Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

Yes, there are rare exceptions, especially if they transitioned at a young age, though they will never be able to bear children. Bradley Manning isn't one of them. Neither is a guy with a square jaw, giant Adam's apple, and broad shoulders, despite wearing lipstick and long hair, yet we're told we must participate in their delusions.

Comment Re:This isn't really that hard to understand (Score 1) 637

No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.

No, it really isn't.

You can measure that the CO2 jar absorbs more heat

But the actual, direct warming from CO2 alone isn't what all the fuss is about. It's hypothesized that there will be a feedback effect where higher temps from CO2 lead to more water vapor and higher temps. But that really depends on how clouds form, as certain kinds of clouds have a net effect of trapping heat, while others have a net effect of reflecting it. This is still under scientific debate.

There's also the effects of man-made dust, the oceans, ice albedo, etc. It's all rather complicated with feedback loops, and the climate models have all been running hot compared to actual temps.

Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy. One way is to look at photos, over decades, of glaciers that have receded.

Glaciers have been receding since we've been coming out of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago.

If you've been alive for 30+ years (or longer), you know damn well that even though we've had a couple of harsh winters, it's certainly not like it was when we were kids.

Seems true to me, but perhaps if you were alive for 200 years and kept studious track of weather you wouldn't consider ups and downs so unusual.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

It's still not OUR problem. If someone else has a problem with it, how is it up to me to solve it?

You're the one who claimed it wasn't a problem in the first place. When confronted with the idiocy of your statement, you dodged and then moved the goalposts. You are a hypocrite.

As for cites, you crippled?

So you have no cites for your claim, and cannot explain why you are talking about Missoula when North Carolina is under discussion. You are a hypocrite.

Oh, right, you have this stereotype in your mind that we're all like the losers in that shitty show Transparent.

You're hilarious. A show I never watched (or even heard of), that you used as an example of men taking womens roles, but it's really just a show about a tranny that you call shitty. *golf clap*

The point is your ridiculous claims about me possibly having sex with a tranny unknowingly. Super-hint: If you've got male parts, it ain't gonna happen, even if you manage to pass and not have man-hands, man-shoulders, man-hips, man-hair, man-jaw, man-voice, or any other number of features that make passing difficult.

Also, we weren't the ones causing the problem with Target, so don't lay that on us.

Your crowd stirred up the drama. You claimed it was just good business and economic sense.

Charlotte, North Carolina, has already lost more than $20 million in business because they passed their bathroom bill

Are you trying to make my point for me? It's the city of Charlotte that started this with a pro trans bathroom bill, and the state that countered it. Charlotte started the drama for no good reason other than the "progressive" cause du jour after moving down the "oppressed" stack after gay marriage was passed.

Why don't you watch Transparent

Because I have zero interest in watching a show about trannies.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

It's also not up to us to figure out how to determine if someone is non-functional, because it's not our problem - it's yours.

But you're the one who claimed it wasn't an issue in the first place because of those non-functioning parts. First you dodged the question, then you moved the goalposts. You're a hypocrite.

Also, the bathroom nonsense started a decade ago, in Missoulla, pushed by the local fundie churches.

I don't see a cite here, and regardless of what happened in Missoula, what does that have to do with North Carolina? This is misdirection on your part to avoid the fact that a city passed a pro-trans bathroom law, which prompted a reaction from the state.

You made a clear statement, with no exceptions, and the when I pointed out it wasn't true, you tried to walk it back. Won't work.

It works in context. Sorry, no sale.

Also, I sure didn't have sex with the guys I rented out my spare bedroom to.

So you can't say you would have "passed" in that regard. And if you haven't had genital surgery, you know you wouldn't have passed in that regard.

Do you still call black people niggers?

That's a pretty dumb analogy. I don't believe men can become women, but what does that have to do with what you call black people? A more appropriate analogy would be considering if Rachel Dolezal is black because she made herself look black and "identifies" as black. I consider her white. Do you accept her as black? Do you think the black community should accept her as black?

That $20 million is to accommodate bigots.

As I said, businesses have to deal with irate customers, and it's costing them money, despite your claim that it was good business and economic sense.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

First I will note that you completely skipped (for a second time) the question I put to you in response to your assertion: "You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."

You call me chicken shit (for not fully quoting you, though when pressed you give nothing that would have invalidated my reply), but here you are dodging a question based on your assertion.

I also did not see you admit that the North Carolina anti-trans state law was in response to a pro-trans city law, despite your earlier implication that it was conservatives against gay marriage going after a new target that started all this bathroom nonsense.

You originally said "It never happens."

That's twice now you fabricated a quote that I did not say. I gave a single case, "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." I admitted there were other cases I missed, namely the "progressive" cause du jour of transsexuals.

It doesn't invalidate the context of the argument, which started with you talking about male actors in Shakespeare being accepted as women (turns out the law forbid women from acting at the time). The overwhelmingly vast majority of women's roles in Hollywood are taken by actual women. In fact, the only cases that you gave me were roles where the "women" were transsexual as specified by the role.

you'd get your ass sued

That's what passing trans laws has done, opening up new lawsuit threats. This happens every time the government creates a new "equality" law.

