Scaff
Moderator
- 29,561
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Did you actually bother reading any of those and then applying critical reasoning to your own reply before hitting the Post Reply button?
The Political Satire/Meme Thread
- Thread starter Danoff
- 13,845 comments
- 800,001 views
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
I don't understand. Are biological men that only date biological women transphobic?
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,561
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
So you failed to pick up on an article that said most people who want white only dating services in the US also hold racist views and think the same would automatically apply to if a white dating service was provided in India or South Africa?
As for your critical reasoning, if it’s so on point why does almost every post you make ask others to explain or justify things to you?
Exercise it and tell us what you think it means and why!
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
1. That study was in Australia
2. It looked at the correlation between "sexual racism" and racism in general, not people who would want to use a white dating app in the US
3. The QDI has several questions that specifically test anti-minority bias, but none that address anti-white bias directly.
So now I have to ask, why did you apply these results to a group of people who would want a white preference site and who live in a country that is on the other side of the world? Would these results be equally valid to users of say Dil Mil or African Cupid?? If not, why not??
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,561
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Anti-white what now?
Have you been mainlining the Daily Mail comments section!
Apply that critical reasoning you were claiming and you tell us.
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Yep so if we look at Question 9 (from the study, not the Guardian link which is not the QDI they used) you can see that it is asking about a problem with white people against minorities, yet there is no equivalent question asking about racism the other way (or, incidentally, minorities views on other minorities).
By "anti-white" I'm talking about things on a spectrum that was so well illustrated by the study I linked to in other posts. It seems, to me at least, that attitudes (and actions) range from anti-white/pro-minority through to unbiased then to pro-white/anti-minority
I'm not sure I want to draw conclusions on why you could be doing that if I'm honestly not sure if you find ethnicity filters for minorities or apps geared around that preference racist or not.Scaff
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,561
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Can you give me some examples of this anti-white bias, as I've never experienced it personally in my fifty years on earth, I'm quite sure I would have noticed as well. Now the other way around, have I in that time benefited from being white in both the conscious and subconscious actions and attitudes of others, yet I've come across more of that than I would be able to even start listing. However, bias against me because I'm white? Nope, not in this country or the wider world.
I've explained my view on them a number of times, you however seem to be avoiding presenting yours. Please stop doing so and apply that critical reasoning and present your view on them.
Well, whoever that is I would say is delusional and dangerous! However, I suspect they would also share @HenrySwanson's belief in anti-white bias.
What?
Last edited:
- 3,749
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not.
- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
Last edited:
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
I am serious. The conversation on the previous page is very confusing to me.
- 29,272
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
My answer would be no, it is not 'transphobic' for a biological male to seek a relationship solely with a biological female. Transphobic to me means someone who actively hates trans people, and that is a million miles away from preferring non-trans partners. I don't consider myself transphobic in any way - I am 100% supportive of one's right to be whatever one chooses to be or identifies as, but I personally have never chosen to date a trans person (though I am not against the idea in principle), but it is not just about 'preferences'. If you want to have kids with your life partner (like most people I know who are married or in a permanent relationship), then that is going to be a bit difficult with a woman who was born male. Seeking out a sexual partner that you can have kids with cannot be considered prejudicial in any way, shape or form (though I suspect some people probably will find it so).
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 3,749
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Obviously I would agree with Touring Mars' above post... a cisgender person not being attracted to a trans person is not transphobic. People have largely innate preferences as to who they are attracted to. The reason for my "can't tell if serious" response above is that I honestly wonder if anyone thinks that it's transphobic not to be attracted to a trans person. That immediately came off to me as a strawman against "woke" or left-wing people to me.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
- 31,650
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Kids cost a hell of a lot more than that. So if that's the issue, re-think the whole thing.
As an adoptive parent, I'm well aware of the costs of adoption. I'm also well aware of the costs of having children. Raising children is a responsibility and a privilege. It's not something you have a right to have funded by others - if you can't afford it, don't do it. Seriously... to anyone reading this, if you can't afford it do not do it.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
That is just the paperwork to get the kid. Doing it the old fashioned way isn't anywhere near 40k unless you rent a hotel room in Dubai to get your wife pregnant.
