, which i believe is what you are suggesting.
-
i think it is perfectly possible to separate the issues of her being more deceitful than is typical, her having familial conflicts, her perhaps having other psychological issues and her preferring to identify as black. there may be some areas where those issues interconnect, but they are not necessarily fundamentally related, imo.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-sued-howard-for-racial-discrimination-because-she-was-white/
:dunno:
-
I meant that science shows a basis - I was overstating in saying that science shows the disconnect.
I think her situation/story is interesting enough without involving Caitlyn Jenner for some reason.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-sued-howard-for-racial-discrimination-because-she-was-white/
:dunno:
It's a hard world out there for white people. No wonder she decided to become black.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-sued-howard-for-racial-discrimination-because-she-was-white/
:dunno:
michigancat is the new luke.
-
to me that is evidence that she's pretty self-aware that she wasn't black
-
I meant that science shows a basis - I was overstating in saying that science shows the disconnect.
I think her situation/story is interesting enough without involving Caitlyn Jenner for some reason.
yes, it suggests a possible hypothesis. the lack of an identical hypothesis for a disconnect between preferred racial identity and ancestry, does not imply that such a disconnect is not real. i understood you to be making the argument that it did. the disconnect is an observable phenomenon, its existence is implied by direct observation.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
I mean, believing you are the opposite gender that you physiologically are seems like a psychological disease to me
I agree - or at least a "disorder." Not sure the difference bw those two terms. It is counter to the biological imperative of procreation. But that same rationale applies to homosexuality, and that will really piss some people off.
But again, being transgender, transsexual, or whatever other stupid term they've concocted is a disorder. It is most certainly not "the new normal."
And I also agree that, as mumped up as Jenner is, at least he's not lying about being a dude in terms of hardware - but he really can't, can he? Something tells me he would have lied just like this chick if he thought he could get away with it.
-
to me that is evidence that she's pretty self-aware that she wasn't black
a) what a novel observation! unprecedented. unique.
b) desiring/undergoing surgery to alter one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics also provides evidence that the subject of the surgery is aware that their biological sex does not correspond to the gender identity they prefer.
-
to me that is evidence that she's pretty self-aware that she wasn't black
a) what a novel observation! unprecedented. unique.
b) desiring/undergoing surgery to alter one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics also provides evidence that the subject of the surgery is aware that their biological sex does not correspond to the gender identity they prefer.
OK sys
-
to me that is evidence that she's pretty self-aware that she wasn't black
a) what a novel observation! unprecedented. unique.
b) desiring/undergoing surgery to alter one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics also provides evidence that the subject of the surgery is aware that their biological sex does not correspond to the gender identity they prefer.
Is that even a debate? Are there really people who think they are biologically women and freaked out about why they have that penis dangling down there? That would be confusing.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
I mean, believing you are the opposite gender that you physiologically are seems like a psychological disease to me
I agree - or at least a "disorder." Not sure the difference bw those two terms. It is counter to the biological imperative of procreation. But that same rationale applies to homosexuality, and that will really piss some people off.
I'm not sure the biological imperative of procreation is relevant in this sense. After all, oscar Jenner can identify as a lesbian woman and procreate. I mean, that is what he actually did.
I think there is a significant distinction between preferring the same gender as a sexual partner and identifying ones gender as different than the physiological gender.
-
Is that even a debate? Are there really people who think they are biologically women and freaked out about why they have that penis dangling down there? That would be confusing.
michigancat occasionally gets sidetracked into logical dead-ends. i love pointing those out.
-
I misread this in a meeting:
one of the things that makes this case interesting to me is that i perceive dolezal to be sincere in her preference to be considered black.
and thought you were saying she genuinely thought she was black. but I still think the lawsuit muddies things a bit and makes me think she may have motivations beyond just preferring to be considered black.
-
makes me think she may have motivations beyond just preferring to be considered black.
at the risk of playing at untrained armchair psychiatrist, i think she has an attraction/need to be/or be seen to be a victim. i suspect that being/pretending to be a black woman was something that facilitated that need.
-
My cousin went to high school with Dozeal and Dozeal was a patient of her dental practice as well. Cuz says, "she's always been a nutcase" So I'm guessing psychological issues arent new with her.
While she could very well be a strong advocate for racial justice, she probably didnt need to completely dismiss her past and fabricate a new one. And if she didnt lie, would she not have been as effective at her jobs?
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
-
makes me think she may have motivations beyond just preferring to be considered black.
at the risk of playing at untrained armchair psychiatrist, i think she has an attraction/need to be/or be seen to be a victim. i suspect that being/pretending to be a black woman was something that facilitated that need.
I think that's fair.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
I mean, believing you are the opposite gender that you physiologically are seems like a psychological disease to me
I agree - or at least a "disorder." Not sure the difference bw those two terms. It is counter to the biological imperative of procreation. But that same rationale applies to homosexuality, and that will really piss some people off.
I'm not sure the biological imperative of procreation is relevant in this sense. After all, oscar Jenner can identify as a lesbian woman and procreate. I mean, that is what he actually did.
I think there is a significant distinction between preferring the same gender as a sexual partner and identifying ones gender as different than the physiological gender.
Something tells me that a man self-ID'ng as a lesbian woman is still going to make procreation pretty tough. I'm not saying impossible, but hardly the most efficient arrangement when it comes to reproduction.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
I mean, believing you are the opposite gender that you physiologically are seems like a psychological disease to me
I agree - or at least a "disorder." Not sure the difference bw those two terms. It is counter to the biological imperative of procreation. But that same rationale applies to homosexuality, and that will really piss some people off.
I'm not sure the biological imperative of procreation is relevant in this sense. After all, oscar Jenner can identify as a lesbian woman and procreate. I mean, that is what he actually did.
I think there is a significant distinction between preferring the same gender as a sexual partner and identifying ones gender as different than the physiological gender.
Something tells me that a man self-ID'ng as a lesbian woman is still going to make procreation pretty tough. I'm not saying impossible, but hardly the most efficient arrangement when it comes to reproduction.
True, but Caitlyn claims to have always been a woman and seems to have found a way.
-
i rough ridin' love frank zappa. i knew every word of bobby brown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUq_T_Bhau8) when i was 9 years old.
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
Yeah, horrible parents
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
Yeah, horrible parents
All I know is that they adopted a bunch of kids when she was a teenager and then she stole one of them, alleging abuse and turned that kid racist against white people.
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
Yeah, horrible parents
All I know is that they adopted a bunch of kids when she was a teenager and then she stole one of them, alleging abuse and turned that kid racist against white people.
Ok, so maybe they aren't that horrible...
-
i'm probably biased, but i think having an unduly large number of children is basically a form of child abuse. i haven't looked at any data, but i'd be amazed if it isn't deleterious to the children involved.
-
i'm probably biased, but i think having an unduly large number of children is basically a form of child abuse. i haven't looked at any data, but i'd be amazed if it isn't deleterious to the children involved.
Are you saying that the parents shouldn't have adopted a bunch of kids?
What if you adopt a bunch of kids that would have otherwise been in foster care and/or orphanages?
-
I mean they're just piling on at this point
http://www.tmz.com/2015/06/16/rachel-dolezal-father-lying-brown-crayons-white-african-american/
-
Are you saying that the parents shouldn't have adopted a bunch of kids?
What if you adopt a bunch of kids that would have otherwise been in foster care and/or orphanages?
no, not saying that. people can live their lives as they please.
that would benefit the adoptees and be deleterious to any other children the adopters had.
-
Are you saying that the parents shouldn't have adopted a bunch of kids?
What if you adopt a bunch of kids that would have otherwise been in foster care and/or orphanages?
no, not saying that. people can live their lives as they please.
that would benefit the adoptees and be deleterious to any other children the adopters had.
Well the other kids were teeenagers by the time they adopted, so I would say that it wouldn't be too detrimental to the teenagers at that point except for the evidence that it made Rachel go crazy.
-
I would say that it wouldn't be too detrimental to teenagers.
that would not be my initial hypothesis. i'd agree that it is probably less detrimental than if they were younger.
-
New saying - little black lie
-
Seems like the NAACP just forced someone to quit solely based on skin color, interesting. ..
Also, this seems like pretty standard psychopathy for the modern day NAACP - left-winged mouthpiece. LGBT people need to step up and make sure this woman can identify however she wants.
-
Seems like the NAACP just forced someone to quit solely based on skin color, interesting. ..
Also, this seems like pretty standard psychopathy for the modern day NAACP - left-winged mouthpiece. LGBT people need to step up and make sure this woman can identify however she wants.
Baltimore, MD – For 106 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has held a long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds. NAACP Spokane Washington Branch President Rachel Dolezal is enduring a legal issue with her family, and we respect her privacy in this matter. One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal’s advocacy record. In every corner of this country, the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.
Hate language sent through mail and social media along with credible threats continue to be a serious issue for our units in the Pacific Northwest and across the nation. We take all threats seriously and encourage the FBI and the Department of Justice to fully investigate each occurrence.
:dunno:
-
The bigger problem for the NAACP and other race-advocacy groups is that if people can really be allowed to self-identify as whatever race they want, that would be the death knell for affirmative action.
It's already crumbling. I mean, this woman was being investigated for committing fraud on a government application by listing her race as african-american. But is there even a legal definition of what african-american is? How could she possibly be prosecuted for that? Are there any instances of schools rejecting applicants who "fraudulently" list different ethnicities? I'd be very interested to know how that has turned out.
-
It's pretty ridiculous that any form asks for race for any purpose other than anonymous data collection
-
NAACP: [couched politically correct drivel. . . "respect" . . . noncommittal white wash . . . "privacy" . . .evaluating] and she's fired.
Michigancat: But look, [couched politically correct drivel. . . "respect" . . . noncommittal white wash . . . "privacy" . . .evaluating] :love:
-
She didn't get fired
-
She didn't get fired
Wanna bet?
-
Yeah, let's bet on it, fake sugar dick
-
She wasn't fired, she's just now allowed to work there anymore. :ROFL:
-
She should bring a 1983 action against the NAACP
-
Yeah, she should sue them!
-
It's weird and funny because all she had to do was say "I never intended to deceive anyone, my record of advocacy speaks for itself." And it would have been over. Instead she doubled and tripled down and jumped every shark.
-
It's weird and funny because all she had to do was say "I never intended to deceive anyone, my record of advocacy speaks for itself." And it would have been over. Instead she doubled and tripled down and jumped every shark.
