Batgirl

australia is not the us. not socially. not geographically. not in any way.
 
it is MUCH easier to control what comes in and goes out there. gun control can sometimes work in places where you can reasonably prevent most citizens and most criminals from getting them, and where the law enforcers can generally be trusted. but it fails abyssmally in a situation where criminals can and citizens cant, or when law enforcement is deeply problematic.

Sannah I lived in a number of countries while I grew up, and was pretty aware just how subjective and varied most of it is. One of the oddest things about moving to the US was being informed of a long list of things that supposedly defined femininity and masculinity that just left me, depending on the situation, laughing or crying. it may not be possible to totally separate from the constructs, it is imo possible to gauge levels of likely correlation.
 
which, again, is not meant to slight anyones journey. i know we are online and cant see facial expressions and body language, but its meant as a kindly supportive reminder, not a dismissal. theres nothing masculine about not liking makeup, all it means is you dont like makeup.

One aspect I'd like to point out to some of the people who seem to think the choices are 'be whole and trust everyone' or 'be broken and assume everyone is evil' - many women who are cautious and reserved are NOT assuming everyone is evil. What they are doing is assessing the possibilities that some danger exists and choosing not to take those chances. That doesnt mean they are 'broken'.

Consider that some women keep their purses/valuables under very close watch, women who have been robbed probably more so than others. They dont think *every* person on the metro wants to rob them. They do know realistically that even if only one person in their section does, that makes it worth being careful. Someone anecdotally saying 'well i left my purse on the seat next to me on the metro and nothing happened' doesnt make the cautious women wrong or broken. It just means that particular woman lucked out.

Selecting obnoxious examples of feminists and using it to define why someone 'doesnt like feminism' is like picking out religious extremists to judge a whole religion by. Every group has some jerks and worse. That doesnt define feminism. On a large scale there are massive rights problems that desperately need fixing. And there a dozens of ways to do that, small and large, with different styles and outlooks.

One aspect I'd like to point out to some of the people who seem to think the choices are 'be whole and trust everyone' or 'be broken and assume everyone is evil' - many women who are cautious and reserved are NOT assuming everyone is evil. What they are doing is assessing the possibilities that some danger exists and choosing not to take those chances. That doesnt mean they are 'broken'.

Consider that some women keep their purses/valuables under very close watch, women who have been robbed probably more so than others. They dont think *every* person on the metro wants to rob them. They do know realistically that even if only one person in their section does, that makes it worth being careful. Someone anecdotally saying 'well i left my purse on the seat next to me on the metro and nothing happened' doesnt make the cautious women wrong or broken. It just means that particular woman lucked out.

Selecting obnoxious examples of feminists and using it to define why someone 'doesnt like feminism' is like picking out religious extremists to judge a whole religion by. Every group has some jerks and worse. That doesnt define feminism. On a large scale there are massive rights problems that desperately need fixing. And there a dozens of ways to do that, small and large, with different styles and outlooks.

One aspect I'd like to point out to some of the people who seem to think the choices are 'be whole and trust everyone' or 'be broken and assume everyone is evil' - many women who are cautious and reserved are NOT assuming everyone is evil. What they are doing is assessing the possibilities that some danger exists and choosing not to take those chances. That doesnt mean they are 'broken'.

Consider that some women keep their purses/valuables under very close watch, women who have been robbed probably more so than others. They dont think *every* person on the metro wants to rob them. They do know realistically that even if only one person in their section does, that makes it worth being careful. Someone anecdotally saying 'well i left my purse on the seat next to me on the metro and nothing happened' doesnt make the cautious women wrong or broken. It just means that particular woman lucked out.

Selecting obnoxious examples of feminists and using it to define why someone 'doesnt like feminism' is like picking out religious extremists to judge a whole religion by. Every group has some jerks and worse. That doesnt define feminism. On a large scale there are massive rights problems that desperately need fixing. And there a dozens of ways to do that, small and large, with different styles and outlooks.

