FA+
Shop
501 submissions
And If you disagree Hagen will re-educate you... With facts and pamphlets.... and his dry monotone lecture voice.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1097px
File Size 202.4 kB
Harmed no-one except for the several incidents of people losing their jobs for accidentally using the wrong gender pronoun. In most cases literally on accident.
I think that trans people are welcome to believe whatever the hell they want. Long as they don't try to force that viewpoint on everybody who doesn't agree with them. If you literally explode because someone used the term 'sir' or 'ma'am' since that is your outwards appearance you should probably learn what chilling out is. .-. "
I think that trans people are welcome to believe whatever the hell they want. Long as they don't try to force that viewpoint on everybody who doesn't agree with them. If you literally explode because someone used the term 'sir' or 'ma'am' since that is your outwards appearance you should probably learn what chilling out is. .-. "
You stand a higher chance of enlightening people if you talk to them in a civil manner and point out why, and that is if, they are wrong on something, than just shutting them down.
To bad you didn't see what I even said there was 'ignorant' because saying it is apparently offensive to you and others. 
I kinda doubt anyone wants to waste time "enlightening" someone who purposefully makes their comment text an insanely bright and annoying color while lining it with the center so that everyone has to put extra effort to actually read it.
Any conversation would you would be self inflicted pain. Both the color and position makes it hard to read.
"You stand a higher chance of enlightening people if you talk to them in a civil manner"
How about, instead,
"You stand a higher chance of having people listen to you if you make yourself even fucking remotely presentable."
Any conversation would you would be self inflicted pain. Both the color and position makes it hard to read.
"You stand a higher chance of enlightening people if you talk to them in a civil manner"
How about, instead,
"You stand a higher chance of having people listen to you if you make yourself even fucking remotely presentable."
The only thing I'm curious about is why you're trying to so damn hard to entertain a "civil discussion" about a moral controversy most people are trying to justify under the guise of freedom of speech.
There is no "other opinion" when it comes to trans folk and viewing them as human beings. Saying that people who disagree are entitled to their opinions means you're condoning those who want to see innocent people suffer -- if not, straight-up dead -- simply because they exist. There is no civil discussion to that -- If you want someone dead because of who they are, you are the bad guy, period. There is no discussion to be had.
As someone who likes to play the devil's advocate in the massive grey areas in this fandom, listen very closely: There is no grey area here. Stop trying to gain some moral high ground because someone didn't want to here you rationalize bigotry and immorality.
There is no "other opinion" when it comes to trans folk and viewing them as human beings. Saying that people who disagree are entitled to their opinions means you're condoning those who want to see innocent people suffer -- if not, straight-up dead -- simply because they exist. There is no civil discussion to that -- If you want someone dead because of who they are, you are the bad guy, period. There is no discussion to be had.
As someone who likes to play the devil's advocate in the massive grey areas in this fandom, listen very closely: There is no grey area here. Stop trying to gain some moral high ground because someone didn't want to here you rationalize bigotry and immorality.
You say "until they make a call for action," and then say they are "welcome to think and do whatever they want."
Either you're so blind you can't see past the bridge of your nose, or you're arguing for the sake of obtaining a moral high ground, both of which still make you a dumbass.
Either you're so blind you can't see past the bridge of your nose, or you're arguing for the sake of obtaining a moral high ground, both of which still make you a dumbass.
The fact that you instantly jumped to conclusions in defense of your ideology is exactly what this guy is arguing against.
He wasn't even focusing on any given side so much as both side's unwillingness to discuss. Which is a good thing to focus on, as, as a general rule, humanity has two methods of conflict resolution: Talking, and Violence. Talking means boths sides speaking and listening, or it doesn't work. Neither side is willing to do so, it seems.
So how long until it goes the other way and tragedy strikes on a massive scale? I'd rather talk, thanks.
He wasn't even focusing on any given side so much as both side's unwillingness to discuss. Which is a good thing to focus on, as, as a general rule, humanity has two methods of conflict resolution: Talking, and Violence. Talking means boths sides speaking and listening, or it doesn't work. Neither side is willing to do so, it seems.
So how long until it goes the other way and tragedy strikes on a massive scale? I'd rather talk, thanks.
My ideology? My ideology is basic humanity. Like, there shouldn't even have to be an argument over whether or not trans people get to have rights. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm stating something that should be fucking commonplace to every last one of you, yet here we are, arguing semantics because you guys want to entertain the vague notion that the transphobic individuals trying to strip away my rights as a human being are valid, but somehow I'm not because I'm calling you out for your shit.
