Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hydrargyrum

  1. I definitely think it's possible for people to be bi/pan, but to have a strong preference, which is what that situation sounds like to me. Personally, I would call it "flexible" (homoflexible or heteroflexible). I consider myself heteroflexible . I'm mainly attracted to men, but I'm kind of attracted to women, and I could see myself in a relationship with one if I might the right one. Whether or not she's trans wouldn't change the matter.
  2. I made a custom! What do you think? Probably won't be able to submit it for awhile cause of the new rules, though
  3. Yay, one of mine! I wouldn't have thought of that combination either, except for my own AP find (this guy). Loved the combination so much that I decided to build a mate. Unfortunately, they aren't cooperating to give me the tan ridgewing I need, so until then, you lucky AP hunters get my fails .
  4. Category: Lineages Title of Record: longest purebred golden wyvern Name of Submittant (forum name): Hydrargyrum Scroll Name (link): http://dragcave.net/user/hydrargyrum Proof for Record: http://dragcave.net/lineage/XLFkx (8th gen) Category: Lineages Title of Record: longest purebred even-gen golden wyvern Name of Submittant (forum name): Hydrargyrum Scroll Name (link): http://dragcave.net/user/hydrargyrum Proof for Record: http://dragcave.net/lineage/XLFkx (8th gen) Category: Lineages Title of Record: longest purebred gilded bloodscale Name of Submittant (forum name): Hydrargyrum Scroll Name (link): http://dragcave.net/user/hydrargyrum Proof for Record: http://dragcave.net/lineage/WlGoC (5th gen) Reason for submitting new Record: No record for this breed's PB lineage Category: Lineages Title of Record: longest purebred even gen gilded bloodscale Name of Submittant (forum name): Hydrargyrum Scroll Name (link): http://dragcave.net/user/hydrargyrum Proof for Record: http://dragcave.net/lineage/WlGoC (5th gen) Reason for submitting new Record: No record for this breed's PB EG lineage
  5. The society itself is sexist-the idea that men work, and women just make more babies. Women are perfectly capable of doing work, and men could move into their wives homes instead of of the other way around. I don't think just saying "well, that's how their society is, so what are you going to do" is helping in any way. Basically, aborting female fetuses selectively is a symptom of other problems caused by sexism. I don't think just shrugging and saying "oh well, it's their lifestyle" is an acceptable answer. I don't support trying to ban the practice (it's either going to happen anyways or will affect pregnant people seeking abortions for other reasons), but instead trying to correct the underlying problems.
  6. It's not just that they don't know. It's that they don't know that they don't know, and I think that's a very important distinction. If I'm uneducated about a topic, but I'm aware of my lack of knowledge, I would agree that it would be somewhat irresponsible of me to jump headfirst into whatever it is without doing some research first. I wouldn't shame someone who didn't, but it is more responsible to learn first. If someone really, honestly believes that sex doesn't lead to pregnancy, or really, honestly believes that soda afterwards can prevent pregnancy, or really, honestly believes that you can't get pregnant your first time, etc (all things some people actually do believe), then how are they supposed to know they're wrong? They think they already have the information necessary, so they have no reason to do further research.
  7. ...I apparently had one of the better sex educations, and I'm from Kansas (not as bad as Texas, but certainly not known for progressiveness). I don't remember too many specifics, but it was a full class, not just an assembly, so you couldn't miss it just by missing a single day of school. Abstinence was emphasized as the only way to be totally safe, but birth control methods were mentioned (and they stressed that pull out and rhythm methods are significantly worse than condoms and pills). STDs were part of it, but I don't think it was a majority, so it wasn't just scare tactics. I even vaguely remember discussing other sexual acts, and how those don't lead to pregnancy. The main thing I remember is on the first day, the teacher asked if we knew what sex actually was. A kid finally volunteered, but being in middle school wasn't comfortable being specific, so he just said "it's when you put certain body parts in other body parts". The teacher responded by putting her finger in her ear, and asking "so am I having sex?" I don't remember abortion ever being mentioned as an option, but I don't remember very many details, so it's entirely possible that it was mentioned, but I just forgot.
  8. To me, being sentient, being able to process the fact that it is alive, feeling pain, fearing death, etc are fundamental parts of being human. You don't have to be able to express that consciousness (in other words, you don't have to be able to say "I'm alive"), but if you don't have it and it can be proven that you don't have it, then in my opinion, it's not human. I absolutely DO NOT view a fetus as a human. No more than you view a separate egg cell and sperm cell as human. Because to me, having a full set of human DNA isn't the defining attribute of humanity, it's the ability to react to what's around it; it's being conscious. Hard to state exactly, but a fetus definitely does not fit my definition. In other words, I don't think you get to simply say "I say it's human, therefore it's human". I say it's not human, so we can't BOTH be right. But even then, even if a fetus is equivalent to a fully grown human, I don't think it matters. No born person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Until you start demanding that EVERYONE who dies becomes an organ donor, and that anyone who can has to donate their extra kidney and donate blood, then I don't see why you think you can demand that a pregnant person give up the use of their body for a fetus.
