Otherkin and queers - religion or truth

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
Peurii's picture
Otherkin and queers - religion or truth

I've been holding for myself a little feminist reading summer, because of the recent talks about so-called "SJW", university activism in the US and their (possible) ties to feminist ideology and gender studies. I would like to present some ideas as to how they relate to science and religion.

I understand the usefulness of the sex (biology) - gender (norms) distinction, and how gender norms are culturally created and enforced. This is a major contribution of Women's studies to our understanding of our social reality.

A prominent (I'd call a radical) feminist Judith Butler has claimed that the scientist's study of sex in humans, and the discovery of the existance of such and sex dimorphism is based on the presupposition of sex binarism. This then leads, some, people today to claim that they are not a "woman" or a "man", because they feel like they do not conform to gender norms. That's fine, although asking other people to call them by their invented pronouns is akin to wanting other people to address them as "your majesty". If it's such a problem, join the enlightened fenno-ugris, you germanic barbarians and remove gendered pronouns altogether. I feel that there is also a slippery slope via butlerite feminism to claiming that their sex also is not either a female or a male. I'm not sure if this is intended, but it seems to be often implied.

This brings me to the often ridiculed group called the otherkin, which I suppose all of you know, are humans that don't identify as homo sapiens, but perhaps as a tiger or a hawk. What I am wondering is, could not a similiar narrative be construed a la Judith Butler about how the human-animal distinction has been created in western culture from the Bible, to Descartes, to Kant and to modern science, and how animal ways of knowing and communicating have been brushed aside by the patriarchy, or I guess androarchy in this case And that the biological definition of species is also based on presuppositions of such existing, and as such is just a product of culture.

A usual argument for the existance of multiple genders is that in some cultures there are more than two genders, and as such the gender dicotomy is a western construct. I feel that this is an incredibly weak argument. If the mere existance of varying ideas were a proof of their viability, we as atheists would have to conclude also, that gods are true, and that our atheism is only predicated on western thinking. A similiar argument could be made about otherkin, from the hindu and buddhist points of view on reincarnation, or indigenous totemism, couldn't it? And I'm sure you could find some indigenous tribe somewhere that doesn't make a lot of fuss about the difference of humans and pigs, say.

The leading academic take on otherkin, I gather, is that it is a kind of religion, where the person is spiritually a dog or a snail. But if the mere self-identification of someone as a non-female or non-male makes such a person nonbinary, a nongender person would have to, I think, allow that an otherkin person is indeed a dragon if they so choose to identify. Atleast if they take the strong position of being sex nonbinary.

From the biological point of view both are wrong, of course. Humans like all sexually reproducing animals have two sexes. From an evolutionary point of view this is a strategy to excelerate the accomodation to surroundings, as opposed to asexual reproduction, where subsuguent generations are almost identical to their parent creature. So every human is either a man or a woman based on their sex cells, the intersex people being developmental abnormalities, akin to being born with 6 fingers. And from a biological point of view otherkin are not dogs, because they cannot produce offspring with other dogs, not even sterile ones.

So is gendernonbinarism a religion, like otherkin? It seems defy biological reality, like otherkinism. Or are otherkin really not human? Should we be campaigning for otherkin rights, of plastic surgery to add horns and tails, warning about microaggressions, such as commenting on urinating on public? Or mistakenly calling someone a "he", when the entity is in reality an "it"?

So what do you think? Are these two phenomenon at least somewhat analogic? Are not the epistemologic and ontologic commitments the same? Does any of this matter? Is it mere drivel?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Peurii's picture
I would like to add that I do

I would like to add that I do not mean to offend. I am seriously interested in understanding both of these phenomenon. I understand that questions relating to people's identity are important, but so are questions relating to the structure of our shared reality.

I don't doubt that nonbinary people believe that they are nonbinary, or that otherkin believe that they are dragons, like I don't doubt that Mohammed believed that he was a prophet or that Jesus believed that he had some kind of close relationship with his god.

Cognostic's picture
How did that prove a God

How did that prove a God exists?

