Omfg just let the trannies do their own thing.

Should government identify them as what they have changed it to? Yes

Is it a mental disorder? Maybe, but I'm not sure.

But let them do what they want. If they biologically changed it: more power to them, you should probably recognise them as the gender they have changed to. If they say they are a "man trapped in a woman's body" (or vice versa), then I disagree. This would simply enforce male and female stereotypes that such SJWs want to avoid, no? If a woman is into biking, tattoos, sex with other women, etc. that doesn't make her a "man", that makes her a lesbian with different opinions. I don't understand how emotions effect what sex someone is, because imo that is defined by science, not opinion. It's your choice if you want to call that person male or female.

Should people go into loos based on how they "feel"? No, you need the correct genitals to go into a loo. Feelings are even more irrelevant here: no women, when they sit on a loo thinks "Hm, I totally feel like a man right now!" (and vice versa); I've covered this before.

Who cares if the majority of people don't feel comfortable with a grown man in the same bathroom as a young girl!

Weak argument. <devil's_advocate>Who cares if the majority of people don't feel comfortable with a grown gay man in the same bathroom as a young boy?</devil's_advocate>

If you are opposed to attacks on liberty by other folk, then you should be against government. Mass theft of property and use of force is more anti-liberty than any Colt in a safe.

Businesses have the right to choose and folk have the right to protest that choice.

There's no medium, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

This kind of black and white thinking gets us into trouble. You're trying to frame this as "Anarchy or Fascism" but the reality of the matter is that there's plenty of more reasonable options in between.

If you are opposed to attacks on liberty by other folk, then you should be against government

Government has its problems, but destroying it altogether will create more problems than it would fix. The government paves the roads you drive, stops criminals who try to harm you, and a plethora of other services. Stop acting as if any form of government is Satan incarnate.

The government doesn't stop criminals it does what they do more efficiently, folk can make roads without theft of property, and the government is satan. Started out as lucifer the light bringer then ends up being all that is evil, if you want to be poetic.

and a plethora of other services.

That will be removed soon. What's the point about defending the state if you are continuously in favour of cutting any expenditures (if you are conservative: excepted security and army). At least Libertarians and their ideals of a stateless system sound way more logical than Conservatives.

You can't make roads without collecting tax money, and most people won't pay tax money unless they're forced to in one manner or another.

I live in a private subdivision, which means the government has no control over our road. Guess what? The road is utter crap, because about half the people which live in this subdivision refuse to pay membership dues that are needed to maintain the road.

TL;DR: Government is necessary because people tend to be selfish and won't help maintain anything unless made to.

What's the point about defending the state if you are continuously in favour of cutting any expenditure

I'm not in favor of cutting any and every expenditure. In fact, I don't think I've ever advocated for that. Yeah, the government needs to cut down in some areas. But essential services such as infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc. should remain untouched.

Military expenditure should be cut down by removing all those pointless foreign bases we have running. Focus on defending the homeland and defense suddenly becomes a lot cheaper.

There are many different types of conservatives, it's a tad ignorant to put them all in one boat. Anyhow, I'm not even a full-on conservative, I just happen to agree with them 50-60% of the time.

Edited 4/25/2016 17:54:06

A pile of gravel can be laid down in line but has to be pain for by use of force, but a device can be made with parts and minerals throughout the world without force?

The point of the government envisioned by the Founders was one that protected the rights of man, and made sure individuals didn't infringe on others' rights. It has since strayed; however, no government is not the answer, and saying government is evil no matter what is just not true. A government for, of, and by the people will do more for freedom than anarchy. We just need another revolution so that our leaders are held accountable to the people. Or just adopt a direct democracy, since in today's technological world, it is quite feasible.

