Difference in Gender and Sex

[homersapien 11,366]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's the rub though - what is "empathetic and fair?"  Is it empathetic or fair to compel shelters created for women fleeing domestic and sexual abuse by men to allow intact, biological men to be in that space simply because they believe they are women based on their own internal sense of self?  Is it fair or empathetic to allow a biological male to use inborn physical advantages of being male to compete in women's and girls' sports and beat out biological females for awards, wins and records?  Is it empathetic or fair to allow a biological man access to private spaces where women must be in various stages of undress or nakedness with no respect for their privacy and safety?

If you do believe it's empathetic and fair, I would reply "to whom?"  Certainly not to the natal women and girls in these and other such situations.

First, I don't accept these sort of conflicts - if true - are so systemic as to really require state legislation. I think they can be handled at the local or institutional level through compromise. 

Let administrators handle any given situation. If they are sued, then let the courts handle it.  If it turns into an actual widespread legal issue, then address it legislatively.  That should be the last resort though.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, I don't accept these sort of conflicts - if true - are so systemic as to really require state legislation. I think they can be handled at the local or institutional level through compromise. 

They are all true and just a small sample of the actual situations women and girls are dealing with. And it’s just beginning and will only get worse as those advocating for it are more emboldened. 
 

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Let administrators handle any given situation. If they are sued, then let the courts handle it.  If it turns into an actual widespread legal issue, then address it legislatively.  That should be the last resort though.

There’s no good reason to let it keep happening and then forcing those most adversely affected by it to have to hire lawyers and go fight it out in court. It’s common sense to reserve these spaces for women and girls and to stop it when the camel’s nose is under the tent rather than waiting for it to be standing inside with you. 

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

The legislation being proposed or passing is to prevent the erosion of hard won rights and protections for women and girls, and to protect minors from potentially harmful, often irreversible, and woefully under researched and studied medical and pharmacological interventions.  It's not about whether the 30 year old man wishes to transition to female, present as female, take cross-sex hormones and change his name from Jason to Jessica and pronouns to she/her.

Well, that's one narrative.    

(And of course I understand this is about "children" and not fully grown adults.) 

My point regards current legislative efforts.  What constitutes a "child".  Is it the legal definition regarding activities such as drinking (for example)?  Is it the legal age of being able to decide to marry without parental permission?

Some states specify that 16 is old enough to legally decide to have sex. (In Colonial America it was 12/14 yrs (female/male) for marrying,  under the provisions of British common law.)

From what little I've read about them, many of the current laws are specifying 18 as the minimum allowable age to receive medical therapy for gender dysphoria.

I submit that the minimum age for which medical therapies for gender dysphoria might be inappropriate is a scientific question, more so than a political or emotional one. (Furthermore, that question should be asked on an individual basis instead of a generalized one.)

I don't know what the benefit/risk ratio of providing medical therapy for gender dysphoria to say, a 16 year old.  I don't know how many 16 year olds have received such therapy and what the outcomes were.  But I'd hate to think a 17 year old committed suicide because they were denied treatment (as an example).  Likewise, I'd hate to think a 21 year old regretted the treatment they received at 17 (as the counter example).

My point is if state legislatures really feel we are in a crisis that demands attention, then why not specify a commission to obtain scientific data on the issue instead of arbitrarily specifying regulations?

This is heading for the same place we are regarding abortion legislation - which is a fight we apparently can't avoid - in which women are being legally forced to delay procedures for medical conditions that are destined to - eventually do - threaten their lives.

I just have my doubts that gender dysphoria has reached that same level of concern.  We should at least accumulate the data before the fact, instead of reacting emotionally.

Regardless the decision to take the risk should be up to the patient, the parents and their providers, not the state. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, that's one narrative.    

(And of course I understand this is about "children" and not fully grown adults.) 

My point regards current legislative efforts.  What constitutes a "child".  Is it the legal definition regarding activities such as drinking (for example)?  Is it the legal age of being able to decide to marry without parental permission?

