40516 Everyone Is Awesome

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, Karalora said:

..... and conflate it with psychosis. 

Why?  Because "psychosis" is a bad thing?  If so, that is your interpretation and one that falls in line with a social construct view of psychosis itself.  In a straight-jacket, slobbering, mumbling to oneself rocking in a corner somewhere.  Propagating the very abuse you are trying to dispel in the LGBTQ community. 

Within the medical community, we do not see psychosis that way.  It can, dare I say, be even endearing.  I have worked with people with psychotic symptoms for the better part of my career, and many of them represent the very best of humanity.  

It is inaccurate, I give you, in that typically it is something that should be relieved if it is causing problems,  if possible.  To another's point, if it is not causing problems, it would be fine to leave alone.  However, by definition, psychosis really only exists when it causes discord in one's life. 

Gender identity is something that should NOT be fixed, repaired, etc. if it is not causing problems.  But many times it is.  And many, many times gender identity is not even the issue, but an untreated, undiagnosed other condition.  In these cases, no, one is not the right authority on their identity.    

1 hour ago, Karalora said:

Trans people are the gender they declare. Period. It's not a matter of "conflicting truths."

Here is where we agree.  1200 billion percent. 

But one cannot force others to agree.  Nor is it violent or abusive if they do not agree.  We all identify in ways which others do not see us as.  The examples are endless.  In an older part of my career I oversaw work done in a marriage and family clinic.  I worked with good men and women who had to parent children they were not the biological parents of.  But knew the children since they were babies.  Cooked, cleaned, provided resources, etc. for these children since they were infants.  They "identified" as their parents and had the right to do so.  They preferred to be called "mom" and "dad" but many times the children grew up and would refuse to refer  to them as such.  Broke those good men and women's hearts.   Rude? yes.  insolent? perhaps.  But violent?  Abusive?  Armed with this logic a father who acts out and beats the child b/c they would not call them "father" or "dad" would be justified.  Is this what you are advocating?  Oh and btw this EXACT scenario plays out thousands of times a day across the globe.  There are about a billion other examples i could share such as this.     

I say this out of empathy, especially from the eyes of not only a psychologist but also as a parent to a trans child whom I love and is a terrific person.   The rationale that it is violent or abusive to not refer to someone as they identify with is half-baked and lacks foresight.  It is extremely rude, I give you.  Inconsiderate and perhaps even ignorant.  But not violent.  If you agree that it is you are actually advocating for a whole lot of reactionary violence I am fairly certain you are not even aware of.  

I agree that it can be violent if used in certain ways.  Such as in taunting or bullying.  Calling someone, over and over, in their face or something by their non-preferred pronouns yes can be an act of violence.  But in these cases it is not the act of non-preferential referment that is the issue, but rather bullying which is a different issue.  It then turns into "name-calling" - which is a whole other can of worms.  Don't confuse the two. 

1 hour ago, Lira_Bricks said:

 So getting angry when someone refuses to use your pronouns makes sense to me.

Also, there is medical proof for transgender people existence, so it isn't some "weird fantasy" people are having.

One can get angry all they want.  I never advocated for anything else.  I would think "hurt" or saddened would be the more mature response.  Angry at someone refusing to behave in a way you want them to behave is something that typically occurs very early in the developmental process.  As we age we realize others behaving in ways one does not like is a routine, daily occurrence.  Hourly even in some cases.   Healthy development means developing ways to deal with that hurt so that it does not turn to anger, and certainly not violence. 

And I am not sure what you mean by medical proof for transgender existence.  I do not believe that is a well-researched or even articulated claim.  By definition, one advocated by LGBTQ proponents themselves, gender is NOT a medical or better put, biological designation.  And they are correct. Sex is. Gender is not.  So, given that it is not a biological designation some "medical proof" is not needed.  One's identity has no  known biological markers.  There is no lab test, body scan, etc. one can do to find one's identity.  

You are correct about the "weird fantasy" thing.  But I am not sure why that came up in reference to anything I said.  I certainly did not state anything like that. Sounds more like a "top-down" processing thing to me.  

I will end by saying self-identity period is a confusing, fluid, and alternating concept whose development is life-long.  There is no medical test for it....period.  As it relates to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.   To try and justify one's anger over a medical finding appears to me actually disingenuous and baffling when the thing that you are trying to advocate for (i.e. one's identity) is supposed to be fluid and non-binary.  Which is exactly the opposite of what medical science attempts to do (i.e. break things down in the physical, binary, and categorical world).  

Edited May 25, 2021 by nerdsforprez

[Blondie-Wan]

3 hours ago, 1974 said:

A lot of words, none of them being "LEGO". This is a LEGO forum, there are tons of forums and other SoMe ways to talk about non-LEGO things

I'm not intolerant, I just don't give a flying fvck when I'm on my favourite LEGO forum. I'm here for the bricks, not to push my personal agenda

Cheers,

Ole

 

3 hours ago, danth said:

Sounds like you need to stay out of this topic them.

"If you don't like it...don't read it!"

To be fair, I'm not totally opposed to the idea that any arguments about whether Lego should or shouldn't do whatever set be moved to some separate thread in a different sub-forum.

But until then, this is the topic for it. It's just more easily visible to people who aren't interested in that aspect of the discussion, for good or ill.

 

2 hours ago, 1974 said:

True. But if there isn't enough LEGO only stuff here, the forum might fade even more .. It's rather obvious that TLG is not seeing this as the premier SoMe outlet anymore

Do you really think this is the right place to argue about that?

 

2 hours ago, williejm said:

Hard to disagree or agree when you word it so obliquely tbqh. I just don’t understand you blundering into a thread you clearly have issues with, doing the ‘I’m not intolerant but...’ line then screaming for the thread to be closed down because people aren’t saying BRICKS enough. If you have an issue - maybe raise with a moderator? 

Okay, in case 1974 is seriously concerned this thread isn’t sufficiently LEGO-y, then here, let me help...

BRICKS bricks bricks bricks BRICKS studs, studs, tubes & studs MINIFIGURES MINIFIGURES baseplate BASEPLATE Duplo baseplate LEGO LEGO LEGO AFOL clutch power Technic clutch Bionicle Classic Space AFOL KFOL TFOL. LEGO CUUSOO, LEGO Ideas, Design by Me! Modular buildings, yo. Classic Space! Classic Space! Pirates, arrrr. LEGO House Star Wars! Town, Town, City, Town. World City, World City, Heartlake City, Ninjago City! Friends, Minidolls, Minifigures, Microfigures. ABS! ABS! Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, ABS. Power Functions! CCBS! Johnny Thunder! Zach the LEGO Maniac! Ole Kirk Kristiansen, LEGOLAND, Billund, Billund. LEGO Club! Brickmaster, Brickmaster, Scala, Aqua Raiders. Blacktron! Blacktron! 9v Trains. Dark stone, bley. Minifigure, Mindstorms, maxifig, Modulex. Minidoll! Minidolls! Bigfigs! Trophy figs! Technic, Technic, gear ratio, liftarm. LEGO Studios, clutch power, Clutch Powers, Chase McCain. Darth Vader, Batman, old gray, new gray. Hello there! General Kenobi! Monster Fighters, CHI! Forever sorting, LEGOLAND Discovery Center. TT Games. GWP, SNOT, BURP, POOP, leg godt.

