What Is a Woman? Controversial New Movie (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

Lol, it’s always very telling when the “inclusion” group likes singling old white men

Would you suggest a more appropriate group as having trouble accepting the social changes of the last 20 years? 

 

[BladeRunner]

This stuff wasn't all that long ago. You'd think they'd notice the patterns and how time and social evolution leaves them on the wrong side of history. 

Listen, I get it. Old white guy doesn't like change. Guess what. It happens anyway whether you're kicking and screaming or not. 

Oh, look.  And you're racist too. 

You wouldn't have the balls to say this about the black community, which is not only OVERWHELMINGLY against this trans nonsense, but also homosexuality as well.   This ain't just an "old white guy" thing.

 

[BladeRunner]

Would you suggest a more appropriate group as having trouble accepting the social changes of the last 20 years? 

Yeah, the black community.  You  been living in a cave?

 

[crackattack]

I'll use she/her he/him pronouns, but that's it. I'm not using the made up ones like they/them or the rest of the nonsense. I guess that'll make me a jerk. I'm ok with that.

If a man wants to be a woman or vice-versa, go for it and I'll call you by your new/preferred name. No problem there.

I'll never say a man can have a baby. Ever.  A trans male is not a man. Men don't have wombs, fallopian tubes, uterus, and most importantly a vagina. Even if you remove all those parts, you're still not a man. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.

So just tell me your name and let's leave it at that.

 

[djmich]

Yeah, the black community.  You  been living in a cave?

Hispanics be like what about us too!!

 

[LawFitz]

I'll use she/her he/him pronouns, but that's it. I'm not using the made up ones like they/them or the rest of the nonsense. I guess that'll make me a jerk. I'm ok with that.

If a man wants to be a woman or vice-versa, go for it and I'll call you by your new/preferred name. No problem there.

I'll never say a man can have a baby. Ever.  A trans male is not a man. Men don't have wombs, fallopian tubes, uterus, and most importantly a vagina. Even if you remove all those parts, you're still not a man. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.

So just tell me your name and let's leave it at that.

^^^ This. Though I am willing to add Ze (or some universal equivalent) to the lexicon to account for the non-binaries of the world. New words are invented all the time, and if someone needs a singular new pronoun to describe being a he and a she at the same time, then fine... Ze can have it!

(But it better be just one word to describe all the non-he/shes as a group. Not trying to remember Ze plus 43 variants of Ze for all the random pan-sexualities and gender concepts out there now!)

 

[BladeRunner]

^^^ This. Though I am willing to add Ze (or some universal equivalent) to the lexicon to account for the non-binaries of the world. New words are invented all the time, and if someone needs a singular new pronoun to describe being a he and a she at the same time, then fine... Ze can have it!

(But it better be just one word to describe all the non-he/shes as a group. Not trying to remember Ze plus 43 variants of Ze for all the random pan-sexualities and gender concepts out there now!)

Not me.  Someone simply cannot be a he and a she at the same time, IMO.  You 're one or the other, not both.

 

[ZADO]

What?  Marriage was defined by God in the very beginning of the bible.  At my church marriage is sacrament*.   

*Actually not at my church, but other Christian denominations are different.

Is marriage a religious term?

The institution of marriage in the United States is not a religious-driven contract; it is a secular agreement between two people and the state. In other words, marriage is only allowed under civil law, not religious doctrine.

 

[LawFitz]

Not me.  Someone simply cannot be a he and a she at the same time, IMO.  You 're one or the other, not both.

I agree in terms of sex, which can only be binary. Gender, on the other hand, has become a wider-ranging concept now. I get your stance, though. I too, would rather it hadn't. But the genie's out of the bottle now on that front, and I'd like to find some middle grounds where we can give the LGBTQ+ groups respect while drawing some common sense lines to protect the women of our society from the fallout that's emerged.

