AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I see too much informational shit clogging news networks and media etc about trans whatever lately. Personally, I really don't give a shit what you call yourself or your genitals, and I really don't think you should take that business to work. However, I can understand wanting to fight for an equal level of acceptance in a wider society that plainly, really doesn't care. But I think this "informational clog", might just override any progress gay culture has made. While stories aren't fact or numbers, I've seen lately that if we can call it one, "the Trans movement" has begun to bully it's way either into, or above the current movements created by gay communities. America by and large has just now started to strong arm politicians into letting them have their rights, so is there really a need to bully your way in? Couldn't that have a harmful effect not just on your allies, but your own cause?

I think the politicians should be able to pay attention to more than one problem at a given time. Whether or not they actually can is the problem.
The trans communities and gay communities are also very separate entities that do not always get along, and the "progress of gay culture" has almost no influence on trans people and the way they're treated, as far as I can see. I won't say it's the majority of them, but gay people being transphobic is a common problem, for instance.
The problem doesn't come from people wanting their rights respected but from people keeping them from having their rights respected. Awful old people, and young idiot that refuse to face that despite being gay or trans, these people are their peers and deserve to be treated as equals and with respect.
I don't know if you were trying to "blame" trans people but I would rather blame the public's very limited attention span for problems that aren't their own, the system that made it so, as well as the system that makes it slow and hard to legislate on these issues.

I have a friend who says he is Transgender, but I still have no idea what that means. Could someone specify what transgender actually is for me. Because I want to understand and my friend is hopeless at describing it. I suppose I could just Google it, but this is my school's internet and the search history could look questionable.

Basically, sex and gender are two separate things. Sex is your chromosomes, such as the XY set of chromosomes for males and the XX set of chromosomes for females. However, gender is a psychological thing that is less related to sex, if it's related at all.



If someone feels like their gender and their sex don't match, they could fall under the 'transgender' category. Some transgendered people don't feel like they are any specific gender, while others feel uncomfortable in their bodies because of their gender and want to appear more like their gender.

There are a couple people on this forum who are trans, and could probably explain it better than I could if they felt comfortable about it.

Well that doesn't sound like him at all. He's just going out with someone exactly like that, a girl sexually but guy gender-wise. Its really getting on my nerves because he's always up in my face about it, but he is pretty pop flyin' with her (or I guess him) so I'll just keep agreeing with him.

Don't consolidate bullshit, call it out. Shit is shit, if you can smell it, you point it out.




It's poor showing to assume government can handle multiple large ticket issues at one time. It never works out in everyone's favor, instead it usually helps out those that such "liberal" ideals deem as the enemy. People do want their rights respected, "people keeping them from having their rights respected" is just that, their rights are not being respected because they are not protected, or acknowledged by the laws or courts.

I would blame the public's attention span, as being short and narrow minded, but throwing darts at the wall hardly does anything good. The system that is slow and hard for the government to use is the best kind of platform for people in a democracy, it means they're less focused on being a government. I'm not so sure how it is over there, but the system of "dumbing down" is and has been the same for years now. People being ignorant and stupid won't go away. Individuals can be as smart as they want, but they hardly change anything. But usually, if enough people focus on one thing, one at a time, shit gets done, real shit not "billy said a mean thing to me why don't we take away his credibility", real shit like beheadings and acid.

Focus, not dissonance.

Now that I think about it, lets skip this conversation, maybe wait for something relevant to appear in the news about it and bring it up then. I'd much rather talk about

Journalistic Integrity, Ethics and Morality. What's AZ's opinion on that?

I disagree with that for this situation, it's not your place to decide for your friend if they're trans or not. It's their decision to make and there's nothing wrong with someone questioning their identity for a while before they decide who they are.

The only time you should call someone out is when they're doing something harmful, or the identity they've chosen is clearly appropriative or racist (like some people who claim to be otherkin or trans-ethnic. wtf?).

Sooooo.......how 'bout that thur ISIS group...

I think open war with them is inevitable at this point.

War is never open against low-tech opponents who don't fight for the freedom of their own citizens. ISIS/ISIL/IS (or whatever the hell they are called) will use civilians as shields the exact same way as Hamas does. More damage will befall the local population than them, no matter how intelligent your weapons are.

I really do not like real world violence. It's barbaric and rarely solves anything. However, in this case, I don't think anything will solve the issue. The guerilla fighters will stay with civilian population and pop out to shoot. In reality, the only way to win against them permanently is not to play. Embargo them out and let their country/zone of control crumble.

I don't see how mass starvartion of the population is a more humane way to deal with the issue than attempting precision strikes.

No solution is a good solution. Shooting at them will only injure civilians. It will make you the enemy of the civilian and they will rally to the guerilla fighters. Embargoing them will make you the enemy, but at least you aren't killing them directly. They don't have anything to rally to other than you being a bastard for not allowing them to buy food/resources from you.

Quite frankly, economic and social progress is the only way to win, but that only works if you already have some sort of stability to begin with. Shooting at an area will only lower that stability.

I'd be glad to hear of other ideas as the ones I have heard so far just won't work.

I don't directly disagree with anything you said, but an embargo takes a lot of time which in this case will translate in more innocent blood lost. Unfortunately no ideal solution seems to exist, and my comment about war seeming inevitable is more a predictictive statement than anything else.

How about not putting the world's biggest producers of weapons in charge of maintaining peace and security
Especially those that have a history of engineering conflicts for their own interest