That would not have saved her - just made it a little less embarrassing.
-
She should be fired. I mean, regardless of what her race is and how she identifies, she lied about everything repeatedly and her job is advocating the advancement of black people. She can't effectively perform that duty any longer, even if she was effective at it in the past.
-
It does put the "you are whatever _______ you think you are" crowd in a kinda funny spot though. I'd appreciate a ruling from the ge black caucus - is this any different than pretending to be a woman?
i dunno who you mean by the ge black caucus, but i'd be more interested in seeing the mental gymnastics (i admit, i'm anticipating some, it's possible none would materialize) from any of the posters that think that jenner's actions were brave or heroic.
Not sure who would think that. Maybe Edna?
i think there were a lot in the jenner award thread. don't remember individual posters, but it seemed to me like majority opinion.
I really shouldn't have opened this thread, that being said...
You really don't know the difference between someone struggling with gender identity their entire life and making a decision in their mid 60's to very publicly live as a different gender than she was identified by for her entire life and someone who just decided to be black for shits and giggles? Dolezal sued Howard University as a freaking adult because she felt she was discriminated against for being white. Then just a few years earlier made false hate crime claims as a "black" person. GMAFB with acting like these two are anything alike, shame on you.
Also you certainly know the difference between brave and heroic right? I hope you're trolling, it would hurt my heart to have to call you stupid.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
Do you seriously not know that people who transition are encouraged to seek psychological help and most doctors in America that perform reassignment surgery won't do it until the patient has had some help?
Maybe you should read a bit more before you keep opening your mouth about this :dunno:
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
Yeah, horrible parents
Disagree, actually this is absolutely the best thing that could happen to her. I hope that if one of my daughters are living a crazy ass lie to this extent that if I didn't have the courage to do what needs to be done to save her someone else does. You as a parent can't just sit back and watch this crap happen. Hopefully this forces her to deal with whatever is happening there and she reconciles with her family before her parents pass on.
-
NAACP: [couched politically correct drivel. . . "respect" . . . noncommittal white wash . . . "privacy" . . .evaluating] and she's fired.
Michigancat: But look, [couched politically correct drivel. . . "respect" . . . noncommittal white wash . . . "privacy" . . .evaluating] :love:
I don't even know why I'm bothering to address this with you but because I'm bored...
Let's say she was absolutely unceremoniously fired, thrown out on her ass. I mean whether she was or was not is unnecessary to the conversation. She didn't get fired because she's white, she got fired because her job is in the public sector where she has to interact with people and do things like raise money and she very publicly has been outed as, at best, living a lie. The nature of what this incident has become has made it extremely difficult for her to do her job effectively. It's no different that Notre Dame firing George O'Leary. His lie didn't prevent him from knowing how to coach football but them employing a publicly known liar would have done untold damage to Notre Dame and he absolutely would have gotten crushed on the recruiting trail.
By all means continue your predictable buffoonery, ignore the obvious to demonize the NAACP for picking on this poor hapless white woman.
-
It's weird and funny because all she had to do was say "I never intended to deceive anyone, my record of advocacy speaks for itself." And it would have been over. Instead she doubled and tripled down and jumped every shark.
I heard a woman who Dolezal had worked with that said that she did wonderful things for the community and she would always be grateful for that and she could have done everything she did without lying to everyone she was trying to help. I hope she continues to do the advocacy work after she gets her life straightened out.
-
The tip off should have been that if she was really black, she would have been the first black that did in fact crack. Holy crap, she's the oldest looking 37 in the history of planet earth. Stay out of the rough ridin' sun lady, she's gonna get skin cancer like yesterday.
This freak's propensity to attempt to steal people's children from them is also extremely problematic and under-reported.
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
Yeah, horrible parents
Disagree, actually this is absolutely the best thing that could happen to her. I hope that if one of my daughters are living a crazy ass lie to this extent that if I didn't have the courage to do what needs to be done to save her someone else does. You as a parent can't just sit back and watch this crap happen. Hopefully this forces her to deal with whatever is happening there and she reconciles with her family before her parents pass on.
Well, it seems like they kind of sat back and watched this happen for like 15 years and are now disputing the color of crayons she used as a kid via tmz. Best thing that could have happened to her.
-
So many words, so little substance. MIR, might get the least substance per word of any person on the internet. "Don't you know that [black blah blah my pov] is fact, and that you are a horrible person for saying otherwise [blah blah blah tangential attacks and allusions to social studies]" "Dolezal is a nut, oscar Jenner is totally normal"
GMAFB, do you have any cognitive capabilities?
-
Oh, by the way, she's bisexual too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/rachel-dolezal-bisexual_n_7606492.html?ir=Black+Voices&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000047
-
I find it heartening in the mist of tragedy in Charleston how people are coming together around their common faith in Christ. The president and the National media seek to drive a wedge between races. They and the Al Sharptons of the world foster a culture of victimization. This girl probably did have a deep seated need to help disadvantaged folk, and thought she had to be black or she could not help. Somewhere along the line the squirrel in her brain died. She has hurt the coming together of races. Many white kids adopt the element of urban minority culture without claiming to be black physically, in spirit yes. SC is a good example of how all can live together.
-
SC is a good example of how all can live together.
LOL wut
-
has it been discussed how mumped up her parents were/are? they're like determined to bring her down.
Her parents aren't necessarily horrible for trying to out her, but they still might be horrible parents - or maybe her brother is a liar. :dunno: I can't tell what is true and what isn't.
https://homeschoolersanonymous.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dolezal3.pdf
They may be a more mumped up version of the Duggars...basically super fundamentalist Christian, abusive child raising techniques, large family (although they adopted to get there)....and a son who allegedly sexually abused a younger sibling.
And supposedly they wouldn't help Rachel out of her abusive marriage. Or maybe the brother is making all of this up to get out of his charges?
-
You really don't know the difference between someone struggling with gender identity their entire life and making a decision in their mid 60's to very publicly live as a different gender than she was identified by for her entire life and someone who just decided to be black for shits and giggles? Dolezal sued Howard University as a freaking adult because she felt she was discriminated against for being white. Then just a few years earlier made false hate crime claims as a "black" person. GMAFB with acting like these two are anything alike, shame on you.
Also you certainly know the difference between brave and heroic right? I hope you're trolling, it would hurt my heart to have to call you stupid.
I think you may be deliberately misconstruing facts to try to bolster your POV. Rachel did not just decide to be black "for shits and giggles." She chose to attend historically black Howard University because she is quite clearly a transracial. She was admitted largely because of the folio of traditional African art she submitted with her application. While there, she was discriminated against because she was a black person trapped in a white's body. That's why she sued for discrimination. It would hurt my heart to think you can't understand the pernicious effect of racial and transracial discrimination.
And yes, it appears that Rachel did make up a few hate crimes, but she wouldn't be the first black person to do so. I hardly think that should disqualify her from being black, do you?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/racist-dorm-door-writing-was-hoax-grand-valley-state-u-police-say/ (http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/racist-dorm-door-writing-was-hoax-grand-valley-state-u-police-say/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations)
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/08/the_black_st_peters_prep_student_who_received_racist_text_during_his_run_for_student_council_sent_th.html#incart_m-rpt-1 (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/08/the_black_st_peters_prep_student_who_received_racist_text_during_his_run_for_student_council_sent_th.html#incart_m-rpt-1)
http://wweek.com/portland/article-3799-the_perfect_victim.html (http://wweek.com/portland/article-3799-the_perfect_victim.html)
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980620&slug=2757116 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980620&slug=2757116)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-27/news/0504270153_1_president-greg-waybright-alicia-hardin-american-college-personnel-association (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-27/news/0504270153_1_president-greg-waybright-alicia-hardin-american-college-personnel-association)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/nyregion/24columbia.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/nyregion/24columbia.html?_r=0)
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
Do you seriously not know that people who transition are encouraged to seek psychological help and most doctors in America that perform reassignment surgery won't do it until the patient has had some help?
Maybe you should read a bit more before you keep opening your mouth about this :dunno:
Ohhhhhh, so now trans-sexual/gender/vestite/racial people are just screwed up in the head? Man, that really hurts my heart to hear such bigotry. You know, until recently, we considered homosexuality a mental disorder, too. I bet you probably think they can just "pray it away" huh? This is the new normal, MIR. Thank goodness younger generations are more accepting than the older, bigotted folks. You'll all die off eventually.
-
You really don't know the difference between someone struggling with gender identity their entire life and making a decision in their mid 60's to very publicly live as a different gender than she was identified by for her entire life and someone who just decided to be black for shits and giggles? Dolezal sued Howard University as a freaking adult because she felt she was discriminated against for being white. Then just a few years earlier made false hate crime claims as a "black" person. GMAFB with acting like these two are anything alike, shame on you.
Also you certainly know the difference between brave and heroic right? I hope you're trolling, it would hurt my heart to have to call you stupid.
I think you may be deliberately misconstruing facts to try to bolster your POV. Rachel did not just decide to be black "for shits and giggles." She chose to attend historically black Howard University because she is quite clearly a transracial. She was admitted largely because of the folio of traditional African art she submitted with her application. While there, she was discriminated against because she was a black person trapped in a white's body. That's why she sued for discrimination. It would hurt my heart to think you can't understand the pernicious effect of racial and transracial discrimination.
And yes, it appears that Rachel did make up a few hate crimes, but she wouldn't be the first black person to do so. I hardly think that should disqualify her from being black, do you?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/racist-dorm-door-writing-was-hoax-grand-valley-state-u-police-say/ (http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/racist-dorm-door-writing-was-hoax-grand-valley-state-u-police-say/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations)
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/08/the_black_st_peters_prep_student_who_received_racist_text_during_his_run_for_student_council_sent_th.html#incart_m-rpt-1 (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/08/the_black_st_peters_prep_student_who_received_racist_text_during_his_run_for_student_council_sent_th.html#incart_m-rpt-1)
http://wweek.com/portland/article-3799-the_perfect_victim.html (http://wweek.com/portland/article-3799-the_perfect_victim.html)
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980620&slug=2757116 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980620&slug=2757116)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-27/news/0504270153_1_president-greg-waybright-alicia-hardin-american-college-personnel-association (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-27/news/0504270153_1_president-greg-waybright-alicia-hardin-american-college-personnel-association)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/nyregion/24columbia.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/nyregion/24columbia.html?_r=0)
Chill KSUW. I'm not sure how you read that as a defense of that woman, I was taking exception to the Caitlin Jenner comparison.
