There Are Only 2 Genders | Change My Mind - Louder With Crowder - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52951803]Better example. Please walk into your work, walk to the nearest black colleague and call them nigger to their face. Freedom of speech right, how can you lose your job for doing that?[/QUOTE] Do you not understand the difference between the government punishing you as a public citizen and a private business firing you as an employee?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52951803]Better example. Please walk into your work, walk to the nearest black colleague and call them nigger to their face. Freedom of speech right, how can you lose your job for doing that?[/QUOTE] Actually, funny story... Someone I know actually did that, except it was to a group, and they were customers at where he worked. He lost his job, but he was not arrested.

[QUOTE=cbb;52951809]What the people in this thread are interested in are the moral arguments, not the legal ones. It isn't relevant to anyone in this thread except you if there's a precedent for the legality of hate speech. What astounds me is that you started out in this thread decrying the bills you cited for limiting your speech and yet you're now arguing that your speech isn't limited at all in the United States. Really makes you think.[/QUOTE] I'd like to second this. How about you step away from arguing the legality of disrespecting trans people, Tudd, and tell us your honest-to-God convictions on transgenderism? No bullshit, no circumlocution; I want you to tell me definitively whether I'm a woman or not.

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;52951821]I'd like to second this. How about you step away from arguing the legality of disrespecting trans people, Tudd, and tell us your honest-to-God convictions on transgenderism? No bullshit, no circumlocution; I want you to tell me definitively whether I'm a woman or not.[/QUOTE] For the record, what is your history regarding your gender?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951812]Do you not understand the difference between the government punishing you as a public citizen and a private business firing you as an employee?[/QUOTE] I do I'm just honestly tired with your trying shit. It's two faced, disingenuous, and impossible to believe. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but you're ignorant of the concept of protected classes to the point where you literally don't understand why people are upset. And you've never faced any form of hardship that involves you being discriminated against so you're not really fit to be the one arguing this shit in the first place due to your stifling lack of perspective. I mean your very existence on this site is contrary to your arguments. You aren't granted freedom of speech here. You're limited, but you, YOU specifically, have a pass from the team here as a protected class because many people here are unable to deal with you as a rational adult. People have utterly lost their patience with you. From you routinely posting Project Veritas's verifiable lies, posting Crowder every chance you get despite him being a highly flawed, disingenuous and poor debater. I don't think your defense of freedom of speech is genuine, because it really just seems to be about what you, and your ilk can get away with. You're not worried about protecting people like Colin Kaepernick from the wrath of the literal fucking president trying to silence him, no, you're worried about neo nazis being told they can't be publicly inciting racism.

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52951831]For the record, what is your history regarding your gender?[/QUOTE] I am a trans woman. (ie I was born with a weewee/assigned male at birth)

I'm sure it's already been said but hermaphrodites exist. Disregarding any discussion on trans people there are many different types of hermaphrodites with sexual organs of both "genders" and should be classified as a third gender at least if not more.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52951803] Oh and by the way, in this scenario you're a government contractor[/QUOTE] Well yah you could lose your job even when you are aren't a government contractor, but are you talking about arresting or fining people for saying nigger? Because in reality they would just try to terminate your contract for failing to fulfill the federal civil rights act. But your business could still go on doing private deals.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52951590]Protected classes aren't "socially coercing a result," they're putting in place customized legal protections to keep a group as safe as possible. They're in place because it's legally efficient to do so. This isn't part of some agenda, so don't treat it like one.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tudd;52951609]On the contrary, it is exactly trying to socially coerce a result. [/QUOTE] Late to the party here but it's super annoying when someone responds with an actual argument, only for the other person to reply back with "actually, you're wrong." At least try put up a fucking argument.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52951832] People have utterly lost their patience with you. From you routinely posting Project Veritas's verifiable lies, posting Crowder every chance you get despite him being a highly flawed, disingenuous and poor debater. I don't think your defense of freedom of speech is genuine, because it really just seems to be about what you, and your ilk can get away with. You're not worried about protecting people like Colin Kaepernick from the wrath of the literal fucking president trying to silence him, no, you're worried about neo nazis being told they can't be publicly inciting racism.[/QUOTE] Here's a crazy idea - maybe instead of feeding Tudd and continuing to give him [B]6 fucking pages[/B] worth of your time maybe if everyone on facepunch just completely ignored his threads and let it get buried under new threads maybe just maybe you might stop seeing a lot of his threads. Don't blame Tudd for having opinions when all you and others are doing is feeding into the problem.

