Sex and gender

[Age]

Women's prisons. Women's rights. Women's privacy. Women's privileges.

But even more importantly, nobody has any legitimate right to dictate to your brain as to what you must believe. Nobody can tell you what pronoun or other language you are permitted to use, in reference to somebody who's a man. You can say whatever you want, and it's none of their business. You don't owe them to go along with, or add any assent of yours to their delusions.

I agree with you, apart from the delusion part.

But by definition, if you or I genuinely believes we're a horse or a cow, then we are suffering a delusion.

Just EXACTLY like when 'you', or 'i', genuinely BELIEVE that God is a "he", then 'we' ARE SUFFERING A DELUSION, right?

Or, does 'this' NOT FOLLOW when 'you' ACTUALLY 'genuinely BELIEVE' some 'thing'?

But, OF COURSE, 'you' will NEVER ANSWER these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, because of WHERE doing so would LEAVE 'you'.

Why then would we balk at pointing out when, say, the greatest male decathlete suddenly asks us to believe he's the world's newest woman? Isn't it equally obvious that that is either some sort of delusion? What else would you call it?

What do 'you' call the BELIEF, when God is PURPORTED TO BE 'male gendered'?

Is 'that' A DELUSION?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

I used to go out of my way to offend people a lot more, "back then", so although you think I've deteriorated in one respect, perhaps I have progressed in another. It does seem odd, though, that I was more likeable when I was more offensive.

Actually you were just funny before. Now you are not. As you've got woker you've got less likeable and more offensive. Funny that.

I'm probably less "woke" than you are; I certainly don't get enraged by as many things as you seem to, and I've never been one to have an all or nothing view of things; very few issues have only one clear-cut side to them.

Just out of CURIOSITY what are some of 'those issues'?

Maybe I would be funnier if I put as much effort into it as you put into being grumpy.

[Dontaskme]

But sex is not like that. It's not a construct.

...what's the principle difference?

The difference between something objectively defined by a particular belief, and something that has nothing to do with any belief at all, but is an objective, scientific and unchangeable reality.

The appearance of different human or animal body types upon their birth are unchangeable. That's an observable fact known conceptually by the subject and never the object.

Truth is, no object in the unchanging objective world of born living things, can tell itself it is male or female. As objects cannot speak, nor do they know anything of their reality. The knowing knowledge of any objective thing, is a conceptually constructed superimposition within the subject, a projection onto the blank canvas of non-conceptual reality. This phenomena that is unknowing knowing, is in no way denying the external world does not exist, it does exist, but it is only knowable as and through it's conceptual conception within the projecting subject.

Here's another interesting fact, the subject, is only created as and through attention upon the objective world of objects.

The subject and objective world can only co-exist as both subject and object co-arise at the exact same time in conjunction with each other by association, and are never separated. Both the objective and subjective world are contingent upon each other to exist as one undivided reality. There is no subjective seer without an objective seen, as seeing is absolutely inseparable from what is seen, there is no known objective world without a knowing subject, and vice versa. The known reality is only ever known conceptually as it is artificially constructed, so the known reality is never actually seen or exists for real, it's only constructed like as in a dream.



The objective world is never the subjects direct experience, because the subject is a creation of the object it knows, so the only experience here, is the objective construct as a concept known within the subject. The objective world in and of itself knows nothing of it's existence or reality, except as concept known by the subject objectifying itself, the only way the subject can know it exists, even though the subject can never experience itself as that objective world, because it's simply just made of pure conceptual dreamscape. All this means is that KNOWLEDGE can only point to the illusory nature of existence, in that it's a fictional story imposed upon what is ultimately this immediate mysterious unknowing reality.

[Age]

But by definition, if you or I genuinely believes we're a horse or a cow, then we are suffering a delusion. Why then would we balk at pointing out when, say, the greatest male decathlete suddenly asks us to believe he's the world's newest woman? Isn't it equally obvious that that is either some sort of delusion? What else would you call it?

Yes, a man thinking he is a woman would be deluded, but if he has a concept of gender and he feels he conforms to a certain state within that concept, then he is merely categorising himself in the same way that we all categorise ourselves. You are doing the very same thing when you identify yourself as a Christian and think about what that entails. If that can be called delusional, then we all go through life suffering no end of delusions.

I'm not delusional when I think I'm a Christian...I am, by all the definitions of what that is.