-
So many words, so little substance. MIR, might get the least substance per word of any person on the internet. "Don't you know that [black blah blah my pov] is fact, and that you are a horrible person for saying otherwise [blah blah blah tangential attacks and allusions to social studies]" "Dolezal is a nut, oscar Jenner is totally normal"
GMAFB, do you have any cognitive capabilities?
:blank:
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
Do you seriously not know that people who transition are encouraged to seek psychological help and most doctors in America that perform reassignment surgery won't do it until the patient has had some help?
Maybe you should read a bit more before you keep opening your mouth about this :dunno:
Ohhhhhh, so now trans-sexual/gender/vestite/racial people are just screwed up in the head? Man, that really hurts my heart to hear such bigotry. You know, until recently, we considered homosexuality a mental disorder, too. I bet you probably think they can just "pray it away" huh? This is the new normal, MIR. Thank goodness younger generations are more accepting than the older, bigotted folks. You'll all die off eventually.
Why are you always looking for a fight? There is literally no way possible someone attempting to have a rational conversation would have interpreted that post the way that you did. All I stated there is that many doctors that perform gender reassignment surgery require an evaluation before they will do the surgery, there are also insurers like Aetna that cover the surgery but also require the evaluations. I stated a fact. At no point did I comment on the mental faculties of transgendered people.
Feel free to respond but I'm done replying to you and fed about this topic if you have to fabricate things to argue about. If you want to discuss things I actually said than let's do that but I'm guessing you don't. Outside of what I said about her parents I really don't know what I said that anyone can disagree with.
-
How TF has Sammy Sosa not made an appearance in this thread yet?
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
Do you seriously not know that people who transition are encouraged to seek psychological help and most doctors in America that perform reassignment surgery won't do it until the patient has had some help?
Maybe you should read a bit more before you keep opening your mouth about this :dunno:
Ohhhhhh, so now trans-sexual/gender/vestite/racial people are just screwed up in the head? Man, that really hurts my heart to hear such bigotry. You know, until recently, we considered homosexuality a mental disorder, too. I bet you probably think they can just "pray it away" huh? This is the new normal, MIR. Thank goodness younger generations are more accepting than the older, bigotted folks. You'll all die off eventually.
Why are you always looking for a fight? There is literally no way possible someone attempting to have a rational conversation would have interpreted that post the way that you did. All I stated there is that many doctors that perform gender reassignment surgery require an evaluation before they will do the surgery, there are also insurers like Aetna that cover the surgery but also require the evaluations. I stated a fact. At no point did I comment on the mental faculties of transgendered people.
Feel free to respond but I'm done replying to you and fed about this topic if you have to fabricate things to argue about. If you want to discuss things I actually said than let's do that but I'm guessing you don't. Outside of what I said about her parents I really don't know what I said that anyone can disagree with.
Ok, sorry, I'm just playing around. ;) It's just amusing to me how this story has really put the "no judgment, new normal" crowd in a bit of pickle. If you're a trans______, you've got mental problems. Doesn't mean we should be nasty to them, but let's not kid ourselves about this being normal, rational behavior. But that's just what's coming down the road. In another decade it'll be considered bigotted to recommend psychiatric treatment for these folks.
-
All people who believe they are something they are not, to the point where they don't even believe their own birth certificate probably should.
not to jump immediately to the most recent hackneyed news event - but a logical extension of that statement would be that the condition of being transgender is a psychological disease.
Do you seriously not know that people who transition are encouraged to seek psychological help and most doctors in America that perform reassignment surgery won't do it until the patient has had some help?
Maybe you should read a bit more before you keep opening your mouth about this :dunno:
Ohhhhhh, so now trans-sexual/gender/vestite/racial people are just screwed up in the head? Man, that really hurts my heart to hear such bigotry. You know, until recently, we considered homosexuality a mental disorder, too. I bet you probably think they can just "pray it away" huh? This is the new normal, MIR. Thank goodness younger generations are more accepting than the older, bigotted folks. You'll all die off eventually.
Why are you always looking for a fight? There is literally no way possible someone attempting to have a rational conversation would have interpreted that post the way that you did. All I stated there is that many doctors that perform gender reassignment surgery require an evaluation before they will do the surgery, there are also insurers like Aetna that cover the surgery but also require the evaluations. I stated a fact. At no point did I comment on the mental faculties of transgendered people.
Feel free to respond but I'm done replying to you and fed about this topic if you have to fabricate things to argue about. If you want to discuss things I actually said than let's do that but I'm guessing you don't. Outside of what I said about her parents I really don't know what I said that anyone can disagree with.
Ok, sorry, I'm just playing around. ;) It's just amusing to me how this story has really put the "no judgment, new normal" crowd in a bit of pickle. If you're a trans______, you've got mental problems. Doesn't mean we should be nasty to them, but let's not kid ourselves about this being normal, rational behavior. But that's just what's coming down the road. In another decade it'll be considered bigotted to recommend psychiatric treatment for these folks.
I'm not transgendered so I can't speak with absolution here but I think it's helpful for a trans person to seek help because they have lived life as they know it repressing a large part of who they are, hiding from society, family, friends, and to an extent themselves. Telling society that you as you know me isn't the full picture, I would imagine comes with a very heavy burden, that's why it's probably a good idea to get some help.
Dolezal may not have a diagnosis either. Is pathological liar a clinical diagnosis?
-
Dolezal may not have a diagnosis either. Is pathological liar a clinical diagnosis?
Pathological lying is not officially recognized as a disorder but can be a symptom of other disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying
-
The lady also lied about being a model...but that's pretty small compared to her other lies. It's not as bad as Fanning saying he worked in "education".
-
You really don't know the difference between someone struggling with gender identity their entire life and making a decision in their mid 60's to very publicly live as a different gender than she was identified by for her entire life and someone who just decided to be black for shits and giggles? Dolezal sued Howard University as a freaking adult because she felt she was discriminated against for being white. Then just a few years earlier made false hate crime claims as a "black" person. GMAFB with acting like these two are anything alike, shame on you.
Also you certainly know the difference between brave and heroic right? I hope you're trolling, it would hurt my heart to have to call you stupid.
i don't troll.
you are making an assumption that dolezal chose to identify as black for shits and giggles. that assumption is unwarranted, and i'm also fairly confident that it is incorrect.
i have no problem with jenner choosing whatever identity he wants, or altering his body in whatever way he wants. i hope it provides him some relief for whatever pain his identity issues have caused him. i don't think it was particularly courageous. at least not in an admirable, exemplary way that is suitable of honoring by award. i suppose being a reality tv star is courageous in its own way as well - certainly having a camera follow me around all day knowing they intend to air the footage would terrify me no end. but i don't think that type of courage is something to be celebrated.
the analogy to dolezal is closer than you're admitting. i don't consider her to be admirable either. but i find it hard to accept that race is a less mutable part of one's identity that sex or gender. indeed, if america thinks that, i'd find it a ver sad commentary on america.
-
Do you seriously not know that people who transition are encouraged to seek psychological help and most doctors in America that perform reassignment surgery won't do it until the patient has had some help?
Maybe you should read a bit more before you keep opening your mouth about this :dunno:
yes, i do know that. do the people lionizing jenner know that?
-
Let's put the Spokane Sister on the new $10 bill. It will be the first black, women, and mental illness patient on a US paper bill.
-
You really don't know the difference between someone struggling with gender identity their entire life and making a decision in their mid 60's to very publicly live as a different gender than she was identified by for her entire life and someone who just decided to be black for shits and giggles? Dolezal sued Howard University as a freaking adult because she felt she was discriminated against for being white. Then just a few years earlier made false hate crime claims as a "black" person. GMAFB with acting like these two are anything alike, shame on you.
Also you certainly know the difference between brave and heroic right? I hope you're trolling, it would hurt my heart to have to call you stupid.
i don't troll.
you are making an assumption that dolezal chose to identify as black for shits and giggles. that assumption is unwarranted, and i'm also fairly confident that it is incorrect.
i have no problem with jenner choosing whatever identity he wants, or altering his body in whatever way he wants. i hope it provides him some relief for whatever pain his identity issues have caused him. i don't think it was particularly courageous. at least not in an admirable, exemplary way that is suitable of honoring by award. i suppose being a reality tv star is courageous in its own way as well - certainly having a camera follow me around all day knowing they intend to air the footage would terrify me no end. but i don't think that type of courage is something to be celebrated.
the analogy to dolezal is closer than you're admitting. i don't consider her to be admirable either. but i find it hard to accept that race is a less mutable part of one's identity that sex or gender. indeed, if america thinks that, i'd find it a ver sad commentary on america.
Pretty rational and logical viewpoint, sys.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
-
You really don't know the difference between someone struggling with gender identity their entire life and making a decision in their mid 60's to very publicly live as a different gender than she was identified by for her entire life and someone who just decided to be black for shits and giggles? Dolezal sued Howard University as a freaking adult because she felt she was discriminated against for being white. Then just a few years earlier made false hate crime claims as a "black" person. GMAFB with acting like these two are anything alike, shame on you.
Also you certainly know the difference between brave and heroic right? I hope you're trolling, it would hurt my heart to have to call you stupid.
i don't troll.
you are making an assumption that dolezal chose to identify as black for shits and giggles. that assumption is unwarranted, and i'm also fairly confident that it is incorrect.
i have no problem with jenner choosing whatever identity he wants, or altering his body in whatever way he wants. i hope it provides him some relief for whatever pain his identity issues have caused him. i don't think it was particularly courageous. at least not in an admirable, exemplary way that is suitable of honoring by award. i suppose being a reality tv star is courageous in its own way as well - certainly having a camera follow me around all day knowing they intend to air the footage would terrify me no end. but i don't think that type of courage is something to be celebrated.
the analogy to dolezal is closer than you're admitting. i don't consider her to be admirable either. but i find it hard to accept that race is a less mutable part of one's identity that sex or gender. indeed, if america thinks that, i'd find it a ver sad commentary on america.
Unwarranted speculation, lol. Other speculations I've made in the same realm: the sun is hot, a bullet fired from a gun would hurt to be shot with, people who are nuclear physicists are at worst reasonably intelligent, and Comet isn't delicious. I can't take your viewpoint on this seriously because you refuse to acknowledge the role that Dolezeal suing Howard University for discrimination against her as a white woman plays in your silly Jenner parallel.
