Dating Macedonian Women

[kompir]

Macedonian charm... we all know Ljupcho got a taste for kebapi and sarma

[Soldier of Macedon]

These Macedonian ladies from Australia are dominating this show. Inadvertently or otherwise, they appear to be better ambassadors in terms of promoting the culture and identity of the Macedonian people to a broader audience than the morons who currently govern Macedonia.

https://www.nowtolove.com.au/reality...ionality-65348

Irena Srbinovska was an immediate standout as she made her grand entrance on The Bachelor - and you didn't have to look far to see why. Establishing a strong connection with Locky Gilbert almost instantly, Irena was pegged as a frontrunner to receive the final rose from the get-go. But there's more to Irena than that - and given all signs point to her being this season's eventual winner, we had some more questions - one of which has revealed a surprise link to a past winner.

Irena has the brains and the beauty - according to the Daily Mail, she's a Macedonian native, and her roots are no doubt entrenched in culture from the South Eastern European country. In the hometown visits, we'll no doubt see more of Irena embracing the culture with her family. And interestingly, her heritage has also given rise to another unique link she shares with past Bachelor winner Snezana Wood - she is also Macedonian. Yep, Snez stole the heart of Sam Wood, eventually marrying the Bachelor himself on season three of The Bachelor, with the couple going on to have two children together, Willow, two, and Charlie, one. Given their raging success as a Bachelor poster couple, perhaps it's that Macedonian charm that'll stand Irena in good stead with this year's chosen bloke Locky?

[Karposh]

My thoughts exactly.

I remember a few pages back when you and I were having a laugh, and I said something like "Kurvo kaj mi e jadejneto" in jest.

Karposh, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were the one who didn't realize we were joking and chastised me for what you thought was how I speak to my wife.

I just have to ask: You believed that type of language would be wrong yet you are perfectly accepting what amounts to "gods' version of "Kurvo kaj mi e jadejneto". I just can't reconcile the logic there. Could you help me understand?

"God's version of - Kurvo kaj mi e jadejneto"??? Ti si nenormalen be choek. If that's how you interpret bible passages then clearly Christianity isn't for you. Enough said I think. To each his own I suppose. And, from my end, I'll tone down my Christian rhetoric in future I think. Clearly it's not for everyone.

[vicsinad]

• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.
  

I'm not anywhere close to being an expert on Christianity, but I found this interesting. I'm sure there are plenty who will disagree, though there are many articles and scholars that discuss authorship of Bible passages. Still interesting to contemplate: an author pretending to be Paul in order for his views to gain authority may have convinced generations that its God's will for women to remain silent, submit to the husband, and not teach man.

Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that — he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul’s name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history’s great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

[Gocka]

My thoughts exactly.

Fair enough Karposh.
Says something about Christianity though and those extracts are certainly up for scrutiny in this day and age.

I remember a few pages back when you and I were having a laugh, and I said something like "Kurvo kaj mi e jadejneto" in jest.

Karposh, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were the one who didn't realize we were joking and chastised me for what you thought was how I speak to my wife.

I just have to ask: You believed that type of language would be wrong yet you are perfectly accepting what amounts to "gods' version of "Kurvo kaj mi e jadejneto". I just can't reconcile the logic there. Could you help me understand?

[Risto the Great]

Fair enough Karposh.
Says something about Christianity though and those extracts are certainly up for scrutiny in this day and age.

[Karposh]

Vic & Risto, I'm taking Bishop Petar's views from a purely religious point of view. And, in this case Bishop Petar, instead of "choosing his words carefully" has expressed exactly what is written in the bible, he has not expressed anything more.
I'm not blind to the reality that Macedonian women rule the roost at home (I don't think anyone is) and, to be fare to men in general, not just Macedonian men, the teachings in the bible are not a green light for us to dominate women. I doubt any man takes these teaching to put women in their place. And, again, I doubt any Christian Macedonian woman feels dominated by these teachings. These days, many women bristle at the notions that are expressed in both the Old and New testaments and it is virtually impossible for a non-believer to look at these verses with an open mind and see them as something other than blatant discrimination on women.
In fact, these verses are so abhorrent to many that, just as an example, in August 2000 the Irish Catholic Church proposed dropping seven texts from a proposed new Lectionary because they "give an undesirably negative impression regarding women." The Irish Bishops' new Domestic Violence document recommended the following texts for deletion:

• Ephesians 5:22-24 ...wives should submit to their husbands etc.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.
• 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ...women should remain silent in the churches (and following).
• 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man (and following).
• Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
• Peter 3:1-6 Wives in the same way be submissive to your husbands (and following).
• Titus 2: 4-5 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God.