Some states specify that 16 is old enough to legally decide to have sex. (In Colonial America it was 12/14 yrs (female/male) for marrying,  under the provisions of British common law.)

From what little I've read about them, many of the current laws are specifying 18 as the minimum allowable age to receive medical therapy for gender dysphoria.

I submit that the minimum age for which medical therapies for gender dysphoria might be inappropriate is a scientific question, more so than a political or emotional one. (Furthermore, that question should be asked on an individual basis instead of a generalized one.)

I don't know what the benefit/risk ratio of providing medical therapy for gender dysphoria to say, a 16 year old.  I don't know how many 16 year olds have received such therapy and what the outcomes were.  But I'd hate to think a 17 year old committed suicide because they were denied treatment (as an example).  Likewise, I'd hate to think a 21 year old regretted the treatment they received at 17 (as the counter example).

My point is if state legislatures really feel we are in a crisis that demands attention, then why not specify a commission to obtain scientific data on the issue instead of arbitrarily specifying regulations?

This is heading for the same place we are regarding abortion legislation - which is a fight we apparently can't avoid - in which women are being legally forced to delay procedures for medical conditions that are destined to - eventually do - threaten their lives.

I just have my doubts that gender dysphoria has reached that same level of concern.  We should at least accumulate the data before the fact, instead of reacting emotionally.

 

On the contrary, I think it’s entirely appropriate to hit the brakes first I the absence of good information proving that lasting and irreversible damage isn’t being done to developing bodies. If we wish to study it further AFTER pressing pause, that’s fine. But to continue allowing it on faith is misguided at best and willfully reckless at worst. 

[homersapien 11,366]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

On the contrary, I think it’s entirely appropriate to hit the brakes first I the absence of good information proving that lasting and irreversible damage isn’t being done to developing bodies. If we wish to study it further AFTER pressing pause, that’s fine. But to continue allowing it on faith is misguided at best and willfully reckless at worst. 

FWIW, I added a final sentence after posting initially:

"Regardless the decision to take the risk should be up to the patient, the parents and their providers, not the state."

Edited March 23, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,366]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

On the contrary, I think it’s entirely appropriate to hit the brakes first I the absence of good information proving that lasting and irreversible damage isn’t being done to developing bodies. If we wish to study it further AFTER pressing pause, that’s fine. But to continue allowing it on faith is misguided at best and willfully reckless at worst. 

Well - thanks to TT - we know that's what a couple of healthcare agencies in Europe have concluded. We just don't know how their practices compare to ours.

(I would also point out - from my understanding of reading their guidelines - they haven't actually legally restricted anything, which suggests to me they are still leaving the final decision to individual patients/parents/providers.)

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

FWIW, I added a final sentence after posting initially:

"Regardless the decision to take the risk should be up to the patient, the parents and their providers, not the state."

We override parents wishes for medical treatments already when the outcome could or will  be detrimental to the minor child. And no decision of this lasting impact should be left up to a child. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

I am off this thread after this, but I do want to point out an obvious truth. 
 

Everyone remember when WJC had to resort to redefining the word “is?” Those that have to resort to redefining words always know that they are in the wrong.  It is just a truth of adulthood. When the lawyers have to get to “reinterpreting” words, when we must redefine “woman,” and other words that have not had to be defined in the last 7000 years just recognize that those telling you that a word doesn’t mean what it meant for 7000 years or even the last 500 years knows that they have no room to hide. They know they have lost and are literally about to start flinging poo. 

[Mims44 1,867]

@homersapien @DKW 86 @TitanTiger

 

Hopefully this isn't too off topic, but I just watched a segment where they were talking about how this is such a schism in the democratic party.

They didn't cover conservatives at all, but I imagine we all know how they feel.

 

It was telling that it was near a 50/50 split on several of the things brought up. Children making their own decisions, and parents making surgical decisions for kids was a big one.

Sports, crazy enough was also a near split.

 

Anyways, what I wanted to ask was how people think this might affect the democratic party? Sure the parties stance could change, peoples minds in general can change.... but at the moment this is an issue that can split the party base if a candidate goes too hard one way or the other.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

@homersapien @DKW 86 @TitanTiger

 

Hopefully this isn't too off topic, but I just watched a segment where they were talking about how this is such a schism in the democratic party.

