California: There are three genders.

[MaryL]

I am reminded of an old Kliban cartoon from National Lampoon:

 

[ScienceRocks]

So what are you going to do? Kill people for wishes to live differently then you?

Butt the fuck out!

 

[Norman]

So what are you going to do? Kill people for wishes to live differently then you?

Butt the fuck out!

What in the fuck? Is this the first thing that really comes to your mind? Because of the fact that there are two genders, we must kill everyone who lives differently?

The obvious answer, we would not recognize 3 genders publicly. However, if you feel like identifying as a trans-gendered lesbian woman, no one is going to stop your delusions. No one should have to recognize your delusions either, though.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Leftists really helping the middle class out as usual.

"The state of California will now legally recognize non-binary as a third gender on official state identification documents.

In June, the District of Columbia followed Oregon's lead and began offering the gender-neutral choice of "X" on driver licenses and identification cards, and similar legislation is currently pending in New York."

California legally recognizes a third gender on driver's license

Even in a creationism museum, you won't encounter anything so blatantly anti-science. And now, they are making it the law. Unhinged regressivism on display.

Since gender is cultural, not biological, there is no anti-science about it.

It's downright preposterous that a conservative deigns to proffer what science can or cannot show as part of an argument they make for or against anything. That science has yet to establish whether exists or does not the Biblical God has never stopped many conservatives from believing such a being does exist. That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

Instead, what many conservatives do is ascribe to and cite science's findings when it affirms a political objective they have and reject them when they don't, sometimes even going as far as to assert that scientists subvert scientific method to political preferences...that even as those very conservatives exercise nothing resembling the rigor of the scientific method in presenting their opposing ideas. I'm sorry, but one cannot be taken seriously or as credible when one does that.

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

There is no equivocation in that statement. It's simple truth.

Argument by assertion, while also standing on your equivocal remark from before.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia. Your assertion and equivocation arguments are unfounded and basically just folly.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia.

...Which is not the matter I cited in my remarks. I wrote:

That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

...to which you equivocally replied:

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

...which is a reply that is

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

Oh we agree that climate change is real. However, you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans. We're but a pinprick.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So what are you going to do? Kill people for wishes to live differently then you?

Butt the fuck out!

What in the fuck? Is this the first thing that really comes to your mind? Because of the fact that there are two genders, we must kill everyone who lives differently?

The obvious answer, we would not recognize 3 genders publicly. However, if you feel like identifying as a trans-gendered lesbian woman, no one is going to stop your delusions. No one should have to recognize your delusions either, though.

This is how they pump themselves up and create boogeymen with their extreme intolerance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Leftists really helping the middle class out as usual.

"The state of California will now legally recognize non-binary as a third gender on official state identification documents.

In June, the District of Columbia followed Oregon's lead and began offering the gender-neutral choice of "X" on driver licenses and identification cards, and similar legislation is currently pending in New York."

California legally recognizes a third gender on driver's license

Even in a creationism museum, you won't encounter anything so blatantly anti-science. And now, they are making it the law. Unhinged regressivism on display.

Since gender is cultural, not biological, there is no anti-science about it.

It's downright preposterous that a conservative deigns to proffer what science can or cannot show as part of an argument they make for or against anything. That science has yet to establish whether exists or does not the Biblical God has never stopped many conservatives from believing such a being does exist. That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

Instead, what many conservatives do is ascribe to and cite science's findings when it affirms a political objective they have and reject them when they don't, sometimes even going as far as to assert that scientists subvert scientific method to political preferences...that even as those very conservatives exercise nothing resembling the rigor of the scientific method in presenting their opposing ideas. I'm sorry, but one cannot be taken seriously or as credible when one does that.

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

There is no equivocation in that statement. It's simple truth.

Argument by assertion, while also standing on your equivocal remark from before.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia. Your assertion and equivocation arguments are unfounded and basically just folly.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia.

...Which is not the matter I cited in my remarks. I wrote:

That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

...to which you equivocally replied:

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

...which is a reply that is

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

Oh we agree that climate change is real. However, you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans. We're but a pinprick.

you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans.

First of all, argument by assertion. This is at least the second, third time you've done that.

Second, go back and carefully read what I wrote. You'll find I made no attestation about what I do or don't think about anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, what I do or don't believe about anthropogenic climate change is ingermane to my comments and this thread, which is why I didn't share my own views on the matter.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's downright preposterous that a conservative deigns to proffer what science can or cannot show as part of an argument they make for or against anything. That science has yet to establish whether exists or does not the Biblical God has never stopped many conservatives from believing such a being does exist. That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

Instead, what many conservatives do is ascribe to and cite science's findings when it affirms a political objective they have and reject them when they don't, sometimes even going as far as to assert that scientists subvert scientific method to political preferences...that even as those very conservatives exercise nothing resembling the rigor of the scientific method in presenting their opposing ideas. I'm sorry, but one cannot be taken seriously or as credible when one does that.