Peurii's picture
It doesn't. That was my point

It doesn't. That was my point. But if saying that other cultures have different genders is somehow evidence that there are other sexes, the same argument could be used to argue for the existance of virtually anything. Including gods and leprechauns. Like I said that particular argument sounds weak to me.

arakish's picture
One viewpoint I have always

One viewpoint I have always had is, "We are all queers and crazy in our own very special way and magnitude. Granted, some are so deviant they deserve nothing but eradication from the gene pool, like the Jeffrey Dahmers. However, for the most part, these vast differences just make the world a very interesting place to live. Now, if we can just exterminate religion, the world would be infinitely better off."

I even have this hanging as a sign at home. Have had it for over three decades. Even my wife had the same beliefs.

However, I have to admit that I am slightly confused with your "otherkin" idea. Do you actually mean the totemism as in the Native American's beliefs? If so, then my totem is the Bald Eagle. However, if we were to include fantasy, then my totem is the Phoenix. Actually, those are my choices. I do not know what a shaman would determine as my actual totem.

Funny thing is that of my ten most favoritest creatures, only two are truly real. In order: Phoenix, Dragon, Unicorn, Pegasi, Great Eagles, Bald Eagle, Wolf, Ents, Sphinx, and Wolverine (yes Logan of Marvel comics fame).

As for the Queers part (no offense intended, just using OPers word), I could care less. Anyone can love anyone they wish. Where is it in the laws of nature where same-sex relationships are not?

And just for an example...

I have actually dated a transgender. She was originally a he. She admitted it right up front on our first date, right at the beginning. Want to know how I replied? I just simply said, "OK. So what?" And she was the one who was shocked. I guess she never got that kind of response from other male-apes. Probably because she was dating discriminative shitheads? Anyway, she was a very delightful person to be with.

And should I dare to say this? Yes, we had sex. So what? Not on the first date. I think it was about five dates before both of us were comfortable enough with it. In a way, we were both virgins. She had not had sex since the transgender operation. I had never had sex with a transgender. Again, I ask, "So what?"

If it had not been for me getting that job at Yellowstone and moving out west, we would still be in a relationship. However, she did not want to move away from her mom, who was her only true supporter left in her life. Her dad had died, and get this, just three days after my dad had died, in the same year. Kowinkadink? Anyway, we still keep in touch. And also get this, she also happens to have been a life long atheist.

Even when you consider what I have been through in my life, most persons find it, not hard, not difficult, what's the word? Damn, can't think of it. Anyway, most persons find it hard to believe that I can be as open-minded as I am. I have shared it elsewhere, but it is easier to just insert the link this way: read Soul Shatter.


Peurii's picture
Queer is a word used in

Queer is a word used in feminist theory, so that is not an insult by no means. I have no problems with people being gay or with transsexuals. I support gay marriage and the right of transpeople to get reconstructive surgery to the sex that feels right to them.

What I have a problem with wrapping my mind around is the fact that some people feeling that they do not have a gender means that they have no sex (nonbinary). To me this feels analogous to saying that by claiming to be a dog one is a dog if one feels like it (otherkin).

I understand that claiming nonbinary gender (norms) can be a means of distancing from gender stereotypes. That's fine, a person can do what ever they like regardless of their sex. But if the claim is that they have no sex seems to me to put to question biology as science, and open the room for any claims to reality based on self-identity.

LogicFTW's picture
I have never met someone that

I have never met someone that stated they had no "sex" in a biological term. I have met a few people that want to be genderless because they either did not consider themselves a man or a woman sexually (not in the biological sense), and/or had no interest in sex, with either a woman or a man. I have heard of people that removed some sex organs, that made them incapable of reproducing, and want to be considered genderless, but I think a vast majority of them will acknowledge that they were a certain biological gender at birth, whether they felt that way internally or not. That they had certain organs that pertained to a certain biological sex in the reproduction cycle for living organisms that do not reproduce asexually.

I do believe nearly all these people understand they belong to a living species that biologically divides us into either male or female 99.9 percent of the time when it comes to reproduction. With the few exceptions being a genetic anomaly that prevents them from being able to reproduce at all.

Will be interesting if medical science continues to advance at this rate and people of either sex can choose to take part in either part of the reproduction cycle or all of it. If medical science and society norms continue to evolve, will we see a time where sexual identity truly does go away due to medical technology? Would that be what it takes to achieve true gender equality?