Well 'this' is 'one hell of a claim', as some might say here, so what ARE ALL 'the definitions' of what a so-called "christian" IS, EXACTLY?

But, OF COURSE, 'you' will NOT ANSWER this CLARIFYING QUESTION.

You are not delusional when you think of yourself as a curmudgeonly male; you are what you think you are, no doubt.

But if I think I'm a cat, I'm delusional. Or if I think I'm a woman -- or at least pretend to think I am -- then I'm delusional, and possibly trying to enforce my delusional thinking on you, as well.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'these people', BACK in the days when this was being written, did NOT YET KNOW who NOR what 'I' AM, EXACTLY. 'They', literally, could NOT even ANSWER the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?', YET, 'they' BELIEVED that 'they' could CONFIDENTLY and ACCURATELY SAY and CLAIM 'things' like;

I am a 'man', and/or,

I am a 'christian'.

Which the Accuracy AND Correctness OF, or NOT, IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. Well TO 'us' ANYWAY.

The difference between a delusion and a truth is its relationship to that thing we call "reality."

And the 'Reality' OF whether 'I' AM A 'man' and/or A 'christian' or NOT IS, AGAIN, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, is NOT A 'man' NOR A 'christian', BUT IS KNOWN.

[Age]

Oh. You just mean that you think ALL Christians are deluded. You don't mean that I'm deluded to suppose I'm a Christian.

If it's okay to identify yourself with the construct of Christian, why is it not okay to identify yourself with some construct of gender?

Well, you and I can argue over whether Christianity is a "construct" (an invention of men) or a divine ordinance; I'll say the latter, and probably you, the former. But it entirely misses the point.

Here 'we' can CLEARLY SEE just how a 'DELUDED BELIEVER' BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that 'it' IS NOT DELUDED. But this IS the POWER of False BELIEFS.

Let me make it succintly: sex is not "constructed." It's what you have when you come to exist, in the first place.

So, 'you', "immanuel can", were HAVING SEX, when 'you' came to exist, right?

There's no choice, no "re-identifying," and nobody "constructs" it for you. Your genetics are set from day one, from your very conception-moment.

So, what ARE 'you', when 'you' came to exist, or when 'you' were born, with a vagina AND a penis?

Well, I think the same of Marxists, of course; but I don't say it's impossible for a person who claims to be a Marxist to be a Marxist.

But what does he mean when he says he's a Marxist? He might be so impressed with Marx's beard that he aspires to grow one equally magnificent, and considers himself a follower of Marx on that basis alone. Shall we call him deluded, or just stupid?

"Marxist" is a belief.

And, "christianity", or in other words, a BELIEF in "jesus christ", is NOT a 'BELIEF', correct "immanuel can"?

Many Marxists will argue about what "true Marxism" requires.

And MANY MORE "christians" will argue about what 'true chrisianity' requires.

It matters little.

So True.

In addition to being a chosen belief, it's most certainly a construct, too, since it can claim no divine origin whatsoever, and we know the man who invented it.

Okay.

So a man may claim to be a "Marxist" on practically any grounds he likes.

But sex is not like that. It's not a construct.

...what's the principle difference?

The difference between something objectively defined by a particular belief, and something that has nothing to do with any belief at all, but is an objective, scientific and unchangeable reality.

So, 'you' DO, or DO NOT, BELIEVE that God, Itself, is a "he"?

Do 'you' have A BELIEF that God has always had the male sex?

It's the difference between you saying, "I'm a trade-unionist," and "I'm a pumpkin." The former is quite possible; the latter, utterly absurd.

But it is NOT ABSURD TO SAY, 'I AM [ANY 'thing'] that 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, right'?

[Age]

If it's okay to identify yourself with the construct of Christian, why is it not okay to identify yourself with some construct of gender?

Well, you and I can argue over whether Christianity is a "construct" (an invention of men) or a divine ordinance; I'll say the latter, and probably you, the former. But it entirely misses the point.

Let me make it succintly: sex is not "constructed." It's what you have when you come to exist, in the first place. There's no choice, no "re-identifying," and nobody "constructs" it for you. Your genetics are set from day one, from your very conception-moment.

Yes, but the people in question don't mean sex by the word gender.

I was WONDERING if "immanuel can" was AWARE of 'this'.

I don't understand exactly what they do mean by it, but I don't understand the deep feelings you seem to have about Christianity, either. But whatever they feel about gender, and how it relates to them, seems to be very important to them, so I don't think they should be condemned for it. I still don't think they should be allowed into women's toilets, though.

