What do existentialists think of homosexual/gender compulsions?

[Age]

I am saying that I think women have a right to exclusively female public toilets and changing rooms.


And also the right to organise exclusively biological female sporting activities.

Yes, you've already expressed that they have a right to disallow trans people from their bathrooms, I understand that you think they have the right to disallow. I'm asking you if you think women also have the right to choose, as a group, to allow.

If, say, a state government put out a referendum for biologically female voters, and found that the majority of them wanted to allow trans women into women's bathrooms, would you have any problem with that being legally allowed in that state?

That's ridiculous. Women already have their own spaces, as do men.

So, IF the 'men' in a 'men ONLY' club or pub had evolved, changed,and/or progressed 'their views', and AGREED that 'women' now be allowed into 'that club or bar', then this would be RIDICULOUS ALSO?

As 'those men' already have 'their own space'?

It's not something to be voted on.

So, there are SOME 'things' that 'the ACTUAL members of the club' are NEVER to 'vote on', correct?

Also, I do NOT think that ANY one here THINKS that the majority of 'women' would vote to allow 'transgender men', (or 'transgender women') into 'women's toilets', in the days when this is being written. A question was JUST ASKED in order to JUST CLARIFY "another's" VIEW, which, to me anyway, is NOT so-called 'ridiculous' AT ALL.

It was just a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION ASKED to gauge one's VIEWS.

You don't have referendums to vote to remove basic human rghts.

And the QUESTION ASKED was NOT about REMOVING 'basic human rights'. The QUESTION ASKED IF, and ONLY IF, 'biologically female voters' AGREED that 'trans women' BE ALLOWED into 'women's bathrooms', then WOULD the person ASKED the QUESTION have a problem with 'that' being legally allowed, and that WAS ALL.

What you are sounding like here is like the way a so-called "white person", back in the OLDEN DAYS, could have 'TRIED TO' "argue" for THEIR POSITION. That is if the QUESTION; If, say, a state government put out a referendum for "white voters", and found that the majority of them wanted to allow "black people" into "whites ONLY bathrooms", would you have any problem with that being legally allowed in that state? was ASKED to "another person", then 'you' COULD, just as 'you' DID here, SAY, 'That's ridiculous. "Whites" already have their own spaces, as do "blacks", AND ALSO SAY and CLAIM, 'You don't have referendums to vote to remove basic human rights', AS WELL.

SEE, to so-called "whites", BACK THEN, it WAS "their basic human right" to have SEPARATE bathrooms FROM "those blacks".

AND, as STUPID as 'this' SOUNDS now, in the days WHEN this is being written, so to DOES a LOT of what is being SAID and STATED 'now', in the days when this is being written, to those who are NOT in these VERY OLDEN DAYS.

The QUESTION ASKED, WHAT IF the 'biological women' HAD CHANGED the WAY 'they' THINK and HAD 'now' DECIDED to vote to ALLOW so-called "others" into 'their bathrooms', THEN SHOULD that MAJORITY AGREED UPON vote be LEGALLY ALLOWED.

JUST LIKE SHOULD WHEN the MAJORITY AGREED that so-called "black people" SHOULD these "black people" be LEGALLY ALLOWED to USE the so-and-previously-called "whites ONLY bathrooms"?

Should there be a referendum to allow convicted paedophiles to work with children?

SHOULD children who have had sex with other AGREEING and WANTING children NEVER be ALLOWED to 'work with children' for the REST of 'their lives'.

Did 'you', "vegetariantaxidermy", have sex with "other children" when 'you' were 'a child'?

If yes, then SHOULD 'you' be ALLOWED to 'work with children'?

If yes, then WHY?

OBVIOUSLY, "those children" could NOT 'consent', and therefore, legally, 'you' RAPED 'them'.

SEE, when people WANT to LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT 'things' here, I suggest that 'they' LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT the WHOLE Picture, and NOT just ABOUT 'their OWN TINY LITTLE PERSPECTIVE of 'things'.

(not so far fetched any more. I mean, we are all DUTY BOUND to be INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE)
Oops, sorry. I mean 'MAP's. I hope I didn't offend anyone on here...

SO, WHO IS INCLUDED, and WHO SHOULD GET EXCLUDED, SHOULD ALL ALINE WITH "vegetariantaxidermy's" VIEWS and PREJUDICES here, correct?

[Age]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, but some women living in that state might, albeit a minority.

Cool, that's my opinion too. Women should choose.

See, HOW SIMPLY, EASY, AND QUICKLY AGREEMENT CAN BE, and thus COULD BE, FOUND IF OPEN and Honest ANSWERS to CLARIFYING QUESTIONS where NOT IGNORED and JUST ANSWERED in the beginning or at the FIRST INSTANCE.

So, it appears that AGREEMENT is REACHED here, well between these two anyway, that THE 'members' of A 'club' get to CHOOSE who can or who can NOT 'enter that club'.

Although there ARE SOME in this forum who DISAGREE with 'this'.

Also, and now, are 'the members' of 'these clubs' including 'members' based on 'things' INSTINCTIVE, INNATE, or of ESSENCE, or on just what one has LEARNED, along the way. Which, in Truth, could be A Wrongly LEARNED 'thing'?