Peurii's picture
Well the no biological sex

Well the no biological sex argument seems to hinge on there being no characteristics that all people deemed female share and the fact that people identify as nonbinary. But this seems to me to be a bit fallacious. Almost no concept can be defined in necessary and sufficient conditions. All concepts in the end are more akin to Wittgenstein's family resemblance concepts (what do all games have in common? What makes chess, football & Call of Duty games?). So the no biological sex argument feels like a semantic sleigh of hand.

LogicFTW's picture
I agree, while maybe not

I agree, while maybe not "sleight of hand" someone that wants to say they have no sexual gender, biologically at birth, unless they had a very rare abnormality, are being dishonest with themselves and to others if they want to say otherwise. To me it is a bit like saying I have 3 functioning working biological eyes, when I was born with 2, and I do not have 3 functioning biological eyes.

But as I said every transgender, asexual, self identified person I was able to personally discuss these sensitive issues with, all have said they also understand this fact, they were born with certain organs that pertain to a certain biological gender in widely agreed upon science findings. But beyond the pure biological fact they can absolutely say and feel they are of a certain gender or genderless where it matters, in their mind. And I think we should all be accepting of that. Esp. transgenders, there lives are usually incredibly difficult and can use all the support and understanding they can get.

You also have to be careful with assigning the gender terms solely on science/physical as you quickly run into issues where if a person is missing certain biological markers, or working organs, does that person suddenly lose their gender? Ofcourse not. Just because great grandma at 90 years old can no longer carry a child to term, or still have fertile eggs does not mean she is not still a female.

Also I think very very few people make the no biological sex argument, based purely on biology, that would be foolish.

Peurii's picture
Queer is a word used in

*Double post*

LogicFTW's picture
@Orignal Post

@Orignal Post

An interesting topic for me. I consider my self an LGBTQ ally and have friends and people I met that lets me say I have met and talked with people for every letter of LGBTQ.

I consider it polite and friendly to call people by their prefered pronoun, if any at all. I have met a few people that prefer to be genderless and for me to use genderless pronouns. I have screwed up before, to my friends, especially those in transition. Most of them are good natured about it, as they know my intention was not negative or with ill intent.

All that said, I think someone that considers themselves female, but dress, appear and act as a male, needs to realize that a stranger may refer to them as a male, (or vica versa,) and to expect otherwise is setting themselves up for disappointment. Most all of us, are so used to for 99% of our encounters to call people pronouns based on their outward appearance and be correct 99% of the time. Expecting everyone to switch to genderless pronouns until sexual gender is established instead of what we all been doing is a big ask. Even if it is polite and most of us are well meaning towards strangers, especially those that take on what can be a great struggle of having an internal gender or genderless preference that their outward appearance does not reflect well.

I actually have had this conversation with several transgender or genderless people, and with my small sample size they have agreed on most every point. I did have to know them quite well before I broached such a topic.

I have met one person that very strongly considered herself a female cat. It was more than a "hobby" to her. But she also understood that she was not full time cat, and cannot be, even if she wanted to be. It would make her happy to be referred to as a cat, to be petted and treated like a spoiled house cat. But she also worked a highly skilled, highly paid professional job and was more or less "married" to her work.

I think anyone that considers themselves truly an animal other than human is lying to themselves, and need help. But people that want to roleplay their favorite animals and want to be treated and referred to as a certain animal is fine, if you wanted to be friendly and polite towards those people you would call them a cat if that is what they were currently role playing. Do not have to, they gain no special rights, but they may not care for you if you insist on calling them a person while they are role playing. Same applies for people that like to role play elves or the like.

turning_left's picture
"I understand the usefulness

"I understand the usefulness of the sex (biology) - gender (norms) distinction, and how gender norms are culturally created and enforced. This is a major contribution of Women's studies to our understanding of our social reality."

This is so important to keep in mind. There's a distinction between someone who is intersex (can't be classified as purely male or female), and someone who's gender identity is nonbinary. Of course, someone could be both. To oversimplify things: sex=bodies. gender=identity often in relation to traditional concepts of gender.

It doesn't seem terribly difficult to me to understand that there are people who don't identify as a woman or man, or who perhaps identify as both, or something else altogether. The ideas of "woman" and "man" are social constructs, and vary from culture to culture.

