"wrong call by the editor?" Topic

Weasel, the root cause of all of this is that certain people interpret certain religious doctrines to mean that they can discriminate and denounce LGBT people. And because the editor likes to claim TMP has "freedom of speech", nothing will be done because those posters can claim religious freedom (never mind that can be interpeted as proselytizing, but the editor always uses his discretion on such a complaint). If a poster says "all Jews are greedy" or "all blacks are lazy", Bill would have to do something about it. But he won't do anything about someone saying "all transgenders are mentally ill".

This thread should not be on this site at all.

No, it shouldn't be because Bill should nip bigotry in the bud instead of encouraging it.

From my experience with my other website, I can say that of the transpinays (Filipino ladyboys) that I have spoken to, all have said that they identified as female since childhood.

What causes that? I would think that it has to be something affecting the brain/mind, since that is where gender identity comes from.

Is that a mental "illness"? I think that psychiatrists today are reluctant to use the word "illness" because that might seem to imply a value judgment. Whether this state is good or bad is more properly the role of religion or philosophy to judge, not science.

Is it a mental "something"? Yes, but whatever it is, it seems to be complex and multi-dimensional. A syndrome? Condition? Is it purely mental, or is it part biology? How much does environment play a role?

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

-Pediatrics 2004

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation.

-American Psychological Association 2006

Having said all of that, I think that a lot of people in this discussion are saying the same thing in different ways. If one person says "mental illness" and another person says "genetics," both are at root saying that it is something in the brain/mind. Yes, illness may be a loaded word, and the genetic theory is unproven and tied into gay politics.

Maybe we should all just say: Nobody knows exactly what causes it. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Time will tell.

As for myself, I haven't the slightest idea what causes it.

…the root cause of all of this is that certain people interpret certain religious doctrines to mean that they can discriminate and denounce LGBT people….

You suddenly know that TrenchRaider is motivated by a religious doctrine? How do you know that?

You suddenly know that TrenchRaider is motivated by a religious doctrine?

Does it matter? The only thing that matters is that you won't do anything about such bigoted statements.

The only thing that matters is that you won't do anything about such bigoted statements.

Because you cannot prove bigotry exists.

Because you cannot prove bigotry exists.

It's the words as much as the intent. He could be the most well-intentioned person and those words would still be bigoted.

It's the words as much as the intent. He could be the most well-intentioned person and those words would still be bigoted.

Why?

Because it is a blatant group attack used as a talking point by anti-LGBT groups to denigrate and belittle transgender people! I feel like Bud Abbott screaming "third base".

Because it is a blatant group attack used as a talking point by anti-LGBT groups to denigrate and belittle transgender people! I feel like Bud Abbott screaming "third base".

Because you are not answering the question.

And merrily we move on to page 12

Because you are not answering the question.

No Bill, I am. Why are you avoiding the answer? Why are you allowing anti-LGBT sentiments on TMP? If you don't want politics or religion and cut posts that contain discussions of politics and religion, and cut posts that express bigotry against religions or ethnicities, why not LGBT as well?

"It's the words as much as the intent. He could be the most well-intentioned person and those words would still be bigoted."

But we could say the same thing about you and your bias against people struggling with mental illness.

"Pictors studio, I have no idea where you get the idea that I equate being a low life with having a mental illness. "

I get this idea because you are saying that there is not equality when someone gets DH'd for saying that someone is a "lowlife" but someone else doesn't for saying that people are mentally ill.

If you think that both people should be DH'd then you are saying that saying someone is mentally ill is the same as saying they are a lowlife.

How is that reasonable?

Someone can be mentally ill. It doesn't make them a bad person. It doesn't mean we should judge them for it. Many people will struggle with mental illness throughout their life.

It is not the same as being a "low life" so saying it should be treated differently.

"But if it isn't actually true then we must question why it was said and what it means. In my experience it mostly means I don't like you or I strongly disagree with you."

It might mean that, it might also mean that the person is simply wrong in their diagnosis. Obviously mental illness is a pretty complex subject.

When I worked in medicine it was surprising how little people not in medicine knew about it. It was sometimes surprising how little some doctors knew about it.

One time I had a doctor, in all seriousness, ask me if we could transplant a brain. Another doctor came rushing up to me to get my team together to do the recovery surgery after the patient coded while doing the blood flow study.

Automatically assuming that the person is making an attack just because they said someone is mentally ill is a bad assumption and I think it might also show at least a little bigotry on the part of the person making the assumption that it is an attack.

Mentally ill people are just that, they are sick. They should not be looked down upon.

"Why are you allowing anti-LGBT sentiments on TMP?"

We could equally ask why he is allowing anti-mental illness implications on TMP.

Well, at least you tried, Pictor's Studio.

Rebel, your answer seems to be "Because I say it is."