One aspect I'd like to point out to some of the people who seem to think the choices are 'be whole and trust everyone' or 'be broken and assume everyone is evil' - many women who are cautious and reserved are NOT assuming everyone is evil. What they are doing is assessing the possibilities that some danger exists and choosing not to take those chances. That doesnt mean they are 'broken'.

Consider that some women keep their purses/valuables under very close watch, women who have been robbed probably more so than others. They dont think *every* person on the metro wants to rob them. They do know realistically that even if only one person in their section does, that makes it worth being careful. Someone anecdotally saying 'well i left my purse on the seat next to me on the metro and nothing happened' doesnt make the cautious women wrong or broken. It just means that particular woman lucked out.

Selecting obnoxious examples of feminists and using it to define why someone 'doesnt like feminism' is like picking out religious extremists to judge a whole religion by. Every group has some jerks and worse. That doesnt define feminism. On a large scale there are massive rights problems that desperately need fixing. And there a dozens of ways to do that, small and large, with different styles and outlooks.

I don't mean to sound rude, but the reason you're can freely be so masculine and tomboyish is because of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with being womanly and everything to do with being able to be your true self. Sexism can impact all women, regardless of how feminine or masculine their personality is.

Casually chiming in here. Regarding the sexism, that's a huge thing that puts me off Moffat's writing. He's brilliant at coming up with ideas. All the one shots during seasons 2, 3, and 4 are proof of his creativity. All the best episodes like Empty Child, Blink, Midnight, Silence in the Library, etc. Absolutely loved them. But he can't sustain ideas because he seems to have no sense of character (the importance of empathy in writing and such). This is particularly obvious in his treatment of women. The whole attitude of 'I can't think of a way to make a female interesting, so I'll make her "feisty", whatever the hell that means'. I hate that word. It's really just a man being lazy and implying that any kind of attitude in a woman is a point of interest because women don't have personalities.
 
The character development is a huge problem in general, even in the men. His writing just doesn't elicit an emotional response from me for the mere fact of his inability to commit. The lure of writing in the context of time travel is that you can sort of do whatever you want. The problem is, when you kill people off and then say they're not dead because they- were secretly a robot/ existed in a parallel universe/ went back in time and didn't die/ only part of them died/ WERE REMEMBERED WHICH IN SOME WARPED WORLD MAKES SOMEONE MAGICALLY NOT DEAD (sorry, that's the main thing that bugs me)- the effect is really lessened. There's no sense of consequences in moffat's writing, which is a serious problem, because Davies always made that very clear. There are consequences to people's actions and time can't always be rewritten.
 
 
Yes! That's the perfect analogy. Simply perfect. Brilliant ideas, no follow-through. Angels In Manhattan, classic case of a great idea that he milked a little too much and completely destroyed.
And that word 'convenient'. Exactly what I've been saying about the traps of time-travel writing. Moffat doesn't seem to understand that just because you could do a completely out there, shocking plot twist, doesn't mean you should. Those kinds of things are very dangerous and he seems to wield his pen sort of irresponsibly. He does things because they're convenient, not because he's really really thought about it.
 
One of the reasons I was so excited for Capaldi to be the next doctor (apart from the fact that I've seen him in other stuff and adore him) was because it gave them the opportunity to move away from the romance. The relationship with Rose was built up over a long period of time and worked really well. Martha was unrequited admiration, which is completely understandable considering David Tennant's face. Donna was, shock horror, a perfectly capable young woman with whom he had an entirely platonic relationship with. Then Moffat came in and every single ruddy female had a crush on the Doctor and he flirted with everyone and it was really very annoying. It got boring very quickly. What I really want is just one season where there's no flirting at all, just as a bit of a detox. He's over 1000 years old by now. He doesn't need that constant flirtation. He's better than that.
 
Batgirl, you could be right about QOH, it's a sound theory. I'm really not keen on the whole Gallifrey thing myself. It does undermine all the character building Davies did with the Doctor. Grumble grumble, Moffat.
 
