DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:55 am
grovester wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:40 am
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 8:45 am
For example, your told that if you’re attracted to females but wouldn’t date a trans-female because of her anatomy, you’re “transphobic”. This is ludicrous and most people agree it’s ludicrous, yet those on the left sit silent to this silly concept. Because they’re afraid.
This is dumb, nobody thinks this or does this.
You're transphobic if you're a dick about it or, I don't know, take away their medical care or civil rights.
If nobody thinks this or does this, why are there articles and studies about it?
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/201 ... phobic?amp
Curious whether you actually read your own article there, since it explicitly asserts that it is not transphobic to have a "genital preference":
Which brings up the question: is it transphobic to have a genital preference? I would argue that it is not, using the sort of logic that would be used in legal circles. Namely, this rule can theoretically be applied neutrally across cisgender and transgender people. Thus, the rule of, “I am not attracted to people with a vagina” or, “I am not attracted to people with a penis” can be equally applied to both cisgender women and transgender men.
Please don't interpret this as my having any interest in further engaging with you on trans issues, it's just very easy when somebody posts an article supposedly in support of their position to point out when it says exactly the opposite.
Lol. Sorry for activating a dormant thread and the result is some spirited debate. Exactly what I was looking for. If that makes me woke, I’ll take it. Of course these days you can use whatever definition you want which is basically all your latest response was. You told akp what woke is these days with your definition. I’m woke by your definition. Pretentious wasn’t used accordingly in your definition as well which you made clear.
I mean just to clarify, I'd say that you're woke by
your definition. I generally don't use the word myself and wouldn't bother to describe anybody that way.
I specifically had you in mind when I used the world woke because I knew it would force you to enter the conversation as you’re by a large margin the wokest member of this forum. Take any far left or democratic socialist agenda item and put it on here, you’ll be quick to defend it with cape and all.
But it didn't force me to enter the conversation. I responded to akp, not to you. I'm responding to you now because you are directly addressing me, but I was not interested in your thoughts on "wokeism" before and I am still not interested in them now. I am flattered that you think so highly of me that you are trying to bait me into arguing about your hobby horses, but I'm afraid "wokeism" is just not as important to me as it apparently is to you.
My post was actually about politics and the close Governor races in blue states and how social, progressive and woke culture may be impacting that much like the Virginia race that was flipped red. Sorry you skipped past the substance of the conversation to take the bait and lose your mind over the wokeness. Since we can just make our own definitions these days, here’s mine. Woke = A once championed social position that has gone too far and is now having a serious impact on elections.
No one has asked me my position on these things and it’s complicated.
I’ll think twice next time before posting something on a forum meant for conversation if it will indeed stir up conversation. Statues and horse racing are far more important than social issues anyway.
You will have to forgive me for skipping the "substance" of your post (your post that I in fact skipped entirely), but I don't really find horse race speculation particularly interesting either, so I have about as much to say about governor races as I do about "wokeism." I don't mean to cast "wokeism" as being particularly less worthy of conversation than the horse race, only to point out that nothing fits your previously-offered definition of "woke" better than gratuitously opining on social issues that nobody else was talking about.
And come on you scholarly legal mind. You may have been responding to akp but you knew without a doubt your response was meant to get a reaction and not simply in the interest of helping a fellow rager out. It was pure bullshit and sarcastic.
You had already made a post explicitly about this, so I don't know why you think I needed to use a joke as some kind of Trojan horse to start a conversation with you. In your defense, though, you do have the razor thin skin and raging victim complex of any good Republican, so I probably should have anticipated that you would take it personally, but I don't spend much time gaming out how you will react to my posts.