It's my old Dremora avatar set against the ace flag. I thought I'd make the effort for Pride Month.
Doesn't black/gray/white look way too german to refer to pride?
It's my old Dremora avatar set against the ace flag. I thought I'd make the effort for Pride Month.
Nobody's forcing you to read or post, but you still insist on it. Maybe just let the English folk have their funOh boy, yet another page straight of, "this is what you mean" instead of "what do you mean," complete with, I think, one Englishman saying "learn to speak" to another one.
Perfect.
I have to go watch some rain in Spain fall mostly on the plain. Audrey is hawt.
I didn't design the flag. The bi flag is more colourful and the lesbian flag is much more colourful, but there's no point flying the flag for another nation, so to speak.Doesn't black/gray/white look way too german to refer to pride?
It's not totally out of the realm of possibility, but the more I look at it, the more I agree with you. First, to kick him that way, she should have continued the spin and got him with her right foot without stopping the spin and doing the little hop. Secondly, her toe is not pointed at his jaw. She kicks him with the side of her foot, which won't do as much damage. Third, if she were to kick him hard enough to presumably knock him out, her foot would have carried on past his face as his face turned as a result of the kick. There was no follow though with her foot. Much like golf, in a kick like that there is follow through. Her right foot would have landed on the ground to the bad guy's right, and her right side would be turned toward him in order to kick him again with her left foot if he got up to challenge her. A better kick (if she had to spin) would have been a kick to his right jaw with the heel of her right foot. That definitely would have put him down, if not knocked out a few teeth if she did it hard enough and connected well. Lastly, the bad guy doesn't fall as though he was kicked hard. His arm is in the way and he doesn't fall to his right as he should have.I'm suspicious that such videos are staged. Seems too convenient.
Great entertainment, but those events seem unlikely.
A guy who shoves me like that is a "bad guy" whether he runs me over or not.He wasn't a "bad guy" either; he stopped the car instead of running her over and then was angry that she was passing the road without looking anywhere apart from her mobile phone.
So yes, it may have been staged - the "puts on glasses" moment at the end would support that too
He wasn't a "bad guy" either; he stopped the car instead of running her over and then was angry that she was passing the road without looking anywhere apart from her mobile phone.
She was also on the crosswalk. Bit careless not to look around anyway, but stopping in time was unquestionably the driver's responsibility.
15 minutes of fame?Plus, if you have a dash cam, why do you record and then upload footage of you failing to stop at a scene and then assaulting someone?
I think that this discussion is becoming a bit meandering, so I will quote this paragraph which contains the two major points I wish to address.Regardless, your argument applies to lesbian and gay rights too. If you asked a hundred people what "gay rights" meant (probably even nowadays, to be honest), you'd get a lot more than a single uniform response. Any such fixed package isn't going to be self-evident by default, but it at least can be assumed from either a brief description (if prompted) or by proxy to similar fights for gay, lesbian or even civil rights. The notion that a demographic is marginalised and thus lacks some form of rights that other demographics do not. As you have specified that I don't need to enumerate the rights, I shouldn't need to elaborate any more than that. You cannot claim that people do not know what the phrase means, which means you certainly can't use this uncertainty as an objection to whether or not someone is for or against trans rights. Just re-asserting context for a second, because it is important and I dislike it being discarded to suit the point, the context was between two specific members of CFC that have both spent time in multiple previous threads about trans rights.
The first is this statement that trans people represent "a demographic [which] is marginalised and thus lacks some form of rights that other demographics do not". This is dubious. Most of the rights claimed under the banner of "trans rights" are not available to cis people: trans people cannot change their legal gender, cannot enter single-gender spaces which do not correspond to their assigned gender, and so on.
You could probably construct some statement that "cis people have a right to be legally recognised as the gender as which they identify, and trans people do not", but that is a criticism of how the law is constructed, not a description of how they are constructed: it highlights precisely that the law fails to make accommodations for the distinctive of trans people, rather than imposing distinctiveness upon them.
And that critique is perfectly valid, laws built with the assumption that everybody is cisgender are obviously insufficient for a reality in which some people are transgender, just as laws build with the assumption that everybody is heterosexual are obviously insufficient for a reality in which some people are homosexual or bisexual. But it means that trans people are not a distinct legal class subject to certain legal disabilities, so the question of "trans rights" is not simply a case of removing these disabilities, it is a question of establishing new rights, in effect of creating a legally distinct class of trans people and bestowing upon them certain legal privileges unavailable to cis people, with the intention that these privileges will contribute to the social equality of trans people; the goal is not social equality through legal equality, but to social equality through legal non-equality.
