Major University demands students reject science, perpetuate lies

[Cecilie1200]

Rope?


.

You know, more rope to hang yourself.

Have your figured out yet gender is not a scientific term or concept?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I figured out you're free to pretend what ever you want, how ever you're aren't free to force your pretense on me.


.

I am not pretending anything, I am just pointing out the facts, and the FACT is that gender is not a scientific term or concept.

The FACT is that more people feel comfortable saying "gender" than they do "sex", but playing word definition games doesn't change the FACT that your sex is what it is and is immutable, and you're arguing in favor of something that's bullshit.

"more people feel comfortable saying "gender" than they do "sex""

Which is pretty damn pathetic if you stop and think about it. What a backwards country we are sometimes.

Not really. People have just decided that it's easier to convey their basic meaning by conflating "sex" and "gender" - particularly since most people consider them to be intextricably linked, anyway - than by inviting confusion between sex-biological and sex-intercourse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It IS a theory, dumbass.

No kidding, dumb ass.

Other scientific theories include...

Heliocentrism - The Earth revolves around the Sun.

General relativity - Gravity, black holes and the expansion of the universe.

Special relativity - Atomic bombs

Statistical mechanics - Allowed for the understanding of thermodynamics and the discovery of atoms.

Plate tectonics - The continents move.

It's nice of you to admit evolution is in the same category as these. It doesn't do much to help your argument, but it's nice of you. For something to be a theory it needs to meet a rather impressive evidence threshold. Science does not dispute evolution any more than it disputes the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Heliocentrism is not a theory. It WAS, and then it was proven.

Yes, relativity IS a theory, which is why it's CALLED "The theory of relativity". So what?

Ditto for statistical mechanics, which is part of THEORETICAL physics, and plate tectonics. Again, what is your fucking point?

It's nice of YOU to admit that evolution is in this category, instead of insisting that it's settled and closed. It would be even nicer if you would quit pretending that I've ever said anything different, based on what you WANT to think I believe to feed your own ego.

I never said science DID dispute evolution. YOU seem to want to believe that science wholeheartedly embraces it as unassailable fact. All I've ever said is that it's a theory; I'm not the least bit responsible for, or interested in, the mistaken interpretation YOU put on that statement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Left-wing ideology always ends in the collapse of civilization. Here we have a large university demanding that their students reject the scientific fact of a person's actual gender and instead perpetuate the lie of an alternate gender/reality.

Calling someone by wrong pronoun might get you fired or expelled, college’s gender policy draft says

What scientific fact are you referring to?

The fact that chromosonally, you are either a man or a woman.

The university is not questioning that fact


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No, the dimwit snowflakes are trying to flat-out obscure and ignore that fact, and the university is pandering to them.

 

[Confounding]

Heliocentrism is not a theory.

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Heliocentrism is not a theory.

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components of the theory will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

 

[Confounding]

Heliocentrism is not a theory.

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components of the theory will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Heliocentrism is not a theory.

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components of the theory will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

 

[Confounding]

Heliocentrism is not a theory.

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components of the theory will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

So you believe in evolution?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Heliocentrism is not a theory.

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components of the theory will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

So you believe in evolution?

If you're so wedded to "science", why do you keep talking about it in religious terminology?

 

[Confounding]

Um, yes it is.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

See the bold. When you admitted it's a theory you basically admitted that it's a fact based on everything science understands, and that scientists are confident the basic components of the theory will never be overturned. You're an unscientific jackass if you don't believe in evolution.

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

So you believe in evolution?

If you're so wedded to "science", why do you keep talking about it in religious terminology?

Do you or do you not believe the theory?

 

[OKTexas]

It was for millions of years, sex and gender have always been interchangeable terms until you commies decided to rewrite the dictionary.

Um, not really. For millions of years, we didn't have words for gender. Language is a relatively recent invention.

Heck, some languages like Japanese are gender neutral.

Here's the thing, there have always been gay and trans people. It's just now we are understanding of it, rather than much of recorded history where the bible thumping morons oppressed people.

Nah, it's just now freaks are pushing deviant behavior as natural. It's not.


.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It IS a theory, dumbass.

No kidding, dumb ass.

Other scientific theories include...