 

[BladeRunner]

I agree in terms of sex, which can only be binary. Gender, on the other hand, has become a wider-ranging concept now. I get your stance, though. I too, would rather it hadn't. But the genie's out of the bottle now on that front, and I'd like to find some middle grounds where we can give the LGBTQ+ groups respect while drawing some common sense lines to protect the women of our society from the fallout that's emerged.

We already give them respect.  The problem is you give an inch, and they want a mile.  It never stops and the lines have to be drawn somewhere.  I say we draw the line where sanity currently exists and leave a big buffer before we get to insanity.

These professional grievance groups will never quit - it's a money-maker for them.

 

[crackattack]

^^^ This. Though I am willing to add Ze (or some universal equivalent) to the lexicon to account for the non-binaries of the world. New words are invented all the time, and if someone needs a singular new pronoun to describe being a he and a she at the same time, then fine... Ze can have it!

(But it better be just one word to describe all the non-he/shes as a group. Not trying to remember Ze plus 43 variants of Ze for all the random pan-sexualities and gender concepts out there now!)

If new language comes naturally and not forced. Maybe. To be honest? I'm almost 50 in a rural-ish area of a deep red state. I'm not going to have this issue often, if at all. I haven't yet, so who knows. 

 

[LawFitz]

If new language comes naturally and not forced. Maybe. To be honest? I'm almost 50 in a rural-ish area of a deep red state. I'm not going to have this issue often, if at all. I haven't yet, so who knows. 

Should definitely come naturally. No one should be forced to use Ze or whatever else. I wouldn't judge you if you didn't. Our kids might though, we'll see. And if/when they do, maybe you'll adjust. Or not. But it should be a natural and democratic process - sort of like how people now say Asians, rather than Orientals - or any number of other examples.

Once enough people choose to alter their language, it snowballs. But the key to that statement are the terms 'choose' and 'enough people.' Exemplification, rather coercion, is the way to go.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

You'd think they'd notice the patterns and how time and social evolution leaves them on the wrong side of history. 

There's a huge difference imo between saying "we're promoting something real (say voting rights), it's for everyone, if you oppose it you're on the wrong side of history", and saying "men can get pregnant and if you disagree, you're on the wrong side of history". Simply trying to be on the "right side of history" isn't a compelling reason to support anything.

 

[Captain Cranks]

There's a huge difference imo between saying "we're promoting something real (say voting rights), it's for everyone, if you oppose it you're on the wrong side of history", and saying "men can get pregnant and if you disagree, you're on the wrong side of history". Simply trying to be on the "right side of history" isn't a compelling reason to support anything.

Don't think I said what you quoted.

 

[FairWarning]

There's a huge difference imo between saying "we're promoting something real (say voting rights), it's for everyone, if you oppose it you're on the wrong side of history", and saying "men can get pregnant and if you disagree, you're on the wrong side of history". Simply trying to be on the "right side of history" isn't a compelling reason to support anything.

RSoH is a phrase that really needs to go away.

 

[FairWarning]

Only one side uses that phrase also.  

 

[BladeRunner]

Only one side uses that phrase also.  

Yep - the side that fought FOR slavery, Jim Crowe, created the KKK, supported Margaret Sanger and PP to abort minority babies and is now denying the very existence of women.  Weird how that the side that always says that has been on the wrong side of history every single time. 

 

[jon_mx]

I for one enjoy having to have a doctor who spent 4 years in med school and several years in residency having to ask me if I am pregnant because of political correctness.  I am kind of surprised in all that schooling they have regressed to the point that the birds and the bees are a higher level of understanding of how the reproductive system works.

 

[LawFitz]

I for one enjoy having to have a doctor who spent 4 years in med school and several years in residency having to ask me if I am pregnant because of political correctness.  I am kind of surprised in all that schooling they have regressed to the point that the birds and the bees are a higher level of understanding of how the reproductive system works.

I almost left a laughing emoji, but then I realized you might actually be serious with this description. :Sad emoji: if so. PC has jumped the sharknado.

 

[(HULK)]

Im atheist and therefore allowed to make logical decisions not bound by what came down from the heavens .

