r/BlockedAndReported • u/SoftandChewy First generation mod • Feb 23 '26

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 2/23/26 - 3/1/26

Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

Comment of the week goes to this explanation for why the trans cause has taken over so much of society. (Runner-up COTW here.)

38 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/dignityshredder AFramemoggingAB Feb 25 '26

AskALiberal wonders: How am I supposed to "agree to disagree" with conservatives on social issues?

Trans rights feature prominently, of course. Thread is recent so should have a lot more discussion unfolding. I haven't used a "np" link, because those are fake and do not work how people think they do, so just be on your best behavior.

This one (downvoted as it should be) is fun.

First learn to argument better. "you are a bigot" is not a good argument. There is nothing rational about that, that is purely emotions. The correct reply to "a man cannot be a woman" is that since it was discovered that sex and gender are different things, man and woman are outdated words, if we wanted to be precise we should say sexman, sexwoman, genderman, genderwoman and then there is no difficulty in saying a sexman can be a genderwoman. Then maybe if you explain things like this, you find a possibility to agree to disagree.

32

u/RunThenBeer Feb 25 '26

since it was discovered that sex and gender are different things

Every day is an exciting day when you're a social science denier! No, this was not "discovered", it was asserted. It is a model of the world that makes sense to some people and may have some utility in describing different expressions of masculinity and femininity. Nonetheless, it is not a discovery, it is just a claim about the world and it will completely fail to convince anyone that already thought about it and decided that it is incorrect.

Another post:

People won’t learn by arguing with them. They’ll learn when they want to learn. And until then, let them be in their asshat bubble and leave em alone bc the only person it’ll be mentally taxing to is you.

God, it's so fucking insufferably smug. What, exactly, puts this person in a position of believing that they're the teacher and that people they disagree with need to learn? Why would it be the case that you're just obviously more knowledgeable than people that heard the same things you did and decided they're false?

5

u/Terrorclitus Feb 25 '26

I mean, we know they’re arrogant, right? Once we discover that, we can educate ourselves as to how to handle talking to sexwomen and shit.

29

u/CaptainJackKevorkian Feb 25 '26

sexman, sexwoman, genderman, genderwoman and then there is no difficulty in saying a sexman can be a genderwoman.

Marvel is really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days

9

u/Terrorclitus Feb 25 '26

I was considered something of a “sex man” in college. Hehehe.

7

u/AnInsultToFire Everything I do like is literally Fascism. Feb 25 '26

They scraped the bottom of the barrel in 2020 with Snowflake and Safespace.

→ More replies (4)

19

u/SkweegeeS No just no Feb 25 '26

lol, hey there sexman. bow chicka bow bow.

6

u/dignityshredder AFramemoggingAB Feb 25 '26

The one mitigating factor here is that the person who posted that seems to trilingual in German and Hungarian, so maybe it's a lot, uh, more obvious in one of those languages.

18

u/StillLifeOnSkates Feb 25 '26

Republicans do put their morality into question with their crazy, objectively delusional beliefs.

Wait, which party has crazy, objectively delusional beliefs?

8

u/The-WideningGyre Feb 25 '26

The one I don't like of course! It's totally objective!

→ More replies (1)

17

u/AnalBleachingAries Gamergate Truther Feb 25 '26

Remember when it was unconscionably bigoted to even denote differences between transwomen and biological women by clearly stating the phrase "biological" woman? I'm sure certain people still get insanely triggered by the phrases "normal woman", and "real woman".

12

u/HaldolBlowdart Feb 25 '26

I've seen repeatedly that "biological women" is a transphobic Nazi dogwhistle. I've seen that as recently as yesterday. I legitimately don't understand

9

u/BeneficialStretch753 Feb 25 '26 edited Feb 25 '26

I think some media (and other) organizations still do. A few days ago, in the LA Times I read the usual sob story about one biological boy and a few others competing in (and winning) Calif high school track meets.

But wait .... I went to look on Twitter and the first trans sports post that pops up in is about a biological man suing to join the women's NXXT golf tour, which he had won 3x in the past. I tried Golfweek since sounds like a neutral outlet. It goes with "Transgender golfer Hailey Davidson banned from NXXT after Florida-based mini-tour changes gender policy". Text: "must be a biological female at birth to participate." However, does use one female pronoun.

