International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5) (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348529)

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 03:45 AM

[ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
 
Mod InfoThread continued from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=346735
Posted By:Darat



Quote:

Originally Posted by 8enotto (Post 13330425)
So you disagree trans is a personal decision.

Please LondonJohn tell us what part of gender dysphoria OBLIGATES a person to start hormone treatment and the transition to what they didn't start out as.

Enlighten us. Help us understand this dysphoria.

Transitioning is not a necessary part of being trans. So that's a big fail

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul2 (Post 13330571)
Please. You can't imagine that you can modify the definition of biological sex to account for the fact that an organism might or will stop producing gametes? That the fact that organisms stop producing gametes at some point is some type of logical defeater? Especially since an organism stops producing gametes doesn't mean that they could have produced the other type of gamete at some point.

Also, please don't bring up the tiny proportion of organisms that never produce any gametes at all until you imagine what a rejoinder, similar to the one I've offered above, might be.

This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13330583)
This kind of thing can also easily snowball into a preference cascade. If more women switch over to the conservative party, it is likely to become even more receptive to their opinions.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/co...balance-135474

I can't find any data more up to date than this but I would very much doubt it has changed significantly in 18 months.

lionking 19th December 2020 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331131)
This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially

It is binary unless you live in a Humpty Dumpty universe, which most of us don’t.

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13330718)
Really? They face the danger of being forcibly impregnated?

You are the first voice i have heard to suggest that infertile women should be denied access to women only shortlists. It's certainly an interesting and unique position to hold. I would ask you to justify it but you don't do answers to questions.

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13330781)
I CAN'T MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY!

That's sort of always been my point.

What a weird point. Life is not about making everyone happy. Understand the arguments and choose the one you agree with or come up with your own viewpoint or don't even bother thinking about it. The idea that you need to find an answer which reconciles two competing viewpoints is bizarre.

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qayak (Post 13330775)
Kaitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year,

Well that's not really your call to make is it? It's up to the people who decide the awards who they award to.

Of course Caitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year. She was one of one magazine's Women of the Year. One of 25 I believe. Of course nobody remembers the other 24 because they didn't get a host of TERFs berating them and telling them they weren't really women.

Archie Gemmill Goal 19th December 2020 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louden Wilde (Post 13330875)
Not in the original way that woman was defined - adult human female . To say that sex doesn't matter or has nothing to do with why females are oppressed defies logic & evidence. I'm also not convinced that transwomen crime rates are any different than other males.....

If you are defining sex as only to do with biological reproduction in order to make it binary then to argue that it is the defining factor in why women have been oppressed defies logic and evidence.

Woman aren't discriminated against because they produce eggs.

LondonJohn 19th December 2020 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13330465)
Personally, I think that both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful, as it doesn't require permanent medicalization, and also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination.


Personally, I think that for homosexuals, both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful..... and (it) also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination.


(You quite clearly are impervious to the fact that what you're saying here is that people with gender dysphoria should, as a first approach, try to be "cured" of their gender dysphoria. To be made "normal" again. And you wonder why people like me find your position disgusting and contemptible.)



Quote:

I'll draw a bit of an analogy here. I'm epileptic. <snip>

Epilepsy is a disorder. An aberration. And that's the definitive and settled opinion of the mainstream medical community. Gender dysphoria is not a disorder or aberration. Just like homosexuality.

No medical professional ever will (thankfully) think of addressing a patient/client with gender dysphoria in this way. This is nothing whatsoever to do with "curing" the condition, irrespective of your unpleasant idea of trying the "cheap cure" as a primary option. The only clinical decisions to be taken wrt a patient/client with gender dysphoria and a desire to transition is a) to work with the patient/client to make sure that they've considered their decision carefully and fully, and b) if (a) is fulfilled, to decide - in conjunction with the patient/client - what form of transition would be preferable for them.



Unbelievable. As is this ludicrous smokescreen claim that this is all about men taking policy decisions without any regard to the rights of cis women (I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that all the policy panel members making the decisions on DSM5 were men - and nasty, misogynist men at that. And that all legislative policymakers in those (thankfully progressive) national parliaments which enshrined laws to respect and protect transgender rights... were similarly 100% men....)

LondonJohn 19th December 2020 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331149)
Well that's not really your call to make is it? It's up to the people who decide the awards who they award to.

Of course Caitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year. She was one of one magazine's Women of the Year. One of 25 I believe. Of course nobody remembers the other 24 because they didn't get a host of TERFs berating them and telling them they weren't really women.



Indeed. I'm totally done with the disgusting attitudes of some in this thread. But I take very great comfort in the fact that their toxic opinions are several miles removed from those of the actual medical experts, and those who are increasingly legislating for transgender rights.