[Risto the Great]

My observations whilst hopping between borders between Macedonia and what appears to be Greece is that women are far more empowered in RoM. I think it is a ridiculous comment to say "the man is the head of the household and the woman is subordinate to the husband".

It's like saying one football team is always superior to another.

Being old enough to see a number of relationships, here is my take: Every relationship is different and often the woman is in charge in every way. Almost all relationships see the woman becoming increasingly dominant as the male becomes physically weaker and nearing the end of his life.

The NGOs (and Bishop) are simply getting in the way of perfectly natural dynamics within households.

"She enjoys even greater rights than the husband, because she is the one who raises the children and she is the soul of the family.”

One thing I never see is an inch given by the toxic feminists that will seek to give up anything involved with being a woman whilst stepping over men to become the dominant sex. They might say men can raise the children but will never cede the traditional belief that the woman will have final say on what is best for them or the family.

What a crazy era we live in.

[vicsinad]

“Many marriages unfortunately fall apart because of vanity, because [both partners] want to be in charge, forgetting that the man is the head of the household and the woman is subordinate to the husband.

Some marriages fall apart because both partners want to be in charge and one or both of the partners don't understand the concept of powersharing. Most marriages fall apart for other reasons.

More importantly, I can totally see how this statement would cause others to react. "Man is the head of the household" and "woman is subordinate to husband" do not scream equality. Those are words that can easily lead to oppression. Let's substitute a few words for some others: "White man is head of the country" and "black man is subordinate to white man." Every woman should shun these statements.

This was an idiotic way to phrase his point. Instead of coming at it from Vangelovski's point that the sexes are complimentary to one other, the bishop is saying one is in charge and the other is second in command.

“For a long time, a woman’s role in Macedonia has been portrayed solely as a mother and a wife, which represents breach of equality and direct discrimination against women based on sex and gender,” the NGOs say in their united response.

This is also an idiotic statement because it's not true.

The NGOs said the Bishop had violated the constitutional principles of equality, privacy and a free choice about family life. They added that the statement has also breached the principle of secularity which stipulates a clear separation of Church and state.

This is mindboggling. The Bishop is giving his opinion as an individual and a religious leader. You don't have to like it (and I don't think you should), but no one's rights are being violated by him simply saying that.

Karposh:

No Macedonian woman in her right mind would consider the Bishop's views as "a breach of equality and direct discrimination against women based on sex and gender".

Repeat the Bishop's words with conviction to my wife or mom in person. You'll find out very quickly and not so pleasantly which one of you is the subordinate one.

Like many have said here, in our culture, far from being unequals, women have certain roles in our people's eyes that complement the man and, similarly, a man has certain roles that complement the woman. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that.

No, it's not. It's not that men and women have certain roles that complement each other. It's that they have certain general attributes and traits that are different but which complement each other. One is not in charge and the other is not subordinate.

[Karposh]

Okay, I'm gonna try and steer this thread back on the right track if I can. Clearly, most of the comments here have absolutely nothing to do with dating Macedonian women but, oddly, everything to do with shit on homosexuality, gender identity, trans-sexuality, and feminazi politics...I blame Starling!!!
Anyway, here's something I found on our favourite news outlet, Balkan Insight, regarding comments made by MOC's very own, Bishop Petar. Not sure if this story has been covered here before but, love him or hate him, Dedo Petar said some things back in 2012 that twisted a lot of snow flakes' knickers out of place. Apparently:

Macedonia's Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and a coalition of NGOs standing for rights of marginalized communities said Bishop Petar’s remarks undermine the constitutional equality of women and their right of choice.

Really?! Is that what his remarks stack up to? Was what he said really that outrageous? Here's the article in total and what he apparently said:

Commenting on statistics showing that the trend towards an increase in divorces continued in 2012, the Bishop said that “Many marriages unfortunately fall apart because of vanity, because [both partners] want to be in charge, forgetting that the man is the head of the household and the woman is subordinate to the husband.