  9. http://dragcave.net/lineage/YHang ...of all the dragons to get a code that is very nearly "yang" ...it would be a white dragon from my yin yang lineage. I'm completely shocked .
  10. This mentality is honestly TERRIFYING. Especially since you advocate that it should be for CHILDREN (since you said only over 18 should be allowed to have abortions). Why is it OK to use a child as punishment? You would force a woman to drop out of school and practically have to give up her entire life just because her morals don't agree with yours? Also, many children that end up in foster care attempt suicide, and I believe the majority wish they had been aborted (in case you were going with the "well, she can just give it up for adoption" angle). Your forcing both the mother and child to suffer, potentially life-long suffering, just because you think she was too promiscuous. In my opinion, that is WAY too harsh for her supposed "crime". Honestly, having an abortion is taking responsibility. It's realizing that you can't give the potential child the life and happiness it deserves; realizing that it's better off not to be born. Also, I think this is a horrible way to teach a lesson. Many people end up pregnant because they had terrible sex education. This is kind of like saying "oh, well I'm sorry you never got swimming lessons, but you should have known better than to get in the water, so now I'm refusing to save you. Trust me, you'll learn better for next time."
  11. I know it's been said again and again, but I want to bring up the bodily autonomy point again, because I simply find it one of the best pro-choice arguments there is. The reason that abortion needs to stay legal, affordable, and available is because above all else, a person has a right to decide what happens to their body. The problem is that an unwanted fetus uses the pregnant person's body against their will. If someone is dying in the hospital, and needs an organ transplant, you can't force someone to donate an organ to them EVEN IF THE DONOR IS DEAD. Because just taking or demanding to take their organs without their permission is WRONG. Because it's THEIR organs, not the government's, not anyone else's. By saying that a pregnant person HAS to turn over the use of their uterus for a fetus, you are giving more rights to a fetus than any born person (who doesn't have the right to use someone else's body or organs against their will) and less rights to the pregnant person than A CORPSE. It definitely doesn't matter whether or not the fetus is alive (although, like everyone else has said, no one is trying to argue that it's not alive, because we all know it is), but I don't even think that the matter of whether or not a fetus is a person is relevant. Even if it were a person, it still wouldn't have the right to use another person's body against their will.
  12. LOVE the tidals, but I can't quite decide what I want to do with them. They look really good with sunstones. I also really like them with hellfires, especially since the color dimorphism fits so well (might be good for an alternating checker). They also look great with green coppers; good thing they're also a coastal breed! ...too bad I only have one green copper, though.
  13. I read a couple articles about it. It seems like a lot people still refer to her as "him". I think that even some of the more well-intentioned people still have this idea that a trans-woman is "a man who believes he's a woman", rather than actually a woman who was just born with the wrong anatomy.
  14. In another minor point on the other discussion thread, someone mentioned that they heard that transsexuals change which gender they're attracted to when they transition (note that they said that this only applies to transsexuals who have gone through surgery and hormone therapy). Something about how they're attracted to same/opposite hormones, so when their hormones change, then who they're attracted to changes. To me, this doesn't seem to make sense. I would think that who you're attracted to is who you're attracted to, and surgery and hormone therapy don't change anything other than the exterior. But I'm a cis person with no close trans friends, so I'm not exactly speaking from a place of experience. Is this true? What have other people heard? I mean, I'm sure it does happen occasionally, just because human variety is infinite, but is it common? (Just a note, I'm in no way trying to criticize the person who made this statement, it's just something I had never heard of before, and I'm genuinely curious).
  15. The kind of fame would also be important for me. I like the idea of being remembered as important even after I die, but I would HATE to be recognized all the time and have people have a constant interest in what I do on a day to day basis. I think what I would most like to be famous for is something like making an important scientific discovery or inventing something important. Basically, I want to be famous for being a smart engineer . Put my name in all the textbooks and regard me as a genius, but I never want to be a celebrity.