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

​

There is no equivocation in that statement. It's simple truth.

Argument by assertion, while also standing on your equivocal remark from before.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia. Your assertion and equivocation arguments are unfounded and basically just folly.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia.

...Which is not the matter I cited in my remarks. I wrote:

That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

...to which you equivocally replied:

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

...which is a reply that is

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

Oh we agree that climate change is real. However, you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans. We're but a pinprick.

you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans.

First of all, argument by assertion. This is at least the second, third time you've done that.

Second, go back and carefully read what I wrote. You'll find I made no attestation about what I do or don't think about anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, what I do or don't believe about anthropogenic climate change is ingermane to my comments and this thread, the latter being why I didn't share my own views on the matter.

Nice try but this is your statement:

"That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof."

Although you try to dance away from it, its easily a projection of your view or your partiality to such theory.....or you would not have stated as much.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Argument by assertion, while also standing on your equivocal remark from before.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia. Your assertion and equivocation arguments are unfounded and basically just folly.

Again, its simple truth. Im only stating proven science in regards to continuous climate change over millennia.

...Which is not the matter I cited in my remarks. I wrote:

That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof.

...to which you equivocally replied:

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate. It doesn't take too much common sense to figure that one out.

...which is a reply that is

Equivocation in and of itself as well as by way of oversimplification of the term I used.

Oh we agree that climate change is real. However, you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans. We're but a pinprick.

you're incorrect in stating that climate change is primarily caused by humans.

First of all, argument by assertion. This is at least the second, third time you've done that.

Second, go back and carefully read what I wrote. You'll find I made no attestation about what I do or don't think about anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, what I do or don't believe about anthropogenic climate change is ingermane to my comments and this thread, the latter being why I didn't share my own views on the matter.

Nice try but this is your statement:

"That the preponderance of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and material has not stopped many conservatives from accepting as much and the implications thereof."

Although you try to dance away from it, its easily a projection of your view or your partiality to such theory.....or you would not have stated as much.

OT:
I think it's your projection of what you think is my view on it. The statement you quoted speaks only to how many conservatives respond to the attestations of scientists who've studied anthropogenic climate change (ACC).

Do you honestly think that were there cause with regard to this thread's topic of discussion to share my view on ACC I'd shy from doing so? Quite simply, what I think about ACC isn't relevant to the thread topic. Indeed, what any specific person thinks about it isn't even the point of the post in my remark appears. The point of that sentence, to illustrate something, is found in the first sentence of the paragraph of which it is a part.

It's downright preposterous that a conservative deigns to proffer what science can or cannot show as part of an argument they make for or against anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what are you going to do? Kill people for wishes to live differently then you?

Butt the fuck out!

What in the fuck? Is this the first thing that really comes to your mind? Because of the fact that there are two genders, we must kill everyone who lives differently?

The obvious answer, we would not recognize 3 genders publicly. However, if you feel like identifying as a trans-gendered lesbian woman, no one is going to stop your delusions. No one should have to recognize your delusions either, though.

Conservatives in the US have fought for decades to deny people in the LGBT category equal rights under the Constitution. Who are you trying to kid?

 

[emilynghiem]

So what are you going to do? Kill people for wishes to live differently then you?

Butt the fuck out!

What in the fuck? Is this the first thing that really comes to your mind? Because of the fact that there are two genders, we must kill everyone who lives differently?

The obvious answer, we would not recognize 3 genders publicly. However, if you feel like identifying as a trans-gendered lesbian woman, no one is going to stop your delusions. No one should have to recognize your delusions either, though.

Conservatives in the US have fought for decades to deny people in the LGBT category equal rights under the Constitution. Who are you trying to kid?

Dear NYcarbineer Simple then.

Just agree to recognize LGBT as BELIEFS and these are CONSTITUTIONALLY protected
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as Civil Rights policies against Discrimination by CREED.

That's automatic. As long as it's a BELIEF then people have the right to exercise and express it, just like Christian beliefs.
So then whatever Conservatives ask for Christians to be protected and included,
the same protections apply to LGBT Beliefs! Voila!

 

[emilynghiem]

The goofy warden bitch at the prison said gender was assigned to you at birth and I asked her who assigned it? She wouldn't say....

God did.....

Now you can also say natural selection of the XX-XY CROMOZONEs.. and the Sperm that won...

Both present themselves as (decisions) genitalia at birth.

Genitals are organs. So is the brain.

Okay NYcarbineer let's explore this "differences in the brain" avenue.

