Implanting Uteruses - For Loons, Troons, and Autogynophiles

[Adamska]

Yeah, the surgery itself is intended for women who want to have kids but can't at the moment due to having a fucked uterus. I took it a step further since Billy from Assigned Male has been getting baby crazy as of late and this is something I would expect to crop up in the glorious regressive left more often when it comes further along than this.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

I don't see why uterus implantation, or any other sort of voluntary body modification for that matter (assuming the person in question isn't the future version of one of those plastic surgery addicts), would be a problem at the end of the day. It would surely rile up those with "strong morals" or whatever they call themselves, but pushing boundaries is an inextricable part of science, medicine, and simply being human. Go for it.

 

[polonium]

I don't see why uterus implantation, or any other sort of voluntary body modification for that matter (assuming the person in question isn't the future version of one of those plastic surgery addicts), would be a problem at the end of the day. It would surely rile up those with "strong morals" or whatever they call themselves, but pushing boundaries is an inextricable part of science, medicine, and simply being human. Go for it.

I agree with you 100%, except when I'm being expected to pay for it (tranny surgery on the NHS or whatever). I'm all in favour of body modification and people changing themselves in any way they please. My two big issues are when I'm going to be forced to pay for it either by socialised medicine, or everyone's insurance premiums going up, and also when I'm being forced to accept it, like you're not allowed to "discriminate" against trannies by not hiring them despite them being obviously mentally ill

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

I agree with you 100%, except when I'm being expected to pay for it (tranny surgery on the NHS or whatever). I'm all in favour of body modification and people changing themselves in any way they please. My two big issues are when I'm going to be forced to pay for it either by socialised medicine, or everyone's insurance premiums going up, and also when I'm being forced to accept it, like you're not allowed to "discriminate" against trannies by not hiring them despite them being obviously mentally ill

The whole paying for other people's care debate has gone on long enough to where we don't need to address it any more.

As for the whole accepting trannies thing, it's not a dichotomy between rejecting their lifestyle and accepting them carte blanche. You can just as easily tolerate their existence in the same way a racist grudgingly tolerates a black person shopping in the same store as them, or how most people tolerate the fact that they are covered in disgusting bacteria.

Part of being in a western country is being okay with letting people live their own lives, and not discriminating against those whose choices or circumstances disgust you. You don't have to approve of or agree with them, you're just expected to not get in the way of them living their lives.

Which is precisely why I can't think of a single valid reason for not letting men get baby makers.

 

[polonium]

"We've debated this for long enough and I don't want to talk about it any more" is liberal-leftist speak for "I'm wrong but I don't want to admit it"

Also with regard to accepting / rejecting someone, I can "grudgingly accept" or not but the point is as soon as the government steps in I'm being forced to accept them at the point of a gun, whether I like it or not. It doesn't matter what my reasons are for not wanting to associate with someone, whether it's personal moral outrage, or I just don't like the colour of their shirt, if you tell me I have to bite my tongue and deal with them regardless then they're not just living their own life, you're forcing me to tacitly approve and agree with them.

Part of being an adult in a western country is not forcing your life choices on other people and making them change the way they behave to pander to your fantasy.

I agree that there's no reason not to let men get uteri implanted but there's also no reason to expect everyone else to go along with it.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

I meant that I doubt that anyone here, you and me included, really wants us to launch into a multi-chapter discussion about a system that has been debated over and over and over again. So much so that everyone here should already be aware of the content of said argument, making such a discussion doubly redundant. Plus, I sincerely doubt anyone here who has their opinion set on that already would be swayed by anything you or I could sperg out our assholes. Of course, you're welcome to do just that if you're somehow incapable of keeping your viewpoint to yourself, or you think that your analysis of the whole argument is so revolutionary that you could end the debate here and now.

And I'm not saying you have to bite your tongue about your thoughts on tranny issues. Nor should you be forced to pander to anyone's fantasies, real or not. All im saying is that when it comes to your interactions with someone you disagree with, in this case trannies, all that is expected of you is for you to afford them the same liberties and rights that everyone else is basically given, in the same exact way a racist isn't allowed to fire a person for being black, or a public servant cant withhold marriage certificates from gays, or a crazy SJW can't automatically exclude straight white men from riding the subway.

You can be as rude to trannies as you please. That's your right, and I don't exaggerate when I say I would die to defend that right. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to overstep someone's basic rights. Which means discriminating against trannies during hiring considerations is a bit of a no-no. So you can be against trannies, and express that position as much as you want, just as anyone in the ratking section can be as crazy as they want, just so long as certain basic freedoms arent infringed on. Of course, none of this entitles anyone to be exempt from the consequences of their particular type of crazy, hence the existence of the farms in general.

