Title IX vs Trans rights; who wins?

[XMil]

If you're willing to look at it, history shows no social construct has fared well beyond the time period that a majority has been able to retain power and control . Be it a homogenous group by race, ethnicity or cultural background, there has to be a willingness to agree to a set of rules for all involved.

That's what made The Founder's attempts at creating our nation a great experiment. They drafted documentation that limited the powers of the government. Instead of defining a way that the people were to be ruled, they attempted to create a way for the people to be in control the government.

Not long after it's creation did the cracks start to appear. The greedy and the power-hungry were still able to find ways to secure control and riches for themselves. Ironically, it seems that The Founders weren't able to see this. Or were they?

View attachment 259222

Unfortunately, the unraveling would be the same that causes the downfall of all men.

Who decides on acceptable religion? The people.
Who decides on acceptable morals? The people.
Who agrees that everyone needs to adhere to the same rules so that society itself can prosper? The people.

What happens when the system goes awry and the people can no longer agree on a common goal?

I will defend until my last that the United States and Capitalist system has done better, for more, than any other system yet invented or tried. Is it perfect and stain-free? No, but show me what has worked better.

It sounds like you are arguing for "mob rule". What if "the people" decide to deport all <insert racial group here>. Is that ok? This is getting a little far afield, but I thought it would be interesting to explore your idea.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

It sounds like you are arguing for "mob rule". What if "the people" decide to deport all <insert racial group here>. Is that ok? This is getting a little far afield, but I thought it would be interesting to explore your idea.

No need to take it that far. One of the interesting traits that seems to have been developed in our society these days is to take a point from a discussion, drive it to an unreasonable extreme, and then see if the person is willing to stand by the extrapolated position. Even if both parties are completely aware of what the original position is.

I'm not going there.

When referring to "The people" (sorry, I should have capitalized the "P" to further infer The Constitution) you know who I am referring to. You know what I am getting at. I am not advocating "Mob Rule" or anarchy or any kind of takeover by one racial group over another.

I am not interested in exploring your hypothetical.

Have a nice day!

 

[smokingman]

“Age is just a number”
Works well for the pedos out there.
Would tie in with the trans crowd.

Well, there are still 10 year olds legally married in the USA. Over 300,000 children under 18 were married between just 2018-2020(80% 16 or 17,but that other 20% as young as 10). 86% of those children were female.

The kicker. In places like California once they hit 13,if they are legally married sex is no longer a crime no matter the age of the husband.

I went down this rabbit hole awhile back in another thread(the history of how old people were when married,and how long childbrides have been a thing in the US,the answer is pretty much from the start).

I think it is time for it to be illegal,because in very few states(6) it actually is.

Why Has the United States Not Banned Child Marriage?

Photo by Samantha Gades on Unsplash Bailey Wharton, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review I. Introduction Despite the fact that the median age of Americans at their f…

uclawreview.org

 

[jamil]

It sounds like you are arguing for "mob rule". What if "the people" decide to deport all <insert racial group here>. Is that ok? This is getting a little far afield, but I thought it would be interesting to explore your idea.

How did you get that out of it?

 

[Ingomike]

Girls High School Basketball Team Forfeits Game Against Team With Transgender Player

townhall.com

 

[XMil]

How did you get that out of it?

He said it himself.

He defines who society is: The Majority.
"Why cannot society (defined as a majority of citizens) ..." a.ka. The People

He then says who gets to decide your religion and morals: The People which he said was the majority.
"Who decides on acceptable religion? The people.
Who decides on acceptable morals? The people.
Who agrees that everyone needs to adhere to the same rules so that society itself can prosper? The people."


He goes on to say:
"If rules, values, morals and truths are to be determined on an individual basis then there is no society." (Arguing against self determination)

So it follows according his own words that The People(aka the Majority) get to choose what morals and values are acceptable for the minority. Also known as Mob Rule/ Tyranny of the majority*.

Exactly counter to freedom and individual liberty. Part of his argument goes against the FIRST sentence in the FIRST amendment....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Although it may be easy to support that way of thinking when your group is in power, it is a bad idea to set the precedent because sooner or later, "the other side" will be in control.

*The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

He said it himself.

He defines who society is: The Majority.
"Why cannot society (defined as a majority of citizens) ..." a.ka. The People

He then says who gets to decide your religion and morals: The People which he said was the majority.
"Who decides on acceptable religion? The people.
Who decides on acceptable morals? The people.
Who agrees that everyone needs to adhere to the same rules so that society itself can prosper? The people."


He goes on to say:
"If rules, values, morals and truths are to be determined on an individual basis then there is no society." (Arguing against self determination)

So it follows according his own words that The People(aka the Majority) get to choose what morals and values are acceptable for the minority. Also known as Mob Rule/ Tyranny of the majority*.

