This is very rarely touched upon. I know a lot of people that call american football boring, and if I'm to be honest, I find it boring about 90% of the time. There are some exceptions, like last year's Patriots/49ers game, which was absolutely intense. But yes, american football can require a great amount of sport-related IQ. It's why a guy like Ed Reed was so highly regarded in the sport, because he had both the athletic ability to perform his role to a substantial level, and the tremendous IQ to be able to read offensive plays ridiculously quickly (which is why he had so many interceptions, and why people would tend to avoid passing to targets anywhere near him). I think a lot of people just don't understand the need for downtime, but the sport is more about tactics than pretty much anything else. In football, it's about individual talent, athleticism (foot speed and conditioning are big factors), and regurgitating basic tactics until someone screws up their coverage and can be taken advantage of to push the play further upfield, from what I've seen (I watch that sport about as much as I do American football, meaning maybe a dozen games a year). I just find it fluid, but not fast-paced or tactical enough, and I generally dislike the culture and lack of parity within the sport. Whereas with American football, I take it for what it is: A series of chess games within a set period of time.
Don't think you communicated the chess like aspects. Every player has specific movements and roles to play like a chess piece. Except all the chess pieces are moving simultaneously each play. Like chess you are trying to get a positional advantage somewhere on the board each turn.
It isn't like soccer which is a much more fluid game, instead it is turned based. But each turn is a complex movement of pieces. As far as sports goes, football may require the most team intelligence to play especially at the quarterback position.SUD123456
Lockedge's forum posts
Good. Funny how it thought HS kids would even vote for it. Braun_Roid_RageSo brave calling him "it". Also, IIRC a trans girl from my old high school won prom queen a few years ago. She was generally really well liked by other students, but some adults were up in arms and everything.
I guess I wasn't clear. It's the lack of medical treatment that I'm most upset about regarding the whole case. I'm just saying that, in regards to Manning being placed in an all-male solitary confinement prison as opposed to an all-female solitary confinement prison, what annoys me most is the misgendering.
On that front, I'd be a hell of a lot more annoyed by the lack of medical treatment thing than which gender prison the solitary confinement cell is in, but that's just me.
Fair enough. How much of this is institutional lag and how much is legit misgendering, I am not sure.Manning is a soldier, which is why she's going to a military prison. Under the supervision of such prisons, inmates are still expected to live up to the standards set for regular soldiers. Because only the Veterans association recognizes and covers the health of trans soldiers, while the military does not allow any soldier to be out and trans (this includes receiving medical treatments for gender dysphoria), Manning is stuck in the position of being considered a man by the military until her release, as per protocol. It's an organizational issue, not lag. They aren't pushing for any changes at all. It's legitimate misgendering, because 'Bradley Manning' enlisted, and they don't recognize the trans status of their employees, and I doubt that Manning will be able to clear a name change without a heck of a fight, given that it's now linked to her status as a trans woman. performing it might be an act of recognizing Manning as trans, which is against protocol or whatever.
Seriously, I wish some people had even the teensiest bit of critical thinking skills, because it's not hard to understand that you don't always see what's going on underneath someone's skin and bone. If someone tells you they had a ham sandwich for lunch, that's pretty freaking easy to accept, even if you can't see in their stomach, because they know better than you do. If someone tells you they have a headache, it's pretty easy to accept because even though you can't feel their pain, and you can't necessarily tell if they're acting or not, they know better than you about whether their body is in pain or not. If someone tells you they have lung cancer, that's pretty easy to accept because even though you can't see it physically, they know better than you. If someone says they have an intersex condition where they have atypical chromosomes, it's pretty easy to accept because even though you aren't a doctor and haven't run any tests to prove it, they know better than you. I just don't get why people suddenly can't allow their brains to function that way when it comes to trans folk. :\
People who are unsure about their gender are not delusional about the sex organs they possess. Your mistake is thinking that the belief the person possesses (e.g. "I'm more of a woman than a man.") is something that can be disproved by their phyisical features. This isn't the case, since as I just said, they're not confused about the sex organs they have, they're confused about which gender they identify with.
****. Saint had this covered already...
*awesome response to op*
I'm mostly annoyed with the fact that, among other things, her gender identity is being shoved to the side. i like how all of a sudden he has become a she :lol: you guys are a complete joke. Manning has been out as trans for like, a year and a half now. Inexplicably, the media didn't catch onto it, and Manning herself decided not to play it up throughout the court case for fear of it overshadowing the real nature of the trial.
Like, is there a tangible difference if we're talking about solitary confinement?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Conversely they could give them meds that correlate with physical form....BluRayHiDef
So what's the harm in either?
One option accommodates reality, while the other accommodates a delusion.
It's only a delusion in your eyes because your entire foundation of your argument and reasoning is that trans people suffer from delusions. Your whole point was that if a trans woman was really a woman, she'd be a "woman" from birth as assigned by doctors and everything.You're positioning how you understand the world around you as an objective reality when it's simply not the case.