I am particularly repulsed by the way in which some of these opinions are prefaced by claims along the lines of "I'm all in favour of transgender inclusivity blah blah blah"..... followed by blatant (and sometimes breathtakingly vile - witness the "we should try to cure them as a first option" idea I referenced in my previous post) statements riding roughshod over one or more key areas of transgender rights.

And (as I also said before), it's a near-perfect facsimile of the positions of those in the 50s/60s/70s who tried the same smoke-and-mirrors deceit in respect of black civil rights and gay rights. Of course, they'll heartily and angrily reject the comparison - but that's only to be expected. In fact it's all part of the underlying problem.

But anyhow, I'm very happy to know for certain that a) the sorts of nasty, divisive, reactionary positions held by some in this thread are ultimately a total irrelevancy in the real world (they're nothing more than an angry shout into the void), and b) in 20 or 30 years we'll all look back (as we did with black civil rights and gay rights), and wonder just how it was even morally possible to hold those sorts of views about transgender rights.

LondonJohn 19th December 2020 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13330428)
:confused: Why is it ignorant and unpleasant to defend Boudicca against insinuations of wanting to tear through the cotton ceiling? What is disgusting about acknowledging that Boudicca has expressed that she prefers men... and to infer that she probably hasn't spent much time trying to convince lesbians that they're bigots if they don't want to sleep with her lady-penis?

I seriously think you need to have a bit of thought here, buddy, and get back to me on how this can possibly be perceived as ignorant, unpleasant, and disgusting. Because your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simply an insulting ad hominem attack related to nothing at all.



You probably ought to learn what an ad hominem argument is (and what it is not).

And within this post of yours, you're only further reinforcing my position wrt your toxic beliefs. I'm alright thanks, "buddy".

Ziggurat 19th December 2020 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331137)
You are the first voice i have heard to suggest that infertile women should be denied access to women only shortlists. It's certainly an interesting and unique position to hold. I would ask you to justify it but you don't do answers to questions.

That doesn’t actually follow from anything I said. Nice try, and thanks for proving you don’t actually have an argument.

8enotto 19th December 2020 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331125)
Transitioning is not a necessary part of being trans. So that's a big fail


Then transition is a decision many trans choose to make. Unlike what you posted before.

Thanks.

theprestige 19th December 2020 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330883)
To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?

I'm confident that if you did come up with a term for this set of people, trans activists would insist that transwomen have a right to be honorary members of the set.

Hell, Boudicca has already said as much, and more.

Paul2 19th December 2020 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331131)
This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially

First, one quick note about the binary: anything outside of the binary of two different sexes based on the type of gamete isn't even the type of thing that we're talking about in this thread anyway. Your garden-variety trans person still has one of the two types of gametes in the bimodal distribution.

Discrimination: I think you have to mean unjust or immoral discrimination, correct? Because a neutral discrimination - that there exist in reality two different sexes, based on the type of gamete - is not unjust or immoral, it just is. Thinking otherwise is a category mistake. Given that, there is nothing unjust or immoral in acknowledging the reality of two different sexes based on the type of gamete. That some might use the fact of two sexes to discriminate lies with them, not with the fact.

I'm not sure what significance "biological reductionism" has, given the above, other than as a faint pejorative.

It's a separate question as to what we do with the fact of two sexes based on the type of gamete. All I've been trying to do here is to justify that two sexes based on gametes *is* a fact of biology, and an absolutely foundational one at that.

theprestige 19th December 2020 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331125)
Transitioning is not a necessary part of being trans. So that's a big fail

So when an employer requires that their staff use an un-transitioned transsexual employee's preferred pronouns, what is it?

Treating a medical condition?

Accommodating a disability?

Catering to a personal preference?

At some point, how someone chooses to think of themselves in the privacy of their own head stops being a social issue that needs a public policy solution.

Paul2 19th December 2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331151)
If you are defining sex as only to do with biological reproduction in order to make it binary then to argue that it is the defining factor in why women have been oppressed defies logic and evidence.

Woman aren't discriminated against because they produce eggs.

Do you mean implicitly, explicitly, or both?

theprestige 19th December 2020 10:01 AM

I wonder when the trans-activists will get around to telling the vast majority of transsexuals that their transition is bogus because sex isn't even binary anyway, and the man-woman distinction they're hung up on isn't real in the first palce.

In a world of binary gender, I could see gender dysphoria being a real condition that merits treatment, accommodation, and understanding. Like blindness or quadriplegia. But in a world where binary gender doesn't even exist? How do you accommodate someone who insists their seeing-eye dog needs to come on the plane, if eyes don't exist and nobody actually "sees" anything anyway?

