The hate is spiraling out of control, small bomb detonated in Target bathroom

You just went blaming a target group you hate plain and simple
And what's new.... Yawn

a reply to: Krakatoa

How come nobody shows the average trans?

Its always the same carefully selected pics?

a reply to: Sargeras

Seriously that is the market working

a reply to: Lysergic

What is an "average trans"?
What is an "average hetero"?
And, of those photos I posted on a previous page, I know of only one of them that is a transsexual person. The others are unknown by me. They could be hetero, gay, trans, anything. That is the purpose of showing them actually. The original post was:

originally posted by: Restricted
Solution -

XX use the Ladies
XY use the Gentlemens

That was a tough one.

So, I challenged the poster to decide who was XX and who was XY based upon their presentation in the photos. Because THAT is the only metric anyone will have to decide on the spot. It is not "simple" as the poster claimed.

As for posting others, by all means, do some research and post examples of what you consider "average trans" people.

I wondered when this was gonna show up. I read about it yesterday.

Sucks that Equal Rights has to be fought for.

a reply to: Krakatoa

That's the problem. They are seeking to replace the objective with the purely subjective. Philosophically speaking trans theory is a war against reality.

Transgenderism, at its absolute core, starts in the mind. It is the claim that an immaterial aspect of an individual is a different sex than the biological sex that he is born with; that such individuals are “misgendered” at birth, or otherwise that such individuals must configure their bodies to “become” the same as their mental sex.

To give an idea of how powerful this theme is in trans theory and practice, here is how Gayle Salamon, an English professor at Princeton University, begins her book “Assuming a Body,” her sweeping treatment of transgender theory: “I seek to challenge the notion that the materiality of the body is something to which we have unmediated access, something of which we can have epistemological certainty, and contend that such epistemological uncertainty can have great use, both ethically and politically, in the lives of the non-normatively gendered.”

It is the ultimate version of "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

For Gilson, the question worth answering was: How does the mind know the external world, and is it self-evident? Can the mind know the external world? It could, and he explained how.

Gilson stood against the “Critical Realists” by starting with being and the external world, rather than the mind, where his opponents started. Gilson pointed out that for St. Thomas Aquinas, the external world was self-evident, requiring no justification, and there was no need to attempt a justification when none was needed. The mind and senses work together to interpret sense experience and to make judgments about the world. But by starting with the mind, or thought, there can be no justification for trustworthy access to the external, non-mental world, and this is where Descartes’ system foundered into skepticism—and it’s where transgender theory runs aground as well.

Gilson remarks succinctly: “If you start with thought alone, you will never get beyond it, but if you do not start with thought alone, you will not have to do anything further in order to grasp existing beings since you will already be in contact with them.”

In other words, you for your secularists, you constantly say you trust only what your sense tell you exists. Well, they tell you your body exists, the outside world exists ... they tell you the physical sex of your body exists. At least, that's what I constantly have atheists telling me as an excuse for why they don't believe ... it hasn't been proven as something they can concretely to their own senses. It isn't objective reality.

Transgenderism does not fit this mold. It starts in the mind and stays in the mind.

The implications of this metaphysical mien is apparent: transgenderism (and trans theory, by extension) starts in the mind, not in the body, and by virtue of its essential subjectivity, is unfalsifiable. The ability of almost all human beings, including even young children, to identify and naturally classify people by biological sex is a normal—read: normative—function of reason.

We have no concrete means of proving anyone's transgenderism to anyone else.

This leads us to the picture game. We see it even here on ATS. You know where individuals post pics of transgenders in an effort to "prove" this or that about them. Mostly we see the glamor shots.

Enter Zack Ford. The LGBT editor of ThinkProgress got into a spat with several contributors to The Federalist over the image used as a header for an article on transgenderism. His problem with the image, not selected by the author, was that it depicted an individual not sufficiently transgender. He based his conclusion on the appearance of the gentleman, specifically his haircut, watch, and other things. Ford promptly got his lunch eaten for violating nearly every single commandment inflicted upon modern society by LGBT advocacy groups, but most specifically misgendering an individual based on external appearances.