No one is removing any of your rights, as much you want to believe that. They are choosing to keep things on a official government level, simple, by using simple objective facts, grounded in science.
If you want to identify as something else at any other given point, then by all means, no one is stopping you. It is as simple as that.
This comment is based on what I think, your issue might be given the topic of that T-Shirt Meme along with recent news. 
This is very true, yes, but it's also worth realising that gender is distinct from sex. Gender is a whole other topic, hell, sometimes it can boil down to intensely personal fashion, though not always (and also not to make light of it, mind).
True blue, intersex individuals are rarely even recognised as being such, yes. However it's also worth noting that intersex persons are the direct result of malfunctioning genes. As such, there's very little we know about how these differences affect them health-wise. It could be that in some cases, medical treatment is strictly necessary, our genetic code is NOT built to normally deal with 3 x's or two ys or 2xs and a y or any other combinations other than plain jane XY and XX. It's worth studying, however, I think we all need to agree that biological sex should really be based on a DNA test so that doctors etc know what they're dealing with.
Pick and choose genders all you want, so long as your request for reasonable pronouns is absolutely sincere I have zero issues with that. But lets not start muddying sex with personal subjectivity as well.
In the event that rights are actually being stripped away, such as free speech, ability to seek medical treatment etc are actually being stripped away then yes, that is really truly bad. However I do think people have muddied the waters a bit in regards as to what rights actually are. Rights only affect your own ability to do things. Rights stop being rights when they demand other people do things in relation to you. For example, preventing murder is not a right but a law. Important distinction. And that's not to say laws are ANY less integral than rights, but they are different.
Sorry about the semantics but some people seem to have forgotten these distinctions.
True blue, intersex individuals are rarely even recognised as being such, yes. However it's also worth noting that intersex persons are the direct result of malfunctioning genes. As such, there's very little we know about how these differences affect them health-wise. It could be that in some cases, medical treatment is strictly necessary, our genetic code is NOT built to normally deal with 3 x's or two ys or 2xs and a y or any other combinations other than plain jane XY and XX. It's worth studying, however, I think we all need to agree that biological sex should really be based on a DNA test so that doctors etc know what they're dealing with.
Pick and choose genders all you want, so long as your request for reasonable pronouns is absolutely sincere I have zero issues with that. But lets not start muddying sex with personal subjectivity as well.
In the event that rights are actually being stripped away, such as free speech, ability to seek medical treatment etc are actually being stripped away then yes, that is really truly bad. However I do think people have muddied the waters a bit in regards as to what rights actually are. Rights only affect your own ability to do things. Rights stop being rights when they demand other people do things in relation to you. For example, preventing murder is not a right but a law. Important distinction. And that's not to say laws are ANY less integral than rights, but they are different.
Sorry about the semantics but some people seem to have forgotten these distinctions.
Since I cannot directly respond to Mr. Drako due to the fact that he blocked me and clearly just wants to make a scene, I hope you don't mind me responding to you instead.
They are choosing to keep things on a official government level, simple, by using simple objective facts, grounded in science.
Ah yes, "facts and science" clearly the Trump administration cares so much about facts and science. Let's rewind back to a year ago, shall we?
https://fox43.com/2017/12/17/trump-.....s-transgender/
Look I even used Fox News, just so that you can't call me biased :)
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the very agency tasked with saving and protecting the lives of the most vulnerable, are now under order by the Trump administration to stop using words including “vulnerable” in 2018 budget documents, according to The Washington Post.
In a 90-minute briefing on Thursday, policy analysts at the nation’s leading public health institute were presented with the menu of seven banned words, an analyst told the paper. On the list: “diversity,” “fetus,” “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “science-based” and “evidence-based.”
If you honestly believe this is about facts and science, and not a deliberate and planned attack to create political drama, you are sorely mistaken. This is Mr. "Alternative Facts" we're talking about here.
The ability to change the gender marker on a transgender person's legal documents is less about your misguided opinions on fact, and more to do with the safety of an individual. Especially since it's legal to discriminate in many states.
They are choosing to keep things on a official government level, simple, by using simple objective facts, grounded in science.
Ah yes, "facts and science" clearly the Trump administration cares so much about facts and science. Let's rewind back to a year ago, shall we?
https://fox43.com/2017/12/17/trump-.....s-transgender/
Look I even used Fox News, just so that you can't call me biased :)
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the very agency tasked with saving and protecting the lives of the most vulnerable, are now under order by the Trump administration to stop using words including “vulnerable” in 2018 budget documents, according to The Washington Post.
