Jump to content

TikindiDragon

Members
  • Content Count

    7,805
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TikindiDragon

  1. Hrrrm. No, actually. I never have and never will post on Tumblr. This would kind of preclude my being 'called out' on anything (although, to be fair, if I ever *was* I find it incredibly funny, especially if it were a cishet 'campaigner' type.). What you see as 'ready to dismantle racism, sexism, ableism and cissexism' has often come across to me (in the blogs I've been linked to) as 'holier-than-thou, judgemental and intolerant'. Tumblr blogs are *not* places I would point people I wished to educate on the issues too. Also, before you judge, may I suggest you read through the sexism thread and take a long look at the discussion that went on between myself and someone supporting radical feminism. I'm sorry you feel you can't stay simple because people are disagreeing with you. This is a discussion forum, there are going to be dissenting opinions. We don't sit around and pat each other on the back about how enlightened we are - we tackle issues head on. I, as a trans person, am disagreeing with you (another person whyo identifies as trans). If I am saying that I do not find something to be phobic or harmful then my opinion on that is perfectly valid. It does not become less valid simply because it does not line up with yours. Although, really, DILLIGAF. Edit to add: Thank you for clarifying there, Sock. It seems we don't disgree as much as I thought we did. I'm just going to bold something here because it reads to me as the question that Haze has been getting at Because nothing Haze said indicated that she was ruling out transwomen, just that she was uncomfortable with penises. Which, in and of itself, is not transphobic. Not as far as I am concerned (and, apparently, not as far your Socky's scource is concerned either).
  2. @ryou - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I, as a transman, would not consider it phobic to be told someone isn't comfortable with sex because I do not have a penis. Might I be hurt by it? Well, yes. But that's on a personal level, it doesn't mean the other party is phobic. I'm afraid I'm not massively into the social politics of things. I just am who I am, and I say it as I see it. I also confess to being slightly worried by the opposition to the use of Trans* because a lot of the objections to it are a) very convoluted a on tumblr, which is not somewhere I've come to view as a hot-bed of common sense.
  3. I didn't gather from ryou's post that they were trans themselves (do you use xie/xir ryou? I find that to be more personal then plurals, but I'll use whatever you are comfortable with). OTOH Switch and I *are* both trans* and neither of us find your stance phobic. (I mean, let's face it, not getting sexually turned on by penises isn't going to change if they're attatched to a woman instead of a man - they're just not a turn-on for you end of story).
  4. From a trans point of view - No, I would not consider that to be transphobic. It's not phobic of any kind to simply not be attracted to a person. It would not, for example, make a person homophobic simply because they did not experience homosexual attraction. As long as you are respectful and accepting of them as the person they are then you are not transphobic. Also, to a certain extent, I disagree with Sock here. Finding certain sexual organs 'squicky' isn't to do with societal conditioning. Rather like Haze a good friend of mine just doesn't do penises. He's non judgemental, he's totally accepting, and he probably *would* go with someone that had had surgery - but a penis, for him, is a deal breaker. It would kill his own sexual feelings. And that's fine. No one should be forced into doing things they themselves are uncomfortable with because of some misguided idea that it's 'phobic' for them not to. Re: genitalia - I, and other trans folk I know, do refer to genitalia as 'male' and 'female'. I'm very upset by having female genitalia, for example, and a lady friend of mine was so upset by having male genitalia that she was at the point of taking a butchers knife to it at one point (she didn't, thankfully). Just because I'm male doesn't mean my genitalia automatically becomes male (much as I would love it to, it doesn't). It's a bit unreasonable to expect society at large not to use terms that transfolk themselves are using.
