"酷儿"是对其他性取向的一个古老术语。每当我听到或读到它时，我都会感到害怕。有人(至少是这个人)会认为，有了其他性别的个人和群体所取得的进步，就会有人想把这个贬义从现代词汇中抹去。或者，人们认为它仍然有一个观点，尽管我无法理解这个“观点”可能是什么。“N”这个词紧紧地依附在我们的语言中，而且，黑人之间使用这个词仍然是可以接受的。来自见习人员的问题:其他有色人种(西班牙裔;印第安人;亚洲/太平洋岛民;等等)来使用“N”字?或者如果他们这样做，他们也会被打死吗? I do not know, nor do I know if these sorts of questions are ever asked. With all the so-called political correctness and sensitivity flying around these days, one (this one) really begins to wonder how such contingencies might be overlooked. Trendiness has a way of eventually losing its appeal---and, impact. I don't follow anyone on Twitter; Facebook; Instagram or other venues. As long as my own life remains interesting, I can see no reason(s) for doing so. So, let's use queer in its' original context. Maybe some other-sexed people would also feel better about who they are? I hope this is not too radical for some to consider. If it is, those folks might ask themselves why they think so.

也许我会建立我自己的博客，嗯?不,坏主意……我不是一个追随者(除非你把“哲学谈话”也算在内)，所以我不应该指望任何人会中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播追随我。

Thank you for exploring this challenging topic; however, I have serious concerns about several aspects of this show:

1) That the show affirmed the gender fluidity movement's premise that sex is non-binary; and, seemed to suggest that the categories of female and male may very well have outlived their usefulness.

As a woman who has experienced eight "memorable" instances of sexual harassment, including 2 instances of violent sexual assault and 2 instances of lengthy, determined and aggressive stalking that may have resulted in rape or worse...all by male human beings, human beings with penises, I found the the show's dismissal of the bathroom issue as "silly"...alarming.

Not only are human males, on average, stronger and more violent than human females, they are also far more likely to commit all types of sexual harassment, including assault, stalking, exhibitionism and voyeurism. And, there is no reliable data that men who self-identify as women (many of whom retain male genitalia and are still sexually attracted to females) are any less violent than males who don't.

As such, women (i.e. human beings born with ovaries, human beings who are often subject to menstruation, pregnancy (sometimes, forced), child birth, lactation, and menopause) deserve sex-segregated spaces that acknowledge their material biological reality...sex-segregated communal toilets, showers, locker rooms, domestic abuse shelters, and prisons...spaces where girls and women are especially vulnerable to male sexual harassment.

2) That in a show on sex and gender, zero of the four voices heard (those of Ken Taylor, Josh Landry, Susan Stryker, and Ian Shoals) were WBW (women born women). How is this even possible? How can a discussion on sex and gender leave out the viewpoint of human beings actually subject to menstruation and pregnancy?

3) That in a show on sex, gender, and queerness ( VERY controversial issues these days), where were the voices critical of the gender fluidity movement?

Philosophy Talk presents itself as a show that questions everything. But, one has to wonder: is it really ready to question the assertions of the new gender fluidity movement?

No, rather than bringing more freedom, the new gender ideals have put us deeper into a cage. Now not only do we have to respect everyones opinions about straight people, now we have to respect a handful of other subjectivist crap.

Gender is a delusion in the first place. How can anything be the opposite gender and not be a delusion also.

Now we have to accept more delusions. This just put more nerves on the floor. Things on the floor get stepped on. Thats what floors are for.

So now, thats what nerves are for.

Why doesn't anyone ever say that "no one has the right to force others to accept or entertain subjectivity," as an answer to all this inhumanist positioning?

British loyalists aren't against structural violence. They're only against not being in control of it.