Exactly counter to freedom and individual liberty. Part of his argument goes against the FIRST sentence in the FIRST amendment....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Although it may be easy to support that way of thinking when your group is in power, it is a bad idea to set the precedent because sooner or later, "the other side" will be in control.

*The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

Would you not agree that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that we now have a "tyranny of the minority"? Because that's the way it's looking to me with all the DEI, CRT and various other "acronyms" that have taken control of the narrative these days and instituted the whole "woke" ideology.

 

[jamil]

He said it himself.

He defines who society is: The Majority.
"Why cannot society (defined as a majority of citizens) ..." a.ka. The People

He then says who gets to decide your religion and morals: The People which he said was the majority.
"Who decides on acceptable religion? The people.
Who decides on acceptable morals? The people.
Who agrees that everyone needs to adhere to the same rules so that society itself can prosper? The people."


He goes on to say:
"If rules, values, morals and truths are to be determined on an individual basis then there is no society." (Arguing against self determination)

So it follows according his own words that The People(aka the Majority) get to choose what morals and values are acceptable for the minority. Also known as Mob Rule/ Tyranny of the majority*.

Exactly counter to freedom and individual liberty. Part of his argument goes against the FIRST sentence in the FIRST amendment....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Although it may be easy to support that way of thinking when your group is in power, it is a bad idea to set the precedent because sooner or later, "the other side" will be in control.

*The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

I mean you don't have to preach it. I think most of us, being gun owners are quite aware of the constitution, and, most of INGO, I would say is either Christian, or has some Christian background. We all know the constitutional argument.

But. I suspect you're confusing an *is* for an *ought* here. I read his post as what is historically true, and extrapolating from that, what is likely to be true now and in the future. I did not get from him that he's advocating mob rule. I didn't see where he did any such thing.

And I don't fully agree with him on the *is* proposition, that those things are determined by the majority, per se. It is to an extent. For example, if the territory of the US had been populated with primarily Muslims, instead of Christians, this would have socially and politically evolved to be a much different place than it is now.

My disagreement is that it's not the majority that truly rules. We're governed by a small group of elites who can control to a great extent information. So reality isn't exactly mob rule now. It's the minority of powerful people using the mob to enforce the minority's rules.

For example. A majority did not vote for wokeness. But here we are. A minority of people are woke. But the few use the mob to enforce their societal rules. It's not law. Yet.

Policy is downstream from culture--which I think is more of what Karl was saying, kinda. And I think culture is being transformed by a minority of people who need the cultural turmoil to seize political power. Then we'll see woke policies transformed into laws enforced by the state.

 

[jamil]

Would you not agree that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that we now have a "tyranny of the minority"? Because that's the way it's looking to me with all the DEI, CRT and various other "acronyms" that have taken control of the narrative these days and instituted the whole "woke" ideology.

Yep. And that **** is not the majority.

 

[XMil]

Would you not agree that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that we now have a "tyranny of the minority"? Because that's the way it's looking to me with all the DEI, CRT and various other "acronyms" that have taken control of the narrative these days and instituted the whole "woke" ideology.

I don't know what DEI is.

I'm trying to be careful here and stick to the higher concepts. But I don't agree that we have a tyranny of the minority. I think we have a lot of people upset that they aren't the majority any more. I don't understand why people think that stopping the persecution of people different than them is somehow taking away their rights.

What really scares me is that we have big problems, some of which the government is causing and some they are failing to fix. But the life long parasites in Washington have gotten to be masters a keeping people scared and angry over things they don't know anything about so they can keep getting elected.

 

[XMil]

I mean you don't have to preach it. I think most of us, being gun owners are quite aware of the constitution, and, most of INGO, I would say is either Christian, or has some Christian background. We all know the constitutional argument.

But. I suspect you're confusing an *is* for an *ought* here. I read his post as what is historically true, and extrapolating from that, what is likely to be true now and in the future. I did not get from him that he's advocating mob rule. I didn't see where he did any such thing.

And I don't fully agree with him on the *is* proposition, that those things are determined by the majority, per se. It is to an extent. For example, if the territory of the US had been populated with primarily Muslims, instead of Christians, this would have socially and politically evolved to be a much different place than it is now.

My disagreement is that it's not the majority that truly rules. We're governed by a small group of elites who can control to a great extent information. So reality isn't exactly mob rule now. It's the minority of powerful people using the mob to enforce the minority's rules.

For example. A majority did not vote for wokeness. But here we are. A minority of people are woke. But the few use the mob to enforce their societal rules. It's not law. Yet.