Besides, it's not like that crazy marriage certificate withholding public servant lady tacitly approves of gay marriage if she were to process one of those certificates. As long as she gives the gays a mean look and mutters "dang fags" under her breath when she stamps the paper, she'll still get into heaven.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

I meant that I doubt that anyone here, you and me included, really wants us to launch into a multi-chapter discussion about a system that has been debated over and over and over again. So much so that everyone here should already be aware of the content of said argument, making such a discussion doubly redundant. Plus, I sincerely doubt anyone here who has their opinion set on that already would be swayed by anything you or I could sperg out our assholes. Of course, you're welcome to do just that if you're somehow incapable of keeping your viewpoint to yourself, or you think that your analysis of the whole argument is so revolutionary that you could end the debate here and now.

And I'm not saying you have to bite your tongue about your thoughts on tranny issues. Nor should you be forced to pander to anyone's fantasies, real or not. All im saying is that when it comes to your interactions with someone you disagree with, in this case trannies, all that is expected of you is for you to afford them the same liberties and rights that everyone else is basically given, in the same exact way a racist isn't allowed to fire a person for being black, or a public servant cant withhold marriage certificates from gays, or a crazy SJW can't automatically exclude straight white men from riding the subway.

You can be as rude to trannies as you please. That's your right, and I don't exaggerate when I say I would die to defend that right. But that doesn't mean you're entitled to overstep someone's basic rights. Which means discriminating against trannies during hiring considerations is a bit of a no-no. So you can be against trannies, and express that position as much as you want, just as anyone in the ratking section can be as crazy as they want, just so long as certain basic freedoms arent infringed on. Of course, none of this entitles anyone to be exempt from the consequences of their particular type of crazy, hence the existence of the farms in general.

Besides, it's not like that crazy marriage certificate withholding public servant lady tacitly approves of gay marriage if she were to process one of those certificates. As long as she gives the gays a mean look and mutters "dang fags" under her breath when she stamps the paper, she'll still get into heaven.

Interesting.

I agree with you that I cannot discriminate against a transgender person for their inherent (searching for words here) transgenderness. But is a seemingly male person wearing sun dresses an integral part of being transgender or is it a free expression of something they want to do? I've hired black men before but I have never and will never hire one with neck or finger tattoos. In my mind, that is not racial discrimination. I am discriminating against their freely expressed life choices. If a woman shows up for an interview looking like Blowey Zoe Quinn, with anime hair and multiple piercings and tattoos, there is no chance of me hiring her for anything customer facing unless I'm running a burlesque drag show. Again, not that she's a woman - it is the choices she has made freely.

There are many things an employer can view as incompatible with a potential employee. Some of them, like autism, are even beyond the control of the job applicant. So, the question is, where does the wearing of "apparent gender" inappropriate garb fall?

 

[AnOminous]

I've hired black men before but I have never and will never hire one with neck or finger tattoos. In my mind, that is not racial discrimination.

If you would hire a white man with similar tattoos, it is definitely racial discrimination.

But if you have a general policy about tattoos, it is entirely legal to refuse to hire people solely because they have tattoos you don't like.

There are very good reasons that constitutionally protected classes are limited to things like race, color, national origin, age, and other immutable categories that the individual has no choice about.

An employer could literally fire anyone with a tattoo or refuse to hire anyone with a tattoo without fear of repercussion.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

If you would hire a white man with similar tattoos, it is definitely racial discrimination.

But if you have a general policy about tattoos, it is entirely legal to refuse to hire people solely because they have tattoos you don't like.

There are very good reasons that constitutionally protected classes are limited to things like race, color, national origin, age, and other immutable categories that the individual has no choice about.

An employer could literally fire anyone with a tattoo or refuse to hire anyone with a tattoo without fear of repercussion.

The hypothetical had to be a black guy for it to work, but that's actually interesting. I know you could fire someone for just about anything in an At Will state but is it the same for Right to Work?

Any idea how the dress thing would go? Would they have to find a non-transgender hire that wore dresses for discrimination or does the burden change because trans?

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

So, the question is, where does the wearing of "apparent gender" inappropriate garb fall?

That's really what much of this boils down to, namely where the lines between acceptability, unacceptablility, and everything else are. Pretty tricky when you have to account for as many ethical frameworks as there are people.

If you would hire a white man with similar tattoos, it is definitely racial discrimination.

But if you have a general policy about tattoos, it is entirely legal to refuse to hire people solely because they have tattoos you don't like.

As long as the policies are applied even-handedly without allowing for distinctions between various protected classes, things generally are kosher.

Of course, none of this directly deals with the opinions one might hold on transness (I don't know if that's any better a term) or the like. Anyone is free to shout "fag" at the gays, but that freedom doesn't protect you from the consequences. Consider the ratkings. Rather than try and live their lives and try their best to transition, many of them use their transexuality as a platform for their craziness, and as a shield from the consequences of their choices. They seem to think that they don't have be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny a non-moron is.

I don't care what he/she/it thinks they are, but magicnanners, or whatever he goes by, give me nausea.

 

[AnOminous]

The hypothetical had to be a black guy for it to work, but that's actually interesting. I know you could fire someone for just about anything in an At Will state but is it the same for Right to Work?

Any idea how the dress thing would go? Would they have to find a non-transgender hire that wore dresses for discrimination or does the burden change because trans?

"Right to Work" is just a euphemism for fire at will.