Only the best is good enough. Maersk!

_____

There you go. Glad I could help!    Let me know if there’s anything else I can do.

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Blondie-Wan

[nerdsforprez]

8 minutes ago, Blondie-Wan said:

 

 

 

Okay, in case anyone is seriously concerned this thread isn’t sufficiently LEGO-y, then here, let me help...

BRICKS bricks bricks bricks BRICKS studs, studs, tubes & studs MINIFIGURES MINIFIGURES baseplate BASEPLATE Duplo baseplate LEGO LEGO LEGO AFOL clutch power Technic clutch Bionicle Classic Space AFOL KFOL TFOL. LEGO CUUSOO, LEGO Ideas, Design by Me! Modular buildings, yo. Classic Space! Classic Space! Pirates, arrrr. LEGO House Star Wars! Town, Town, City, Town. World City, World City, Heartlake City, Ninjago City! Friends, Minidolls, Minifigures, Microfigures. ABS! ABS! Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, ABS. Power Functions! CCBS! Johnny Thunder! Zach the LEGO Maniac! Ole Kirk Kristiansen, LEGOLAND, Billund, Billund. LEGO Club! Brickmaster, Brickmaster, Scala, Aqua Raiders. Blacktron! Blacktron! 9v Trains. Dark stone, bley. Minifigure, Mindstorms, maxifig, Modulex. Minidoll! Minidolls! Bigfigs! Trophy figs! Technic, Technic, gear ratio, liftarm. LEGO Studios, clutch power, Clutch Powers, Chase McCain. Darth Vader, Batman, old gray, new gray. Hello there! General Kenobi! Monster Fighters, CHI! Forever sorting, LEGOLAND Discovery Center. TT Games. GWP, SNOT, BURP, POOP, leg godt.

Only the best is good enough. Maersk!

_____

There you go. Glad I could help!    Let me know if there’s anything else I can do.

 

I read through all of these and you mentioned Technic... my preferred theme only TWICE.  I am deeply offended for this act of violence.....

Edited May 25, 2021 by nerdsforprez
lol... miscounted. I guess I need to curb my offense

[Blondie-Wan]

1 minute ago, nerdsforprez said:

I read through all of these and you mentioned Technic... my preferred theme only ONCE.  I am deeply offended for this act of violence.....

On the contrary, I mentioned it at least three times, and with other Technic-related terms, to boot. 

[Karalora]

@nerdsforprez For a fellow ally, you sure seem determined to interpret my words in the worst possible light. What gives, bruh?

[nerdsforprez]

1 minute ago, Blondie-Wan said:

On the contrary, I mentioned it at least three times, and with other Technic-related terms, to boot. 

Ahhh!! I miscounted again? (see my edit)  Well... I suppose I need to re-think my "offense" 

 

2 minutes ago, Karalora said:

@nerdsforprez For a fellow ally, you sure seem determined to interpret my words in the worst possible light. What gives, bruh?

Ahh! why? The psychosis thing?  If I did... my bad.  But I can only see that interpretation as to why you would take umbrage with my use of the example.  

 

[Karalora]

Psychosis is defined as difficulty discerning reality, yes? (I mean...is that the definition? It's the working one I have for day to day life; I am not a clinical psychologist.) If you accept that people's declared gender identity is definitive, then it cannot be psychosis and making a direct comparison is rather playing into the haters' hands.

[Lira_Bricks]

32 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

And I am not sure what you mean by medical proof for transgender existence.  I do not believe that is a well-researched or even articulated claim.  By definition, one advocated by LGBTQ proponents themselves, gender is NOT a medical or better put, biological designation.  And they are correct. Sex is. Gender is not.  So, given that it is not a biological designation some "medical proof" is not needed.  One's identity has no  known biological markers.  There is no lab test, body scan, etc. one can do to find one's identity. 

From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1113163

Quote

Significantly increased mean diffusivity (MD) values were found in MtF compared to control men, and significantly decreased MD values in FtM compared to control women. MD values (and axial and radial diffusivity) were associated with plasma testosterone levels. The participants in this study were mixed with regard to sexual orientation. Controlling for sexual orientation did not result in changes in the findings.

I think the part "Grey matter – volumetric and cortical thickness studies" also agrees w ith me, but I am not sure since I do not know a lot of the words...

In that article they also link to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1113163#, which would also give more information about brain differences among men and women, and cisgender and transgender. But I got tired from reading the original so...

37 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

But one cannot force others to agree.  Nor is it violent or abusive if they do not agree.

I am pretty sure if I start calling all the transphobic men "little girls" they will get aggressive really quickly. Same with calling transphobic women "broad-shouldered men"

[Lord Insanity]

9 hours ago, allanp said:

 

@PhoenixBuilder actually many in the trans community are demanding that I do not follow my own ethical moral code. When someone is born a male (and I'm not talking to the very few that are intersex) then they transition to becoming a female, to them that is their truth, to them, it is not a lie and comes from a place of trying to live their truth and I fully understand and accept that. But to me, refering to someone that was born a male as "she" is a lie. I'm fine with those born biologically male identifying their selves as female. But many are not fine with me identifying those born male as "he".  

I am happy to try to explain further if you guys wish, but I'm also happy to just live and let live. I won't continue this unless there are any specific questions for me.

 

See this is the part you are not understanding.  Anyone that is not cisgender is by definition suffering an intersex condition.  A cisgender male didn't choose to be "brain wired" male anymore than a transgender female chose to be "brain wired" female.  The difference is a cisgender male just happens to have their anatomy match their "brain wiring" while a transgender female does not.  Gender dysphoria is literally distress at a persons "brain wiring" not matching their anatomy.  By transitioning their anatomy to match their "brain wiring" the problem of gender dysphoria is cured.

Putting gender emphasis on anatomy (which can be changed), rather than "brain wiring" (which can not) seems rather silly if you know anything at all about biological development and how messy it is.

[nerdsforprez]

4 minutes ago, Lira_Bricks said:

From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1113163

 

Ah... gotcha.  Seen this one before.  Couple things.  Very weak study.  They discuss it themselves in the Discussion part of the article.  They state:

"We would like to stress that the main constraints we found were not only that there are still only a few studies on this subject, but also that techniques, design and samples are very diverse across studies."

It is a really interesting hypothesis to be sure.  I am glad someone is looking into it.  But pitted against literally decades of research on the sex differences in brain functioning and structure between men and women- without being overly verbose, this is nothing.  Not to dismiss it.  Certainly important.  But certainly not proof.  

