Alabama passes bill making some transgender healthcare a felony

[SkepticThinker]

A lot of people care, actually. How about when a black character is played by a white actor? Wait, that already happened. It happened to the point of forcing white actors to apologize for their part, and even caused directors to recast. However, when a white character is cast by a black person, it's fine. No, it's not just fine, it's *woke*, it's *progressive*, it's *brave*. Just spare me the double standard racist bull****... please! The fact is, Ariel is just one among many white characters recast by black or other non white actors. If you think it stops at fiction, it doesn't. If the left didn't make such a big deal out of white actors playing black roles, it would bother me less.

Why does skin colour matter at all?

I mean, we're talking about fairy tale stories here. Are make-believe mermaids always white-skinned? They're fricking fictional. Who cares?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Born with ovaries. Let's go with that.

I was born with one ovary that doesn't work. Maybe I'm not a woman in your world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I tend to use he/him she/her or they/them if people ask. Anything else, I refuse. I do not use neos.

You refuse, on what basis? On the basis that you check their genitals first, or ... ?

You didn't really answer my questions.

 

[Reyn]

But you have never said that these things make you female. You have only said that being born with ovaries makes you female. So how does outward appearance and behaviour indicate that you are female? How do you determine what behaviours, attire or voices are "female" if the only signifier of being female is being born with ovaries?


No, I am talking about people with MRKH syndrome. It's a disorder that mostly affects the female reproductive system.
Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics.

You're not going to stop, are you? You're going to go on and on, until I say something about what passes for me. Then, you're going to claim passing means one is a woman. For the record, even Blaire White doesn't pass. Her (and yes I'm being nice) bone structure shows she's male. She certainly comes close to passing though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, blackwashing and anti whiteism in general. Yes, that's a thing. No, it's not racist to say.

There is something racist about it though, isn't there? Skin colour is just a superficial difference between humans, like blonde hair, for example. You seem to be attempting to elevate it to something more significant for some reason.

What is "anti-whiteism?" Is it just, casting "white" characters as "black" characters? And what does that even mean when it comes to fictional cartoon characters?

 

[Reyn]

I was born with one ovary that doesn't work. Maybe I'm not a woman in your world.

Depends if you're intersex or not.

 

[Reyn]

You refuse, on what basis? On the basis that you check their genitals first, or ... ?

You didn't really answer my questions.

I refuse to use neo pronouns. This has nothing to do with genitals, since neos include things like *catself*.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Depends if you're intersex or not.

Ah, so you realize that biology isn't as clear-cut as you're imagining it is?

Well, that's progress of a sort.

 

[Reyn]

Why does skin colour matter at all?

I mean, we're talking about fairy tale stories here. Are make-believe mermaids always white-skinned? They're fricking fictional. Who cares?

Ariel is a ginger. That's her character and since Disney did a live action remake, you'd think the race of Ariel would stay the same as her animated counterpart. Apparently not. Disney needs those woke points.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I refuse to use neo pronouns. This has nothing to do with genitals, since neos include things like *catself*.

I guess you're not going to answer my questions.
Don't worry, it's pretty obvious why you haven't, I think.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ariel is a ginger. That's her character and since Disney did a live action remake, you'd think the race of Ariel would stay the same as her animated counterpart. Apparently not. Disney needs those woke points.

Why do you care so much about a cartoon character's skin colour? And why do you think dark-skinned people can't have ginger hair, exactly?

I do find it absurdly hilarious that you think casting Ariel as a dark-skinned woman is a "woke" move.
Gee, I wonder why all of their characters have been light-skinned people since like what, 1937 or something. Now you're gonna freak out when they make one character's skin a bit darker?

 

[Reyn]

Why do you care so much about a cartoon character's skin colour? And why do you think dark-skinned people can't have ginger hair, exactly?

I do find it absurdly hilarious that you think casting Ariel as a dark-skinned woman is a "woke" move.
Gee, I wonder why all of their characters have been light-skinned people since like what, 1937 or something. Now you're gonna freak out when they make one character's skin a bit darker?

One? Have a look. It's many, not just one.