As an illustration of other identities that we don't police as severely as gender: Take political affiliation. Someone may say "You're a democrat because you believe ________," and I could respond "Well, while I may have some things in common with democrats, I don't identify as one because _______." Or "Actually, sometimes I identify as a Republican and sometimes as a Democrat, depending on the day/issue/mood at hand." Or "I just say screw it to all of those political labels."

As far as pronouns go, I figure it's just kindest to do our best. Whether or not you think it's reasonable for a nonbinary person to expect others to use alternate pronouns, I think it's obvious that the kindest way to interact with that person is to choose to work to use their pronouns correctly. Most people that I know that are nonbinary use the pronouns they/them/theirs, which we already use on the daily. Like if you find a lost cell phone you might automatically say, "I wonder if they'll come back to get it." Learning to use they/them in normal conversation is a little tricky, but definitely doable.

Cognostic's picture
The liberal Gender Agenda is

The liberal Gender Agenda is completely off base and moving in the wrong direction. Gender identity is moronic. Instead of using a plethora of gender pronouns as the Libertards would have us do, there is a much simpler solution. Get rid of Gender pronouns all together.

Yep! No more BS. End it all. In a popular Steven King book, The Gunfighter, both men and women are simply called "Si." "S as in snake and 'I' as in pie. "Hello Si. Jones. Welcome Si. Smith. " Nothing else. Get over the MORONIC LIBERTARD gender identification game and simply eliminate it all.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

As a life long "libertard" and social advocate I don't often agree with the jackbooted neo nazi fascist gun totin' right wing nut jobs such as yourself, but hell and damn...I loved that book and I agree.
Gender pronouns are entirely obsolete as are gender specific names. Si or Sers (plural) would solve the linguistic and social problems multi gender society brings us.

LogicFTW's picture
I consider myself more

I consider myself more liberal than conservative, and it bugs me a tiny bit when people use the term libtard. But then you are anonymous and I am anonymous allowing someones derogatory remark towards a group I identify with a bit closer then the other side, having that affect me is on me. I guess I can ask politely for you to not use such a term, but I do not hold much expectation that you would.

I actually agree with you, would be cool to get rid of all gender pronouns. I am for that. We can have sex identification, and whatever people are closest to biologically at birth, and the relevant information that pertains to that, but beyond that, what gender they are is completely irrelevant, we are all equal, with no more gender pronouns we might have less gender biases. A goal we should all work towards.

Doing so we can hopefully also get rid of:
- gender based bathrooms
- gender based clothing (a few changes that make clothes more comfortable for one body type over the other as practical, just like longer clothes for tall people and shorter clothes for shorter people, etc)
- gender based outward appearances like makeup, body hair preferences
- gender based toys and activity, things like "boy scouts" and girl scouts should have been done away with long ago.

Cognostic's picture
You would probably not

You would probably not qualify as a Libertard if you can articulately defend a position. The Libertards are the ones in the street shouting "Gun Control" without understanding that nearly all guns are semi-automatic. (You pull the trigger once and a bullet comes out.) Without understanding how hard it is to get a gun or that we already have laws in place that are not being inforced. Libertards are the rejects that do not appreciate freedom of speech and want to pass "Hate Speech" bills. They want safe places and awards for coming in last. Things that no rational person could possibly argue with a straight face. IMO - The whole gender identity issue is a Libertard issue. It really is retarded to assert gender identity on a continuum and then mandate the government to enforce laws that require citizens to use proper gender pronouns or be charged with hate crimes. This is a direct infringement on the first amendment. It is in fact, RETARDED.

I really do not have a problem with many liberal issues. I'm for the legalization of all drugs. I think anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they like. It is not the governments business. I am 100% against policing for profit, it is corrupting our police departments, our cities and our government. But there are positions that are just RETARDED and the Gender Identity Crap is one of them.

Let's go over to the Right. The assholes putting religion in schools and allowing churches to get government funding for programs should be taken out and shot. (LOL - exaggerating obviously). The right has its morons as well. We just don't have a catchy name for those beer drinking, gun toting, flag waving, "Make America Great" empty headed dweebs. "I didn't come from no monkey. Let's teach creation in schools." EQUALLY RETARDED.

Don't assume the label applies to you if it does not. There are in fact "Libertards" out there. There are in fact "Moronic Right Wingers" out there. Then there are those of us who can sit down and have a discussion with differences of opinion.