Whats interesting is that in this thread you have people who are very “left posters” arguing that trans women should not be allowed to compete with cis women or be imprisoned with them.  So, if they are women, why create any distinction at all?

I'm an atheist, and generally pretty left leaning on social issues.

The issue here is that there is no consensus on when and where it is appropriate to treat transwomen the same as biological women, and it creates some very muddy water where people stop subscribing to things that make sense, worried about slippery slopes and trying to protect any ground gained no matter what.

Does it make sense to treat a transwoman the same as a biological woman socially? 100% it does.

Does it make sense to treat a transwoman the same as a biological woman in athletics? Absolutely not, as the transwoman has had exposure to testosterone, which is essentially a performance enhancing drug for athletics. To do so would be unfair to biological women who have not had testosterone and athletic competition requires fairness.

The difficulty here is that, on both sides mind you, people stop advocating for what makes sense and just want blanket all or nothing solutions. And that's not only problematic in terms of finding a good equilibrium for society, it's bringing out the loons on both ends of the spectrum in full force.

 

[(HULK)]

Also, we should push back on the notion that this kind of language is "inclusive."  It isn't.  

You want to know what sort of language is inclusive?  Simple, easy-to-understand language that states your point succinctly and honestly.  "Restrictions on abortion make women less free" is a sentence that anybody can understand instantly.  

By way of contrast, TRAs talk like aliens who just stepped off a space ship and have only a rough understanding of human beings.  We know what they mean when they talk about "people with cervixes" and "menstruaters" because we belong to the managerial class that attends all those DEI trainings.  But put yourself in the shoes of a 45 year old woman with a high school diploma, who has never taken a Gender Studies course.  "Restrictions on abortion make people capable of becoming pregnant less free" is a really weird statement, and that person is rightly going to wonder WTF you're talking about.  

In medical settings, where you want to talk to people in ways that they immediately understand, it's less inclusive to talk about "cervix health" and more inclusive to talk about "women's health."  Women who have their cervix removed generally know that they don't have a cervix, but women who haven't marinated in the new lizard person language don't necessarily understand that "people with cervixes" is supposed to be a synonym for what they mean by "women."  It's always more important to be understood than to flaunt your ideological rigidity. 

More broadly, the point of this kind of language is to separate the in-group from the out-group.  Think of terms like "Latinx" or "people of color."  People use this language to signal to one another that they're members of the tribe in good standing and can be trusted.  Only out-group rubes use terms like "Latino" or "minorities" these days.  The same goes with this new gender language.  If "people capable of pregnancy" ever catches on (it won't), the language will "evolve" in a few years to some other term.  Once everybody starts using that terminology, it loses its usefulness as a signal.  That's why these activist groups neve settle on one set of terminology for too long.  Regardless, it's pretty much the opposite of accuracy to call this "inclusive."    

Edit: In case you're wondering, "minorities" has been replaced by "minoritized people" or (not kidding) "people experiencing minoritization."  It brings me no joy to report this.

I will continue to remind people that over 90% of Latinos hate the term Latinx.

Frankly, I find the usage of the term latinx to be culturally insensitive since Spanish (and the other Romance languages) gender all nouns. To remove gender from a noun is to tell them that the language of their homeland is not acceptable IMO.

 

[(HULK)]

I'll use she/her he/him pronouns, but that's it. I'm not using the made up ones like they/them or the rest of the nonsense. I guess that'll make me a jerk. I'm ok with that.

If a man wants to be a woman or vice-versa, go for it and I'll call you by your new/preferred name. No problem there.

I'll never say a man can have a baby. Ever.  A trans male is not a man. Men don't have wombs, fallopian tubes, uterus, and most importantly a vagina. Even if you remove all those parts, you're still not a man. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.

So just tell me your name and let's leave it at that.

I think we need a new set of pronouns for the other/undecided group. I get that they're not in a spot where they want to use he or she... I just can't get behind the usage of they/them for an individual person. I'd strongly prefer a new pronoun for the group that utilizes they/them.

