Another Seuss Cancellation Thread (Summer 2023)

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, these lesbians should pull the sticks out of their collective wazoos.

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women

Jennie is a lesbian woman. She says she is only sexually attracted to women who are biologically female and have vaginas. She therefore only has sex and relationships with women who are biologically female.

Jennie doesn't think this should be controversial, but not everyone agrees. She has been described as transphobic, a genital fetishist, a pervert and a "terf" - a trans exclusionary radical feminist.

I read your posts and I always feel like I have to explain simple things that most moral people already know----like, for instance, that no one should ever be forced to have sex if they don't want to.

So the issue that you point out is not the same thing I am talking about (I talk about bigotry----you are talking about rape) in a typical apples-to-oranges false analogy..

In other words, no, the lesbians in the story have a perfect right to their sticks, may they stay right where they are.

As is often the case, you have simply distorted an idea in hopes of earning debate points.

You should have taken more liberal arts classes that made you think about abstract and difficult ideas.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, these lesbians should pull the sticks out of their collective wazoos.

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women

BTW Marshy, also do a little more with information literacy.

The Guardian: BBC says article on trans women did not meet accuracy standards

[marshwiggle]

I read your posts and I always feel like I have to explain simple things that most moral people already know----like, for instance, that no one should ever be forced to have sex if they don't want to.

So the issue that you point out is not the same thing I am talking about (I talk about bigotry----you are talking about rape) in a typical apples-to-oranges false analogy..

The point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".

By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.

Sexual orientation depends on sex.

BTW Marshy, also do a little more with information literacy.

The Guardian: BBC says article on trans women did not meet accuracy standards

After a large number of complaints, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has ruled that the piece fell beneath the broadcaster's expected standards in three different ways and has ordered it to be updated. However, they also said it remained a legitimate piece of journalism that explored an important topic.

[Wahoo Redux]

The point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".

By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.

You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices. 

This is on you and people with your ideology.

No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before. 

Live and let live and we don't have problems.

[marshwiggle]

The point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".

By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.

You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices. 

This is on you and people with your ideology.

No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before. 

So a biological female who is only attracted to biological females isn't being transphobic? And anyone claiming otherwise is wrong?

[Wahoo Redux]

The point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".

By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.

You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices. 

This is on you and people with your ideology.

No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before. 

So a biological female who is only attracted to biological females isn't being transphobic? And anyone claiming otherwise is wrong?

Correct.

And you predictably, deliberately misunderstand.  I am not attracted to men----but I am not homophobic.  I am fine with men with romantic feelings for each other.  That's their business, not mine.

I am not attracted to lesbians, at least in theory, although I might fine a lesbian physically attractive, I just know that she is not for me.  But I am not homophobic.  If two women fall into romantic love, mazel tov.

If a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine.  The heart wants what the heart wants.  The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous. 

Now, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.   

Now, go about your life happily and leave other law-abiding people alone, shall we?

[ciao_yall]

The point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".

By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.

You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices. 

This is on you and people with your ideology.

No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before. 

So a biological female who is only attracted to biological females isn't being transphobic? And anyone claiming otherwise is wrong?

Correct.

And you predictably, deliberately misunderstand.  I am not attracted to men----but I am not homophobic.  I am fine with men with romantic feelings for each other.  That's their business, not mine.

I am not attracted to lesbians, at least in theory, although I might fine a lesbian physically attractive, I just know that she is not for me.  But I am not homophobic.  If two women fall into romantic love, mazel tov.

If a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine.  The heart wants what the heart wants.  The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous. 

Now, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.   

Now, go about your life happily and leave other law-abiding people alone, shall we?

I have zero interest in having sex with marshwiggle, and I have never even met him/her.

I supposed this means I have have a terrible, unfair prejudice against anti-woke people and wish to cancel them? Or do I need to sleep with marshwiggle to prove I am willing to give anyone an equal chance at love and friendship?

[marshwiggle]

If a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine.  The heart wants what the heart wants.  The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous. 

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Now, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.   

The main difference between our points of view is simply about how clear language should be and whether or not such clarifications are (or ought to be) necessary.  I favour keeping well-defined terms as is, and creating new terms where needed, rather than changing the meaning of old terms and having to invent new terms for exactly the things that the existing terms already meant.

[marshwiggle]

If a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine.  The heart wants what the heart wants.  The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous. 

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Now, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.   

The main difference between our points of view is simply about how clear language should be and whether or not such clarifications are (or ought to be) necessary.  I favour keeping well-defined terms as is, and creating new terms where needed, rather than changing the meaning of old terms and having to invent new terms for exactly the things that the existing terms already meant.

ETA: Note that this has nothing to do with restricting peoples' behaviour; it's all about being able to describe it clearly and unambiguously.

[Wahoo Redux]

The main difference between our points of view is simply about how clear language should be and whether or not such clarifications are (or ought to be) necessary.  I favour keeping well-defined terms as is, and creating new terms where needed, rather than changing the meaning of old terms and having to invent new terms for exactly the things that the existing terms already meant.

I don't know what you are talking about.

B'sides, we invent new terms all the time.

The strength of Western Culture is its flexibility.  New ideas, new philosophies, new horizons.  We recalibrate what we believe and how we use things like language all the time. 

[Wahoo Redux]

Reason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism'

Lower Deck:

After the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.

In August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."

Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors." 

[marshwiggle]

Reason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism'

Lower Deck:

After the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.

In August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."

Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors." 

It's too bad that nowhere in the article does it even hint at what stories the paper was covering.

[Wahoo Redux]

I can't feel sorry for this idiot, and I can't help noticing that her "professor" title is a prominent feature of the story's marketing.

UC Santa Barbara law professor caught on video in racist tirade against construction worker

[Wahoo Redux]

Reason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism'

Lower Deck:

After the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.

In August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."

Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors." 

It's too bad that nowhere in the article does it even hint at what stories the paper was covering.

True.  It would have been better journalism.

But would the stories they are covering really make a difference?

[jimbogumbo]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/20/texas-teacher-fired-for-anne-frank-diary-lesson-that-included-sex/70911098007/

The district fired her for assigning the award winning graphic novel. It had already removed all copies othe unabridged diary from the libraries.