  5. Sorry, don't have the time to reply at length, but I did want to respond to this. They *would* die. They'd actually have to be killed, and then the corpses burnt. I'm afraid it really is that simple. They couldn't be turned loose because a) Farmers would not be able to keep them, or keep the pasture for them as they would have to turn to arable farming in order to remain in business. With the majority of the countryside enclosed there would be no where for them to range, therefore if they weren't killed they'd starve because they couldn't get to new food scources. c) Those that did managed to acess food scources would find the only real scource of food were the crops that were being grown for human consumption. Which would turn them into pest animals that, again, would have to be killed to protect the human food chain. Please. Do some research into farming. *Real* research into the lives of farmers and their communities, not just reading links from pro-Vegan websites online. Anyone that knows farmers and the farming community will tell you exactly the same thing - if all demand for meat & animal products were to cease it would inevitably lead to mass culls. Edit: Bloody emoticons. *goes to bed*
  6. I'm afraid I fail to be convinced by your ecological arguments. Put bluntly both the water and CO2 you mention in factory farming link back to one thing - the growth of crops to feed the animals concerned. The world going vegan would not stop us needing to grow crops - indeed we would need to grow *more*, and of a greater variety requiring more attention. The only part of your ecology argument that doesn't go back to the growing of the crops in the first place is a problem that effects *all* types of food - the CO2 produced in transporting it. And because a person requires a greater volume of plant matter to aquire the same calories they would from animal produce you'd actually need *more* trucks on the road to move it all. As well as the tractors and fertiliser involved with growing it. The solution to the presented ecological problems is not the world going vegan. In reality that would have little effect (as previously stated - the CO2 produced, and the water used, are all used at the feed crop growing stage). The solution is to return to an older way of farming. Buy your produce locally - it will have had less of an impact on the environment because it will have travelled less. Buy your produce in season - again, it will have travelled less. If you cannot shop in local farm stores pay attention to country of origin labels. Not only that, but returning to older methods of farming would also improve the soil (crop rotation), and reduce the impact of extreme weather events. Modern farming methods cause water run off from the fields - resulting in flooding. It also contributes to soil erosion and habitat loss, as properly laid hedgerows (rather than barbed wire, or the type cut harshly from a tractor) not only provide wind-break which reduce erosion, but also a valuble habitat for wildlife. There *are* problems with modern intensive farming. But veganism isn't the solution to them. Taking an interest in the provenance of your food will help far more. (Incidental note - many of the things required to make a vegan diet healthy are also not easily grown in northerly climates. This would actually *raise* the CO2 problem, as consumption of those diet essentials would rise and would need to be imported because they couldn't be grown locally). I also wonder wether or not you have given any thought to what would happen to all these animals if the world were to turn vegan over night (or even in a short space of time)? Farmers are not going to pay to keep things that are unprofitable. The result would be mass slaughter of cattle, pigs, sheep... any animal currently reared for use in the food industry. Or clothing industry, for that matter. The world going vegan would not result in better treatment of these animals - it would result in their extinction. I often wonder how much thought vegan campaigners have given to that.
  7. I confess I'm still not entirely sure why you keep coming back to this. But, for the sake of it... Meat tastes better if it's been raised better. It's more tender if the animal wasn't tensed up and expecting pain when it died. So if you want a purely selfish reason for treating animals better... well, you get a better product at the end of it. I will note here that the majority of the meat we eat does come from local farm shops, and has been locally reared on farms I know (in some cases by people I know personally), or has been shot locally by local gamekeepers. The quality is much, much better than supermarket meat. And it actually doesn't cost the earth. One £4 pheasant feeds four people if made into casserole or soup, the bones make stock (for said casserole or soup), and the leavings feed the dog. It tastes great, and I know that animal knew nothing of pain or fear until the moment the shot hit it (by which point it's dead).
  8. Following up to this - if she's calling you *do* need to be aware of the symptoms of pyometra. It can and does kill cats (as well as other species - it's not limited to cats only). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyometra If you suspect pyometra take her to the vet *immediately*.
  9. But, see, this is what it boils down to - they believe all women are not competant enough to make an informed choice. They believe that it's the fault of all men that this is the case, true, but it does boil down to the simple concept that if you don't agree with them you are brainwashed and incapable of making rational choices. I... fail to understand how that's any different to the system they're supposedly fighting against.
  10. Honest answer? Not much. There *are* drugs she can be given to supress the cycle, but I think you'll find it's cheaper to spay than it is to get hold of those. They're only really of any use if you've got a breeding queen and want to space her litters out so it's not over-taxing her system. But, yeah, a calling queen is a calling queen. The only way to stop her 'stress' is to stop her calling in the first place.
  11. Read back trhough this thread and see previous discussion about trans issues & rad fems. I'm no going to rehash it, because it's very triggering and draining. Poked around a bit on that blog - and I would like to say that this particular one saddens me deeply. http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/...sts_exclude=103 Men if you want to help, stop eixsting. Honestly, the RadFem movement actively demonises half the human population, and would like to see total segregation of the two (so women are never exposed to men). They also appear to take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them is still so traumatised by men that they can't make a rational decision. So. Not RadFem = not rational, can't make your own mind up because you've been brainwashed. RadFems should therefore campaign for you, wether you want it or not, because you can't make your own decisions. I'm sorry, but how is this *any* different to the brush they like to paint all men with?
  12. There's a lower risk on the progesterone-only-pill than there is on the combined pill.
  13. I use IE8. At least, I do where the page will display correctly on it. There's a few sites I've been forced onto Chrome for.