 

[djmich]

The difficulty here is that, on both sides mind you, people stop advocating for what makes sense and just want blanket all or nothing solutions. And that's not only problematic in terms of finding a good equilibrium for society, it's bringing out the loons on both ends of the spectrum in full force.

Great post overall

I guess here though is where I struggle.  I don’t see the position of Ivan, myself or others here as “all or nothing”.

John wants be called Jane.  Cool  

John wants to be referred to as she.  Ok  

John wants social interactions to be based on the female gender.  No problem  

Why are these considered “nothing”?

It would seem to me that requiring all that AND requiring that the planet agrees that men can give birth would fall into “all or nothing” category.  Or that trans men be allowed to participate in female sports, etc.

 

[(HULK)]

Great post overall

I guess here though is where I struggle.  I don’t see the position of Ivan, myself or others here as “all or nothing”.

John wants be called Jane.  Cool  

John wants to be referred to as she.  Ok  

John wants social interactions to be based on the female gender.  No problem  

Why are these considered “nothing”?

It would seem to me that requiring all that AND requiring that the planet agrees that men can give birth would fall into “all or nothing” category.  Or that trans men be allowed to participate in female sports, etc.

I don't consider it nothing. But like I said, the loons come out.

I think Josh Hawley is a terrible human being but I think the lady acting like he's putting lives in danger by taking issue on the pregnancy thing is a loon position that falls into that all-or-nothing mentality. 

 

[(HULK)]

Maybe if there were more voices discussing these issues rationally, the loons would have less free air to shout their nuttiness into?

 

[moleculo]

Maybe if there were more voices discussing these issues rationally, the loons would have less free air to shout their nuttiness into?

nah.  Twitter is an unending source of free air.

 

[jon_mx]

Great post overall

I guess here though is where I struggle.  I don’t see the position of Ivan, myself or others here as “all or nothing”.

John wants be called Jane.  Cool  

John wants to be referred to as she.  Ok  

John wants social interactions to be based on the female gender.  No problem  

Why are these considered “nothing”?

It would seem to me that requiring all that AND requiring that the planet agrees that men can give birth would fall into “all or nothing” category.  Or that trans men be allowed to participate in female sports, etc.

John wants to pass laws requiring you to call him Jane or face huge financial penalties.  

John wants teachers to discuss with your children their gender identities and place labels on kids and get them to accept new gender identities without a real comprehension of what it means and without parental advise.

John wants to give children hormone treatments and even life-threaten surgeries to perfectly healthy children even against parental wishes.

John wants to compete against Sarah so he can win championships and scholarships because Joe kicks his butt.  

John wants you to respect him/her no matter how loony he/she is but wants to spit in your face if you disagree with him.  

Don't be John. 

 

[Joe Schmo]

I'm pretty sure I don't want to be jon

 

[djmich]

Maybe if there were more voices discussing these issues rationally, the loons would have less free air to shout their nuttiness into?

I agree with that sentiment overall, we need more rational discussion across the board.

I guess it depends on where your loon line is, for me saying men can give birth is looney.  Is that looney?...its defended here.    I am not sure who the loons are on the right or at least the looniness on the left seems much more visible and widespread?  As an example, the professor in the clip calling Hawley a transphobe I think is a loon (and she's not a random twitter nobody). 

But what post here in this thread from the conservative position is looney or has someone prominent like Hawley said something that is looney (I know squat about him other than the clip).

 

[(HULK)]

I agree with that sentiment overall, we need more rational discussion across the board.

I guess it depends on where your loon line is, for me saying men can give birth is looney.  Is that looney?...its defended here.    I am not sure who the loons are on the right or at least the looniness on the left seems much more visible and widespread?  As an example, the professor in the clip calling Hawley a transphobe I think is a loon (and she's not a random twitter nobody). 

But what post here in this thread from the conservative position is looney or has someone prominent like Hawley said something that is looney (I know squat about him other than the clip).