I now WONDER if self-proclaimed "muslims" should be allowed into churches or if self-proclaimed "christians" 'should' be allowed into "masjids", by the human beings in the days when this was being written?

[Immanuel Can]

If it's okay to identify yourself with the construct of Christian, why is it not okay to identify yourself with some construct of gender?

Well, you and I can argue over whether Christianity is a "construct" (an invention of men) or a divine ordinance; I'll say the latter, and probably you, the former. But it entirely misses the point.

Let me make it succintly: sex is not "constructed." It's what you have when you come to exist, in the first place. There's no choice, no "re-identifying," and nobody "constructs" it for you. Your genetics are set from day one, from your very conception-moment.

Yes, but the people in question don't mean sex by the word gender. I don't understand exactly what they do mean by it,

I do.

It's actually rather simple, at the start. It goes like this: they want you to think that "sex" means physical sexual characteristics...body features, if you like, and that "gender" means "how you identify."

But then it gets really irrational fast, and this is what is confusing. They want you to believe both that "sex" is constructed (meaning, invented and imposed by human choice) and also that it is an essential reality that cannot be denied; and they also want you to believe that "gender" is, at the same time, both a choice and an essential and necessary thing that cannot be denied. These beliefs are so obviously stupid and self-refuting that they boggle the mind: but the fault is not with you, but with their attempted propaganda of these mutually-impossible things.

So, for example, they want you to believe that if I'm a male and want to be a female, that my sex-maleness is a construct that I'm free to change; but at the same time, they want you to believe that the femaleness at which I'm aiming is a real, solid thing that I absolutely have to have -- it is, in fact, my "authentic self," they'll tell you, and they'll say that if you question it you're harming me at the very deepest level by denying me my "authentic self."

So in my case, my maleness is a construct, but my aimed-at-femaleness is not. It's an essence.

At the same time, they want you to believe that I cannot live with my maleness. It's too real, too solid, too demanding...I have to change my whole appearance and physiology in order to shed it and free myself...in other words, it's a kind of tyrannical essence. But at the same time, they want you to believe that "femaleness" does not require men to have different chromosomes...only to surgically alter my genitalia or put on lipstick and a dress, or even just "identify" that way, without changing anything at all -- so "femaleness' is so flimpsy a construct that I can obtain it completely with these changes, even the most superficial ones.

And so, in this retelling of the same story, my maleness is the essence, and the femaleness is the negotiable construct.

And they want you to believe both, at the same time, with all the fervency of the most devoted religious accolyte. Any questioning of these two contradictory narratives is simply impermissible and "transphobic"...or even "aggressive" and "violent" to the point of representing a human rights violation...and in some polities, is even backed with the force of law.

I still don't think they should be allowed into women's toilets, though.

I agree.

But, to do an avocatus diabli move, why not? I mean, if the male-to-female conversion is a change of essence, then there's no sense in which such a person is not fully female. But if the male-to-female change is a construct, then there certainly is justification for refusing such allowance.

So what is the truth? Can you and I not honestly see exactly what it is, here?

[Harbal]

Well, you and I can argue over whether Christianity is a "construct" (an invention of men) or a divine ordinance; I'll say the latter, and probably you, the former. But it entirely misses the point.

Let me make it succintly: sex is not "constructed." It's what you have when you come to exist, in the first place. There's no choice, no "re-identifying," and nobody "constructs" it for you. Your genetics are set from day one, from your very conception-moment.

Yes, but the people in question don't mean sex by the word gender. I don't understand exactly what they do mean by it,

I do.

It's actually rather simple, at the start. It goes like this: they want you to think that "sex" means physical sexual characteristics...body features, if you like, and that "gender" means "how you identify."

But then it gets really irrational fast, and this is what is confusing. They want you to believe both that "sex" is constructed (meaning, invented and imposed by human choice) and also that it is an essential reality that cannot be denied; and they also want you to believe that "gender" is, at the same time, both a choice and an essential and necessary thing that cannot be denied. These beliefs are so obviously stupid and self-refuting that they boggle the mind: but the fault is not with you, but with their attempted propaganda of these mutually-impossible things.

So, for example, they want you to believe that if I'm a male and want to be a female, that my sex-maleness is a construct that I'm free to change; but at the same time, they want you to believe that the femaleness at which I'm aiming is a real, solid thing that I absolutely have to have -- it is, in fact, my "authentic self," they'll tell you, and they'll say that if you question it you're harming me at the very deepest level by denying me my "authentic self."

