BurntAsh

The egg idea, that would work. Her brain might not melt down, but it doesn't mean she'll be comfortable with it. And that's where it starts stretching believability with me, especially the idea of Nanase + mEllen. Seeing your partner as a different sex is different than having sex with them as a different sex. I've seen the mess that comes out of similar conversations about relationships with trans people to know how these feelings exist. But in general, the whole idea strikes me as a bit heteronormative, when they've got plenty of options. So talking about Ellen's comments feeling wrong for the sake of procreation rubs me the wrong way as it strikes a more real nerve. Eh, it depends on what the magic changes. Does it "set a value" or "flip a value"? Because you get different results: Set: male body, female identity -> female body, female identity Flip: male body, female identity -> female body, male identity In the former, you would remove the dysphoria by making the two align. In the latter, not so much. But I think the easy answer is that it more likely does the former. Because with the former, you are applying a known template to whatever you have, which sounds a lot like how the TF gun has been explained in the past. Kinda like how hkmaly puts it.

Yeah, odds are we won't find out. But at the end of the day, these sorts of questions are things real people do deal with. Surrogacy and adoption are real things that people who can't have children between the two of them do. Either because of fertility issues, or other reasons that prevent conception through the usual means. Sure, there was a joke around Tedd, but I'd be somewhat cautious to read too much into a punchline. Especially when Ellen talks about her issues with "man on Ellen loving", and we already know Nanase just doesn't find men attractive period despite trying to date Elliot. I'm still finding it rather problematic in my mind the idea that they can just dismiss all this in order to conceive. It's not grounded in rational or realistic expectations of people, or characters. Ellen's thoughts on parentage are relevant, but again this splices nicely into actual issues that real couples have. There's good models we can use to see how it plays out. And there, it isn't completely unheard of to use donations of material from family members or friends to help conceive using artificial insemination. I bring up Elliot since he is family, and by the time this sort of stuff would play out, they are more likely going to be adults about it, than not. Not because it makes the child feel more like Ellen's. Although it would certainly look more like Ellen's than if an anonymous donor was used.

I dunno, this seems like a rather passionate response to something that to my perspective doesn't matter so much. These characters may run into that wall, but there are ways around it. With Nanase being lesbian, I don't see Ellen refusing to be male as "problematic" in this context. Realistically, they would be considering adoption or surrogacy if magic wasn't on the table, and magic doesn't mean these options are off the table either. And it's not like Ellen doesn't have a twin who could be willing to donate material for IVF to keep it familial. How comfortable would Nanase actually be if mEllen tried to get intimate with her anyhow? And why make Ellen go through it if she doesn't want to just to get genetic material that is effectively Elliot's (assuming IVF with mEllen)? Honestly, those things feel more problematic to me. As an aside: what is Elliot thinking? I'm intrigued, but would rather not wade into that speculation and will just let the chips fall where they will.