I mean, there are posts claiming corrupt doctors are ripping uteruses out of women to make profits and such in this thread and many unrelated threads. That's a right-wing loon take.

I already called that professor a loon, so I hope you understand that a social liberal can have that take. Those that don't, I think they're likely afraid of that slippery slope of giving ground, rather than firm in the belief that biology is irrelevant to policy.

 

[djmich]

I mean, there are posts claiming corrupt doctors are ripping uteruses out of women to make profits and such in this thread and many unrelated threads. That's a right-wing loon take.

I already called that professor a loon, so I hope you understand that a social liberal can have that take. Those that don't, I think they're likely afraid of that slippery slope of giving ground, rather than firm in the belief that biology is irrelevant to policy.

Lol yes that is a right wing loon take

appreciate/understand your second paragraph

 

[djmich]

I mean, there are posts claiming corrupt doctors are ripping uteruses out of women to make profits and such in this thread and many unrelated threads. That's a right-wing loon take.

I already called that professor a loon, so I hope you understand that a social liberal can have that take. Those that don't, I think they're likely afraid of that slippery slope of giving ground, rather than firm in the belief that biology is irrelevant to policy.

Related, I wonder if you really are a social liberal or more a social moderate?

Just thinking about it I’ve also considered myself a social liberal but I feel like when looking at where the two sides stand today I’m probably more of a moderate.

Support LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion, but draw lines at things like redefining what a woman is and supporting drag queens in elementary schools.

Support legal abortion up to a reasonable point (say 15 weeks)

Support increased gun guidelines, but more limited than what I think the left would want.

So I think these things are liberal, but i think my definition might not be progressive enough?

 

[(HULK)]

Related, I wonder if you really are a social liberal or more a social moderate?

Just thinking about it I’ve also considered myself a social liberal but I feel like when looking at where the two sides stand today I’m probably more of a moderate.

Support LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion, but draw lines at things like redefining what a woman is and supporting drag queens in elementary schools.

Support legal abortion up to a reasonable point (say 15 weeks)

Support increased gun guidelines, but more limited than what I think the left would want.

So I think these things are liberal, but i think my definition might not be progressive enough?

I'd generally say I'm a liberal because I'm cool with people doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others. I won't clutch my pearls and demand people conform to whatever my ideal vision of reality is, which is something I think social conservatives do.

ETA: I took my kids to a drag show at my mother's church when they were elementary age. I'd say that's pretty socially liberal.

 

[LawFitz]

Related, I wonder if you really are a social liberal or more a social moderate?

Just thinking about it I’ve also considered myself a social liberal but I feel like when looking at where the two sides stand today I’m probably more of a moderate.

Support LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion, but draw lines at things like redefining what a woman is and supporting drag queens in elementary schools.

Support legal abortion up to a reasonable point (say 15 weeks)

Support increased gun guidelines, but more limited than what I think the left would want.

So I think these things are liberal, but i think my definition might not be progressive enough?

Sounds like the Left has moved away from you, as I certainly think it did for me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd generally say I'm a liberal because I'm cool with people doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others. I won't clutch my pearls and demand people conform to whatever my ideal vision of reality is, which is something I think social conservatives do.

With a tiny number of exceptions (really just one -- abortion, because IMO there is a third party involved) I mostly take this view too.  The difference is that my own personal moral code matches up broadly with that of most social conservatives.  It's just that I don't really care much whether other people follow that code or not.  

So, for example, I've never cheated on my wife, and I'm quite judgey about the topic.  But I don't want adultery to be illegal and I get along just fine with people who I know have cheated on their spouses.  As I've gotten older, I've learned that most adults were born without the gene that allows them to make statements of the form "X is wrong but people should be free do X anyway."  It seems like 85% of the population either enthusiastically approves of X or wants to ban X altogether.  Nobody just tolerates X.  