It gets really tiring listening to people spout off high school sex ed knowledge as if they have any clue of how the human body works. Chromosomes? They can change, they aren't immutable. Hormone levels? Can also change, even naturally by drastic levels. Genitals? They can come out atypical through birth, or seemingly typical external genitalia can hide away atypical internal reproductive organs. Sometimes there's a lack thereof. Some intersex conditions (of which there are many) can make XY women and XX men, and sometimes (albeit exceedingly rarely) they're fertile. These atypical conditions occur sometimes due to genetics, sometimes from hormone levels in utero, etc. etc. Is it so far-fetched that the development of the brain might happen atypically as compared to the rest of the body? Why, it already does, yet why do people deny that it could be a cause for gender dysphoria?
The medical community accepts intersex conditions. They occur, even if people don't want to believe they do. Just like the medical community has accepted that what trans people experience is valid, through mounting peer reviewed evidence and through decades of exhaustive research on finding efficaceous treatments. Psychotherapy didn't work, cognitive-behavioural therapy didn't work, antidepressants didn't work, anti-anxiety meds didn't work, anti-psychotics didn't work, lobotomies didn't work, etc. etc. But regulate their hormone levels within the typical range of the sex they identify with, and symptoms of dysphoria drops. Amend the state of the body to physically resemble the sex they identify with, and once again, dysphoria symptoms are reduced. Help the patient with social integration into the gender they wish to express themselves as, andagain, dysphoria symptoms are reduced. Until at one point, for some at least, the level of discomfort in their body and social role are no greater than the average person. Their dysphoria is virtually eliminated, and they're content with where they are.
Have you even remotely scanned studies from the past twenty years start consistently show more and more proof that there is a biological component that creates gender dysphoria? The biggest delusion in all of human society is that sex exists as a binary, and that sex and gender are rightfully conflated. It's all socially prescribed with little basis aside from tradition and what is understood as "common sense", where knowledge of trans* issues simply are not found, because trans* issues are simply not common. So most people cannot immediately make sense of such things, which is uncomfortable, so they rely on stigmas and tired old statements and arguments that only show how lazy people have gotten in the past years. This isn't the early 90s with Ace Ventura just coming out in theatres. We know a lot more now than we did then, and it's been a long, long time since the John Money experiments.
Some trans folk don't want surgery, and some don't even want hormones. Many of the former can't afford it or are wary of the quality of the result given by the current surgical techniques. I know some who specified to me that unless they can transplant ovaries, a uterus, etc. they're going to just wait and hope that becomes available. Some of the former group are pleased with their genitalia, or at least content enough that it doesn't pose a significant issue for them. But most prefer hormones. I know a few genderqueer folk who don't use them, just as I know some who have used them for a period of time to gaina specific appearance, and just like I know some genderqueer folk who plan on using them for the rest of their lives. Most trans people, if they can get access to it, and if they can afford it, will get hormones. Above all else, this treatment is the most significant for the well being of trans people. Especially transsexuals, who tend to have much higher levels of dysphoria that need treating.
I've approached this post from a more scientific vein, because that seems to be your angle. In truth, even if there wasn't mounting evidence showing trans people's conditions are at least in part biologically founded, it would be a condition at least equivalent to homosexuality. Because men have dicks and women have vaginas, and they have sex for reproduction. If gay men really wanted to have sex with men, they'd be women, right? That's the kind of logic you're spouting, and that's the kind of logic peple used on homosexuals a long, long time ago, along with many of Freud's flawed theories. Fact is, some people are gay and we don't know why, we just take them at their word because it's clear that they're attracted to men, just like lesbians are attracted to women, and bisexual folk are attracted to both. If we allow ourselves to see sexuality as a spectrum, which it well and truly is, why can we not finally admit to ourselves that so is gender and sex, and that we hold innate characteristics that position ourselves along those spectrums?
[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"]We are at the point where something genuinely abnormal is not addressed as such. People push this nonsense on everyone else and expect them to think it is infact normal. You are born a man and your chromosomes support it? You're a man. Regardless what you want to be called and how you dress and what treatments you take, you are still a man. I'm thrilled to hear that 6th grade sex ed classes provide the peak of our understanding of what constitutes as one's 'sex'.
lmao, he is a freaking MAN, for example if your mother decided to take away her ting tongs and decided to call herself bob, you will still see her as your MOTHER and still a WOMEN.Solaryellow
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]WHAT THE FVCKKFDKGDKFGDFKGDKFGKDFKGDFKGDKF I don't get it. Fitzgerald's prose is pure art. F Scott Fitzgerald is an amazing writer. I don't think that can really be contested, if I'm to be honest. But I don't feel he is very good at writing interesting characters. It's like he has a wonderful way with words and describing concepts and weaving subtext, but I've never found his characters to be compelling in the slightest, nor have I ever found the relationships between them to be developed to a degree where I feel more invested. And without quality characters, the narrative tends to fall apart.
Great **** Gatsby, god I hated that book.
Log in to comment