Are you trying to bait me into breaking the rules on politics and religion? Because the answer lies with political and religious groups.

Page 12!!

This is absolutely hilarious!

"Weasel, I hear you about how it's wrong to make group attacks, paint with a broad brush, not read what was actually said, and to load more into someone's words than what they actually said, but there's a religious group that uses religion to bash LGBT people (I actually agree with this part, by the way)! What? No, it didn't happen on TMP, but Trenchraider's a bigot! And bigots post terrible stuff on TMP but get away with it because of religious freedom! What? No, I haven't seen anyone actually do that, but what does it matter, Trenchraider's a bigot!"

Rebel, what else could you possibly throw against the wall and not have stick?

"Because it is a blatant group attack used as a talking point by anti-LGBT groups to denigrate and belittle transgender people!"
I just had my own run-in with this line of thinking: a friend and I were just discussing the genesis of a particular pseudo-political term. But because we are different ends of the political spectrum we both had our initial hearing of the term at different times and in different places. Because of this it had different connotations, was linked to different groups of people.

My point is, it's fashionable (on both sides) to hear something that sounds familiar and scream "Talking Points!" assume the issuer is a member of a certain group, then attack them. You're playing the 'dogwhistle' game, and that's not fair to the individual. You can pretend he used some heinous group's "codeword" and beat him up as a bigot, but it's not right, and so you keep trying to convince us that you alone have the ability to see into Trenchraider's heart.

And kudos at somehow linking religion into this once again…

Are you trying to bait me into breaking the rules on politics and religion? Because the answer lies with political and religious groups.

No, it doesn't.

You want to make this a guilt by association thing.

An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

link

So, let's try again… how do you know that it's an inherently bigoted statement?

So, let's try again… how do you know that it's an inherently bigoted statement?

Because it is a false stereotype that robs them of a core aspect of their self-identity.

"Because it is a false stereotype that robs them of a core aspect of their self-identity."

Determined by their genetics?

Because it is a false stereotype that robs them of a core aspect of their self-identity.

It's not a false stereotype, is it?

Their argument is:

1. Biological gender is determined by DNA
2. Transgender individuals believe they have a gender identity which differs from their biological DNA.
3. Therefore, they have a mental illness.

Now, explain where the bigotry is?

The bigotry is in part 3, Bill. Gender self-identity is a cultural norm. DNA dictates sex, not gender. And a mental illness is a behavioral or psychological disorder that causes duress or removes the ability to function. Identifying as male or female is not a mental illness.

The bigotry is in part 3, Bill. Gender self-identity is a cultural norm. DNA dictates sex, not gender. And a mental illness is a behavioral or psychological disorder that causes duress or removes the ability to function. Identifying as male or female is not a mental illness.

I have to disagree with you. I think a reasonable person might come to that conclusion. I don't think they would have to be a bigot to reach that opinion.

The problem is that for your accusation to be true, you have to show that such a conclusion could only be reached on the basis of bigotry.

Bill it is a false stereotype In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

If Psychiatrists have the responsibility and training to determine what is a mental illness and how to treat it and the clearly states that homosexuality is not a mental illness what else is needed?

I think a reasonable person might come to that conclusion.

Fifty years ago, maybe. There is no excuse for people to hold such beliefs today. None whatsoever beyond willful ignorance.

If Psychiatrists have the responsibility and training to determine what is a mental illness and how to treat it and the clearly states that homosexuality is not a mental illness what else is needed?

People often have opinions which differ from the experts.

That doesn't make them bigoted. They may well be wrong, but that's different.

Fifty years ago, maybe. There is no excuse for people to hold such beliefs today. None whatsoever beyond willful ignorance.

Even if you are right, being ignorant does not make one a bigot.

"DNA dictates sex, not gender."

This isn't entirely true. There is no excuse for thinking this today. Fifty years ago, maybe. None whatsoever beyond willful ignorance.

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior.

- Mayo Clinic

People often have opinions which differ from the experts.

That's fine and dandy, but they are entitled to opinions, not their own set of facts. It could be my opinion that JFK was seven feet tall, but that wouldn't make it correct.

Even if you are right, being ignorant does not make one a bigot.

But willful ignorance about a minority group with a set of false beliefs that hurt the minority group does make a person a bigot.

Everyone is partially bigoted towards something. Why are we cutting hairs over this?

But willful ignorance about a minority group with a set of false beliefs that hurt the minority group does make a person a bigot.

You're arguing that all human beings have a responsibility to be educated on the subject of all minority groups?

That's a bit far fetched…

You're arguing that all human beings have a responsibility to be educated on the subject of all minority groups?

That's a bit far fetched…

Americans should at least know some basic stuff about the more prevalent minority groups in America, like knowing that transgenderism is not a mental illness, or knowing that sexual orientation is not a choice.

…or knowing that sexual orientation is not a choice.