Also, again, careful with the logic here.  I think it is only half-baked.  Proof is a sticky word.  Depending on its usage, proof is often used as a categorical term.  Webster defines it as "absolute" and as "inducing certainty."  Definitive in nature would be another word for it.  By that logic that would mean that anyone whose brain does not match that of their identified gender (but rather their natal sex) is not really that of their identified gender?  Someone not having a true transgender experience?  Ouch..... I think you would create a large following of hatred there.  

There may be some biological involvement here.  Why shouldn't there be?   It is a real phenomena so it should have some biological underpinnings or associations. But proof?  Naw.....

22 minutes ago, Lira_Bricks said:

Significantly increased mean diffusivity (MD) values were found in MtF compared to control men, and significantly decreased MD values in FtM compared to control women. MD values (and axial and radial diffusivity) were associated with plasma testosterone levels. The participants in this study were mixed with regard to sexual orientation. Controlling for sexual orientation did not result in changes in the findings.

Yea see my statement above.  Another caution about reading medical findings and trying to extrapolate human experiences from them is that biology and psychological experiences tend to produce correlations, but certainly not "proofs" or linear relationships.  Relationships are usually weak and multi-factorial.  Endless examples.  Like ever time we drink alcohol we lose literally thousands of neurons yet don't automatically feel dumber.  Some of the brightest minds out there drink tons of alcohol.  

 Literally decades of research on white matter hyperintensities (in the brain) which are not-so-good stuff found on brain MRI but their relationships to psychological experiences are loose indeed.   Proponents of  Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) (and all the brain related research there - which is substantial) would have you think that playing rugby, soccer or american football will turn your brain to mush in just a few years yet they overwhelming degree of professional athletes in these sports are doing just fine decades after their careers.   Researchers in the area of Alzheimer's disease (AD) would have, ten years ago, said that plaques and tangles in the brain (with long medical names) CAUSE AD.  But new we sing different tunes.  We know folks pass with AD symptoms but NO plaques and tangles.  And, upon brain dissection and examination after death we also know that people pass with no known symptoms and their brain are riddled with plaques and tangles.  

33 minutes ago, Lira_Bricks said:

I am pretty sure if I start calling all the transphobic men "little girls" they will get aggressive really quickly. Same with calling transphobic women "broad-shouldered men"

See my previous  statement.  False equivalence here.  I am working under the assumption we are all talking about everyday communication here.  Use in the office, the basic need for communication, etc.  Your examples clearly do not fall under this and, I think, much more in line with taunting or bullying which is a different matter entirely.  Don't change things up so transparently, it gives the appearance of not taking the debate seriously.  

[Darkdragon]

Let's get the topic back to the actual LEGO set and pieces please.

[allanp]

@Lord Insanity that all depends on if there is such a thing as a male wired, and a female wired brain. There are neuroscientists that say there is, there are other neuroscientists that say that there isn't, and that the studies to say there is are very weak. So once again we are left to form our own opinions. I'm not sure people realise just how much opinion is being conflated with fact. In my own opinion (which could be wrong) I see many men with whom I am alike with regards to our "brain wiring" (like in terms of empathy, likes, dislikes, humour, all sorts of things), and many others that I am nothing alike and never wish to be. Same with women. We all just seem so individual and different that the idea of a "male brain" and a "female brain" seems unfounded to me. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by allanp

[nerdsforprez]

43 minutes ago, Karalora said:

Psychosis is defined as difficulty discerning reality, yes? (I mean...is that the definition? It's the working one I have for day to day life; I am not a clinical psychologist.) If you accept that people's declared gender identity is definitive, then it cannot be psychosis and making a direct comparison is rather playing into the haters' hands.

I don't accept that people's declared gender identity is definitive.  And that is not my call or interpretation.  Like I mentioned before, self-identity is a fluid, ever-developing concept. It is no more definitive than one's sexual orientation.  Which, for some, is always changing. 

Over the years I have been involved in many cases where one identifies with with the opposite sex they were born, so by definition they become transgender.  But later in life they switch back, and identify with their natural-born sex.  It is not rare for this to occur.  

Gender identity is certainly JUST THAT... it is difficultly discerning one's gender identity.  How else can it not be? One is born into a sex, and social and personal identity is then built around that.  If it does not seem to fit, then what does one turn to?  The opposite sex, naturally, because we only have two biological sexes (not counting all the rare, but different permutations out there).  But just because the degree of freedom is 1 here does NOT mean that that person knows what it means to be the other sex.  I have seen it a lot where person 1 is born as sex 1 but does not identify as such.  So, naturally, they turn to sex 2 and try to identify with that sex as well, only to find they don't identify with it either.  They spend decades afterwards trying to figure out all the nuances in between...that is the very definition of "non-binary" - I would think this would be familiar to you.... 

[nerdsforprez]

9 minutes ago, Darkdragon said:

Let's get the topic back to the actual LEGO set and pieces please.

Sorry... no more from me.  Had some down-time and found this thread. 

I will end with I recognize that it is a very important issue (LGBTQ stuff).  But for all proponents out there please thoroughly think through things as the LGBTQ movement goes forwards.  As I have both worked in the field of psychology, but more important as a parent of a trans child, I honestly believe that the greatest opposition to LGBTQ rights, progress, etc. comes not from the outside, but from within.  Half-baked reasoning, mis-directed stressors, abusing social platforms, etc. can and are embedded in such movements.  

If you find yourself advocating the LGBTQ movement, or intimately (personally) involved, continue to push forward.  Feel free to be loud and proud but remember the values of civility and sound logic.  Don't try to persuade anyone with passion, rhetoric or emotion.  Do so with rationale and sound thinking.  Without any finger-pointing, please be aware that it is just as important to identify internal detractors as it is to identify outside detractors.  

[Alexandrina]

How quickly are we expecting this set to sell? Obviously it's not a limited-run set, so anybody who wants it will have the opportunity to buy it eventually, but I confess I do want to get my hands on a copy as soon as I possibly can.

That brings me to a dilemma. Obviously, the set comes out on June 1st, which is a Tuesday. The earliest I could place an order via Lego.com is just after 10am, assuming it's still in stock, because cruel work shifts mean I can't stay up until it goes live the night before. Based on past experiences with Lego.com, I'd expect to have a delivery some time in the latter half of the following week - and I can definitely wait that long, not a problem.

However, I'm scheduled to go to Bristol for the day on June 4th - and as Bristol has a Lego store, I will undoubtedly call in. Certainly there's no chance I can place an order online and have delivery before then. And thus my dilemma: do I order 40516 as soon as I can, or do I try and grab it from the physical store a few days later? I'm worried that if it's one of those that's gonna sell super quick, waiting those extra few days might mean I miss out on the chance to get one early doors. And while I can wait for as long as it takes, I'd rather not wait.

[williejm]

18 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

How quickly are we expecting this set to sell? Obviously it's not a limited-run set, so anybody who wants it will have the opportunity to buy it eventually, but I confess I do want to get my hands on a copy as soon as I possibly can.

