Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

Locked
CCarmine
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:31 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by CCarmine »

vampire hunter D wrote:Ok, I'm calling it

Image
Good choice of abandon thread gif.

User avatar
Don Alexander
Dr. Ebil SithMod
Posts: 28238
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Under the arms of the ancient oak, where daylight hangs by a lunar noose...

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by Don Alexander »

Hilarious choice for a first post. :P
ImageImage
Sithlord of the Sithling and best customer of McLovecraft's Image, in the business of keeping the little Platypus in business
Moderations in GREEN and signed by the DAMNed. I am not anonymous! Also, MODSMACK!! Image
Winner of the... 2010 Kilopost FRANKIE; 2010 Mad March Nom Off; 2010 Joker Cleavage Contest; 2010 Fan-Thing Contest; 2010 Mimic Contest (tied); 2011 Joker Cleavage Contest; 2011 Contest-for-the-next-Contest (tied)

Captain Vlad
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:23 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by Captain Vlad »

Varanus wrote: While I agree with your main point (that ideally a story should be able to depict things like gay parents pressuring their kids to be gay without it automatically meaning the author is endorsing it), it bears mentioning the dialog you are referring to is not what was originally posted. It got edited (by page three of this topics) to make plainer what was planned to be revealed later. Some are upset it got edited to begin with, some still find it offensive, but most are fine with it.
That explains a lot. Serves me right for not checking the strip for a few days, I guess.;)

Probably would've vented a bit anyway...

creature
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:09 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by creature »

JTheCreator wrote:So did anyone read "hard 1st base" as innuendo for using her lips on the receiver's "southern set of lips"?
Nope. Read it as it was awkward as hell.

obidobi12
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:11 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by obidobi12 »

Just had to join and chime in with how sad a state of affairs have become where it's considered ballsy to post a story like this rather than people just accept it for a story about a crazy mother doing crazy things to her child.

User avatar
True_Avery
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by True_Avery »

tau neutrino wrote:
FuzzyFace wrote:
Alice Macher wrote:So when members of a non-privileged group tell you that something you've written is offensive, the right thing to do is apologize without qualification and make amends.
That gives infinite veto power to anyone who declares themself offended. That's simply not reasonable.
The case of Michael Bailey, who was demonized as an anti-trans monster despite a long history of support for transgender people because his research contradicted the narrative on transsexuality, is instructive.
I may get in trouble for resurrecting this, but I feel like I'm doing a disservice if I don't bring up that this article is extremely disingenuous to what actually happened. Alice Dreger is a well known anti-trans advocate that views Trans people, alongside Michael Baily, as simply people with a fetish. Liberals did not destroy her and Bailey's opinions; they were well enough destroyed by their peers, pointing out mainly that both of them cherrypick their data to support their views that trans people are merely in it for the sexual thrill. He didn't contradict the "narrative" - he lied and let out factors in his data that supported his ideas about autogynephilia and autoandrophilia, which are considered pseudoscience by modern research. His research concludes trans people are little more than repressed homosexuals and fetish chasing straight people that change their lifestyle based on their privilege level.

This was disproven at the time, and has long since been seen as a series of baseless assumptions. Michael Bailey was not a long time supporter of trans people - he and Alice were supporters of intersex people, and followed the 80's mentality that only intersex people could be transgender. They are also both woefully backwards on how sexuality actually works - for fucks sake, Michael Bailey has gone on record that parents should be allowed to choose their child's sexual orientation.

So no, it is not instructive at all. It is, in fact, almost all a bunch of pseudoscience BS by two sex scientists long stuck in the 1980's.
Play Kindred Spirits on the Roof! Play Starlight Vega! Play Ladykiller in a Bind!

User avatar
tau neutrino
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by tau neutrino »

True_Avery wrote:
tau neutrino wrote:
FuzzyFace wrote:
That gives infinite veto power to anyone who declares themself offended. That's simply not reasonable.
The case of Michael Bailey, who was demonized as an anti-trans monster despite a long history of support for transgender people because his research contradicted the narrative on transsexuality, is instructive.
I may get in trouble for resurrecting this, but I feel like I'm doing a disservice if I don't bring up that this article is extremely disingenuous to what actually happened. Alice Dreger is a well known anti-trans advocate that views Trans people, alongside Michael Baily, as simply people with a fetish. Liberals did not destroy her and Bailey's opinions; they were well enough destroyed by their peers, pointing out mainly that both of them cherrypick their data to support their views that trans people are merely in it for the sexual thrill. He didn't contradict the "narrative" - he lied and let out factors in his data that supported his ideas about autogynephilia and autoandrophilia, which are considered pseudoscience by modern research. His research concludes trans people are little more than repressed homosexuals and fetish chasing straight people that change their lifestyle based on their privilege level.

This was disproven at the time, and has long since been seen as a series of baseless assumptions. Michael Bailey was not a long time supporter of trans people - he and Alice were supporters of intersex people, and followed the 80's mentality that only intersex people could be transgender. They are also both woefully backwards on how sexuality actually works - for fucks sake, Michael Bailey has gone on record that parents should be allowed to choose their child's sexual orientation.