Heliocentrism - The Earth revolves around the Sun.

General relativity - Gravity, black holes and the expansion of the universe.

Special relativity - Atomic bombs

Statistical mechanics - Allowed for the understanding of thermodynamics and the discovery of atoms.

Plate tectonics - The continents move.

It's nice of you to admit evolution is in the same category as these. It doesn't do much to help your argument, but it's nice of you. For something to be a theory it needs to meet a rather impressive evidence threshold. Science does not dispute evolution any more than it disputes the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Heliocentrism is not a theory. It WAS, and then it was proven.

Yes, relativity IS a theory, which is why it's CALLED "The theory of relativity". So what?

Ditto for statistical mechanics, which is part of THEORETICAL physics, and plate tectonics. Again, what is your fucking point?

It's nice of YOU to admit that evolution is in this category, instead of insisting that it's settled and closed. It would be even nicer if you would quit pretending that I've ever said anything different, based on what you WANT to think I believe to feed your own ego.

I never said science DID dispute evolution. YOU seem to want to believe that science wholeheartedly embraces it as unassailable fact. All I've ever said is that it's a theory; I'm not the least bit responsible for, or interested in, the mistaken interpretation YOU put on that statement.

Science does not prove things,that is not the job or purpose of science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, WELL, if you found a website that says I define "theory" as "a hunch or speculation", then I guess it doesn't matter what I think I mean by it! And if YOU then tell me what I "basically admitted", that ALSO trumps any understanding I might think I have about my own fucking words.

Try asking me what I mean, instead of telling me what I mean based on what YOU think I mean. In the meantime, piss off, loser.

See the bold.

For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

So you believe in evolution?

If you're so wedded to "science", why do you keep talking about it in religious terminology?

Do you or do you not believe the theory?

Sorry, but evolution is not my religion, so "belief" plays no part in it.

I think it's clear where YOU stand on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It IS a theory, dumbass.

No kidding, dumb ass.

Other scientific theories include...

Heliocentrism - The Earth revolves around the Sun.

General relativity - Gravity, black holes and the expansion of the universe.

Special relativity - Atomic bombs

Statistical mechanics - Allowed for the understanding of thermodynamics and the discovery of atoms.

Plate tectonics - The continents move.

It's nice of you to admit evolution is in the same category as these. It doesn't do much to help your argument, but it's nice of you. For something to be a theory it needs to meet a rather impressive evidence threshold. Science does not dispute evolution any more than it disputes the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Heliocentrism is not a theory. It WAS, and then it was proven.

Yes, relativity IS a theory, which is why it's CALLED "The theory of relativity". So what?

Ditto for statistical mechanics, which is part of THEORETICAL physics, and plate tectonics. Again, what is your fucking point?

It's nice of YOU to admit that evolution is in this category, instead of insisting that it's settled and closed. It would be even nicer if you would quit pretending that I've ever said anything different, based on what you WANT to think I believe to feed your own ego.

I never said science DID dispute evolution. YOU seem to want to believe that science wholeheartedly embraces it as unassailable fact. All I've ever said is that it's a theory; I'm not the least bit responsible for, or interested in, the mistaken interpretation YOU put on that statement.

Science does not prove things,that is not the job or purpose of science.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the "job and purpose" of science is?

 

[Confounding]

You cannot be a person of science and disbelieve evolution at the same time. Your beliefs are unscientific.

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

So you believe in evolution?

If you're so wedded to "science", why do you keep talking about it in religious terminology?

Do you or do you not believe the theory?

Sorry, but evolution is not my religion, so "belief" plays no part in it.

I think it's clear where YOU stand on it.

I don't need faith. I have science and observable facts. Why are you being such a pussy? Just admit you don't accept a fundamental scientific theory.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe they should require these gender confused assholes to have their preferred gender and associated pronouns tattooed across their forehead to avoid conflict.


.

/——/ They would need washable sharpies instead of tattoos since their genders change at a moments notice.

They could get signs to pin to the fronts of their shirts. Just pick the sign that reflects the "reality" you feelz today.

Or hey, hang dry-erase boards around their necks. That way, they're prepared if they suddenly feelz something else after lunch. Or, y'know, if the line in one bathroom is too long and they suddenly feelz they are whichever gender will let them pee sooner.