They didn't cover conservatives at all, but I imagine we all know how they feel.

 

It was telling that it was near a 50/50 split on several of the things brought up. Children making their own decisions, and parents making surgical decisions for kids was a big one.

Sports, crazy enough was also a near split.

 

Anyways, what I wanted to ask was how people think this might affect the democratic party? Sure the parties stance could change, peoples minds in general can change.... but at the moment this is an issue that can split the party base if a candidate goes too hard one way or the other.

It’s an interesting question because the Dems aren’t the only progressive leaning group that’s seeing division over it. There’s a whole “LGB without the T” movement happening as well. It’s a major issue especially among lesbians who are being pressured and chastised for saying they don’t want to date or have sex with trans women - that real, biological women with actual female genitalia is what they like and that trans women are not “women.”  But they’re being labeled “transphobic” and as traitors for saying so. 

[Mims44 1,867]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It’s an interesting question because the Dems aren’t the only progressive leaning group that’s seeing division over it. There’s a whole “LGB without the T” movement happening as well. It’s a major issue especially among lesbians who are being pressured and chastised for saying they don’t want to date or have sex with trans women - that real, biological women with actual female genitalia is what they like and that trans women are not “women.”  But they’re being labeled “transphobic” and as traitors for saying so. 

That's been a topic covered at my job a decent bit.

The idea has even been floated (nothing more atm) that Ts should not be included in the meetings. Argument made that being trans is not a sexuality but a personal identity.

IE: Someone who identifies as a bisexual trans-woman would be allowed, while someone who identified as a hetero trans-woman would not.

 

I doubt anything will change, but thought it was interesting hearing the talk/arguments.

[DKW 86 7,419]

23 hours ago, Mims44 said:

@homersapien @DKW 86 @TitanTiger

 

Hopefully this isn't too off topic, but I just watched a segment where they were talking about how this is such a schism in the democratic party.

They didn't cover conservatives at all, but I imagine we all know how they feel.

 

It was telling that it was near a 50/50 split on several of the things brought up. Children making their own decisions, and parents making surgical decisions for kids was a big one.

Sports, crazy enough was also a near split.

 

Anyways, what I wanted to ask was how people think this might affect the democratic party? Sure the parties stance could change, peoples minds in general can change.... but at the moment this is an issue that can split the party base if a candidate goes too hard one way or the other.

I hit the button and was brought here. I actually got to hear several LGB people opting out of the freakish T zone. I wish I was in television right now. I can invision a very funny episode on any show where you get a Non-binary, multiracial, schizophrenic that changes their self-identities every day. Eight days a week a different personality, a different gender, and of course different pronouns. They sue everyone they meet get all their coworkers fired and generally ruin the lives of everyone they touch because they have a psychological need to be an attention whore. 
 

I really think the sky is the limit these days. Today I watched several interviews on Portlandia government leaders choosing to spontaneously combust because they are so open-minded their brains have fallen out.

I guess the Dems are about to split into two camps. Neo-Libs and Crazy People. I don’t think there is any reasoning with them at his point. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,366]

Re: Mim's post:

Frankly I don't think it's a huge deal, especially compared to things that are - like our wealth disparity, our archaic political system, global warming, rise of authoritarian government, etc.

It's a social issue that will sort itself out, even if we go through a rough period while it does. It's magnitude and significance is way overblown.  The notion this will cause a "schism" among progressives seems whimsical.  Live and let live.

Assuming we ultimately benefit from having an (actually) conservative party, I am far more interested in seeing how the Republican party redeems itself from Trumpism.  

Edited March 24, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,831]

I haven’t seen a single tweet from her I consider hateful or transphobic. In fact, given the disgusting, misogynistic and threatening abuse I’ve seen directed at her, her resistance from stooping to that level is exceptionally rare on social media.