That's a part of it, but I consider it a minor problem in the face of the larger ideology that all regulation is bad, even the ones meant to avoid allowing companies to move costs/risks/etc (i.e. dumping waste that turns out to be toxic like you say) onto other industries (public services) and taxpayer funded cleanups. But there's also a lot of protectionist regulation and other regulations that do hamper the ability of small businesses to form and compete in the marketplace without ever larger sums of money from investors to get them over the hurdles. So I can at least understand where the desire to cut back comes from. And even if the administration was being more careful on what to repeal, then yes, overzealous gutting of EPA regulations would still be a concern. The straw man is ignoring the argument, and instead turning to attack the Clinton campaign. It's a distraction to talk about what the Clinton campaign does when I'm talking about the plan Trump himself has talked about, is talking about, and is doing things about. I couldn't give one whit about Clinton at this point, because she's not the one running the current administration. It's the words and actions of the administration that are in play here, and discussion of how they may play out if implemented as suggested. Since you seem to have nothing more to contribute to the topic that you seemed like you wanted to get into, I'm done on this front. Because honestly, this sort of finger pointing trying to assign blame instead of discussing the actual topic is not helping find middle ground. I can go with this. Though my politics are right of center there aren't many of the Fox talking heads I have much respect for. I pretty much like Bill O'Rielly. Sean Hannity and whatever that woman they have on after him, they both are really ideological and really annoying to watch or listen to. Bill gets my goat sometimes too. He's said some profoundly mind-numbing things on air from a place of stubbornness and ignorance (saying "you can't explain that" in relation to tides when debating with an atheist, and then goalpost moving when his ignorance was pointed out in a later video), and he's still coming from an ideological center. He's an editorializing pundit, not a reporter. He's not trying to be "fair and balanced". But he isn't quite as bad as Hannity or Beck have been at times. And hell, +2 points to Beck for running a segment debunking the FEMA Camp nonsense on air, -1 point for sensationalizing and implying it was true on Fox & Friends earlier in the day to drive up viewership for the segment. In general, I tend to avoid the talking heads (no matter the network) unless they are intentionally trying to be funny. Because watching them get heated up over errors of fact, or hyperbole just wears me about. So, with Trump's approval in the toilet as far as an incoming president is concerned, you are suggesting we can say he's drunk on power for pursuing the agenda he spoke about on the campaign stump, yes? Honestly, if you see that both sides act as if the election was saying "yes, we want you to implement that agenda you spoke of" when they win, it's a lot easier to find the middle ground that I spoke of earlier. And it's funny, because the ACA has compromises that were intended to find middle ground with Congress critters on the other side of the aisle. Negotiations that were done just to get the bill into and through committee, and onto the floor. It took cues from a bill that was meant to find middle ground with Mitt Romney when he was governor in 2006. The fact that some of those people who were involved backed off once it reached the floor in order to maintain support of their base is another matter. But what's interesting is that overall, 68% were at least somewhat in favor of an individual mandate based on this data from 2007 which is interesting when looking at the lead-up to the election. And you see a surprising majority saying that costs should come from a mix of employers, individuals and the government across the political spectrum. Here's the problem, I discuss concerns, you demand proof of action. I'm not talking about actions, I'm talking about stated intent, stances and the like of members of congress and the vast majority of the administration. Stated policy that will take time to materialize. You don't wait until your group is under some new oppression to speak out against those plans. Trump's probably the most sane one in his own administration when it comes to LGBT issues, but even he's said that he will sign FADA if it comes across his desk. And in the face of that possibility, it doesn't really matter wether Trump leaves the federal contractor anti-discrimination EO intact or not. So if speaking out maybe tilts him over just enough to reconsider before it comes across his desk, that's not a bad thing. And it's not an existential freakout to discuss these things while taking him at his word. I'm not basing this stuff on things beyond what he has said on the public record as his stated intent. And again with the finger pointing and blaming. It doesn't change the stance of Trump's cabinet, the Congressional leaders, or his willingness to sign in such legislation. And just shrugging and going "oh well, not this administration's fault" doesn't cut it. We can and should demand better treatment and respect from our leaders as people, regardless of why they got voted in. Yes, but it's also not common for a president to dismiss the acting AG from the other party during the transition period, instead of just waiting for their appointee to get the rubber stamp. I think it isn't terribly surprising though. Considering courts were already starting to rule against the effects the EO was having, Yates probably did see it as a stand worth taking, and I'd be surprised if she didn't see the firing coming. Trump could have taken the high road here, shrugged it off, and just waited for Sessions. But considering how Trump has behaved on the trail and in public, this seems in character for him. But I don't think it will do much to heal any divisions. But I'll just add, when we start approaching each other as "compromised ideologically" as a point of fact, it's just going to be that much harder, again, to reverse the polarization in the political arena. This is a form of hyperbole that doesn't even discuss the issues, but rather fuels divisions. And with no substance to really debate, I take my leave of the thread before I get too frustrated.

Give me specific examples, and we'll talk about them. There is certainly some hyperbole out there. And honestly, I try to avoid the worst of it, but if you've got something specific to cover, I'll cover it. But your statement as-is comes with this sort of vague damnation as to not really be something I can comment on directly.