Policy is downstream from culture--which I think is more of what Karl was saying, kinda. And I think culture is being transformed by a minority of people who need the cultural turmoil to seize political power. Then we'll see woke policies transformed into laws enforced by the state.

You asked how I go that conclusion and I honored your request by telling you. Hey, I could be wrong but it looked to me like he was directly arguing against the constitution.

I'm old, I don't know what "woke" means But what "rules are being enforced by the state" on behalf of wokeness?

Time to hit the gym, so I may not reply anytime soon.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't know what DEI is.

I'm trying to be careful here and stick to the higher concepts. But I don't agree that we have a tyranny of the minority. I think we have a lot of people upset that they aren't the majority any more. I don't understand why people think that stopping the persecution of people different than them is somehow taking away their rights.

What really scares me is that we have big problems, some of which the government is causing and some they are failing to fix. But the life long parasites in Washington have gotten to be masters a keeping people scared and angry over things they don't know anything about so they can keep getting elected.

DEI = Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. In other words, qualifications don't matter for jobs. Only that you check certain boxes (female, racial minority, trans, gay, etc.). CRT = white kids getting taught that they are inherently evil because of the color of their skin. Gays probably make up around 4-5% of the population, but to watch anything out of Hollywood, or nearly any commercial on tv, you would think that they are the majority.

That goes beyond "not being persecuted". That's not "equality". That's bending over backwards to appease a small but very vocal group (yes, with the blessing and encouragement of politicians, especially left wing politicians). That is the tyranny of the minority. See South African Apartheid for reference.

 

[jamil]

I don't know what DEI is.

I'm trying to be careful here and stick to the higher concepts. But I don't agree that we have a tyranny of the minority. I think we have a lot of people upset that they aren't the majority any more. I don't understand why people think that stopping the persecution of people different than them is somehow taking away their rights.

What really scares me is that we have big problems, some of which the government is causing and some they are failing to fix. But the life long parasites in Washington have gotten to be masters a keeping people scared and angry over things they don't know anything about so they can keep getting elected.

Who is calling the shots?

 

[jamil]

You asked how I go that conclusion and I honored your request by telling you. Hey, I could be wrong but it looked to me like he was directly arguing against the constitution.

I'm old, I don't know what "woke" means But what "rules are being enforced by the state" on behalf of wokeness?

Time to hit the gym, so I may not reply anytime soon.

You could be right. I didn’t see language that would indicate he was saying this is how it ought to be. More like this is how it’s been. This is how it is.

 

[XMil]

DEI = Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. In other words, qualifications don't matter for jobs. Only that you check certain boxes (female, racial minority, trans, gay, etc.). CRT = white kids getting taught that they are inherently evil because of the color of their skin. Gays probably make up around 4-5% of the population, but to watch anything out of Hollywood, or nearly any commercial on tv, you would think that they are the majority.

That goes beyond "not being persecuted". That's not "equality". That's bending over backwards to appease a small but very vocal group (yes, with the blessing and encouragement of politicians, especially left wing politicians). That is the tyranny of the minority. See South African Apartheid for reference.

Oh, ok. Diversity and inclusion is a big part of the company I work for. It's a huge, global company that you have heard of. Mostly I think they try to make sure people are hired/promoted etc IN SPITE of the things you listed. I have to tell you, there is still a ton of discrimination. It is very much a "good ol' boy network". They really talk a lot about DEI as you called it, but behind the scenes it is still pretty old school. In HR and corporate, there is real diversity and equal opportunity. In engineering and manufacturing you better be male, straight and preferably white or Indian.

I will say there is some unfair treatment in the direction you're talking about. It's mostly in recruiting though. Once you're in, women, African Americans, gender diverse etc. are at a disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, we have some "diversity in high places, but it is mostly (IMHO) for company photo purposes.

As far as TV goes, I don't watch a lot but I hardly see any gay/trans etc. (except for drug commercials for some reason). The only regular TV shows I watch are Oak Island, Battlebots, Forged in Fire, Dr Phil etc. It's almost all white guys. But even if there was, that's not the government telling you how to live your life, that's just big corps pandering for money.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

that's just big corps pandering for money.

Exactly. Now ask yourself this. Why would big corps pander to a small but vocal minority instead of "pandering" to the people that probably helped build their corporations (stockholders for big corps).?

 

[KLB]

Oh, ok. Diversity and inclusion is a big part of the company I work for. It's a huge, global company that you have heard of. Mostly I think they try to make sure people are hired/promoted etc IN SPITE of the things you listed. I have to tell you, there is still a ton of discrimination. It is very much a "good ol' boy network". They really talk a lot about DEI as you called it, but behind the scenes it is still pretty old school. In HR and corporate, there is real diversity and equal opportunity. In engineering and manufacturing you better be male, straight and preferably white or Indian.

