Miss Spain makes history as first transgender woman to compete in Miss Universe - Sensationalist Headlines

Literally banned this guy for having a different opinion.

Would you be upset if someone got banned for saying "I don't hate black people, I just dont think they should mix with white people"?

More like "I have nothing against black people, but I don't think they should mix with real people."

Thats.. Pretty much exactly what I said. Racists dont consider black people to be people.

She looks okay.

While this isn't an opinion that I agree with, I feel like everyone should be able to express their opinions without being straight up banned for them. The post I originally referenced was as civil as possible. With maybe the exception of the use of the word "real". Obviously posting something like "fuck niggers" is a little different than the example you gave, and I'd expect it to be treated as such.

I hope my kids see this defining moment in their textbooks some day.

caring for civility over content is a big reason why people can get away with harmful and unfounded opinions

An opinion is that you like Sports games or BBQ food, not if trans people aren't equal to us.

Better start banning everyone then. Invite over those neogaf and resetera moderators that ban anyone with an opinion thats not 110% in line with theirs. Put in an official rule that if you wrong think you arent welcome here.

"Days Without Transphobic Nonsense" would be a better fit since I'm pretty sure at least half the people in this thread congratulating the woman in the article/shitting on transphobes in the thread are cis (myself included).

If the idea you want to peddle can be rationally/logically declared "dumb" then I see no reason to value the opinion just because someone was kind in how they phrased it.

So any thing you declare dumb should be banned? Straight up ignoring it is fine but banning people just because you disagree with it is asinine.

what are you even saying, and how on earth is this a response to my post?

That isn't what I said. Maybe try again? If an idea that you wanted to peddle is say, for the sake of simplicity, "The Earth is Flat", this is an objectively dumb idea that can be proven to be wrong with minimal effort. I see no reason to "Value" that opinion, just because it was presented civilly. I did not say "Ban this dumb shit", as you clearly imply I said. Civility doesn't take away the bite of bigoted statements, just because someone took the time to word them carefully. At the same time, I don't want people to be attacked over mis-stating things, so I'm not for "banning" people at the tip of a hat. I just don't see a value in those opinions just because they're calmly expressed.

I don't know what world you come from @CMX , but over here you're supposed to ask people what their opinions are instead of declaring it for them If you think you're getting anywhere with this shit Then I might as well join in and go "And you think Nazi propaganda should be plastered on the walls?" because that's the garbage level of debate you're trying to bring this thread down to

You responded to a post saying that you shouldn't be banned for posting differing opinions. Your post in response saying "why people can get away with harmful and unfounded opinions" is not disagreeing with him? Sounded like you would like posts with opinions you deem "harmful and unfounded" should be banned from being posted. Am I wrong in what you meant?

I said caring for civility over content is why people can get away with harmful and unfounded opinions. If I wanted to say everyone whose opinions I found harmful and/or unfounded should be banned, then I would've said "everyone whose opinions I found harmful and/or unfounded should be banned" Is this hard to understand?

Those "harmful and unfounded opinions" are the norm for the other side of the political spectrum and think your opinions are "harmful and unfounded". I know it might seem odd to you since this forum is so left biased. The guy's response was (pretty much) as civil as it gets. You don't have to agree with him, but he should be allowed to debate just like everyone else without fear of being banned. Otherwise it just becomes an echo chamber of people jerking each other off. Just as a side note I'll say what I said before again: I'm not defending people who go around saying "gas jews, etc". It's much different from this instance and should be handled differently.

maybe I'm missing something here but aren't "cis" individuals just those who identify themselves by their birth gender? if so how is this image any better then posts attacking transgender individuals?

Being civil does not equate to being respectful. If you think he shouldn't be banned that's one thing, if you think he shouldn't be banned on the basis of his civility, I think that's ridiculous. Just because opinions are the norm for "the other side" does not mean both sides are equally correct. It was the norm for people to think blacks should not possess the same rights as whites during the civil rights movement, and that was a position argued in an often civil, courteous manner. But we know that "side" was wrong. So why must we treat modern day politics as if it were impossible for the same thing to happen again, for one "side" to have worse platforms than the other? Why must respect be a given, and not something that's earned?

IMO it's not the same. I don't agree with the original poster, and I'm sure there's some baggage associated with his opinions, but I want to take what I think is the most important modifier in his statement, which is "real" and expand on what it means Most people are willing to say that they don't hate trans people, and I'll even believe them when they say that. Their thing, however, is they don't see a Trans M->F woman as a "real" woman. To them, it's a man who has been cosmetically made to look like a woman. To them, their opinion is not coming from a place of hatred or bigotry (though that's also a possibility), but from a different understanding of the category of gender. For most of us, our entire lives have been spent with the knowledge that 1.) There are 2 genders and 2.) You are born with your gender and 3.) People who dress as the other gender are silly people we can make fun of (Drag queens, cross dressers, etc.) It wasn't until Obergefell v. Hodges that the mainstream started talking about allowing Trans people to use their preferred bathrooms, have their gender printed on a license, etc. And so the discussion is very new to people who have literally never thought about what gender really is. Additionally, with these political discussions, nobody took the time to explain that a trans person is NOT just a man in a dress who had his cock lopped off, or a bearded lady in pants. However, I think we should also recognize that we've got a very cultural understanding of trans people. While in America or Europe it would be offensive to consider trans people a "3rd gender", in countries like Thailand, this is exactly what so-called Kathoey (literally "lady-boy") are looking for in legal recognition. They're not saying "real" to be mean: they literally believe that you can't change your gender; that it's physically impossible

You know it's possible to argue without resorting to irrelevant hyperbole?

This. I get the image macro ban, but come on, you are going to have people that disagree with transgenderism. Banning them isn't going to change that. God forbid you engage in some discussion to change their viewpoint, right?

Yeah basically

If someone posted a picture with "Trans nonsense" on it would you think they were being a bigot or think "Hm, well I'm not that so I'm 'trans correctness'."