So no, it is not instructive at all. It is, in fact, almost all a bunch of pseudoscience BS by two sex scientists long stuck in the 1980's.
I might get in trouble myself, but unless you're claiming that Dreger made up the attacks she documents on Bailey by Lynn Conway and Andrea James, such as the phony ethics charges and the attacks on his family, it's still instructive. As for the work itself, Dreger isn't a "sex scientist" and never claimed to be one. She also had no connection with Bailey's study. It first came to her notice when
Conway’s website originally included Dreger’s own name on a list of trans activists and allies who were furious with Bailey over his book, even though, at that time, Dreger was only faintly familiar with the controversy and had never even expressed a public opinion on the issue. Dreger asked Conway to remove her name.
(So I guess Conway considered Dreger to be a trans activist then.) She started writing about it in 2006, three years after Bailey's book was published. Dreger's article on the controversy, including the attacks on her and Bailey's opinion on parents selecting their child's sexual orientation, is here. As for Bailey's support of Transgender people, according to the article,
What those observers can’t have known was his long-standing history of support for transgender people — he had used his perch as a researcher to advocate passionately for better treatment of this population and for improved access to gender-reassignment resources, and had even, at the request of one of the subjects in his book, written letters to physicians on behalf of a group of young trans women who were seeking reassignment surgery.
The attacks on Bailey and Dreger seem to be mostly ad hominems (that you've echoed), proving my point.

User avatar
True_Avery
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by True_Avery »

I do not dispute the reality that both have been attacked excessively., and that you're correct that activists went out of their way to be monsters to both of them because they disagreed. What I do dispute is the idea that either of them are particularly good allies, and that I personally view some of the conclusions in The Man Who Would Be Queen to be borderline falsehoods and that the conclusions have been used to argue that many transgender people are merely fetishists. Dreger documented the personal attacks fine - but it is my point of view that the entire controversy has been used as fuel to say that because people attacked them, that means their research is completely valid and it is merely being suppressed. I think there are legitimate criticisms of his methodology.

We could literally argue about this and stretch this out to dozens of pages. I do think the disagreement we're going to have that is not going to be resolved is from my own research, I think the two of them are damaging and their research and conclusions drawn are used to erase many trans people. I am also not saying Dreger and Bailey worked together - I should of been clearer on that. I think that Dreger's personal views do not align with my own at all on trans people and what is known today, and I disagree with the conclusions Bailey came to in his own book.

You say ad hominem, I say they do deserve some of the criticism they've been handed. Not all of it, and not to the extreme level they both had to deal with in separate instances from each other. And that because the criticism got so out of hand, legitimate criticism of both of their work and stances is hand waved away and seen as just more of Lynn and Andrea's propaganda.

I think your point that excessive, politically correct figureheads can stand in the way of good science is on point. I simply disagree that Bailey did good science, and do not think disagreeing with him is equivalent to saying global warming isn't real. From what I understand, Bailey was someone who helped trans people and had an interest in intersex people, but his conclusions that, essentially, you needed to be young, fit typical gender rolls, and had to be "homosexual" to be a not fetishist trans person erases the real struggle many trans people have faced. As for Alice, I've seen her speeches and read her articles on her views of trans people - I think she is also someone who is well meaning and pretty level headed; I just disagree with her conclusions as well.

We should probably not resurrect this thread any further. If you want to bring this to PM's I'd be glad to have a conversation with you about all this. If you don't think we're going to be able to talk amicably, then perhaps it is best we stop here.

What I will say as well is I apologize for getting emotional in my prior post. It poorly represented my views on the matter.

Peace.
Play Kindred Spirits on the Roof! Play Starlight Vega! Play Ladykiller in a Bind!

User avatar
Don Alexander
Dr. Ebil SithMod
Posts: 28238
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Under the arms of the ancient oak, where daylight hangs by a lunar noose...

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by Don Alexander »

As I already pointed out to TA, I'm going to take the Fifth on this one, I'm incapable of judging one side or the other. The idea to take it to PMs or drop it is perfect and I fully endorse that. The DAMNed
ImageImage
Sithlord of the Sithling and best customer of McLovecraft's Image, in the business of keeping the little Platypus in business
Moderations in GREEN and signed by the DAMNed. I am not anonymous! Also, MODSMACK!! Image
Winner of the... 2010 Kilopost FRANKIE; 2010 Mad March Nom Off; 2010 Joker Cleavage Contest; 2010 Fan-Thing Contest; 2010 Mimic Contest (tied); 2011 Joker Cleavage Contest; 2011 Contest-for-the-next-Contest (tied)

Luxur333
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:06 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by Luxur333 »

Hello, everyone! Rest of bullshit deleted.

Luxur333 banned for homophobia. This will not be tolerated here in any form or fashion. Also, thread locked.

The DAMNed

User avatar
LegendaryKroc
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:22 am
Location: In the Hall of the Mountain King

Re: Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

Post by LegendaryKroc »

Could someone please lock this thread before we're all dragged down this rabbit hole again?

Locked