I paid $60k in fertility treatments for the first kid. Then I adopted from an orphanage in china. It can be expensive either way. But at the height of my young-kid daycare, my 3 kids were running me over $1000 per week. Per week. And it wasn't an ivy league preparatory daycare with an equestrian team.
My adopted daughter has two sets of $15,000 hearing aids. She also has weekly speech therapy. Any kid can have just about any medical need, no matter how you get them.
Seriously, one more time, if you can't afford it, do not do it.
Last edited:
- 31,650
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
60k, just like the 40k for adoption is money most people don't have laying around or are able to save up for in a couple of years. Those are ridiculous amounts of money to get a kid, and only available for the wealthier people.
That is a choice you make. You or your partner could be a stay at home parent, 1000 a week is ridiculous for something that you can do yourself.
Kids don't have to cost anywhere near that to raise them. And just like not having to money to pay for them, not having the time to raise them is a valid reason to not have kids.
Edit.
Just checked the Dutch adoption costs. It averages from 7500 to 10k, so either the dollar isn't worth anywhere near it is now, or more likely, people are making a lot of money selling adoptions in the USA.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
If you can't, maybe don't have a kid. What do you do when your home-grown kid comes out with a genetic disorder? Just throw your hands up and figure it's not your problem? You're entitled to create children you can't care for?
...that would cost more, not less. It's not an illustration of the costs that every family will have to bear. I have 3 kids, not everyone has 3 kids. Both parents work in my household, not every family is in that boat. It's an example of how much kids cost - not the specific scenario everyone faces.
They cost an insane amount. I suppose if you tried hard, you could avoid a fair amount of the cost, in many cases that comes directly the expense of the development of the child. So maybe don't have them if you can't afford it.
Yes, that too. On the free-time spectrum, having too little hampers their development. But spending too much time with them (as a parent) also hampers their development. There is a sweet spot in terms of time spent, and it's not identical from one kid to the next.
Edit:
The US has a lot of background checks, social worker investigations and interviews, and some legal work, and that's just the US side. If it's international, there are a lot of costs incurred by the other nation involved.
My chinese adoption rang up just under $30k with all expenses tolled. That included much work by social workers before and after the adoption, but also bills to the Chinese government, air travel, interpreters, hotels, guides, orphanage fees... there's a lot to do. If you're adopting from China, for example, there is only one city in China with a US institution that can handle immigration visas. So you've got to transport the kid from the orphanage to Guangzhou, regardless of where it is, and it's going to be you doing it for, obvious reasons.
Last edited:
- 31,650
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Making it a rich people only option. Just like many other things in the USA. Unfair in my eyes as it says, **** you infertile Joe Average, no kids for you. Over here, you get 3 IVF for free through insurance.
In the Netherlands, affordable insurance covers just about everything for sick kids.
You lost me with this logic. How can having kids at home being raised by a parent cost more than a 1000 for daycare?
I get the feeling that you've set a fairly high standard of living for yourself and your kids. I understand that certain parts of the world are a lot more expensive to live in than others, but you think that you need obscene amounts of money to give a kid a normal life. You come across as someone who is slowly losing touch with the world of Joe and Jane Average.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Having children you can't care for is not your right. Care is their right. If you can't provide it, don't have them.
That's fine. It still has a cost, but if it's not your cost, the threshold for who can afford kids goes down.
...lost wages.
I think you're just not in touch with how much kids can cost, and how much of a hardship it can be for them if you can't pay for it. I'll take an example that I know universal healthcare addresses, but it will make my point anyway if you can hold that back while you read it.
My daughter needs $15,000 bilateral hearing aids to hear properly. Now, she could get by without them, but it would mean that her potential, including speech, reading, understanding of speech... hang on I got interrupted by my kids. More later.
- 31,650
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
You're confusing the cost of making kids with having them. Or put it simply, rich people get all the fun toys.