“This is not in the sense that she is deprived of her rights," he added. "She enjoys even greater rights than the husband, because she is the one who raises the children and she is the soul of the family.”

Commenting also on abortion, the Bishop of the Prespa - Bitola diocese reiterated the Church’s opposition to it, insisting that the survival of the nation and of the Church was in women’s hands.

“Women will either save or destroy our Macedonian nation and our Church, because what is conceived in their wombs should be born, if we wish to persist,” he said.

The remarks from a senior cleric in the largest religious community in Macedonia have angered human rights activists.

“For a long time, a woman’s role in Macedonia has been portrayed solely as a mother and a wife, which represents breach of equality and direct discrimination against women based on sex and gender,” the NGOs say in their united response.

They added that “these kinds of calls towards women to return to the traditional system of values and to her social exclusion are nothing else but a degradation of women’s value and of their contribution to society”.

The NGOs said the Bishop had violated the constitutional principles of equality, privacy and a free choice about family life. They added that the statement has also breached the principle of secularity which stipulates a clear separation of Church and state.

They have called the State Anti-Discrimination Commission to take action.

Please note how heavily NGOs are featured in this article and how aggressively they have taken to leading the charge to shut the Bishop down for his archaic views. Before I go on, I know that many reading this will probably agree with these NGOs. Bishop Petar is living in the dark ages they will say but here's the thing - "Progress" is often a euphemism for the blind acceptance of western-style ideals and values. My personal belief is that this type of progress destroys incredibly rich, millennia-old cultures and traditions of many European nations. It dilutes them and transforms them into an amalgamating mass of conforming zombies. I think that is the reason why we often seem to butt heads over this issue on this forum. Some of us here do not want to see Macedonia conform to this type of progress. And, while we're at it, I wouldn't want to see other ancient Orthodox cultures do the same either such as Russia, Serbia and others. I don't understand why it isn't obvious to all that it doesn't make us a better nation if we accept the twisted values and ideals that foreign NGOs are forcing on our people in the name of progress on our road to Europeanisation.

The last time I checked, Macedonians were a majority Christian Orthodox nation and, as such, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what the Bishop said. His views are in keeping with our beliefs that have served us well for many centuries and I support them wholeheartedly. No Macedonian woman in her right mind would consider the Bishop's views as "a breach of equality and direct discrimination against women based on sex and gender". But this is what foreign NGOs would like them to believe. They are sowing the seeds of discord between Macedonian men and women, and all in the name of progress. Essentially what they are doing, by stealth, is trying to suffocate yet another, once proud and rich Orthodox culture. Like many have said here, in our culture, far from being unequals, women have certain roles in our people's eyes that complement the man and, similarly, a man has certain roles that complement the woman. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that. It is only the NGOs that are trying to complicate the issue.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonian-cleric-blames-women-for-failed-marriages

[vicsinad]

Vic,

As it relates to transgender people. Why do we have to, and when did we as a society come to the conclusion that this is something normal and that it should be treated as such?

I don't think we have to conclude that it's normal to be transgender (which is arguably different than transsexual: transgender refers to the gender one identifies with; transsexual usually refers to an individual who has had sex change operations regarding their sex organs (though not chromosomes, because those can't be changed, which begs the question if they really have changed sexes?)). But the reality is that they're here and they're not going away. It's been recorded for hundreds -- if not thousands -- of years in cultures across the world. The only difference is that today we have the medical capabilities of relatively safely allowing people to remove and "grow" certain sex-based parts.

By all accounts these people need help, not affirmation and special treatment.

You've heard of gay conversion therapy, right? Same idea: these people need help/treatment so they can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex so that they perform the reproductive duties that they are biologically *supposed* to be doing.

There is no practical difference between a man believing he is a woman, than a man believing he is a penguin. Both are clear delusions that can be nothing else than some type of mental illness. Genetically and physically a man can not be a woman as much as he can be a penguin.