But some people say it was a choice for them. Is it really necessary to be so dogmatic about this issue?

Is it really necessary to be so dogmatic about this issue?

Bill, stop. That is pathetic. One confused individual does not negate reality.

I guess you missed the earlier quote:

In 2012, Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon caused a stir when she told The New York Times that her lesbianism is a "choice." When she faced pushback for this statement from the LGBT community, Nixon held her ground saying, "Why can't it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we're ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don't think they should define the terms of the debate." Simon Copland of The Guardian agrees, noting that lesbian and gay people should refuse the nature-or-nurture dialectic and demand respect regardless of how homosexuality comes about. To accept these terms, Copland rightly argues, would be to constrain both the freedom of LGBT politics and the fluidity of sexuality itself.

link

So last night while looking over some figures that I want to purchase, I had a nice glass of Johnny Walker Black Label on the rocks, and smoked a La Gloria Cubana…very good smoke; cool, even, no issues with filler, wrapper, ash…etc…

All in all a good whiskey and cigar….

I repeat myself. Bill, stop. That is pathetic. One confused individual does not negate reality. (and the article at any rate doesn't help your case, since it is an editorial from the Daily Beast that argues that regardless, we should accept LGBT people for who they are.) And why are you doing this? Why are you so adamant on protecting anti-LGBT bigotry on TMP? Why do you enable controversy here and with the Holocaust denialism fracas, when you could have just deleted the rule-breaking post, chastised the poster, and there would be no controversy whatsoever? Could it be that you hold prejudices against LGBT people, and disingenuously pass it off as a desire to protect freedom of speech?

Colonel Jessup, DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?

Can we handle the truth?

Eh, perceiving something contrary to reality is indicative of a cognitive schism. A type of mental illness.

According to Rebel's logic if I feel like a short French man, I can perceive myself as Napoleon. Irregardless, that nature has made me into a six foot czech. If I belive with all my heart that I am Napoleon, I am. If you tell me different you are a bigot. If you claim I am suffering from a mental illness, you are likewise a bigot.

I misstated earlier and I want to clear that up. Gays are just gay. No mental illness. There is no cognitive dissonance. You are attracted to what you are attracted to.

Transgenders though are suffering from a cognitve schism between reality and self-perception. This is a type of mental illness. Being mentally ill is not a bad thing.

Well, unless you want to harm others, then, well…but I digress.

Stating that someone suffers from a mental ailment is not a moral nor a value judgement on their worth as a human being. Someone with cancer is not "less" human than someone who does not have cancer.

That said, I feel that transgendered folks should be treated like anyone else. If they want to be a "he" rather than a "she", that wish should be respected.

"Why are you so adamant on protecting anti-LGBT bigotry on TMP?"

Maybe you should be thankful that he is, as he is also defending your anti-mental illness bigotry.

Oh and to that oft quoted bit.

Three reasons are given;

Empirical evidence

Changing social norms

Politically active gays

You guys only seize on the "empirical evidence" and hold it up as the final word.

I would argue that the changing cultural norms and political activity had more to with changing the definition than any "empirical evidence".

Definition of bigotry in English: (Oxford English Dictionary).
noun
[MASS NOUN]
Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Many posters on this train-wreck of a thread should be mindful of the definition of the word they are tossing around like a football. There seems to be more than enough bigotry here to deal with.

Can you all please agree to stop this now and use persuasion rather than accusation and recrimination to make your cases.

Rod Robertson.

So calling a fellow TMPer a bigot, repeatedly isn't a personal attack?

It seems to me a much more serious personal attack than the one the original post claimed had gone unpunished…..its kind of weird that this is still continuing when the Editors who were 'personally attacked' have already stated they were not offended and that they don't see it as a personal attack.

Which should really be the end of the discussion, do I have a right to launch personal attacks on other TMPers because I'm offended…..even if the supposed 'victims' have already said they were not?

Double post for some reason….

Could it be that you hold prejudices against LGBT people, and disingenuously pass it off as a desire to protect freedom of speech?

It seems rather unlikely.

At this point, I think I'll bow out of this discussion. I've listened to all sides, but I do not feel the need to reverse the previous moderator decision.

even if the supposed 'victims' have already said they were not?

I guess the world-wide survey of all transgender people is why TMP 4.0 is delayed again.

At this point, I think I'll bow out of this discussion. I've listened to all sides, but I do not feel the need to reverse the previous moderator decision.

Fine, but the next time someone posts something bigoted and you do nothing, don't be surprised when people complain and more threads show up. TMP is not an echo chamber for the American Family Association and other hate groups.

given how vocal Bill was on Frothers and about Frothers regards what he deemed were attacks on the editors, that frothers were homophobic and things they were saying were offensive to the LGBT community, I'm surprised more hasn't been snipped on here. An odd one.