  16. I think that consent is another important, and often ignored, part of sex ed. Teaching that all men only want to take advantage of girls is unacceptably sexist and also completely incorrect, but not teaching the possibility of someone taking advantage of their partner is dangerous. People need to know that sex is NOT a required part of a relationship, and if someone tries to pressure them into something they aren't comfortable with, then that person doesn't really care about them. Also that just because you agree to intercourse, doesn't mean you have to agree to EVERYTHING. Sleeping with someone once doesn't mean that you've given consent for future encounters, nor does it mean that you have to give consent if they try to insist on not using protection. ETA: Wanted to add more emphasis to this bit: if someone tries to pressure their partner into something they aren't comfortable with, then that person doesn't really care about them. I think this is a really important thing to teach in sex ed. I think there are too many people who think they have a responsibility to keep their partner happy, that their partner has some right to demand them to do things, or that maintaining the relationship is more important than their personal happiness, but they should know that no one ever has the right to make them do things they aren't comfortable with. Also that when someone says "you're making me uncomfortable" or "please stop", that, even if they've consented before, it's still rape if you don't stop.
  17. I just bred a 12th even gen dragon using only dragons that are on my scroll! ...OK, so there might only be 2 CB dragons in the lineage, but I still love it. Isn't it pretty?
  18. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely not a good line of reasoning for banning abortion (perfectly fine for refusing to get one yourself, though). YOU PERSONALLY believe it has a soul. You can't prove this. At all. Why should you get to take away someone else's rights for a personal belief? If I believed that all trees have souls, and thus said that cutting them down is murder, do you think I should be able to ban cutting them down? I believe fetuses don't have souls (I'm not even really sure I believe in the concept of souls), just like you believe trees don't have souls. You can't make laws about personal beliefs, especially when it takes away the rights of others. And I get rather upset when people think they can; it's not right.
  19. I'm so-so on the change for 5th gen checkers. I do like that you can see it all at once, but it's just not quite the same. I think because it's more compact, it just LOOKS so much like a 4th gen checker used to that that's what my brain sees. Which makes it seem less impressive. I think I'll adjust, though, and I do like that you can see all of a 5th gen with no scrolling. However, for some of my other lineages, I think it's a pretty big improvement. My 11th gen inbred checker now takes slightly less time to scroll through, and I like that you can see more of the dragons in any one screenshot. My rainbow lineage looks even more rainbow-y without all the extra space in the CB generation. And I think my quote lineage is much more readable.
  20. In what way, from the unborn's point of view, is it fundamentally different to be aborted versus never being conceived? A fetus doesn't know it looks human(ish), it isn't aware it has a life to protect, and it can't feel pain. An abortion ends the life before it's ever even slightly aware that it's alive. I see no difference besides superficial ones between an egg cell that isn't fertilized and an aborted fetus. Yes, it looks a little more human, it has a full set of DNA, and often has a heartbeat, but is that really how you define a person? You also always argue about potential (that the child has a "right to life", and should be allowed to experience it), but then don't egg cells have the same potential? Also, about Gosnell (although I think this has been mentioned before, it apparently bears repeating)-honestly, he makes a much better argument for choice than for pro-life. Everything that monster did was completely illegal and immoral, even to the most aggressively pro-choice people out there. The clients who went to him were desperate; they had nowhere else to turn, but would still rather go through those horrors than give birth. Making abortion illegal WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY, it will only force it underground where it's much harder to regulate. Monsters like him are MORE common when abortion is illegal than when it's legal. And no matter how legal abortion is, what he did will always be wrong. ...except the fetus can't cry out "I'm here and alive". Not just because it can't talk, but because it's not aware it's alive at all. And to your second post, alive and human are not the same thing. Lots of things are alive. Bugs, bacteria, fungi, etc. Do you think we should defend those poor little termites or cockroaches from being exterminated when they invade someone's home? They're just as alive as a fetus, and MORE aware of their own existence.
  21. I think the main problem, AngelKitty, is that you're implying that transwomen aren't REAL women. It doesn't matter that you're not saying it directly, or even if you don't MEAN to say it. The fact remains that you are very definitely implying it. If you can't see why that's hurtful, then there's not much point to this argument. And no amount of "that's not what I'm saying" or "that's not what I mean" is going to change the fact that you ARE implying it. (I absolutely don't think you do mean it, so I'm letting you know that that's how you're coming across.) So you've given a couple examples of cases where you think ciswomen should have the right to exclude transwomen-to deal with experiences unique to them, and to deal with rape trauma. In the case of rape trauma, if they literally can't stand to be in the presence of a fully-clothed male-bodied person, no matter how feminine she is, then I agree that the victim needs a very, very specialized recovery environment. I think these cases are very rare though, and she will eventually need to be re-acclimated to living in a world with male-bodied people (after all, they're only about 50% of the population). She can't live in this sheltered world for the rest of her life. That doesn't mean she should immediately be thrown into circumstances where she's uncomfortable; I'm not saying that at all. Just that she gets her time to recover, but that can't last forever. What it really boils down to is that I think these very rare cases are traumatic enough that they deserve special treatment, but also rare enough that we shouldn't form a general treatment plan around them. The other point you make is about conventions-that ciswomen should have a space where they can be surrounded by only other female-bodied people to share their experiences. I think it depends on the degree. I believe everyone should have the right to form their own small groups of friends and associates of whatever kind of people they want to surround themselves with. People should be free to form their own group, even if others consider the group bigoted. However, when it comes to larger, organized groups the rules are different. You compare a ciswomen convention to being similar to a black women convention, but I don't think that's really true. I think it's more like a white women convention. If WOC face oppression that is different from those faced by white women, then shouldn't the reverse be true as well? Do you think that because white women face oppression that is different from WOC, that they should be allowed to hold a white women only convention? I think that minorities have more of a right to come together than majorities do. When minorities unite, they're reaffirming the power they do have, and showing that they're not alone. When majorities unite (especially if they specifically exclude minorities) it's another way to oppress them. A way to say "you're still not welcome here." Which in my opinion, isn't alright.