Nope, tattoos, they need to learn about commitment. No Mulligans allowed.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Left-wing ideology always ends in the collapse of civilization. Here we have a large university demanding that their students reject the scientific fact of a person's actual gender and instead perpetuate the lie of an alternate gender/reality.

Calling someone by wrong pronoun might get you fired or expelled, college’s gender policy draft says

You pussies need to quit yer whining. The point is to prevent someone from deliberately and continuously calling a person something that offends them, not to fire people for making a mistake. It's no more out of the ordinary than rules against racial epithets. Now out on your big girl panties and deal with it.

No one has a right not to be offended, snowflakes need to learn the old sticks and stones adage. It will make life much easier for them.


.

Gandhi said, "No one can hurt me without my permission." Maybe these snowflakes should look to why they're giving other people that kind of power.

That's what you get with a victim mentality, regressives want everyone to be a victim of one sort or another.


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fortunately, you aren't talking about my beliefs. You're talking about YOUR beliefs of my beliefs. For you to be talking about my beliefs, let alone to be adjudging their "scientificness", you would have to at some point ask me what they are, which you have never done. You've just made ASSumptions. Did you miss the part where I told you that I'm neither responsible for not interested in what you "think" I believe?

So you believe in evolution?

If you're so wedded to "science", why do you keep talking about it in religious terminology?

Do you or do you not believe the theory?

Sorry, but evolution is not my religion, so "belief" plays no part in it.

I think it's clear where YOU stand on it.

I don't need faith. I have science and observable facts. Why are you being such a pussy? Just admit you don't accept a fundamental scientific theory.

You are clearly all about faith, since you think about and discuss things in terms of faith. ACTUAL science and observable facts (and btw, evolution isn't "observable", kinda by definition) are not "believed in". They simply are. I do not "believe in" objects falling to the ground from mid-air, because it's not an article of faith. They simply do so, and I simply know that they do so.

Why are YOU being such a pussy? Just admit that this is an article of religious faith and belief to you, and far more about your desperate need to find something to feel superior about because your reality offers nothing than it is about MY thoughts on the subject, about which you have yet to inquire.

I hate to disappoint you (actually, that's untrue. I don't much care), but I have no belief one way or another about evolution. I have knowledge about evolution, and I have questions about evolution, because one bit of knowledge I have about evolution - which you missed in your blind religious beliefs on the subject - is that "evolution" is not a single, simple, straightforward subject (as most scientific subjects are not).

Refusing to accept your childish insistence about "believing in evolution" is not "being a pussy". It's called being far more educated and rational than you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe they should require these gender confused assholes to have their preferred gender and associated pronouns tattooed across their forehead to avoid conflict.


.

/——/ They would need washable sharpies instead of tattoos since their genders change at a moments notice.

They could get signs to pin to the fronts of their shirts. Just pick the sign that reflects the "reality" you feelz today.

Or hey, hang dry-erase boards around their necks. That way, they're prepared if they suddenly feelz something else after lunch. Or, y'know, if the line in one bathroom is too long and they suddenly feelz they are whichever gender will let them pee sooner.

Nope, tattoos, they need to learn about commitment. No Mulligans allowed.


.

Good point. When it comes right down to it, the inability to accept and commit to reality - or anything else - is a huge component of this whole "transgender" insanity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Left-wing ideology always ends in the collapse of civilization. Here we have a large university demanding that their students reject the scientific fact of a person's actual gender and instead perpetuate the lie of an alternate gender/reality.

Calling someone by wrong pronoun might get you fired or expelled, college’s gender policy draft says

You pussies need to quit yer whining. The point is to prevent someone from deliberately and continuously calling a person something that offends them, not to fire people for making a mistake. It's no more out of the ordinary than rules against racial epithets. Now out on your big girl panties and deal with it.

No one has a right not to be offended, snowflakes need to learn the old sticks and stones adage. It will make life much easier for them.


.

Gandhi said, "No one can hurt me without my permission." Maybe these snowflakes should look to why they're giving other people that kind of power.

That's what you get with a victim mentality, regressives want everyone to be a victim of one sort or another.


.

I'm starting to feel victimized by their determination to make me into a victim.