Also I'm confused as to why you keep melding the conversation of courage and whether Caitlin Jenner should be receiving an award. Of course it's courageous to tell the world you're transgendered, is this even a doubt? Did I transform into a world where transgendered people are universally accepted? It is courageous for an accountant who lives in Brooklyn and it's courageous for someone who has been an Olympic hero and a public figure as a man for nearly 40 years. I legitimately don't care whether or not he gets an ESPY, Emmy, Tony, Country Music Award, whatever; to me it's completely trivial, getting the award isn't going to change her life. This seems to be like arguing whether or not you like Colin Cowherd. I can make arguments against Peter Frates and Lauren Hill, but why would I?
And knock it off with this race is more mutable than gender bs. No one itt has even attempted to make that argument as a matter of fact with regards to this situation I haven't heard anyone attempt to approach this nationally. You are the one who decided to interject the false flag of gender here. This story is about a person who perpetuated a fraud not someone who struggled for a lifetime to figure out whether or not they want to reveal their true self to the world.
-
Unwarranted speculation, lol. Other speculations I've made in the same realm: the sun is hot, a bullet fired from a gun would hurt to be shot with, people who are nuclear physicists are at worst reasonably intelligent, and Comet isn't delicious.
you have no evidence from which to conclude that dolezal is not sincere in her preference to identify as black. it merely does not suit you to do so.
I can't take your viewpoint on this seriously because you refuse to acknowledge the role that Dolezeal suing Howard University for discrimination against her as a white woman plays in your silly Jenner parallel.
i didn't address it because it is irrelevant. you don't state here in what way you think that it is relevant, so i'm forced to guess at your thought process. i'll credit you with at least not making the same ridiculous objection that mrs. gooch and michigancat raised (zomg, she knew she was white!). in the absence of your own arguments, i'll assume you are simply raising the point that previous to claiming an identity as black, she publicly acknowledged her identity as white and acted in that capacity and within that identity for most of her life. this too is irrelevant in distinguishing her situation from jenner's. jenner also acknowledged his identity as male and acted as such in many stereotypically male endeavors throughout his life. their behaviors in not consistently rejecting the identities society bestowed upon them does not, in and of itself, make their later expressions of preference for other identities hypocritical or illegitimate. the objection to dolezal having lived as white is about as ridiculous as claiming jenner was fraudulent in competing in athletic events as a male when he felt himself to be female.
Also I'm confused as to why you keep melding the conversation of courage and whether Caitlin Jenner should be receiving an award.
it was an award for courage or bravery or something like that.
Of course it's courageous to tell the world you're transgendered, is this even a doubt? Did I transform into a world where transgendered people are universally accepted?
if you judge by the reactions, both on this messageboard, and what i've encountered of reactions off the board, manifesting yourself as transgender is far more accepted than claiming a race which conflicts with your genetic origin. perhaps you should reread both threads to note the difference. if there is no doubt of the courage it takes to claim a transgender identity, how can you argue that it is not more courageous to claim an even less accepted identity?
And knock it off with this race is more mutable than gender bs. No one itt has even attempted to make that argument as a matter of fact with regards to this situation I haven't heard anyone attempt to approach this nationally.
you are right, no one here has had the courage or intellectual honesty to make that argument. instead the evidence that posters here consider it to be true is manifested in how they've lauded jenner's claim of an identity that conflicts with his biological sex and attacked dolezal for claiming an identity that conflicts with her biological race. actions speak more truthfully than arguments.
This story is about a person who perpetuated a fraud not someone who struggled for a lifetime to figure out whether or not they want to reveal their true self to the world.
fraud vs "true self". no, clearly you don't find gender to be more mutable than race. gmafb.
-
Do you think somebody that identified themselves as transgender is aware of their physical sex?
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Do you think somebody that identified themselves as transgender is aware of their physical sex?
Gonna win 'em all!
Just a weird little leg.
-
if you judge by the reactions, both on this messageboard, and what i've encountered of reactions off the board, manifesting yourself as transgender is far more accepted than claiming a race which conflicts with your genetic origin. perhaps you should reread both threads to note the difference. if there is no doubt of the courage it takes to claim a transgender identity, how can you argue that it is not more courageous to claim an even less accepted identity?
FWIW, I don't believe I've made a strong stance on the comparisons of Jenner vs. Dolezal. I know nothing about transracial people or their struggles (or even if it is a scientifically documented condition), but their struggle very well may be similar to that of transgendered people. I'm willing to learn more if you or K-S-U would like to genuinely share.
I think a lot of the differences in reactions on this board are because
a) people know more about the struggles of being transgendered versus being transracial
b) Jenner was extremely well-known while no one had heard of Dolezal.
c) the bizarre nature of Dolezal's story. If she had just had some random office job while being transracial or been upfront about her transracial condition with both the NAACP and University or not allegedly lied about hate crimes against her, this is pretty much a non-story, just like it's a non-story for thousands of transgenders who lead relatively simple lives.
-
people know more about the struggles of being transgendered versus being transracial
i have no doubt that much (most? virtually all?) of the difference can be ascribed to people having been told that they should support transgender identity and having never been told the same of people that claim a racial identity other than their own.
-
people know more about the struggles of being transgendered versus being transracial
i have no doubt that much (most? virtually all?) of the difference can be ascribed to people having been told that they should support transgender identity and having never been told the same of people that claim a racial identity other than their own.
Perhaps. And that may be because being transgender is better understood. I actually know a few transgendered folks personally but don't know of anyone who identifies as trans racial. I hadn't even heard of it before this week.
And that's quite an assumption from someone who chastised anyone who questioned Dolezal's motivations
-
Mrs. Gooch, she knows she is white or she is dealing with something that goes far beyond being transracial.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
And that may be because being transgender is better understood.
what difference does it make if it is a common and well understood phenomenon or if dolezal is unique in her identity preference?
-
And that may be because being transgender is better understood.
what difference does it make if it is a common and well understood phenomenon or if dolezal is unique in her identity preference?
People are more likely to develop opinions about issues they understand and are relatively widespread. I personally try not to take a strong stance on issues I know virtually nothing about. And yes, I would like to read several different opinions (and factual articles) about transracial people before I take a strong stance on Dolezal.
-
And that may be because being transgender is better understood.
what difference does it make if it is a common and well understood phenomenon or if dolezal is unique in her identity preference?
People are more likely to develop opinions about issues they understand and are relatively widespread. I personally try not to take a strong stance on issues I know virtually nothing about. And yes, I would like to read several different opinions (and factual articles) about transracial people before I take a strong stance on Dolezal.
my go to in situations like this is "it's maybe weird, but harmless, so who cares"
-
you should have the capacity to think critically about any given situation and generate an opinion that is logically consistent with your other opinions without waiting to see how others view the situation.
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
What percentage of people really believe that their highest purpose is to procreate? The Duggars maybe?
I generally try to give people wide latitude to live their lives, raise their children and behave in their own way. The Earth has a tremendous amount of disagreement on all kinds of first principles and while it goes without saying that I live my life according to my own code, I don't really see how it is universally applicable or would even be good if everyone applied my standards. Disagree with Kant here, because context matters and people should be free to pursue selfish and counter-productive lives when viewed through a purely utilitarian lens and unless it is really, really harmful to society they should be free to pursue that and deal with their own consequences.
-
what i find more interesting is how transracial/transgender/transwhatever reinforces stereotypes. how do males show they are female? by wearing dresses, heels, and make up. how do you show you're black now? weaves and frizzy afros.
i don't know where i'm going with that, but it's interesting to me
-
you should have the capacity to think critically about any given situation and generate an opinion that is logically consistent with your other opinions without waiting to see how others view the situation.
I absolutely can and often do, but I shouldn't take a strong stance without knowing any facts about the issue.
And I don't see anything wrong with seeing various opinions on an issue before developing my own. I like to be swayed.
-
ok, michigancat.
-
You know I have been swayed by your opinion before, sys.
-
i just wanted you to see how annoying that kind of response is.
-
OK
-
OK
doesn't count.
-
what i find more interesting is how transracial/transgender/transwhatever reinforces stereotypes. how do males show they are female? by wearing dresses, heels, and make up. how do you show you're black now? weaves and frizzy afros.
i don't know where i'm going with that, but it's interesting to me
Transthings can just use duct tape to pull 'er back oUT of the way
-
talk about putting a kink in your weasel :Wha:
-
So it sounds like we should objectively look at incest? I mean, if the the two people love each other, who are they hurting?
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Guys, I wasn't sold on this thread title at first, but I really like it now. It just fits.
-
So it sounds like we should objectively look at incest? I mean, if the the two people love each other, who are they hurting?
Gonna win 'em all!
i do have some very hot cousins....
-
I vote for trans-hillbillies.
-
Guys, I wasn't sold on this thread title at first, but I really like it now. It just fits.
Validated!
:kugoalposts:
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?
-
So did the first critter to crawl out of the muck of evolution sewage have male and female equipment to reproduce? That must of been a hell of a knot. This gal.has discombobulated the psyche and moral footing of America. Screwed up brains everywhere except in the pit.
-
God bless the pit
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?
Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation. To say nothing of human behavior. Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?
Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation. To say nothing of human behavior. Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?
Don't engage. I'm sure it goes back to imaginary bible. There is no science involved as desperately they want it to be
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?
Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation. To say nothing of human behavior. Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?
Don't engage. I'm sure it goes back to imaginary bible. There is no science involved as desperately they want it to be
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?
Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation. To say nothing of human behavior. Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?
Please elaborate. If I'm understanding you correctly, and I'm not at all sure that I am, I never said that procreation was our sole biological purposes - I said it was the most important biological purpose. The entire premise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is that the strong propagate the species by successfully reproducing, thereby passing along their their genes.
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
-
The problem is not that this lady is transracial, but that she is a liar. When she got found out she didn't simply say, "Yes I am biologically white but I identify as black because of my life experiences." No, she dances around questions and she says, "There is no proof that I am really the daughter of the parents whose names are on my birth certificate." She made up hate crimes to either seem more black or just be a victim.
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.
It's just the way God made them, it cannot be a disorder.
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.
So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble but God does not sit up in heaven and cook up new babies. He created the world and man to be perfect. He did not create a man with right handed threads and a woman with left handed threads on their baby makers - he created perfection that could replicate. After man sinned the world has spiraled down a hole of debauchery, including homosexuality. But this does not give license though attack, harm or discriminate against someone.
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.
So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.
