You shouldn't really expect more from a dumbfuck who shapes his view of women by the one insecure bitch with no self respect he claims to be dating. If he was fucking Casey Anthony he'd be preaching that modern women don't need to have children and don't let being parents stop them from partying, and if your woman doesn't murder her children she just isn't progressive.
Whether pertinent here or not, when it comes to transsexualism, the idea of "classified vs. declassified" apparently is an important distinction to some. When it involves "other things" maybe not so much. And on the other hand, imagine his take if he were tapping Octomom.
it's still classified as a disorder, just not a sexual disorder; they simply changed the name because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Gender is a man-made social construct. There is nothing biological about gender. We created social attributes to apply to the biological sexes for social purposes. We created roles for the sexes and developed attributes for the sexes to adhere to within those roles. We did it; it isn't natural and inherent to the sexes. Cooking, cleaning or wearing a dress arent natural feminine features that if you are compelled to do them makes you mentally different from your biological sex if you are a man. It makes you a man that likes to wear clothes marketed to women, likes to cook and clean. It might make you a feminine man by man-made social standards but it doesn't make you not a man. And make no mistake, the cooking and cleaning roles were once assigned to women so we do, socially, outgrow those roles and stereotypes and cease to attribute them to any sex. At some point we could eliminate all the stereotypes that gender is dependent upon as defining masculinity and femininity simply and then the very idea of transgender would cease to exist, just as we did with cooking and cleaning. How could transgender be real when we can actually eliminate the constructs that make it possible. The transgender movement is built on lies and language manipulation. It isn't considered a sexual disorder, so why are they aligned with the LGB movement which pertains to sexual preference? Their issue isn't one of sexual preference, but they want to leverage the strength of that movement even if it doesn't apply to them. You may as well make it the LBGTCF movement and throw in chicken farmers to the cause while you are at it. Why do they avoid using the term sex when discussing biological sex, and instead call it "birth gender?" That is nothing more than manipulating language to deceive people. They need people to believe that your biological sex is not real, and it is the artificial social gender stereotypes that define the sex, so your sex isn't your natural sex but birth gender. If they wanted to be honest they'd argue that the discrimination they face is medical discrimination, since it is s recognized psychiatric disorder, but that would force them to take the position that something may be wrong with them. That is unacceptable, of course, because nothing is wrong with them. It's everybody else that has the problem. So instead they try to get society to pretend sex and gender aren't different and therefore interchangeable, which defies any honest discussion of sex and gender. Why is all of this relevant here? Which party is championing this cause based on lies and language manipulation?
I will continue to prefer definitions applied by the likes of Merriam Webster to those attempting to manipulate the language for political purposes (that apparently includes you.) This pretty much kills your entire argument here. I, personally, don't care at all how anyone labels himself, herself, or itself, how they dress, what kind of tasks they accomplish, how they relieve themselves, with whom they align or how they vote - but that's just me. Anyone choosing to get exercised by such topics must have more spare time than I. Since I find neither lies nor language manipulation, I find no answer to your politically inspired question at the end which then continues to have no relevance here. I fail to see that political relevance and continue to wonder why some people are expending so much energy to make it one.
And what definition of gender do you think exists that disputes what I said. This is the first I find that supports every word I typed and disputes your entire rebuttal: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). But, please, do share your definition where gender is not man-made social constructs
Typical does not equate to exclusively. I cited Merriam Webster earlier, here's what it says (specifically 2a): gender play noun gen·der \ˈjen-dər\ Popularity: Top 1% of lookups Definition of gender 1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical formsb : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclassc : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2 a : sex <the feminine gender>b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
I'm hoping Bernie isn't the kind of idiot that Ralph Nader was. Nader spent most of the 2000 campaign ignoring the fact that what he was doing was disrupting Al Gore and the Democrats under the theory that Gore and the Democrats were indistinguishable from Bush and the Republicans. It was an extremely self-righteous position to take and obviously Nader was wrong in that assessment. We all paid the price for that in a decade and a half of war and a national debt that grew endlessly instead of being addressed. The answer if you want to make a change in the status quo is to run a campaign effective enough to elect your candidate. Being a protest candidate just causes people to protest ineffectively in response. The real protest is at the ballot box and if you got 45% of the vote there, well that was your protest. Trying to turn it into a bigger protest outside the electoral system so that you can somehow prevail anyway will not work and it will not solve any of the problems that you ran to fix. It will just cause bigger problems down the road, as Nader's "protest" campaign in 2000 did. I see two fairly likely scenarios at this point for 2016. In the first Hillary gets elected and nothing changes for the average person over the next 4 years due to the GOP having government in a headlock due to the gerrymandering in the House. That scenario is likely to see somebody running in 2020 that makes Trump look like a choir boy, possibly even Trump himself again with the volume turned up. The second scenario is that Trump gets elected this time and the wheels really come off over the next 4 years as he is unable to work with the Tea Party in the House and sees national bankruptcy as a viable option. It's worked for him in the past and people tend to go back to what they know when things get tight. If Bernie really thinks that either of those scenarios is good for him or the country, well that would be the onset of senile dementia in my opinion.