 
Okay, this is getting long and I haven't even addressed what I came here for, which is the episode. Basically, WOW DINOSAUR, BIG, SO EXPENSIVE, LOOK AT OUR BUDGET, CRASH BANG and now for something completely different. Oh, look. Clockwork people. interesting concept, absolutely no plot. All the characters are so tokenistic. I do like Jenny and I liked how Vastra dealt with the whole age thing. Strax is a bit of comic relief (love him in Crimson Horror). But yeah, not a big fan of the first episode. I had mixed feelings about Into Dalek. It reminded me a bit of Star Trek where they had the definite 'these are the Klingons, they are the bad guys. Evil.' and then voila, they have Klingons on staff on the Voyager gen 2. I guess if it's done well, it could work, but Moffat better tread carefully because daleks are evil. He better have something up his sleeve to develop them as otherwise.

I have to say, I wasn't very keen on this opening episode. I liked the return of the clockwork repair droids as they seemed to add a sense of humour to the otherwise quite dull and predictable episode. However, I am not a fan of Steven Moffat as a writer and much prefeered Russell T. Davies. Steven Moffat does not seem to have the great imagination that a show such as Doctor Who requires to remain fresh and entertaining. As to Peter Capaldi as the Doctor, my initial impression at the end of last season was one of shock and slight surprise at the choice. having seen him in his first full episode I have to say that my initial impression still stands. I do not feel he is right for the part (however, I also felt this about Tennant and Smith when I first saw them!)
 
Overall, I wasn't very impressed with this first episode and can only hope that the storylines improve dramatically and that the relationship between the new Doctor and Clara keeps the audience entertained.

Agreed, his sexism is absolutely ridiculous. He basically turned River into the Doctor's plaything, and made her nothing but a romantic interest for the Doctor. She had so much potential to be so cool and such a strong female character, and he ruined it. And now there's another middle-aged lady claiming to be the Doctor's wife... just give it a rest!
The new title sequence is really cool though. Did you know that it was almost entirely based off of one a motion graphics designer made to showcase his talent to potential customers? Basically, this guy's fanart because the new title screen.

Sannah I lived in a number of countries while I grew up, and was pretty aware just how subjective and varied most of it is. One of the oddest things about moving to the US was being informed of a long list of things that supposedly defined femininity and masculinity that just left me, depending on the situation, laughing or crying. it may not be possible to totally separate from the constructs, it is imo possible to gauge levels of likely correlation.
 
which, again, is not meant to slight anyones journey. i know we are online and cant see facial expressions and body language, but its meant as a kindly supportive reminder, not a dismissal. theres nothing masculine about not liking makeup, all it means is you dont like makeup.

Yes, I agree with this!
 
Even though I guess it is impossible to perceive anything related to gender identity outside of the social construct that gender is (if that makes sense). It helps to realize, though, that what is considered "feminine" and "masculine" is almost completely arbitrary (well, culturally determined). A popular example is the color pink which was considered a masculine color in the 19th century (as opposed to blue, which was softer and therefore feminine).
 
Gender dysphoria in any case has nothing to do with liking make-up or video games.
 
I'm bisexual cisgender, by the way, and love fashion as well as MMORPGs and dinosaurs, a combination which I consider to be perfectly ordinary.
 
Anyway, happy to see that more and more people are questioning the gender binary, in whatever way :-)

i think anyone and everyone has a right to basic respect about how they self-identify. ill use any pronoun someone wants, without a blink, in specific interactions - though i strongly agree with neekers that expecting anyone to know automatically is unrealistic.
 
however, were i being honest, when i see most of the things listed here (or, to be fair, any general post i see on a forum or fb etc), my first thought is that it makes me very sad that some people even see these things as being male or female identified to begin with. if you are on a path to examine your own gender identity, my personal advice would be to throw out everything about colours, clothing, movies, makeup, jewelry, jokes, toys, etc - all of it - and get down to what you really feel inside. you cant get to your own truth while you have a bunch of manufactured gender identified bs in your way.