  14. Yes, and it's one of the 'historical' books of the Old Testament that chronicles the time when God set Judges over the Hebrew peoples to lead them in the ways of righteousness. It's not about individuals passing judgement on each other With regards human judging any Christian should pay attention to the words of Christ on the matter: Notice the common theme here. No man is without sin, and he should tend to his own affairs before condeming others. Not precisely on topic, but relevant given the comment I'm replying to. Edit: Too many blank spaces.
  15. I've just restarted Skyrim, with my typical warrior Nord. I go in kinda the opposite direction to YellowTsunami. Never could get my head around magic (those bloody mages die too easily) but give me some heavy armour and an axe and I'm a happy bunny.
  16. And yet she still wants to be the voice of autism. Despite the fact that most communicative adults with autism don't want anything to do with her
  17. There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
  18. I washed my MP3 player on a couple of occasions. Amazingly it survived and still continues working to this day. Also my wallet on numerous occasions, but I guess that's not uncommon.
  19. I'm afraid I don't know about the temperature thing - I always just calculated days from day of mating and was on watch that entire week. But, yeah. Cockapoos, goldendoodles.... they're all mutts. Very nice mutts, but still mutts. None of them are recognised breeds, because you can't guarentee consistancy in a litter.
  20. There's not too much size difference between a golden and a huskie, so that shouldn't present a problem. Do monitor her, though, because if she starts to struggle you will need an emergency vets trip. Cross-breed pups can have characteristics from either parents. You could get pups that look extremely husky, or pups that look very retreiver. Or anything in between. That said, I do hate to tell you, she *is* going to have mutts. The fact that the names of the parent breeds can be stuck together doesn't make the babies pedigree. They're still mongrel however nice the portmanteaux name is. Anything not purebred is a mutt. Once the pups arrive I would advise weighing them every day. You'll notice a change on the scales much quicker than you will by eye or by hand - and a pup that's failing to gain weight, or worse starts losing it, needs to see the vet. Early action *will* save lives. FYI (though I know there *are* people that would disagree with me) neutering a male dog won't automatically make him fat. Over feeding and under excercise makes dogs fat, not neutering. Our Labrador is nearly 3 and was neutered at 6 months old. He's an ideal healthy weight for a Lab, and in much better shape than some entire males that don't have their diets controlled properly (the Lab the won his Group in Crufts this time around made me cringe - very overweight!).
  21. Q. What do you get if you cross a snowman and a shark? A. Frost Bite.
  22. Maybe it's down to cultural differeces here - but I see an awful lot more anti-Christianity from people posting from the US than I ever encounter in atheists here in the UK (where, believe me, there are a lot of them). I rather gather a lot of you have had a worse time with overly-preachy types there. But, yeah, personally I'd far rather go for including all religions than banning all religions. And for religiously insipred music - I give you this , and . And let's face it, you can't ban Away In A Manger without banning this sort of thing to. Which, as I said, would be a massive loss. Edit: typos Edit 2: Kings College doing carols right . Also by Steeleye Span which I'm particularly fond of.
  23. I disagree there. So many, many extremely traditional Christmas songs *are* religious in nature, and banning them massively limits the repetoir. Added to which a lot of classical choral music is religiously inspired (as well as a lot of the non-choral pieces) and, again, banning that would be a loss to any choir or orchestra. A better idea would be to extend the range to include songs from other religious traditions, rather than banning the lot in their entirety. You don't need to utterly ban any and all mention of God from public life to have separation of Church and State. England is a prime example of it. We're broadly secular over here, yet school choirs will happily sing traditional Christmas carols. My partner is atheist (as are many others) and it bothers them not one iota. His school sang traditional Christmas carols, and until he met me he *still* didn't have much of an idea about Christianity, let alone feel like he'd been preached it at school. So, yeah, I personally think it would be a great shame to ban people from singing joyful songs simply because they mention God. Edit to add: It's not 100% true to say my other half isn't bothered by Christmas songs. He actually *is*, but not because of any religious aspect. The store he works in starts playing them on repeat in late-Novemebr, and by Christmas he's ready to kill the next person that plays him one. Funnily enough it's actually the secular ones that annoy him more than the traditional ones - I've got a lovely CD of Christmas Carols done in gregorian chant and he really likes that one, despite his being atheist and *all* of the songs being religious ones. You don't have the believe to enjoy the music. And I don't see enjoying sharing good music as being 'pushing' religion on anyone.
  24. At least we *do* have some solid Unions in the UK. Pretty sure they're not much of a thing in the States, and a heck of a lot of people over there are extremely anti-union.