No, I'm not saying that at all. Many people decide not to have children for many reasons, and we have no idea whether that is due to genetics or societal influences. That's the age-old "nature versus nurture" debate, which is not yet fully understood. However, I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic - not a "choice." And I would consider a genetic condition that makes you unlikely to reproduce as a disorder from a biological standpoint. I guess we can quible over the definition of "disorder" - I'm simply using that term to refer to a "weak" characteristic (and of course I'm not referring to physical strength) that should not be passed along according to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.
So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.
No, I'm not saying that at all. Many people decide not to have children for many reasons, and we have no idea whether that is due to genetics or societal influences. That's the age-old "nature versus nurture" debate, which is not yet fully understood. However, I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic - not a "choice." And I would consider a genetic condition that makes you unlikely to reproduce as a disorder from a biological standpoint. I guess we can quible over the definition of "disorder" - I'm simply using that term to refer to a "weak" characteristic (and of course I'm not referring to physical strength) that should not be passed along according to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.
Darwin's theory says it doesn't got passed on because of the reality that those traits which prevent reproduction simply don't get passed. Not that they shouldn't be. Self fulfilling prophecy and what not.
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
-
I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two. I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.
So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.
So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.
No, I'm not saying that at all. Many people decide not to have children for many reasons, and we have no idea whether that is due to genetics or societal influences. That's the age-old "nature versus nurture" debate, which is not yet fully understood. However, I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic - not a "choice." And I would consider a genetic condition that makes you unlikely to reproduce as a disorder from a biological standpoint. I guess we can quible over the definition of "disorder" - I'm simply using that term to refer to a "weak" characteristic (and of course I'm not referring to physical strength) that should not be passed along according to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.
Darwin's theory says it doesn't got passed on because of the reality that those traits which prevent reproduction simply don't get passed. Not that they shouldn't be. Self fulfilling prophecy and what not.
Right.
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
True. And...I don't think gay people are born to only gay parents so this whole Darwin theory applying to the "gay gene" doesn't really make sense.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.someecards.com%2Fsomeecards%2Fusercards%2F1309340771687_2496682.png&hash=2900a29dacafd25671214c64a2da7e49c7c37265)
-
Statistical there's a pretty decent chance that one of ksuw's 10 kids is gay
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
True. And...I don't think gay people are born to only gay parents so this whole Darwin theory applying to the "gay gene" doesn't really make sense.
Correct, and this is true for many other disorders as well, which is one reason why the continuation of homosexuality, DS, etc. does not necessarily disprove Darwin's theory of natural selection, as some have postulated. I probably shouldn't have even brought Darwin into the mix, as it appears to have confused the issue, but I was only trying to make the point that successful reproduction is paramount in biology.
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
-
Unwarranted speculation, lol. Other speculations I've made in the same realm: the sun is hot, a bullet fired from a gun would hurt to be shot with, people who are nuclear physicists are at worst reasonably intelligent, and Comet isn't delicious.
you have no evidence from which to conclude that dolezal is not sincere in her preference to identify as black. it merely does not suit you to do so.
I can't take your viewpoint on this seriously because you refuse to acknowledge the role that Dolezeal suing Howard University for discrimination against her as a white woman plays in your silly Jenner parallel.
i didn't address it because it is irrelevant. you don't state here in what way you think that it is relevant, so i'm forced to guess at your thought process. i'll credit you with at least not making the same ridiculous objection that mrs. gooch and michigancat raised (zomg, she knew she was white!). in the absence of your own arguments, i'll assume you are simply raising the point that previous to claiming an identity as black, she publicly acknowledged her identity as white and acted in that capacity and within that identity for most of her life. this too is irrelevant in distinguishing her situation from jenner's. jenner also acknowledged his identity as male and acted as such in many stereotypically male endeavors throughout his life. their behaviors in not consistently rejecting the identities society bestowed upon them does not, in and of itself, make their later expressions of preference for other identities hypocritical or illegitimate. the objection to dolezal having lived as white is about as ridiculous as claiming jenner was fraudulent in competing in athletic events as a male when he felt himself to be female.
Also I'm confused as to why you keep melding the conversation of courage and whether Caitlin Jenner should be receiving an award.
it was an award for courage or bravery or something like that.
Of course it's courageous to tell the world you're transgendered, is this even a doubt? Did I transform into a world where transgendered people are universally accepted?
if you judge by the reactions, both on this messageboard, and what i've encountered of reactions off the board, manifesting yourself as transgender is far more accepted than claiming a race which conflicts with your genetic origin. perhaps you should reread both threads to note the difference. if there is no doubt of the courage it takes to claim a transgender identity, how can you argue that it is not more courageous to claim an even less accepted identity?
And knock it off with this race is more mutable than gender bs. No one itt has even attempted to make that argument as a matter of fact with regards to this situation I haven't heard anyone attempt to approach this nationally.
you are right, no one here has had the courage or intellectual honesty to make that argument. instead the evidence that posters here consider it to be true is manifested in how they've lauded jenner's claim of an identity that conflicts with his biological sex and attacked dolezal for claiming an identity that conflicts with her biological race. actions speak more truthfully than arguments.
This story is about a person who perpetuated a fraud not someone who struggled for a lifetime to figure out whether or not they want to reveal their true self to the world.
fraud vs "true self". no, clearly you don't find gender to be more mutable than race. gmafb.
I forgot to check in on this thread. It seems as if your entire argument here has to do with Dolezal and Jenner not being mutually exclusive and so you're willing to completely trash all common sense when it comes to Dolezal because you think you've found the perfect parallel to fit your Jenner argument from a month ago. Just because there are parallels does not mean they are the same and making them so is preposterous. What Dolezal did is no different than me deciding that I am a polar bear and I should be treated as such. Rachel Dolezal is no more trans racial than I am transspecies. And I'm not sure what you're doing when it seems that you keep hinting that I, more than anyone else, should ascribe to your lazy ass assertion about Dolezal and her so called identity.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/17/3670801/transracial-adoption-rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner/
Also give me a break with you using the Jenner and Dolezal threads as your sample size about acceptance, what total bullshit. Jenner is universally accepted as transgendered, there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that there are people who loved oscar but now considers him less than human. As many parallels that Jenner and Dolezal have this isn't one of them and this is the most important one to this conversation. Virtually everyone who actually knows what being transracial means have at the very least strong doubts about whether or not she actually identifies that way and for good reason. If you want to ignore all of the things this lady has done and not done to make you seem more right about Caitlin Jenner go right ahead, but it seems very intellectually dishonest.
-
If at this point you still can't see that saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder is unhelpful in describing anything as it is actually occurring on Earth then carry on.
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
What about reading? What about wine making? What about Air Jordan sneakers?
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
holy crap, I just pissed myself
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
What about reading? What about wine making? What about Air Jordan sneakers?
Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
What about reading? What about wine making? What about Air Jordan sneakers?
Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.
You can't separate human culture from the species' biological evolution. They are completely entwined - humans would not become the dominant species in the world without their culture.
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
What about reading? What about wine making? What about Air Jordan sneakers?
Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.
Is biology really the best lens through which to view the human condition? Human behavior? Kind of nihilistic, isn't it? Don't you believe we have a higher calling?
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.
Tell it to the bees
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.
Tell it to the bees
Worker bees have a disorder, obvs
-
I forgot to check in on this thread. It seems as if your entire argument here has to do with Dolezal and Jenner not being mutually exclusive and so you're willing to completely trash all common sense when it comes to Dolezal because you think you've found the perfect parallel to fit your Jenner argument from a month ago.
i'd argue that common sense makes clear the parallel. since "common sense" seems not to lead to similar conclusions, perhaps each of us should rely less on such lazy phrasing and make our arguments for and against parallels more explicit.
i'll start with the fairly broad - both situations involve a person claiming an identity (identity, essentially meaning the person that they would prefer other people to see and treat them as) which does not correspond to reality. to me, that pretty much starts and ends the discussion. if you feel there are nuances that distinguish one situation from the other, feel free to highlight them.
What Dolezal did is no different than me deciding that I am a polar bear and I should be treated as such. Rachel Dolezal is no more trans racial than I am transspecies.
and jenner is not a woman. if you sincerely wished to be thought of and treated as a polar bear, i'd agree that your case could be added to the discussion as another parallel.
And I'm not sure what you're doing when it seems that you keep hinting that I, more than anyone else, should ascribe to your lazy ass assertion about Dolezal and her so called identity.
i have not hinted that.
Also give me a break with you using the Jenner and Dolezal threads as your sample size about acceptance, what total bullshit.
i considered it more fair that considering external opinions, since anything i looked for outside of this board would be subject to selection bias. furthermore, the population of interest to me is the posters on this board. i'm already aware that there are people in the world that believe all manner of idiocies. for the most part, this board is used by reasonable people that, in very broad terms, see the world similarly to how i do. their opinions interest me far more than the opinions of a broader population.
Virtually everyone who actually knows what being transracial means have at the very least strong doubts about whether or not she actually identifies that way and for good reason.
go ahead and list those reasons.
If you want to ignore all of the things this lady has done and not done to make you seem more right about Caitlin Jenner go right ahead, but it seems very intellectually dishonest.
we are not evaluating the quality of person of either dolezal or jenner. i don't recall anyone making the argument that only people of acceptable character can claim to be transgender.
-
reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue against that?)
reproduction is the primary imperative of the individual (more properly of the gene). the species is not united by any common imperative to reproduce. i derive no benefit if you reproduce. you derive no benefit if i do.
-
The problem is not that this lady is transracial, but that she is a liar. When she got found out she didn't simply say, "Yes I am biologically white but I identify as black because of my life experiences." No, she dances around questions and she says, "There is no proof that I am really the daughter of the parents whose names are on my birth certificate." She made up hate crimes to either seem more black or just be a victim.
the dishonesty is off-putting.
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
What about reading? What about wine making? What about Air Jordan sneakers?
Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.
You can't separate human culture from the species' biological evolution. They are completely entwined - humans would not become the dominant species in the world without their culture.
Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true. "Yup, without our culture the dolphins or gorillas would have been our overlords." :lol:
-
reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue against that?)
reproduction is the primary imperative of the individual (more properly of the gene). the species is not united by any common imperative to reproduce. i derive no benefit if you reproduce. you derive no benefit if i do.
Except that the species goes extinct without it. So it's pretty important. Like, the most important.
-
Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.
it's completely true. you may not understand what is meant by culture. go try and survive a year without access to human culture.
-
The species goes extinct without it. But otherwise, I totally agree. So in other words, I totally disagree.
the species does not care if it goes extinct. the individual (the gene) does. that's the difference.