Tudd, if you just find the trannies icky, just say it, mate. Your debating style is very nitpicky, sidesteppy, and flaky, and you're coming off that way through the whole thread so far. Just be honest for once. I'd be happier.

[QUOTE=Ithon;52950822]What Lambeth said was, "It astounds me how many conservative dumbasses out there don't understand the difference between fucking sex and gender.... ....This isn't that complicated". It was a very vague statement, when in fact shown to be complicated and while can be confusing (which is likely a ploy by chowder in this video), and similar.[/QUOTE] Gender can be complicated and sex can be complicated, but I don't think the difference between sex and gender is that complicated. Gender is in your brain, sex is in your body. That's the way I see it, anyway.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52951837]Late to the party here but it's super annoying when someone responds with a an actual argument, only for the other person to reply back with "actually, you're wrong." At least try put up a fucking argument.[/QUOTE] Thank you, I didn't want to linger on something small like that because that's bad debating form [i]cough cough[/i] but it did bother me.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52951838]Here's a crazy idea - maybe instead of feeding Tudd and continuing to give him [B]6 fucking pages[/B] worth of your time maybe if everyone on facepunch just completely ignored his threads and let it get buried under new threads maybe just maybe you might stop seeing a lot of his threads. Don't blame Tudd for having opinions when all you and others are doing is feeding into the problem.[/QUOTE] This thread has actually been pretty productive though. We learned things and constructed some pretty neat-o arguments.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951759]The Supreme court unianimously agrees with that actually. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/[/url] If there is a state law that prevents a person saying what they want on a public street corner, it probably is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Matal v. Tam would have little bearing on a city ordinance which criminalized the use racial slurs to harass people on public corners. Mainly because of the fighting words doctrine which allows the criminalization of harassment, as well as Virginia v. Black which seems the most applicable case to our hypothetical which questions the legality of laws which criminalize the private conduct of citizens using hate speech. Among other things, Matal v. Tam was about copyrights of disparaging words, and the decision of the court (the 8-0) did not say that the government can't restrict hate speech. The quote you are citing by Alito is an opinion not shared by the whole court (it is shared by 4: Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Breyer), and its also an old one (US v Schwimmer was in 1929) Also in Matal v Tam is the decision of Kennedy (also shared by 4: Ginsburg, Sotomoyar, Kennedy, and Kagan) who makes his decision not because you have a right to hate speech, but because the law in question was overly broad (since 'Slants' was an attempt to language reclamation.) [URL="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf"]You can read the decisions in the case here[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951609]On the contrary, it is exactly trying to socially coerce a result. Also legally efficient isn't really a term. Especially if you think a legally efficient law is the one based on a class using expression and gender identity which are completely subjective ideas in how true they are.[/QUOTE] you're so horribly uninformed about the topic at hand that its fucking astonishing that you're actually discussing it as of you were an expert. Gender identity is demonstrably an intrinsic quality of a person. To say that its subjective demonstrates that you literally dont even have the information needed to even form a remotely logical opinion of the topic at hand. Please do some basic research before you post your baseless drivel.

Considering that if you're born male, you have the Y chromosome inside all of the cells in your body. You are still a man even if you think that you're not, and even if they remove your penis, you're still technically a man, hormones can't change this yet unfortunately. So I'm not going to pretend that a man is a woman just because it makes them feel good. That's like telling mentally ill people that the voices that they're hearing are real. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Novangel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=redBadger;52951834]I'm sure it's already been said but hermaphrodites exist. Disregarding any discussion on trans people there are many different types of hermaphrodites with sexual organs of both "genders" and should be classified as a third gender at least if not more.[/QUOTE] I think the term you're looking for is "intersex". "hermaphrodite" is considered offensive.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52951843]Tudd, if you just find the trannies icky, just say it, mate. Your debating style is very nitpicky, sidesteppy, and flaky, and you're coming off that way through the whole thread so far. Just be honest for once. I'd be happier.[/QUOTE] I tend to use the pronouns they want if they let me know. So yes Arctic-zone, I am not going to purposely use he/him pronouns with you. I'm just not for the government being able to punish/compel a person for not doing that. Imo, it is an issue that has to be decided at the societal level and not by restricting a person's speech. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Flameon;52951852]Matal v. Tam would have little bearing on a city ordinance which criminalized the use racial slurs to harass people on public corners. Mainly because of the fighting words doctrine which allows the criminalization of harassment, as well as Virginia v. Black which seems the most applicable case to our hypothetical which questions the legality of laws which criminalize the private conduct of citizens using hate speech. Among other things, Matal v. Tam was about copyrights of disparaging words, and the decision of the court (the 8-0) did not say that the government can't restrict hate speech. The quote you are citing by Alito is an opinion not shared by the whole court (it is shared by 4: Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Breyer), and its also an old one (US v Schwimmer was in 1929) Also in Matal v Tam is the decision of Kennedy (also shared by 4: Ginsburg, Sotomoyar, Kennedy, and Kagan) who makes his decision not because you have a right to hate speech, but because the law in question was overly broad (since 'Slants' was an attempt to language reclamation.) [URL="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf"]You can read the decisions in the case here[/URL][/QUOTE] So why can't you just list the law that would arrest someone for saying racial epithets on a public street corner? I mostly posted that so you could see what the supreme court justices say in regard to that case and it is consistent with what I am saying for this scenario too. You just wouldn't get arrested for a hate crime saying a racial slur on a street corner. If there is a law on that somewhere, it is probably unconstitutional and would lose in a supreme court case.