There's a hell of a lot of states in America, and countries in Europe, where women would choose to allow it I think.

I also think female athletes should be allowed to choose if transgender women can compete with them, but my concern there is that, if that choice is public knowledge and the athletes choose not to allow it, they'll get a lot of underserved backlash. I think that's worth avoiding... Not sure how.

There will ALWAYS REMAIN 'undeserved backlash' on "others" WHILE Wrong behaviors are LEARNED, and TAUGHT.

So, UNTIL 'you', adult human beings, STOP 'debating' OVER Truly STUPID and RIDICULOUS 'things' like above here, and BEGIN TO WORK OUT what IS ACTUALLY INNATE, FROM what IS ACTUALLY LEARNED, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, WILL CONTINUE to GIVE 'undeserving backlash" to "others".

[Age]

'Transpersons' have the same rights as everyone else. What they want are 'entitlements'. Extra rights on top of the rights that everyone has.
They love to chant, ad nauseum, 'Trans rights are human rights'. Ok. We get it. But ask them what 'rights' they feel that they don't have, and they go berserk. They will NEVER give an answer (unless 'Nazi', 'transphobe', 'fascist', blah blah blah are 'answers'). Then they get violent.
And why are so-called 'trans protests' full of violent, misogynistic, masculine men wearing black masks and punching the air?
Now why would THEY give a flying rat's arse about 'transwomen'?? Hmmm?

We WAIT to SEE if 'you' KNOW what ACTUAL 'woman' ARE, EXACTLY.

'you' love to chant about how 'you' KNOW the DIFFERENCE between 'men' AND 'women'.

So, I ASKED 'you' What IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, EXACTLY?

We will SEE if 'you' go so-called 'berserk', PROVIDE an ACTUAL ANSWER, or NEVER give AN ANSWER, (unless it is some so-called 'blah, blah, blah answer').

I look forward to READING what lays ahead here.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[Age]

I also think female athletes should be allowed to choose if transgender women can compete with them, but my concern there is that, if that choice is public knowledge and the athletes choose not to allow it, they'll get a lot of underserved backlash. I think that's worth avoiding... Not sure how.

Allowing transgender women to compete in women's sport completely undermines the reason for separating men's and women's sport in the first place.

One could have thought that this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS Fact would have ALREADY BEEN REALIZED and would have ALREADY COME-TO-LIGHT by now, and so the question of, 'Could previously 'male gendered bodies' compete in 'women's sport'?' be SEEN as being in ABSOLUTE and TOTAL CONTRADICTION of the REASON FOR FORMING and SEPARATING 'men's sport' FROM 'women's sport'.

And, WHILE 'sport' is DONE for COMPETITION and FOR 'winning' and 'losing', then combining the two, in regards to SOME 'sports' could BE Truly UNFAIR.

But, WHEN 'human being's' VIEWS CHANGE, or EVOLVE and PROGRESS and 'games' are PLAYED for FUN and ENJOYMENT ONLY, INSTEAD of FOR 'winning' AND 'losing', then 'those games' COULD and WOULD INCLUDE ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, and EQUALLY i will add.

However, in the days when this was being written, SOME people ACTUALLY BELIEVED, back then, that EVEN the game of Life' WAS ABOUT 'winning' AND 'losing'.

Which IS HARD TO ACCEPT, but True.

[Age]

Plenty of women were against women getting the vote. It's always only a fearless minority who fight for their rights, and they usually pay dearly for them.
If there had been a referendum for women's voting rights (ironic when they weren't allowed to vote) then it's not a stretch to think that it could well have gone against women. People can be very easy to sway, especially when they are brain-washed into believing that they have to be 'kind' and 'inclusive' and that being otherwise means that they are 'nazis', 'fascists', 'transphobes' blah blah blah and could actually lose their job if they object.

So, it appears that 'you' WISH 'the world' REMAINED as 'it' WAS, BACK in the OLDEN DAYS, right?

Also, imagine 'a world' WHERE, IF absolutely EVERY one WAS 'kind' to "each other" and WHERE EVERY one, INCLUDING ALL 'children' WERE INCLUDED, from birth, and just how HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE 'that' REALLY WOULD BE, "vegetariantaxidermy"?

See, what 'you' appear to be COMPLETELY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING here "vegetarinataxidermy" is that it IS BECAUSE 'children' FELT that they were being EXCLUDED FROM the VERY NATURAL ESSENCE of what BEING a 'human being' IS, EXACTLY, the very reason WHY 'they' 'grow up' LEARNING to do the VERY 'things' that 'you' perceive here to be the Wrong 'things' in Life.

So, it is BECAUSE of people like 'you', "vegetariantaxidermy", NOT WANTING to be 'kind' to ALL "others" and NOT WANTING to 'include' ALL "others", into 'your' OWN little 'group' and 'club' WHY Wrong EXISTS in 'that world', which 'you' ARE CREATING here.