She, and many women who admire her, are progressive in almost every way. But because they haven’t bought hook, line and sinker the dogmatic ideology that many Democratic, Labour and SNP leaders appear to endorse (even while seemingly oblivious to the current extremism on BOTH sides of this issue , many of these women are increasingly losing confidence in their respective parties. The craziness of the right in the USA will outweigh this concern for most. But in a close election, if Republicans don’t grossly overplay their hand (as they increasingly do) losing a narrow sliver of women voters (many who will vote 3rd party or sit at home) can be the difference for a party that depends on women voters turning out.  

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 3/23/2023 at 4:52 PM, homersapien said:

Well, that's one narrative.    

(And of course I understand this is about "children" and not fully grown adults.) 

My point regards current legislative efforts.  What constitutes a "child".  Is it the legal definition regarding activities such as drinking (for example)?  Is it the legal age of being able to decide to marry without parental permission?

Some states specify that 16 is old enough to legally decide to have sex. (In Colonial America it was 12/14 yrs (female/male) for marrying,  under the provisions of British common law.)

From what little I've read about them, many of the current laws are specifying 18 as the minimum allowable age to receive medical therapy for gender dysphoria.

I submit that the minimum age for which medical therapies for gender dysphoria might be inappropriate is a scientific question, more so than a political or emotional one. (Furthermore, that question should be asked on an individual basis instead of a generalized one.)

I don't know what the benefit/risk ratio of providing medical therapy for gender dysphoria to say, a 16 year old.  I don't know how many 16 year olds have received such therapy and what the outcomes were.  But I'd hate to think a 17 year old committed suicide because they were denied treatment (as an example).  Likewise, I'd hate to think a 21 year old regretted the treatment they received at 17 (as the counter example).

My point is if state legislatures really feel we are in a crisis that demands attention, then why not specify a commission to obtain scientific data on the issue instead of arbitrarily specifying regulations?

This is heading for the same place we are regarding abortion legislation - which is a fight we apparently can't avoid - in which women are being legally forced to delay procedures for medical conditions that are destined to - eventually do - threaten their lives.

I just have my doubts that gender dysphoria has reached that same level of concern.  We should at least accumulate the data before the fact, instead of reacting emotionally.

Regardless the decision to take the risk should be up to the patient, the parents and their providers, not the state. 

So, i guess that homey has now found his ultimate panacea govt style. "Let the scientists make all the decisions..." Problem is that scientists are humans just like the rest of us and they have biases, ideologies, and political leanings just as every human does. Ultimately, even if there were scientists in charge, I bet that they would make policies just as bad as any others in the world. 

Afterall, the Chinese claim to be cold rationalists. It's why they can commit genocide on the Uyghurs and not one person in govt or the press in China stops to ask the question why?

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I haven’t seen a single tweet from her I consider hateful or transphobic. In fact, given the disgusting, misogynistic and threatening abuse I’ve seen directed at her, her resistance from stooping to that level is exceptionally rare on social media.

She, and many women who admire her, are progressive in almost every way. But because they haven’t bought hook, line and sinker the dogmatic ideology that many Democratic, Labour and SNP leaders appear to endorse (even while seemingly oblivious to the current extremism on BOTH sides of this issue , many of these women are increasingly losing confidence in their respective parties. The craziness of the right will outweigh this concern for most. But in a close election, if Republicans don’t grossly overplay their hand (as they increasingly do) losing a narrow sliver of women voters (many who will vote 3rd party or sit at home) can be the difference for a party that depends on women voters turning out.  

 

Post of the Day...

[homersapien 11,366]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So, i guess that homey has now found his ultimate panacea govt style. "Let the scientists make all the decisions..." Problem is that scientists are humans just like the rest of us and they have biases, ideologies, and political leanings just as every human does. Ultimately, even if there were scientists in charge, I bet that they would make policies just as bad as any others in the world. 

Afterall, the Chinese claim to be cold rationalists. It's why they can commit genocide on the Uyghurs and not one person in govt or the press in China stops to ask the question why?

No you are (again) confusing or distorting my position. 

I am merely advocating that such social regulations that are being enacted should be data-based - actual facts regarding the need and risks (for such regulations).