[QUOTE=Olio;52951854]Considering that if you're born male, you have the Y chromosome inside all of the cells in your body. You are still a man even if you think that you're not, and even if they remove your penis, you're still technically a man, hormones can't change this yet unfortunately. So I'm not going to pretend that a man is a woman just because it makes them feel good. That's like telling mentally ill people that the voices that they're hearing are real.[/QUOTE] No, it's not like that at all. Let me try and explain this to you as best I can, but I also recommend you take some time to do some research regarding the subject in the meantime. Gender is an internal concept that lies within the brain, and is not connected to the chromosomes nor sexual organs. There is evidence showing that, during development, all fetuses are "female" at the start, and over time develop male/female characteristics within the gray/white matter in the brain. In trans individuals, there have been studies showing that the gray matter of a Male-to-Female transgender woman is more similar to a cisgender woman rather than a cisgender male. The chromosome argument, as you have presented, is fairly shaky, as there are many variations humans can have on the X/Y chromosomes, such as XYY or XXY and etc. Plus gender dysphoria is a real disorder and, if untreated, can lead to severe cases of depression and a negative body image. Hormone treatment has proven to be incredibly successful in counteracting dysphoria, as well as simple acceptance and equal treatment of trans individuals. Comparing dysphoria to schizophrenia is insulting and degrading, as it shows a total lack of understanding on the subject. I suggest that you take some time out of your day to educate yourself, or at the very least ask these questions to trans individuals, as I'm sure many would be happy to explain it (better than I can, for sure).

[QUOTE=cynaraos;52951859]I think the term you're looking for is "intersex". "hermaphrodite" is considered offensive.[/QUOTE] You're correct I forgot.

[QUOTE=Olio;52951854]Considering that if you're born male, you have the Y chromosome inside all of the cells in your body. You are still a man even if you think that you're not, and even if they remove your penis, you're still technically a man, hormones can't change this yet unfortunately. So I'm not going to pretend that a man is a woman just because it makes them feel good. That's like telling mentally ill people that the voices that they're hearing are real.[/QUOTE] It's like you're blindfolded in a room with no doors and proclaiming you've found the exit. You honestly haven't done any research, looked into the subject or, hell, *asked* the people whom you seem to know so much about their situation than they do.

[QUOTE=cynaraos;52951859]I think the term you're looking for is "intersex". "hermaphrodite" is considered offensive.[/QUOTE] Hermaphroditic is usually reserved for animals like worms and snails that actually use their combination organs for breeding. Intersex humans are, to my knowledge, completely infertile.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951865]I tend to use the pronouns they want if they let me know. So yes Arctic-zone, I am not going to purposely use he/him pronouns with you. I'm just not for the government being able to punish/compel a person for not doing that. Imo, it is an issue that has to be decided at the societal level and not by restricting a person's speech. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] So why can't you just list the law that would arrest someone for saying racial epithets on a public street corner? I mostly posted that so you could see what the supreme court justices say in regard to that case and it is consistent with what I am saying for this scenario.[/QUOTE] in the hypothetical of calling people racial slurs on a city corner in Los Angeles, you would be arrested for harassment and charged with a hate crime under penal code 422.55 and if you said particularly heinous things like "DIE N*****" you would be arrested alone on penal code 422.6, not even harassment

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951865]I tend to use the pronouns they want if they let me know. So yes Arctic-zone, I am not going to purposely use he/him pronouns with you. I'm just not for the government being able to punish/compel a person for not doing that. Imo, it is an issue that has to be decided society-wise and not by restricting a person's speech.[/QUOTE] I am not talking about the basic courtesy of using the proper pronouns for someone, but it's great that you follow elementary etiquette. Tell me, yes or no, if you view me as a woman. I need to know if you recognize trans individuals fundamentally as their gender or you still see them in your heart as their birth sex. [QUOTE=Olio;52951854]Considering that if you're born male, you have the Y chromosome inside all of the cells in your body. You are still a man even if you think that you're not, and even if they remove your penis, you're still technically a man, hormones can't change this yet unfortunately. So I'm not going to pretend that a man is a woman just because it makes them feel good. That's like telling mentally ill people that the voices that they're hearing are real.[/QUOTE] Oh, never mind, Olio got it all figured out. Guess I've been a fake girl all along!