Let me rephrase that a bit. Most transgender/sexual people do not believe they are the opposite sex or gender, they believe they should be or should have been the opposite gender or sex, so they then take steps to express or present themselves as such. Perhaps it's a mental illness, but perhaps everything is a mental illness? Women whose genes have coded for them to have A or B cup breasts are now filling themselves up with plastic and silicone to be something they are genetically not: big breasted. Both men and women are getting nose jobs. How about ass fillers? We're talking about millions of people who are getting non-medical procedures because they are not happy or confident with their genetics and they want to appear to be something other than they are genetically in order to be more comfortable with themselves or to be more attractive to those who they want to be with. Again, it's similar to the trans issue in that they want something genetically that they can't get (though gene editing is on it's way and it's coming fast). So, why isn't there an outrage over a girl with small breasts getting big breasts? Because she's still a female and is trying to be "more feminine" than her genetics coded for? Because there needs to be a line somewhere? In my opinion, if the transperson needs mental help, then so does the woman seeking implants.

I'm not trying to be snide or insensitive. If a person came to you and said I am a penguin, I want to live in the arctic and eat raw fish and lay eggs, you would recommend a therapist. Why doesn't a man who believes he is a woman need help in the same way? Because the delusion is potentially sexual in nature? The only reason we treat this matter in the way we do is because it being linked to homosexuality, which is not a delusion, it is a lucid and logical preference. Gay men are not delusional.

Homosexuality has only recently become accepted as not being delusional. It took many decades for gay people to not be classified as sinners, delusional, mentally and/or biologically unfit. You might be missing the whole history of: "If someone came up to you and said I want to fuck a penguin, then wouldn't you recommend a therapist? It's not natural, it's not biologically normal."

Why the distinction matter. As evidenced in the video that the piece of shit posted, where is the line. Which delusions do we accept, which do we reject. Which delusions are state approved, which are not.

Are you proposing banning transsexual operations? I think you are proposing classifying being trans as a mental illness, but what else are you suggesting, exactly? As you mentioned in a previous post, why not extend this to body mutilation, such as piercings and tattoos? Again: those are modifications to your body that are not genetic. If genetics wanted you to have 27 giant gaping holes in your body, you would've been born that way, no? Those holes serve no purpose, other than shaping you into being who you want to be. Those plastic breasts on Michael do nothing but shape him to be who he wants to be: in this case, Michelle. They're both body modifications, they're both not changing biology/genetics, they both want to be something other than they are, they both are not based on facts per se, but only one is being highly stigmatized and criticized (although the other was at one time stigmatized). So what gives? Comfort level?

The hallmarks of a democratic society is equal treatment under the law. Laws are based on facts, in courts we deals with facts. Transgenderism is rooted in non facts. In what other cases then will the state recognizes things that are blatantly not true?

Laws are hardly based on facts, they're merely a reflection of what society wants. Joe wants to be able to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes and do drugs despite the irrefutable abundance of facts demonstrating the physical, mental and public harm caused by those things. So the law says he can do those things because of what some argue are inherent, natural or God-given rights. So, it might be a fact that Jenny can't change one of her X chromosomes into a Y chromosome (but one day that will be possible), but what does that say about her right to identify herself as Johnny and wear a permanent dildo, or get a breast reduction, or grow a beard? Are we worried about our children seeing that and getting ideas? Well if it's a mental illness, then you don't have anything to worry about because those aren't contagious, right? However, if you think it's something that can influence your child, then you're acknowledging that it's not solely mental/biological. In the same reason why Bob doesn't want drugs to be legal so little Tommy isn't tempted to become a drug abuser, maybe you don't want little Gocka to be exposed to transgenderism so he doesn't get any ideas? However, if it really is only biological/genetic (wanting to be an opposite sex/gender), then you got nothing to worry about.

The example of non binary on a driver's license is a perfect example of pointless. The whole reason your driver's license has information such as sex, height, weight, eye color, etc is so that it functions as a valid record and description of its holder. There are only 2 sexes, male and female. Now we have a third option. What about the other bits of information? Height? I feel like I'm 20' tall. Weight: 20lbs, eye color:red. Yes I know its ridiculous, but what is the difference? At least red is a color, and 20 is a real number., but they remain not true as they relate to me. Why is sex different?

The difference is not clear and that's a hurdle that the trans community faces. In my opinion, it makes a mockery of the words gender and sex, which I know to be two different thing. Sex is based on chromosomes, scientifically speaking, and it's hard to argue that. People will one day be able to genetically modify their eye color, height and other attributes, just as food for thought.

As it relates to schools. Education is about facts. Education not based on facts is propaganda. When I open a biology book I expect to see male and female, because that is a biological fact. Liberals freak out when conservatives want to put Jesus riding a dinosaur, or not teach evolution. But its okay to distort other facts that they feel sympathetic to? Maybe we are not at that stage yet, but clearly we are heading there. Because modern liberalism as evidenced in that video, is not rooted in fact. Everything is about how they feel.

