Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "friendlyjordies" channel.

  1.  @fduranthesee  *As a Libra, I'd rather not upset the debate's balance.
    5
  2.  @alcoholandfun243  Sex isn't, but gender is. It's more the distinction between "manly" and "feminine", rather than "man" and "woman". Each sex comes with its own identity, so what's stopping people from adopting the opposite identity? (Also there are differences in the brains of transgendered people, it's not all social)
    1
  3.  @alcoholandfun243  Again, you're confusing sex and gender. The X (or Y) chromosomes you're born with can't change. The identities that are attached to either sex, can. In Native American and Indian tradition, androgynous and cross-gender members of society are an accepted norm and have been for centuries. The whole goal of the "annoying" group is to be accepted and allowed to be a normal part of society. Everyone said the same thing about gay couples, and now that it's legal and known to the public, do we see anarchy in the streets? Are people getting divorced and having gay sex and making society fall apart? No. They're just living normal lives. Even if you don't believe in what they're saying, just do them the courtesy and move on. Is that so hard? Is that the hill you're willing to die on, to get into arguments over?
    1
  4.  @CAMSLAYER13  They're not asking you to care, their goal is to just be accepted, even if it's out of politeness.
    1
  5.  @alcoholandfun243  "I would love to move on, but..." Then do. You can't protest their Constitutional right to free speech,so just grit your teeth and get over it. Fyi, I know you were using hyperbole, but how often has a pride parade really interfered in your daily affairs? It's almost always a once-a-year occurrence, Stonewall's anniversary. One day out of 365. Stop being such a drama queen.
    1
  6.  @alcoholandfun243  Because people often refuse them their rights, or toe the line. Being verbally abusive, or physically (especially in bars). Refusing job applications for "other reasons" (plausible deniability). Being told they're abominations (even if that were true, that's not how you coax someone to change. You're not their therapist, nor are you a jury, so stop judging.) Everyone has the right to do that, but if you were told that on a near-daily basis, I think you'd want it to stop, too.
    1
  7.  @alcoholandfun243  Difficult to speak to? The pot's calling the kettle black. ~ I replied to your 'gender isn't a social construct' comment; I explained the distinction between sex and gender, and gave examples of the biological basis of non-(male/female) genders. ~ You replied with the same assertion, with no evidence, again. I gave examples of societies that distinguish between sex and gender as evidence that the two are not, in fact, inseparable. ~ Your reply went off on a tangent. My focus was still the validity of 2+ genders, you chose to reply to the last part of my comment, instead of any other- I would have continued to discuss the science if you had, you know, replied to it. If you didn't want to get off topic, then stay on topic. Where on Earth you got the impression that I was doing so, I've no idea. But, let's just assume I was: following this comment, let's only discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of 2+ genders. Deal? Or is that too specific for you? I never said that you think transgenders shouldn't have equal rights- I was explaining that other people don't, and that's why their protection needs to be formalized, instead of just "politeness." Why'd you interpret that as a personal attack? I didn't once say that you believed that. I was explaining. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. You were assuming my stances. And I am almost certain that you're referring to bill C-16, and that you watch Jordan Peterson. The entire bill is less than two pages long, and if you'd read the damn thing, you'd know that nobody is required to use pronouns they don't consider true. The law only prohibits people from explicitly advocating for genocide or speaking in such a way to encourage violence against the group in question. Punishment for refusing to call someone (whatever) is not anywhere in that law, or any law. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent But, I guess that's what happens when you entrust a clinical psychologist who thinks Jung's work is still relevant to comment on legal issues. And when a bunch of teenagers follow him.
    1