That brings me to a dilemma. Obviously, the set comes out on June 1st, which is a Tuesday. The earliest I could place an order via Lego.com is just after 10am, assuming it's still in stock, because cruel work shifts mean I can't stay up until it goes live the night before. Based on past experiences with Lego.com, I'd expect to have a delivery some time in the latter half of the following week - and I can definitely wait that long, not a problem.

However, I'm scheduled to go to Bristol for the day on June 4th - and as Bristol has a Lego store, I will undoubtedly call in. Certainly there's no chance I can place an order online and have delivery before then. And thus my dilemma: do I order 40516 as soon as I can, or do I try and grab it from the physical store a few days later? I'm worried that if it's one of those that's gonna sell super quick, waiting those extra few days might mean I miss out on the chance to get one early doors. And while I can wait for as long as it takes, I'd rather not wait.

I mean, six and two threes if my experience of popular sets in stores is anything to go by. Surely you will at least know if delivery and online ordering is difficult by the time you’re in Bristol though? 

[Alexandrina]

Just now, williejm said:

I mean, six and two threes if my experience of popular sets in stores is anything to go by. Surely you will at least know if delivery and online ordering is difficult by the time you’re in Bristol though? 

That's true. And there's nothing stopping me from buying online and in store for that sweet sweet double rainbow!

[williejm]

3 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

That's true. And there's nothing stopping me from buying online and in store for that sweet sweet double rainbow!

Or indeed the inevitable gift giving, or just boosting the sales to upset the right people... 

[Alexandrina]

12 minutes ago, williejm said:

Or indeed the inevitable gift giving, or just boosting the sales to upset the right people... 

Oh stop it, or you're gonna talk me into buying four or five!

[williejm]

4 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

Oh stop it, or you're gonna talk me into buying four or five!

Like who do you know, that *wouldn’t* love it? 

[Alexandrina]

1 minute ago, williejm said:

Like who do you know, that *wouldn’t* love it? 

Well, I know a guy who's really not into Lego. Guess it would be an unappreciated gift for him.

I'll have to keep his copy for myself! 

[Karalora]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

I don't accept that people's declared gender identity is definitive.  And that is not my call or interpretation.  Like I mentioned before, self-identity is a fluid, ever-developing concept. It is no more definitive than one's sexual orientation.  Which, for some, is always changing.

Definitive in a given moment, then. Certainly no one has the authority to overrule a person on their own gender identity.

[williejm]

1 minute ago, Alexandrina said:

Well, I know a guy who's really not into Lego. Guess it would be an unappreciated gift for him.

I'll have to keep his copy for myself! 

What a weirdo!

[Fuppylodders]

Wow, there's a LOT to reply to here! for those who hate wall of texts, you can skip this  Certainly a lot of food for thought here, a lot to be learned, and also actually learned, and hopefully a bit more understanding for all sides (sides perhaps isn't the best term as it in itself is divisive when here is all about being inclusive! But I don't know a better choice of words, do feel free to help out there!)

I'll state a big confusion I seem to be having which is making it really difficult to follow some things...
Example, a LGBTQ+ person says ' this transgender man......
Are they a man now who was cisgender female? Are they pre-op cisgender female turning into a man, or pre-op cisgender man turning into a female, or post op male turned into a female or post op female turned into male? Or Cisgender male who became female by gender and no operation to change biology? Or cisgender female who didn't have op to biologically become male but identifies as male? My mind has become so blurred trying to keep up, I literally can't seem to figure this out now.... I really don't want to cause offense with this question, but I genuinely am struggling to understand because what I identify as male is now something else.... and can literally be any cisgender at any point in time of their transition or non transition....

 

18 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

 

I don't mean to single Fuppylodders out specifically here, but this question keeps cropping up and seems to warrant a much more specific answer in general.

Most species on Earth do not fall into the "typical" male and female gender division.  Many species can flat out change sex at will in response to specific environmental pressures.  The movie Finding Nemo should have had Nemo's dad change sex after his mate was eaten because that is what real life Clownfish do. 

All Humans at conception are always functionally asexual an will grow typical female genitalia by default.  People with XY chromosomes usually have a burst of developmental testosterone in the womb at 8 weeks which causes them to grow typical male genitalia.  There is a small population in the Dominican Republic that has girls born that do not experience developmental testosterone until they hit puberty around age 12 and become fully functional men after being a girl for the first 12 years of their lives.  Yes, really.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "brain wiring" is even more unpredictable.  While there is no significant difference of intelligence level between "male" and "female" "brain wiring" there are several differences that are testable and measurable.  A person can't "fake it" or "just decide one day", they are born that way.  When "brain wiring" doesn't match the physical anatomy we can change the anatomy.  We can't change "brain wiring" and I would find it utterly horrific if someone tried to.

One specific interpretation of one specific translation of one specific religious text is flat out wrong.  Period.

It's cool, I brought it up, although, this thread here is my first real deep interaction with the whole LGBTQ+ context, so it's a news to me, but am open to being enlightened that it's not new to the situation.
I certainly never knew about those of the Dominican Republican minority situation! That is extremely interesting, and certainly opens one's mind about this whole situation.

You mention most species don't fall into male and female, but, we are talking about the human species, and human rights, human acceptance. Humans are a hell of a lot more complex to compare to other species (except primates, but I'm just not even going to go there), although I do understand the intent you meant.

 

You mention brain wiring. I totally get that, and entirely agree. But brain wiring works in more ways than just regarding gender. It works in everything we do. Everything we believe in, the way we account for ourselves. It provides the strength behind our own individual ideologies. It provides our different levels of stubborn-ness. It provides us with individuality, some who's resolve is greater than others. It provides each individual with different levels of ability to *adjust, adapt, view objectively*. Some benefit from greater levels of it while others have minimal levels of it, if any. 
Just as you can't change your mind on your gender, I can't just 'change my mind' on something that has been a lifelong thought process that my mind has reasoned as 'the way life is because it's what society has dictated', accepted and, due to *society* has had impressed upon me when young and impressionable and at my most important stage of learning and adapting. 
Which makes it extremely difficult to suddenly change just because others are telling me it's not right, when it contradicts my entire upbringing. I'm old enough and have enough brain cells (sometimes!) to understand and accept LGBT+ have absolutely *every* right to be treated equally. The issue is, society has provided me with an upbringing that doesn't make it as straight forward as that. Might I add, absolutely everyone has had a very different upbringing, and therefore, has different experiences, which has provided differences in many aspects of our lives. So, to say you find it horrific if someone wanted to change someone's brain wiring... well, welcome to our world, where we're being forced to have our brain wiring changed at a late stage in our lives when we're already typically set in our ways in mind, and thought process and having to change what quintessentially, now comes natural to us.