I don't see us headed that way, at all. The only normalized school discussion I see coming out of this, potentially, is acknowledgment that these people exist and here's what it means when they say it. I'm not saying that's not controversial; but there's no evidence that we're headed to anything beyond that.

Comparing it to gay marriage is not a fair comparison. Again the biggest mistake is automatically lumping this in with being gay or lesbian. Marriage is a social construct, its not rooted in any fact only tradition. Marriage can be whatever society decides. Society can't will DNA into rearranging itself.

Is it an unfair comparison? Aside from the religious basis for opposition to gay marriage, there's the biological argument: humans are a two-sex species and you need two sexes to reproduce. Biologically, we are "supposed" to be genetically hardwired to be attracted to the opposite sex in order to mate with them to create offspring in order for our DNA to survive. It has been historically argued by many that those who are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex have some sort of biological (genetic) deficiency and they need to be normalized, whether through medical treatment or through counseling and therapy.

Marriage is a social construct, sure. But it is born out of the need for social organization in human tribes, which is genetic (look to other species). More importantly, there is a whole camp of society who insists that gender does not = sex. Gender can have something to do with your sex, but that it is merely a reflection or expression, of your sex. You don't have to agree, but the Oxford Dictionary emphasizes that gender relies less on biology and more on social construction:

Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

In this sense, both marriage and gender can be made into what ever society wants it to be. But reproduction and sex can't.

Its not healthy for kids to grow up thinking that reality changes just because you feel like it. That facts are not facts, that your special and deserve special treatment. Just because these kids you reference are polite and decent, doesn't mean they are mentality healthy, or ready for reality. Life is about a lot more than just getting along with everyone around you.

Those kids are absolutely mentally healthy and more ready for reality than I was coming out of school. The reality that most middle class kids have to face nowadays is that they are not entitled to whatever they want and they have to work for things. This is a huge issue -- a plague, maybe even a mental delusion that parents won't admit about their kids- that will impact our kids and their generation more so than whether Johnny wears dresses, wants tits and thinks he's a girl. So why is it the "trans" issue that has everyone worked up when it really is just a small, almost negligible issue that will hardly affect most people? Why are we more fine with our kids spending the first 21 years of life being delusional about the realities of having to at least put in effort to have a chance of being rewarded, but freak out when one kid out of every few hundred just wants to be delusional about his sexuality?

I just don't see how society is better of by ignoring reality.

Again this can apply to many facets in life, certainly not just transgender issues.

There should be an acknowledgment by the trans community that they can not change their sex as defined by their chromosomes. But I understand why they say transsexual: because they're changing their visible sexual identification markers.

[Risto the Great]

I am more than happy to accept you for whatever you are. I'll even call you sir or mam, what ever you like.

Does that include Ze, Zem and whatever else?

I travel quite a bit. Only in Thailand have I seen transgender people so widely accepted. Over there, if a man seeks to be a woman, they will be treated as females, take on the female Thai language, go into female toilets and be widely accepted for what they want to be. It is where they want to be and nobody seems to kick up a fuss. However, if they do anything illegal, they will end up getting their heads shaved and sent to a man's prison.

This is without a doubt the most tolerant society in relation to this gender issue that I am aware of and it still fails to work in a utopian way. The reason is that transgenderism is yet another societal aberration.

Their faith tells them they might reincarnate a different way next time, so nothing is final in this regard. They are accepted and deal with it yet still end up dying earlier and being miserable in their older years. It's part and parcel of being on the fringe and no matter what society does for them, they will remain on the fringe. It simply does not work well and I don't think society has a duty to normalise every departure form normality and nor should it seek to persecute every departure. It remains a pendulum but one that should not have too much swing.

[Amphipolis]

In this reality, there are only two genders, and they relate to your chromosomes, not your thoughts.

Really? Here's a boy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwnfOnUweew

[Carlin]

Transgender Protesters in Toronto: "Gender is Over"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9_cAtfyhec

The Rebel Media is a Canadian far-right online political and social commentary media website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rebel_Media

[Gocka]

Vic,

Back to the topic at hand.

Lets reset a little bit and bring it back to basics.