As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them.

Everybody has a "right" to be pissed off or not.

They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.

No, they all jumped in to the current climate of political correctness and the "progressive" cause du jour. Whether it makes economic sense or not is debatable, as they're really just afraid of the mainstream press targeting them and doing virtue signaling of their own to get positive press.

In response to all this drama, started by "progressives", Target is spending $20 million to install a single-use bathroom for any sex in all its stores.

so again, what are you really afraid of?

How many times do I have to answer this? I'm not afraid of anything, and I have very little interest in the bathroom drama, but you insist on dragging me into this argument, and I feel obliged to correct some of your bullshit and play devil's advocate.

It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue?

Because I refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions. We've already covered this.

And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each.

Congratulations. But there are plenty of cases where I could tell. And I'm guessing you didn't have sex with any of your roommates without them knowing.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.

I answered your question and asked you one in return. You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom. I don't particularly care about the bathroom debate, but you brought it up and made some assertions, so it's only fair that you respond.

Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.

What did I leave out that invalidates my reply? I quote for context, and trim replies to avoid an ever-growing wall of text.

How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None.

You don't own a business and do not have to deal with legal fees or upset customers.

None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None.

There's a political and social cost to adjust 99+% of society. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, no city ordinances would have passed, and there wouldn't be a big deal being made in the press with liberals falling over themselves to declare how "brave and stunning" Bruce Jenner was for nominally turning himself into a woman instead of focusing on the person he killed with his car.

Again, more bullshit. You said IT NEVER HAPPENED, not that it doesn't happen in the average Hollywood movie. Move the goalposts much? Can't even admit you f*cked up when it's blatantly obvious?

I did admit I was wrong, and added in the other cases from the cause du jour. But there's still a reason why men/trans don't take women's roles in Hollywood in the vast majority of cases.

How do you know that?

The same way that I've spotted a lot of activist trannies championing for women issues before they were eventually confirmed. Most do not pass, or they pass at a glance but the inconsistencies add up. Even Blair White has the kermit the frog voice.

Yeah, sure, it's possible I know somebody who is trans, but I will say for a fact that I don't know anybody who transitioned.

you cannot say with certainty that you have never had sex with a transsexual.

*snort* Ok.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?

Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?

Just what are you afraid of?

I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.

You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.

Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.

By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.

It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.

The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.

And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?

I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".

"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.

So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.

You claimed that it was always done for laughs, and you were wrong.

I missed some cases in the current climate of virtual signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. But you didn't refute my point that you don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.

Do you even know any transsexuals personally?

Turns out that they are such a tiny minority that I don't.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.

You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."

Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".

WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.

I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".

As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.

Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?

So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..

So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.

That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.

Zika is probably overblown too, but you are talking about birth defects here.

why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.

It's the opposite of misogyny. The concern is over sexual predators using women's bathrooms. And male-to-female is much more common than female-to-male, so it tends to get talked about more.

As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent.

Not for laughs, but for virtue signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. You don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.

Comment Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score 1) 389

Are you also going to say that transsexual women shouldn't use the women's washroom because that's a "special privilege"?

There's already a common sense "rule" around this that's been in play before transsexuals became the new oppressed class that needs to be saved by progressives and big government: If you can pass as female, use the female bathroom. If you can't, hold it and wait until you go home or use the men's, since you aren't fooling anybody anyways.

It's not even a question of "protected class." Go up to any woman and keep addressing her as a man, using male names and pronouns.

The difference there is that they are actually women, not a transsexual who was once a man and will never be a woman.

Everyone has the right not to be subject to your brand of harassment, whether they're transsexual or not.

There's no law against hurting somebody's feelings or insulting them, at least where I live, thankfully. I best you can be told to leave somebody alone if you keep giving unwanted contact.

Many men would, many men do.

That's not a percentage.

You would have been a riot in Shakespearean times, where all roles, including female, were played by male actors.

Old societies were repressive against women, so they made do with what was allowed. When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the freetard libertarians.

Because it's so unimportant that people have freedom, we should just take it away for the feelings of the newest "oppressed" class.

For example, start making death threats, even to a third party.

I'm not making a death threat. There's no violence, at all, in what I'm saying.

Start sexually harassing someone with lewd comments.

I've covered this above. If somebody doesn't want personal contact, then don't contact them.

Now, lets get down to you. If you treat a transsexual at work the same way you have said you would treat Manning, even if it's only limited to not using their legal name, you can be fired for cause.

Fine with me. Unlike you, I believe companies should be able to hire or fire people for whatever reason they want. Many states in the US have "at will" employment, though of course there are those "protected classes" in federal laws.

And there are many more transsexuals out there than you seem to think.

It's actually been estimated at less than 1% of the population. You probably interact with many more for obvious reasons, giving you a distorted view.

That's the dumbest thing about this, all this energy and drama being spent on such a tiny minority. But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're at Witt's End.