Darat 19th December 2020 10:05 AM

We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments

Meadmaker 19th December 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13331375)
We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments

I think that approach would probably be acceptable to the majority of people. It seems reasonable to me. As you say, the extremists on either side wouldn't be happy about it.

d4m10n 19th December 2020 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louden Wilde (Post 13330844)
This sentence is particularly bad: the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.

Even if every single human being was born with completely unambiguous primary sex characteristics and went on to develop completely unambiguous secondary sex characteristics, transgender people (who are deeply dissatisfied with the hand they've been dealt re: sexual characteristics) would still exist. The topics of intersex variation and trans* issues are (by and large) orthogonal to each other, rather than clearly informing one another.

theprestige 19th December 2020 12:38 PM

I the extremists on the "transphobe" side would actually be pretty okay with all of that. There'll be a vanishingly small number of weapons-grade douchebags, but we won't hear much from them and won't take them seriously anyway.

The real opposition is going to come from the vocal minority of trans-activists who will make every effort to change policy.

JoeMorgue 19th December 2020 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331125)
Transitioning is not a necessary part of being trans. So that's a big fail

Nothing is a necessary part of being trans. The only defining factor is pure contextless self-determination in regards to multiple factors which are all either purposely ill-defined or directly contradictory. That's the problem.

qayak 19th December 2020 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 13331149)
Well that's not really your call to make is it? It's up to the people who decide the awards who they award to.

Of course Caitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year. She was one of one magazine's Women of the Year. One of 25 I believe. Of course nobody remembers the other 24 because they didn't get a host of TERFs berating them and telling them they weren't really women.

She still wasn't though. You can't tell me that a woman who had been a man just 4 months earlier was one of the top 25 women of the year. I think the magazine that voted her one of the entertainers of the year got it right. E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.E.R. That would exclude her role on KUWTK where she just wandered around in the background with nothing to do.

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.

cullennz 19th December 2020 05:17 PM

Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

:thumbsup:

d4m10n 19th December 2020 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13331779)
Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

I fully expect all the old unanswered questions to be definitively settled, and that soon.

LondonJohn 19th December 2020 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13331779)
Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

:thumbsup:


Is it the function/role of this thread to "sort it out once and for all"? And irrespective of that: suppose that this thread actually did sort it out once and for all? What would that mean in the real world? Precisely nothing.

Thankfully, the world's mainstream medical/psychology/sociology experts have sorted it out already. As have many mainstream national executives and legislatures.

I suspect that had there been a forum such as this in, say, the 1960s, there'd have been a similar entrenched thread about gay rights in which one group of people argued that homosexual people a) deserved the right to have their condition treated as a valid lived experience rather than a disease or disorder; b) deserved precisely the same human/civil rights as heterosexual people, in all areas of life; and c) deserved full protection under the law. And there'd have been another entrenched set of bigots arguing something like "Yeah, I'm totally in favour of gay rights - but I draw the line at an out gay guy being allowed to use the swimming pool's changing facilities at the same time as me and my 12-year-old son", and so on.

And as I also mentioned before, it'll be grimly amusing to look back upon this thread in 20-30 years' time, and wonder quite how some of the views expressed in this thread could ever have been seriously offered up.

LondonJohn 19th December 2020 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qayak (Post 13331732)
She still wasn't though. You can't tell me that a woman who had been a man just 4 months earlier was one of the top 25 women of the year. I think the magazine that voted her one of the entertainers of the year got it right. E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.E.R. That would exclude her role on KUWTK where she just wandered around in the background with nothing to do.

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.




Hmmmmmm.

"I fully support the decision of gay men to live their lives as they want, until they take resources allotted straight guys".


S. M. H.

cullennz 19th December 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13331806)
Is it the function/role of this thread to "sort it out once and for all"? And irrespective of that: suppose that this thread actually did sort it out once and for all? What would that mean in the real world? Precisely nothing.

Thankfully, the world's mainstream medical/psychology/sociology experts have sorted it out already. As have many mainstream national executives and legislatures.

I suspect that had there been a forum such as this in, say, the 1960s, there'd have been a similar entrenched thread about gay rights in which one group of people argued that homosexual people a) deserved the right to have their condition treated as a valid lived experience rather than a disease or disorder; b) deserved precisely the same human/civil rights as heterosexual people, in all areas of life; and c) deserved full protection under the law. And there'd have been another entrenched set of bigots arguing something like "Yeah, I'm totally in favour of gay rights - but I draw the line at an out gay guy being allowed to use the swimming pool's changing facilities at the same time as me and my 12-year-old son", and so on.