Here's my beef with Fox News, and it isn't their reporting, it's the editorializing. You'd think by listening to the pundits they put on the air, that the world was ending because of Obama during the last 8 years. It wasn't a discussion or debate as much as it was an echo chamber of its own. And so when you claim a special place to "fairness" or "balance", that's not really being honest with your viewership. And if you have the viewership of Fox News, you can't really claim to be the scrappy underdog anymore, either. Which is what they are implying by claiming to not be part of the mainstream media. If you can somehow be an avid viewer of the channel, and dodge all the hyperbolic editorial spew from some of the personalities, the reporting itself isn't that bad. But the same can also be said of other channels. But the reality is that those personalities, along with many others who have pushed hyperbolic rhetoric meant to divide rather than debate, is making real discussion about policies, etc that much harder to actually do in this country. I find it kinda funny that you bring up the ACA. Since that was one of Obama's campaigning points in 2008. That makes me wonder how many independents were even aware of Obama's agenda when voting for him, if it was general anger against Republicans after W's administration, or if the sliding support for this sort of healthcare bill (it went from 69% support in 2006 to 47% in 2014 in polls, and much lower in certain groups that tend to vote in midterms) is what hurt democrats in 2010. But, advancing an agenda you campaigned on is not what I'd call "drunk with power". I wouldn't even accuse Trump of being drunk with power for trying to build the border wall when he clearly stated that's what a vote for him meant. I may think the border wall and the plan of making Mexico to pay for it is utterly brainless, but it is what he campaigned on. Hell, here's the thing. I do hope Trump is successful in one area of his 100 days document. But it's also the one where he's got a snowball's chance in hell of dealing a real blow. I do want to see him at least push for reforms around lobbying, congressional terms, etc. I'm less enthused about the shotgun approach to addressing the number of regulations, since it will just cut both ways, but that's not that surprising or abnormal when we have ideologies that suggest the only good regulation is a nonexistent one. This is just a dodge and a dismissal via strawman. I'm not even using the "Clinton Campaign rhetoric" as you call it. I'm talking about what Trump has said and not said about his economic plan. I'm talking about his transition team's own 100 day document. Unless you want to claim that Clinton wrote Trump's speeches, and wrote Trump's transition documents. I am also talking about the general influence a president can actually have on an economy of this size, which you also ignore. The unfortunate reality is that the federal government's influence is a bit like a ship on a rough sea. You can steer your ship, but you still need the cooperation of the waves to get where you intend to go. Sometimes, it's easy, sometimes it's hard. But in either case, it is just one more input into a very complicated system. A system complicated enough, that ideologies are a terrible way to set economic policy for a nation as big as this one. But, that's the system we have with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Go figure. You also bring up shrinking the deficit. In the face of Trump's infrastructure plans, military expansion, border wall and tax proposals (and I agree that we need some infrastructure work done in this country), I'm not sure Trump's going to have much more luck on that front than either of the two previous presidents. The cuts elsewhere are going to have to run deep if you expect to cut revenue, add on new expenses, and then somehow also reduce the deficit you are running. I'd love for you to paint a plausible scenario where Trump's policies lower the federal deficit. I'd also love to see a plausible scenario where Americans aren't somehow stuck paying for the border wall. I've seen many arguments, but they all wind up in the American consumer's lap at the end of the day. But here's the thing, you're going to have to do better than dismissing arguments without a good rebuttal if I'm going to continue this conversation. It's not really debate when you attack straw men, ignore arguments, and behave like I cannot possibly have an informed opinion here. If you are in "wait and see" mode, and haven't thought about what Trump's stated agenda means in terms of the effects, that's fine. But let's not act like this isn't something we should be discussing when we talk about Trump's agenda and what it can mean over the coming years. These are not just "small losses" that I'm concerned with, but rather legal entrenchment of what is currently allowed due to the lack of protections outside the public sector (and those are only held together by EO), by allowing the private sector to justify the behavior in the eyes of the law to the point that the individuals are denied any recourse against that discrimination. But when members of the trans community regularly are denied access to housing and jobs via discriminatory practices, that is exclusion. Without basic economic stability, you do block people from joining into the economy and prevent them from participating. And in the current situation where certain larger employers on the coasts are the main ones willing to actually offer protections to their LGBT employees, you can still limit where and how members of that community participate in the economy by making it difficult to move, which also tends to tie up what capital they do have in the regions where they feel like they can have that needed stability. I wouldn't call it self inflicted when we're talking about practices that have the effect of marginalizing and sidelining members of society (in some ways more intentional than others, but the effect is there all the same).