I don't think you understand what you just posted but it actually support my position. No manipulation of language necessary on my part, just cold hard facts.
Many of his supporters are certainly acting like that kind of idiot. Not a day goes by that I don't read a letter to the local editor demanding that the NH super delegates follow the popular vote and switch to Saint Bernard. It's like these nitwits think someone running for the top office in the land should not get credit for being organized, well connected and have the ability to attract powerful interests. Amazing.
I see that stuff all the time. It really is pathetic. And Sanders doesn't help matters by always complaining after losses. I read somewhere that he does nothing for the party and lower level candidates. If anyone should be doing that actually its him. If he wants his "political revolution" to happen it needs to be fostered at all levels. There was a candidate running for Senate here in Pennsylvania that was like a younger version of Sanders, non-typical in terms of the way he looks and talks, virtually the same in policy, and Sanders campaigned and fundraised all over the state for himself and did NOTHING for this guy. The guy was literally campaigning outside of Sanders rallies to tell people to vote for him while they were in line to see Sanders. Sanders can't throw him one bone. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he was truly trying to get his message across for this country and just coming up short. As is it appears its only about himself and sour grapes.
When does Bernie drop out? Is he going to wait until California and/or the convention? I've had enough of him already..............
Yeah, I too read this morning's op-ed piece by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. - and the "gerrymandering" in the House is to suggest that political 'fixing' in the providence of one party and one party only? - and that "changing the status quo" meant challenging the same Wasserman-Schultz-led status quo that actively stonewalled Sanders, O'Malley et al from the get go, beginning with the "6 debates (in lo-prime time) and that's that!" edict? While Bernie may be a pain-in-the-ass, imho 2000 Ralph Nader and the current Bernie Sanders are night and day different. Nader got 2% of the vote and couldn't even scrounge up enough donor support to qualify for fed election funds. But the Hillaryittes need not worry: I've said it from day one that the pure-as-the-driven-snow Hillary Clinton Jan., 2017 coronation's a done deal. What I'm also saying is that what preceded it (beginning with Iowa, the debates, the "Bernie's a commie" scare spin) was a done deal as well. Funny thing how this is playing out though: while the Jerry Springer shit show that constituted the GOP debates ended up with the Donald trumping the field (at the same time the Hillaryittes were smugly chirping about how their more progressive and 'civilized' house was in order), we're now seeing snippets of '68. And while the now-comfortable-in-life Hillaryittes can dismiss these 2.0 '68 Yippes with heavy-handed sarcasm ("how dare she win more delegates"), some interesting developments seem to be coming to light: - Hillary is today's version of the Democratic status quo inviting 'them' (Bernie supporters) to be "clean for Gene" (ref. Eugene McCarthy, 1968). - the voter inclusive-championing democratic party is split along racial lines (and others as well). Me, I just call 'em as I see 'em, not from a "I hope/partisan" point of view. And I only say this when I read Big Blocker-type swipes which I wouldn't normally attribute to you: "the onset of senile dementia in my opinion." The racial and age divide is alive and well throughout the ranks not only (as expected) in the GOP but in the democratic party as well--who'd have thunk it. Country club elitists juxtaposed with those unwashed, misguided kids..