Civilised conversations such as this, most certainly does help, as it aids in enlightening. But please, while I understand your community has had a hell of a struggle on your hands (that shouldn't be a struggle but a freedom), understand, that some of us have our own struggle. Struggles internally with what has been one thing and now *must* be the other, or be called a bigot, when the initial thing was absolutely accepted and essentially brainwashed into us from a young age. Like I've said before, some of us are adapting quicker, others, taking a lot longer, but still adapting. Then, there are the vocal (can't really say minority as I've no idea on percentages) that entirely are bigots beyond all reasonable doubt. 

 

16 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm not saying it would be poor representation on its own per se. The issue would be more that alternative representation is harder to pull off visually without the use of symbology cues (that was the original point I was making on the first comment). If the entirety of trans representation was restricted to typically male facial features paired with typically female clothing and hair, it paints a picture that leaves an unbalanced view of trans women. My gut instinct based on my time in the community is that trans women who regularly present with facial hair as a conscious aspect of their presentation (rather than those who are struggling to remove it and thus have visible stubble, especially at the end of a long day) are a minority - I could be wrong here, I've never done a full survey. Again, as part of a balanced representation it would be fine - but the crux of the matter is that it's harder to show trans women without obvious facial hair. 

There are other risks too. Off the top of my head, it would reinforce in certain circles stereotypes against trans women in the UK particularly that are currently doing us damage. For instance, there's a growing voice against self-identification - based on dodgy reporting in the media on what self-ID actually is and reinforced by certain personalities online (not here, I add). There's a perception that self-ID would allow any man to declare himself a woman and immediately be allowed into women's spaces, and I have seen propaganda that plays on this fear which leans hard on the image of a "man in a dress" with very clumsy presentation. Self-identification is actually making a statutory declaration regarding gender - a legal document signed in the presence of a solicitor - rather than the current system of following arbitrary standards of presentation for a period of several years in order to be eligible to legally change gender marker.

I will respond to the rest of your comment later - as I have to rush off to work now! I'm not ignoring the rest of it. 

That absolutely makes sense. I mean, it wouldn't have to be just male jawline features, it could be female features too in some manner or form. I'm not stating an exhaustive list of 2 things, there are more possibilities, probably a lot more if more people threw down suggestions. But I do understand, that physical attributes are difficult to show with respect to the level of detail typically afforded to minifigs, unless kept to the stereotypes, which, I now understand more of why they're *potentially* damaging (although I kinda still feel it wouldn't be as bad, but, that's just how my mind is seeing it. I'm probably missing a lot of pieces of the puzzle to make a more informed thought process decision on that).

I understand the situation of self identification, but, I feel that it brings difficulties that I'll get into later regarding the toilet situation and trans people. I also fully understand how the media scaremonger and sensationalise to make stories that essentially aren't typically true or are entirely misrepresented or clickbait. Covid has massively proved that.

Naw it's cool, if I'm honest, I ended up having to skip dinner before bed and, ended up going to bed at 01:30am this morning because I spent actual hours typing my reply on my phone. Now I'm on my crappy laptop, but its ever so slightly more friendly for typing long paragraphs and reading long paragraphs to reply to which I'm hoping enables me to get to bed at a more decent time! 
I have no issue at all with you in any manner, and apologise if I came across harsh or, perceived your comments as harsh. I'm trying real hard to improve that, I have my own issues I'm trying to work through, anger clouding my judgement being a big part of it. It's ok if you don't reply, I've a feeling there will be plenty more other posts  from other people to reply to!

 

16 hours ago, danth said:

Intolerance of intolerance is not only justified, it is required for a functioning society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's just like self defense: violence is wrong, unless it's done to stop someone from doing violence.

I understand that, except, almost the entirety of everything under that link promotes tolerance of intolerance, *unless* the intolerance leads to unequal rights or violence, abuse, murder etc.
It almost feels that people have misunderstood everything in the paradox of intolerance and took one tiny snippet of it and purport that as the ultimate freedom to fight bigotry with bigotry without calling it bigotry.

Just as much as white people can be racist, blacks aren't immune from being racist themselves neither. 

Just as much as LGBTQ+ people face bigotry on a big level, doesn't mean they are immune from being bigots themselves. 

The acceptable level of intolerance of intolerance is at a level that, a governing institution must intervene in order to bring equality to the foreground and as a baseline. *That* is the tone set by what you linked. For example, criminalising anything that promotes inequality or favouritism opposing LGBTQ+'s rights etc.

It is most certainly *not* the freedom to be intolerant of others' disagreeing passive views. Sure, if their actions in any form are provoking violence, acts of abuse, exclusion, murder, unequal rights etc... By all means, intervene. But the paradox of tolerance most certainly does not promote the oppression/suppression of one view to enable another to exist. Both can exist simultaneously. It is only when one actively seeks to reduce the rights of the other, that intolerance must intervene to stop the intolerance forming inequality.

I spent a lot of time reading the link, and that is exactly what the parody of tolerance (and the statements of the people referred to in that link) is referring to.

Your comparison that 'violence is wrong, unless violence stops violence'... You have massively oversimplified it to suit your view.
So, shooting someone in the back who is running away from you after punching you in the stomach is acceptable? After-all, violence to stop violence.

Gouging someone's eyes out who is kicking you in the shins is acceptable? I mean, violence to stop violence.

Now I'm exaggerating it. Yup, because it's a lot more complex and requires a reasonable level of violence, which, is deemed different in every country.
I think I've made my point.

 

13 hours ago, Lira_Bricks said:

As for transgender people: the ending of Ace Venture for example. For some people "transgender = men in dresses fooling other people, sometimes for crime". Transgender women are just people trying to live their live normally. Other transgender people, like transgender men, are often ignored. Or depicted as "lesbian women who are just confused"

She* damn it.

Fully agree. Some people here would justify the Nazi's if they came to power again >.>

1. The "punishment" for using the wrong pronoun is simply be told "no, I prefer pronoun <x>". The punishment intolerant people want to give transgender people go a bit further than that.

2. "men should be allowed to use the women's bathroom"? It is really obvious that you are one of those people that thinks "trans = men in dresses fooling other people, sometimes for crime"

You want these women to go to the men's bathroom? They were assigned male at birth... https://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/ea/a6/74eaa6c80596ae718169aa0a26c4d9bc.jpg (eurobricks does not want to load the image)

You want this man to go to the women's bathroom? He was assigned female at birth... https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_11/1460351/160316-bejamin-melzer-jpo-623a_10195d3684621d6e56fa7adaf5281d68.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg

3. "just not sure I can agree that the best way to promote that is to pick one intolerant side over another. " Thank you for not reading previous discussions

Last I knew, Eddie Izzard was a transvestite, who identified as a he. This was years ago, before different genders and pronouns became a thing, I haven't honestly kept up with what he identifies as, I just enjoyed watching Eddie's stand-up comedy regardless of Eddie's gender. Eddie identifying as a she is entirely news to me.