I am not advocating that scientists make the "decisions" (regarding such legislation).  That's the job of our elected representatives.

And again, science is not determined by individual scientists asserting their own biases (of which there are no-doubt many).  They are made on the basis of scientific consensus which is arrived at by the accumulation and replication of data and ultimately expressed by appropriate scientific associations.

This idea of discounting "science" because it is practiced by individual scientists - who are of course human beings - is a red herring.  It represents a severe misunderstanding of what science actually is.

Similarly, the proposition of "scientists being in charge" is absurd.  People in charge cannot utilize science as a tool to "run things".  For starters, not all social or economic issues can be addressed with science.  For ones that might be, science is way too slow to be an actual tool.

Having said that, we'd be much better off with more politicians who used a more scientific way thinking.

 

[homersapien 11,366]

11 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Post of the Day...

Depends on what one considers the topic (point) to be.

Obviously, we have a several of those going on in parallel in this thread.

Perhaps the thread title is not specific enough?

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 3/25/2023 at 4:27 PM, homersapien said:

Depends on what one considers the topic (point) to be.

Obviously, we have a several of those going on in parallel in this thread.

Perhaps the thread title is not specific enough?

Does toting water for the Democrats ever get too heavy? It certainly is repetitious. 

The post I quoted was straightforward as could be. Men telling JK Rowling what it means to be a woman, WHEN SHE IS S WOMAN HERSELF is as misogynistic as it gets. 

She, and many women who admire her, are progressive in almost every way. But because they haven’t bought hook, line and sinker the DOGMATIC IDEOLOGY that many Democratic, Labour and SNP leaders appear to endorse (even while seemingly oblivious to the current extremism on BOTH sides of this issue , many of these women are increasingly losing confidence in their respective parties. The craziness of the right will outweigh this concern for most. But in a close election, if Republicans don’t grossly overplay their hand (as they increasingly do) losing a narrow sliver of women voters (many who will vote 3rd party or sit at home) can be the difference for a party that depends on women voters turning out.  

We have folks on the Left and Right that are so out of their minds that they would rather lose elections than compromise their beliefs on Abortion, Trans-"Care" for minors, etc. It is sickening.

Edited March 27, 2023 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 12,831]

The whole article is worth a read, but I’ll excerpt this:

”Language is always in flux, of course. But Orwell was not talking about the way in which spoken English has always mutated and shifted from the ground up. Like most writers, he thrilled to new permutations of idiom and invention. He was talking rather about how people in power can use and create new language to deceive, conceal or confuse. 

That’s what “newspeak” was: a language in which it becomes hard to understand something because the words describing it are too vague and abstract to mean anything recognizable; and, more worryingly, a language in which it becomes impossible to knowsomething because the language itself has already excised the words needed to understand it.

Get the Dish free every Friday

It was during the war in Iraq that Orwell’s insistence on clear language first came roaring back. This time, the newspeak was coming from the neocon right. We heard the term “enhanced interrogation techniques” to describe what any sane person would instantly call “torture.” Or “extraordinary rendition” — which meant kidnapping in order to torture. There was “environmental manipulation” — freezing naked human beings to near-death and back again. All the terms followed Orwell’s rules for new words “needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.” All the new terms were opaque and longer than the original.

And then, in the era of “social justice,” the new words began to come from the far left. Words we thought we knew — “queer” for example — were suddenly re-purposed without notice. Gay men and lesbians, with our very distinct experiences, were merged into a non-word, along with transgender people: “LGBT.” That was turned into “LGBTQIA+” — an ever-expanding acronymic abstraction that, in Orwell’s words, “falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details.” 

Orwell’s insight was that these terms are designed to describe things you want to obscure. Hence one of his rules: “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” Writing the English that people speak every day is essential for a flourishing democracy. 

