President of Spokane NAACP outed as white imposter

[courts]

Uh I'm pretty sure Simfan was referring to the liberal lynch mobs that emerge whenever anyone attempts to talk about the social impact of transgenderism in anything other than the most glowing terms, not being "cowardly".

e: A word

yeah i mean obviously i'm trans but i can be honest enough to acknowledge that the idea of where the line is drawn or when is it appropriate to question someone's identity is something that is worth discussing. no need to get triggered by it

[Simfan34]

Yes, we've come around to accept gay people after a long and public social debate where it's essentially been determined there's no good reason not to. Which is undoubtedly an excellent thing. With these things, however, it seems like they've trailed along unnoticed and that it is now mandatory that we not question anyone's right to "determine their own identity" without having ever really established why. So when talking to people, reading articles, and even, say The New York Times comment section, there's an overwhelming sense of bemusement as to "since when exactly did we decide this sort of thing was now normal?"

[afleitch]

Yes, we've come around to accept gay people after a long and public social debate where it's essentially been determined there's no good reason not to. Which is undoubtedly an excellent thing. With these things, however, it seems like they've trailed along unnoticed and that it is now mandatory that we not question anyone's right to "determine their own identity" without having ever really established why. So when talking to people, reading articles, and even, say The New York Times comment section, there's an overwhelming sense of bemusement as to "since when exactly did we decide this sort of thing was now normal?"

The difference being, that for gays we didn't 'determine our own identity'; we already had it (in that we loved other people of our gender) We were just banned from expressing it. The same is broadly true of women; women were only ever allowed to be what men determined women should be, but they were always women.

[Simfan34]

That's correct, but I wasn't referring to gay people when I mentioned that.

Although perhaps "assert their own identity" would be closer to what I was intending.

EDIT: Perhaps not. "Claim an identity", maybe. I'm thinking of simply presenting a self-identification and forbidding it from being it questioned.

[Famous Mortimer]

Yes, we've come around to accept gay people after a long and public social debate where it's essentially been determined there's no good reason not to. Which is undoubtedly an excellent thing. With these things, however, it seems like they've trailed along unnoticed and that it is now mandatory that we not question anyone's right to "determine their own identity" without having ever really established why. So when talking to people, reading articles, and even, say The New York Times comment section, there's an overwhelming sense of bemusement as to "since when exactly did we decide this sort of thing was now normal?"

The answer to your question "why" is above in the same post "why not?"

But that still doesn't explain why SJWs love transgendered people but hate the idea of transracialism. It's not a logically consistent position.

Why not let people be transracial?

[Yank2133]

Yes, we've come around to accept gay people after a long and public social debate where it's essentially been determined there's no good reason not to. Which is undoubtedly an excellent thing. With these things, however, it seems like they've trailed along unnoticed and that it is now mandatory that we not question anyone's right to "determine their own identity" without having ever really established why. So when talking to people, reading articles, and even, say The New York Times comment section, there's an overwhelming sense of bemusement as to "since when exactly did we decide this sort of thing was now normal?"

The answer to your question "why" is above in the same post "why not?"

But that still doesn't explain why SJWs love transgendered people but hate the idea of transracialism. It's not a logically consistent position.

Why not let people be transracial?

Science actually backs up transgenderism(ex. difference in brains between females and males). There is nothing in science that actually backs "transracial", since there is nothing in the brain that is different between the races.

It is complete bull****.

[Famous Mortimer]

I just don't believe that the left's backing of transgenderism is based on brain scans and I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is.

[Simfan34]

I just don't believe that the left's backing of transgenderism is based on brain scans and I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is.

Yes, again, my reaction was, "it does?"

[Yank2133]

I just don't believe that the left's backing of transgenderism is based on brain scans and I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is.

No, what is disingenuous is trying to argue transracial and transgenderism are similar. It is a complete straw man and fail attempt at "gotcha" by opponents against transgenderism.

[Oakvale]

I don't think anyone here is "against" transgenderism. What does that even mean?

But I think it should probably also be noted that clinging to brain scans is a pretty dodgy argument (as with any tenuous appeal to science) since we already know that mental disorders change the structure of the brain.

[Famous Mortimer]

I just don't believe that the left's backing of transgenderism is based on brain scans and I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is.

No, what is disingenuous is trying to argue transracial and transgenderism are similar. It is a complete straw man and fail attempt at "gotcha" by opponents against transgenderism.