Please, can you stop comparing someone who supports the freedoms and equal rights of LGBTQ+'s to Nazi supporters simply because they're having their own internal struggles with adapting to LGBTQ+ being a norm when it hasn't been a norm nor socially acceptable for years in a stereotypical upbringing in certain communities/countries. The fact he is supporting and backing your equal rights-which is what you're fighting for, is exactly what the LGBTQ+ community wants, as it propagates the changes necessary (that shouldn't even be needed, but unfortunately, is) to promote equality and adds another number to the correct side. It's his own internal struggle/view but it most certainly isn't him being a bigot by any stretch.

Regarding point #2.
You have severely misunderstood the context in it's entirety for us straight people.
While LGBTQ+ are now more comfortable in whatever gender you feel you naturally belong to/are, and therefore have no issue going to a public bathroom to what gender you identify as...
For me, my entire life, toilets have been male or female. If a male walked into a female's toilets, that's it, you're a pervert. I sure as hell don't want to be labelled a pervert. I don't look left or right while I'm peeing. I pee, wash my hands, and go. If I saw a pre-op pulling up to aim, I'd literally freeze, feel uncomfortable and not know wtf to do, and then struggle to pee. Now you're affecting my ability to pee. Because I'm subconsciously scared of being labelled a pervert, I don't get to *choose* that mindset, it's been brainwashed into me through the ever changing society that I've grown up in where women need their own privacy and men are the largest sexual predators of women. 
Women are largely known 'not to fart' (I'm fully aware they do....But, as a matter of respect, it's deemed more rude/more frowned upon to pass wind in-front of a woman than a man). I don't even feel comfortable sharting into a toilet with men around. Let alone a female! now there's what once was a female, in my immediate vicinity that'll hear the thundering echoes of my logs doing the 10 meter dive within the space of half a foot.
Now I'm going to have a painful time clenching holding it in or trying to pinch it through a hole the size of a needle to reduce the noise. 

You think I'm exaggerating?
OK. You go and take off all your clothes, and walk around town in *just* a G string in public. Don't feel comfortable doing that? Why not? Because society brought you up to see that as unacceptable. But, our skin is natural. We all have skin. we all have bits of varying degrees between our legs. It's all nature gave us (or surgeons). So why does society deem our natural bare nakedness unacceptable to show in normal public? Because that's what *society* has *at this point in time* dictated. 150 years ago, showing an ankle was akin to showing cleavage. Nowadays, people (mostly females tbh) are wearing leggings that literally leave nothing to the imagination other than how much did the leggings cost. Society now dictates that is acceptable. Guarantee if I walked into a gym in tight leggings with my elephant trunk and coconuts blatantly shaped,  I'd be told at some point that it's not acceptable gym attire. But for females, it is...  Jason Derulo had his instagram pic taken down because it showed his candlestick in all its glory except for the tightest of shaped material around it. Why? Because currently, society dictates that unacceptable. 

The amount of times I've been at the gym doing cable fly's or sat on a bench during my rest period between sets just looking directly forward waiting for time to go by, and some girl comes along, uses the machine in front of me which is the leg spready one, or drops down and starts doing hip thrusts in my direct line of sight with a protruding cameltoe the size of a hotdog bun is beyond what I can count on my fingers and toes twice over. Yet damn if it makes me feel uncomfortable as fk because I don't want to be seen as staring and then called a pervert or called out for making them uncomfortable because they're in my direct line of sight, so now I have to make a conscious effort to look away because I'm fearful of what I might be perceived as, when I just want to do my bloody workout! Society has made me fearful. Because I'm cisgender male, and the stereotypes that go with it, and because I lack confidence around females. Irrationally so. If you've seen The Big Bang Theory. I'm literally like Raj and females. It's my nature.


Women who have been sexually assaulted, feel a female public toilet as safe. They can have *SEVERE* mental issues with trust of the male gender. So for them to see any level of man can cause them serious mental harm/nervous breakdown/PTSD. Yet for you, it's soooo black and white that everyone should simply let non cisgendered people go in whatever toilet suits their gender.
I'm sorry, but that's intolerance and absolutely inconsiderate/borderline bigotry. Find another solution. Male toilets, female toilets, other gender toilets. Everyone wins. (disabled get's their own, which encompasses all genders in itself as they're typically a one person private room). All you need to do is pee or poo. You get to do that comfortably, so does everyone else. Males are excluded from female and other gender toilets, females are excluded from male and other gender toilets, other gender toilets are excluded from male/female. If a man is not ashamed of being seen going into a male toilet designated for cisgender males, cisgender female is not ashamed for being seen going into a cisgender female toilet, why should a other gender feel ashamed of going into a cisgender toilet? The exclusion is equal across the board. Exclusion equality.
 

12 hours ago, Lira_Bricks said:

This is what I really cannot stand. "I don't mean to be nasty, I just don't want you to exist! But I still love you!"

Also, why do we transpeople even *need* to convince you?

In your previous post you insinuated that transwomen are men and that they should be banned from the women's bathroom. Want to explain to me how that is not offensive? Have you looked at the picture of the transgender women I posted? Do you want them to use an urinal next to you?

Banning transgender people from using the bathroom is not to protect women or children, it is to make life harder for transgender people. And yes, I mean it when I say banning. Transgender women would be banned from the women's bathroom if it was up to you, and banned from the men's bathroom, because you know, they are women and men would simply block the entrance.

He totally never said he doesn't want you to exist, nor denied your existence. He's simply not adapting as fully and fast as you demand. again, another level of intolerance and understanding when he is showing full *support*. Give him the freedom to have his struggles. Trans people don't NEED to convince him. But if you want equality, it's achieved by support. Support that you're throwing back in his face for simply having a different upbringing to you, that he didn't choose to have, but is a *fact of life*. You know, that thing called diversity.... Diversity includes people of different social backgrounds too, which inherently includes upbringing. You of all people given the struggles you face, should understand that.

However, I feel the level of bigotry you have faced during your unimaginable struggles (I'm not saying that in a mocking tone at all, it's a genuine sentiment) has tainted your thought process to be more dismissive of people unless they literally change every part of their own mental existence to your own interpretation of LGBTQ+ support which is 'you're either fully with us, in absolute entirety, or you're absolutely the enemy, a humungous bigot equal to Nazis'....
Banning transgender people from womens bathrooms absolutely is NOT to make life harder for trans people. It's the slow process of doing what is best for society as a *whole*, taking *everyone* into consideration. I feel your viewpoint here is entirely skewed and misaligned again, because of the bigotry you have faced and feel anything that isn't with you, is absolutely against you.

11 hours ago, PhoenixBuilder said:

While I'm going to quote posts here, my comments are meant more generally and not criticisms of these writers specifically. (Also my patience is beginning to run a little thin with this whole topic, so if I'm blunt, apologies in advance.)