Now what I'm going to get into doesn't only relate to transgender issues but to many issues in modern day society. The transgender issue merely serves as a good example.

It seems that in modern day society whenever someone new comes up like the transgender boom, we have to chains of thought. The conservative solution is typically don't ask don't tell, don't talk about it and hopefully we can pretend that everything that makes of uncomfortable just goes away. The liberal solution tends to be give it rights, make sure you never offend, keep up appearances. Both are wrong and detrimental.

As it relates to transgender people. Why do we have to, and when did we as a society come to the conclusion that this is something normal and that it should be treated as such? By all accounts these people need help, not affirmation and special treatment. Why do we automatically accept anything so long as it has anything to do with sexuality? There is no practical difference between a man believing he is a woman, than a man believing he is a penguin. Both are clear delusions that can be nothing else than some type of mental illness. Genetically and physically a man can not be a woman as much as he can be a penguin.

I'm not trying to be snide or insensitive. If a person came to you and said I am a penguin, I want to live in the arctic and eat raw fish and lay eggs, you would recommend a therapist. Why doesn't a man who believes he is a woman need help in the same way? Because the delusion is potentially sexual in nature? The only reason we treat this matter in the way we do is because it being linked to homosexuality, which is not a delusion, it is a lucid and logical preference. Gay men are not delusional.

Why the distinction matter. As evidenced in the video that the piece of shit posted, where is the line. Which delusions do we accept, which do we reject. Which delusions are state approved, which are not.

The hallmarks of a democratic society is equal treatment under the law. Laws are based on facts, in courts we deals with facts. Transgenderism is rooted in non facts. In what other cases then will the state recognizes things that are blatantly not true?

The example of non binary on a driver's license is a perfect example of pointless. The whole reason your driver's license has information such as sex, height, weight, eye color, etc is so that it functions as a valid record and description of its holder. There are only 2 sexes, male and female. Now we have a third option. What about the other bits of information? Height? I feel like I'm 20' tall. Weight: 20lbs, eye color:red. Yes I know its ridiculous, but what is the difference? At least red is a color, and 20 is a real number., but they remain not true as they relate to me. Why is sex different?

As it relates to schools. Education is about facts. Education not based on facts is propaganda. When I open a biology book I expect to see male and female, because that is a biological fact. Liberals freak out when conservatives want to put Jesus riding a dinosaur, or not teach evolution. But its okay to distort other facts that they feel sympathetic to? Maybe we are not at that stage yet, but clearly we are heading there. Because modern liberalism as evidenced in that video, is not rooted in fact. Everything is about how they feel.

I have no doubt that transgender people genuinely feel the way they claim. The question is why do we encourage them instead of telling them to seek help? Are we really helping them by ignoring their delusions? What if we had that same attitude to other types of mental illness? This is the liberal trap we constantly fall into and its a never ending rabbit hole. The solution can't always be to just don't hurt anyone's feelings. Or just give everyone protected status.

What do I want? Nothing really. I want my schools and my laws to reflect reality, not what people feel. I have no ill will towards transgender people or any other unique minority. If that is how they feel and that is how they want to live, great. I would never persecute or demand they not be that way. But we can't make special accommodations every time someone feels a certain way. Under current law, they are treated just like everyone else. In this reality, there are only two genders, and they relate to your chromosomes, not your thoughts.

Comparing it to gay marriage is not a fair comparison. Again the biggest mistake is automatically lumping this in with being gay or lesbian. Marriage is a social construct, its not rooted in any fact only tradition. Marriage can be whatever society decides. Society can't will DNA into rearranging itself.

I can't help but feel that these people are being used to serve an agenda.

Its not healthy for kids to grow up thinking that reality changes just because you feel like it. That facts are not facts, that your special and deserve special treatment. Just because these kids you reference are polite and decent, doesn't mean they are mentality healthy, or ready for reality. Life is about a lot more than just getting along with everyone around you.

Most of the hot button issues surrounding transgender people actually don't bother me. For example bathrooms. That's just a prude American problem. Who cares who uses what bathroom, the same stuff comes out of all of us. God forbid a man walks in while you fart. Petty things like that are without consequence.

I am more than happy to accept you for whatever you are. I'll even call you sir or mam, what ever you like.

I just don't see how society is better of by ignoring reality.

Again this can apply to many facets in life, certainly not just transgender issues.