I will say there is some unfair treatment in the direction you're talking about. It's mostly in recruiting though. Once you're in, women, African Americans, gender diverse etc. are at a disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, we have some "diversity in high places, but it is mostly (IMHO) for company photo purposes.

As far as TV goes, I don't watch a lot but I hardly see any gay/trans etc. (except for drug commercials for some reason). The only regular TV shows I watch are Oak Island, Battlebots, Forged in Fire, Dr Phil etc. It's almost all white guys. But even if there was, that's not the government telling you how to live your life, that's just big corps pandering for money.

Are you conflating lack of candidates with discrimination? Some fields don't have a lot of diversity in who actually chooses to be in that field. My field of Network/Security operations is one. In the 20 years I have been at my company we have had exactly two females work for us. That isn't because we are a good ole boys network and don't want to hire a woman.

Plus, you think your company discriminates in favor of Indians over other races? That would be a new one.

 

[jamil]

Are you conflating lack of candidates with discrimination? Some fields don't have a lot of diversity in who actually chooses to be in that field. My field of Network/Security operations is one. In the 20 years I have been at my company we have had exactly two females work for us. That isn't because we are a good ole boys network and don't want to hire a woman.

Plus, you think your company discriminates in favor of Indians over other races? That would be a new one.

There isn’t much diversity in software engineering, other than the demographics mentioned. Women make up only 18 - 20% of computer science graduates. Blacks only 4%.

If only 1/4 of applicants are “diverse” you won’t see much diversity. We were actually told that we would start making the engineering department look a lot more like the community. But that means you hire a lot bigger percentage of minorities than are available in the community. Of course that means you hire a lot fewer non-minorities than are available in the community. Basically standards go out the window at that point. You’re just hiring to meet quotas.

 

[smokingman]

It is the same in the US,if not worse. A tiny percentage of the population is massively over represented.

 

[Karl-just-Karl]

Wow, didn't expect things would be taken so far. I've been trying to stay our of the political section for sake of my own mental health. Because EXMil had quoted my post was what drew me back in. Also, I recently had an encounter with an ex-military person I found quite disturbing.

Thank you Jamil,

I think you were understanding my poorly worded presentation of a concept. I view societal values as a loosely woven construct that is heavily dependent upon personal awareness of what is socially acceptable. Influenced by religion, marketing or government there is a level of "socially acceptable" and "socially unacceptable" in every society. It changes with time and evolves. Frequently with fits and starts.

For the reasoning of my philosophical argument, the previous paragraph represents my implied meaning of "majority rule". What is socially acceptable? How do we as a society respond to or accept the actions of others? THAT is a social construct that forms a society.

The existence of a society limits what can be pursued as personal or individual liberty. It has been that way since the start and it must always be that way to avoid "mob rule" and anarchy. Society also consents to the power to be governed, but I digress.

My goal here was-is to discuss societal-bending trans-ideology. That is the topic of the thread, right?

To XMil,

I will go on to argue against the idea of self-determination in the framework you are applying. I can only assume it has been part of your education/indoctrination that your application of individual liberty applies to the freedom to pursue any activity you wish.

A value that I hold dear is that the greatest sacrifice a person can make is the sacrifice of self for the group as a whole. Millions of Americans have made the sacrifice, bound by honor and personal values to sacrifice for the greater good. It is imperative that a stable society embodies self-restraint, self-respect and personal responsibility. My personal liberties extend to the point where they meet yours.

Does one's personal liberties extend to the point of sexual displays in front of other people that do not wish to see your display of sexuality? If that is the case, I can see where your valuing of your sexual display is greater than the value I hold of not wanting to see such things.

Should this should be normalized? That being the case, then we have a problem that goes back to my original postulation that brought you to this discussion XMil. If one segment of society wants this normalized and another does not, we have a societal problem.


Also, I completely fail to see where my argument was in contradiction to the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

I find no advocation in my argument for Congress to do such a thing. There is an obvious disconnect between what I am trying to convey and your perceived meaning. Thank you for proving my previously made point that you were prepared to make an outrageous extrapolation of my original statements.

I am in NO WAY arguing against The Constitution. The mere expression of this interpretation means our understanding of words is so different that I cannot convey a complex idea in this format. That is, apparently, without drawing ire formulated of a preconceived intention and a preprogrammed response.


What I see from you, XMil, is Attack! Attack! Attack!

I have expressed my personal views based upon my experiences and beliefs. Please share with us your experiences, values and beliefs. Feel free to engage in discussion, an exchange of ideas. Why not share your perspective and not just your outrage?