BangkokReady

LOL. Ah, the old hypocrisy of "If I disagree with you, it is because I am right, but if you disagree with me in return, then you are being petty and argumentative". As I said, deluded.

So the dog bit the child two other times, but they decided that the child had done something to the dog to make it bite him, but now the dog attacked him in a different location, so it's the dog's fault this time? It sounds like this could have been prevented a long time ago. While dogs that bite should not be allowed around children (or really anyone), they should be keeping a better eye on their child if he has made the dog bite him a number of times before. What a mess.

To point out that someone is deluded is "hostile" to you? I should just ignore it and say that you are right? Otherwise I risk being labelled as "hostile"? So, I can either agree with you or be wrong? That's very convenient for you.

It's weird. Suddenly saying that everyone is equal and deserves the same rights and protections becomes controversial and conservative. People saying "hang on, this doesn't seem fair" or "I'm not sure these people are being honest" are labelled as "right-wing Nazis". What a time to be alive...

Shocking levels of delusion.

I don't need to control your perception. Perception is affected by beliefs, opinions and feelings, and perception can be wrong. Your perception is wrong. You have a very strong bias which prevents you from being objective.

Wow. You really think that whatever you believe just magically becomes fact, huh? Yes, I'm disagreeing with your opinion. My tone is not hostile, so your perception is wrong. You are too emotionally attached to the subject, therefore you are unable to be objective.

And I'm disagreeing with your opinion. ???? I'm afraid your opinion does not count as fact, as much as you would like to think it does.

I'm not in the slightest bit hostile. It's a completely redundant word. it's purely political/ideological. I'm afraid you don't get to shut down discussions, as much as you want to. If anyone is being hostile, it's you.

The people that want "cisgender" to be a thing.

They don't like that the trans woman needs a prefix while the woman does not.

How exactly do these strategies differ? How have they specifically been targeting "Gen Z" for condos and what would they do to switch to "Gen Y"? Is there actually a difference, or is this just waffle?

They don't want regular people, who have supported various "movements" for many years, to start thinking for themselves and questioning things. If normies suddenly start saying "Hang on, this is all starting to get a bit silly and I'm not sure if this is positive anymore", then these groups might stop getting whatever they want automatically in the name of "progressiveness". Dissenters need to be labelled and silenced. It's all very 1984.

A nice idea, but this guy would have his work cut out.

The devil is in the detail. The UK police fast-track is to get people with the skills into top-level positions who might otherwise not get there ever, or take a long time. It's meant to benefit the officers but also the force. If the Thai version means unqualified people who are of no benefit can buy their way into an officer position, then it isn't the same.

Clicks...

Unfortunately, you won't get any sense out of some people on this issue. There are basically two types of people in their mind when it comes to discussing LGBT: pro-LGBT people who completely agree with them and right-wing, Nazi, White Supremacists who are lying because they hate trans people, with nothing in-between. Their minds cannot allow them to accept that any rational normal person might have a valid concern on any of this. Even if you put together a solid argument, with evidence to back it up, once they see they are beat they will start saying that you're being aggressive and trolling. Then they pick up their toys and run home because they don't want to play anymore. It's all simply too ideological and the cognitive dissonance kicks in.

Surely "A trans woman marries a woman." describes it perfectly? Why the need to shoe-horn "cis" into it? It's redundant. Unless you're injecting something political into it?

Unfortunately for you, you are wrong and deep down, I think you know it.....just can't admit it. They aren't even clued up on their own talking points: Sex is different to gender, in the new way of seeing things, sure, but female is sex not gender. A trans woman is not female. You cannot change your sex.

Essentially, they're expanding it to cover as many groups as possible that don't come under the definition "heterosexual". This then gives them an advantage in the Oppression Olympics as they can claim all the collective oppression of every group within LGBT.

They just don't have the same understanding of it that we (Westerners) have. Think about people in Western countries with pictures of Che Guevara or Chairman Mao on their bedroom walls. Anyone who directly suffered under these people would probably feel the same way a European does when they see Asians dressing up as Nazis for a school event. There's kind of a disconnect when it happens to "other people".

Unfortunately, there's one symbol that trumps them all. $$$$

Absolutely. The problem is, by shutting down discussions, nothing really gets resolved and it just divides people further.

If it happens, then is it still claptrap?

Claptrap? It happens all the time!