Which brings me to that old English term “sex change.” Everyone instantly understands it. Which is, of course, precisely the problem. So now we say: “gender-affirming care.” Or take another word we all know: “children” — kids usually up to puberty. Also way too understandable. So “sex changes for children” suddenly becomes “gender-affirming care for minors.” These are the words, again, that are “needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”

Or take the term “transgender” itself. Remember when it was “transsexual”? Or when “sex” was first distinguished from “gender” — and then replaced by it? The usual refrain is that “the community” switched the terms, which means to say that a clique of activists decided that gender would be the new paradigm, and include any number of “queer” postmodern identities, while sex — let alone “biological sex” — was to be phased out and, with any luck, forgotten. Now notice how the new word “transgender” has recently changed its meaning yet again, and now includes anyone, including straights, outside traditional gender roles — whatever those are supposed to mean. 

Or check out the new poll from the Washington Post yesterday, in which a big majority of transgender people do not consider themselves either a “trans man” or a “trans woman” at all. They prefer “nonbinary” and “gender-nonconforming” — and distance themselves from both sexes. Less than a third physically present as another sex “all the time.” The vast majority have no surgery at all. 

Now read Masha Gessen’s recent interviewwith The New Yorker, and get even more confused. Gessen denies that transness is one thing at all. S/he says it’s a different thing now than it was a decade ago, and that “being transgender in a society that understands that some people are transgender is fundamentally different from being transgender in a society that doesn’t understand.” 

S/he says that there are “different ideas about transness within the trans community … probably different trans communities.” S/he denies a “single-true-self narrative” as some kind of anchor for identity. S/he believes that transitioning can be done many times, back and forth: “Some people transition more than once. Some people transition from female to male, and then transition from male to female, and then maybe transition again.” 

If gender is entirely a social construct, with no biological character, why do transgender people want hormones — an entirely biological intervention? Because “being trans is not a medical condition, but it marries you for life to the medical system.” Huh? By the end of the interview, you get the feeling that trans is whatever Gessen bloody well wants it to be, and yet at the same time it remains beyond interrogation. 

In this gnostic universe, there is nothing “natural” about the human body, because nature itself is a social construction. It is a mere playground for the psyche to use and tweak, mix and match, subvert and shock. Puberty is not a common, humanizing fate — but an individual choice. It is, in fact, unethical to prefer a natural puberty for a child in their own sex over an artificial one in the opposite. Breasts are removed, “penises” constructed from other limbs, “vaginas” carved into the body requiring constant dilation to prevent the wound from healing — not as an attempt to overcome crippling dysphoria or more happily live as the opposite sex, but to show the limitlessness of human autonomy, and its conquest of nature….

 

There will never be an end to all the oppressions, just as there will never be an end to all the nonsense genders. This is a machine for endless social revolution, not a one-off change to accommodate and protect a discrete, tiny minority. That’s why it is not a logical consequence of the marriage equality movement, as some conservative writers have claimed. It is, in fact, a riposte to the whole idea of it, which is why its leader, Chase Strangio, has described marriage equality as furthering an “inherently violent institution” and causing “significant harm” to society as a whole.

Human nature hasn’t changed. Our very language has been altered to distort our grasp of it. That’s the bottom line. Every definition and framing in the WaPo on trans people yesterday, for example, is copied verbatim from critical queer theory advocates at GLAAD, the Trans Journalists Association, InterAct, and the Association of LGBTQ Journalists. Check out the guide from the TJA here, if you want to see how activists dictate coverage; and how the MSM usually just obeys. 

“In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing,” Orwell noted. “Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions, and not a ‘party line’. Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.” This is why, in our time, Substack exists. Because the lifeless, imitative copypasta of queer theory is mandatory everywhere else.

And this movement is not about the liberation of gay people or trans people, who have achieved amazing progress in liberal society, with liberal means, and have, at long last, full civil rights. It’s about the eradication of biology as a guide to human health and happiness; it’s about the expansion of the term “transness” so it is divorced from anything material or biological and can absorb everything; and it’s about binding the very definition of homosexuality to the radical, queer left, as a way to marginalize the majority of gays and lesbians and trans people who have not signed up for revolution. 