i think anyone and everyone has a right to basic respect about how they self-identify. ill use any pronoun someone wants, without a blink, in specific interactions - though i strongly agree with neekers that expecting anyone to know automatically is unrealistic.
 
however, were i being honest, when i see most of the things listed here (or, to be fair, any general post i see on a forum or fb etc), my first thought is that it makes me very sad that some people even see these things as being male or female identified to begin with. if you are on a path to examine your own gender identity, my personal advice would be to throw out everything about colours, clothing, movies, makeup, jewelry, jokes, toys, etc - all of it - and get down to what you really feel inside. you cant get to your own truth while you have a bunch of manufactured gender identified bs in your way.

I think hoarding it in a gallery is cruel :P The entire point of a book is to be read. Someone should get that privilege!
 
If it were mine, I'd read it, since I'm going for book award. Currently #60.

I always use e-mail or an instant messenger to communicate with real friends about neopets or life. With neomail, it's always just neopets. Why would I want to discuss relationships, or partying, or domestic issues, or whatever there?

a lot of good input going on, on all sides
 
i agree that much of the responsibility for how a dog turns out lies with the owner. however, all purebreeds are bred for desired qualities - to imagine that the stereotype is totally without basis seems a bit wrong. thats not about blaming the dog, its just about being realistic about what breeders were seeking. maybe its all 'bad' owners making them aggressive - or maybe their natural aggressiveness is appealing to 'bad' owners.
 
almost without exception when the question is 'nature or nurture?' the answer is both.

a lot of good input going on, on all sides
 
i agree that much of the responsibility for how a dog turns out lies with the owner. however, all purebreeds are bred for desired qualities - to imagine that the stereotype is totally without basis seems a bit wrong. thats not about blaming the dog, its just about being realistic about what breeders were seeking. maybe its all 'bad' owners making them aggressive - or maybe their natural aggressiveness is appealing to 'bad' owners.
 
almost without exception when the question is 'nature or nurture?' the answer is both.

I agree completely, and had opted not to discuss this with him however circumstances changed when my husband tried to explain it and the manner in which he explained it scared and confused my son.
 
Its not that easy to change the subject with Jericho and distract him, we tried that several times but as soon as Jay came in the room he was back on the subject.
 
 
I appreciate your response and the main issue is Jay and I had talked about the issue and we were both in agreement that the concept of transgendered people was too complicated for my son to understand at this time. My first thought wasn't how do I correct my child, my first thought was concern for my friends already complex issues coming from a home where he was not accepted and constantly ridiculed. However my husband was explaining Jay's situation to my older nephews, 11 and 14, and my son started to ask questions and he explained transgendered people in the worst possible way for a three yearold to understand.
 
I wish I could exclude Jay from the situation and explain it as a general whole but unfortunatley we did try this and he did not understand that Jay was included. When Jericho is older that is a conversation we will definitely have but as a 3 yearold the concept is to grand for him to understand.
 
--
 
We have a lot of books on diversity and a lot of diversity in our family, various races and sexual orientation. We also volunteer at the children's hospital and Jericho has been exposed to a lot of different types of people and I have never had an issue like this before. At first I felt guilty for my friends feelings but after talking to him I realized I was being unrealistic and he was just grateful I didn't turn him away as other 'friends' of his did for fear of 'confusing' their children.
 
While I admit it was very hard for me to console my son last night after my husbands awful explaining, I'm grateful that my husband wanted our child to understand that while Jay may look different he is just like them.
 
I really appreciate everyone's responses, Jay and I decided to go with that he is going to see a special doctor who helps people like Jay 'get out'. Jericho seemed much happier and he stopped trying to feed Jay his toys. He still calls Jay a girl but we are all in agreement to let it go.

Hi there!

I would just like to point out that TNT is *not* violating your freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech prevents the government and other official regulatory bodies from censoring your speech, but does not affect the rules of private businesses.