  22. I'm really sorry if I came across as thinking that I know more about the issue than people who are actually affected by it. I was only trying to show another possibility of how I think some people might be, I absolutely did not mean to imply that "this is what all trans people go through". I suppose it would've helped if I used more "maybe"s, "sometime"s, and "it's possible"s . As others have said, let me know if I'm being offensive or ignorant. Also, who on earth could be offended by cis? Maybe it's just my chemistry background showing (thinking of cis and trans for double bonds ), but they seem so clinical to me that it's hard to see how people could be offended.
  23. I think even the reasoning why "WBW" (I might be imagining air-quotes, as I really can't use this term without sarcasm) are trying to exclude trans-women is ridiculous. From what I've gathered, they think that, since trans-women were raised as men, then they haven't faced the same life-long oppression that cis-women have, and are therefore not as important a part of feminism as cis-women. Not only do I think this totally misses the point of feminism (it should be about letting anyone be who they want to be, regardless of gender, not just about getting more power for women (not saying more power for women isn't an important part, but it's only a part)), but I think it's just generally wrong. I've heard that quite a few trans-people know that their gender and sex don't match from a very young age. Even if a sexist family tries to raise a little trans-girl as the boy they think she is (teaching her to play sports, be assertive, be rough and wild), she will still hear the message that girls are supposed to be submissive, good at cleaning, cooking, and nurturing, etc. If she KNOWS that she's a girl, she'll still think those stereotypes are applied to her, even though that's not what she's directly being taught. How someone is treated because of how they're seen isn't the only way society can shape them; just hearing what society expects from people can be more than enough. And if she chooses to present as female, then she will mostly be treated the same as any other woman, since most people probably wouldn't even know she was born male.
  24. Well, I'm the opposite. I've always heard gender used to refer to someone's mental sex (what their brain thinks their body should look like), and until your posts, I had literally never heard of anyone using gender and gender roles interchangeably. As a cis, I can't give as strong a comment as the trans members can, since I don't really understand what they feel. But I admit that I don't understand, and let them speak for themselves, rather than trying to tell them how I think they should feel. Although I may not know many trans people myself, I have never even heard of someone thinking they were trans when they just didn't like their gender role. I thought that being trans literally meant that they had body dysphoria. I'm sure there are some people who think/claim they're trans just because they don't like their gender role, but they're just ignorant. I'm not going to judge an entire community by the ignorance of a few.
  25. I know I'm a bit slow responding, but I wanted to share my thoughts and another perspective on the "but what if YOU had been aborted?!?" argument. My mother thought she never wanted kids, but then changed her mind; I was a decision, not an accident. If she had considered abortion it would have been for a very good reason (either a severe defect or dangerous for her health, in which case I would much rather have been aborted). What if, instead, she had never changed her mind about kids? What if, assuming birth control never failed, I had never been conceived? Can you please tell me in what way my life would have been different in a meaningful way if I had never been conceived versus if I had been aborted? All the pro-lifers always say "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" (which is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, but that's beside the point I'm making). If you care so much about the POTENTIAL life (it could cure cancer! Could be the next president! Think about the life they could have!), then you have to care about the potential life of someone who could've been conceived, but wasn't. Every egg-cell has the potential to be fertilized and therefore the potential to become a person (and a fertilized egg has the potential to be spontaneously miscarried or become a tumor, etc, so it's not like it goes from a small percent chance to a certainty when fertilized). It's like there's something magic about an action. Because an egg requires an action to become a zygote, and a fetus requires an action to be intentionally aborted, then somehow that makes them radically different. I'm not saying there's no difference, but is there really enough that abortion should be illegal?