So in my case, my maleness is a construct, but my aimed-at-femaleness is not. It's an essence.

At the same time, they want you to believe that I cannot live with my maleness. It's too real, too solid, too demanding...I have to change my whole appearance and physiology in order to shed it and free myself...in other words, it's a kind of tyrannical essence. But at the same time, they want you to believe that "femaleness" does not require men to have different chromosomes...only to surgically alter my genitalia or put on lipstick and a dress, or even just "identify" that way, without changing anything at all -- so "femaleness' is so flimpsy a construct that I can obtain it completely with these changes, even the most superficial ones.

And so, in this retelling of the same story, my maleness is the essence, and the femaleness is the negotiable construct.

And they want you to believe both, at the same time, with all the fervency of the most devoted religious accolyte. Any questioning of these two contradictory narratives is simply impermissible and "transphobic"...or even "aggressive" and "violent" to the point of representing a human rights violation...and in some polities, is even backed with the force of law.

I still don't think they should be allowed into women's toilets, though.

I agree.

But, to do an avocatus diabli move, why not? I mean, if the male-to-female conversion is a change of essence, then there's no sense in which such a person is not fully female. But if the male-to-female change is a construct, then there certainly is justification for refusing such allowance.

So what is the truth? Can you and I not honestly see exactly what it is, here?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust your analysis of the situation. Not that it matters, it's not like I intend to get involved in it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes, but the people in question don't mean sex by the word gender. I don't understand exactly what they do mean by it,

I do.

It's actually rather simple, at the start. It goes like this: they want you to think that "sex" means physical sexual characteristics...body features, if you like, and that "gender" means "how you identify."

But then it gets really irrational fast, and this is what is confusing. They want you to believe both that "sex" is constructed (meaning, invented and imposed by human choice) and also that it is an essential reality that cannot be denied; and they also want you to believe that "gender" is, at the same time, both a choice and an essential and necessary thing that cannot be denied. These beliefs are so obviously stupid and self-refuting that they boggle the mind: but the fault is not with you, but with their attempted propaganda of these mutually-impossible things.

So, for example, they want you to believe that if I'm a male and want to be a female, that my sex-maleness is a construct that I'm free to change; but at the same time, they want you to believe that the femaleness at which I'm aiming is a real, solid thing that I absolutely have to have -- it is, in fact, my "authentic self," they'll tell you, and they'll say that if you question it you're harming me at the very deepest level by denying me my "authentic self."

So in my case, my maleness is a construct, but my aimed-at-femaleness is not. It's an essence.

At the same time, they want you to believe that I cannot live with my maleness. It's too real, too solid, too demanding...I have to change my whole appearance and physiology in order to shed it and free myself...in other words, it's a kind of tyrannical essence. But at the same time, they want you to believe that "femaleness" does not require men to have different chromosomes...only to surgically alter my genitalia or put on lipstick and a dress, or even just "identify" that way, without changing anything at all -- so "femaleness' is so flimpsy a construct that I can obtain it completely with these changes, even the most superficial ones.

And so, in this retelling of the same story, my maleness is the essence, and the femaleness is the negotiable construct.

And they want you to believe both, at the same time, with all the fervency of the most devoted religious accolyte. Any questioning of these two contradictory narratives is simply impermissible and "transphobic"...or even "aggressive" and "violent" to the point of representing a human rights violation...and in some polities, is even backed with the force of law.

I still don't think they should be allowed into women's toilets, though.

I agree.

But, to do an avocatus diabli move, why not? I mean, if the male-to-female conversion is a change of essence, then there's no sense in which such a person is not fully female. But if the male-to-female change is a construct, then there certainly is justification for refusing such allowance.

So what is the truth? Can you and I not honestly see exactly what it is, here?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust your analysis of the situation. Not that it matters, it's not like I intend to get involved in it.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but the people in question don't mean sex by the word gender. I don't understand exactly what they do mean by it,

I do.

It's actually rather simple, at the start. It goes like this: they want you to think that "sex" means physical sexual characteristics...body features, if you like, and that "gender" means "how you identify."

But then it gets really irrational fast, and this is what is confusing. They want you to believe both that "sex" is constructed (meaning, invented and imposed by human choice) and also that it is an essential reality that cannot be denied; and they also want you to believe that "gender" is, at the same time, both a choice and an essential and necessary thing that cannot be denied. These beliefs are so obviously stupid and self-refuting that they boggle the mind: but the fault is not with you, but with their attempted propaganda of these mutually-impossible things.