Oh you capitalist you. Losing wages doesn't cost you a thing. It just means you need to change your way of life a bit. And I'm pretty sure that with your salary alone, the 5 of you could still live a wonderful life. Even if it means selling a car or 2 or moving to a smaller house.
I am well aware of the costs of having kids. I have 2 nephews and a niece on my side of the family, 3 nieces on the missus' side. We are a close family, and talk about almost anything. The difference between the US (at least your part of the US) and the Netherlands seem to be rather large though.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Uh... no. You're going to need to elaborate.
It does.
A lot.
Oh probably. But if we're using my salary, it would mean that my wife is not working - which would make her miserable. If the kids were all in daycare, it would mean she would need to provide daycare - which would make her miserable all over again (and probably the kids). See, she did not set out to be a daycare worker. Nor is she trained to be one. So our children would go from having a teacher who is actually trained, in a classroom geared toward instruction at that age, with their peers who they can socialize with, to being at home with no one their age, and a care provider who is not trained, and not inclined, to do the job (ie: covid life).
You can see how "saving money" is coming at the cost of the development of the children. In this case, my wife stopping working would be costing a great deal though, not saving anything.
If it took my whole paycheck to cover daycare for 3 kids, I would pay it. I would work and and break even with legitimate instruction rather than do it myself. I'm not inclined, and I'm not trained. And don't for a second think that this means my kids won't have much time with me, it leaves a lot of time for parenting.
Maybe.
To get back to my healthcare example, if I were to forgo the $15,000 bilateral hearing aid for my daughter, she could get by. Her speech development would lag by years, her reading would lag by years, her social skills and analytical skills would lag as well. It would cost her, in some sense, her potential. But I could "get by" without it. And I'm sure lots of people do. In many countries, it may be standard to do so with her condition. This does not mean that I should. It also doesn't mean that you necessarily want to go into having a child not being able to provide this - because it would be heartbreaking to watch your child grow up hindered by a biological condition simply because you couldn't afford to care for them the way they might be.
Now you might argue that nationalized healthcare makes this go away. That misses the point entirely, but suppose that your kid is born with a condition that requires a wheelchair for the duration of their life (or if you don't like that, suppose it happens at age 3 falling off the monkey bars). You already have a kid, and your house is not set up for someone who cannot use their legs. So do you spend 10s of thousands retrofitting your house? Or 10s of thousands moving houses? Or do you make your kid get by and "save money"? I assume (perhaps wrongly) that nationalized healthcare doesn't come in and retrofit your house if you conceive a child that needs it.
People underestimate what kids need, and what they might need if you conceive them naturally (or adopt, either way). If you're balking at $30k for adoption, you might be balking at buying a house in a neighborhood with good schools (that's a thing in the US), or paying for college (that's also a thing in the US), or paying for healthcare (also a thing in the US), or paying for musical instruments when they take up band, or paying for daycare, or paying for football pads, or holiday gifts, or just paying for having enough rooms for the family. Yes, you can get by living in a single room. It comes at a cost.
Parents have a responsibility to their children, and they need to be prepared to meet that responsibility. Maybe in some countries the responsibility is much lower than others, but ultimately that responsibility is the parents', and it is their choice.
Last edited:
- 29,272
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I think if we delved into this a bit you might find it closer to prejudice than it would appear at first blush, although not for reasons related to transgender. Choosing the genetics of your children (by selecting a mate, or choosing who to adopt, or selecting a donor) is a decision that runs directly into some sticky questions about what constitutes prejudice.
I bring this up because when people "seek" to procreate, I think they are typically not doing that. They're typically seeking to parent and do not bother to distinguish between procreation and parenting (that's what I did). So if someone says "I won't date transgender people because they can't have children", for example, I think they're probably covering for some other bias. Because they'd most likely not blink at someone else who is infertile.
Anywaaayyyyyy.....
I think the transgender dating question is roughly equivalent to the interracial dating question. Which is to say that you get to have your person preference for all kinds of things - but that the reasons for that preference can be bigoted (or not).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