And as I also mentioned before, it'll be grimly amusing to look back upon this thread in 20-30 years' time, and wonder quite how some of the views expressed in this thread could ever have been seriously offered up.

Indeed. Like males with penises claiming they are biologically no different to females.....Which I apologise if I missed it, I haven't seen your opinion of.

Ziggurat 19th December 2020 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13331809)
Hmmmmmm.

"I fully support the decision of gay men to live their lives as they want, until they take resources allotted straight guys".


S. M. H.

What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight? The only one I can think of is straight women as sexual partners, and I'm pretty sure gay men aren't taking those away from straight men.

d4m10n 19th December 2020 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13331826)
What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight?

Foster parenting and adoption services, in many if not most "red" states in the U.S.

cullennz 19th December 2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13331839)
Foster parenting and adoption services, in many if not most "red" states in the U.S.


Not the greatest example, given the same thing can be used as bias against any single straight male wanting to foster, or single straight dude who isn't religious.

Depending on the groups beliefs making the decision.

It basically has the potential to screw both gay and straight dudes.

d4m10n 19th December 2020 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13331843)
Not the greatest example, given the same thing can be used as bias against any single straight male wanting to foster...

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. A same-sex couple can be denied approval as a foster family because they are the same sex, even as similarly well-qualified opposite-sex couples are approved. This is an example of how resources are allocated to heterosexuals as a matter of public policy, which was at least part of what Zig was asking about.

cullennz 19th December 2020 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13331871)
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. A same-sex couple can be denied approval as a foster family because they are the same sex, even as similarly well-qualified opposite-sex couples are approved. This is an example of how resources are allocated to heterosexuals as a matter of public policy, which was at least part of what Zig was asking about.

Your example was based on a question of what resources are available to straight dudes over gay dudes.

If you want to add in "I mean in the case of couples" which invalidates your example from the question you are answering, you should have clarified you mean straight couples and not straight dudes, because your example involving couples doesn't answer the posters question.

In fact your answer accuses straight females who are a straight couple as well as male, which I am thinking wasn't your point as you seemed to be just criticising straight dudes.

cullennz 19th December 2020 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13331871)
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. A same-sex couple can be denied approval as a foster family because they are the same sex, even as similarly well-qualified opposite-sex couples are approved. This is an example of how resources are allocated to heterosexuals as a matter of public policy, which was at least part of what Zig was asking about.

Let me put it better.

I agree a straight female and male religious couple have a better chance of fostering than a gay couple, a straight single male, a gay single male.

But this has no relevance to the question that you answered.

d4m10n 19th December 2020 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13331879)
Your example was based on a question of what resources are available to straight dudes over gay dudes.

Right, and I gave an example of resources that are offered to straight dudes (and straight chicks) but not gay dudes (and lesbian chicks) in certain parts of the USA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13331879)
If you want to add in "I mean in the case of couples" which invalidates your example from the question you are answering...

Why exactly is that? Did the original question somehow require that sexual orientation is literally the only criterion in play?

caveman1917 19th December 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13331806)
Thankfully, the world's mainstream medical/psychology/sociology experts have sorted it out already.

Yes we all know what the world's sociology experts have already "sorted out." We've been through this already.

cullennz 19th December 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13331902)
Right, and I gave an example of resources that are offered to straight dudes (and straight chicks) but not gay dudes (and lesbian chicks) in certain parts of the USA.

Why exactly is that? Did the original question somehow require that sexual orientation is literally the only criterion in play?

This shouldn't be as difficult as you are making it.

The question you answered was this about straight male dudes getting extra rights

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13331826)
What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight?

You replied fostering with couples. Why? I have no idea

Sorry, but straight single dudes are just as prejudiced against as gay people, when it comes to fostering.

At best your example says straight women in a relationship are advantaged over single blokes straight or gay.

Either way along with custody in break ups, the chick 9/10 wins and dudes straight or gay lose

d4m10n 19th December 2020 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13331914)
...straight single dudes are just as prejudiced against as gay people, when it comes to fostering.

The question wasn't exclusively limited to single people, though. I've provided an example of when public resources are preferentially given to straight people because they are straight and you seem to want to quibble over the fact that foster families are usually, well, families.

cullennz 19th December 2020 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13331917)
The question wasn't exclusively limited to single people, though. I've provided an example of when public resources are preferentially given to straight people because they are straight and you seem to want to quibble over the fact that foster families are usually, well, families.

No. I was more sort of pointing out you weren't answering the actual question.

Let me try another way and make another persons question different (To you , because for some reason it has to be"


What resources are allotted to straight men with no other factor like a female partner on the basis of them being straight?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.