This was me, I made that comment earlier in the thread. I'm going to put the first part of my response to this in spoiler tags, as I'm not sure what this forum's policies are in terms of ... adult conversations:

  Reveal hidden contents

The reason behind this request is that there is a history of LGBTQ people being defined by sex acts, and those sex acts being considered disgusting or perverted etc. Adding the word 'person' gives a greater sense of the personhood of an LGBTQ person, not being defined by how they have sex and the stigma that comes along with that, and acknowledges that there is more to the identity than just that. Of course it should be implied that we're all people, but typically if someone uses a term like 'why does LGBTQ want _____', it raises a red flag. For that reason, it's not comparable to referring to the experience of being straight / cis as there is an understanding by default that those elements are not the defining part of a person.

Even if you can't / don't want to read that spoiler tag, I'm gonna turn this question around -- what is the cost to you of adding in the word 'person' if someone asks? If it makes people feel more valued as people, and requires a few keystrokes, why not do it? The same goes for using pronouns that people request. Society is totally used to women changing their names after marriage, no one bats an eyelid, so what is the struggle when people ask to be recognised as people / individuals ask for certain pronouns to be used / survivors of sexual violence ask to be called survivors and not victims? (Again, not directed at the original comment here at all!)

This argument about 'intolerance on both sides' keeps being raised and is utterly vacuous. The core difference here is that people who seek to judge or shame or disrespect LGBTQ+ people are projecting their values and judgements onto the lives of LGBTQ+ people, and the same is not being done in response. The vast, vast majority of people who campaign against civil rights for LGBTQ+ people, who campaign against same sex marriage, who bar LGBTQ+ people from accessing necessary medical services, are not part of the community, and yet have decided that they get to have a say in other people's lives. LGBTQ+ people (typically) are not advocating that, for example, those with religious convictions that do not accept us should be banned from practicing their religion. We aren't trying to insert our beliefs or values into anyone else's life, but that is what is being done to us. All we're asking for is to be seen and acknowledged and respected for who we are, and to be treated at the same level as straight people. That's why pronouns are important. That's why feeling safe in a bathroom is important. That's why having a Lego set made about you is important! 

One other point while I'm here: I don't expect everyone to have an intuitive knowledge of all of this stuff, but I do think it is not the responsibility of LGBTQ+ people on this forum to answer every question or argue everyone's 'devil's advocate' arguments about LGBTQ+ people. If you have a question, I'd encourage you to Google an answer first -- there are many activists and advocates who have written about most of these topics, and I think many of the questions being raised can be answered there without putting a weighty responsibility on LGBTQ+ members here. I, as a cis man, would hold myself to that when it comes to trans issues: I don't believe I have any knowledge of what gender dysphoria is like to experience, nor am I directly affected by issues facing the trans community, but much of the knowledge I'm lacking I've found through blog posts, social media, and articles written by brave and admirable trans people. (If a question is still outstanding, of course I'd bring it to my friends, but only if / when they're comfortable having that conversation)

Having said that, I am desperately trying to make at least some of the experience of being queer relatable or understandable for the straight people in this thread, but honestly it is becoming exhausting and upsetting. Please, just let us have this one Lego set. It's depressing when any tiny sense of recognition or representation we get has to be picked apart over and over again.

No apologies necessary, I understand it's probably like bashing your head against a brick wall. 
So, regarding the hidden text, that's something I never knew/considered. I, through my viewpoint of seeing the social transformation of the acceptance of LGBTQ throughout my years, only by immaturity of youth considered that. As I became older, and more aware of the diversity of people, had my own life experiences, learned what truly defines people, I knew that the contents of the hidden text in absolutely no way defines the community. Many straight people even more so nowadays engage in similar, and that in no way makes them appear less of a person, nor simply not a person. To me, it feels more like adding a demand just for the sake of it. If anything, to me, it feels more like I'm being dehumanising by drawing attention to the fact you're people too, when it's blatantly beyond all reasonable doubt and a mockery to consider otherwise.

Similar to the whole issue of 'Black lives Matter too'. Those 3 letters.... what a whole shitstorm it created. Yet it's stating the obvious. That doesn't need to be stated. I think that is why I'm hesitant to ensure I absolutely every time, add the wording, because of that. Like, of course you are. But let's not detract from the main issue at hand.

Regarding the intolerance situation, I feel I've already responded to that sufficiently to cover your post as well, in my response to Danth's. 
However, one point I will add... you are inserting your belief's into other's lives, by essentially demanding to be known by your pronoun if different from birth. You're demanding they ignore their upbringing and acknowledge your lifestyle. That's like someone demanding I acknowledge and believe in God and speak with religious context. For me, not happening. 
Regarding calling someone by their preferred pronoun... I'm internally struggling to accept it because it's soooo different than what I've essentially, been brainwashed to do and think. Oh, I am swinging to your direction of it for sure. It just makes me feel slightly uncomfortable because it's not natural *to me*. It might be for you, and that's great, but you're asking me to go against *my* nature. It's such a conflicting feeling. I think I believe I know it's not right (you follow that? because I'm not sure even I do...) but it's how my mind has been socially wired from birth. Yep, back to brain wiring. I'm trying to rewire my brain. Like you can't flick a switch to change your brain wiring, neither can I. But I know to be inclusive and assist people with equality, I'm trying to change my thought process. I'm trying. But it's got 37 years of single minded thinking going against it. I'm all for LGBTQ+ people having equality.... while I might not immediately call you by your preferred pronoun, I shall not disrespect you by intentionally calling you the incorrect pronoun to your nature. I shall refer to you (I say you, I mean LGBTQ+ people) by your chosen name. Can I at least work from there? Can others be allowed the same consideration (albeit they could be at different points in time of their own internal struggle of fully embracing LGBTQ+ people's preferences.

 

9 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

At least for me, this is all I ask for. I don't really mind what views someone holds in private, so long as when I interact with them they give me the respect to acknowledge my identity. That does mean calling me "she" - I am not a man, and nor will I respond kindly to someone insisting on calling me a man (after I have explicitly told them otherwise - I don't expect people, especially online, to necessarily know that I am a woman without prompt). If someone wants to leave the interaction thinking I am a man, that's their prerogative, so long as they don't feel the need to force that view upon me.

I won't force you into further debate - as you say, our views are fundamentally different, and I don't think continuing to debate would help anyone, nor would it be relevant to Lego.

That said, I would like to add - for the benefit of anyone who happens to read - why being told I'm not a woman, having my gender denied, is hurtful. First off, I didn't choose to be this way. Being trans is not my fault. 

As a trans woman, I ask only one thing: that I be allowed to live my life in peace, with basic human respect afforded me. When someone aggressively misgenders me, that falls short of basic respect. Have you ever met a friend's pet for the first time? If you guess its gender wrong, you usually will be subtly corrected - and it's no big deal, the world keeps turning. But if your friend said "my dog is female, actually" and you continued to call it "he" while being aware of that, it would be a bit of a social faux pas. It doesn't happen. People respect a dog's pronouns. 

So when someone calls me "he" and I tell them that actually I am a woman, if they still insist on calling me "he" to deny my gender, they're treating me with less respect than they would a dog.

As a trans woman, every time I post something online or go out in the street, there's a chance that'll happen. Or worse. And you know what? It really wears a person down. 