I propose to defend Ford’s judgment. Ford did precisely what every last rational human being in history has done: he used his intellect in accord with his senses to make a judgment about the external world—in this case, an individual of somewhat indeterminate gender. His intellect grasped an object about which he could make reasonable judgments. He trusted his senses to accurately depict the man in the picture, and his reason filled in the blanks and so he made his judgment. In short: Ford demonstrated epistemological certainty, the very thing trans theorists are trying to demolish.

Again, this is all subjective.

And that is the problem at the root of this issue. A large portion of the world is being asked to embrace a purely subjective reality where objectivity has no place anymore and most of us don't want to play along.

a reply to: Annee
No one wants to be simply "equal' anymore.

There will always be people who want to be "more equal" than others.

Now on this specific issue?

Just let people be people. No ones opinion, and I mean NO ONES opinion should matter.

Every person should have equal opportunity to everything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Lysergic

What is an "average trans"?
What is an "average hetero"?
And, of those photos I posted on a previous page, I know of only one of them that is a transsexual person. The others are unknown by me. They could be hetero, gay, trans, anything. That is the purpose of showing them actually. The original post was:

originally posted by: Restricted
Solution -

XX use the Ladies
XY use the Gentlemens

That was a tough one.

So, I challenged the poster to decide who was XX and who was XY based upon their presentation in the photos. Because THAT is the only metric anyone will have to decide on the spot. It is not "simple" as the poster claimed.

As for posting others, by all means, do some research and post examples of what you consider "average trans" people.

Actually what is being done is deliberately blurring the lines. Otherwise what would be the purpose of using garbage propaganda like cartoon figures of boy heads on girl bodies and vice versa. I've seen the books.

a reply to: Krakatoa

IDK maybe not the same set of pics that keep circulating?

Come down now off the cross it was only a question.

a reply to: Lysergic

IDK, you can tell me that I guess, since I do not know what you have seen to date. As for the cross comment, huh? Please clarify for me...as I am not into religious metaphors to be honest.

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Yes I am mentally ill because I have a problem with mentally ill men just walking into the bathroom my daughter is in....

Stop your retarded social engineering aimed at making every mentally ill minority more equal than everyone else and I bet none of this happens.

Oh and shocker, I'm not a righty or religious.

ETA-i think it probably more likely it is one of their investors that lost 1/5 of their stock value since April because of this insanity.

And you think a law prohibiting "mentally ill men from entering a woman's bathroom" is going to work?

That's laughable, hilarious and makes NO SENSE.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's ok to think that transsexuals or gays aren't normal.

What is not okay is not allowing them the same freedoms as everyone else.

Thank you, why can't people understand this. You don't have to like me, talk to me or even look at me but absolutely do not attempt to rob me of my dignity or safety. Talk to me with respect and you get respect, talk to me like a jerk and I will be a jerk back. I'm not a turn the other cheek type of person but more of a...oh never mind I don't want to get in trouble.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ketsuko

Again, this is all subjective.

And that is the problem at the root of this issue. A large portion of the world is being asked to embrace a purely subjective reality where objectivity has no place anymore and most of us don't want to play along.

Try and keep that in mind the next time you're trying to convince us about your Christian God with his magic powers and Omnipotent Omnipresence which the rest of us can't see or hear and you have no objective evidence to the existence of.

Perhaps some of us aren't playing along with that either but that never shuts any of them up.

I wish I could buy you a beer...hell an 18 pack and give you a really cheesy jumping high five for this one.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix
Rainbow I can like you as a person regardless how I feel about the agenda being driven by Progressives. I sincerely hope you have happiness.

I dont know if this is off topic but I found it intresting and also deeply worrying, it seems more important than who uses what WC
www.dailymail.co.uk...

So glad I'm not the only one that sees through this sloppy, transparent divide and conquer, social engineering ploy.

Is it not way too obvious someone/something is playing both sides against the middle here? pointed it out in the first reply. Manufactured and fake this whole non issue is...not buying it.

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
So glad I'm not the only one that sees through this sloppy, transparent divide and conquer, social engineering ploy.

Is it not way too obvious someone/something is playing both sides against the middle here? pointed it out in the first reply. Manufactured and fake this whole non issue is...not buying it.

No, I think its in the Constitution.

You know, Bill of Rights.