So, for example, they want you to believe that if I'm a male and want to be a female, that my sex-maleness is a construct that I'm free to change; but at the same time, they want you to believe that the femaleness at which I'm aiming is a real, solid thing that I absolutely have to have -- it is, in fact, my "authentic self," they'll tell you, and they'll say that if you question it you're harming me at the very deepest level by denying me my "authentic self."

So in my case, my maleness is a construct, but my aimed-at-femaleness is not. It's an essence.

At the same time, they want you to believe that I cannot live with my maleness. It's too real, too solid, too demanding...I have to change my whole appearance and physiology in order to shed it and free myself...in other words, it's a kind of tyrannical essence. But at the same time, they want you to believe that "femaleness" does not require men to have different chromosomes...only to surgically alter my genitalia or put on lipstick and a dress, or even just "identify" that way, without changing anything at all -- so "femaleness' is so flimpsy a construct that I can obtain it completely with these changes, even the most superficial ones.

And so, in this retelling of the same story, my maleness is the essence, and the femaleness is the negotiable construct.

And they want you to believe both, at the same time, with all the fervency of the most devoted religious accolyte. Any questioning of these two contradictory narratives is simply impermissible and "transphobic"...or even "aggressive" and "violent" to the point of representing a human rights violation...and in some polities, is even backed with the force of law.

I still don't think they should be allowed into women's toilets, though.

I agree.

But, to do an avocatus diabli move, why not? I mean, if the male-to-female conversion is a change of essence, then there's no sense in which such a person is not fully female. But if the male-to-female change is a construct, then there certainly is justification for refusing such allowance.

So what is the truth? Can you and I not honestly see exactly what it is, here?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust your analysis of the situation.

You don't have to. Just look at what they're trying to get you to believe, and you'll see that what I'm saying is absolutely the truth. Open your own eyes, and you won't need to trust mine.

[Age]

I do.

It's actually rather simple, at the start. It goes like this: they want you to think that "sex" means physical sexual characteristics...body features, if you like, and that "gender" means "how you identify."

But then it gets really irrational fast, and this is what is confusing. They want you to believe both that "sex" is constructed (meaning, invented and imposed by human choice) and also that it is an essential reality that cannot be denied; and they also want you to believe that "gender" is, at the same time, both a choice and an essential and necessary thing that cannot be denied. These beliefs are so obviously stupid and self-refuting that they boggle the mind: but the fault is not with you, but with their attempted propaganda of these mutually-impossible things.

So, for example, they want you to believe that if I'm a male and want to be a female, that my sex-maleness is a construct that I'm free to change; but at the same time, they want you to believe that the femaleness at which I'm aiming is a real, solid thing that I absolutely have to have -- it is, in fact, my "authentic self," they'll tell you, and they'll say that if you question it you're harming me at the very deepest level by denying me my "authentic self."

So in my case, my maleness is a construct, but my aimed-at-femaleness is not. It's an essence.

At the same time, they want you to believe that I cannot live with my maleness. It's too real, too solid, too demanding...I have to change my whole appearance and physiology in order to shed it and free myself...in other words, it's a kind of tyrannical essence. But at the same time, they want you to believe that "femaleness" does not require men to have different chromosomes...only to surgically alter my genitalia or put on lipstick and a dress, or even just "identify" that way, without changing anything at all -- so "femaleness' is so flimpsy a construct that I can obtain it completely with these changes, even the most superficial ones.

And so, in this retelling of the same story, my maleness is the essence, and the femaleness is the negotiable construct.

And they want you to believe both, at the same time, with all the fervency of the most devoted religious accolyte. Any questioning of these two contradictory narratives is simply impermissible and "transphobic"...or even "aggressive" and "violent" to the point of representing a human rights violation...and in some polities, is even backed with the force of law.


I agree.

But, to do an avocatus diabli move, why not? I mean, if the male-to-female conversion is a change of essence, then there's no sense in which such a person is not fully female. But if the male-to-female change is a construct, then there certainly is justification for refusing such allowance.

So what is the truth? Can you and I not honestly see exactly what it is, here?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust your analysis of the situation.

You don't have to. Just look at what they're trying to get you to believe, and you'll see that what I'm saying is absolutely the truth. Open your own eyes, and you won't need to trust mine.