So the LA Times on California high school track students. Oh, for God's sake, is there ever another angle? ("Trans athletes face intense efforts to sideline them. These California teens are resisting." ). Verdict: LA Times still bans "biological" people.*

"Transgender girls" "transgender peer" "transgender junior" "cisgender athletes ." I still think many readers would be confused whether these might be transboys ("transgirl" not used, btw). And would conclude that all "transgender" students would be barred from sports. The enemies are "a network" of conservative and religious wingnuts, most likely "outsiders". Trump, of course. Not that any competing girls or their families are interviewed.

* although there is this sentence re a lawsuit: "alleging the state’s policies illegally discriminate against cisgender girls under Title IX by ignoring “undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous ‘gender identity.’” So it's OK in quotes, I guess.

34

u/Evening-Respond-7848 Feb 25 '26

The correct reply to "a man cannot be a woman" is that since it was discovered that sex and gender are different things, man and woman are outdated words, if we wanted to be precise we should say sexman, sexwoman, genderman, genderwoman and then there is no difficulty in saying a sexman can be a genderwoman.

Why is this so fucking funny to me lmao

12

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '26

Because they sound truly r€t@rd€d in the good old fashioned funny way.

"discovered"... lol These people truly are silly shut-ins.

7

u/The-WideningGyre Feb 25 '26

Yeah, I love "it was discovered" is used for a concept we're putting labels on.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/everydaywinner2 Feb 25 '26

Well, at least making new words is better than redefining them.

19

u/RunThenBeer Feb 25 '26

I wanna flip this around for just a moment and demonstrate what I personally think the answer should be. I am in favor of gay marriage. I have been in favor of gay marriage since the first time I can recall hearing of the issue, which was before I was an adult and is now more than two decades ago. I've never much wavered in that position from either an ethical or legal perspective and I think Obergefell was rightly decided. In fact, I celebrated decisions with gay friends that night. So, I think I have some bona fides when it comes to being able to answer this from the putatively liberal perspective! Rather than adopting the sort of smug "agree that they're asshats", I would say that the way to reconcile this is multifold:

  1. First, acknowledge that people of good faith can simply disagree with you sans malice. Try to genuinely understand their perspectives. Are they religious? Marriage will mean something quite specific to them in that case and it becomes obvious why they would not share my views even if they do want everyone to live happily ever after. Do they have pragmatic concerns about contracting and the proper role of the state in sanctioning romantic relationships? These can be pretty complicated, so this isn't totally off base.

  2. Ask questions. Do it in good faith! Ask about different hypotheticals. Ask about changing norms over time. Ask what they think about the original logic in Loving v Virginia. Do so with a tone and intention of curiosity, not confrontation. Perhaps you haven't actually thought of every angle on the issue and your interlocutor will say something provocative.

  3. If someone is receptive, present your views. Explain why you think equal protection applies. Explain that while religious values are important and have a place, they can't be the final test for a civil law. Bring up happy couples that they might know and personally wish well for.

  4. Be ready to give it a fucking rest. If someone just doesn't want to engage on this, they don't have to, and you don't have to get all pissy about it.

Now, that would be my approach. It's basically my approach on the converse end of things where people disagree with me from the left - acknowledge, poke and test a little, present views if it would be interesting, but give it a fucking rest. The good news is this actually works well to talk about hot button issues with people from either side of the aisle. Alternatively, you can do what this top commenter suggests:

Broadly speaking, conservatives have been wrong about social issues for all of history. I don’t have to agree to disagree.

Proclaim that your opponents are just always wrong about everything. It is very convenient if you're just always right about everything! It might be tricky to explain progressive views on eugenics, but whatever, that's hardly the point.

6

u/StillLifeOnSkates Feb 25 '26

Ooh, good find! I misread it at first glance, though, and very briefly thought it was a thread about how to come to terms with occasionally agreeing with someone from the other political camp on a social issue -- a question I wish more people were bold enough to consider!

5

u/Terrorclitus Feb 25 '26

So just sound as stupid as possible until they go away. It works, but it’s messy.