(In practice, these privileges may be legally framed as universal, but if we make the assumption that cis people will uniformly not seek to exercise these rights, or that certain tests will be imposed that will have the uniform effect of excluding cis people from exercise of these rights. And to forestall the suggestion that I'm decrying "special treatment" of trans people, this is already commonplace and unremarkable in other areas: for example, the right to be married by a clergyman rather than by a civil officer is assumed to be one which non-religious people will not seek to exercise and so constitutes a privilege held by religious people, but nobody cares because this doesn't actually inconvenience non-religious people in any way, they do not experience legal disability as a result of another groups legal privilege, because it's not a zero sum game. So all of this is fine, but it's important to clearly establish what it is in order to proceed with clarity.)
This proceeds to the second point, that as there is no simple, close-ended goal ("removing legal disability") but a complex, open-ended goal ("achieve appropriate accommodation"), there is necessarily a process by which "appropriate accommodations" is defined, by which a consensus develops around what policy and legislative goals the demand for "trans rights" entails. When I say "consensus" I do not mean that everyone necessarily comes to agree with a particular slate of goals which are then described as "trans rights", but that everybody comes to understand what goals are commonly denoted by the term "trans rights", whether or not they agree with those goals, and I contend that this is not presently the case.
I contend that this has been achieved for the umbrella term of "gay rights": that while there remains disagreements over what the term "gay rights" should mean, there is virtually universal-recognition of what it is used to mean in practice; that even if people may disagree with certain aspects of the policy and legislative goals it implies, there is mutual understanding as to what those goals are; that even if there are differences in how those goals are articulated or justified, there is not significant variation in the sort of policies and legislation we take them to imply.
Everybody knows that gay people want to be able to marry, to adopt kids, all that.
No such consensus exists with the issue of "trans rights": not simply that there is no consensus as to whether trans rights are good, but that there is no consensus as to what trans rights are. You only need took look at the controversy around transmedicalism, so-called "truscum", to see that there are still fundamental disagreements among trans people over what constitutes appropriate accommodations, over what constitutes "trans rights". What a transmedicalist considers to be a necessary aspect of "trans rights" might be construed by an anti-transmedicalist as hostile to "trans rights". So if even trans communities have not been able to hammer out a basic working definition of "trans rights", how can we seriously claim that the broader progressive wing has done so? How can we offer unqualified support for the umbrella term of "trans rights" when the speaker may mean any number of different, contradictory things?
So when we return to Senethro's original claim "Whether trans rights or any rights are a binary or not, the answer should be 'Yes'", we cannot agree, because we simply do not know what is meant by "trans rights". We can only know what any given speaker thinks it should mean, which would seem to render Senethro's claim as "we should agree with whoever was the last person to speak to us", which is unreasonable on the face of it.
I mean, if you actually read what Traitorfish is posting instead of looking to get angry, you would have noticed he wasn't endorsing such a position. Its the old saying "the prince and the pauper have the same right to go hungry". And he literally goes on to devote a whole paragraph pointing out that the granting of rights and legal benefits to certain populations is a perfectly uncontroversial position.This is just a rephrasing of the asinine "gay people have the right to marry people of the opposite gender" nonsense. It is was horse manure then, horse manure now.
Traitorfish said:You could probably construct some statement that "cis people have a right to be legally recognised as the gender as which they identify, and trans people do not", but that is a criticism of how the law is constructed, not a description of how they are constructed: it highlights precisely that the law fails to make accommodations for the distinctive of trans people, rather than imposing distinctiveness upon them.
And that critique is perfectly valid, laws built with the assumption that everybody is cisgender are obviously insufficient for a reality in which some people are transgender, just as laws build with the assumption that everybody is heterosexual are obviously insufficient for a reality in which some people are homosexual or bisexual. But it means that trans people are not a distinct legal class subject to certain legal disabilities,
Again, it really strikes me as if you are trying to misread him. Like, look at the civil rights movement. There were some in the civil rights movement that came very close to arguing for black separatism; but when talking about the civil rights movement both today and at the time, it was understood it was primarily about voting rights and anti discrimination legislation. Once we start getting beyond non-discrimination legislation, purely onerous laws regarding legal change of gender on official documents, and the ridiculous Genitalia Gestapo outside bathrooms, it appears to me as the meaning of "trans rights" becomes less self-evident.Literally every civil rights group in the world have fundamental disagreements within their community. There are people in the LGBT movement who would strongly disagree with your conception of conception of gay rights for example (primarily making same sex marriage the primary goal). It is utterly unreasonable to demand that all people for civil rights come to a unified consensus before demands for change are made.
Being married by a religious official is not a privilege, is a right. Willing participation in a religious ceremony is part of freedom of religion. If you were to arbitrarily deny someone from willfully being married in a manner according to their religious beliefs then you would be infringing on their religious freedoms.
What if the religious official doesn't want to be involved?