It’s also, deep down, about the integrity of our language, which is the lifeblood of a working democracy. The language is being re-written in order to make actual, informed debate harder and harder; to obfuscate and numb. In the face of all the neologisms, euphemisms and deceptions coming at you, I can only offer you Orwell’s admonition: “The worst thing one can do with words is to surrender to them.”

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/culture-war-politics-and-the-english-706

[homersapien 11,366]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Does toting water for the Democrats ever get too heavy? It certainly is repetitious. 

The post I quoted was straightforward as could be. Men telling JK Rowling what it means to be a woman, WHEN SHE IS S WOMAN HERSELF is as misogynistic as it gets. 

She, and many women who admire her, are progressive in almost every way. But because they haven’t bought hook, line and sinker the DOGMATIC IDEOLOGY that many Democratic, Labour and SNP leaders appear to endorse (even while seemingly oblivious to the current extremism on BOTH sides of this issue , many of these women are increasingly losing confidence in their respective parties. The craziness of the right will outweigh this concern for most. But in a close election, if Republicans don’t grossly overplay their hand (as they increasingly do) losing a narrow sliver of women voters (many who will vote 3rd party or sit at home) can be the difference for a party that depends on women voters turning out.  

We have folks on the Left and Right that are so out of their minds that they would rather lose elections than compromise their beliefs on Abortion, Trans-"Care" for minors. It is sickening.

Where have I said anything about any of this?   And what does it have with Democrats?

In other words, what the hell are you talking about?   

All I have asserted on this thread is:

1) I'd like to see some data before assuming the U.S. psychiatric community is practicing widespread malpractice in the treatment of patients with gender dysphoria.

2) I am against state governments passing legislation on this matter, as that is up to the patients, their parents/caretakers, and professionals to control.

So, what does wither of those have to do with whatever you are talking about? 

If you want to rant about the perceived evil in the world you see, fine.  But you don't have to associate it with me.  

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,831]

Pretty confident @homersapien& @icanthearyou didn’t read and don’t seem to have familiarized themselves with the context Sullivan, a gay man, is speaking from. They both act reliably reflexively without apparent thought like so many on the right.

Sullivan is gay man who is not anti-trans and is diving into the confusing rhetoric that makes rational discussion of these topics so difficult:

“What we’re seeing is linguistic chaos, a conflation of the rare, real experience of feeling you are one sex when your body is another — being transexual — with any number of vague, postmodernist gestures at androgyny, and épater les bourgeois chic. Among the latest innovations, we have “gender-diverse person” and “gender-expansive person,” terms designed to conflate gay men and lesbians with trans and, yes, straight people. NPR, which has openly delegated its vocabulary to activist groups, says “gender-expansive” means “someone with a more flexible gender identity than might be associated with a typical gender binary.” Isn’t that everyone?”

[homersapien 11,366]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Pretty confident @homersapien& @icanthearyou didn’t read and don’t seem to have familiarized themselves with the context Sullivan, a gay man, is speaking from. They both act reliably reflexively without apparent thought like so many on the right.

Sullivan is gay man who is not anti-trans and is diving into the confusing rhetoric that makes rational discussion of these topics so difficult:

“What we’re seeing is linguistic chaos, a conflation of the rare, real experience of feeling you are one sex when your body is another — being transexual — with any number of vague, postmodernist gestures at androgyny, and épater les bourgeois chic. Among the latest innovations, we have “gender-diverse person” and “gender-expansive person,” terms designed to conflate gay men and lesbians with trans and, yes, straight people. NPR, which has openly delegated its vocabulary to activist groups, says “gender-expansive” means “someone with a more flexible gender identity than might be associated with a typical gender binary.” Isn’t that everyone?”

I read the entire piece, as well as researching the author.

I thought it all sounded highly reactionary.  

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Please stop politicizing a non-conforming human existence. The hate and prejudice being created/furthered is unnecessary. This is not a political issue.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Please stop politicizing a non-conforming human existence. The hate and prejudice being created/furthered is unnecessary. This is not a political issue.

Quit being a homophobic misogynist, despite how strong that inclination is for you. The smug hatred drips from your pores.