No one is racist until they systemically persecute someone in @180 Proof‘s clown world.

A racist and sexist diatribe, but it’s against white men so it’s cool and edgy. What difference does it make?

His prose is Lutherian. Maybe it was a dig at Luther, but maybe he thought such prose was a way to appeal to the masses.

I like what he says about the State in this one.

It’s impossible to live in a simulation because the act of entering a simulation occurs after, and never before, a state of affairs in which we already live.

“Capitalism” is a socialist bugaboo, and isn’t the mark of any one system. There has not been any regime that was not concerned with the ownership and management of capital, including the most collectivist and centralized of regimes, the difference being only that collectivism transfers the ownership and management of capital from private hands to the hands of the State.

Statism is the prevailing orthodoxy, and that’s the primary ingredient in all the shit sandwiches we’re eating these days.

Good for her. There is no problem with her partying and dancing and having fun. Politicians are mammals. The sooner critics get that through their heads the better. She should to own it and flaunt it in their faces.

One of the problems with politics is the expectation that politicians ought to be paragons of virtue, a standard which isn’t possible in any case. Such an expectation forces the politician to work towards better “optics” than policy or governance.

Hostility, snark, misrepresentation. What’s with you guys? Your bigotry knows no bounds.

I never once said “all that matters is biology”. You’ve been hostile, snarky, talking about Trump. You’re trying to blame me for your intolerance towards my views and it’s not working very well.

It makes no sense to refuse a biological perspective in a debate about the divergence between biological sex and perceived gender in transgenderism. It is even spoken about in the first post. At any rate, wherever an identity misidentifies, the biology is paramount. A quick examination of it can confirm what is the case, that is if truth is still a concern.

It isn't even remotely believable to you that a biological man could be a woman?

No. The distinction exists at the cellular level and begins at such an early stage in development that any change to it is impossible and irreversible.

I think according to your own view a sex change would just mean that a man becomes a woman or vice versa, and it sounds like you wouldn't accept that as valid.

I don’t believe a sex change actually accomplishes any change in sex.

But I have every right to have my newborn son mutilated. Or I could get a tattoo of a dick on my face. Both are permanent biological measures.

If you can provide me with some serious science that says that people who take such measures regret it by and large I might agree. You claim to be in favor of freedom; you should be in favor of someone's right to remedy such issues. Children? I don't think so. But adults? Definitely.

You would block transgender people from getting the treatments many of them want. That's definitely a preventative measure of sorts.

They can do what they want. I would not block transgender people from these treatments.

What would you consider to be the defining characteristics of a man? Serious question.

Y chromosomes, testes, a prostate, a penis, spermatogenesis, and so on.

The fact that someone identifies as something else is not enough for me to believe that they are indeed that thing. That’s my problem.

There is no doubt that people feel dysphoria with their own bodies and are ill-suited to the expectations society holds towards them. These people exist, and if they need to dress and act like the opposite sex to find comfort, they should be allowed to do so without cruelty and discrimination towards them. I don’t mind playing along, at least in some respects, but at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back.

I don’t have any answers, but it seems to me a view that affirms biology rather than amputates it leaves room for those to come to terms with themselves as they really are.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.

There is an effort to distinguish between gender and sex while at the same time equivocating between them. Hence refusing to define “man” or “woman” in biological terms while at the same time trying to appear like a man or woman. On the one hand it’s not so much about biology or sex but on the other we’ll surgically remove and fashion male and female sex organs and make sure you have the appropriate hormones. There is no end to these problems.

The key, I think, is to abandon the word “gender” in such discussions. If we think along the lines of “sex” there is little room to hide behind these equivocations.

And when archeologists dig up his bones and see the male skeleton, what then?

I could give two straws about any “social reality”. Social reality thought the sun rotated around the earth. If you want to call people with testes “women” then that’s fine by me. But by the same token I’m going to call people with testes “men”.

I cannot deny that.

So you should not be force or coercion not to play against the under 10's

.

I don’t think you should force people to play with you, but if someone wants to organize a game between men and women, and everyone involved wants to play, then there is no reason to be bothered by it.

I cannot say that eliminating the demarcation between men and women’s sport is fair play, though. The disparity of sport performance between the sexes is inescapable. Wasting energy in combat and sport are some of the few activities males excel at. We’re primates, after all.

The limits for me are force and coercion. Let people be and all is well.

I’m not against dress-up and pretend, nor would I tell people what to think and believe. But I won’t easily conform to someone else’s belief in the same manner.

I disagree with that. But I love your phrase “galavanting flesh”. I’m going to use that one, with all credit to you, of course.

So why pretend the person is both male and female? The reality appears to be the biology, while the denialism remains in the sphere of identity.

The people of Wyoming booted her out. I won’t lose a wink over it.

A trans woman is a biological male, then, according to your formulas.

I love it. She lost to someone I never heard of, despite being coddled and fawned over by the legacy media, despite being a war monger and torture defender.

Fair enough. You accused me of denying reality, so I just wanted to know which reality I was denying. You could easily point me to one shred of evidence of human males producing eggs but won’t, for whatever reason. I suspect you don’t have any.

If simple human biology has no place in a discussion of reality and gender, I apologize.

It didn’t. Hence your failure to quote someone properly.

It’s like a bloodline.

That was the dictionary, actually. So you think a male can produce eggs?

Of course your rationality left out the most relevant parts. Brilliant.

So you don’t associate females with the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs?

Why do you always misquote me by removing much of what I said?

Does society not associate females with the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs?

Female: belonging or relating to women, or the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/female

Male: used to refer to men or boys, or the sex that fertilizes eggs, and does not produce babies or eggs itself:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/male?q=Male

The government where I live has fallen on some hard times, so hard in fact that it’s liquor and cannabis distribution workers are going on strike, with other state industries soon to follow. Besides a lack of product for drinkers and smokers, this poses a problem for small business owners, many of whom are still trying to make ends meet since the government shuttered their businesses during the Covid days. Since the state has taken it upon itself to monopolize liquor distribution, there is little to nothing these businesses can do. It is expected that workers will be out of a job before long. Eat the poor indeed.

It’s just the death throes of another establishment political dynasty. The Cheneys, the Clintons, the Bushs—all are heading towards the trash-bin of history.

A woman is an adult female human being. A man is an adult male human being.

And men are not able to. No one alive or dead was born of a man.

Right, an important distinction for this discussion thank you.
My understanding is gender is the way you feel about your sex, and sex being the biology of how you were born.
I thought that was the generally understood distinction?

Gender is best utilized as a staple of language, not of biology or psychology. Sex is a better descriptor, in most cases.

I’m saying that people who give birth and breastfeed are women.

I don’t know what any such characteristics would be. I can imagine waking up in a woman’s body, whether by magic or a brain transplant, and yet I’d continue to identify as a man, so it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with my body. And I can’t think of what psychological traits I have, except the obvious of identifying as a man, that would count as being such characteristics.

You’d be a woman because you could give birth and breastfeed. No amount of imagination can change that.

All this weird hand-wringing about rhetoric means little in the wake of such actions, in this case the unprecedented actions of federal law enforcement. Bill or Hilary were never raided, even when they lifted furniture from the Whitehouse or when they ran the fat cat hotel out of the Lincoln bedroom.

Sounds about right. The FBI has such a sordid past that it boggles the mind that anyone could trust them.