Look at cases like this:
NEW FOCUS ON MULTIPLE PERSONALITY
where researchers find differences in the brain function with different personalities within the same physical person

If all these differences in the brain distinguish different IDENTITIES
are you willing to argue that each IDENTITY within the same physical body
each deserve a separate govt ID? Do you go by BRAIN identity or by
the physical birth of the person as one individual? Are such MPD people
still ONE person by physical birth, or do each of their personality/identities
that can be distinguished as UNIQUE ENTITIES deserve separate recognition?

Do you want to try that approach, for discussion purposes?

 

[MPS777]

The goofy warden bitch at the prison said gender was assigned to you at birth and I asked her who assigned it? She wouldn't say....

God did.....

Now you can also say natural selection of the XX-XY CROMOZONEs.. and the Sperm that won...

Both present themselves as (decisions) genitalia at birth.

Genitals are organs. So is the brain.

Okay NYcarbineer let's explore this "differences in the brain" avenue.

Look at cases like this:
NEW FOCUS ON MULTIPLE PERSONALITY
where researchers find differences in the brain function with different personalities within the same physical person

If all these differences in the brain distinguish different IDENTITIES
are you willing to argue that each IDENTITY within the same physical body
each deserve a separate govt ID? Do you go by BRAIN identity or by
the physical birth of the person as one individual? Are such MPD people
still ONE person by physical birth, or do each of their personality/identities
that can be distinguished as UNIQUE ENTITIES deserve separate recognition?

Do you want to try that approach, for discussion purposes?

I think when it comes to any government involvement in our lives (eg govt ID), one must often ask, why is the government involved anyway? Well ok, we have IDs to verify physical characteristics in the case of say, a missing person, or for authentication during the exchange or possession of controlled substances, etc. So then what are the ramifications if someone (let’s call them Pat) born with XX chromosomes takes advantage of all the wonders of modern medicine and technology to the point where they outwardly appear to be a balding middle age man with a beard? Does the state acknowledge this fact and let their driver’s license say they’re male? If so then the state has indeed acknowledged that the physical birth is not the determining factor of ‘sex’. What if the state insists on using physical birth as to whether one’s driver’s license says male/female, and the state also decree’s that one must only go the bathroom that corresponds to their genetic sex? Well then the state will be legally forcing Pat, beard and all, to enter the women’s bathroom. And if Pat has forgotten their govt ID, I pity the police officer that has to respond to this “incident”.

When it comes down to it, this is really a result of advanced technology/science plus the freedom to use it. Now what if we are to follow the ramifications of THAT to their fullest extent? What if someday robots attain a level of consciousness to the point that they start demanding rights? What if in a hundred years, humans are able to effectively download their consciousness into a computer, and transfer it into another “body”? What if that body is the opposite sex, a robot, or a squid? Bwahahaha.. all scifi and joking aside, I don’t think these “culture wars” are ending anytime soon.

 

[emilynghiem]

Genitals are organs. So is the brain.

Okay

NYcarbineer let's explore this "differences in the brain" avenue.

Look at cases like this:
NEW FOCUS ON MULTIPLE PERSONALITY
where researchers find differences in the brain function with different personalities within the same physical person

If all these differences in the brain distinguish different IDENTITIES
are you willing to argue that each IDENTITY within the same physical body
each deserve a separate govt ID? Do you go by BRAIN identity or by
the physical birth of the person as one individual? Are such MPD people
still ONE person by physical birth, or do each of their personality/identities
that can be distinguished as UNIQUE ENTITIES deserve separate recognition?

Do you want to try that approach, for discussion purposes?

====================================================
^ paging NYcarbineer on this post again ^

Also here is a cute song to add as entertainment during this short intermission:


PS NYcarbineer if gender id to you is cultural
when it is okay for govt to IMPOSE one person's culture on another
one is against the BELIEFS of the other?

We can start a new thread on this, since it applies to other issues as well!
Do you prefer a new thread to start the next chapter on this?
Thanks NYC

 

[Likkmee]

I just got off with mess-agedered with Unklee Tedd. He agrees ! Three. Male. Female. Dead.

 

[emilynghiem]

I just got off with mess-agedered with Unklee Tedd. He agrees ! Three. Male. Female. Dead.

I think there are three IQ levels here.
Dumb and Dumber.

 

[Silhouette]

Leftists really helping the middle class out as usual.

"The state of California will now legally recognize non-binary as a third gender on official state identification documents.

In June, the District of Columbia followed Oregon's lead and began offering the gender-neutral choice of "X" on driver licenses and identification cards, and similar legislation is currently pending in New York."

California legally recognizes a third gender on driver's license

Even in a creationism museum, you won't encounter anything so blatantly anti-science. And now, they are making it the law. Unhinged regressivism on display.

I think there needs to be a federal intervention on Sacramento. This is enacting laws without the permission of the people. Folks there could write up new ballot initiatives that would roll back all that nonsense. Fortunately, that state can do that when it's lawmakers RUN AMOK.