Is this offensive to feminism?

The agenda of not encouraging delusion?

You can identify as a magical dragon if you want I don't care. It's just that it's not real.

Sex is binary gender doesn't exist.

 

I am not an expert in anyone's gender, or gender identity or sexual orientation except my own. Otherwise I take the person's word for it, and that of that person's medical doctor. If you are neither, I ignore your opinion. I don't care what you think is real or is not real about gender or gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

well of course not gender doesn't exist it would be like being an expert on Bigfoot or the loch Ness monster.

so if I told you I was a cat you would be okay with me crapping in your yard?

if you can't discuss anything with anybody who is in an expert in it you probably shouldn't be posting here because this is an anonymous forum and there's no way to know if people are experts.

If this is just a way to weasel out of the argument which is probably what it is then I'm going to remind you of this every time you make a response to me.

So why in the hell are you responding to me?

If you don't care what I have to say quit reading what I have to say. Why would you?

 

People have a right to define themselves anyway they want, whether others find it real or not, and as a citizen of Kekistan you should be aware of that. Also, as a "Kekistani", you are well aware that the genitalia you possess does not define who you are sexually attracted to and not everyone can pick a team when they find both good.

 

Sure, people can define themselves however they want. If it just stopped there, we would never hear anything about it. The problem is that they want the entire world to buy into their delusion. I don't think I have an obligation to do that.

 

One may define themselves as a white supremacist. If it just stopped there, we would never hear anything about it. The problem is that they want the entire world to buy into their delusion. I don't think I have an obligation to do that.
Am I making any sense?

 

I didn't say people can't identify as non-binary I said it was nothing.
You could identify something that doesn't exist I don't care.

 

No, you do care. You are offering your opinion that these people’s opinion of themselves is delusional. Negating their opinion of themselves apparently because you can’t understand it.

 

I'm an expert in my thoughts and you are incompetent in guessing them.

I know infinitely better than you what I care about and what I don't.

So squawk nonsense to your hearts delight it's just onanism.

No I just refuse to legitimize it.

Do you pretend to be non binary?

If their opinion of themselves is that they are magical little elves that's fine if they want me to participate in that silliness it's an emphatic and concise NO.

You are entitled to whatever pretend game you want to play if you are not entitled to other people to play along with you.

 

How about a play about the murdering pedophile Muhammad who also engaged in bestiality? Do you think that would be fun as well? I doubt the Muslims would take it very well. Whoever made that play would want to use it ironclad pen name and mask their identity for sure

 

Stop pointing out blind spots for these people their intentional blind spots so they don't have to reconcile their hypocrisy and you're just ruining it.

 

C’mon. I don’t think we should ever make comparisons to what Muslims would do. Why does this offend you so much?

 

Yes, as your post amply demonstrates, you really know what the ladies like.

 

What hypocrisy though? It’s just a play based on a historical figure. I mean, are you upset about the movie where Lincoln fights Godzilla?

 

Umm..You know that the real Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, right? For being a witch (technically, for heresy)?

 

For crossdressing.

 

not just the free pass for Islam to be far more homophobic and far more theocratic but the promotion of it.

The blindspot that I mentioned.

is it though?

Would I play about Muhammad having a bacon factory be acceptable?

That's the hypocrisy.

 

'Her crime was crossdressing' is a gross oversimplification and contextually innaccurate. 'Wearing the clothes of a man' was simply the only crime she could be successfully prosecuted for out of the 70 or so charges brought against her. It was NOT the reason she was persecuted and put on trial in the first place ...nor is there any historical evidence to suggest she ever claimed to be a man, anyone actually thought she was a man, or that anyone thought she was trying to masquerade as a man, as the term 'crossdressing' tends to infer.

"Joan was brought to trial before a church court because the theologists at the University of Paris, as arbiter in matters concerning the faith, insisted that she be tried as a heretic. Her beliefs were not strictly orthodox, according to the criteria for orthodoxy laid down by many theologians of the period. She was no friend of the church militant on earth (which perceived itself as in spiritual combat with the forces of evil), and she threatened its hierarchy through her claim that she communicated directly with God by means of visions or voices. Further, her trial might serve to discredit Charles VII by demonstrating that he owed his coronation to a witch, or at least a heretic."

St. Joan of Arc - Capture, trial, and execution | Britannica

The myth that she was persecuted as a crossdresser is just a 'stolen glory' attempt of the trans movement. She wasn't martyred for trans rights, she was martyred for (inadvertantly, it should be noted) challenging the authority of the state religion by claiming that God spoke to her instead of its 'authorized prophets' and then prosecuted on a bogus technicality.

 

You are actually mistaken. She was initially convicted of heresy, for listening to her divine inspiration, rather than the authority of the church (as I'd said, for essentially being a witch; a charge lodged mostly against women who were practitioners of pre-Christian religion, & such-- or against widows with nice plots of land, which the Church got to confiscate, and sell at a good rate to the neighbor who wanted to expand his farm-- and who had reported her "witchery"-- but I digress). She'd vowed to reform her behavior, so the court commuted her sentence to life imprisonment. However, when she was found dressing in men's clothes, her original sentence was reimposed, because of her recidivism; that is, her vow had been taken to have not been sincere. Think of it as violating the conditions of your parole.

So, even though crossdressing turned out being the final straw, the crime for which she was being burned was heresy. To therefore say that she was burned for crossdressing, is really a gross twisting of the truth.

 

If you can poke fun at Christianity why can't you poke fun at Islam?

Far from being offended I just want an answer to that simple question. Many on the progressive side feel no reservations about criticizing and ridiculing Christianity but it's as though Islam is a protected species

 

Well, I really don’t care if anyone makes plays about Mohammed. Doing so is asking to be murdered, so that may be the reason. What’s upsetting you? Christians no longer put people to death for heresy and cross dressing or that people won’t produce art that gets them murdered?

 

Because some random extremist Muslim will literally murder you?

 

so if it leads to sectarian violence in the Muslim world you're cool with that? Kill all those dirty brown people cuz I don't have to see them?

so I guess you're blind to the hypocrisy of that statement.

If you get murdered by a Muslim for saying something about Muhammad you just asking for it.

But stating an opinion about I play now that's something that needs to be addressed.

You're condoning murder while pretending I'm upset about a play and that's a bigger deal to you.

don't project emotions on to me.

Talking about things is not an indication of being upset. You are doing this to try and ridicule me for having an opinion you don't like.

So you see the hypocrisy?

 

So if some random extremist Christian murders whatever clown came up with this play what they were asking for it right?

 

No you are not making sense. In fact, of all the possible replies you could have given, this one, although maybe not the dumbest possible, is still fairly dumb. You know sometimes I feel I should switch sides and take over the lefty argument because I feel I understand it better than lefties do.