Apologies for any offense but I believe the word accurately describes the extreme. If there were a comparable word for the Religious Right, I would use it as well.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

No offense taken, just pointing out that labelling indiscriminately can be a game two can play just as inaccurately and offensively as the other.. Anyhoo I gave you some names for the right wingers, i.e neo nazi fascist gun totin' right wing nut jobs , I could add knuckle dragging, beer swilling,pot bellied, hairy backed rednecks....and I agree there are nut jobs on the 'right' and "left' of politics both sides with impractical prejudiced or even jaundiced policies that would end up making the world far far worse than it is already.

I identify as a lifelong social democrat apart from a quickly extinguished dalliance with the liberal right in my 30's. I loathe guns in private hands without good reason. And yes I will sit down with any reasonable person and work out a median position, fair to all, that disadvantages no one if possible.

have a great day it is beautiful here today in Perth...

LogicFTW's picture
Hey now, that is unfair to

Hey now, that is unfair to paint the rednecks in with these people. Sure rednecks deserve their derogatory name, but at the same time it is unfair to them to put them in with the far right religious extremist ;)

Aposteriori unum's picture
@old man

@old man
It's not even 12°C right now and you call that beautiful? I'd hate to pay your air conditioning bill in the summer.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Apostieri

@ Apostieri

That's because I had the foresight to order pure merino pullovers made from Australian wool and woven in Scotland...lightweight yet very toasty laddie. They only get a couple of months or so use a year LOL so they will last a while yet. Perth (where I am) has a moderate mediterranean climate so we regularly get a week or two in Jan or Feb about 40C+ (118F or so) but its normally in the daily range of 26-30C (78F-90F). I used to live in an area that got daily summer temps of over 45C for a couple of months at a time and it reached well over 55C in ground temperature ( I will search out an old pic of me with large thermometer...it was reading over 56C at ground level)

Cognostic's picture
LOL - Those are not names.

LOL - Those are not names. They actually describe groups of people and their beliefs.

Neo-Nazi - Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant social or political movements seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism. They are God's White Chosen Race.

Gun totin' right wing nut jobs: There really are gun totin- right wing - nut-jobs. You can spot them in Wall Mart with their jeans half way down their ass and an AR-15 strapped over their shoulder for no other reason than they wanna carry it. A responsible person would be there because they have some questions for the gun department and they would carry their precious baby in a case.

knuckle dragging, beer swilling,pot bellied, hairy backed rednecks. - Have you not watched Duck Dynasty? Ha ha ha - my father was of them guys. He had a sixth grade edgecation and would whoop the tar outta you at the drop of a beer. These people are real. It is not a stereotype. It defines a group of people. (Yes there are intelligent and articulate members in the group at times. It still describes the group.,_

@ I loathe guns in private hands without good reason. And our area of contention. Guns are an inalienable right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDlSVE0X3Ao Discussion I agree with. You may not. I am certainly for enforcing the gun laws that we have and banning ineligible people from owning them. (Which we already do.) Removing the gins, to me, is not the solution. I will support any further reasonable legislation.

Sheldon's picture
As long as you acceptcthere

As long as you accept there are conservatards as well.

Now we've established that humans irrespective of political leanings can be stupid, and thus produce stupid ideas, I'm not sure the two terms aren't obsolete.

Perhaps focusing on the ideas and why they're stupid is a more pragmatic approach than than generalised pejorative aimed at a demographic whose political opinions are generally speaking opposed to our own?

Conservatives tend to think change is a bad thing, more than liberals. This doesn't make all change bad, or good, and some liberals tend to want change for it's own sake.

Gender neutral pronouns, I find it hard to get worked up about. If someone is offended by being called the wrong one then as long as they tell me politely and don't turn it into a politically correct witch hunt I'll do my best to not offend them unnecessarily.

Life would trip along a lot better if people were a little more malleable I think.

LogicFTW's picture


Just curious, so I can learn more, why do you care about the gender identity stuff? Are you actually worried that if "libtards" win the day that you will be forced to use gender pronouns for people you do not agree with? That if you do not you could be fined say 100 bucks if recorded and observed by police?