In a 90-minute briefing on Thursday, policy analysts at the nation’s leading public health institute were presented with the menu of seven banned words, an analyst told the paper. On the list: “diversity,” “fetus,” “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “science-based” and “evidence-based.”
If you honestly believe this is about facts and science, and not a deliberate and planned attack to create political drama, you are sorely mistaken. This is Mr. "Alternative Facts" we're talking about here.
The ability to change the gender marker on a transgender person's legal documents is less about your misguided opinions on fact, and more to do with the safety of an individual. Especially since it's legal to discriminate in many states.
While I agree that talking is preferable option to violence, you have to realize what the context here is: Group of people should have human rights, and be treated equally (generally speaking). There is no discussion to be had here really. You can't really discuss a topic like "I should have human rights". I can't believe that I have to actually explain this to another person. How do you even have "civil" "discussion" with another human being whether or not they should have human rights? The whole idea is entirely absurd from the start and against western values and society; equality and freedom.
Discussing a topic where the result is going to either be "equality" or "violence" is fundamentally pointless and waste of time. You either accept that you are interacting with another human being and thus grant them human rights or you refuse and dehumanize the opposition and you resort to act what can be argued to be violence; dehumanization.
I'm not telling you to stop talking. But I'm just saying that what you are doing is waste of time and fruitless.
Discussing a topic where the result is going to either be "equality" or "violence" is fundamentally pointless and waste of time. You either accept that you are interacting with another human being and thus grant them human rights or you refuse and dehumanize the opposition and you resort to act what can be argued to be violence; dehumanization.
I'm not telling you to stop talking. But I'm just saying that what you are doing is waste of time and fruitless.
I'd like to think I've been relatively civil despite the fact that I was blocked within minutes, it's just that I initially assumed it wasn't appropriate since his original response was removed by the artist. I put the effort into fully explaining and giving sources after it turned into an argument. Though there was no ridicule on Drako's part like Danni was suggesting, and I wish she handled the conversation better. I resent the over-usage of the word "bigot" as it gets thrown around excessively these days, as well as the rest of the typical reactionary responses.
For anyone curious, especially to those outside the US, here's a brief summary:
On the morning of October 21st a slew of articles began releasing new plans by the Trump administration, this art submission and a lot of the recent trans related drama has been in direct response to this. Essentially they want to change the definition of gender to effectively make it illegal for trans people to update their identification documents with a new gender marker, making the requirement that you must undergo genetic testing to prove your biological sex in order to change it. This also means that intersex people are fucked by proxy if they want to change their gender marker if they have weird chromosomes. They also want to establish a federal level "Real ID" of sorts that forces states to comply.
Some articles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/.....efinition.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur.....rtment-723984/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-.....ting-everybody
---
The [Department of Health and Human Services] argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.
“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”
The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.
---
Even if you've had all surgeries, it doesn't matter. You're fucked. You cannot change your gender marker.
The ability to change your gender marker is essential for people who have fully transitioned. It's less about "biological reality" or whatever arguments people want to make, and more about a person's safety and right to privacy. Imagine if you will, that every time you had to show identification, that your ID listed all your health problems. Every time you apply for work, every time you want to travel to another country, every time you go to the bar and buy alcohol. People will know when they see your ID card.
It's also worth noting that a year ago the Trump administration also banned the Center for Disease Control from using the words: science-based, diversity, fetus, transgender, vulnerable, evidence-based. That's banned as in they will face consequences for using any of these words in their reports on anything. Also to this day trans people in the military are stuck in limbo. I personally know two people that were at different parts of the recruitment process (one guy even finished boot camp) and they've both been stuck since last year.
This has been a nonstop assault, and frankly there was no reason for any of this to happen.
On the morning of October 21st a slew of articles began releasing new plans by the Trump administration, this art submission and a lot of the recent trans related drama has been in direct response to this. Essentially they want to change the definition of gender to effectively make it illegal for trans people to update their identification documents with a new gender marker, making the requirement that you must undergo genetic testing to prove your biological sex in order to change it. This also means that intersex people are fucked by proxy if they want to change their gender marker if they have weird chromosomes. They also want to establish a federal level "Real ID" of sorts that forces states to comply.
Some articles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/.....efinition.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur.....rtment-723984/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-.....ting-everybody
---
The [Department of Health and Human Services] argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.