 

[jon_mx]

I'm pretty sure I don't want to be jon

Don't worry, you are totally a John

 

[jon_mx]

Related, I wonder if you really are a social liberal or more a social moderate?

Just thinking about it I’ve also considered myself a social liberal but I feel like when looking at where the two sides stand today I’m probably more of a moderate.

Support LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion, but draw lines at things like redefining what a woman is and supporting drag queens in elementary schools.

Support legal abortion up to a reasonable point (say 15 weeks)

Support increased gun guidelines, but more limited than what I think the left would want.

So I think these things are liberal, but i think my definition might not be progressive enough?

A real liberal would spit in your face and call you a bigot. 

 

[(HULK)]

With a tiny number of exceptions (really just one -- abortion, because IMO there is a third party involved) I mostly take this view too.  The difference is that my own personal moral code matches up broadly with that of most social conservatives.  It's just that I don't really care much whether other people follow that code or not.  

So, for example, I've never cheated on my wife, and I'm quite judgey about the topic.  But I don't want adultery to be illegal and I get along just fine with people who I know have cheated on their spouses.  As I've gotten older, I've learned that most adults were born without the gene that allows them to make statements of the form "X is wrong but people should be free do X anyway."  It seems like 85% of the population either enthusiastically approves of X or wants to ban X altogether.  Nobody just tolerates X.  

I'm with you on that.

Honestly it'd be best for us all if these social issues weren't tied to political ideologies IMO.

 

[djmich]

I'd generally say I'm a liberal because I'm cool with people doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others. I won't clutch my pearls and demand people conform to whatever my ideal vision of reality is, which is something I think social conservatives do.

I agree with the bolded, but I think it's pretty easy to say that.  I'm cool with people screwing whoever or whatever they want, wearing whatever persona and equipment they want, for example.

Would you classify the positions I noted as moderate or liberal?  Where do you differ?

 

[(HULK)]

I agree with the bolded, but I think it's pretty easy to say that.  I'm cool with people screwing whoever or whatever they want, wearing whatever persona and equipment they want, for example.

Would you classify the positions I noted as moderate or liberal?  Where do you differ?

Traditionally liberal but honestly, I think we need to separate these concepts from the existing political ideologies we have in this country. It's really a question of being in favor of personal freedom or not, it shouldn't be a democrat/republican issue since that sucks people into supporting less freedom due to other ideological issues in a platform sucking them in.

 

[AAABatteries]

The difficulty here is that, on both sides mind you, people stop advocating for what makes sense and just want blanket all or nothing solutions. And that's not only problematic in terms of finding a good equilibrium for society, it's bringing out the loons on both ends of the spectrum in full force.

The other difficulty is, quite frankly, that the idea that defining what a woman is doesn't register in the top 100 issues for the average person.  Ask a homeless person or someone jobless or someone without insurance what they think of this topic and I'm assuming the vast majority would say GTFO of here with something so trivial compared with real problems.  Then the leaders and politicians spend countless time on issues such as this and never get anything real done.  I'm sympathetic to issues that transgender people face and I understand we can address multiple things at once, especially those of us fortunate enough to not have too many obstacles to overcome in life.  But there's a reason Maslow's needs has social things 3rd and other more essential things 1st and 2nd - it's why people vote with their pocketbooks and are concerned with their jobs and safety much more than a topic like this.

 

[LawFitz]

The other difficulty is, quite frankly, that the idea that defining what a woman is doesn't register in the top 100 issues for the average person.  Ask a homeless person or someone jobless or someone without insurance what they think of this topic and I'm assuming the vast majority would say GTFO of here with something so trivial compared with real problems.  Then the leaders and politicians spend countless time on issues such as this and never get anything real done.  I'm sympathetic to issues that transgender people face and I understand we can address multiple things at once, especially those of us fortunate enough to not have too many obstacles to overcome in life.  But there's a reason Maslow's needs has social things 3rd and other more essential things 1st and 2nd - it's why people vote with their pocketbooks and are considered with their jobs and safety much more than a topic like this.