And the thing is, I don't really buy either version of it. Because I'm looking at it from a wider scope where to create a connotation that Fox is somehow unique and special relies on a particular ideology to work. It's not a useful tool other than to be a dog whistle and a wink to the audience you hope to cultivate. Fox is no less an echo chamber than NBC is, and no more or less dangerous to the public at large. But I find it a bit funny that CNN, NBC and Fox are all huge conglomerates dating back quite a ways, but somehow Fox is somehow unique in that it isn't old guard, despite being run by the same sort of media moguls that run CNN and NBC. Defunding equates with limiting access. While it doesn't strike at the letter of Roe v Wade, it does strike at the spirit of it. And you only need to look to Texas' TRAP laws to see the effect that a national TRAP law could have on a larger scale. And as you say, while filibusters could hold things up, that's about the only real roadblock with the way things are right now. This is actually a bigger issue than you suggest, because the bolded is EXACTLY the problem I'm afraid of seeing, because it comes hand in hand with other forms of discrimination. The trans community already faces issues maintaining employment and housing due to this form of discrimination, and codifying it into law that a business can decide to not serve customers due to this, also helps codify the practices of being able to fire someone for coming out as trans, or denying them housing (since it is a business arrangement). Especially if RFRA laws don't include exemptions, which many haven't really done. The religious grounds that have been used to justify segregation (and the "right" to deny black people service at stores and restaurants), and bans on interracial marriage, are now being used against the LGBT community, and we are seeing such laws being pushed in many states. Same for various transphobic bathroom bills with varying levels of success. Again, if we talk about erosion, these are the sorts of setbacks that if codified, have wider implications than usually thought about initially, and then have to build effort to undo them with another political landscape change. Agreed. Although so far, there's been movement to erode what is possible to erode at the state level, so it isn't entirely unfair to be concerned about that trickling up to the federal level with the current political landscape. Considering it's already happening piecemeal around the country. And here's the thing, I'm not really sure any President's policies created any particular problem or boon for our economy. We had a massive recession happen not that long ago under Bush's watch. And how much good from lax regulation and enforcement was erased when the economic bubble popped? Would we have had a better recovery with more lax regulations under McCain or Romney? Not really convinced, actually. Short-term, perhaps, but would we just be feeding another bubble down the road and repeat the cycle? But I'm also not very convinced that Trump's policies will get to the heart of the problem either. He's failed to target offshoring of middle-class tech jobs (which would be a good target for the blue collar jobs of the future), completely ignored H1Bs (which is an educational problem), hasn't really said word one about small businesses, and focused entirely on manufacturing, oil resources and big tech (who are looking for a solution to the educational problem). Manufacturing that will not be coming back to the US in the same shape it left. We still do a lot of manufacturing, despite losing just under 8 million jobs since 1980 on that front. We do more manufacturing now than we did in 1980. The automation that allows us to do more manufacturing with fewer people, is the same thing that would prevent a lot of job creation if we did bring a bunch of manufacturing back to the US through tariffs and other means. And the short term effect of those tariffs would be to hurt consumer spending, not improve it. And in the long term, the best you can hope for is that they produce locally, and provide a few jobs. But odds are automation will prevent us from ever seeing 1980s levels of manufacturing jobs. And at the end of the day, manufacturing is less than 10% of the job market in the US. Maybe you could get it up back into the double digits, but that's still going to leave a lot of people in the lurch looking for good jobs that aren't there. But it sure might help the rust belt a bit, assuming any manufacturing comes back to the rust belt instead of picking a new location. It's too complicated to really even have any idea how any of this will play out or if it will even move the needle in the face of the much larger economic engine. I'd have loved to see something target small business specifically, because they employ over half the working population, produce roughly 2/3rds of the new jobs, and thus are something worth looking at if you want to move the lever. They'll benefit a bit from tax adjustments, but not nearly as much as the larger corporations. I'd have loved to see something about the protectionist laws that these larger businesses get from government that make it harder for competition to form in certain industries, but so far nothing. So I'm not convinced his policies will be any better or worse than Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc, etc. When you get too focused on a particular lever, or a particular economic ideology as the "correct approach", you wind up fiddling with your lever for four years while the larger economy continues to do what it does. And at the end you are left with the public picking or rejecting you based on the presumption that your little lever did more/less than it actually did. Here's the thing, I feel for the folks who are facing economic uncertainty due to how the jobs market has evolved over the last 30 years. It sucks when the growth is in locations you cannot uproot and move to, or in industries you have no experience in, while your industry is shedding jobs. But I've seen nothing from any candidate for 2016 that really gets to the heart of the matter and helps those in that situation in the long-term. Nor have I seen anything about steering the economy towards the industries of tomorrow where we face a constantly growing amount of automation. That's why I'm not terribly concerned about it, because I'm honestly not seeing anything coming from anyone that suggests picking someone based on their economic policies actually does jack diddly squat for the economy beyond steering investment decisions that were going to be made anyways, and maybe being able to steer towards certain markets and industries. Not so much how many jobs you'll get out of the deal/etc. So when I compare that to the reality that these newly gained rights are not as solid as they seem to be at first glance, there are areas where the rights are still lacking across the country, and we have members of a party that make it part of their platform to erode rights that we thought were settled decades ago, I'm going to be a bit more concerned about the rights side of things. EDIT: And I'll just add, that as a likely member of a community that faces discrimination in housing and employment already, it doesn't matter one whit to me what the economy does if people are allowed to limit or prevent me from being able to take part in it through their discriminatory behavior, protected by law. And that reality has already had an impact on how I feel like I can explore who I really am, even without Trump in the picture. But you can bet I am concerned for myself, and my sisters and brothers in similar situations.