 

[We Never Know]

A lot of people care, actually. How about when a black character is played by a white actor? Wait, that already happened. It happened to the point of forcing white actors to apologize for their part, and even caused directors to recast. However, when a white character is cast by a black person, it's fine. No, it's not just fine, it's *woke*, it's *progressive*, it's *brave*. Just spare me the double standard racist bull****... please! The fact is, Ariel is just one among many white characters recast by black or other non white actors. If you think it stops at fiction, it doesn't. If the left didn't make such a big deal out of white actors playing black roles, it would bother me less.

Prime example...
Look at the people who have been criticized for blackface but yet two black guys portray white chicks and its ok.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're not going to stop, are you? You're going to go on and on, until I say something about what passes for me. Then, you're going to claim passing means one is a woman. For the record, even Blaire White doesn't pass. Her (and yes I'm being nice) bone structure shows she's male. She certainly comes close to passing though.

The point I am making is that your definition of what a woman is is arbitrary to the point of being almost totally useless. Whatever you may claim to know about "bone structure", I doubt that you would ever look at someone like Blair White on the street and identify them as anything other than a woman.

In fact, you already admitted that your definition is useless and arbitrary when you acknowledged that the way you identify a woman has nothing to do with ovaries, but with outward appearance, voice and behaviours. Bu admitting that, you acknowledge that there is something to the designation "female" that has nothing to do with biology. You use it as an ambiguous label that you associate with people who share a vaguely generalized set of social or physical characteristics, that's all.

The only way out of this without admitting to total ideological inconsistency is to refuse to use gendered labels for anyone unless you have an intimate understanding of their sexual organs. Which is something I very much doubt you would ever do. So your position on the definition of "woman" has literally nothing to do with how you ever have or ever would use the term in almost any real-world scenario. It's just something you use when - and only when - you wish to use it as a label that explicitly excludes trans people.

So, you either don't know what a woman is, or you have deliberately picked a definition of woman designed only to hurt a minority of people while having no real application and which you can never actively use in almost any real world scenario. Which is it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

One? Have a look. It's many, not just one.

Who cares how many? Why does it matter so much?

Why don't you answer any of my questions?

 

[Reyn]

The point I am making is that your definition of what a woman is is arbitrary to the point of being almost totally useless. Whatever you may claim to know about "bone structure", I doubt that you would ever look at someone like Blair White on the street and identify them as anything other than a woman.

In fact, you already admitted that your definition is useless and arbitrary when you acknowledged that the way you identify a woman has nothing to do with ovaries, but with outward appearance, voice and behaviours. Bu admitting that, you acknowledge that there is something to the designation "female" that has nothing to do with biology. You use it as an ambiguous label that you associate with people who share a vaguely generalized set of social or physical characteristics, that's all.

The only way out of this without admitting to total ideological inconsistency is to refuse to use gendered labels for anyone unless you have an intimate understanding of their sexual organs. Which is something I very much doubt you would ever do. So your position on the definition of "woman" has literally nothing to do with how you ever have or ever would use the term in almost any real-world scenario. It's just something you use when - and only when - you wish to use it as a label that explicitly excludes trans people.

So, you either don't know what a woman is, or you have deliberately picked a definition of woman designed only to hurt a minority of people while having no real application and which you can never actively use in almost any real world scenario. Which is it?

Okay, so if woman is so irrelevant and arbitrary, why do people want to label themselves as such? What's the importance of women's rights? Why did we fight for so long, for something that is as you say, irrelevant? Tell me, woke gremlin. Why are we fighting so hard for equal pay? If woman doesn't mean anything at all, or it mean whatever trans people say it means, shall we get rid of feminism then? What's the importance?

 

[Reyn]

Who cares how many? Why does it matter so much?

Why don't you answer any of my questions?

Same reason black people get uppity when white folks dress up as black characters, wear blackface, or replace black roles.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Wise spending is not throwing money away. And an opinion piece is not evidence.

Wise? What are you smoking?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, as I thought. You think helping people who are struggling to make ends meet is akin to "throwing away taxpayer money."

You do understand that there's no such thing as free money, right? You do understand when you artificially stimulate the economy, the piper will have to be paid and soon? What it actually does is make it harder to make ends meet as we are experiencing now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wise? What are you smoking?

You are projecting again. You have been dipping into the whacky tabaccy because you are using improper sources which are not evidence of anything.