We have tried making a weak government answerable to the folk, and it's clear that even that has failed spectacularly. The folk vote for who will give them god or money, and they trample liberty in the process , while building fascism on the backs of folk who work. What is the most basic thing a government does? Protect liberty? They have failed in doing so, and will always fail in doing so because the entire organization of government is built upon the systematic attack on property rights. Protect life? The US government has killed around 50 million folk, let alone other governments in the 20th to 21st century.

Direct democracy is rule of the 51% over the 49%, still as bad as rule of the 1% or 10% or whatever percentage of folk there control the geographic area.

lets have total anarchy where i get to shoot u cus that my freedom to do so

But let them do what they want. If they biologically changed it: more power to them, you should probably recognise them as the gender they have changed to. If they say they are a "man trapped in a woman's body" (or vice versa), then I disagree. This would simply enforce male and female stereotypes that such SJWs want to avoid, no?

It's strengthening the stereotypes either way.

....

When someone actually starts the 'insanity' arguement, I just lose all faith...

For a person to dislike who they are born as is no different than anything else of self consciousness. It just so happens they change in a different way. People spend endless amounts of money of make up, hair dye, and fashionable clothing, diets, gym memberships, and ameneties. How is ANY of that much different than a transsexual? Or are you just being a hypocrite by saying it's different for some reason you pulled out of your arse.

For a person to dislike who they are born as is no different than anything else of self consciousness. It just so happens they change in a different way. People spend endless amounts of money of make up, hair dye, and fashionable clothing, diets, gym memberships, and ameneties.

To hate yourself, that is a mental illness. Also, there's normally dumb (wasting your money), but then there's clinically dumb, which makes you want to mutilate yourself.

People spend endless amounts of money of make up, hair dye, and fashionable clothing, diets, gym memberships, and ameneties. How is ANY of that much different than a transsexual?

There are other types of self-hating disorders which are equally harmful or more so. If someone is anorexic, and trying to make themselves unhealthily thin, you don't encourage that. You try to help them realize a healthy medium.

Lots of mental disorders can cause people to hate themselves and damage their bodies in various ways. The difference is, we actually try to fix most disorders. But for some reason with transexuals we decide that we should just give up and indulge the delusion.

Also, the stuff you listed doesn't really compare at all. Make up, hair dye, clothing, etc don't cause irreversible harm like surgery and hormone treatments do.

Edited 4/25/2016 23:50:56

Eklipse, the state does not own anyone and should not be putting arbitrary limits on folks freedom in places paid for by stolen property. If a person is mentally handicapped to the point where they need actual help, they would lose real cognitive ability and not be able to reason that they shouldn't go with someone to a mental ward, or that they shouldn't take some medicine. If that person can reason effectively, then they own themselves and are free to do what they want with their property (themselves).

Private and peaceful means of attacking irrational bigotry is the only moral means of defeating irrational bigotry. A state cannot do it morally because it would take property from folk to enforce it, and would be constraining individual rights. However, private means is through completely voluntary and peaceful methods to combat irrationality, and thus is completely moral and logical.

Can i just put in my two cents on trans-gender?

For those of you who do not know, a trans-gender is someone whos sex is the opposite of their gender.
Obviously this can lead to various mental issues mainly leaning towards depression, and suicide. Now, as a trans-gender you have two options(One of which being impossible).

First, get a sex change, this way your sex matches your gender and you are essentially "Normal".

The other option? Though currently impossible, it is theoretically possible to change someones gender, but this would be worse than mutilation and would lead to a variety of sever mental issues.

If you did not already guess, there is only one viable option.

The bottom line is that if you have a dick and balls you should not be in a woman's restroom.

The bottom line is that a business can decide what it wants and government owned property shouldn't exist so those don't matter.

Wrong. The government needs to own some buildings. Right off the bat
1. Post offices
2. White House
3. Capitol Building
4. 9-11 memorial
5. Military bases
6. Embassies
7. AM track train stations (debatable)
8. Roads/Bridges/Canals



You never go Full Libertarian.

You can go full Libertarian if you become anarchist