Eh, I'm willing to give Ellen this one. Knowing from experience that building new habits is hard, and being able to do it in one area doesn't mean you'll be perfect in others. That and some people just don't want to keep on top of texts as if they are life and death, and are happy to deal with them a bit later in the day rather than immediately.

Why is a self-described cable news channel excluded from a definition that includes cable news channels? Especially when there is nothing inherently different from the behaviors of say, Fox, MSNBC or CNN beyond their particular ideology that informs how they report on events and the editorial commentary they add to it (especially on the TV side of things)? Anything else is Fox trying to create a definition such that they can claim an elevated status that they simply do not have. Now that he's in office, we can see what he has started to do: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/trump-ban-foreign-aid-abortions.html This tells me he would be willing to sign in a federal TRAP law if congress can get it to his desk, along with the fact that Trump himself is pro-life, has commented about the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned in post-election interviews, and is backing it up with action. Yes, congress has to actually get it to his desk, but they don't have to do it in a veto-proof way like they would have had to under Obama. For me, one of the big red flags I'm also looking out for is if Trump rolls back the LGBT protections in federal hiring that Obama instituted. That would tell me me he'd be willing to sign in expansions to the RFRA to mimic those like Pence signed into law in Indiana, taking it that step further than the Hobby Lobby ruling alone did (which, while a reproductive rights loss, is also a great wedge for anti-LGBT issues as well). Right now, I honestly don't know where he'd land here, since early on in his campaign he spoke out against the law Pence signed in, but then picked Pence to be VP. So I'm waiting for the red flags to see which way he'll actually go. But he's got enough people surrounding him that are anti-LGBT now that I can't seriously take past Trump at his word, and expect them to be 100% unable to influence or otherwise affect his viewpoint on this particular topic. I'm personally less concerned about the economic policy stuff. I don't think it'll do what Trump thinks it will do (I don't think any single candidate or economic ideology will ever actually do the things we think it will do when it comes to economics), but the US has survived in the wake of these sorts of policies, so it will be what it will be. I'm more concerned about the gradual erosion of civil rights that took an awful lot of time to even get a handhold on, and undermine the ability for those in the affected groups to maintain or gain some semblance of economic security. Especially when it comes to a President who talks of deals, but the whole point of a deal is that you get what you want, and maybe you give up something you care less about to get what you want. Last thing I want to see is that the anti-LGBT groups within the Republican party convince him that giving them an expanded RFRA in exchange for a Trump policy that the Republicans are normally not all that enthusiastic about (giant infrastructure bill perhaps) is a "good deal". On this point, I mostly agree. But I'd argue it depends on the measuring stick you are using as well. Are we talking about a more subjective quality of life, or the actual measure of wealth of a given family? And what is the goal of our economy, and is it moving towards that goal or away, and why? I'll be honest in saying if the goal of the economy is growth of the economy, then I don't think we actually have a goal. And I suspect there are a plethora of answers out there if we asked around on what the goal of the economy is.