That Lego have done this set is such a brilliant thing in my eyes. It says to me that, now and in the future, Lego won't deny my gender. I can build this set and know that they see me.

Referring to the bold text.... this'll sound harsh, I don't mean it to, but I see no other way...
But isn't that what you're doing to them? Forcing your view upon them?
Dog's don't change their genders. I can crouch down and check out if a dog is typically male or female. Dogs keep whatever nature gave them. People generally accept a dog's gender as cisgender. Dogs get called inanimate objects as their actual name. Yet the bits between their legs still very stereotypically define the pronoun of a dog. You can't really compare as there's a lot more complex issues at hand with humans, the whole brain wiring thing and other previous points I've mentioned previously. I understand your sentiment, but I really don't think you can compare it to being given less respect than a dog because of such differences. 

I really can't agree more with the bolded statement. It is things like that, which help push my mind in what is the right direction of inclusion acceptance in my own internal struggle. 
 

9 hours ago, Lira_Bricks said:

The Nazi's where also fine with the holocaust. Is it the fault of all the people sent to the death-camps? Of course you are fine with it, it is not about your existence...

It would deny your existence. You view yourself a certain way, and someone else is telling you that way of living is fake. But now were are getting into the domain of otherkins and littles, both of which I know too little about.

So why do you have issues with transgender women going to the women's bathroom if you are fine with genderless bathrooms? You would rather have a bathroom anyone can enter than one where cisgender women and transgender women can go to?

Yeah yeah, live and let live. Nice joke you made there. We may live as long as we fit your way of living

Yeah.... again with the Nazis... just stop it, please.... I don't get offended easily, but that's crossing the line and is offensive.
While your comment is aimed at Allanp, I've already addressed this bathroom issue above. 

I genuinely am sorry for the bigotry you have had to face. I shouldn't have to apologise, but to see how it's twisting your view of someone who *does* support you, but is held back to some degree because of how society/his upbringing has made his thought process occur, you mock his support and dismiss it as bigotry. You're showing a side that puts people off supporting LGBTQ+ people. Not because I reckon you're a horrid person with a black and white view of absolutes, but I feel you've been ground down and it's worn too thin on you. 
A lot of bitterness is very easily coming through your posts. I get why. I have not experienced why. Don't let the bitterness overcome what you're aiming to achieve (which you shouldn't have to)

5 hours ago, Karalora said:

@allanp You talk about "intolerance on both sides," but it's a false equivalence. Trying to define someone's identity as something other than what they designate is an act of aggression. You are trying to overrule a person's self-image. What gives you the right to do that? If they then say "No, you are not authorized to define me," how is that equivalent? If anything, it's self-defense.

Society needs to realize that assigned gender at birth is a doctor's opinion about a new person's gender based on, usually, the shape of their genitals. But as you grow up and develop your self-image, you get to issue a second opinion, and by definition it is the right one. You are the ultimate authority on your identity! If you agree with that first doctor, super. If not, your opinion overrides theirs. Anyone who says otherwise is effectively committing insubordination by proxy on behalf of some OB/GYN years ago. What a silly thing for them to do.

It just isn't aggression, thats an extreme exaggeration. But thankfully, one that nerdsforprez has already addressed, so I don't have to make a clusterf**k of trying to put my thoughts into comprehensible rationality. 

And therein lies the problem. Society. Society thinks one way one decade, then changes it another decade. Outlaws it another decade later. While being worldwide, and having different timelines of progression in different countries. People are fighting individuals because of what society as a whole has dictated. People are punishing others because of what society has dictated them to believe and do/follow. People are being punished as individuals for not keeping up with the change in society. People as individuals generally don't like change. They get accustomed to things. It becomes a way of life. Society comes along and dictates they must now do a 180, meanwhile Mr Bob has been quietly living his life without any requirement to have any consideration (yep lucky him). But now, he is being called a bigot because society as a whole being as diverse as it is, has changed while he as an individual hasn't had to change anything, and has been essentially brainwashed into a certain way of thinking. Society is fickle. Society is difficult to change. Once it does change, it can happen fast. Too fast for some, not fast enough for others. 

 

4 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I'm going to plead the mods for the opposite. Threads related to LGBT rights or similarly "controversial" topics do have an awful tendency to be full of concern trolls who sideline the discussion away from its intended purpose. But allowing that to result in the topics getting shut down has the unfortunate effect of creating a de facto ban on anything even marginally related to those important issues, and suppressing people's ability to discuss them civilly.

So far I think the mods have done a respectable job keeping things civil, which isn't to say there isn't room for improvement. And I'd like to hope that some of the well-reasoned explanations of why things like misgendering are bad or why LGBT pride is important have genuinely gotten across to some users who aren't entering these discussions in bad faith. Perhaps that's optimistic of me. But if people aren't allowed to discuss these things, intolerant members aren't able to reevaluate their worldviews, while members of minority groups aren't able to discuss things that deeply affect them openly. It's a lose-lose scenario to shut these kinds of topics down entirely.

I can't agree more with this. This NEEEEEEDS to occur. Sure, move the thread into community. But it has every right to occur. It is one subject/thread. There is more than enough lego on this forum to satisfy ANY Lego fan's desires. It's going absolutely nowhere because of this thread and lack of lego included in it.

2 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

No.  I can tell you as a clinical psychologist.  This is not correct.  

People can and do identify with all sorts of things to which they are not.  Folks who exhibit psychotic symptoms, overt and objective, certainly don't identify as such.  They think they are as sane as everyone else out there.  

And this should not be interpreted in any shape or form with me comparing someone with psychotic symptoms and a member of the LGBTQ community.  The analogy fits, that is all. 

For transparency, I am a strong advocate for LGBTQ rights.  I am the proud father of a trans son.  Best kid I know and I love him dearly. 

But LGBTQ messages need to be shared clearly, with accurate information, and without ulterior motives.  Not for the benefit of the rest of society, but FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LGBTQ progress.  My son is harmed by false pretenses and messages.  

We may be the author of our own identities, but we don't have  a right to force others to adhere to them.  Nor is that an act of aggression or violence.  Propagation of this narrative actually hurts the LGBTQ movement, not helps it.  

 

I don't think I can emphasise and support the bold type enough. 

 

Well, I started typing at 22:06, it's now 01:10. I've fked up my sleeping again, but it's with good intentions. I'm struggling with tiredness enough as it is, so I might have to bow out here, or i'll end up sleep driving. That never ends well for anyone.
I shall read replies, but possible I won't reply. If you wish a reply, please do PM me, it'd make it easier to reply personally rather than hit people with a critical wall of text x1000 and space them out so I'm not spending more time on a forum than I am avoiding females at the gym.

Take care all of you, I'm glad TLG released this set. 

[Shiva]

Fuppylodders, I hope you are now sleeping well

And if you read it later, I hope you slept well.

The set? It does look nice.

And I think it is more than a LGBTQIA+ set.