“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”
The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into.
---
Even if you've had all surgeries, it doesn't matter. You're fucked. You cannot change your gender marker.
The ability to change your gender marker is essential for people who have fully transitioned. It's less about "biological reality" or whatever arguments people want to make, and more about a person's safety and right to privacy. Imagine if you will, that every time you had to show identification, that your ID listed all your health problems. Every time you apply for work, every time you want to travel to another country, every time you go to the bar and buy alcohol. People will know when they see your ID card.
It's also worth noting that a year ago the Trump administration also banned the Center for Disease Control from using the words: science-based, diversity, fetus, transgender, vulnerable, evidence-based. That's banned as in they will face consequences for using any of these words in their reports on anything. Also to this day trans people in the military are stuck in limbo. I personally know two people that were at different parts of the recruitment process (one guy even finished boot camp) and they've both been stuck since last year.
This has been a nonstop assault, and frankly there was no reason for any of this to happen.
I would like to point out that the CDC bit is incorrect. There are several articles explaining this, and if you go to CDC's website, you can search all of those terms and turn up numerous results. So they are clearly not banned. The CDC themselves even made a statement saying these claims were false.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/12.....certain-words/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hhs.....ry?id=51832679
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe.....ender-n2424580
Check for yourself; https://www.cdc.gov/
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/12.....certain-words/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hhs.....ry?id=51832679
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe.....ender-n2424580
Check for yourself; https://www.cdc.gov/
One of those links didn't copy paste right, weird. Here is that ABC news one; https://tinyurl.com/y9gyap3r
I've always thought "human rights are trans rights" would be more appropriate, because the saying, at least to me, implies that trans people should have a different set of rules. I know, I know, semantics and all. But I think it makes more sense for someone who refuses to call someone by their preferred pronoun, or, worse yet, uses a slur, should suffer social and not governmental consequences (like someone who says the N-Word). Like the piece by the way! Very handsome doggo boi!
That opens us up to discrimination, though. Think about it. You drivers license, your birth certificate, basically everything about you on a government level says that you are something that you are not. Transphobic cop pulls you over, you pass as a girl, but your drivers license says male. This cop happens to be one of the violent ones.. You go to apply for a job in a conservative town that you just moved to. They need proof of identification. They are that you're trans and turn you down saying that it's against their religion (this has happened to me before). Word gets out and now, next to nobody in this town wants to hire you, even though you're more than qualified. Unfortunately many of us live in a world where this is the reality. You can't continue that and say that all trans people are safe now, problem solved.
Your driver's license, birth certificate and everything else official about you is correct. It's just on a physical level rather than a mental one. This is coming from a perspective of standardization and streamlining of government operations. Allowing people to make official what they identify as in a box necessary for establishing physicality would create tangles in the system and lead to even more confusing problems for trans folks.
I propose we separate biological sex and gender identity on identification documents; put 'em both on said documents. That way people don't get those mixed signals because it's pointed out to them on an official level.
That violent transphobic cop scenario could apply to any number of other minority groups. Just because it can happen and does at a very low rate doesn't mean it's grounds for tangling a whole system. Also that kind of discrimination and violence when you did no crime is already illegal.
As for being denied based on religious differences, that's also already illegal. Same goes for being denied based on orientation, race, disability and more. All illegal.
I propose we separate biological sex and gender identity on identification documents; put 'em both on said documents. That way people don't get those mixed signals because it's pointed out to them on an official level.
That violent transphobic cop scenario could apply to any number of other minority groups. Just because it can happen and does at a very low rate doesn't mean it's grounds for tangling a whole system. Also that kind of discrimination and violence when you did no crime is already illegal.
As for being denied based on religious differences, that's also already illegal. Same goes for being denied based on orientation, race, disability and more. All illegal.
With all due respect the only people that need to know a person's trans status is their doctor, family, and any romantic partners. Someone who is fully transitioned and integrated into society should not be forced into this situation where they are at the mercy of the government. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, as well as have a right to privacy and personal liberty. Forcing a transgender person into these situations is more or less a HIPPA violation.
"Normal" people don't have their medical conditions on their ID card. Yes, this is a medical issue. Transition requires a medical process, and most states require you to have completed surgery and to be on hormone replacement therapy for a length of time. The entire process to change and replace IDs is already pretty difficult despite what you may think.
It's not intended as an attack. It's intended as "yes this is good but we have to be smart about it", since a noticable amount of trans folk seem to think it's 100% a bad thing to have their physical sex used anywhere.