That's the problem. People attacking transracialism aren't even really attacking transracialism. They are attacking what they imagine are right-wingers with a hidden agenda making the argument. Yes, some right-wingers are doing that but just because their reasons for making the argument are crappy doesn't he argument itself is crappy.

By attacking transracialism, which is so painfully obviously analogous to transgenderism, liberals only make themselves look stupid and illogical.

It would be better to just admit, yes, they are very similar. They are similar like the right says, but they aren't bad like the right says. They are harmless. Let people do whatever they want.

[Simfan34]

I just don't believe that the left's backing of transgenderism is based on brain scans and I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is.

No, what is disingenuous is trying to argue transracial and transgenderism are similar. It is a complete straw man and fail attempt at "gotcha" by opponents against transgenderism.

That's the problem. People attacking transracialism aren't even really attacking transracialism. They are attacking what they imagine are right-wingers with a hidden agenda making the argument. Yes, some right-wingers are doing that but just because their reasons for making the argument are crappy doesn't he argument itself is crappy.

By attacking transracialism, which is so painfully obviously analogous to transgenderism, liberals only make themselves look stupid and illogical.

It would be better to just admit, yes, they are very similar. They are similar like the right says, but they aren't bad like the right says. They are harmless. Let people do whatever they want.

Why not the converse?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yes, we've come around to accept gay people after a long and public social debate where it's essentially been determined there's no good reason not to. Which is undoubtedly an excellent thing. With these things, however, it seems like they've trailed along unnoticed and that it is now mandatory that we not question anyone's right to "determine their own identity" without having ever really established why. So when talking to people, reading articles, and even, say The New York Times comment section, there's an overwhelming sense of bemusement as to "since when exactly did we decide this sort of thing was now normal?"

The answer to your question "why" is above in the same post "why not?"

But that still doesn't explain why SJWs love transgendered people but hate the idea of transracialism. It's not a logically consistent position.

Why not let people be transracial?

Science actually backs up transgenderism(ex. difference in brains between females and males). There is nothing in science that actually backs "transracial", since there is nothing in the brain that is different between the races.

It is complete bull****.

So it is completely cultural and only skin deep.  Then transracialism should not be controversial at all.

[Reaganfan]

I don't think anyone here is "against" transgenderism. What does that even mean?

Who the ****  knows and who the **** cares? These people are ****ing insane. Off the deep end.

But my "traditional values" are extreme, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think anyone here is "against" transgenderism. What does that even mean?

Who the ****  knows and who the **** cares? These people are ****ing insane. Off the deep end.

But my "traditional values" are extreme, right?

Do your "traditional values" include the traditional Navajo Nadleeh (3rd gender)?

[Reaganfan]

I don't think anyone here is "against" transgenderism. What does that even mean?

Who the ****  knows and who the **** cares? These people are ****ing insane. Off the deep end.

But my "traditional values" are extreme, right?

Do your "traditional values" include the traditional Navajo Nadleeh (3rd gender)?

No but they include the traditional 3rd gender of Wally Gator.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Or the Ojibwe third gender for that matter.  Ozawindib, a famous warrior, proposed to marry white men many times and was refused.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why shouldn't whites be allowed in the NAACP?  Several of their founders were white, and many white Americans who were active in the civil rights movement had membership with them.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

wtf does "transracial" even mean??

[Reaganfan]

wtf does "transracial" even mean??

It means NOTHING. It's another word liberals make up to try and justify the flawed actions of crazy people. Oops did I say crazy? I meant "Intellectually challenged".

[pbrower2a]

Rachel Dolezal is black by choice. She is now so black that if she were to have a child by a white man the child, no matter what the DNA and appearance say, would have a black mother.   

[Reaganfan]

Rachel Dolezal is black by choice. She is now so black that if she were to have a child by a white man the child, no matter what the DNA and appearance say, would have a black mother.   

Incorrect. She is Caucasian.

[SteveRogers]

Rachel Dolezal is black by choice. She is now so black that if she were to have a child by a white man the child, no matter what the DNA and appearance say, would have a black mother.   

Incorrect. She is Caucasian.

Because that's totally a term that actually means anything

[Reaganfan]

So if I say I'm a dinosaur, then everyone else should say I'm a dinosaur? What kinda morons are you guys?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why shouldn't whites be allowed in the NAACP?  Several of their founders were white, and many white Americans who were active in the civil rights movement had membership with them.

Whites are allowed in the NAACP. No one said otherwise.