-
Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.
it's completely true. you may not understand what is meant by culture. go try and survive a year without access to human culture.
Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?
-
The species goes extinct without it. But otherwise, I totally agree. So in other words, I totally disagree.
the species does not care if it goes extinct. the individual (the gene) does. that's the difference.
Now you're quibling over semantics.
-
Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.
it's completely true. you may not understand what is meant by culture. go try and survive a year without access to human culture.
Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?
Yes, that is correct.
-
There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.
What about reading? What about wine making? What about Air Jordan sneakers?
Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.
Is biology really the best lens through which to view the human condition? Human behavior? Kind of nihilistic, isn't it? Don't you believe we have a higher calling?
I don't disagree with you, but that's a completely different issue. That is why I have made quite clear that I am only talking from a biological perspective.
-
Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.
it's completely true. you may not understand what is meant by culture. go try and survive a year without access to human culture.
Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.
Tell it to the bees
Worker bees have a disorder, obvs
:lol:
-
Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?
correct. the amount of non-genetic information passed on from generation to generation among humans is much greater than occurs in any other species.
-
Now you're quibling over semantics.
no, not really. it may be tangential to the discussions in this thread, but it's a very fundamental distinction.
-
Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.
it's completely true. you may not understand what is meant by culture. go try and survive a year without access to human culture.
Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?
here you go, bud:
The word is used in a general sense as the evolved ability to categorize and represent experiences with symbols and to act imaginatively and creatively. This ability arose with the evolution of behavioral modernity in humans around 50,000 years ago. This capacity is often thought to be unique to humans, although some other species have demonstrated similar, though much less complex abilities for social learning.
Behavioral modernity is a suite of behavioral and cognitive traits that distinguishes current H. sapiens from anatomically modern humans, hominins, and other primates. Although often debated, most scholars agree that modern human behavior can be characterized by abstract thinking, planning depth, symbolic behavior (e.g. art, ornamentation, music), exploitation of large game, blade technology, among others.
Some of these human universal patterns are cumulative cultural adaptation, social norms, language, cooperative breeding, and extensive help and cooperation beyond close kin. These traits have been viewed as largely responsible for the human replacement of Neanderthals in Western Europe and the peopling of the rest of the world.
-
Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?
A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.
This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse others of being "anti-science."
-
Might want to check your source bread, the earth is only 6000 years old
-
Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?
A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.
This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.
-
Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?
A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.
This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."
You consistently have a very special ability to miss very simple points
-
Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?
A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.
This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.
And yet, other species thrive without books. Or air jordans or wine. What's the common denominator? Oh right - they make more of themselves. One might say that reproduction is paramount to survival of a species.
-
The species goes extinct without it. But otherwise, I totally agree. So in other words, I totally disagree.
the species does not care if it goes extinct. the individual (the gene) does. that's the difference.
So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction? Someone brought up bees... the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species. Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?
Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species? I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand specific behaviors since they're protected? Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
-
Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?
A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.
This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.
And yet, other species thrive without books. Or air jordans or wine. What's the common denominator? Oh right - they make more of themselves. One might say that reproduction is paramount to survival of a species.
Not like humans, they don't.
-
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference.
before modern sanitation techniques made safe drinking water widely available, alcohol kept an enormous number of people alive long enough to reproduce and rear offspring.
-
It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd. :lol:
-
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference.
before modern sanitation techniques made safe drinking water widely available, alcohol kept an enormous number of people alive long enough to reproduce and rear offspring.
Well, that's a good point. I thought I might have been underselling wine.
-
It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd. :lol:
In the absence of farming techniques, modern medicine, and other technologies, the earth can only support about 15 people per square mile. They can have all of the babies they want, but most of them are just going to die if they get over than 15 person threshold.
-
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference.
before modern sanitation techniques made safe drinking water widely available, alcohol kept an enormous number of people alive long enough to reproduce and rear offspring.
Well, that's a good point. I thought I might have been underselling wine.
don't forget about farming grapes
but how would farming help a species? :lol:
-
So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction? Someone brought up bees... the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.
colonial insects are an interesting case. people have argued that the colony is (can be thought of) as a single organism. in such a model, the workers are like the body, caring for the reproductive insects, which are like the gametes.
regardless of whether you like such a model, the workers share genes with the queen and drones. they work to perpetuate those genes.
Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?
altruism in animals like humans is generally thought to have evolved because humans evolved in small social groups with whom they shared genes. it can benefit an individual to behave altruistically among related individuals because the benefits help those related individuals pass along copies of shared genes (this is an extremely simplified synopsis, books have been written on the subject).
Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species? I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand specific behaviors since they're protected? Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?
i don't understand this part.
-
If reproduction was the most important factor the world would be ruled by rabbits.
-
So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction? Someone brought up bees... the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.
colonial insects are an interesting case. people have argued that the colony is (can be thought of) as a single organism. in such a model, the workers are like the body, caring for the reproductive insects, which are like the gametes.
regardless of whether you like such a model, the workers share genes with the queen and drones. they work to perpetuate those genes.
Those people would be rough ridin' idiots:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130617111341.htm
The researchers found that colonies where the queen had mated at least seven times were 2.86 times more likely to survive the 10-month working season. Specifically, 48 percent of colonies with queens who had mated at least seven times were still alive at the end of the season. Only 17 percent of the less genetically diverse colonies survived. "48 percent survival is still an alarmingly low survival rate, but it's far better than 17 percent," Tarpy says.
"This study confirms that genetic diversity is enormously important in honey bee populations," Tarpy says. "And it also offers some guidance to beekeepers about breeding strategies that will help their colonies survive."
Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?
altruism in animals like humans is generally thought to have evolved because humans evolved in small social groups with whom they shared genes. it can benefit an individual to behave altruistically among related individuals because the benefits help those related individuals pass along copies of shared genes (this is an extremely simplified synopsis, books have been written on the subject).
This whole argument is on point with reproduction, yes, groups act to ensure the survival of the group and young. We try to pass our genes on, but we also search out more genetically diverse partners. I am assuming those books you mention also discussed genetic diversity within a group as a key factor in their survival. Otherwise, these books ignored the fact humans would have died out long ago.
Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species? I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand specific behaviors since they're protected? Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?
i don't understand this part.
Yes, ignore the first sentence not really relevant. the rest was more a commentary on the general tone of others in the thread.
-
It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd. :lol:
In the absence of farming techniques, modern medicine, and other technologies, the earth can only support about 15 people per square mile. They can have all of the babies they want, but most of them are just going to die if they get over than 15 person threshold.
And without reproduction, the earth can only support 0 people per square mile. This seems to indicate that reproduction is the single most important thing to continuation of a species.
-
So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction? Someone brought up bees... the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.
colonial insects are an interesting case. people have argued that the colony is (can be thought of) as a single organism. in such a model, the workers are like the body, caring for the reproductive insects, which are like the gametes.
regardless of whether you like such a model, the workers share genes with the queen and drones. they work to perpetuate those genes.
Those people would be rough ridin' idiots:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130617111341.htm
The researchers found that colonies where the queen had mated at least seven times were 2.86 times more likely to survive the 10-month working season. Specifically, 48 percent of colonies with queens who had mated at least seven times were still alive at the end of the season. Only 17 percent of the less genetically diverse colonies survived. "48 percent survival is still an alarmingly low survival rate, but it's far better than 17 percent," Tarpy says.
"This study confirms that genetic diversity is enormously important in honey bee populations," Tarpy says. "And it also offers some guidance to beekeepers about breeding strategies that will help their colonies survive."
Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?
altruism in animals like humans is generally thought to have evolved because humans evolved in small social groups with whom they shared genes. it can benefit an individual to behave altruistically among related individuals because the benefits help those related individuals pass along copies of shared genes (this is an extremely simplified synopsis, books have been written on the subject).
This whole argument is on point with reproduction, yes, groups act to ensure the survival of the group and young. We try to pass our genes on, but we also search out more genetically diverse partners. I am assuming those books you mention also discussed genetic diversity within a group as a key factor in their survival. Otherwise, these books ignored the fact humans would have died out long ago.
Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species? I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand specific behaviors since they're protected? Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?
i don't understand this part.
Yes, ignore the first sentence not really relevant. the rest was more a commentary on the general tone of others in the thread.
Somebody needs to teach those bees how to farm or read. Then they wouldn't have to worry about reproducing.
-
i'll start with the fairly broad - both situations involve a person claiming an identity (identity, essentially meaning the person that they would prefer other people to see and treat them as) which does not correspond to reality. to me, that pretty much starts and ends the discussion. if you feel there are nuances that distinguish one situation from the other, feel free to highlight them.
I did, in pretty great length, I even said "As many parallels that Jenner and Dolezal have this isn't one of them and this is the most important one to this conversation" within the post.
and jenner is not a woman. if you sincerely wished to be thought of and treated as a polar bear, i'd agree that your case could be added to the discussion as another parallel.
Right, I'm not a polar bear, Jenner is not a woman, and Dolezal isn't black. I'm not telling people I'm a polar bear, Jenner isn't telling people he's a woman, bur Dolezal was telling people she was black. Jenner was a man, now he's transgendered because he identifies with being a woman more so than being a man. Dolezal has absolutely not at any point portended to a white person who better identified with black people. Jenner is open and honest about being born a man but identifying better with women. Dolezal went to great lengths to hide the fact that she is/was a white woman. When you don't acknowledge what you were/is you by definition cannot be trans___. She isn't transracial because she tried to scrub any and every sign that she was born white. If someone was TRANSITIONED from a male to a female but never acknowledged that they were ever a male they would be equally fraudulent.
i considered it more fair that considering external opinions, since anything i looked for outside of this board would be subject to selection bias. furthermore, the population of interest to me is the posters on this board. i'm already aware that there are people in the world that believe all manner of idiocies. for the most part, this board is used by reasonable people that, in very broad terms, see the world similarly to how i do. their opinions interest me far more than the opinions of a broader population.
We're having a conversation about global issues, you are choosing to look at this in a vacuum because you think it suits your point better.
go ahead and list those reasons.
Not doing it again
we are not evaluating the quality of person of either dolezal or jenner. i don't recall anyone making the argument that only people of acceptable character can claim to be transgender.
Well in a way I am absolutely evaluating the quality of a person that Dolezal is. I explicitly said that she can't be transracial because she is a liar that perpetuated a fraud. I have no idea about Jenner. He very well may have been a liar that perpetuated a fraud when he married those women, although he claimed he was honest with Kris, I do know when he publicly decided to come to terms with who he is he did it as someone that is transgendered and not someone who has always been a woman. Dolezal telling people that that old black man that she knew for about 10 minutes was her dad is the same thing as Caitlin Jenner telling people that she was born with a vagina and she is a natural b cup. Dolezal was credited for doing things for the black people in Spokane, so kudos for being selfless; that doesn't mean that she can't be a lying clownfraud.