When you create an account on Neopets you agree to their Terms of Service and Rules and Guidelines. Under these you agree to their limitations on your speech. They can't violate something that you have willingly given up when you agree to play on the site. ^^;

As for adult content on Neopets, I don't ever really see that happening due to their family-friendly image. Personally, I've never had much of an issue with the filters or warnings as I understand that there are other places I can go to discuss content that is not permitted on Neopets. Also, I hate chatting during Key Quest, so that's a moot point. I wish they'd remove that chat altogether.

my interpretation, which may in fact be worth only one neopoint, is that a single person, even one working 24/7 to hoard an item, is not pricefixing. that pricefixing can only reach a problematic level when more than one person is in on it. i dont think they would pay attention unless you could show there was more than one person involved.
 
now, even if i am right, there's still an obvious problem in that 2 people working together to raise something by 5 k, might be freezable but 100 people who independently decide, like with the spaceship coincidence, to massively pricejack specific items from 10 np to unbuyable are not freezable simply bc they didnt actively conspire.

When I made my lookup - well, I don't use it anymore - I used this petpage. I really helped me a lot.
 
This is the direct link to the section you're looking for:
http://www.neopets.com/~Mustanq#icons

Simply put for me:



I do not identify as a religion. Therefore I am non-theistic, and have no feelings one way or another religiously about this. That being said, I am also a pansexual/panromatic and can understand the unfairness of not being able to marry who I would like to. This being said, I stand by my belief that church and state should /be and stay/ separate. If you are of a religion who does not believe in it, that's fine. You or your church if you would have it do NOT have to unify said couples. But legally, if a couple wants to be recognized by the government as a legal couple, you should have no say in this. Religion should have no play in the legal communion of a couple. I think that all state clerk offices should be given the right to marry couples regardless of gender. Churches are then free to accept or deny who they marry as they please.



TL;DR - Should be legal at least in clerk offices.

Really glad to see a topic/thread like this, and to observe other peoples' thoughts on the matter!
Shelley pointed out the various added gender options now on Facebook, which I think is really great. It's nice to see larger amounts of people realizing that gender isn't the simple 'staples' (male, female; aka cis).
 
I myself am genderfluid. I was born a 'female', but prefer your or male pronouns; but if people are uncomfortable with it (some people are) I have them use your (or female ones) as my feelings towards my identity fluctuate. That may seem very confusing v_v; and I apologize ugh. Genderfluidity in itself isn't the easiest thing for me to elaborate on.
I honestly tend not to be open with it; with only my girlfriend knowing, and close friends. They are fine with using a male name around me (the name I chose can also double as a girl's, so that makes everybody a bit easier) and their/male pronouns. The reason for this (not being open) is the way my mother took my sexuality (ie: not well). I do have my hair short and dress androgynous; often attempting to skew my 'natural gender appearance' (as I do bind).
 
I don't think it's a 'phase' (boy, have I heard that...) and everyone should explore how they feel; and shouldn't have to repress that. It is an iffy subject, which needs to be handled and tread carefully. But like I said, every person should be able to be themselves without scrutiny, which is sadly really hard in today's society; although we are becoming more tolerable and considerate. Not everyone is going to know what every single gender term means, and that's okay. I see a lot of people who fall into alternate genders snap on people who don't know. Why not politely tell them? If they've just met you, they don't know you want to be addressed by xyz/xyzr/xyzself.
 
Overall, it's great to read some of the things that are posted in this thread; very informative!

It's gotten to the point where feral cats have become disease ridden pests. FeLV and FIV are running rampant in feral cat colonies, they live lives of hunger, disease, and injury. They have litter after litter and one female can have 29 litters in 10 years and one un-neutered male can produce thousands and thousand of kittens in his lifetime. Leaving these cats to suffer and die and reek havoc on the local natural wildlife is the real cruelty here.
 
It's sad but you can't save all of them, in my time fostering cats I've realized it's better for them to be put down than neutered and released. Releasing them keeps them from breeding but it doesn't improve their lives. They're still starving, they're still exposed to disease and parasites like ticks and fleas. They'll still fight and become injured, they'll still be hit by cars and left to die on the side of the road.