[QUOTE=Olio;52951854]Considering that if you're born male, you have the Y chromosome inside all of the cells in your body. You are still a man even if you think that you're not, and even if they remove your penis, you're still technically a man, hormones can't change this yet unfortunately.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna try my best because you seem genuinely confused. Sex and gender are two different things. You can read up on this just by reading this thread or googling "What is the difference between sex and gender" or something obvious like that. Trans people are not under any illusion about their body. That's the source of the problem. The purpose of HRT is to help the patient deal with their gender dysphoria by altering their body in such a way that it better reflects their gender. Surgeries can be performed in addition to the HRT if the patient feels that they're necessary. [quote]So I'm not going to pretend that a man is a woman just because it makes them feel good.[/quote] That's the beautiful part though my dude. You don't have to pretend that a man is a woman because that man is literally a woman!

[QUOTE=Olio;52951854]Considering that if you're born male, you have the Y chromosome inside all of the cells in your body.[/quote] Men also have the X chromosome, which contains all the genetic infornation for a female body plan. As a matter of fact there are thousands of cases where the Y chromosome did not fully express itself due to genetic or hormonal abnormality. This can and has caused thousands of biological women to be born with XY chromosomes. [quote] You are still a man even if you think that you're not, and even if they remove your penis, you're still technically a man, [/quote] If one removes the male primary sex characteristics and uses hormones to develop female secondary sex characteristics then what quality are you gonna use to identify them as male? We've already established that genetics is a poor basis for identification. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is, in fact, a duck. [Quote] hormones can't change this yet unfortunately. So I'm not going to pretend that a man is a woman just because it makes them feel good.[/quote] Odds are that you would be incapable of distinguishing the average fully transitioned MtF from a ciswoman. If you want to go around calling transwomen men then you're being a rude pedantic jerk. [quote] That's like telling mentally ill people that the voices that they're hearing are real.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact that its not like that at all and everything you're stating goes against the scientifically supported reality of the situation. Please do some research on the topic

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52951875]No, it's not like that at all. Let me try and explain this to you as best I can, but I also recommend you take some time to do some research regarding the subject in the meantime. Gender is an internal concept that lies within the brain, and is not connected to the chromosomes nor sexual organs. There is evidence showing that, during development, all fetuses are "female" at the start, and over time develop male/female characteristics within the gray/white matter in the brain. In trans individuals, there have been studies showing that the gray matter of a Male-to-Female transgender woman is more similar to a cisgender woman rather than a cisgender male. The chromosome argument, as you have presented, is fairly shaky, as there are many variations humans can have on the X/Y chromosomes, such as XYY or XXY and etc. Plus gender dysphoria is a real disorder and, if untreated, can lead to severe cases of depression and a negative body image. Hormone treatment has proven to be incredibly successful in counteracting dysphoria, as well as simple acceptance and equal treatment of trans individuals. Comparing dysphoria to schizophrenia is insulting and degrading, as it shows a total lack of understanding on the subject. I suggest that you take some time out of your day to educate yourself, or at the very least ask these questions to trans individuals, as I'm sure many would be happy to explain it (better than I can, for sure).[/QUOTE] That 'female' state is actually sex neutral and it develops into male or female depending on if the Y chromosome does its thing. Regarding the gray matter, I would love if you could link me to a peer-reviewed paper that shows evidence of this. I don't see how Intersex people undermine the chromosome argument? Regarding gender dysphoria, I remember reading an article that showed that the transgender suicide rate post transition is the same as before and it's not because people that transitioned are not being accepted etc, I'll try to find it.

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52951618]Could you give an example?[/QUOTE] [url]www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/[/url] this brings up a few

[QUOTE=Olio;52951917]Regarding gender dysphoria, I remember reading an article that showed that the transgender suicide rate post transition is the same as before and it's not because people that transitioned are not being accepted etc, I'll try to find it.[/QUOTE] That study is commonly cited incorrectly as a way to promote discrimination against transgender people. The study found that the suicide rate fell post-transition, but the suicide rate was still higher than the national average.