-
I'd say bees are actually pretty good farmers.
-
I'd say bees are actually pretty good farmers.
But how many air jordans have they made?
-
I'd say bees are actually pretty good farmers.
But how many air jordans have they made?
Zero, and I could squish about a million bees with a pair of Jordan's. Advantage: humans.
-
Somebody needs to teach those bees how to farm or read. Then they wouldn't have to worry about reproducing.
Bees that could farm and read would probably put an end to humanity. They would run this world.
I'd say bees are actually pretty good farmers.
Not really. They have to go out and find flowers to collect pollen from. It would be a lot more efficient if they would collect the seeds while they are out and plant their own fields.
-
Those people would be rough ridin' idiots:
it's just a model. a way of viewing the system. an analogy. your link is interesting, but decreasing the relatedness between sibling workers doesn't invalidate the model. as long as the workers are still working to assist relatives (and obviously, they are), it's still relevant.
This whole argument is on point with reproduction, yes, groups act to ensure the survival of the group and young. We try to pass our genes on, but we also search out more genetically diverse partners. I am assuming those books you mention also discussed genetic diversity within a group as a key factor in their survival. Otherwise, these books ignored the fact humans would have died out long ago.
that's a little strong. there a number of extant species that have very little genetic diversity. in general, humans tend to overestimate the deleterious impact of inbreeding.
searching out unrelated sexual partners is not terribly related to the evolution of altruism.
more a commentary on the general tone of others in the thread.
yeah, i agree. people should try to understand anything and everything.
-
I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. How is this not immediately obvious?
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?
Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?
A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.
This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."
Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.
And yet, other species thrive without books. Or air jordans or wine. What's the common denominator? Oh right - they make more of themselves. One might say that reproduction is paramount to survival of a species.
It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd. :lol:
you seem to have distilled this down to the notion that if a species doesn't make new members then it goes extinct, which is true. that doesn't make it the most important biological imperative though. that's resource procurement imo.
species that had no problem physically procreating have gone extinct. their baby makers didn't suddenly mass-malfunction. i'm not aware of a species going extinct because its members universally lost the ability or inclination to eff. i suppose it could have happened, but i don't think it's common. typically the species loses access to the resources necessary for its survival and/or is killed off in large numbers (e.g., predation, disease, change in climate/environment).
the reason humanity is the dominant species is thanks to our social evolution, which permits us to control any and all available resources. likewise we also now have no natural predators that threaten our numbers. we do not involuntarily take a backseat to any other species in those regards, and it isn't due simply to how many new members we produce vs. how many they produce. we didn't out-eff them, we out-cultured them.
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
-
i mean if there comes a point in the future that our procreation outpaces our culturally-derived ability to provide for it, then our culture will act to constrain our procreation in order to preserve our habitat/resources and ensure the survival of the species. then it will be obvious to people like you what takes precedence, though it should be already.
-
i mean if there comes a point in the future that our procreation outpaces our culturally-derived ability to provide for it, then our culture will act to constrain our procreation in order to preserve our habitat/resources and ensure the survival of the species. then it will be obvious to people like you what takes precedence, though it should be already.
We are almost at that point, in fact I would argue that some places on Earth already are.
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
i would imagine that it might be something many trans_ people feel compelled to do rather than face societal scrutiny about the legitimacy and morality of their preferences. at least i can see that it would be an appealing option with the working assumption that you aren't going to be later outed.
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
That's waaaaaaayyyyy too simplistic to the point of that not being what I said at all. By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman. Caitlin Jenner acknowledges that she was born a man, thus the TRANS. She very well may be lying about what she told Kris Jenner or what happened in that car wreck that killed that old woman. Rachel Dolezal, in her current iteration, did not ever acknowledge that she was born white, as a matter of fact she did fraudulent things to conceal that she is/was white like finding a random old black man that she adopted as her "dad." If she doesn't acknowledge that she was ever white or being white was ever in her existence she isn't transitioning from anything.
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
That's waaaaaaayyyyy too simplistic to the point of that not being what I said at all. By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman. Caitlin Jenner acknowledges that she was born a man, thus the TRANS. She very well may be lying about what she told Kris Jenner or what happened in that car wreck that killed that old woman. Rachel Dolezal, in her current iteration, did not ever acknowledge that she was born white, as a matter of fact she did fraudulent things to conceal that she is/was white like finding a random old black man that she adopted as her "dad." If she doesn't acknowledge that she was ever white or being white was ever in her existence she isn't transitioning from anything.
not an expert, but the fact that someone is say born a man, but feels like a woman and begins dressing and acting like one without telling others and even actively conceals or lies about that, what they are doing still qualifies as transgender. it's merely a coping mechanism. it's far easier to accomplish and far less stressful if no one knows what you were before. i would think. it may be immoral, but it isn't a disqualifying factor. quite the contrary.
trans·gen·der
trans?jend?r,tranz?jend?r/
adjective
denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.
are you saying that a biological male who has for every moment of their lives felt like a female is not transgendered? what are they if they always thought they were a woman? i don't think the distinction you are attempting to draw actually exists (outside of your head).
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
That's waaaaaaayyyyy too simplistic to the point of that not being what I said at all. By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman. Caitlin Jenner acknowledges that she was born a man, thus the TRANS. She very well may be lying about what she told Kris Jenner or what happened in that car wreck that killed that old woman. Rachel Dolezal, in her current iteration, did not ever acknowledge that she was born white, as a matter of fact she did fraudulent things to conceal that she is/was white like finding a random old black man that she adopted as her "dad." If she doesn't acknowledge that she was ever white or being white was ever in her existence she isn't transitioning from anything.
not an expert, but the fact that someone is say born a man, but feels like a woman and begins dressing and acting like one without telling others and even actively conceals or lies about that, what they are doing still qualifies as transgender. it's merely a coping mechanism. it's far easier to accomplish and far less stressful if no one knows what you were before. i would think. it may be immoral, but it isn't a disqualifying factor. quite the contrary.
trans·gen·der
trans?jend?r,tranz?jend?r/
adjective
denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.
are you saying that a biological male who has for every moment of their lives felt like a female is not transgendered? what are they if they always thought they were a woman? i don't think the distinction you are attempting to draw actually exists (outside of your head).
First of all I need to clean something up, in the above quote I used transsexual, that was a mistake. I used the term transgender when speaking of Caitlin Jenner and I meant to do it there but I didn't, they are a distinction with differences. I'm guessing since you used some definition of transgender you know what I intended to say so...
No, that's not what I'm saying and you're perfectly aware that's now what I'm saying. Where the eff did you get that definition from? Did you look for several definitions that left out the key component or did you slice it up yourself?
From GLAAD http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
TRANSGENDER-SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY
Transgender (adj.)
An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the individual. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to change their bodies. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon medical procedures.
dictionary.com
transgender
[trans-jen-der, tranz?]
adjective, Also, transgendered
1. noting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex assigned at birth: the transgender movement;
transgender rights.
University of Southern Indiana LGBT Study
This campaign will be launched April 18th 2007
Transgender Campaign
Transgender people are people who were assigned a gender, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves. Not all Transgendered people feel the need to change their bodies, for some though it's necessary for the health and well being of the individual. Most transsexual people desire to establish a permanent social role as a member of the gender with which they identify, some do feel the need to change their bodies because of intense gender dysphoria. The entire process of switching from one physical and social gender presentation to the other is often referred to as transition, and usually takes several years.
The USI LGBT campaign is conducting research into the issues affecting Transgendered people in society and students so they can adequately provide support for them in the form of information, as a voice promoting their rights or otherwise.
http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/gender_equality_scheme.pdf
"Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."[
-
If I'm reading this thread correctly, gays can get married so long as they also identify as being trans. People that are bi can get married so long as they marry someone of the opposite gender they are or trans to. Non trans gays can't get married, and neither can straights if one of them is trans.
The NAACP fired someone for being white, and apparently that's a-okay. However, questioning whether someone who wants to mutilate their sexual organ is lucid is wrong because a bunch of idiots on this board identify with a bunch of other idiots that agree and they'll go after you hard for rolling your eyes at their perverse sense of normal.
-
you aren't reading the thread correctly
-
Fsd identifies as moron
-
:lol:
Okay, you all go along debating how trans someone has to be to be transexual, and why it's different than being trans race, and everyone can just continue laughing at how stupid you are.
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.
Tell it to the bees
Worker bees have a disorder, obvs
:lol:
they do sense when the queen has died, left the hive (swarmed), or is weak. Then they feed the royal jelly to several eggs to produce one new queen.
(Pretty high hbiq)
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches
As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.
Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.
Tell it to the bees
Worker bees have a disorder, obvs
:lol:
they do sense when the queen has died, left the hive (swarmed), or is weak. Then they feed the royal jelly to several eggs to produce one new queen.
(Pretty high hbiq)
Gonna win 'em all!
you've researched how to most efficiently kill them with your big chemicals haven't you :frown:
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
That's waaaaaaayyyyy too simplistic to the point of that not being what I said at all. By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman. Caitlin Jenner acknowledges that she was born a man, thus the TRANS. She very well may be lying about what she told Kris Jenner or what happened in that car wreck that killed that old woman. Rachel Dolezal, in her current iteration, did not ever acknowledge that she was born white, as a matter of fact she did fraudulent things to conceal that she is/was white like finding a random old black man that she adopted as her "dad." If she doesn't acknowledge that she was ever white or being white was ever in her existence she isn't transitioning from anything.
not an expert, but the fact that someone is say born a man, but feels like a woman and begins dressing and acting like one without telling others and even actively conceals or lies about that, what they are doing still qualifies as transgender. it's merely a coping mechanism. it's far easier to accomplish and far less stressful if no one knows what you were before. i would think. it may be immoral, but it isn't a disqualifying factor. quite the contrary.
trans·gen·der
trans?jend?r,tranz?jend?r/
adjective
denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.
are you saying that a biological male who has for every moment of their lives felt like a female is not transgendered? what are they if they always thought they were a woman? i don't think the distinction you are attempting to draw actually exists (outside of your head).