I think we can all rest easy that will never be the case. Even if somehow all the most extreme liberal folks managed to win the day and had control of all levers of the government. Washington DC votes 95+ percent democrat year after year, so it would be a libertard "stronghold" if any place was. And they have nothing even close to in the books about mandating and penalizing for gender identification.

If you are not worried about some sort of law and penalty for getting gender pronouns wrong, what are you worried about?

Disagree about guns not being easy to get. They are very easy to get, sometimes you may have to cross a state border, but crossing state borders is easy. Definitely some gun laws already in place that are not being enforced or well enforced, agree there. Just about anyone can build up an arsenal of deadly weapons like the Las Vegas shooter, buy dozens of powerful guns fully legally, and then mod them out to be even more deadly with easy to source parts and online guides.

Americans live in a country now where we have to consider every large public gathering of people can have one homicidal person ruin everyone's day because the tools to do so are easily available to them. People in Japan do not have to worry about a mass shooting like that. Just like we Americans generally do not have to worry about someone with an RPG, because RPGS are well controlled.

Aposteriori unum's picture


While I'm not of the same opinion as you regarding gun control I have to say that you are correct. Guns are very easy to get in America. Not the good ones, but the rest... all you need is an ID, money to buy it and a non-felonious record. I have several guns myself, which I bought with relative ease. So...


You may want to reconsider your statement... unless you live in new York or Chicago or some other such place... otherwise guns are, in fact, very easy to obtain. Pistols are slightly different, sure, but as far as your general shotgunor rifle... no big deal.

LogicFTW's picture
@Aposteriori Unum:

@Aposteriori Unum:
What is your position on gun control? I forget. Just curious, I always like debating gun control for the US, even if I do not have any "skin" in the game really and don't really care either way beyond that it is fun to debate/discuss.

If a person lives in a state with bit more restrictive gun purchasing laws, they can simply cross a state line or two, (yeah a bit of a hassle, especially if you do not enjoy road trips, or do not have a day to dedicate to driving in free time.) And find a state that allows private gun sales, with no registration, no waiting period, no background check, you just need an ID that states you are are a citizen and over the age of 18. And yes of course lots of money if you want to buy lots of powerful guns to buy guns completely legally.

Sure if the person is under probation or something similar, that took away their right to purchase guns, they are breaking the law, but the person selling them the gun in a private sale does not know that.

Driving the gun back across state borders is a simple matter, there is no border control, just do not get pulled over, (easy to do,) and if you do, do not do anything that would have the police search your vehicle. Simple fact remains, even with the legalization of recreational sales of cannabis in several states, powerful guns are easier to get then legal cannabis is, and at this point, buying legal cannabis, in say: Colorado, is pretty damn easy to do.

Aposteriori unum's picture
You didn't forget. I never


You didn't forget. I never told anyone. I don't get in the debates.

You have to have a license from the state from which you're buying it. Even if you drive to Texas and you have a license from another state there will be no sale. However, there's nothing stopping anyone from selling a gun to another person in any state. Of course, the legality of this really depends on the state you're going back to. If you're already a criminal, or plan to be, of course you don't care...

Anyway, I support sensible laws and enforcement of regulations, but I oppose arbitrary disarmament and unnecessary restrictions or suspension of rights for any law abiding owners of firearms. Extreme propositions are usually based on a good overall intention; no doubt, but the reality of how things work is often not so simple. It's a clusterfuck of opinions, facts, ideologies and passions that cause the frictions of debates on the subject that ward me off from it.

arakish's picture
I hear you. I agree gun

I hear you. I agree gun control here in America could be stiffened, but not to the point of repealing the right to bear arms. There are still places in this country that are damned remote. Like where I live. Coyotes (I don't mean Mexicans) actually come into my yard, and since they come in packs, they can actually threaten a human. And they do threaten humans in this area. I am mostly surrounded by range lands which attracts some wild animals. However, even a "blank" gunshot is enough to scare them away. And that is not including the larger animals. Additionally, I live remotely enough that it would literally take a LEO at least ten to fifteen minutes to get to my house. Thus, yes, I have one gun for home defense.

Almost all my guns are collector's items such as the 1941 Luger that was owned by a German SS Officer (authenticated). Another is my great grandfather's army rifle from World War One. And that is only a couple.