'you', human beings, can ONLY LEARN from what 'you' are TAUGHT, and what 'you' ARE TEACHING here "vegetariantaxidermy" is what 'you' WERE TAUGHT. And that is; Do NOT be 'kind' and do NOT 'included' EVERY one.

Which IS EXACTLY how 'you' FELT and THOUGHT when 'you' WERE 'growing up'. BECAUSE "others" were NOT 'kind' TO 'you' and MADE 'you' FEEL 'excluded' 'you' have now so-called 'grown up' thinking and/or BELIEVING that NOT being 'kind' to ALL "others" and NOT 'including' ALL "others" here, in 'this world' is ALL RIGHT behavior.

'you' are SO DEEP and FAR INTO 'this' WAY of 'thinking' that 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'we' ARE BORN 'THIS WAY', and that 'THIS WAY, IS 'THE Right WAY' 'life and living' IS MEANT TO BE like.

INDOCTRINATION can be SO DEEPLY EMBEDDED that SOME people 'grow up' BELIEVING that 'they' WERE 'BORN THIS WAY'. That is; WITH the BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS that they HOLD SO DEEPLY.

[Age]

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are.

This is a common misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that they shouldn't have to go against their nature any more than heterosexuals should have to go against their nature. NOT that they "do not have the freedom to choose their actions".

So, WHERE, EXACTLY, IS the, ACTUAL, PROOF that 'you', human beings, ARE BORN so-called "heterosexual", "homosexual", "bisexual", or ANY OTHER "sexuality"?

We AWAIT.

AND, while we are WAITING IF absolutely ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here IS, EXACTLY, can be PRESENTED and SHOWED.

Heterosexuals have the freedom to go against their nature just as well.

HOW, EXACTLY, could ANY 'thing' go AGAINST 'its' OWN 'nature'?

And, WHY do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that being "hetero" or "homo" 'sexual' IS A 'nature'?

Do 'you', people, even UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES of CLAIMING something like 'these things' IS 'one's nature'?

Not sure of misrepresentations of this sort are rooted in dimwittedness or willful ignorance.

Could 'you' be MISREPRESENTING ANY 'thing' here?

[Age]

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are.

This is a common misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that they shouldn't have to go against their nature any more than heterosexuals should have to go against their nature. NOT that "do not have the freedom to choose their actions". Heterosexuals have the freedom to go against their nature just as well.

Not sure of misrepresentations of this sort are rooted in dimwittedness or willful ignorance.

There was a good star trek episode where they came across a civilization where only homosexuality was permissible, and some of the central characters were these heterosexuals in hiding, fearing who knows what because they dared to be in love with someone of the opposite gender.

'What', EXACTLY, made 'that episode' a so-called 'good one'?

And, did absolutely ANY one, in the episode or at home watching, ASK the QUESTION, 'How did 'they' PROCREATE?'

If no, then WHY NOT.

Every heterosexual who thinks it's appropriate to ban homosexuality ought to consider the moral implications of social power being on the other foot. Would you give up your sexuality if that's what your culture demanded?

CLAIMING that some 'thing' is 'YOURS' like 'your sexuality' immediately INFERS that 'you' could NOT give 'it' up.

[Age]

This is a common misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that they shouldn't have to go against their nature any more than heterosexuals should have to go against their nature. NOT that "do not have the freedom to choose their actions". Heterosexuals have the freedom to go against their nature just as well.

Not sure of misrepresentations of this sort are rooted in dimwittedness or willful ignorance.

There was a good star trek episode where they came across a civilization where only homosexuality was permissible, and some of the central characters were these heterosexuals in hiding, fearing who knows what because they dared to be in love with someone of the opposite gender.

Every heterosexual who thinks it's appropriate to ban homosexuality ought to consider the moral implications of social power being on the other foot. Would you give up your sexuality if that's what your culture demanded?

Star Trek? The original series? Seems a bit early in the maturation of the US for that topic to have been addressed. A maturation that has been regressing in recent years. Perhaps one of the spin-off series?

The heart of the matter isn't about "social power". It's about discrimination. Irrational discrimination at that.

The original did address issues of its time. Have you seen the following?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_A

It's disturbing that there are so many "adults" in the US with the emotional and intellectual maturity of a child: unable to analyze issues other than in the most simplistic way.

But MOST children are FAR MORE MATURE, well from what I OBSERVED and BORE WITNESS TO, in the days when this was being written.

Also, and by the way, being ABLE to SEE and/or ANALYZE ALL issues DOWN TO their MOST SIMPLISTIC, or in their MOST FUNDAMENTAL WAY, could be a True SIGN of MATURITY and NOT of IMMATURITY.

Making COMPLEX and HARD what IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY, like what Life and living REALLY IS, could be a VERY CLEAR SIGN of VERY TWISTED and DISTORTED 'thinking', and thus NOT of ANY REAL MATURITY AT ALL.

[Age]

So, 'you' MAKE THE CLAIM that 'you' KNOW what an ACTUAL 'woman' IS, EXACTLY.

YET when QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER this CLAIM of 'yours' you FAIL, completely AND utterly, to produce ABSOLUTELY ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of 'this'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]