That's a lot of words for "why are you guys making a big deal out of this?"

The answer to your implicit question: because to some of us - clearly not you - it is a big enough deal to care and worthy of conversation. And IMO, such conversation is good for everyone - including and especially trans people.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Not sure why you feel the need to be snarky - my god this forum is tiresome.

I'd type up what I really meant but what's the point - you knew exactly what I meant and chose to be a jerk.

I apologize, i truly thought you would take that comment in a different light. I don't recall us ever having a terse back and forth and I genuinely respect your opinions. 

I could give a lengthy explanation of my intent and the background exchange, but I feel like that wouldnt even help. Seriously, i am sorry.

 

[AAABatteries]

I apologize, i truly thought you would take that comment in a different light. I don't recall us ever having a terse back and forth and I genuinely respect your opinions. 

I could give a lengthy explanation of my intent and the background exchange, but I feel like that wouldnt even help. Seriously, i am sorry.

I'll hide my post if you want to hide yours.  I probably misread it - sorry too.  :brohug: 

ETA - @parasaurolophus - just want to make sure you saw this.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Related, I wonder if you really are a social liberal or more a social moderate?

Just thinking about it I’ve also considered myself a social liberal but I feel like when looking at where the two sides stand today I’m probably more of a moderate.

Support LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion, but draw lines at things like redefining what a woman is and supporting drag queens in elementary schools.

Support legal abortion up to a reasonable point (say 15 weeks)

Support increased gun guidelines, but more limited than what I think the left would want.

So I think these things are liberal, but i think my definition might not be progressive enough?

It's progressive enough for my liking.

 

[Dickies]

A real liberal would spit in your face and call you a bigot. 

You occasionally post interesting thoughts, but you're getting a lot harder to take seriously with this rhetoric.  If there was a valid point in this post, this would just detract from it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

That's a lot of words for "why are you guys making a big deal out of this?"

The answer to your implicit question: because to some of us - clearly not you - it is a big enough deal to care and worthy of conversation. And IMO, such conversation is good for everyone - including and especially trans people.

Interesting.  I took it the other way when I read this- D politicians are turning people away because they are focusing on this stuff vs. other more tangible things people care about more and vote about more. 

 

[ZADO]

A real liberal would spit in your face and call you a bigot. 

I seriously doubt Tim would spit in anyone's face 

 

[dkp993]

5 hours ago, djmich said:
Related, I wonder if you really are a social liberal or more a social moderate?

Just thinking about it I’ve also considered myself a social liberal but I feel like when looking at where the two sides stand today I’m probably more of a moderate.

Support LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion, but draw lines at things like redefining what a woman is and supporting drag queens in elementary schools.

Support legal abortion up to a reasonable point (say 15 weeks)

Support increased gun guidelines, but more limited than what I think the left would want.

So I think these things are liberal, but i think my definition might not be progressive enough?
Expand  

I'd generally say I'm a liberal because I'm cool with people doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others. I won't clutch my pearls and demand people conform to whatever my ideal vision of reality is, which is something I think social conservatives do.

ETA: I took my kids to a drag show at my mother's church when they were elementary age. I'd say that's pretty socially lib

I align up with you dj very closely in these. I’ve always considered myself centrist/moderate.  But here, I’m a radical left lib according to some.  Hulk is now too.  

 

[djmich]

I align up with you dj very closely in these. I’ve always considered myself centrist/moderate.  But here, I’m a radical left lib according to some.  Hulk is now too.  

I consider myself in good company then! 

For me this is sort of a realization that I've always considered myself overall moderate but skew socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  I think what I'm realizing now is that I'm more a social moderate.  That's not necessarily bad and someone like captain cranks still thinks its "progressive enough" .... but I always considered myself one of the open-minded cool kids  

Practically speaking, I'd assume a pretty decent slice of the voting pie feels this way and there is one side of the aisle that I think has a clear political advantage from this for "my" voting block (hint, its not the team I feel kicked out of)