Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
You’re making the claim that transgender is an ethnicity. I have never seen it used that way in any way. An official document is easy way to prove your position
Showing you US documents doesn't make it clear what part of your link made you think it supported your stance. It's a distraction.
Where in the link does it show trans gender is an ethnicity? Nowhere. Nothing zero. Zilch
The first two sentences.
Which doesn’t describe trans people.
Sure it does. They are a group of people with a shared attribute that distinguishes them from other groups. They have shared traditions, history, society, and social treatment. Your own link says the exact opposite of what you wanted it to say if you actually bother to read it and think about it.
No.
Just saying no doesn't support your stance. It's actually kinda sad.
Find me something to back yours. Never once have I heard trans people called an ethnicity.
Ignoring your own-goal and failure to recover isn't going to work. I found my backing in the first two sentences of your link.
It doesn't back what you claim. Your lack of understanding is not a failure on my part.
How does it not? Just saying that it doesn't is insufficient. Just saying no is not making a real case. Asking for examples from unrelated sources doesn't apply. Look at those two sentences and explain how they don't apply. Or own that you were wrong.
It is such a silly question. The only answer I can give you is no, and you have yet to back up your claim with anything logical like a government form that shows ethnicity includes being trans. Nothing. You are making such a weird claim, yet trying to push the burden on me to disprove your silliness. You can't even find a single instance of the word being used that way but still claim it to be true.
I literally just called you out on those pathetic deflections. You provided the link. The first two sentences set out the criteria for an ethnicity. I showed which parts applied. You can't refute it. Your link didn't have have any mention of government documents. That's a distraction that you are hoping to latch on to because you were dead wrong about what you said and linked. I'm hoping what is driving you to behave so irrationally is that you find it difficult and embarrassing to admit that you were wrong.
Here is a list of ethnic groups.
Can you show me where trans people or homosexuals are in the list?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups
I’m not irrational. You just are clueless and refuse to backup your clueless claim.
You are deflecting again. Show me were that list promises to be an exhaustive authority on every ethnicity. Even if you were to do that doesn't address that actual issue. You provided a link with criteria for an ethnicity. If you actually read the criteria and ask does this criteria apply to lgbtq people you get several yes answers. I backed up my statement with direct quotes from your own link. You have been trying to deflect and distract from that and it's both obvious and pathetic. Use your link and show that none of those criteria apply to lgbtq.
No, you are not acting in good faith. It does not apply. You seem to think it does but it doesn't. It is not backed up by definition or any group using the word as you claim. This is an you issue and not an issue with me.
What does not apply? The quote from your own link does not apply
This is a you problem. I’ve politely to find something that agrees with you and you can’t. That’s because what you are saying isn’t true. I’ve given you several documents and you’ve provided nothing.
As I said this is a you problem.
I've politely shown you that your own link agrees with me and you, in bad faith ever since, have avoided addressing the content of your link. You have not given me several documents, you have given two links one which I showed said the opposite of your point and one which I showed was not relevant. Stating it as several documents is a weak rhetorical tactic to try and make you sound like you have performed better than you have and is in reality just a lie.
Use the first two sentences of your link and explain how none of the criteria applies. You won't. You are dishonest and the engaging in bad faith. I really do hope it's some sad pride that makes you dig in on this topic.
If there is a problem with me then it's that I call out bad faith arguments. Like yours.
This is the final time I am stating this. This is your problem. You have provided nothing but a misunderstanding on the topic. You have provided zero documents to back your claim. When challenged about that, you double down on the claim but again can't cite any group that agrees with you. If this is true as you claim, you should be able to provide some documentation to cite your claim, but you can't. Could that be because you are wrong? That is the obvious answer and that answer I am going to take since otherwise it would be easy to back your claim.
I provided you with a quote from the first two sentences of the same document that you supplied. Do you need me to post the exact same link in order for it to count in your mind?
I provided you that quote and then narrowed it down stating exactly which parts applied. You have never once addressed that. You tried to introduce a requirement of other external documents. I don't need to provide other documents or usage cases because the link you provided sets the criteria. I asked you a question about that link. You have been avoiding that link ever since.
I don't think you are even tracking what you are saying.
What is my claim?
My problem is dishonest people. I can keep saying that.