For example if one was to just look at what they are trying to get you to believe, then what one can clearly see is that they are trying to get you to believe that the sex of God is a man, that God is a he, and/or that Gos is male gendered.

[Harbal]

I do.

It's actually rather simple, at the start. It goes like this: they want you to think that "sex" means physical sexual characteristics...body features, if you like, and that "gender" means "how you identify."

But then it gets really irrational fast, and this is what is confusing. They want you to believe both that "sex" is constructed (meaning, invented and imposed by human choice) and also that it is an essential reality that cannot be denied; and they also want you to believe that "gender" is, at the same time, both a choice and an essential and necessary thing that cannot be denied. These beliefs are so obviously stupid and self-refuting that they boggle the mind: but the fault is not with you, but with their attempted propaganda of these mutually-impossible things.

So, for example, they want you to believe that if I'm a male and want to be a female, that my sex-maleness is a construct that I'm free to change; but at the same time, they want you to believe that the femaleness at which I'm aiming is a real, solid thing that I absolutely have to have -- it is, in fact, my "authentic self," they'll tell you, and they'll say that if you question it you're harming me at the very deepest level by denying me my "authentic self."

So in my case, my maleness is a construct, but my aimed-at-femaleness is not. It's an essence.

At the same time, they want you to believe that I cannot live with my maleness. It's too real, too solid, too demanding...I have to change my whole appearance and physiology in order to shed it and free myself...in other words, it's a kind of tyrannical essence. But at the same time, they want you to believe that "femaleness" does not require men to have different chromosomes...only to surgically alter my genitalia or put on lipstick and a dress, or even just "identify" that way, without changing anything at all -- so "femaleness' is so flimpsy a construct that I can obtain it completely with these changes, even the most superficial ones.

And so, in this retelling of the same story, my maleness is the essence, and the femaleness is the negotiable construct.

And they want you to believe both, at the same time, with all the fervency of the most devoted religious accolyte. Any questioning of these two contradictory narratives is simply impermissible and "transphobic"...or even "aggressive" and "violent" to the point of representing a human rights violation...and in some polities, is even backed with the force of law.


I agree.

But, to do an avocatus diabli move, why not? I mean, if the male-to-female conversion is a change of essence, then there's no sense in which such a person is not fully female. But if the male-to-female change is a construct, then there certainly is justification for refusing such allowance.

So what is the truth? Can you and I not honestly see exactly what it is, here?

I'm sorry, but I don't trust your analysis of the situation.

You don't have to. Just look at what they're trying to get you to believe, and you'll see that what I'm saying is absolutely the truth. Open your own eyes, and you won't need to trust mine.

I don't know what they want me to believe, because I haven't gone out of my way to find out; I only know what you are trying to get me to believe.

[nemos]

Someone is constantly trying to convince me of something, the mailbox is regularly filled with various persuasive materials. Sometimes they call at the door, sometimes they stop me on the street to tell me how wrong I live. I say that it is my right and I try not to pay attention to them - OMMM.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry, but I don't trust your analysis of the situation.

You don't have to. Just look at what they're trying to get you to believe, and you'll see that what I'm saying is absolutely the truth. Open your own eyes, and you won't need to trust mine.

I don't know what they want me to believe, because I haven't gone out of my way to find out; I only know what you are trying to get me to believe.

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I'm trying to get you merely to see what they are saying to you, and how absurd it is. You said you didn't understand: now you do, if you want to. And if you don't, I can't force you to.

Service provided: if it's not accepted, that's up to you.

[Harbal]

You don't have to. Just look at what they're trying to get you to believe, and you'll see that what I'm saying is absolutely the truth. Open your own eyes, and you won't need to trust mine.

I don't know what they want me to believe, because I haven't gone out of my way to find out; I only know what you are trying to get me to believe.

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I'm trying to get you merely to see what they are saying to you, and how absurd it is. You said you didn't understand: now you do, if you want to. And if you don't, I can't force you to.

Service provided: if it's not accepted, that's up to you.

You are doing the same with these people as you do with atheists and every other set of people you don't approve of. You take the most outspoken, militant ones from the bunch and try to present them as being representative of all the rest. If, as a group or class, these people are making unreasonable demands, then of course they should be refused, but you are condemning them for what they are, not just for what they might be asking for. You are making a moral judgement based on your own distaste, and dressing it up as some sort of social concern.