However, I am appalled at how easy it is for the wrong kind of persons to get virtually whatever gun they want. I shall also admit that I do own an AR-15. However, it is the model from the Vietnam War (made in 1969) that one of my Uncle's used in the Vietnam War. Another collector's item.

I am a safe gun owner. With all the shootings over the last decade, I have actually removed the firing pins from all guns except my Desert Eagle (home defense). The firing pins are in a separate safe from the gun safes that have my other others. And not only do all my guns reside in secure safes, they are all also installed with trigger locks. Only that one gun is complete and out of a safe, but also has a trigger lock.

I am like AU, license gun owners ONLY for the state in which they live. If they travel to a gun show in another state, then they have to apply with all involved LEO agencies in order to purchase a gun in another state. Then they have to apply AND pay for secured transport to ship it to their home. Once at their home, the local LEO agency then must be present in order to assure everything is in proper order.

Yes, I believe in much tighter gun control. But not repeal of the right to bear arms.

As Cognostic puts it, I am definitely against anyone owning a gun without good reason. And I think my living situation qualifies. There are wild animals that will actually come and threaten humans. Yes, I have to be very careful just going out to my back deck, even in the daytime.


Cognostic's picture
Easy to obtain is not

Easy to obtain is not "Legally Easy to obtain." In Compton, California I have been asked if I wanted to buy a gun in a Save-on parking lot. Three black men in a nice van just slid open the side panel and showed me no less than fifteen different kinds of guns displayed in stands on top of their boxes and all that on top of a black velveteen cloth of some sort, Yes, anyone can buy a gun. That is the problem. The solution is not ripping the guns out of the hands of legal owners. Enforcing the current gun laws would be a good start.

Cognostic's picture
WTF are you talking about:

WTF are you talking about:

New NYC Laws Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Community
New York City has released new guidelines regulating discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Today, the New York City Commission on Human Rights released new guidance that makes clear what constitutes gender identity and gender expression discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law, making it one of the strongest in the nation in protecting the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Although discrimination based on gender identity and expression has been illegal under the City’s law since 2002, previous guidelines never articulated the range of violations of the law. Today’s guidance provides bold and explicit examples of violations, sending a clear message to employers, landlords, business owners, and the general public what the City considers to be discrimination under the law. The guidance also offers best practices on how stakeholders can comply with the law.

It's just waiting to be enforced.

Shortly after the new guidelines were released, several conservative outlets published headlines suggesting that NYC residents would be fined $250,000 for using the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgender individual. While this claim is TECHNICALLY TRUE in a very narrow sense, it is also very misleading.

In other words, it is not time to freak out yet, but that day is coming.

I have a friend who nearly lost a job because he said "nigger" in a restaurant while sitting with a black man. They were talking about a comedian that they had recently seen. A woman heard the conversation and literally filed charges against him with the base commander. Even the black friend who was sitting at the table and sharing in the humor was unable to help. The word can not be used in public. (That's wrong). It's especially wrong when I can turn on the radio and hear the word a thousand times during the day. When I can see black people on the streets using the term constantly. It's just a frigging word. Get over it.

I have a co-teacher who had racial discrimination charges filed against him by a homosexual male. They were having an argument and apparently the homosexual man was just really feminine. Well, my friend let slip, "You are so gay." That's it. I've seen the court documents. The man filed hate crime speech charges against my friend, who thought nothing of it. He was visiting NY and just blew off the trial. Not attending the trial, the gay man was awarded the verdict and my friend now has a Federal Hate Crime in his criminal background check that he must explain at every university he works at.

Life is a whole lot more weird than you imagine it to be. The willingness for the government to enforce gender pronouns is insane. Getting rid of them makes a whole lot more sense.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a right that must be protected. A racial slur is not a threat of violence .

Aposteriori unum's picture
If you mean me I was only

If you mean me I was only talking about the guns thing. Nothing else. I wasn't disagreeing with anything else. If you didn't mean me then just disregard this post.

Aposteriori unum's picture


Have you tried "conservatard"?

And since you brought it up... what grinds my gears about the extremes is their allergic reaction and/or total repulsion to facts. Especially if those facts are directly contradictory to their precious pet ideology. Both extremes do this at a frustrating frequency. But then again I find the majority of people don't go all the way down their rabbit-holes.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.