I'm here to say it's not a bad thing. There's a good reason in the right places to use physical sex over mental gender, example in identification.
I'm here to say it's not a bad thing. There's a good reason in the right places to use physical sex over mental gender, example in identification.
I would recommend you read some of the conversations above. More specifically the part where I mentioned that a year ago the Trump administration banned the CDC from using the words transgender, science-based, evidence-based, etc. It's already very difficult to go through the process of changing your documents. It takes years, and in some states it's borderline impossible. Not only that, but scientists and medical professionals are completely against this. I suggest reading TheMonsterMoxie's post about intersex people. If you honestly believe that this isn't somehow a political attack to stir up unnecessary drama to distract people from the other things this office is doing, then you're sorely mistaken.
By "entire situation" I meant people's reactions to the proposed draft to change the definition of gender so that it's impossible to change without genetic testing. Which is complete utter nonsense. But yeah, a lot of folks to seem to hate transgender people quite a bit. The media circus and its obsession with focusing on the most outrageous stories definitely doesn't help. It's all so very tiring.
The description on twitter got misinterpreted, and I can see why. Look at how upset people are here, on both sides.
Everyone jumps to violence. Something so simple as saying you'll re-educate someone comes off as a threat.
Man. I just wish everyone could be nice to one another... Being mean only makes people less open to understanding. :c
Everyone jumps to violence. Something so simple as saying you'll re-educate someone comes off as a threat.
Man. I just wish everyone could be nice to one another... Being mean only makes people less open to understanding. :c
The term "re-education" is rather unfortunate as it's best known as a euphemism used during the Cultural Revolution under Mao Zedong. It was essentially torture, not unlike the term "conversion therapy" used by fundies.
That being said, I'm glad people aren't falling for the "civil discussion" trap. Because that's what it is, a trap. Watch the series "The Alt-Right Playbook" to see how it works.
You simply need to remove them, block them, and disseminate information to YOUR followers. The only way to win is not to engage.
That being said, I'm glad people aren't falling for the "civil discussion" trap. Because that's what it is, a trap. Watch the series "The Alt-Right Playbook" to see how it works.
You simply need to remove them, block them, and disseminate information to YOUR followers. The only way to win is not to engage.
It's sad to think this is even something have to fight and argue about, in Canada there are laws protecting trans people from discrimination, I'll never understand the states freedom of speech rights with out considering the vulnerable minorities at hand and not providing them with some kind of anti discrimination laws, as some views, words, ideas are inherently toxic and ignorant, and that's not that we should shut down debate about certain laws etc. But trans rights arent a left or right thing they're human rights, these alt right buffoons try to turn it into a conversation about freedom of speech, when I feel like their motives are.much more nasty, trying to veil of ignorance and bigotry behind some kinda patriotic or dutiful bullshit.
I honestly think complete and unfettered freedom of speech with out consequences is reductive than actually progressive. Canada has freedom of expression, you can say what you want but there is consequences for being a bigoted pos
I honestly think complete and unfettered freedom of speech with out consequences is reductive than actually progressive. Canada has freedom of expression, you can say what you want but there is consequences for being a bigoted pos
but what about....
trans-HUMANs hmm?
....no, like, serious question...
would we consider trans-Human individuals to be humans, since they're ascending beyond their mortal human shell?
are cyborgs still considered humans?
wow, my shitpost suddenly got philosophical...
brb, I've got some serious contemplation to do.
trans-HUMANs hmm?
....no, like, serious question...
would we consider trans-Human individuals to be humans, since they're ascending beyond their mortal human shell?
are cyborgs still considered humans?
wow, my shitpost suddenly got philosophical...
brb, I've got some serious contemplation to do.
he'd need the right muscle and bone density in order to simply hit a tank full force and not cause numerous physical injuries to himself.
that, and he'd need armor penetration assistance, since his fist is far too broad to provide any meaningful penetrating force.
the amount of kinetic energy he'd need backing his fist would have to be on par with a superhero, and even then, it'd be more likely that he'd send the tank careening in a direction instead of punching through it.
....yes, I'm a nerd.
that, and he'd need armor penetration assistance, since his fist is far too broad to provide any meaningful penetrating force.
the amount of kinetic energy he'd need backing his fist would have to be on par with a superhero, and even then, it'd be more likely that he'd send the tank careening in a direction instead of punching through it.
....yes, I'm a nerd.
Comments