Fine. I mostly wanted to figure out where it was coming from, since at least there, it should be an issue of facts, rather than one of ideologies. Should being the key word. I would have been more to the point myself, if there was a more concrete argument to interact with. It's a bit too nebulous as written to do that.

So here's a couple questions I have here on this topic, because this is causing me to scratch my head. Because if we are talking about DOMA, then what we have here is a bit stickier than failing to enforce a law, and is not an accurate depiction of what the Administration did. In some ways, DOMA was about giving certain powers to the states (the ability to refuse to recognize marriage certificates from other states). Powers that the administration did not interfere in, nor had they really any enforcement duties related to them. So those can't be what we are talking about. If we are talking about Obama signing onto the UN statement about decriminalization of homosexuality in 2009, then I'm not sure what laws we stopped enforcing on that front, as DOMA wasn't a law criminalizing homosexuality. So while we were still denying privileges by not recognizing marriages at the federal level, etc, we weren't criminalizing them. At least if you ignore the anti-sodomy laws still on the books for a few states, but that isn't for the federal government to enforce. If we are talking about how the DoJ issued this statement saying they wouldn't defend the law in court, that is still different than enforcing it (and that statement is from 2011, in 2009, the DoJ did defend it). Is the DoJ required to defend laws when there are objections to those laws which amount to a constitutionality review working through the courts? Is that the same as failing to enforce it? How so? So, what law, or what part of the law did Obama refuse to enforce? Details would be appreciated. Because I've done about as much random guessing at what you are getting at as I can.

But H5N1 is still Influenza, which isn't new. Nor does what emerges from the box have to remain static once its out. When we talk about gender identity, it is quite an old topic (many cultures do have some language that dates back far enough to demonstrate this). Western culture being forced to acknowledge it? That's a new thing. Previously, it was just erased as mental illness if acknowledged at all. Hell, we're still seeing society defend reparative therapy in the last few months for trans people. And again, you take what was meant to be colorful language, and are focusing on the more literal details of the analogy. That's what I take issue with, since it isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. Do I expect the language to become fixed? No, but I do expect it to settle down to something manageable at some point. But that takes exploration, which takes time. And in the US anyhow, we're only now deciding to actually explore, question and learn.

It was meant to be colorful language. Again, it's kinda a weird pick to nit. Even if I said yes, I could also say we're still finding them. If we were to go by the original story, the box was empty of everything but hope once the evils were unleashed. But it doesn't mean Pandora was able to catalogue them all as they came screaming out, or encountered them all during her lifetime even. The gender box has been opened for quite a while, it's just more recently that western european culture has been willing to examine what came out. Except, you can run into this in many situations. Replace terminology with other words, like policy, and you just described a lot of groups (very few groups are homogenous, even if they are "single issue" groups). Yes, it is a controversy in some trans circles (apparently not the ones I'm involved in, we must hang out with different people), but that's okay, and allowed. And yes, on some issues you can take sides and offend the other side (i.e. abortion) and not really have any way around it. When it does happen, it sucks, but I point to OldHack's approach as the best standard approach to work with. Deal with the individual, don't worry so much about how unified the group is (or isn't). (I meant to post this yesterday, ugh)

Honestly, this is the ideal, IMO. It's going to take a while to sort out all the pieces that came flying out of Pandora's Box of Gender and for language to settle down on something we agree on. Consider it from the other perspective for the moment (and also consider which parts of the group you are interacting with as well, no group is a monolith). If you are having problems just getting folks to recognize your identity and how you see yourself, and that's a constant day-in/day-out issue, your nerves are going to be somewhat raw. You don't have to fish for reasons when people keep giving them to you as if they are some sort of housewarming gift.

Well, the question I have is: Why are there both female and male representations of two particular aspects of his personality? And does it signify anything important? Is it a Chekov's Gun, or a Red Herring?