First of all I need to clean something up, in the above quote I used transsexual, that was a mistake. I used the term transgender when speaking of Caitlin Jenner and I meant to do it there but I didn't, they are a distinction with differences. I'm guessing since you used some definition of transgender you know what I intended to say so...
No, that's not what I'm saying and you're perfectly aware that's now what I'm saying. Where the eff did you get that definition from? Did you look for several definitions that left out the key component or did you slice it up yourself?
From GLAAD http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
TRANSGENDER-SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY
Transgender (adj.)
An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the individual. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to change their bodies. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon medical procedures.
dictionary.com
transgender
[trans-jen-der, tranz?]
adjective, Also, transgendered
1. noting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex assigned at birth: the transgender movement;
transgender rights.
University of Southern Indiana LGBT Study
This campaign will be launched April 18th 2007
Transgender Campaign
Transgender people are people who were assigned a gender, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves. Not all Transgendered people feel the need to change their bodies, for some though it's necessary for the health and well being of the individual. Most transsexual people desire to establish a permanent social role as a member of the gender with which they identify, some do feel the need to change their bodies because of intense gender dysphoria. The entire process of switching from one physical and social gender presentation to the other is often referred to as transition, and usually takes several years.
The USI LGBT campaign is conducting research into the issues affecting Transgendered people in society and students so they can adequately provide support for them in the form of information, as a voice promoting their rights or otherwise.
http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/gender_equality_scheme.pdf
"Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."[
you can really be a spazzy dumbass. it's the first definition that popped up in google (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=transgender (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=transgender)).
i asked questions directly about your own statement:
By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman.
which you still didn't answer. you just crap your pants about the definition i used.
"i didn't mean what i typed because it's clearly rough ridin' stupid and you knew that!" okay mir, okay.
-
Hope I never go transdog.
-
Interesting stance that liars can't be trans_. Not sure I agree with that
That's waaaaaaayyyyy too simplistic to the point of that not being what I said at all. By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman. Caitlin Jenner acknowledges that she was born a man, thus the TRANS. She very well may be lying about what she told Kris Jenner or what happened in that car wreck that killed that old woman. Rachel Dolezal, in her current iteration, did not ever acknowledge that she was born white, as a matter of fact she did fraudulent things to conceal that she is/was white like finding a random old black man that she adopted as her "dad." If she doesn't acknowledge that she was ever white or being white was ever in her existence she isn't transitioning from anything.
not an expert, but the fact that someone is say born a man, but feels like a woman and begins dressing and acting like one without telling others and even actively conceals or lies about that, what they are doing still qualifies as transgender. it's merely a coping mechanism. it's far easier to accomplish and far less stressful if no one knows what you were before. i would think. it may be immoral, but it isn't a disqualifying factor. quite the contrary.
trans·gen·der
trans?jend?r,tranz?jend?r/
adjective
denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.
are you saying that a biological male who has for every moment of their lives felt like a female is not transgendered? what are they if they always thought they were a woman? i don't think the distinction you are attempting to draw actually exists (outside of your head).
First of all I need to clean something up, in the above quote I used transsexual, that was a mistake. I used the term transgender when speaking of Caitlin Jenner and I meant to do it there but I didn't, they are a distinction with differences. I'm guessing since you used some definition of transgender you know what I intended to say so...
No, that's not what I'm saying and you're perfectly aware that's now what I'm saying. Where the eff did you get that definition from? Did you look for several definitions that left out the key component or did you slice it up yourself?
From GLAAD http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
TRANSGENDER-SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY
Transgender (adj.)
An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the individual. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to change their bodies. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon medical procedures.
dictionary.com
transgender
[trans-jen-der, tranz?]
adjective, Also, transgendered
1. noting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex assigned at birth: the transgender movement;
transgender rights.
University of Southern Indiana LGBT Study
This campaign will be launched April 18th 2007
Transgender Campaign
Transgender people are people who were assigned a gender, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves. Not all Transgendered people feel the need to change their bodies, for some though it's necessary for the health and well being of the individual. Most transsexual people desire to establish a permanent social role as a member of the gender with which they identify, some do feel the need to change their bodies because of intense gender dysphoria. The entire process of switching from one physical and social gender presentation to the other is often referred to as transition, and usually takes several years.
The USI LGBT campaign is conducting research into the issues affecting Transgendered people in society and students so they can adequately provide support for them in the form of information, as a voice promoting their rights or otherwise.
http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/gender_equality_scheme.pdf
"Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."[
you can really be a spazzy dumbass. it's the first definition that popped up in google (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=transgender (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=transgender)).
i asked questions directly about your own statement:
By definition you can't be trans anything if you don't acknowledge what your initial existence was. You aren't transsexual if you always thought you were a woman.
which you still didn't answer. you just crap your pants about the definition i used.
"i didn't mean what i typed because it's clearly rough ridin' stupid and you knew that!" okay mir, okay.
I was trying to discuss this civilly but if you want to drag this into the gutter I'll be happy to. I answered the question you stupid eff. All of those definitions I listed all mentioned explicitly stated a need to recognize the gender at birth to be considered transgender. If you rough ridin' decided to read before you popped off you would have seen that.
So no, according to GLAAD and several other sources if you don't acknowledge what your birth gender was you are not transgender. Just as if you don't acknowledge your race at birth you cannot be transracial.
If you are going to participate in a discussion in which you call someone a dumbass maybe you should go beyond Webster.com if you don't know what the eff you're talking about.
-
Señor Bread just got Webster'd!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2F373a0db3e4f02fb6bf66e93aa9ebf743%2Ftumblr_msst40BQ0V1sh2uf0o1_250.gif&hash=4f8e98ec54ca1db2f7a3dc0a5eea83736a36de70)
-
, according to GLAAD and several other sources if you don't acknowledge what your birth gender was you are not transgender. Just as if you don't acknowledge your race at birth you cannot be transracial.
Everyone else recognizes this as idiotic and rough ridin' insane, right?
-
Enough of this horse crap. If you're man and want to be a woman, go to the doc and get your weasel and wallies hacked off instead of coming up with some stupid new term cause you are chicken to do the deed, or maybe the inner man still lives in the dark recesses of you soul. You are a man or woman not limbo loins.
-
it's very common to not be able to orgasm anymore after getting sex reassignment surgery.... that seems like a pretty major risk to me renocats
-
Hope I never go transdog.
lol
-
I have a crush on Jessica Williams.
-
I didn't have time to read through this in full, I'm just gonna assume MIR is wrong like always, but fighting to the death to prove it.
-
I didn't have time to read through this in full, I'm just gonna assume MIR is wrong like always, but fighting to the death to prove it.
Nope.
-
If all the white people would stop having kids, it would eventually eliminate racism.
http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/prof-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-theyd-be-white/
Gooch & I are doing our part, what about the rest of you?
-
The US DOJ has filed a suit in court that says a school must let a kid use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, not the one that matches their physical attributes. What next? The age of the transcrappetranscrapper has dawned.
-
If all the white people would stop having kids, it would eventually eliminate racism.
http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/prof-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-theyd-be-white/
Gooch & I are doing our part, what about the rest of you?
Wouldn't work. Some race or another would emerge from the wreckage of the SS White Power to oppress the others.
Perhaps the UN should offer incentives for people of different races to start families together. Or maybe healthy (mentally and physically) humans should be forced to donate eggs, sperm upon reaching sexual maturity or the age of 18. Those would be stored and used to create future generations. Then after donating people would undergo forced sterilization.
-
old but kind of neat - what people will look like in 2050
http://mic.com/articles/87359/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-and-it-s-beautiful
-
old but kind of neat - what people will look like in 2050
http://mic.com/articles/87359/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-and-it-s-beautiful
They all have creepy eyes like in the movie The Host when the people are possessed by the aliens.
-
, according to GLAAD and several other sources if you don't acknowledge what your birth gender was you are not transgender. Just as if you don't acknowledge your race at birth you cannot be transracial.
Everyone else recognizes this as idiotic and rough ridin' insane, right?
All of identity politics is legit insane.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F07%2F02%2Fd1d1a41aeea85605ee5600306097adb1.jpg&hash=af64a3bb719455aebca41c579ed31c2d05a46692)
-
TransCherokee is the new one. A pure D white woman university of California professor has been claiming she is native American because she thinks she is. Someone needs to become transksuw to liven this thread
-
A transksuw would be a perfect addition to the pit
-
:
If all the white people would stop having kids, it would eventually eliminate racism.
http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/prof-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-theyd-be-white/
Gooch & I are doing our part, what about the rest of you?
Lol. Don't get why people don't enjoy their privilege. It's great.
I always think it's crazy when people don't want to have kids. There's an unbroken link from everyone to the first single cells billions of years ago. Does it matter to keep it going, no, nothing matters as far as we know. But still seems crazy to me. Also it's in our nature to want to reproduce, and usually going against your nature leads to unhappiness.
-
:If all the white people would stop having kids, it would eventually eliminate racism.
http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/prof-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-theyd-be-white/
Gooch & I are doing our part, what about the rest of you?
Lol. Don't get why people don't enjoy their privilege. It's great.
I always think it's crazy when people don't want to have kids. There's an unbroken link from everyone to the first single cells billions of years ago. Does it matter to keep it going, no, nothing matters as far as we know. But still seems crazy to me. Also it's in our nature to want to reproduce, and usually going against your nature leads to unhappiness.
:lol: Have you read the vacationing with kids thread?
-
Is thought that thread was about dads vacationing with other ppl's families?
-
:If all the white people would stop having kids, it would eventually eliminate racism.
http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/prof-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-theyd-be-white/
Gooch & I are doing our part, what about the rest of you?
Lol. Don't get why people don't enjoy their privilege. It's great.
I always think it's crazy when people don't want to have kids. There's an unbroken link from everyone to the first single cells billions of years ago. Does it matter to keep it going, no, nothing matters as far as we know. But still seems crazy to me. Also it's in our nature to want to reproduce, and usually going against your nature leads to unhappiness.
:lol: Have you read the vacationing with kids thread?
Haha. I never deal with kids, never hold babies, etc. Apparently they are shitty?
-
I just think the headline is funny.
http://nypost.com/2015/09/02/rachel-dolezal-says-shes-pregnant/
-
I just think the headline is funny.
http://nypost.com/2015/09/02/rachel-dolezal-says-shes-pregnant/
It is but in the lede it says she is in her 2nd trimester. Is 4-6 months considered recent to any non virgin adult?
-
Well it is not recent enough that he would have known she was such a liar.
-
https://twitter.com/ClintoPete/status/1574570023569408000